brian0918

Nice, I was actually reminded of the Declaration while reading this earlier, because of the capitalized He/Him throughout.

I heard about this on the radio (audio here) - they claim to have targeted women because they observed that women in their society spend money much more wisely, investing in the long-term future of their families.

He has posted a full account of the interview with more details about what was left out, edited, etc, including some funny bits that did not reach the air.

If you click the event link, it says where and when. Time Thursday, March 3 · 6:00pm - 8:00pm Location Tribeca Cinemas - New York City 54 Varick Street

You haven't yet shown this is going to happen, let alone that if it does, it should be a concern.

They announced the initial list of cities for April 15: I am not not sure, but they may be expanding into other cities as well, based on this quote:

The answer is to remove the restrictions that manipulate the price mechanism (e.g. the ban against drilling in most of the US and along the shores). If that cannot be accomplished, then yes, it is certainly possible that we will run out. The more free the society, the less harsh the transition from oil will be. A totally free society would never run out of oil - oil would simply become too expensive in comparison to alternative fuels, and stop being used altogether.

Some relevant reading: The Great Horse-Manure Crisis of 1894

I don't think it was that bad. You can really tell that they didn't have much "good material" to work with, so they had to heavily edit it to make him seem crazy. At least they left in the fact that he is a former Muslim, which may plant a seed of credibility in some people's minds. I was really surprised though, how much material they shot for how little was actually aired.

Last night's episode of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart featured a short segment with Objectivist and comic book artist Bosch Fawstin talking about DC Comics use of a Muslim superhero sidekick to Batman, and about his new comic The Infidel featuring the anti-jihadist Pigman (first issue on sale now for $2.50). They basically edited a 3-hour interview down to 3 minutes, removed all his arguments, and took his statements out of context. He knew they would - their intent is to be funny, and they don't let truth get in the way of humor. Here is his pre-emptive blog post. <br><br> I particularly liked his original un-aired reply to "What's wrong with a Muslim Batman": <br><br> <br><embed style='display:block' src='http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:comedycentral.com:375756' width='512' height='288' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' wmode='window' allowFullscreen='true' flashvars='autoPlay=false' allowscriptaccess='always' allownetworking='all' bgcolor='#000000'></embed><br>

Have you seen any of the videos by Stefan Molyneux. He's been talking a lot lately about non-violent parenting while raising his own child. I like his idea of making force such a foreign notion to a child, that when they encounter it later in life, they are emotionally repulsed by it. Contrast that with statist countries where kids are so heavily indoctrinated that collectivism has become ingrained in the language. Or search for "parenting" here: http://www.youtube.com/user/stefbot#g/search

And one reason they do not want to let their currencies rise against the dollar is because then all the US debt that they have purchased will lose value ($900B for China alone). They seem to hold onto a foolish idea that the US is capable of paying back its debts to the world. The main reason, though, is to keep the US importing products from those countries.

She's a 3rd grader according to the video, and certainly doesn't show any evidence of being "developmentally behind" *despite* her school. I agree, there is no reason they should still be teaching her this way, and yet they are, according to the video.

It can certainly be useful to periodically reduce the conceptual back to the perceptual level using the Montessori method, but to restrict children to add/subtract *only* at the perceptual level seems like a huge impediment at an age when learning is so important. Then again, maybe Montessori only uses the beads much earlier in a child's education than 3rd grade.

Suddenly the Montessori method doesn't seem so great. Be sure to watch to the end: I know this isn't strictly Montessori, since it uses drawings instead of beads, but you can't deny that both methods make large numbers seem difficult to handle. On Facebook someone made this analogy:

1. Our current economy is not a free market economy. So oil could certainly run out quickly and unexpectedly, so long as incentives are skewed by market manipulation. In a free market economy, as the sources of oil become more and more difficult to access and process, the price of oil will rise, making it less appealing, and making alternative resources cheaper in comparison. People will naturally transition away from oil as research and development make alternative resources cheaper. 2. In a mixed economy like this one, it is certainly possible. 3. Only so long as force is allowed to intervene in the market.

Everything I have read points to the Federal Reserve and other central banks essentially exporting inflation as the primary cause for the rising food prices around the globe. (changed link to a better explanation)

Look up any of the publications by these folks: http://www.aynrandsociety.org/

That is their official site, but it's just linking to their YouTube channel, which is what Soth did. The movie has a very limited release, so I don't think the members of the Academy will even hear about it, except derisively on the Huffington Post.

Check out the links to past discussions on Free Will in the FAQ.

I really liked the clip. It definitely gives me more hope for the whole film.

For a laptop, "capitalist inside" would be good.

Apparently the Democrats have all fled the state to prevent the vote from occurring: http://www.canadianbusiness.com/markets/market_news/article.jsp?content=D9LENT880

You have reached some proper conclusions (e.g. "rejecting socialism"), however those conclusions were reached through improper methods, so the fact that you have reached the correct conclusion is only incidental - a stopped watch is correct twice a day. So long as you allow those improper methods to guide your decisions, there is no guarantee that you will reach proper conclusions. Philosophy is supposed to be a guide for living your life - it is supposed to tell you the proper methods for guiding your decisions. Reason - adherence to reality - is the only means to knowledge. All other alleged sources of knowledge - e.g. faith, intuition, revelation, tradition - are rooted in emotionalism ("feelings") in one way or another. Emotions do serve a proper purpose, but not as a replacement for reason.

So, you demand rationale from atheists, but when it comes to religion, you will accept it on faith? If you are open to faith as a means to knowledge, why not simply accept atheism on faith? Take my word for it! If you won't, why not? Can you put into words why you're willing to accept one thing on faith, but not another?