Cole

I think Burgess Laughlin had some good thoughts related to this question that may provide some guidance. What is a central purpose in life?

In addition to Renaissance Exercise, another good resource is the book Body by Science by the brilliant Objectivist physician Doug McGuff (here's its website). The book goes into extensive detail from a med school-based background to prove why Mike Mentzer was right about just about everything. If you want an overview before reading the book, I suggest viewing by McGuff. The topic is nutrition, but he spends a lot of time explaining the principles of HIT (the entire video is worth watching anyway). As far as information regarding the more specific, day-to-day application of HIT training, I recommend Drew Baye. Here is his website, and is a video that summarizes his ideas.

Why?

What do you like about it?

The Law of Causality presupposes existence- it's a description of the nature of the universe. Cause and effect wouldn't exist without existence. Nothing "caused" the universe- matter cannot be created or destroyed. It's a contradiction to say that existence as a whole requires a cause and then conclude that the first cause must, by definition, be something non-existant. Does God exist or not?

Tomer Ravid just sounds like a nerd

Which seven? You claimed that defense is what wins championships and then used the Ravens as evidence. That is the claim I was referring to. I don't understand the point you're trying to make here. The 49ers had an amazing Hall of Fame defensive back while they were winning Super Bowls and a great defense in general, therefore...defense must play a bigger part in teams winning NFL championships than offense? You seem to think that my argument is that no championship team has ever had a good defense, or that a better defense doesn't result in winning more games. Not only is this not my argument, but I even made sure I was clear in my last post: "I'm certainly not saying that defense is irrelevant, or that there has never been a championship team that also had the best defense in the league." Let's try it this way: You brought up Ronnie Lott as evidence against my argument here. Quote the claim(s) I made that you think have been disproved now that you've brought up the fact that Ronnie Lott played for the 49ers. I can't help but to get the sense that you're deliberately misunderstanding my points here, since my mention of the 49ers was a very clear and direct quote of your mention of the Ravens- not the Steelers. Re-read the context in which I brought up the 49ers and you'll see that it was in reference to Baltimore. It's dishonest of you to now pretend that you misinterpreted my point to be directed towards something you didn't post until after my original post in question. Again, here is the factual basis of my argument. Which part of that is inaccurate?

That's ironic, because I happen to live in Fresno right across the street from Bulldog Stadium and Trent Dilfer is a local celebrity around these parts. But even nation-wide, the fact that he earned a reputation as the worst QB to ever win a Super Bowl proves that the year was an exception to the rule- not evidence of the rule. I'm not saying the 49ers are the most successful NFL team, I was just questioning why you'd claim that a certain system is the most effective way to win a Super Bowl but then point to only a single championship win as proof. The West Coast Offense is one example of a system that resulted in more Super Bowl wins. You're welcome to mention them, because two examples out of 44 isn't strong evidence that good defense is more important than good offense. I'm certainly not saying that defense is irrelevant, or that there has never been a championship team that also had the best defense in the league. I think it's completely possible to acknowledge that there have been games that were won by the defense without contradicting the fact that looking at all the stats from all the teams over multiple seasons proves offense to generally play a larger part in winning games.

Ask them what? The Ravens have only won one championship. If I'm going to use a single team to determine the most effective way to win NFL championships then I'd rather use a franchise like the 49ers, who built a reputation for dominating Super Bowls using innovative passing plays. A system that won four Super Bowls within eight years and then a fifth just five years later (and has never lost a Super Bowl) seems like a better example of what works in the NFL than a franchise with a only one trophy. Quarterbacks win championships.

There's nothing to debate. Your friend didn't divulge any reasoning behind his conclusions. Ask him which specific parts of Objectivism he disagrees with and why.

I think we can safely assume that the video is longer than just the short clip shown here.

Which conservative are you quoting? My take on the spill is that it is definitely in BP's interest to stop the leak and clean up as much oil as soon and as effectively as possible, but I disagree with the environmental alarmists' claims that the situation is a huge catastrophic disaster. The only people who will come out of this incident truly harmed will be the men who were killed and injured in the initial explosion (yet the media didn't start referring to this story as a "disaster" until well after the explosion, once it became an environmental issue). Anybody who was financially harmed will have an ironclad case against BP, which will undoubtedly be paying settlements well beyond the $75 million federal liability cap. I am interested in hearing the reasoning behind the idea that no clean up effort should be made at all, since it's a position I've never heard advocated up until this point.

This isn't surprising but it's good to see it actually measured. Two economic misunderstandings that seem to be at the core of every liberal's political philosophy are the ideas that it is possible for the government to create jobs by spending money, and that a service being provided by the government would fail to exist if privatized.

I need clarity on what his argument is before I can refute it. In this first sentence he claims that not all voluntary trades are consensual, which would mean he's using a definition of "voluntary" that I'm unaware of. (Merriam-Webster [my emphasis]: "proceeding from the will or from one's own choice or consent") But then later in the paragraph he argues that the very trades in question are not even voluntary in the first place. Which is it? Those are competitive business practices. None of them impinge upon the freedom of anybody else to start their own company in the same industry. The don't ban entry the way that government does. His intent seems to be to prove that companies will do these things to set prices higher than the market would, but that's not where we're in disagreement. My point is that if a monopoly raises its prices without an increase in the cost of supply and independent of market forces, then this will create huge profit incentive for new suppliers to flood the industry until the prices reach equilibrium. His argument that high start-up costs would eliminate the creation of those new suppliers is unrealistic. These days, investors fund new business endeavors with even the highest start-up costs, as long as they'll make an adequate return on their investment. They find enough profit motive to do so even in these industries where the prices are set by the natural forces of supply and demand. So, in a situation where a monopoly has set prices independent of the market and created profits that greatly exceed supply costs, why wouldn't investors all be eager to get into that field? If the profit of prices set by supply and demand is enough incentive for investors to create new competition, then why wouldn't the even higher profits of prices set by a monopoly create an even higher incentive for investors to create new competition?

Yeah, I don't know how any reputable newspaper could print somebody who's saying that the Right has created the most "uncivil" period in modern US politics during Obama's presidency. It should be so obviously untrue to everyone who reads it, but instead many people seem to think it's fact and even repeat it. (Chomksy's biggest supporters) (The people Chomksy is warning us will turn America into something "more dangerous than Nazi Germany")