Inspector

Only if they are in fact murderers. IF they are, then it is okay. The problem is: can a justice system be sure enough to decide that? As others have said, IF the death penalty is acceptable, then anything else is as well, so long as it serves a rational purpose.

Something confuses me about your question: "convenience." How would you define that? What if your opinion is that the victim is acting from "convenience," but it is the victim's judgement that to use non-lethal force is too high of a risk to their personal safety? Can you concieve of a REAL situation where using non-lethal force does not increase risk to the victim? Because if the victim were my wife, and lethal force even slightly increased her chances for escaping non-harmed, I would insist that she use lethal force. I would think that the same principle would apply to any rational person.

Yes, I have. I have seen the abstracts, and those could be from anyone. I don't know those scientists so I don't know if they're loony or not. You're saying that if I call them up, they will talk to me, without me paying them, and will explain HST? I've seen that it works to increase my strength and muscles better than volume training and I've seen that it is consistant with the limited knowledge that my research and experience have taught. That's because you can't concieve that just because a man with the word "doctor" near his name said something that I might not believe him. If their studies are so conclusive, they need to post them on their website. Citing the study is no good; I need to actually SEE it. Can you provide me with an individual who trains to failure every 48 hours who has a similar genetic profile to myself (i.e. who is far from ideal in terms of hypertrophy?) That stuff might work on genetic freaks who have the same recovery abilities as Arnold, but what about me? Uh-huh. I was suggesting that one-set would provide superior gains. It's common sense. What would be the point of more than one set, if you do the first to failure? Explain that to me, please. Interesting, you reject my statement on the basis that it hasn't been shown in a study? So anything NOT shown in a study is instantly false, and anything shown in a study (legitimate or not) is instantly true. Come on, you don't seriously think like that, do you? Honestly, you have yet to do anything but copy-and-paste technobable. I've heard a number of slick salesmen in my times and you sir sound like a slick salesman to me. There's just something about your way of pitching this that sets off my fraud alarm.

Yeah, I think that it is a weight/structural issue with the z06. Of course, with a twin-screw supercharger, you'll make up for it I'm sure! I have pictures, but no means to get them into the computer just now. Maybe I can borrow a digital camera sometime when it's sunny. Of course at this moment my car is filthy, so no rush! I'm thinking of getting it dyno tested soon, I'll post the results, if anyone is curious. P.S. You had a '98 Trans-Am? Cool! I hope to own a 'vette myself someday. Of course, by then I suppose my 'Bird will be so much of a beast, I'll have to keep it. I'm thinking I might need a 4+ car garage...

"The square root of sod." Man, that is funny. As for HST, I've read everything thrown at me, and there is a lot that seems arbitrary. As for the 48 hours thing, that might well be, but I have not seen any PROOF so for now it's arbitrary. Ex-Banana-eater, you always claim the mantle of "science" and "studies," but anyone can CLAIM to have done a study. That doesn't make it so. No personal offense to you, but from what I can tell, HST is just hype and "internet bs." Also, even with the 48 hours claim, I see no reason to practice other parts of HST, such as lifting non-maximal weights for several weeks for no apparant reason. Also, the weight to lift seems arbitrary. Also, there is no reason to do more than one set. To even try to test HST, I would have to risk 6 months of my life in which I could be achieving the slow, but quite steady progress I have with HIT. It's just not worth the risk to me.

I drive a 1999 Pontiac Firebird Formula, which is not exactly stock anymore. Here's my signature from www.ls1tech.com: 99 Black Formula M6 w/Pacesetter LT's, 2.5" True duals over the axle w/flo-pro twisters, LS6 Intake, !AC, !EGR, !AIR, Home-ported TB, BMR LCA's, K&N FIPK, Nitto DR's. Also, I'm going to put on an underdrive pulley on tuesday. Last time I ran at the track it went 13.282 @ 106.8 mph with a slipping clutch and 80 degree temperatures. With my new mods, it should run high 12's. That probably means nothing to most of you, so let me just say that I'm driving the quickest thing here, at least until Stephen gets his new 'vette . And by then, I should have even more modifications.

How about just calling it XMAS? </Futurama reference> (Shame with that is, the "X" is actually christian-related. Something to do with Greek-Orthodox, I think...)

