Soth

I liked the movie a lot. I found it very artistic and in great style. It brings up some questions about society and humanity, and the ending is bad which is good now and then in a movie. I especially liked Rorshach's character.

Smart sharpen makes pixels somewhat comprehensive again.

Way overpriced. No thanks.

I think you're on to something here.

Geert Wilders is a hero. He should be given a medal, not sued. For shame.

Some of you are very pragmatic about it - You say the police should run away (Give the impression of running away? Strategically retreat?) in order to avoid escalating the situation. What this accomplishes is that people who threw objects at the police get away with it. What are the consequences? Perhaps the day ended without bloodshed, but what about tomorrow? What about next month? By sending the message that the law is merely a suggestion - That you can throw objects at the police, as long as you're in a sufficiently large group, you only make yourself open to further attacks. You can not stop violence with appeasement, it doesn't work, never will. Do not mistake this with a progressive case of preserving freedom of speech. The freedom of speech does not include assaulting the police. If one wishes to express his views one has plenty of ways to go about it: The media, peaceful protests, advertizing. Freedom of speech does not give one the excuse to use force. What should of happened, is that once the law was broken, police should've taken any measures necessary to uphold the law. Don't pretend the person lagging 100m behind is a poor guy who just got caught in it all. He will have plenty of time to withdraw himself from the situation. The police should not open fire right away. Instead sufficient warnings will be issued. Anyone who then wishes to continue his violation of the law and forcefully oppose the police will be delt with - by adequate force. Would there have been bloodshed? Probably. But by police upholding the law you would prevent future violations of it. That is the only way society can survive. Appeasement will only encourage the law breakers.

Rights and objective law still hold. Once you assault police officers, you forgo your right to safety, and the police is obligated to use whatever force is deemed necessary to restrain you. If you are alone, the police can probably restrain you with clubs. If you are in a group with thousands of people, police response needs to be scaled adequately. Demonstrating against something you disagree with, or shouting at police officer is one thing. Taking part in a mass riot which initiates violence against the police is another. If you wish your rights preserved, don't stand in a group that throws objects at the police and assaults them. You can cry human rights violation all you want. Fact of the matter is the demonstrators in this video are taking themselves to be above the law. They think the law doesn't apply to them. They think they can break the laws of the society they live in. They think they can attack the police. They are wrong. Society must defend itself against such anarchists / fanatics savages.

I thought the riding them over with a tank method suggested earlier should've been used. I fail to see why the police needs to avoid violance where the population is actively asking for it. They should be shot.

I read Atlas Shrugged before I read The Fountainhead. I very much prefer Atlas Shrugged. The Fountainhead I don't really like. I would definitely recommend AS as a first reading to someone who is unfamiliar with Rand's works.

Outragous! I am so upset to read this!

This thread delivers.

Don't bother wasting your time with it. This is a cheap scheme to ride on the success of James Randi who held the one million dollar challenge to anyone who proves supernatural ability. The difference is, mr. Randi spend years backing up his challenge, dealing with endless applications by delusional, irrational, lunatuc and/or fraudulent individuals. Mr. Randi had the rules set up clearly. And should an applicant actually were able to demonstrate supernatural abilities in a mutually agreed upon test, Randi would have actually been converted. On the other hand, this religious nutcase group would never change their minds when confronted with facts, because facts do not bother them. They don't believe in god because they concluded god exists rationally. They believe in god because they chose to believe. It goes without saying that should anyone actually try to formulate a way through which rational atheism can be proven, they would reject it out of hand, or worse, accept the proposition, and once that person proceeded to go through with it they would back out by twisting out of it in some UNRATIONAL manner.

You answered 23 out of 33 correctly — 69.70 % I found myself clueless on some questions. And yes, some of the questions were biased. 30) Which of the following fiscal policy combinations would a government most likely follow to stimulate economic activity when the economy is in a severe recession? A. increasing both taxes and spending B. increasing taxes and decreasing spending C. decreasing taxes and increasing spending D. decreasing both taxes and spending Who the hell knows which answer is the one they mean here? Governments are crazy, they are likely to follow the wrong thing (which is the intended answer).

Welcome! May you learn many things which will enrich your life and intrigue you to learn even more.

Some people make me sick. He's one of them.

