SkyTrooper

Even in nature reproduction is not an end in itself. Clearly, if a species is not interested in perpetuating itself it is an evolutionary dead end. However, I don't see a morality based around "do whatever it takes to produce the maximum number of children" as following from this. Modeling your behavior off of animals is a bad idea.

For humans, rational children are certainly a value to your life. Think of the value a friend adds to your life and you'll realize how much more value a kid could add. If nothing else at a certain point you are going to be too old to take care of yourself so they would be neccessary then. In nature, I think sexual reproduction evolved primarily to protect organisms from disease. "The Red Queen" by Matt Ridley has a good overview of all the different theories concerning sex, and convinced me pretty thoughouly that the virus-fighting theory is the best. It does go way too far in attributing animal instincts to humans so watch out for that.

I'd like to quickly expand on my previous post, since I believe the crux of the issue here for Mr. Brenner is not the validity of any specific evidence showing Saddam was a threat but his calculation of "does this evidence override the intrinsic right of Iraq to exist?" Modern political science would have us believe that nations have a fundamental right to exist intrinsically (ala United Nations), and does not discuss the source of a Nation's rights. Correct me if I am mistaken Mr. Brenner, but this seems like your fundamental error as well. Contrary to what the UN might lead you to believe, Nations actually don't gain rights simply by having their name drawn on a map, but actually by consent of their governed citizens. In order for individuals to secure their rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, it is necessary to constitute a government which retains the right to wield force. Without an objective government to wield force, it would come to subjective individuals to enforce their rights on others. Essentially anarchy. Therefore, a proper government is merely a guardian of fundamental rights of its citizens. As such, the government takes on rights to establish a judicial system to ensure justice, establish a police force to prevent anarchy, establish an army to provide for the common defense, and to deal with other free countries just as two individuals might deal with each other. A dictatorship, on the other hand, is an entity which systematically violates the rights of its citizens. Instead of existing to serve its citizens, the citizens exist to serve the government. This is the complete inversion of a proper government. As such, a dictatorship is a rightless entity and therefore has no right to exist. It is the responsibility of anyone living under such a system to either fight the government or flee elsewhere. No "justification" is needed for a free country to invade a dictatorship if the free country sees it as in it's interests to do so.

As I said, morally, it would be within my rights if I wanted to. Unforunately me personally toppling North Korea or Iran is not a realistic undertaking.

A nation is not a private citizen living under a society of laws, so a home-invasion analogy is invalid. Are we discussing when does a nation have a right to invade another nation, or when should a nation invade another nation? As I've mentioned before, because a dictatorship is the inversion of the proper purpose of government (to protect individual rights) a dictatorship has no rights. Anyone could invade a dictatorship. If I wanted to load up my AR-15, go over to North Korea, and topple the government I would have a right to do so. The fact that it is a dictatorship is sufficient justification because a totalitarian state has no right to exist. Now, when should a nation invade another nation? Only when it is in it's self-interest to do so. So, for example, invading the realitively petty dictatorship of Iraq at the cost of being able to invade the larger threat of Iran was not something we should have done. However, we had an uncontestable right to do so.

This is an example of blaming the victim eg. "she wouldn't have gotten raped if she wasn't in that neighborhood." Who cares where the heck they are or why? Murdering Americans is murdering Americans.

Actually yes, you have had that question answered. To refresh your memory Saddam shot missles at our planes patroling his shitty country, tried to kill Bush, supported terroism, sent advisors to kill Army Rangers in Somolia, shot SCUDs at Israel, etc, etc. Why is this a sticking point for you by the way? I feel like I'm talking to the Fedayeen.

I think your reductio ad absurdum has spiraled out of control. I don't advocate invading Equatorial Guinea. Of course, if there was some sort of pro-individual rights insurgency occuring there and it didn't cost me anything I would certainly support it. Now, in relation to other possible threats Guinea is not worth anyone's time. Just like, as long as Iran is around it was a mistake to invade Iraq. Returning to my serial killer analogy, Equatorial Guinea is like a retarded paraplegic serial killer living down the street while Iran is like Charlie Manson.

I accept your challenge. http://www.usaid.gov/press/factsheets/2003..._eq_guinea.html A dictatorship across the world is like a serial killer living down the street. Just because the serial killer hasn't killed you yet doesn't mean he won't get around to it eventually. Just because he hasn't tried yet doesn't mean he's not a threat to your life.

