RationalBiker

That's just too sad. Wow...

I have to ask, do you have the messages from the offended parties which may show behavior that might have precipitated the allegedly offensive responses? I'm not saying it necessarily justifies any given moderator response, but it's been my experience that many people who leave here in a tizzy also displayed very anti-social behavior prior to the moderator(s) unloading on them.

My favorite number is 42.

This has been seen on here before though. Some folks come here wishing to discuss things outside of the scope on which this board focuses. The way I usually put it; they want to buy hammers at a shoe store. This site has a particular and defined focus on the discussion and advocacy of the philosophy of Objectivism. When people are not allowed to take it beyond that, they tend to get upset. They seem to think that they should be allowed to discuss whatever they want here, regardless of the focus of this site, and when denied they typically make accusations that the forum is incestuous and narrow minded in nature. They are oblivious to the fact that MANY participants here also use other forums for broader discussion, but come here for more focused discussion. There are many avenues on the internet which any forum member can use outside of this forum to discuss whatever it is they want to discuss without requiring or demanding that this forum dilute the focus it is intended to have. Until they understand that, they will be frustrated at being reigned in when they go off course. That people left this board in a huff is not necessarily an indication of failure on the part of the forum or the moderation; it is more likely a failure on their part to grasp the focus and purpose of this board. The moral of the story; don't go to a shoe store and get pissed off when they won't sell you a screwdriver. So the idea is not to simply increase popularity or membership of the board by any means, it is to increase popularity or membership within the bounds of the purpose of the forum. I'm sure we could have membership swell to great bounds if we, for example, decided to open it up for the discussion and advocacy of Libertarianism or Communism.

He was offered the job because of his situation, but I disagree that it was purely out of charity. Elliot explained to him that they could actually use his brilliance and that he would be of great benefit to his company. That opportunity would still have given Walt the opportunity to be productive within his field and still be able to address his current concerns. Yes, there was the issue (as you note we find out later, something we as the viewer can't consider at the time if not present, which conveniently allows the writers to contrive later if they see holes) of the "dirty business", but it was still a very legitimate, viable, and RATIONAL alternative. On the other hand, since his character changed at that particular point, Walt has consistently and deliberately had a blind spot to the contributions and plans of others if they didn't coincide to doing it HIS way. At that point Walt became his complete opposite, a "control freak". EVERY time Jesse came up with a good alternative plan or Jesse actually succeeded in doing something Walt put him down. Once his wife became involved, he resisted all her input EVEN when she was talking within her field of expertise and CLEARLY knew what she was talking about. I maintain that his decision to go the way he did was irrational AND it was the starting point of his downward spiral. That said, I do agree it makes for good TV.

*** Possible Spoilers Below ****** I've still questioning even Walt's original decision to get in the Meth trade. He had a very viable, legal, and lucrative option available to him. In my opinion, the only reason he turned it down was because he had grown tired of "going with the flow". That in and of itself is a bad reason when the option is otherwise the most rational option. He was offered good pay, good benefits, good health insurance and a job in which he could have been very useful and productive and he turned it down.

Actually, it makes him sound like he has actually thought about the question and determined why it is invalid. As has been pointed out, the question presumes a contradiction of the word existence. So rather than claiming the upper hand on who is or isn't thinking, iron out the contradiction for us please.

I'm all caught up with the series now. I enjoy the series but I maintain my opinion above regarding Walt. He's a trainwreck when it comes down to it.

I don't think many religious people are going to see this on this site.

But that does NOT necessarily carry over to non-man made things. It is merely an assumption to think it does. That man-made things require man as a creator does not logically translate to non-man made things requiring a creator as well.

Take a step back - are you going to arrest (or take any sanction against) the Cheetah for violating the "rights" of the Gazelle? If not, why? I disagree with your premise that most men do not understand the concept of rights, but to be more clear, men have the conceptual ability to understand rights whether they actually do or not. Animals do not have that conceptual ability.