Necrovore - Thanks for sharing, I can relate to your story. Here's mine: I remember when I just started first grade. I was very excited because I was told school is a whole different thing from kindergarden, and that you learn things at school and should try your best, so I did. I always rose my hand whenever the teacher asked a question. We sometimes read a book where each student would read some, then the teacher picked someone to continue reading from where the last pupil stopped. I remember a couple of times I used to pretend I was not following with the reading, hoping that the teacher would pick me (thinking she caught me because I would not know where we are) so that I could then read fluently. Silly, I know, but that was my moodset back then. I don't remember when it stopped exactly, but I think my enthusiasm lasted most of the first grade. By second grade I was bored out of my senses. The pace of learning was so slow I felt like sitting in a classroom was an excruciating experience. So I skipped classes. I wandered the school yard for hours on end. Sometimes the principle or one of the teachers would spot me and make me go back to class. Sometimes I climbed the fence and went home, or to the public library where I read nonsense comics and children books (Parents would get mad if I returned home during school hours). One time the school decided to call neighborhood watch and a guy found me at the library and returned me to school. When I arrived I was somewhat surprised they were so worried since I often did that. I was told they searched me in school and that one of the children looked for me in the shelter where he fell and broke a tooth. That made me feel bad. The first half of 2nd grade postcard did not have any grades in it, just a line 'due to lack of attendance, we were unable to determine your grades'. Then one day I arrived to a lesson, and was told that there is a test going. If I hadn't decided to go to that class, my whole life would've probably turned out a lot different than they did. It was a test for gifted children. I passed the preliminary and was invited for a second test. I passed that one as well and was invited to the gifted children program. I later found out I scored #1 from my entire city in that test. The program (called RAM) was 1 day a week, instead of going to regular school I would go learn various courses with other gifted children my age. I had some of the best teachers there I could have hoped for. It was a few teachers who taught all of the subjects, they were all brilliant people who knew a lot of things. I had a great time in those classes and I had that one day to look forward to every week. It made going to normal school slightly more tolerable for me. More importantly, I learned there that I was smart. I often did not get along with the other kids in the regular school, and understanding that I was different from them and not for the worse gave me a lot of confidence that I needed. In RAM the teachers often talked with us about many things. I remember one time he mentioned how we should not flaunt our intelligence towards other people. It doesn't make you anymore right stating that you're smart, and other children/people will often just hate you if they think you're smarter than them. It was a good advice. And I wouldn't flaunt how I attend RAM once a week, but it did give me a lot of confidence and interest. We studied a lot of things there, we had a course on psychology and one of advertising and misinformation (I don't remember what we learned there, but it was interesting) and quantum theory (David Harriman's lecture aside, it was very cool discussing atoms and quantum theory when in normal school everything was so boring and slow) and many more. While today thinking back on what we were learning I have some reservations (somewhat left-ish ideas, multiculturalism, how humanity spends money on space programs and advanced medicine when there are starving people on the planet, etc) overall going there helped me to the path of pursuing knowledge. I went there from 3rd to 9th grade, then in highschool they wouldn't do it 1 day a week anymore (because supposedly we wouldn't have time for that in high school, we would have too much material to learn in public school to spare a whole day - hah! I laugh at that now) but 2 of the teachers organized a private meeting once a week couple of hours in the evening. I didn't go, (father wouldn't pay for it since he didn't like the political ideas of my teachers) but it was alright I got what I needed from that program. The program started I think 2 years before I joined it, and 2 years after I left it it was cancelled - lack of funding. In our society only the slow and the special needs and troublesome get funding and investment, smart kids don't need any programs. I kept ditching some classes here and there until the end of high school. I would sometimes proclaim myself sick and argue my parents that I should stay home. Or just that I should not go. But it was more managble than when I was at 2nd grade. I did not like history, or bible class (which we learn all the way until the 10th grade...), or literature or language (Hebrew class I didn't care much for. When they tried teaching me Arabic I wouldn't have any of it. English I loved and I learned it from the computer and television). Most of my humane teachers were aweful. History was about learning dates and going over jibbrish material that amounted to nothing. I remember we 'studied' WWII, the French revolution, the Russian revolution, the decades leading to the declaration of Israel, and the early years of Israel. We 'studied' all that, but we learnt nothing. Not a single thing. Until this day I have an innate resentment to these subjects. A resentment I'm working consciously to abolish, since there is much beauty and much wisdom to be learned from these subjects. It's pretty hard correcting the damage that was done in 12 years of schooling. I loved the exact sciences, math, physics, electronics. My scores weren't that great in the humane subjects, and were pretty good in the exact sciences. Everyone kept telling me it's a wonder I got the grades that I did, considering how many hours I missed at school and homework, etc. In the end it turned out alright because with my psychometric score I had just enough grades to be accepted to my university where I learn computers/economics, which is what I wanted. I'm in my 2nd year of university now and in economics they teach a lot of wrong things. I have a class next semester where they are going to teach me about Kaynes. I can't wait... At least I got my head set up stright with the right ideas, and my economics I learn individually at home and very little at the university (though some of the stuff they teach is alright). So when the professor spouts in a class how 'nothing is objective unless everyone agree to it' I can spot how crap that is a mile away. Kinda makes me think of MrCropper from youtube (which I highly recommend) who dropped from college and has a video up regarding the crap they teach there - where Plato is the professor and Aristotle is the student, and whenever Aristotle disagrees with Plato Plato says "I'm the professor!", that makes me laugh because I encounter that attitute occasionally. Whenever I have a professor who I think is reasonable enough to talk to, I go to him at the breaks and bring up certain points and the general attitute is 'you're just a student, your points don't need consideration'. Oh well, if nothing else having the piece of paper probably will provide some help for me later in life. As for IQ, I took some online tests, the results I got vary greatly. Internet tests are not much good I suppose. I'm kinda curious to take a real test someday, but I guess it's not too important for me because in the end it's just a number. It's not how much you score in a test, it's what you do with your mind. A smart person can be just as wrong as an average person. Having X IQ doesn't make you error proof. I gave mensa's website a look some years back. I saw nothing that attracted me there. Being a member of some organization doesn't rock my boat. The fact that being a mensa member is often used as bragging rights makes it less appealing for me. The fact that they charge quite money for membership makes it even less appealing. In the end it's like been mentioned here in this thread, if you want to persue interesting and brain intensive topics and occupasion and hobbies, then go persue them in society. I assure you you do not need mensa membership to do that, and I doubt it even gives you an advantage in doing it. Use your mind to determine what ideas you like and don't like and which philosophy you accept in your life. Objectivism definitely has a lot of the right ideas and I find the community to be on the smart side.

