-
Content Count
2928 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
9
Jake_Ellison last won the day on November 5 2011
Jake_Ellison had the most liked content!
About Jake_Ellison
-
Rank
Senior Member
- Birthday 10/26/1981
Previous Fields
-
Country
Not Specified
-
State (US/Canadian)
Not Specified
-
Relationship status
Single
-
Sexual orientation
Straight
-
Real Name
Jake Ellison
-
Copyright
Copyrighted
Profile Information
-
Gender
Male
-
Interests
history, nature, art, technology
Recent Profile Visitors
4409 profile views
-
mdegges reacted to a post in a topic: I'm depressed again....
-
chuff reacted to a post in a topic: Conversations With God
-
2046 reacted to a post in a topic: Howard Roark blowing up Cortlandt was not Objectivist, and neither is
-
Q.E.D. reacted to a post in a topic: Listening to Music that is not Art
-
Ben Archer reacted to a post in a topic: I'm depressed again....
-
MissLemon reacted to a post in a topic: I'm depressed again....
-
Saw you're in the "banned" group...hope that's not a permanent thing. I've found your input very helpful on several occasions
-
Jake_Ellison reacted to a post in a topic: Oklahoma bans Sharia from courts, CAIR files lawsuit
-
Jake_Ellison reacted to a post in a topic: Rand's views on murderer William Hickman
-
Can one patent life and living organisms?
Jake_Ellison replied to iplaydrums24's topic in Political Philosophy
If farmers were allowed to just use any seeds that resulted from any accidental contamination, in any way they see fit, that would effectively remove the control Monsanto has of their intellectual property. They can't stop the wind and the bees, that is a naturally occurring phenomenon. The role of the Courts is to prevent both sides from exploiting it. Having the farmers keep the harvest, but not allowing them to further use the strain for free, is an acceptable solution. It's not true that this means farmers have something stolen from them by Monsanto, or that they are forced to buy -
I don't know what "international law" they're referring to. They most certainly can't outlaw treaties and agreements the federal government commits to. As per Article Six of the Const., those supersede local legislation. As for the Sharia thing, they're most definitely not allowed to single out a single religion, in their legislation. That's an obvious violation of the First Amendment. They could of course ban all religions from consideration, but that would for instance also involve banning the Christian definition of marriage, and giving the "activist" judges they so dread another excell
-
Luck exists, but that's not an example of it. Like OCSL said, the fact that our parents had us was their decision, not luck. Luck is having an event that you knew had only a certain probability of occurring, happen, and benefit you. I think its role in our lives is overblown though (partly because people assign events that aren't lucky at all, to luck). The chances of someone being consistently lucky are very small. More often than not, successful people are not actually lucky, they just have better knowledge of the probabilities of future events, and therefor their choices seem lucky t
-
Interesting Article on Procrastination
Jake_Ellison replied to CapitalistSwine's topic in Psychology and Self Improvement
Isn't that from a Nike ad? -
Can one patent life and living organisms?
Jake_Ellison replied to iplaydrums24's topic in Political Philosophy
That's what you got out of that ruling? Really? Because it says the exact opposite. -
They were either more curious about Politics and Economics than you were, or they were more avid readers, to the point that they were willing to read a thousand page novel just because it came highly recommended. Either way, I don't see what luck has to do with discovering and reading a great, widely published bestseller (Atlas Shrugged), or learning about a prominent figure of the American Right (Ayn Rand). She's probably been mentioned on every political talk show that ever existed, in the past five decades. Of course, if we were talking about some obscure book or author almost no one he
-
I think I see where you're coming from here. If a man, when realizing his life, lived by his own values, is over anyway, decides to end it on his own terms rather than prolong it in a way that isn't his chosen life anymore, that is a life affirming choice, based on one's values, aimed at capping off an entire existence by making the last few minutes noble. He chooses this instead of the alternative: making the last few years painful and worthless at the expense of those last few minutes spent pursuing his values, and at the expense of having spent his entire life (shortened as it is) in ac
-
You shouldn't be using 'predict the future' and 'determine probabilities' interchangeably. No, Statistics doesn't predict the future. And I wasn't predicting your future either, I was giving you your odds of dying because of your habit. Predicting the future would mean telling you that you are going to die from it. That is what you did, by the way (you predicted that smoking will take 5-10 years off the end of your life), and that's what started this discussion. It is wrong to assume cures for ailments caused by smoking are more likely to be developed than cures for other ailments. So