It really is bizzare. I ask people about the lyrics in the songs that they're listening to.... and they don't have a clue what the lyrics actually are. And if you ask someone to listen to a song, they comment on the melody not the words. The meaning is a song is the words, the point is the words. The melody is the vehicle by which the meaning is delivered, but it isn't the point. And yet, as with everything else, people are going with what makes t
John Galt
In the case of the flight on that different date, then the original WAS cancelled and not rescheduled, only your booking was rescheduled. Thus the flight was cancelled, not postponed. If however there was no other flight, and everything else was identical (i.e. such as the space shuttle which gets up 2 or 3 times a year at this rate for billions in wasted money) then the flight wouldn't be cancelled, it would be postponed. Notice that in all 4
--Excellent Don Henley song that really conveys a meaning. Have a listen, it’s called “Garden of Allah”. And he’s right. Because of subjectivism, we’ve taken any objective standard to right and wrong, good and evil, moral and immoral and thrown it out the window. The result is that all that matters is winning your argument, not being right because right doe
Link The word cancel means: 1. to make void; revoke; annul: to cancel a reservation. 2. to decide or announce that a planned event will not take place; call off: to cancel a meeting. (source: Dictionary.com) I
I have read every version of the Bible available outside the Vatican Vaults (not much difference other than who you can sell rancid pork to, and when it's ok to have multiple wives) I have read the Talmud The Koran The Tora The teachings of Buda Most of the major works of the Hindi Masters I've read the translations of the Dead Sea Scrolls Many books on Western Natives and their belief system All of the new age crap and
"Firstly, I am not going to try to defend that quotation. It is invalid - it does not reflect the beliefs of Reasonists. It is not wording that I support. The origin of such words is the distinction that we draw between morality in scenarios between men (the principle of which is that men should not infringe on the rights of other men) and in scenarios of a man's own values (the principle of which is that men should pursue their own rationally-determin
"If homosexuals understand what they are saying they should be seeking treatments not trying to make people accept the results of a genetic defect as "normal". Actually they should be upset if society didnt provide that treatment for them like it does for say Autism or many other afflictions resulting from genetic defects." That would entirely be their choice and not up to society. Autism is also a mistake of birth, and irrelivent to the wort
"Because it is a mistake of birth, not a choice, just as surely as having black skin is a mistake of birth" OK, obviously people don't understand the english language any more. *sigh* Mistake of birth does not imply fault or a negative. It means exactly the opposite. It means that it is irrelivent and immaterial and does not denote a positive or a negative to you as a human. Me being white is also a mistake of birth and com
(Note: that I use the term “MAN” because it flows better. It is intended as an inclusive term that is the root of huMAN.) In the previous article I outlined the 4 basic laws of the universe, and how they apply to human understanding. But then the question becomes, how does one live a non-contradictory life that follows the 4 rules? More to the point, how
The universe is a complex place. But human beings are able to understand this universe through the use of logic and reason. The basis for our reasoning skills are the fundamental laws of the universe that most people grasp intuitively and a few understand these laws at their fullest meaning. They are the basis for all human know
Before I make any further comment: Rand was wrong about Homosexuality as I have previously stated. Why she was wrong is the issue. Recently, as a result of people reading the immenently accessible works of Terry Goodkind, himself an Objectivist there has sprung up yet another variation on the theme. Which is fine as far as it goes. "Reasonism" is the name
An excellent article on an apprepo day: http://theobjectivestandard.com/blog/2007/05/right-to-assisted-suicide-by-thomas.asp If you have the right to life, then by definition you have the right to end your own life. Period, end of discussion, just as the right to speak also gives you the right not to speak, to listen to anyone else that you want to w
"That they’re lives don’t matter. That in a comparison between dirt and themselves in the grand scheme of things they mean nothing, they are no more important than the pile of dirt that they just turned over so that they can plant flowers." I guess you didn't read the second paragraph (really the first) that states it clearly in full essay form. And then goes on to prove the point and then concludes by restating my position in full es
Oh, and lest us not forget that the war reparations were directly the result of the United States (especially) and France wanting to be paid back for all of the expense of fighting the war in the first place. The end result was a society ripe for a tyrant. As for the comment about supporting Russia and Hitler whoever isn't winning at the moment. It was an apprepo statement considering that Russia and Germany at the time represented the greatest evil the world had ever known second only
It was the United States that gave sanction to Hitler by supporting the war reparations, increasing terrifs on Germany (even more than what they did to the rest of Europe), by telling Europe that the United States didn't care what Hitler did, by essentially not only not condeming hatred of Jews but actually supporting it for all intents and purposes, by vetoing all motions in the League to do something about Hitler and by what was going on in the United States at the time politically. (Hover and
George W. Bush does have an idealogy. It's called Religion. He has a set of advisors that he discusses everything with every week that are all evangelical ministers. He takes their advice over everyone else and that's why were in this mess. It is religion that as got the US where it is, make no mistake. Iraq is another crusade, nothing more. Oh and FDR? The man actually caused the worst stock market crash in history. (Yes, 1929 was not the worst, 1938 care of FDR was) The man
(Sarah, if you’re reading my blog still, don’t read this until you’re done Atlas Shrugged at least, and preferably after you’ve finished Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology because you need a really good handle to understand this and not get upset by it. But make no mistake, you desperately need to read this.) The Root of All Evil is supposed to be greed. Or
Yes, the Iraq war is unjust and falls at the feet of one man and one man only. It is guilty of war crimes and should be tried and convicted and put to death by his people. No question. However, the soldiers on the ground had nothing to do with that man's actions, and did nothing to harm the Sunnis. The attacks by the Sunnis on the Americans is completely without cause and must be treated for what they are: Acts of terrorism against the men and
"No, actually it's harm. If this were not so there would be no reason for laws against theft which do not do physical harm. That is certainly not what Mill was arguing." The physical harm is against your property which as I've said before is the same as physical harm against your person. My exact phrase that I always use is: "Your free to do whatever you wish so long as you don't physically harm another or their property without thei
"However, if medical care for the person that chose self-endangerment by not wearing the seatbelt results in healthcare resources being diverted from another injured person whose injuries are not a result of self-endangerment resulting in the death of the second person then the condition of the original post is met. The decision to not wear a seatbelt has caused harm to another person. Also, Insurance companies feel they have a right to requir
Did anyone stop to think that Bush probably asked her to go and also told her that he would attack her in the media because he had to? The reason? Because by her going to Syria, Bush doesn't have to talk to either Iran or Syria officially but could convey a message to both Syria and Iran what would happen if the British soldiers were not released. It isn't coincidence that she went, and the soldiers were released. Syria even admitted that they were partially responsible. <
Yes, the US should never have been in Iraq to begin with. It's up to a people to free themselves, it cannot be given to them. Yes, Bush is a moron with too few brain cells to put together. Yes, this was a horrible idea to start with. The Americans should have stayed in Afghanistan, and with the help of Canada, the Brits and Aussies finished that mess. They didn't, so
Brad, excellent post except for one logical falacy: "The real question is, what % of our economy do we want the government confiscating" You're presupposing that the government has the right to steal money from people, and the only question is how much it has the right to steal. It doesn't have the right to steal any money. It has the right to charge those that use the services for the services if they wish to partake in the services and only if they wish. Just like all other fair
http://www.kevin-mcarthur.com/node/68 Yes, under French law, for which Dion is a French citizen it's illegal for him (treason) to hold Political or Military Office for a foreign country. