01503

Happy Birthday, Zip!

Chat works fairly well now, except that the chat room icon (top-right) always says that it is empty, regardless of how many people are in it.

Chat yields error:

If they think humans are the problem, then they should set the example.

Thinking in fundamentals is essential to assessing a problem, issue, or any such thing that comes to our attention. So, how does one learn to think in fundamentals? Does it merely happen with practice? Do you have a certain set of questions that you ask yourself before starting to assess the problem, such as "what are the fundamentals of this?" Much appreciated.

I have Mark Perry on my RSS feed, but I agree that most times he seems to have a head-in-the-sand optimism.

James Cameron: "I believe in ecoterrorism." Is he joking? There are no "[laughs]" included in the text. I don't know much about Cameron. Should I be surprised, or is this not uncharacteristic of him?

Ask yourself "what is 'existence'?" Existence is the collection of everything that exists. In that light, obviously, it exists. "Existing" is implicit in "existence". As for your analogy, life does not live. Life is a property of something that is living. Running does not run, either. Running is an action that an entity can take. A sufficient analogy would be to find X that X's (ie, is implicit in its nature).

NickS1020 (who'da thought? )

Seconded, just finished it yesterday.

They apparently actively edited Wikipedia to change public knowledge of AGW.

Granted, but it's a great rebuttal video. I think he might have one on Chomsky's "The Corporation" too.

Both by Lee Doran AKA "HowTheWorldWorks". Watch it now, thank me later.

Sounds about right.

He turns 21 today, which means he's probably too drunk to read this clearly. But, happy birthday to our Christianity-hating, Punk-loving, neurotic member! (who made me write this)

I never meant to imply that a man must be forced into paying child support. I apologize if I made that unclear.

Well, if the man did not wish to have a kid, he should have used birth control, or ensured that the woman was using birth control. If she was "one of those" who wanted to get pregnant and was tricking him into it (who admittedly are few and far between, but for the purpose of the hypothetical...) then that is partially his fault--his misjudged her character. Either way, his actions had consequences that he must pay. If he wanted to be very certain, he would have talked to her about abortion beforehand, and whether or not she would get one if she became pregnant.

No, it's not his body. I think the woman should talk to the man about it beforehand, since what she is doing affects him, but ultimately it is her decision.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._Rockefeller The Monopoly Myth: The Case for Standard Oil (Rockefeller's Company) http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pag...reg_ls_standard And my notes on this lecture can be found here: http://docs.google.com/View?id=dgtd3qdx_80hfsq9b73 Enjoy.

They are three different ideologies. Libertarianism and Conservatism have much more in common than either two do with Objectivism.

Well, if he were to replace "Objectivism fails" with "LF Capitalism Fails", which is slightly more accurate, I would see nothing wrong with his post.

Well, off the top of my head: 1. No taxes = Anarchy 2. Objectivist Selfishness (Rational Self Interest) = Hedonism/Being an Asshole 3. Businessmen should be able to commit fraud.

I applaud his gusto to take the paleolithic lifestyle so seriously, but...

It was bad philosophically, like most Dickens' works. However, I always enjoy the first parts, where Scrooge is still a jackass. The best interpretations, of course, are the ones with Scrooge McDuck.