I don't know how you do it Paul. I see you on these talk shows and all the people around you make me sick to my stomach with their monsterous beliefs. If it was me I wouldn't been able to stand it. Kudos to you.

Excellent. Couldn't have put that any better.

I don't think he'll recover. There is nothing good inside of him. In one scene he tells Dagny "I am your brother" and she says it's monsterous. It is monsterous because despite being related to Dagny, he has no good in him. The problem as I see it is that there are endless number of people like James Taggart all over the world. Changing that fact is something I am having a hard time imagining, although I know that's the goal.

You make 2 common mistakes: 1. You believe that without regulations employers will make their employees work under extreme conditions. 2. You believe that a large part of those who are rich are rich by either inheritance, cheating, or otherwise manipulating rules in their favour, therefor are unintitled to their wealth. I'll address these 2: 1. Supply and demand of workforce. I can make a long example to describe this, but suffice to say if you offer your workers 5 cents an hour, I will open up a competing company and pay my workers 10 cents an hour, and you will be left without workers. Then of course someone else will steal all my workers and so on and so forth until workers will finally get paid what their time is worth to the employer. 2. There's a large amount of hate towards the rich in today's society. The way things are, if you have a lot of money, then you are guilty. This is a sad state of affairs. About inheritance: Suppose you started out your life at an average family with an average amount of wealth. You then proceed to work your butt off all your life, not so much for your sake, but for your children's sake. You want your children to have the best life possible. You've sent your kids to the best schools, they have a degree from college or a university. At the end of your life you've accumulated a significant amount of wealth, which your want to leave behind you for your children. Is that wrong? Are you not entitled to give the fruits of your work to that which is most important to you? It may be obvious in this example that you are entitled to leave behind a better future for your children (I hope it's obvious to you), but many people in today's society claim it is unjust for one kid to have a better starting point than another. That the kid of the bum who spent his life on welfare is entitled to exactly the same start as the kid of the person I described above. I actually had a conversation once with someone who believed it's not fair for a person to leave behind his wealth for his children. If you have a similar belief, then you are too far off for me.

I found out about your youtube songs through reading this thread. After watching just a few of the songs I thought I'll come back here and make a post and tell everyone how they should go watch them right now, and now I see this thread is actually made by the same guy who made all these songs! Excellent - Now I can tell everyone to go watch these songs right now, AND congratulate you and tell you how much I love your songs!

