KevinDW78

Mammon, number of counties or number of states is irrelevant. Both those maps play a numbers game to fool you into distorting the reality. All those red states in the middle of the country have many many millions fewer people than the people living in those blue states. Corn fields don't have voting rights yet, though I am sure they will if Obama gets elected so he can appease the vegetarian voting base.

......uh........ huh? From Wikipedia: The 2004 election was 286 Bush / 251 Kerry. How is that a "landslide"?

You fear evangelical leaders rising from the dead and running for Congress? I think you need to watch less television.

This is going around the news this weekend. Biden did an interview and the interviewer recited a Karl Marx quote "From each according to his ability...etc" and asked Biden how that's not what Obama intends to do. Pretty amusing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQXcImQfubM

Yup. Dem chemicals are icky, donchaknow? Same reason we use organic farming. it doesn't have all dem nasty chemicals. This reminds me of this site http://www.dhmo.org/ It aims to see the banning of all uses of "Dihydrogen Monoxide" - a chemical that has been responsible for the deaths of millions and has been found to exist in every single municiple water supply. ...Of course, they don't let you in on the punchline, that "Dihydrogen Monoxide" written chemically is H20

Thank you, i was just going to point out that ALL "detox" or "colon cleansing" gimmicks are just that - they are total, unadulterated, Bulls*t and there are LOTS of reputable sources online that will explain this. Besides the P&T episode, Randi.org is a good source of info. http://www.googlesyndicatedsearch.com/u/JREF?q=detox http://www.googlesyndicatedsearch.com/u/JR...9-1&q=colon

No.

Ted Kennedy ran against Jimmy Carter's reelection in 1980

I'm unsure who's in the right here. Is the woman entitled to give back the football since it was continually thrown on her property without her consent? I mean I can understand the argument that if a stranger drove his car onto your driveway, I doubt somebody would argue that you have the right to take possession of his car even though he was tresspassing. Hmm... any takers?

You seem to be implying that just because a shape has four 90-degree angles, that it is intrinsically worthless. As I said--it's a school... There have to be classrooms. Are you suggestion there should be oval classrooms? Organic curvy classrooms? Hexagon classrooms? NO classrooms? Because four walls and four right angles is always bad? So... what? We need gargoyles? Brilliant! Gargoyles in kindergarten rooms! Let's make those 5 year olds piss themselves with fear til they shut up and go to sleep! It's the PERFECT school!

Huh? it's a school. What would you suggest? A giant orgy-pool? I think it's perfect. I especially love how each grade has it's own wing with all the classrooms together. "Functional at best"? wtf? Form follows function Alfa. If it is "functional at best" than that means it has accomplished one of the most important parts of "good" architecture.

I work alongside a construction company that specializes in building schools. They all are very similiar in style. I really like a lot of them. Modern schools are really starting to be great works of architecture.

I think you're right—and i find that annoying (not that you're right, but the point you made). What do these people expect? That we, as students, are somehow not allowed to draw conclusions on anything? My philosophy instructor this past semester was the same way. It's as if we, as students, are too intellectually incompetent to coherently form any cognitive thought or conclusions. We simply have to swallow whatever conclsuions THEY spoon-feed us. I shouldn't be surprised. After all, this is a "diversity" class. That hardly strikes me as something where conclusions are allowed. We simply have to love everyone equally and accept everyone equally and believe everything equally and equal equally so our equal equalities show the equalness of being equal.

I think a teacher should grasp rudimentary logic and reason. Clearly, we can't have everything lol

I'll double check her spelling of Nietzsche. That might be my mistake. besides - I have always felt that to be a weak argument. People who attack other people's spelling usually do so because they have nothing substantive to argue. EDIT: Ok I just checked. I didn't type it correctly above (as I said her handwriting was difficult to read and the "e" looked like a "c", but she was still wrong. She wrote Nietzche. I would never get that right without looking it up. It's not like she wrote "there" when she meant "their". And yes, she wrote in red ink.

I had a midterm essay in my Film and the Law class returned to me this week. The professor said to me, "It was a great essay, but... Ann Rind?!?!" (Yes, that's how she pronounced it.) The sentence ended with her holding her jaw low in a gaping gesture. I won't present my entire essay but it was a comparison of the films "Twelve Angry Men" and "To Kill A Mockingbird" with regards to the search for the truth. here are her comments along with the excerpt from my essay to which they apply. (I transcribed her handwriting exactly and some of it was difficult to read.) ? or eritical process. suspension of judgement until all facts of the problem are evaluated. [underlined "wiping it out" and wrote a question mark.] But the position from which one views the facts can alter the conclusions drawn, e.g. the 5 blind men describing an elephant. ? Can something be both a wave and a particle? At the conclusion of the essay, she wrote: Most interesting argument. I think Rand's concepts tend to the superman argued by Nictzche. The question of what is truth doesn't necessarily have one clear, concise answer. What happens in sociological studies is that the group consensus regarding a problem is almost always better than a single individual's. As we see in Twelve Angry Men, one individual who questions and is skeptical can move the group. Good Essay! It was fun to read. Now do I really need to point out how that last part contained a sentence which contradicted itself and proved my point for me? I am considering emailing a response to these comments just to educate her on Rand's philosophy since it seems pretty obvious she has a very shallow understanding and likely has never directly read Rand. Any further counter-arguments are appreciated. I especially want to address this Nictzche comparason since I have heard it before, but I have never read Nictzche so I wouldn't know how to directly address it.

It's not free and people prefer handouts.

Link?

Please provide an example of this.

By what right are those people entitled to my worry, much less the money I was smart enough to earn via my own productivity?

Also to add to RB's two examples above - in a college philosophy course, the first example will get you a D, the second will get you an A.

As soon as I read the proposed bailout I knew this was going to happen. It explicitly gave the treasury secretary unilateral power to seize ANY bank it deemed necessary according to his own whims, thereby forcing it to comply with the other stipulations of a bank getting bailout money. So now what? All those SUCCESSFUL CEOs have to abide by the salary caps because their banks were forced into this without their consent? How does this happen in America? It just boggles my mind.

Because some of us here aspire to being more than just a "Randroid"

I remember from the homosexual thread someone giving the quote of what Rand said when someone asked her what Objectivism tells us about sex and she responded, "That it's good." basically suggesting that as long as you enjoy it... But I'll agree with Nick. Kinda strange, but then again, I have friends who are totally into that sorta thing, so... yeah lol.

I would like to add that being able to debate for Objectivism with non-Objectivists is going to be the best way to really develop one's understanding of the philosophy in the first place. I would think it would be very difficult to ever achieve a level of understanding like the pros I see on this forum without that excercise. Such debates are going to be most productive here on this forum via the help of other more understanding Objectivists. Sure I could go debate Objectivism in a socialist forum, but I doubt it would be very productive and I would quickly find myself outnumbered and unprepared.