Pretty much as soon as they claim that something which is not an initiation of force is a crime which can and should be met with force, you pretty much have them at the point where you say, "that's monstrous." I wouldn't waste much time with them if they openly say that. The usual response at that point is that "Well, the factory owner is using force to defend himself." Hey, if they can equivocate the differance between economic and political power, why wouldn't you expect them to equivocate the differance between an initiation of force and the defensive use of force. Here's a standard response I give to THAT particular equivocation: Like BlackSabbath says, these people are completely looney tunes, so the easiest solution is to simply walk away.

I agree with the above evaluation of the Democratic party and the Left. Are you going to call ME paranoid? Can anyone here say that the above quote does not accurately represent the intentions of the Left?

You need to define the argument in terms of: is anyone initiating force? The concept that a person's rights can be violated without the initiation of force (i.e. "exploitation") is a false one. That's the starting point that you need to establish. If no force is being initiated, then what you have is a voluntary agreement. Marxists, of course, hate freedom and hate the idea that people might agree voluntarily to do things for other people. They would rather that all human relationships involve the use of coercive violence. There, that's a start.

I saw a car the other day with "save the earth" type bumper stickers. One caught my eye: "question reality." Hm.

If a level is harmful and thus an initiation of force, then how can someone trade for the "right" to pollute at that level? That's like saying that everyone has an acceptable violence level and that we can trade with each other if one of us gets too violent. Like I can pay Jimmy, who was not very violent this month, to give me some of his violence credits because I bashed some skulls in this month. All of this completely ignoring the question of whether I was acting in self-defense or not. (that being an analogy of whether any given level of pollution is a rights violation or not) So if they set the pollution credits too low then everyone has to pay bribes to do something that isn't a violation of rights, and at the same time, people can pay the bribe and legally violate rights. It gets you coming and going... It's a bunch of nonsense, if you ask me.

How he can so much as form a coherant thought, I have no idea. Well, actually, I have yet to hear a coherant thought from him... As to his identity, I was able to track his IP address on the capitalistparadise board as well as the fact that he was foolish enough to use the same email address to sign up for his dopelganger accounts. Also, he posted the same questions at the same times both here and on the capitalistparadise board. Finally, he also went by "I Kant" on the "che-lives" communist board, which I know because he had a link to his blog on both the "I Kant" account and the "ComradeRed" one, in the signatures. He wrote of his intention to write a "novel" to smear Rand, and even wrote a table of contents that had sarcastic versions of all the chapter titles in "For the New Intellectual." He posted this first chapter on a invisionfree board that was made to imitate the capitalistparadise board in some sort of sick fantasy. Finally, he had a blog in which he detailed discussion with ME in which I told him to either accept that existence exists or to get lost. He was fixated on Objectivism in general and me in particular. I don't know whether that's flattering or creepy. His fake board, his table of contents, and his blog, have since disappeared. Who know what became of him since. And now you know the rest of the story.

That was my sentiment, as well. Maybe I'll watch that show again...

Another good point from Thoyd Loki. The more the left/subjectivist/nihilists are given power, the more the right has the excuse to seize it and to "do something." Whereas if they are given center stage in a non-ideological-crisis, they will have to be a lot more careful of what they do. Of course that goes both ways, but we're hardly living in a theocracy. We are most certainly living in a leftist-dream of a mixed economy.

I'm fairly decided on voting for Bush. I'm not terribly worried about how he'll handle the war. I know many of his cabinet and our military leaders have their heads on pretty straight and I'm not too concerned he'll micro-manage them into doing bad things. I am worried that Bush will not remove social programs that will need removing. I am also worried that he won't slash taxes enough. Interestingly enough, Kerry would do far worse on both of the above, so that's not a regret on voting Bush vs Kerry as such. I am unhappy with his religiousness and am worried he may appoint someone to the supreme court that might screw with things. But I am more worried that Kerry would do the same. If the Dems had apponted someone less openly religious and altruistic, then I might have had a tougher choice. As Thoyd said, no Kerry no way.

If it was dry humor, it was lost on me. That fellow clearly doesn't understand Mentzer or his method at all. It does no such thing. It says only that brief, infrequent, maximal exertions are the OPTIMAL way to induce hypertrophy. Not that nothing else will. Mentzer clearly addresses this comment repeatedly. Those doing the opposite are only sucessful to the extent that they are genetic freaks. They are successful in spite of their methods. It's a silly attack on Mentzer since the author clearly doesn't advocate volume training. Actually, not at all. You would not be training to muscular failure, but rather failure of other elements of your system. Mentzer was clear on saying that this would NOT induce hypertrophy. I'd like to see a quote where Mentzer actually takes the position that a person should increase intensity. As far as I remember, he said that one should increase weight. It's clear he's never read Mentzer. Mentzer recommended those techniques because muscles retain certain types of strength even after positive failure. Not because they were "hard." Wow, another statement that could not have been made by anyone who has actually READ Mentzer. He is quite clear that high reps will induce systemic CNS failure before they even come close to inducing muscle failure. Thus they will NOT induce hypertrophy. He is quite clear on this. It's just like 99% of the yahoos that criticize Rand: they've never actually read what they criticize! Bah!

