RationalBiker

I agree with you in the sense that she was afforded the proper avenue of the justice system and that the rules of the justice system were followed. So legally speaking, she was treated justly. Morally speaking, my personal "jury" is still out.

Making a qualified statement is not begging the question. You highlighted and underlined the if so you should have understood that. For ALL of the posters in the thread to be able to determine the applicability of the argument, other posters have to be able to advance their argument(s). Additionally, you still leave room for offering "special science" evidence to be forwarded when you qualified this statement; Unless science demonstrates that the philosophy is wrong. No, actually what I did was inject a little humor in my post. Would it make a difference if I said "no"?

It would be easy if one only has to consider "possible" instead of "reasonable". Don't forget who has the burden of proof in a criminal trial.

A multitude of times no less.

But it seems to me that limiting the discussion to strictly a philosophical debate may well inhibit the truth if science does have something to contribute to the subject. I personally could care less about handcuffing the truth (if that is where the science leads) just for the sake of keeping the discussion on a philosophical level.

Nit picky perhaps (and somewhat in jest), but there aren't really any "police skills" for disposing of bodies. Policemen are exposed to a number of ways bodies have been disposed of, but any "training" they would get on how to do it would be what they think up in their own heads. On a more serious note, and not necessarily with respect to this particular case, myself and many other police officers think that some of the public's perception of "beyond a reasonable doubt" has evolved into "beyond any possible doubt".

Fair enough... Perhaps I misunderstood what you were communicating. However, given that you said the following, it was easy to misunderstand that you were suggesting it was not pertinent to the discussion. Is there any reason aside from you desire not to discuss special science theories that you object to their discussion?

It's relevance has nothing to do with what you came here to discuss. If the special sciences offer another examination of the topic at hand, there is no point in excluding that information from the thread.

Planet of the Apes?

How is that obvious? Is it obvious to the person initiating force against you? What happens when the force he or you initiate is met with greater force that overcomes that from the initiator? What happens when this becomes the standard of dealing with other men? Life becomes quite difficult. Life becomes about physical day to day survival, not the flourishing long term life proper for men. I think the problem some people have in grasping this as a principle is that they expect some immediate impact or recognition that their immoral behavior will be highlighted by a bright shining beacon so they can see why it is wrong; some immediate feedback. I think also that it is far easier for many people to speak theoretically about why is it bad for me to initiate force than it is to go out and, for instance, just murder someone for their money. It's easy to theoretically detach your conscience, your recognition of your nature in an forum discussion... it's quite another matter to do it in real life, to act on it and assume all the risks inherent with such choices.

But there really is no reason to expect that to be the default position when one looks at the totality of irrational beliefs people hold now and have held throughout history. Rather, I would suggest that since there is such a huge variety of religions asserting their own particular brand of a god or gods, that the invention of religion is more a cultural characteristic, with each culture perpetuating the traditions, rituals and mores that they believe are beneficial to their culture. In other words, if we do this for our particular god, he will do good things for us. You never (at least to my knowledge) hear of a religion where no matter what you do, your good is going to send you to a bad place. People don't want to die and no longer exist, they want to believe there is something better than here and they will go there instead of ceasing to exist. That said, the particular attributes prescribed to one deity or the another are equally irrelevant if they are not tied to reality in some way and sometimes even if they are. In the case of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (for example), He has been attributed with characteristics that are very identifiable in reality (noodly appendages, meatballs for eyes, etc - he has an asserted form), but his existence is still an arbitrary assertion because his existence has not been tied to reality.

The passion does not arise from the irrelevance of the idea. The passion arises from the impact the irrelevant idea has on the culture we have to live in.

"New" is an irrelevant concept with respect to the idea's logical soundness. The argument need not be new to be sound. Otherwise you've just invalidated Aquinas' "proofs" yourself - they are not new. What it proves is that the concept "God" (especially in any particular specific description of his abilities and expectations of mankind) has no epistemological value. Not speaking specifically for Greebo, but the term Atheist can be used different ways. In one way, one posits G(g)od does not exist. In another way, it merely states the person is simply not a theist. It is possible for someone to say "The is no reason or evidence for me to accept the concept or idea of a G(g)od" without saying, "there is no God." That is not relevant to the argument. It rejects the idea of ANY arbitrarily asserted being. So, are you saying you "spouted" off an argument that you have never actually accepted as valid? Why would you do that? It sounds intellectually dishonest. Aside from that, it IS a forceful argument for rejecting the arbitrary. It's a shame you stopped "spouting" it. Nothing new here. Other people have come to the forum before you "spouting" Aquinas' ways thinking that his attempt to put a logical spin on the god issue might appeal to Objectivists. Oh wait... we covered the whole "nothing new" thing didn't we? Not sure if you have heard this one, but if you care to you can give it a try.

I certainly didn't mean to imply 100% of Christians use the bible as their only source of "evidence". Certainly one can look at all the different variations of Christian beliefs and see that as a group, their beliefs are all over the chart. I admit, the term "Christians" is a very loose label when thinking in terms of some unified belief system, but it is one most people can relate to.

Give me his/her name, address and telephone number, then we'll talk... after I talk to him/her first. You needn't take my responses to Avila as an indication that I want to discuss your beliefs with you.

I'm not concerned with changing your beliefs. You haven't offered any evidence yet that is worth my consideration.