So I walked over to your house and shot you, would that constitute a threat? I fail to see how this action differs from sending advisors to fight US Army Rangers and other UN Forces in Somalia, or from firing missles as US Planes patrollng the no-fly zone. Also, if you don't think Israel constitutes the West you need to learn who your friends are. As for the assasination plot, I hadn't seen that article before, but as it points out the evidence might very well have been wiped from Iraqi records due to the embarrasment. You'll have to clarify how the Falkland Islands, etc, relate to the issue at hand if you want me to comment. In a fundamental sense all dictatorships are a threat to us. Weak dictatorships find ways to suck off our production in order to feed their starving populace, and knaw away at us through terrorism and subversion. Strong dictatorships declare outright war on us in order to gain resources and enslave more of the earth. Also, keep in mind that since a dictatorship is an inversion of the proper purpose of government (to protect individual rights) no justification is needed for a free country to invade a dictatorship if they see it as in their best interests. Now, clearly Iran was more of a threat to America than Iraq in 2003. Iran's acts of war towards us could go on for pages. The mistake was not that we invaded Iraq, but that we invaded Iraq before Iran. Business before pleasure.

When did Saddam threaten the West? Well lets see (off the top of my head) he tried to assasinate Bush Sr. shortly after Desert Storm, he shot missles at our aircraft patrolling the no-fly zone, he fired SCUD missles at Israel in '91, he sent advisors to help Islamic Somolians fight America in '93 although it is unclear if they actually pulled triggers, and he supported the Palestinian terrorists throughout his reign. I think there's more but thats just what comes to mind.

No, I don't think they did. If they wanted freedom and individual rights they wouldn't have voted for sharia-based theocracy. Your commentary is good except for the fact that you make the Iraqis look like an innocent third party, when in fact they were the ones who supported a brutal dictator who threatened the west in the first place.

Yea I definitely like to kill puppies. Clearly if you saw a video of a marine killing a puppy on YouTube then everyone in the military does it all the time. So it's alright dude, I don't want your "support".

Thanks for the info. I think then I'll probably be buying a 2010 muscle car and try to outlast the ban (I'm assuming the manufacture of spare parts will continue to be legal). Would you expect 2010 muscle cars to actually hold value as long as these fuel standards are in place?

So I'm reading through this Energy Bill, with an eye to my next vehicle purchase. I'd like to buy a fast sports car (possibly a GT Mustang), but my current car still has a few years left in it. From my reading of the bill the new fuel standards, 35 MPG [!?] for passenger cars, don't hit until 2011 so I might be able to wait another year or two. Is this correct or did I miss something in the bill? Also, I don't want to have to switch over to the new lightbulbs because studies show they make people depressed, they are more expensive, and they contain mercury which can be bad if they break. How long do we have until we have to switch to the new lightbubs? Is anyone planning on "stocking up" on incandescent lightbulbs? Here is the link to the bill that I have: H.R.6

Well it's a good thing that String Theory is complete BS then. I did think the text I got from my buddy today was amusing though, which was the first I heard of this: "There is a physics experiment starting in switzerland this summer which could destroy the planet so we should speed up our chess game just in case." (we're playing a correspondence game)

He is asking for donations to his political party, the PVV (Party For Freedom), on his website here. The website is in dutch but I ran the text through freetranslation and here's what I got: "I lead a fight against the islamising of the Netherlands and the mass-immigratie. I stand in this not alone. Meanwhile appeared that six out of ten Dutchmen sees the islam as threat and finds that the mass-immigratie the largest wrong from our history is. That gives hope for the future. Only temporarily I look at against enormous expenses. The film and the naweeën expenses many money. The Party for the Freedom accepts no subsidy and is thus totally indicated on the support of vrijheidslievende citizens as you. I have your help urgently necessarily. May I ask yourself support? Each donatie is welcome! Here are the gegevens: Bank account number 67,04,72,344 to name of the Foundation Friends of the PVV to the Hague. Borrows on: the gifts its complete tax deductible. The foundation has been recognized by the load service as good-range foundation. Meanwhile warm thanks for your support" also, "To our international friends: Please support our struggle. The battle for the survival of freedom is not something we can do all by ourselves. Party for Freedom (PVV) is the only political party in Dutch Parliament that refuses government subsidy. Therefore, we are dependent on your support. We need your help urgently, as costs are mounting. Freedom isn’t free. You can use the Paypal application under “DONEER” or you can make a contribution to: Stichting Vrienden van de PVV (Foundation Friends of PVV), in The Hague, the Netherlands. Bank account 67.04.72.344 " I think I'll probably kick in a few bucks.

