mmmcannibalism

From what evidence was coming out; I am amazed she wasn't found guilty of at least manslaughter.

I would say that if the effects of your illness are ultimately* minor; it is probably better to suffer the occasional episode. One thing I would bring up with whatever medical professional you would be talking to is the possibility of a lower dosage or alternative medication. I have very limited understanding of the medical treatment here, but minor symptoms with bad side effects sound exactly like a situation where you would consider a lighter treatment. *the way you describe it, it sounds like off medication you have a normal life with rare bad days.

I think it hinges on what the charity is doing. For instance, a paid job for ARI(if they exist) would be perfectly fine, but it would be wrong to support the mission of the catholic church*. *possible exception if you work at say a fundraiser for cancer research that is being run through the church.

That's because of who wrote it.

They are being taught to defend their positions on issues through logical debate; that is, they are being taught to justify why they believe what they do.

I really don't see the complaint here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_born_citizen_of_the_United_States#Constitutional_provisions It specifically mentions Hamilton as someone who could have become president. Your other point still obviously true.

Wasn't being in America before the revolution considered proper citizenship(sans other requirements)

Pretty disgusting. Let me guess, he said this while wearing an expensive suit?

To the fourth one, I answered yes but mostly in the hypothetical sense. There is nothing that makes speciation impossible in humans(that is it won't happen because of populations being close but it could in theory happen if they were seperated) so there is nothing false about the idea that humans could evolve slightly different psychological influences.

He of course means all those rich people except himself and his friends.

That was very awesome.

I believe he was using "you" in place of "a person". Like if I say "if you X then y" I may be referring to either a specific person or the general idea of an individual.

Just to mention it, you can recycle plastic into oil; so the price of oil going up will lead to that becoming profitable at some point.

Very good speech. I have to agree with the concern of just backing up the tea party with(very good) speeches that don't provide some push against the more conservative elements of the tea party. A tea party that doesn't take up things like pro gay marriage and anti drug ban positions is just going to be the republican party with a new name.

I have a hypothesis as to why the republican party is dying off... I don't get this, these were probably the same people talking about his radical christian beliefs pre election.

Same, I felt that it implied(perhaps just because it was being asked to objectivists)that it meant regulating fraud in advertising.

its John Nash Yeah that doesn't look very interesting.

I've noticed that certain people just use democracy to mean "whatever I think is good". I once saw a flier that said Israel was democratic because health care was state run

If the point were anything else, the bill wouldn't be necessary. I'm pretty sure killing someone who is trying to kill your wife falls under self defense already.

If you mean the massive question marks; they mentioned that it functioned as an indicator that the computer was very uncertain.

Not familiar with Reddit personally. Perhaps it falls into the people aren't interested in politics so they see anyone who posts stuff as the same annoying brand?

This is just a refutation of the ontological argument I came up with. This argument intends to show that an "all powerful being" is self contradictory and therefore non existent. --assume an all powerful being --if a being is all powerful then it can do anything which does not self contradict therefore, an all powerful being can copy itself --assume an all powerful being copies itself --there are now two all powerful beings --an all powerful being can destroy anything --an all powerful being can prevent the destruction of anything Assume one of the all powerful beings wishes to kill the other who does not wish to die --something which can destroy anything is attempting to destroy something that cannot be destroyed contradiction therefore an all powerful being is not possible. Thoughts anyone? It seems logically sound to me, but I am only in a basic logic course at the time so I don't have a great deal of background.

So what are everyone's thoughts on the computer Watson playing on Jeopardy? From what I saw on the first day, it is very impressive to see what the computer could handle even if it wasn't perfect.

Just to add, I actually think its a bit long since I view it as a poem.