I recommend you give http://forum.bodybuilding.com/ a look. That's where I learned pretty much everything I know about physical fitness. Don't let the name fool you, that site deals with fitness in general and not just with bodybuilding. The forums is the place to look. The mainsite has some articles but I don't find most of them too good.

I have 2 questions regarding inflation that's been on my mind: 1) How much of inflation is usually caused (in a typical western country in a typical year) by the government printing money, and how much (if any) by the nation's purchasing power decreasing? I imagine if a large quantity of factories closed in a country, then that country's purchasing / producing power would decrease causing inflation of national currency by itself. Am I right? 2) Regardless of whether or not inflation is generally caused by government printing money, is there ever ANY rational economic sense in a government printing money? I figure in this forum everyone probably share my view that - 'no, government should mind it's own business and stay out of the economy', but is there some good case for money printing I'm unaware of? Is it ANYTHING at all besides a stealth tax? Thanks in advance.

You don't need to build a large hydron collider to hear people rambling about how the end of the world is coming. All you need to do is go to your local religious center. This is exactly what's going on here. If the experiment were dangerous, the physicists wouldn't have performed it. It was the physicists themselves who first hypophosized the possibility of a black hole forming and possibly getting out of hand. They thought about it because they wanted to think about all possible dangers before performing the experiment. Then, they came to the conclusion it's not going to happen, so the experiment can be done safely (I'm just an amateur in physics, but as far as I understand in order for a black hole that can suck in the earth to be created, extra dimensions are needed beyond those that we presently know.) THEN, and only then, hysteria lovers, religious groups, doomsday prophets, and anyone who likes his 5 minutes of media time, jumped on the wagon and started 'warning' the world about the reckless scientists performing their evil experiments. Some even claim the physicists are oblivious to the idea it could happen, and we need to tell them. These people got it backwards. Some would say: 'how can you be 100% sure a gigantic black hole will not be created?' Well, you could say something like that about every new technology: Computers - How can you be sure man won't create evil AI that will take over? (Skynet vs matrix machines. Who would win you think..?) Automobiles - How can you be sure car emissions aren't ruining earth's fragile eco system forever? Maybe we're killing off every living thing on the planet. Industry - Same. Radio - How can you be sure we aren't transmitting our location to evil scheming alien civilizations. (Starwars Empire is on the way. Can E.T.'s finger save us in time?) So in the end, you gotta remove every scientific discovery man ever made if you follow this line of thinking. And of course any NEW discovery is strictly prohibited. End of the world prophecies are a dime a dozen. Humanity never learns. You never see mobs of people chasing false prophets the day after their prophecy did not fullfill. They just forget about them and business as usuall. Pity.

This isn't meant to answer your question 100% because it's a different situation than the one you're describing, but I read your post and felt like sharing something that happened to me. I live in Israel and here we got 2-3 years compulsery service (females-males). I went on to become an officer which added a 4th year to the service. I believed a lot in military service and that it is important to defend my country and have a strong army so that the citizens will live safely. I put a lot of efforts in during my service because I believed it is right. Then in 2005 our government decided to forcefully remove all the Jewish settlements from Gush-Katif and other places. That is not what I had envisioned when joining the army / becoming an officer. They've picked me to be one of the 'evacuators' to which I strongly opposed. I tried arguing with my superiors, told them that I morally object to forcefully removing Israeli citizens from their homes, and that I should not be sent on that assignment. But they wouldn't hear any of it. They just said it's the government decision and we do not get to choose our missions blah blah. I was pretty torn and didn't know what to do. I was sent to be trialed but just before the trial the commanding officer invited me in for a talk and in the end convinced me to go and I wasn't trialed. I remember very vividly as I declared to him that: 'the consequences of the evacuation were not my moral responsibility as I was forced into doing this. All the Israeli citizens who will die in future wars as a result from this will not be on my conscious'. Today I am not so sure I agree with that statement, but it helped me get through it then. During the whole thing I tried doing the absolute minimum that I could, just following orders passively and nothing more. Today I wish I'd done even less, or perhaps that I wouldn't have went and gotten trialed instead. After it was over I felt very differently about the army. I finished my service but without the passion or the enthusiasm that I had before. Today I hate even thinking about the army, and I will probably feel this way for the rest of my life. So in the end, when there is a question between your morality and the laws, go with your morality. I wish I had. Retrospectively I think I would have been feeling a lot better about myself today if I did some jail time and had a criminal record or whatever but stood up for what I believed back then. I hope this helps.