He's not an objectivist. He is in fact a communist and a person that denies that existence exists. Here, this topic deals with him: http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showtopic=1430 He went by "comradered" on a board I watch over. Here's a topic that deals with his blog: http://s7.invisionfree.com/capitalistparad...p?showtopic=296 Also here: http://s7.invisionfree.com/capitalistparad...p?showtopic=279 And here: http://s7.invisionfree.com/capitalistparad...p?showtopic=204 Oh, and as if all that wasn't bad enough, he also likes to plagarize articles as his own, and log onto boards he has been banned from with fake identities. So for sure he was up to no good here. Hope that answers your questions. (Also, he asked this question at the very same time that his blog showed his intention to write a critique of Rand. Not at all a coincidence, I think.)

Mmmmmm.... prions.

GreedyCap: I watched the first two seasons of that show and found it highly interesting. Then, I read a news announcement that said they had fired the writers because the show was "too intellectual." Immediately afterward, I saw a tremendous drop in quality from the show. The plots became contrived, the characters less interesting, and philosophy less prevalent. Also, it begun ripping off ideas in a rather obvious fashion from other scifi, instead of the fairly original stuff that they had going. I have not watched it in some time. It is possible that the show has improved since.

Mike, (can I call you Mike?) You're looking at about the hardest thing to do with your body that there is. Bruce Lee did a lot of work into getting the kind of results you are looking for, and he hurt himself pretty bad. The key is that you want to lift more quickly, but the faster you lift the less safe it is and the more likely you are to injure yourself, like Bruce did.

To answer the original question, I say deal with Libertarians in the exact same way as everone else: Use Rand's Razor. Make them state their premises. Don't allow anyone here to post if they do not accept the three axioms. Or, if you want to be gentler, don't allow anyone to post outside the metaphysics forum unless they accept the three axioms. As Betsy said, correct their false ideas, but trace them to where the contradiction is. If it's in metaphysics, then ban them until they recant. Do I have to go on about how pointless it is to talk to someone who doesn't accept the axioms?

I haven't been watching the forum much, so I haven't been around to give you your answer. Happily, though, RadCap gave it to you for me. Very good answer, RadCap, that's exactly what I was getting at. It's comforting to see that there are so many rational people around, and that we reach the same answers.

I am going to assume that the robot is not a programmed, deterministic being. But being immortal and invincible, it wouldn't have any use for volition. Because all choices eventually can be traced back to "live or die?" ALL choices. This is the entire basis for Rand's morality, so it's rather disturbing that so many have missed it. This is why all choices are OBJECTIVE and not subjective. Some people may fail in their introspections enough to say "I go kayaking because I feel like it," but more rational beings can DEFINE their feelings and the causes of their feelings. And there are rational reasons for MY feelings, thank you very much. I'm sorry if I'm being mean here, but I am just so sick of hearing people say "just because" when asked WHY they do things. Actually, I have hated that attitude since I was a small child (8, I think). Even then, I saw that there are reasons for what we do and feel. The idea that the robot would want to "feel in control of itself and the world" is projecting a human need on something that has no such need. Why do humans need to feel in control of themselves and the world? Simple: because we can die. A being that cannot die would have NO SUCH NEED. Pleasure and pain are indicators of what is good or bad for our survival. The robot would not have them because its survival is NEVER in question. The only way the robot would do anything at all is if its pleasure/pain mechanism were tied to something OTHER than its survival (like if it were programmed to protect humans), which is clearly not what Rand meant in the example. The robot would have NO self interest, so it would have no basis for ethics. It would have no REASON to do, or not to do, ANYTHING. Does that make it clear?

A quick and easy answer is that Iraq shot at our planes several times over the course of the ceasefire. (And that's the ceasefire from the first gulf war, which technically never ended) A somewhat more complex answer is that it was a dictatorship that violated the rights of its people and so had no right to exist... coupled with the fact that they constantly threatened America. Of course, don't take it from any of this that I think Bush's self-sacrificial strategy was a good one.