Unfortunately this is not really news at all. Read through some of the 20+ articles linked to here: http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/001173.html Also, despite their contributions to American deaths, Saudi Arabia and Syria can't be lumped together with Iran on the same level of evilness.

Does anyone know what version of the Quran the quotes in the movie are from? I was trying to highlight a few of the passages in my copy, but I'm having trouble finding some of them and mine is a lot different. For example, where Fitna says "when you encounter a disbeliver cut their throats with a sword and spill their blood" mine says "when ye encounter the infidels, strike off their heads till ye have made a great slaughter among them."

In some ways it's better than Obsession. Obsession suggests that Islam has been "hijacked" and the final message in the film is that Muslims need to drive out the extremists. Fitna shows that violence is inherint in Islam (fundamental in the Quran) and it is really the moderates that are inconsistent.

Your conciousness will always be neccessary to determine what you should eat. You will not be able to pick out the proper foods to eat based on your feelings, unless somehow you have made previous value judgements about every single food in existence. You might as well say that if an engineer has to engage in an active process of thought in order to design a bridge that he has a psychological problem. It's not that your subconciousness is bad, just that it doesn't know the best course of action.

Clearly I should have responded less argumentatively, but I read it as saying that monitoring your food intake is an example of "self-restraint" (which is apparently something bad). Instead of "self-restraint" we should instead work on eliminating any "restlessness/nervousness" from our psychology. My disagreement is that "self-restraint" (monitoring your food intake) is neccessary regardless of any psychological conditions. It seems to me the proper policy is first to learn what you should be putting in your body. If you feel a desire for something that shouldn't be going in your body you can then decide not to eat it and introspectively determine where your desire for the unhealthy food came from. Even a person with no underlying psychological conditions or bad food habits requires both the knowledge of Nutrition and the focus to evaluate his food choices.

Diet is "the kind and amount of food prescribed for a person or animal for a special reason." You seem to suggest that applying rationality to what you are shoveling into your body is a mistake. In deciding on lunch, for example, should I just drive down the road until I find an appealing looking restaurant (appealing for a reason that I do not know) and order the first thing on the menu that sounds like it would taste interesting? This is the policy of many people. If we instead eat a balanced diet of Bread, Fruit, Vegetables, Meat, and Dairy, not exceeding our daily reccomended amounts of Sodium and Saturated Fat, are we being excessively "self-restrained" and indicating our "psychological problems"? A "psychological problem" to apply reason to all of our choices?

I don't think it is, as you say, "optional." Either it is right to be physically fit or not. For all the reasons you pointed to, plus the fact that it takes less than 20 minutes a day to get in good shape, I assert that the man deciding to exercise is making the right choice. I doubt anyone actually values 20 minutes of time per day more than their life. The majority of physically unfit people are that way because they have implicitly said "I am going to evade the knowledge that if I don't work out at all I will get fat and develop health ailments, because I don't feel like putting forth effort" and "I am going to evade the fact that if I get the buttery tub of popcorn and don't exercise it off I am going to get fat and develop health ailments, because I like the way it tastes."

Since this has apparently already been hijacked and turned in to a gun thread, I'll throw in my $0.02 as well. Although my AR15 jams constantly, service M16A2s I've used have rarely jammed, and M4s I've used have never jammed. It's all about maintainence and cleaning.. military units literally spend several hours after getting back from the range on cleaning. AKs never have to be cleaned since the parts are so loose fitting, but your tradeoff is in acuracy. M16 family weapons are far more accurate than ARs so I wouldn't call it an "inferior American weapon." In summary, I'd take an AK47 if civilization was about to collapse and I'd take an M4 if I had time to clean it constantly. Of course as pvtmorris pointed out the H&K 416 is even better but ever getting it is a pipe dream since people would rather pay for the welfare state than hook the army up with guns that don't jam. Since the Iraqi Army/Iraqi Police are all pretty undisciplined and overall poor soldiers the AK47 suits them much better. However, since their guns will probably be pointed in my direction within the near future, I'm perfectly happy with them having maintainence-heavy M16s which I know they won't clean.