Animals don't need rights because they don't understand the concept of rights, and they certainly don't understand how to respect them of their fellow animals. What animals respect, within the animal kingdom, is might. If my teeth and muscles are bigger than yours, I'm going to eat you if you are on my dietary palette. If animals had rights, would you go arrest a cheetah for chasing down a gazelle and eating it? It violated it's "rights".

Catholic priests. That is all.

Actually we can rationally justify a human's right to life and it is not contingent on whether animals have rights. Have you read or studied the Objectivist reasoning for the justification of rights?

I second that. I grew up on venison because we couldn't always afford to buy meat from the store. Of the hunters that I grew up around you didn't hunt animals unless you intended to eat what you killed.

Then again, the forum would be even better without redundant threads AND sarcastic asshats.

However, tattooing is not defacing anything. That is not your's to determine for anyone else but yourself. Art in general can be traced back to ancient, more primitive times. I'm assuming you don't think all art is repulsive and disgusting because it came from primitive times. Additionally, just because primitive people associated "body marking" with mysticism, that does not necessarily remain true today. Keep up with the times please. But that is your problem, not necessarily the problem of a person who has tattoos. I associate this kind of prejudice with ignorance, the same source of prejudices like racism, sexism, etc. etc.

This case was the subject of two HBO documentaries (and books, articles, etc.) and has been subject to legal wranglings for 16+ years now. Of particular note as to the strangeness of our justice system, their freedom came at the cost of pleading guilty to a lesser crime while still maintaining their actual innocence to any crime. If you ever get to see the documentaries, they are very interesting and I think cause some serious concerns about the convictions in general. There is a third documentary planned for release in January from what i've read. Some links below provide more information. West Memphis Three Wiki Entry Paradise Lost Paradise Lost 2: Revelations

While it may also be improper to give a terse response to a redundant question, it is proper forum etiquette (mentioned on the forum rules page) to search first before starting a new thread.

What characteristics do they share with "graffiti"? Why do you think primitive cultures and ugliness?

Well, to be fair, I meant for that to considered as well, and that doesn't change what I was trying to say. A watch has interconnected parts as well.

Glad you like them. They just released a new album called The Grand Theater Vol. 2 and that rocks as well; same style but still not stale.

Fortunately, whatever reason they actually got the tattoo isn't bound by your beliefs.

Keep in mind, I'm not ascribing to any "everything just happened randomly" type of theory, but I offer for you consideration the following. However big the universe happens to be, however many stars and planets there happen to be, as far as we have observed so far, this is only one that is this "complex". Given that there is an awful lot of planets out there, and given that in an "infinite" (or near infinite) universe a multitude of possibilities can happen, why can it not be possible that this complex system we live in "just happened" and that be consistent with whatever odds are necessary to consider given all the other multitudes and multitudes of places that are "simple" and it didn't happen? Where I differ from you is that I don't see the need to ascribe a "creator" or a force behind complexity SIMPLY for the sake that something is complex. I think that one of the reasons people do it is because they ascribe their observation of human "complex" inventions to natural occurences (i.e. the ever-present "watch" argument). There is no logical link that dictates that just because a watch was invented and made by an intelligent entity (a human), that all things not made by human intelligent entities must necessarily have been "made" by some other intelligent entity. I tried to be as clear as I could relaying my thoughts on this; hopefully clear enough.

Tanaka's provided a very good response above. However, when you say this (I don't think it is that simplistic my friend), it suggests you think that for a reason. What is the reason that you consider "karma" to be a viable reason? For instance, do you believe in karma because that a significant cultural influence where you live? Why do you think that total randomness is the ONLY other possibility? Then again, perhaps considering Tanaka's response will change this. We think about things for a reason, generally speaking anyway. I suggest considering the answers other people are giving you, but I also suggest challenging the premise of "Karma" to begin with. Do you think there is some "cosmic scale", some unseen hand, some grand purpose for which human affairs must be overseen to ensure a particular result? Is Karma a mystical thing beyond comprehension, or is it a metaphysical thing which can be demonstrated and observed? These are not things that you necessarily have to answer back to me, but things that perhaps you should spend time reflecting on yourself.