Jake_Ellison

One small criticism: there's speculation about the motives of the people who have joined. Sure, if they joined out of guilt, everything in the article applies, but what if some joined out of an honest desire to help Africans? That is, like the article admits, consistent with their pursuit of happiness.

Fallacy of reification: Just because some of the people holding an evil idea are acting on it, it does not mean you may wage war against all of the people holding that idea, including the ones who are not acting on it. You said it yourself, the crime is acting on the idea, not holding or speaking it. Trying to circumvent the requirement of establishing whether someone is or isn't guilty of acting on those beliefs, by relying on the fallacy of reification and pretending the idea itself is literally waging war against us is illogical.

"We'll do everything we can to prevent it." -That's obviously not true. He's doing almost nothing to prevent it.

Sounds like you're looking at the wrong kind of pornography. Find some that doesn't involve those things you mentioned (preferably some that doesn't involve "porn stars" who make a career out of having sex on camera, at all).

Ayn Rand argues for the right to self defense without relying on the premise of forfeiture of rights. Is there something specific that is wrong about Miss Rand's argument for the right to self defense?

That wouldn't be all that matters to me. To me, what would matter most about any copy of Mein Kampf are the ideas in it and the author's actions. So I would get rid of it. But I don't see anything wrong with your point of view. It certainly doesn't compromise your moral standing in any way that you like old books and are able to focus on a single aspect of the items in your collection. If I felt the same way, I would keep the book too, I see no moral issue with that. I would of course have a problem with someone who collects Nazi memorabilia because it reminds him of the Nazis. Such a person has screwed up values. It can be, if the art is about the evil the author is guilty of. Otherwise no, art is just like any other product. Well yes, but that's because he's alive and would profit from it, not because art is different than a practical invention. You also wouldn't buy a car from the guy, for the same reason you don't buy his films.

I don't see how the flames from a few books would put anyone in danger. Even if a piece of charcoal landed on someone's coat, they could just flick it off and they'd be fine.

Not going out of your way is a good heuristic to go by. (by heuristic I just mean a general criteria to keep in mind, but not a rule set in stone: in some cases -when there is an unusual reason for it, or when this heuristic contradicts a different one that for some reason should apply instead - you should go out of your way to follow etiquette) Another obvious one is following etiquette more when dealing with someone older or a figure of authority, or when conducting some type of official business. I can't think of any more on the spot, but I'm sure there are plenty more. [edit] Oh yeah, I thought of a third one: refrain from following the rules of etiquette during sex.

This a a pretty straight forward explanation of what the word inalienable means. It requires no further context to realize it's obviously true that you can't have inalienable rights that some people in some cases can alienate. But it says nothing about what property rights actually are. That is explained in detail in Ayn Rand's "The Virtue of Selfishness" and in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal", starting with this quote from VoS and the free online AR Lexicon (the quote is not a full explanation, that's beyond the scope of the thread): The key relevant point here is that the right to property is, like all other rights, the right to action. You have the right to act in any way you see fit (and use material values you create in any way you see fit), as long as your actions don't infringe on the rights of others. That is the extent of your rights. Those are the rights which are inalienable. The right to violate someone else's rights isn't there: not because we're making an exception as far as it being inalienable is concerned, but because it's not a right to begin with. As far as this particular case, some would argue that the building of the mosque is in itself a violation of rights, because it is a part of the war against the US. I disagree (based on my current knowledge), and would add that even if that charge was true, it would require a lawful trial in which it is proven, before the people behind it can be punished for their "crime". Some NYC board can't just deny this group of Muslims a permit because they think they are criminals. People protesting about it are also not helpful in determining who is and who isn't a criminal. P.S. In a civilized society, what is and what isn't violation of rights must be determined objectively (usually through the court system, in cases of armed conflict through other methods prescribed by the Constitution - but never through public opinion or political decisions by people not constitutionally appointed to make such decisions).

When you have time to get to know someone, you get into habits of interacting with them that are likely different than "manners". But they are still conventions (casual and different as they may be), which would cause a stir if suddenly "club member" were to completely ignore them. So with friends, staying away from cumbersome nonsense and forming convenient habits of interaction based on mutual understanding is the way to go. If such habits involve things others might consider "rude", that's fine. They're not rude when everyone is aware that what is meant by them is not an insult. But with strangers and acquaintances, you have to stick to the manners everyone's familiar with to some extent. I still search for a balance between being formal/forced and casual (for instance I don't completely give up on trying to be funny and I skip pleasantries if they seem forced), because most people even prefer to deal with strangers who are not hiding their personality and preferences completely, behind a wall of polished behavior. [As an aside, all of the above applies to adults. If you have children, you have to teach them manners, so you have no choice but to eat properly, say thank you way too much, not swear etc. when they're around. Same goes if you have friends who have children.] I'm sure you're right about the majority of manners one might find in the average book some fluff writer decides to publish from time to time. They have to fill a whole book, so most of them will be useless or unnecessary. But the manners which are commonly in use aren't. They are in use because they help make human interactions more pleasant. (I'm talking about gestures normal people do, not those some do out of snobbery. - I hope snobbery's a word.)

