The Lonely Rationalist

SNerd, I have 2 questions about what you've said here: How would the government decide how many X-polluting rights each company would get per year? Wouldn't your system allow unscrupulous businesses to cut back on production, so that they have more X-polluting rights to sell, thus holding the productive companies hostage?

I'm pretty sure that if the economy remains as it is in 2012, Obama won't stand a chance. Why would you think otherwise?

Here it is. She'll be gone by the end of the month. She didn't really give a reason. A lot of people are guessing it's in preparation for a Presidential run in 2012. If she plans on running then, this seems like the worst thing she could do. It makes her look flaky. So, for 2012, that leaves the GOP with the options of...Well, all I can think of is Romney.

Was the Wiemar Republic really a democracy?

Good point. I guess I have an exaggeration problem. I've edited my post to correct myself.

Er, no. In a democracy, the mob has total power. A majority of people in a democracy can vote that a minority has no rights. I wouldn't say that that is necessarily a good thing. A democracy CAN be good, but only if all the citizens have proper knowledge of individual rights. So, according to this, the U.S. would have a right to invade the U.K. because the U.S. has a better idea about individual liberty? That's not right. Nations that respect individual rights can only invade those that don't (Dictatorships).

Well, how are we defining permanent damage here? The fact that the foreskin is gone is permanent damage. What if a parent cut off a large patch of skin on a child's arm for no reason? After a while, the skin would grow back, meaning no "permanent" damage was done. Should that be legal?

Matthew 13:42 They will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Matthew 25:41 "Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. Luke 16:23-24 In hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. So he called to him, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.' Revelation 20:10 And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever. Mark 9:48 In hell worms that eat the body never die, and the fire is never put out.

So do you have the right to use branding irons on your son if you "like the aesthetic" of the burn?

Dan, do you really not know what happened RIGHT AFTER THIS? John 18:11 Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it? After which he healed the servant's ear. So yes, Jesus was encouraging the "Lie down and take it" attitude.

Bad news: Looks like Al Franken is going to become a senator any day now. This will give the Democrats 60 members in the senate, which means the bill will probably pass.

I think that was Jerry Falwell.

Hey! Finally, a consistent Christian! One that actually wants to re-establish a theocracy here in the U.S. just like the one God commanded built in the Old Testament. After all, if one's a Christian, to be fully committed, you have to take ALL the commandments literally, even the ones about stoning gays.

Why would the fact that a parent tells you to lie make any difference compared to lying normally? It's still a faking of reality.

One movie I hated was The International. Not only did it have a horribly made ending that made me think the movie ran out of money 3/4 of the way through filming, it's much worse than the typical "Corporations are evil" movie. The lowest point in the movie was when the main character asks the former communist "If you spent so long fighting against capitalism, why do you know support an entity that is the incarnation of what you once hated?" According to the movie, a bank that engages in assassination and coups is an "Incarnation of capitalism." It was also sickening how the movie stated the goal of banks was to control people by making them "Slaves to debt" and that the governments around the world are supposedly in the employ of banks.

How was it philisophically bad/ i've never seen it, but from what I understand, it's just a movie about

Finally! An anti-religion movie not directed by Bill Maher!

I disagree. Remember, in the end, What? The movie had no messages about bringing down the rich. The only point of the movie was that you shouldn't be so obsessed with making money that you reject your personal life.

A good quote from http://pajamasmedia.com/vodkapundit: "Never have so few stolen so much from so many to achieve so little."

Well, looks like it just passed 219-212. Still needs to go through the Senate, though.

By that logic, it would be silly not to call a 10 year old child a senior citizen just because it's in an early stage of aging. Yes. It doesn't have rights until it becomes an individual being. This is similar as to how a sperm is not an embryo while it's traveling through the penis, but it is once it's fused with an egg. There's always a cutoff point as to when things become other things.

Yeah, I saw a similar situation at my local Borders store. Went there about 3 months ago. They had 2 softcover versions of AS and 1 The Fountainhead. Just went back recently, they now had 10 copies (some hardcover) of AS, 3 of The Fountainhead, 2 of Anthem and 5 of the new We the Living edition.

I think he's saying that he finds late-term abortion immoral, but doesn't think it should be illegal. Speaking of which, I was recently reading an article by Leonard Peikoff (http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2404) and he says: "The issue here is the proper role for government. If a pregnant woman acts wantonly or capriciously, then she should be condemned morally--but not treated as a murderer. If someone capriciously puts to death his cat or dog, that can well be reprehensible, even immoral, but it is not the province of the state to interfere. The same is true of an abortion which puts to death a far less-developed growth in a woman's body." My question is... Rationally, why is it immoral to wantonly kill an animal or a fetus? is it because it is irrational and without purpose?

Ah, well, thanks for the info.

I don't know much about abortion, so don't take this as me being anti-abortion, but why is this procedure "absolutely necessary?" Can't they determine birth defects early on in the pregnancy? Why would someone need a late-term abortion?