Black Wolf

Well, there's really only so much you can do when you're being interrupted constantly, but I was disappointed a little with Yaron. He was less Socratic and more eager to hit Hartman with "OMG ROCKERFELLER WAS A GOOD GUY". He should have just waited for Thom Hartman to bring him up

I'd actually perfer to see William Lane Craig debate an Objectivist. Put that guy in his place, haha.

What's illegitimate about it is taking advantage of the notion that lawyers should be licensed

Ah, I remember just four years ago when I used to hate this guy for being so rich, in a country where most people are poor. I wondered why he didn't just throw all of his money at every family in Mexico, just so they could eat for one single week. Man I was such a sucker.

I'm not so sure about this. For example, I can't just go up and say "Hey did you know that sin(x) can be solved by x - x^3/fact(3) + x^5/fact(5) - x^7/fact(7) + x^9/fact(9) - x^11/fact(11) ..... ". I would have to provide a mathematical proof for it, using derivatives, L'Hopital's rule, and all that other crazy shit. "It works because it's right every time you try it" wouldn't work. Now, I know mathematics has more demands for non-contradiction than other sciences, but it would be very unsafe to assume that a correlation implies causation until there is absolute certainty

http://www.aps.org/about/pressreleases/haroldlewis.cfm American Physical Society covers it's ass

Imaginary numbers certainly exist.. just not in the sense of quantity. Negative numbers are as existant as compelx numbers. You can't have negative 3 apples, and you can't have 3 + 4i apples. However, they can be applied as concepts. You can have negative money, in the sense that you owe. Concepts are not tangible objects, no, but they are the resultants of a process. Mathematics is a process. Use of concepts that are useful in establishing relationships is not pragmatism - pragmatism is rejecting moral principles for the sake of convenience. There are no moral consequences for relying on mathematics or complex numbers. But I'm not sure where exactly you are getting that religion plays a significant role in mathematics - yes, many mathematicians were religious people (And I'm not going to say they were Christians, because people such as Pascal have taken credit for what Chinese/Middle Eastern mathemaicians already discovered), but the connection is unclear. Perhaps I've missed your earlier explanations, but I may need to be refreshed. If you're only trying to illustrate that religious people aren't always adverse to reason, then I doubt anyone is arguing that. You can be a religious person and be reasonable, but you can't reconcile religion with pure reason. You can't claim to rely solely on reason if you integrate arbitrary data. At best, religion can only be acknowledged as an inspiration.

I don't get it. I'm gay, and I was not offended by Willow Palin calling someone a faggot. She's a teenager. I haven't been out of high school for very long, I know how they are. They're certianly not known for being able to articulate their dislike for someone. I never called someone a faggot when I was a teenager, but I've said some regrettable things. I'm so glad my mom never ran for any government position, because if I did, I'd be screwed.

Define "Godless societies". Also, do you consider countries like Jamaica, Uganda, and the majority of countries in the Middle East to be devoid of "Serious issues"?

Japan is still in a glass house (more like a twig house) for this one. Look at this shit, if you're prepared for mental scarring: <Link-removed-because-I-didn't-know-it-was-going-to-show-a-preview-in-the-bar> But it sucks that other countries are making fun of us for this. It's actually kind of embarassing.

I wonder how many instances of GM being criticized by the Tea Party memebers were conveniently overlooked by this person. By the way, what is it in particular that disgusts you about this article?

This guy lost me at "In the Chelsea Clinton Administration". This guy is a complete psycho.

Do you believe it is moral for the FDA to tell me that I have no right to chose between death, and taking a risky drug that could perhaps save me from dying? I don't care what I don't know about the drug. I just care that it's an alternative to death. If I was deliberately lied to about the drug, then me or my estate will have a case against him. But if there were simply things about the drug that he didn't tell me, then it's my responsibility to be aware.

Who says we have to disregard "imaginary numbers"?

I'd support the naked marxist over a person masked as a capitalist

I have a question: What questions can sociology answer that psychology can't?

And that's part of what you're doing wrong: you're not taking something to it's logical extreme, as you should. Taking something to logical mediation is setting yourself up for contradiction There's no such thing as "a bit of a contradiction". What is contradictory, is proclaiming to be in favor of individual rights, while using force of some sort against someone who uses his individual rights in a manner you (properly) disapprove of. This is why we don't use force against people for being racist. It's an inherent contradiction to say that not using force against a road owner is valuing human decency over property rights, since what separates us humans from other animals is that we survive without the use of force.

Judicial activism seems to be a complaint, generally, made by people who oppose the particular ruling in question. Even if the judge in question was actually picked by someone who shares their ideology. I bet there would not be such a shit-storm if a judicial activist ruled that kids should be allowed to pray in school (which, apparently, according to conservatives, isn't happening). They have no argument: that's why the resort to "Oh, the process was wrong" "Oh, the ruling was opinionated". "Oh, the judge was an activist". When the rule of law is on your side, use the rule of law. When common sensibilities are on your side, appeal to the majority. This is a policy that people of all political ideologies have taken to heart

It's more than just a denial of economics this author has, but a denial of reality. He anthropomorphizes "society", saying that the wealthy "owe" society, because generations before that wealthy person has created certain medicines and technologies that the wealthy people of today may benefit from, so as a result, they have an obligation to.. some other people who have no relevance to the things they benefit from.

The system really isn't supposed to allow for the majority to define anything - it does, of course, inevitably, but it's not supposed to.

But it does not do that. Judge Walker has done this entirely within the framework of the law.

I had no idea what the hell you were going on about, but I'm going to try my best to interpret it - you think society is the ultimate definer, and you think Judge Walker acted agaisnt this. Your claim is that Judge Walker only gave "his opinion". By what basis are you insisting that Judge Walker was being no more objective than "society"? What makes "society's" opinion on marriage, that it precludes same-sex relationships, any less of an "opinion"? What are his "cited precedents" that contradict this premise? Last time I checked, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim - it's the burden of proof on people who say that marriage specifically precludes people of the same sex from marrying. Your argument is, essentially, that because society wants marriage to mean what it does, that the definition of marriage should be democratically decided. As a result, you claim that Judge Walker's belief that gender is irrelevant to marriage is simply arbitrary. Another argument you have is that, even if gays were no longer allowed to marry, marriage would still be what it is. You can say the exact same thing about straight people no longer being able to marry. Marriage doesn't stop being marriage, just because people aren't allowed to do it. A doesn't stop being A just because nobody does A.

There is perhaps one way that Judge Walker's ruling can be considered unconstitutional.. Unfortunately, the 10th amendment says that anything not left up to the federal government can be left up to the states. Which is contradictory to the premise of individual rights, I understand that, but not many conservatives do. Many conservatives who are otherwise indifferent to gay marriage rights can always bring up that this ruling was made without reference to state's so-called rights.