Except the effects of gravity are observable and reproducible.

I just got The Incredibles on BluRay so I'm going to watch it again soon. I saw it a long time ago, but I want to have it more fresh in my mind before I comment further. Based on what I remember, I don't think I wholly agree with the OP's interpretation of the "moral of the story". Additionally, as others have mentioned, Syndrome was quite the rights violator.

I'm not agreeing to that at all. You are positing something that does not take into account the possibility of future discoveries. My point was that it isn't necessary for Objectivist epistemology to posit the origin of the universe in order to demonstrate what tools we have available to us to learn the reality around us. Additionally, if the "creation of the universe" IS unknowable and this "creation" (or creator) in some way obliges me to live in some particular fashion, but there is no way that i can possibly know what that way is, there is no point in discussing it. If there exists some other "reality", one that lies beyond human ability to detect through their senses and reasoning, one that is beyond our ability to even understand or comprehend, for all intents and purposes it does not exist for purposes of guiding human behavior. You can certainly disagree. Christians take the Bible as evidence of their God but that doesn't make it evidence. One question so I understand your mode of communication here... if you find Aquinas' "proofs" to be quite rational, why use the quotes around the word proofs?

What it does address is that from an epistemological point of view there is no point in entertaining arbitrary claims. Nothing can be learned about the existence or lack of existence of something UNLESS there is evidence presented to consider that claim. No evidence has been presented that a god or gods exist. Objectivism does not need to posit what the ultimate creation was in order to point out the only epistemological tools you have available to you for trying to figure out what that ultimate creation was.

But for legal purposes, whether or not the law is objective is not for you or I to determine, it is for the various Supreme Courts to decide. Certainly we are entitled to our opinions, but what rules the land, and by extension the laws officers are tasked to enforce, are those legislated by lawmakers and supported as appropriate by courts. You can condemn the officers for the decision all you want, as is your right, but what properly guides their actions is not your opinion, but the existing law and the existing court opinions and precedence. It is SPECIFICALLY within the realm of the judicial branch of government to determine the propriety of the executive branch's execution of the legislative branch's laws as well as the propriety of that law. To the best of my knowledge, it is not within the proper purview of the executive branch of government to refuse to enforce law once it has become law. That is not part of the "checks and balances" of the three branch government system. I think it happens sometime, but as I said, to the best of my knowledge it is not legally proper. Please remember, I'm not disagreeing with you on a moral level, but my opinion is that the officers did act properly within the existing law. I suspect we may have some court decision in the future that will either validate your view or mine. Regarding the use of force issue, I addressed that in an earlier post, breaking down the various element that represented passive or active resistance according to a commonly used use of force continuum scale. Based on my experience in law enforcement, as a person who has legally used force, and as a person who has reviewed use of force policies and reviewed use of force incidents (many, many), there was only one particular action that I think will be a questionable use of force - the choking of the one arrestee.

In what respect are you saying the arrest was not justified; legally or morally? For my part, my only defense of the arrests has been on legal grounds (while at the same time condemning the immorality of the existing law.) There is no doubt from the words of the organizer himself that they were protesting, they knew they are protesting, and they knew they were doing it without a permit. I'm reasonably sure their goal was to be arrested so they could argue their concerns before a court. Regarding the proper behavior of the police, are you determining your opinion of proper based on existing law, or based on how you think the law should be? It is generally atypical for police officers to just "stand by" while they are observing violations of the law. I think there is no question among the participants of this forum that there are some bad laws out there. However, myself (and some others) have argued in the past that the existence of some bad laws within a government system alone does not warrant abandoning the general principle behind the rule of law in a civilized society. Police officers should not determine on an individual level which laws they will or will not enforce.

This thread is about PROPERTY. You already acknowledged that people are not property. Now you are being deliberately obtuse. I"m done here.

You clearly miss the point that I was making about what constitutes permission in terms of communication. Perhaps, but this isn't just about you, it's about all creators of products. Yes, necessarily. Creating a new idea and making money from that does not restore the value lost from the original idea. This is like saying that if your car is stolen, you can always get a new car to restore the value lost. Non-sequitur to the point I've made. I see. Rather than acknowledging a person's right to the fruits of their labor, you would rather not have them produce their work in digital form because it becomes easy to steal. If they make it easy to steal, it must therefore be moral to steal it. Gotcha. This principle carries over to material products as well. If I leave the keys in my car, it is now moral to steal my car. More non-sequitur.

Which is not the same as what I said... I said a voluntary EXCHANGE OF VALUE, not any voluntary communication between two people about anything. If I tell you I have a hot wife, I'm not giving my consent for you to go have sex with her, though by your liberal interpretation of any communication between people about an idea, it would seem you might draw that inference. Because they have lost the exclusive ability to pursue whatever value the idea does have in the marketplace. Once a CD has been ripped and plastered all over the internet, the artist WILL lose the value of sales that will not occur because people downloaded it for free. The product's value has been decreased by a cheaper outlet of that product by another party. And to head it off at the pass, not everybody who downloads stuff freely from internet are in the category of "well they wouldn't have bought it anyway". Because "earning" requires more specific communication than simply "talking about it" as noted in my example above. Lastly, it would seem to me that if a person has no problem depriving another person of the value of their work and effort in creating a non-material product, why stop there? Why not deprive them of the value of their material property too? It just doesn't make sense to say it's okay to take one and not the other.