I wouldn't read too much into it if I were Hitchens. Christians have a duty to pray for everyone, including their enemies. If they don't show enough love, God strikes them down with vengeance. In fact God puts so much emphasis on love that people who have hatred in their hearts often end up spending eternity literally on fire, being tortured by the Devil.

That's a matter for the other thread you started (about the morality of taxes). Objectivism is opposed to any kind of taxation, or spending on private projects. From a legal perspective, the US Constitution and laws allow for both taxation and spending on private property. In fact, US laws specifically prohibit discriminating against a project just because Muslims are involved.

The United Nations does not have a military. But other than that, sure, they can invade Arizona, once the Martian Alliance decides to leave.

No. Parts of the Arizona immigration law were blocked by an American judge, and will likely ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court of the US. The UN has no say in the matter, nor will it ever have any. Whoever told you otherwise was lying to you.

Have you watched the Eagles game? If they would've started Vick, he would've won that game by himself. He looked like the MVP of the first week to me.

I don't think there is any way you can capture the meaning of the concept justice (which is necessary if you wish to determine what the right to punish a violation of rights means) with the notion of "forfeiture of rights". It is an oversimplification.

You're not saving it for your kids after you're dead, you're saving it while you're alive. After you're dead, you're welcome to ignore your loved ones completely . (and yes, that is really what is wrong with your reasoning, I wasn't just going for the joke)

Based on very well documented and in depth scientific research, lactose intolerance in adults is caused by a genetic trait in some races of people (pretty much everyone except Northern Europeans and their descendants in North America and Australia), that prevents the creation of the enzyme which helps metabolize lactose, after childhood. Pasteurization isn't what makes people lactose intolerant. If whole milk doesn't make you bloated, that's because you're not lactose intolerant. Over two thirds of the global adult population is lactose intolerant. It's not that difficult for a doctor to realize that bloating and cramping comes from undigested lactose, not "dirty milk". I'm aware of your list of foods that are supposedly good or bad. I'm also aware of a few other hundred people's lists, which contradict yours and each other. So now what, am I supposed to flip a coin to figure out which one of you is right, or are you going to prove you're right with something more than claims of what is "real food" and what is "dirty food", based on information that was lost two generations go and miraculously found by you?

What difference does it make who's doing the shooting? I listed the three legitimate reasons to shoot someone. Trespassing is not one of them, no matter who you are: the property owner, the Police, the President, or the Lord Jesus Christ the Heir to Everyone's Delegated Rights Himself. There is no right, actual or delegated, to shoot someone for swimming onto your island. Period. Nor do you have the right to throw him back into the ocean, because that would also be homicide. As long as he is not an objective threat to your life (which by merely swimming to shore and refusing to leave he is not), you only have the right to remove him safely (i.e. by giving him a boat ride off your island).

My vote is on assuming nothing in this article is true. I certainly can't imagine there is any reason to believe the part about him being banned is true, bu the part about threatening the President is a lie.

What's an example of an idea you cannot display freely?

No, because reason can be broken into other component parts (reason is the process of observing reality, forming concepts in accordance with observed reality, using concepts according to the rules of logic). An axiomatic concept is the identification of a primary fact of reality. Reason can be defined in terms of other concepts, therefor it is not axiomatic.

I can't answer that, I don't know the man. I could of course speculate, but the proof that he is evil lies in what he has done, not in what we believe he might be thinking. He is willfully stifling free speech, and that is destroying everything that is good in Russia. I guess you could speculate that he is evading the consequences of instilling a culture of fear and crony-ism in Russian society. Russia is not a third world country, that's barely hanging on. It has great tradition and culture, it has intellectuals and skilled professionals, and if allowed the freedom, it would develop into a modern civilization. Putin's repressive regime is holding it back. You can't have cultural progress without a free trade of ideas.

No. If you are British (or a citizen of the 37 other countries which are part of the Visa Waiver Program or NAFTA), you could simply fly to Canada and take a bus across the border, with your passport. While I assume there is a way for border agents to check visitors' names against a list of threats, that's very far from giving this load of nonsense credibility. This article is ridiculously devoid of any kind of verified facts (what would be nice is reverting to the old "minimum of two sources before anything gets published" rule of journalism, where one 18 year old's story isn't enough to cause Drudge to put "UK teen banned from the US for life" up in a headline for his gazillion readers). It's also the only article on the subject, everyone else "reporting" on it is just referencing the same text. I'm guessing the kid was questioned about the letter, and that was it. He either misunderstood the cops about being banned from the US, or he made that part up.

Yes they are: "I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God." 5 U.S.C. §3331 (Oath of Office for Federal Employees)