RationalBiker

Welcome to the forum! I was just down in NOLA walking around the French Quarter last month while visiting my son. Very interesting place but I didn't see it at night at it's "best". Take care.

What if someone REALLY, REALLY doesn't bullshit themselves and they come to a different conclusion than you've come to? If you spent enough time around this forum, you will realize that this kind of statement really means nothing. I would say most people on this forum REALLY, REALLY do think for themselves and not bullshit themselves while doing so and each come to different conclusions sometimes. What it really boils down to is that you are saying, if you really think about it, you will agree with my position. If you don't agree with my position, you must be wrong.

Doesn't that depend on what Web 10.0 has to offer? What if the difference between the two was on par with the difference between cassettes and CD's? Of course, you may be happy with cassettes, I'm not sure.

More highly developed perhaps, or perhaps just applicable to a different set of values. Productiveness is achieving those goals that further your life. For a kid, that may mean playing or engaging in activities that entertain and/or educate. Independence would be learning to do that without parents help.

We have more information in the media. How much of all the information that has been provided in the media frenzy is true?

Can you describe how nature has intentions? Is nature volitional?

If you wanted to mount a defense of Objectivism, the best way would be to read the source material yourself, think for yourself, and come to your own conclusions rather than rely on the second-handed method of relying on the conclusions of others. You are using others to do your heavy lifting for you.

No. You needn't take this to it's polar opposite. Rather, you are as good as what you accomplish according to your goals and values. One needn't be an arrogant braggart to be proud of what one has accomplished. The key is simply giving yourself credit for what you actually do rather than attributing your accomplishments to some non-existent "higher being". When you have built something of value with your own hands, with you own mind, it rightfully feels good to have accomplished something. Christianity teaches you that YOU did not do that without the "grace of god". It compels you to deny the joy of what you have done with your own mind, with your own hands to "keep you in your place" in relation to your "creator".

That's a load of bull. If the jury had found her guilty he would be saying the jury was wrong and would be appealing it in a heartbeat. He wouldn't be "respecting" the verdict.

I think this could be kind of confusing. If I have 100 spoons already, more than I need, how many of them are my property if I don't need all of them? I think Craig was inquiring on a similar point. I think it needs to be understood if everyone here is operating on the same definition of the concept "need".

There is no chance they would have executed her that quickly. Had she been convicted, the penalty phase would have come some time after the trial. If during the penalty phase she was given the death penalty, there would have been an automatic appeal to the Court of Appeals. If the Court of Appeals upheld the case and the punishment, it would probably also have been considered by the US Supreme Court on constitutional grounds. I may have even missed a step or two in there. Suffice to say, if she eventually did get capital punishment, it would likely be 6-7 years after the offense. Better, yes. A good thing? no. One can praise the system without praising the particular result. And as I alluded to before, 12 other jurors may have decided differently.

Others are doing a fine job of that already. So yes, that is all.

You can realize that while you had gotten yourself into a problem, it was YOU who also got yourself out of that problem. My completely amateur opinion of situations like this is that many people who think they need some "higher power" to help them get through their problems tend to have issues with self-esteem and/or they don't like themselves as a person. When all is said and done, regardless of what you believed at the time, it was YOU who saved yourself from your alcohol problem.

I understand that is your claim, but as you say, you've been discussing this in the thread and it is not a given as it has been disputed by numerous posters. As such, you were asking a question that assumed something that is still in dispute.

Your question is loaded; it presumes that the "acts against others" is in one's rational self interest.

I have invites now as well if anyone is interested. Not sure how many sNerd has left. Thanks again sNerd.

Not to sound snide, but there isn't much to think about in the example you gave. Remember, "killing" does not have to infer intent. That is why the law distinguishes murder from manslaughter. Your example; IF this is the case, she applied the chemical and as a RESULT OF HER ACTIONS, the child died. She was directly responsible for the death. It is no different to say she was responsible for her death than it is to say she killed her.

That is still her killing her daughter, just accidentally. The distinction is this, I think she probably killed her daughter, but I don't think she necessarily murdered her daughter. The difference was her intent. Murder is a premeditated killing with malice aforethought. Killing is a much broader species which can include accidental.

I've also heard people calling for the federal government to try her on the charges of civil rights violations against the child. I don't think it is likely they will though. It is possible though.

I tend to agree with this except that it is possible that she acted the was she did to help protect someone else (another family member perhaps) who killed the girl. I think either way, she was explicitly involved in her daughter's death in some way. I also agree that the legal verdict in no way has to supplant other people's judgement of her guilt or innocence. The jury verdict only determines whether or not formal legal sanctions can be placed on the defendant. 12 different people may well have found her guilty had they been in the trial. It is well considered that trials are often won or lost based on jury selection. What happens to her socially is well within the rights of each individual who decides what she does or does not deserve short of committing some crime against her.

I doubt that Casey was entirely uninvolved in the process upon which they acted on information, but that would likely come out in the trial, not necessarily a news article that is going to be far less exhaustive in reporting ALL of the facts, conversations, etc. That's always a possibility in a civil suit I imagine. I'm sure Texas Equusearch will talk to attorneys versed in civil law (if they haven't already) to examine the strength of their case.

The suit I'm talking about is being considered by a private entity, Texas Equusearch, who alleges they spent $112,000 looking for the "missing" child. I would assume they would also seek legal fees as well. What effect? It's hard to tell. Casey Anthony would not be the first person in her position to profit considerably from a book deal following a high profile case like this. It is only right that the private company have the opportunity to pursue civil damages based on the liability she incurred on them with her lies.

I think it's very likely she will lose the civil case, should they bring one against her for the cost of the search. They acted on (and incurred costs) directly as a result of the lies she told about her "missing" child. Civil cases merely need a "preponderance of the evidence" as opposed to "beyond a reasonable doubt". 51% against her and she loses.

Well you can't argue with that. The history and character of a person are unimportant if whatever they did is in the past. We should just forget about and not try to figure out what really happened, or make our own judgements of the facts and her behavior.

Given that you did not start this thread, you don't get to establish the ground rules, who participates, or the limits of their participation. What you do get to do, is ignore those posts that you don't think are relevant to your argument. If you want to debate strictly philosophically, you can go start another thread and set the ground rules.