Thales

The Iranians are literally barbarians. It's not a matter of style, it's the fact that we talk to them at all that is absurd.

This Iranian woman was imprisoned, raped and severely beaten several times because she wouldn't wear a head scarf. Check the video out here: So, then, should we negotiate with these people or run a sword through them? That's rhetorical. And Charlie Rose all dapper and proper has a gentlemanly conversation with the Iranian leader. I didn't watch but a few minutes of the second. The point is that it's lunacy to talk to people like the Iranian leader. If the press were doing their job, they would expose Iran fully for what it is and continually broadcast their abuses against Iranian citizens with the thought this kind of thing must end, but they clearly don't want to be bothered by it.

Well stated. Instead of dealing the arguments made, they impute to them arguments that they never made, and Chomsky is doing the same thing. But, with the attack on character you identify, what we really have is an ad hominem argument, but one for which there is no evidence of the actual character flaw. It's laughable. These "protests" have had more of a picnic atmosphere. Again, it's the left gone nuts. They are loopy people who don't objectively evaluate much of anything. Remember, during the Republican convention it was left wing radicals that were engaged in overt violence, e.g. dropping cement bags on buses going to the convention, and throwing urine bombs at people. And during the Democrat convention there were quite a few lunatics demonstrating, egging cops on and then faking injury.

Why are you having difficulty with this? Vladimir Lenin was a communist who worked to create a communist state in the Soviet Union. The country was collectivized. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Lenin They certainly didn't create a free society, where men could create and sell the products of their efforts. They enslaved a whole population, and murdered millions, and wherever communism is tried these are the results. Communists invariable promote dogmatism and create an impoverished, enslaved population. The underlying reason this happens is because collectivists consider the collective to be the highest good, and the individual's highest purpose is to serve the collective. This means that individuals become expendable and mere toys to be played with for the higher purpose. This results from altruism, and the idea that selfishness is evil. That's the fundamental driving force of communism and any form of collectivism.

They can evade all the want, but leftists in America and Europe defended the USSR the whole time it existed, especially the extreme ones.

I thought post #40 was funny. "Shut up!" That's the best these leftists can do. I also think it's amusing when leftists say they are not war mongers. The Soviet Union wasn't a vicious war mongering state? N. Korea? etc. It's to laugh.

That is beautifully put. Yes, that was a great catch by Dwight in the End Zone ... it kicked off the Niner Dynasty over the next 10+ years. Of course, the Cowboys did something greater, but I won't mention anything now, because other teams need to shine sometimes too.

One maestro violinist can be a great listen when playing a great piece. Two maestro violinists is off the charts. The sheer quality of play is amazing ... Itzhak Perlman and Isaac Stern play Bach Double Concerto:

Carl Sagan is (or was) an astronomer, a professor at Cornell, so he knows the theory. From what I understand, that is the standard view. I didn't get any God implications from it, myself. I think you're reading into it something that's not there, especially when Sagan goes to pains to explain why he doesn't believe in a god in that same series.

Here is what James Cameron said about those who don't go along with the AGW hysteria. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/lachlan-marka...n-beck-f-hole-0 and

At least an implicit -- sometimes explicit -- belief in individualism and the idea that pursuing your life and happiness is a good thing. It's a benevolent, life-loving and freedom loving spirit. His spirit is very down on humans and achievement. He's got a downer psychology, not a benevolent, life-loving psychology. He's a dour, pouty person. He's also a con man.

He's an American, yes, but not in spirit. In spirit he'd be more at home in Nazi Germany or Communist Russia. The guy is pathetic.

81! My god! you have him older than he is! He's only 81. Don't you think he's endured enough?

1776, don't forget that. Thanks for the clarification.

Racism existed and exists, but it's not the reason for the war or the hatred of the Japanese, and the Japanese certainly have had their share of racism. We opened up trade with the Japanese prior. JJ. Hill, in fact, created an effective overland trade route to the Pacific. The reason for the war was that the Japanese became imperialists and very brutal. Racism is wrong, obviously, but I'm not following the meaning of this sentence.

I don't know. Sounds funny to me. Racism wasn't the reason for the war nor the level of hated. America was a *just* country, big time.

It's very common in war to come up with negative descriptions of your MORTAL enemy. When you see your friends dying all around you you're not in the mood for niceties. The Germans we not loved either. Some of these leftists really have no comprehension of what's important in life.

That should read "I'm not sure that he DID any original philosophical work"

I guess as a practicing philosopher, as in applying philosophy. I would agree with that. I'm not sure that he had any original philosophical work, however.

I agree with Grames that he is not on a par with Aquinas as a "philosopher". Jefferson was learned in philosophy and probably had some original thought there, but I don't really think of him as a philosopher. He was a brilliant conveyor and arguer for a certain philosophical view that came from men like John Locke, and he was one of the primary founders of the greatest country in history. His legacy is as one of the originators of America, as an implementer of a rational, real-world-oriented, rights-based society. He was the intellect, or one of them, that created America. In addition to that, he was a Renaissance man, so highly educated in a wide array of areas, from music, to architecture, to language. A great example of a man of reason.

I was sold on it when I saw the little video promotion on it. No peripherals!! It's like a scaled up ipod touch. It looks as simple and elegant as any piece of engineering I've ever seen and it will compete across a wide spectrum of products, including with Kindle.

Aristotle did the more essential work, in that he provided the epistemological frame work necessary for science. The idea of hypothesizing and testing by *logic* against the real world, with the real world being the guide to truth was Aristotle's idea, and is the foundation of science. Aristotle did realize the importance of measurement, because he spoke of it. Later, with men like Francis Bacon, more precision was added to the method, and the experimental method added yet another powerful tool, but the essential idea of the scientific method was Aristotle's. The book "Aristotle" by John Herman Randall covers this. Aristotle was probably the greatest thinker in classical times. Archimedes was one of the most brilliant mathematicians, scientists and engineers of all time, but without the philosophy of Aristotle, we'd have no science, or logic or modern Western culture. You also have Thales, who was the first philosopher, mathematician (QED came from him), and who studied electrostatics and magnetism. To be the first at those things may make him the most impressive mind of the classical period.

The term "minarchism" isn't a good term. It's not an essential and implies anarchy. A proper government is one that respects individuals rights. A rights respecting government or capitalist government works better.

Your rights are your right to your life, your liberty, the fruits of your labors, and the pursuit of happiness. You are sovereign over your person and property. You can act over your person and property, and nobody can violate those rights, which requires the initiation of force. If you are free to act over your person and property, this means you are free to speak, since it is your person you speak with. And this violates nobody's rights, since you are not initiating force nor the threat of force against another by doing so. So, in a way, freedom of speech is a derivative right, which comes from the freedom to act over ones person and property. If I work and earn a bigger microphone, then I can reach more people. But, be aware, having a bigger microphone doesn't make your ideas better. If you are selling a bad product, spreading the news far and wide will have a negative, not a positive effect. As an example, the msm has been losing audience and they have a very big microphone. Conversely, having a small microphone and a great idea your ideas still can spread far and wide. Think of Ayn Rand's novels and how they were advertised largely by word of mouth.

And what greater illustration that bad epistemology is the reason for bad journalism. Philosophy right out of the schools corrupts a whole profession! Objectivism is the cure.