Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

stonebuddha

Regulars
  • Content Count

    67
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About stonebuddha

  • Rank
    Junior Member

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Not Specified
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Occupation
    Producer
  1. The "evidence" about Iran & nukes is flimsy: http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2011/11/08/iran-five-minutes-to-zero-hour/
  2. The TSA's assertions that images cannot be saved by the machine are already proven false. Besides, nowadays everyone has a cell phone camera. It's quite easy for TSA goons to snap pics of the screen.
  3. Will the Dragon Wake From the article: "To put the issue in proper perspective: Imagine if Texas governor Rick Perry carried out his half-serious suggestion that Texas secede from the Union, and China opted to sell the Republic of Texas $6 billion worth of Patriot missiles, Blackhawk helicopters, and sophisticated detection systems – for "defensive" purposes only, of course. Washington would rightly consider this very close to an act of war."
  4. If you've followed the thread so far, you must read this. It's a very, very short work of fiction talking about this very subject.
  5. One of the best articles on the matter is here. Though written in 1969 it is very timely and explains in clear, simple terms the cause & cure for the boom/bust cycle.
  6. I think you've misunderstood the context - all these possibilities assumes that you are already an atheist - as he clearly states.
  7. The best answer I've seen to all forms of Pascal's wager is the following excerpt from a speech given by George Smith at a gathering of atheist. It's quite good, quote: What if it turns out that there is a Christian god and He's up there and He's going to punish you for eternity for disbelieving in Him. Here's where my wager comes in. Let's suppose you're an atheist. What are the possibilities? The first possibility is there is no god, in that case, you'll die, that'll be it, you've lost nothing, and you've lived a happy life with the correct position. Secondly, a god may exist but he may n
  8. While this may be true, it does not make a good argument (after the fact) for the justification of dropping the A bomb. It's like saying "the use of gas chambers showcased to the world its full horror and contributed to the fact that gas chambers never regained its popularity. Therefore, however horrible it was, it did serve a purpose." Think of it another way, if a nuclear weapon were detonated in a war, let's say in 2010, are you going to say "Hiroshima & Nagasaki established the horrors of nuclear weapons and contributed to the fact that they haven't been used between 1945 - 2009. B
  9. One of the reasons the green movement is influential is because politicians know that it gives them a justification for more power & control. As Mencken said, "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed -- and hence clamorous to be led to safety -- by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary"...
  10. stonebuddha

    Rob Dougan

    I think the best video set to another version of Clubbed to Death is the Lincoln LS commercial http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vknwHj2VXoQ.
  11. This question is another variant of Pascal's wager. The best answer I've seen to all forms of Pascal's wager is the following excerpt from a speech given by George Smith at a gathering of atheist. It's quite good, quote: What if it turns out that there is a Christian god and He's up there and He's going to punish you for eternity for disbelieving in Him. Here's where my wager comes in. Let's suppose you're an atheist. What are the possibilities? The first possibility is there is no god, in that case, you'll die, that'll be it, you've lost nothing, and you've lived a happy life with the co
  12. When I originally stated that situations like these should be determined on a case by case basis, I am not advocating a "fundamentally offensive view of ethics -- the idea that there are no principles and that everything should be decided on a subjective or anarchistic whim." I don't believe these two kids violated the underlying spirit of the original law - which is to protect against adult/child sex. My point is that when you accept the premise that the state should be involved in matters that can be resolved peacefully between private individuals, you are opening the door to tyranny &am
  13. First of all, from a biological point of view - a person who has reached puberty is by definition ready for sex. For most of human history, when life spans were considerably shorter, people were having sex at what we would now consider "too young". None of us would be here if our distant ancestors waited until 18 years old to have sex. I think it is foolish to pass laws which attempt to go against human biology. Situations like these should be considered on a case by case basis, instead of blindly following the letter of the law. After all, there is nothing magical about turning 18 years
×
×
  • Create New...