Black Wolf

This topic is not about defamation, but misinformation about a certain drug. Ie: Telling you a drug makes you crap roses when it doesn't. Fox News, back in 2003, threatened to fire Jane Akre if she did not wilfully spread misinformation about Bovine Growth Hormone, a drug that was approved by the FCC. She and her husband was fired, and they initiated a lawsuit against them. Fox News responded to the lawsuit by arguing that the first amendment protects their right to lie. Does the first amendment give you the right to broadcast lies about products? Potentially, if you advertise yourself as a news station, and proclaim to tell the truth, and refuse to, you can get sued. But if you advertise yourself as a satirical news source, you do not have to live up to any responsibilities of telling the truth. Fox News, however, establishes itself as giving you "both sides of the issue". Did Fox News at any point proclaim to give truthful information?

What about Fox News and their spreading misinformation about Bovine Growth Hormone? Is that libel? It's not defamation of a person, no. But would that at least be illegal?

This may not be particularly helpful, but there are two types of consciousness. Wakefulness and awareness. Wakefulness with reduced awareness would be something like vegetation Unwakefulness and unawareness would be comatose Awareness but unwakefulness would be lucid dreaming ..People can make movements with their body while being unconscious. Ie: they have reflexes. Whether or not they are "acting", I can't answer.

http://static.texastribune.org/media/documents/FINAL_2010_STATE_REPUBLICAN_PARTY_PLATFORM.pdf The Republican Party of Texas is very radical. They go as far as to say they want homosexual marriage to be a felony. Texas is fucked. As is their policy on abortions:

I forgot a particular part of my post. Excuse me. I was referring to this post. I intented to say I understood how he could have misconstrued Ayn Rand's intention based on this statement. An image of an obsessive, paranoid C.E.O stepping all over people to maintain his success comes to mind. That's what he probably thinks. But if I were to interpet Ayn Rand's statement based on what I know of her, I would say that what she meant was that you should not treat productive work and maintaining relationships as a dichotomy. As for the link where Ayn Rand talks about family relationships, here: I'm not even going to get into how Ayn Rand started the "neo-con movement", or even started any popular movement. Especially since nobody seems to accurately define what a neo-con really is. Sorry about all of the confusion.

So, how can you be "literally a retard"? Can you be a figurative retard? I mean, literally a retard would imply that Ayn Rand had some sort of severe mental disability. Or maybe she's just retarded in spirit. But whatever. What that one commenter clearly meant to say is "I am outraged at the fact that Ayn Rand suggested that my life be the moral standard". Understandable, and I am actually surprised that Ayn Rand even said that myself. Especially considering that, on the Phil Donahue show in 1979, she said that she considered relationships with your family to be of more importance than satisfying your temporary desires. But if your loved one ever demanded that you stop doing what you love, is it really more meaningful to stay with them?

Just in case people want examples of a "conservative" who's mad at Obama for not "taking action"... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCOzK1MNol0 It's towards the end

I would go with "ad hominem", since it's a refusal to attack the argument and instead disingenuously attack the person who made the argument. Your argument is wrong because you'll understand when you're older.

The idea of net neutrality is to ensure that Internet Service Providers don't favoritize access to certain websites. Let's say AynRand.net is an internet service provider AynRand.net makes it so that it takes much longer for your to access http://aynrandwasasluttybitch.net/shewasaw...shemustdie.html AynRand.net can't do that, according to net neutrality. Because it's naughty. Is it bad for ISPs to favoritise? Ethically, I would say so. I'm not knowledgeable about the issue, and I can't think of a good reason why an honest, productive, reasonable ISP provider would have to cut off access to another website. Which is why it usually doesn't happen. Net neutrality advocates are concerned about fixing something that was never broken in the first place. It's based mostly on "What if's". As far as I remember, AOL is the only ISP guilty of doing such a thing. Excuse me for not being very articulate, I'm tired

That was among one of the many responses I had, but he was already getting on the offensive and accusing me of being "another leftists who just repeats the question when he doesn't like the answer". Oh, I got a good one. If everyone were homosexual, nobody would produce children Therefore, homosexuality is bad If everyone were female, nobody would produce children Therefore, being a female is bad Vik, thanks. I'll have to research "integration by parts" on wiki

I'm trying to find an objective source on this, but I can't. At least not for the year of 2010

http://news.yahoo.com/video/us-15749625/ra...3ZpZGVvd2hpdA-- Hahaha what a bitch

Oh. Now this is something.

Oops! I am not sure what I was trying to say on the first one. He told me it was "selfish" to be homosexual, because it was not particularly helpful for the survival of the human race. I pointed out that the existance of artificial insemination makes it very much possible for homosexuals to have children. I decided not to get into the whole "Virtue of selfishness" arguments, and I also tried to avoid spending time on that because I wanted to keep the focus on DADT. My point is that this person -attempts- to find secular explanations for his mystical metaphysics.

So how do you guys feel about he argument that the Israelis are not at war with Hamas?

It doesn't hurt to try. But he did try to give me a "secular perspective" on why homosexuality is bad. He told me it was "selfish" to be homosexual, because it was not Yeah, it is very frustrating. But I find that no matter how cliche and pure rationalist another person's reasoning is, it never hurts to challenge him. It's kinda moot now, though, because he's now making ad hominem attacks against me. I generally assume that when people judge, they prepare to be judged. As for why I'd like to know if it represents a particular fallacy.. I guess it's no so much that I want to learn new fallacy terms, rather.. I just can't find how to put into words my complaints with the argument itself. Now that I think about it, would that be called "Moving the Goalposts?" Because we're arguing a policy, and he's demanding to know my position on a policy entirely different than this?

Yes, probably not a good idea to do this, yes? I'm having a hard time arguing with a Christian. I recognize the fallacies, but I can't really identify what exactly they are. It's regarding DADT. 1. His first argument is that if it shouldn't be a problem to let gays openly serve in the showers, then it shouldn't be a problem to intergrate men and women in the showers. It sounded like a straw man, except I don't think that's quite the accurate term for it. Is there a definition for a fallacy of "If it's okay to take action X, then why isn't okay to take action Y"? I accused him of making a question-begging analogy. I argued that it doesn't make 2. He says that his anecdotal evidence is empirical evidence. I told him that no, his evidence was not empirical. He argues that empirical evidence, by definition, is based on sensory perception. He referred to it as "his own empirical evidence". 3. When I used a Zogby statistic stating that 73% of soldiers would not mind serving with homosexuals, he claims that's "anecdotal". I told him no, it wasn't anecdotal. He askes me "Why is my polling of the military personnel I know any different than from the polling that Zogby did?". I am about to argue that Zolgby did a national study, and he just studied a few people.

Now, I'm of course not saying that the Holocaust was acceptable. But before Nazi Germany, many Jews had control of the industry. They owned the colleges, banks, auto industries, financial institution, and about 96% of the economy. The politicians did not particularly care, because they owned what the jews didn't. Now, I'm not an economist or a historian, but is there any economic explanation for how the majority of industry was owned by Jews? I've been told by many people that jews owned the colleges, auto industries, banks, and everything. Hitler was certainly not unique in being denied access by Jews.. almost everyone did. The business owners would do it on purpose, and it was very difficult to get a job. My concern here is: Maybe the only reason why so many Jews owned industry is because their religion holds education to be a virtue. I really am trying to avoid sounding as racist as posisble, but.. is it really their fault if they refuse to stop acheiving just because nobody else will achieve? What do people want the politicians to do about the people who refuse employment

Is it really possible for Palestine to do much with knives anyway? I mean, really. But still, the IDF was in the right to act according to the Blockade. EDIT: Pardon me. I forgot to acknowledge the other weapons, such as firebombs. I've actually been arguing about it with someone, and they say that IDF completley controls the narrative. You're only seeing the footage they want you to say, and it took them a whole day to release the footage.

But Wow.. really, what are the more simplistic choices of 3rd world countries? Kill others or die of starvation?

Not enough money to buy all 30 of them. It could also be that, even if they had the money to spare, they'd have to keep coming back the next day and the suspense would kill them. It could also be that they're worried that by the time they afford another one, the flavor they anticipated will be gone

Er, I mean that the concepts would be based on religious text. I mean, I'm GUESSING that's what he was referring to. I'll challenge him on that. Thanks!

Okay, so I've gotten into an argument with someone about whether or not this nation was based on Judeo-Christian legal tradtions. Our Constitution is secular. We don't have an argument about that. He argues that - The 8th amendment is based on "an eye for an eye" - Republicanism over Theocracy - Individualism over Collectivism - Democracy over Authoritarianism - Natural law over Positive Law He agrees that the Constitution is meant to allow for secular beliefs. What we do not agree on is that this nation's legal tradition is Judeo-Christian in nature. I argue that the Declaration of Independence provision that states that it is morally acceptable to revolt against an abusive leader, and the Second Amendment based on this notion is inconsistent with the Bible, and thus, it is not compatible with Judeo-Christian law. Is our government largely Judeo-Christian? I mean not to imply that many legal concepts Ayn Rand found to be moral were results of the aforementioned religions, but is our legal tradition Judeo-Christian in nature? Or is it just largely influenced by J-C?

I'm also in a relationship with a non-Objectivist. http://www.objectivistcenter.org/cth--1279...ectivists_.aspx This article might be of some help to you. The success rate of marriage between Objectivists and non-objectivists, it does not answer.

Re: The Grammar, that's not uncommon for military statutes, according to my friends in the Air Force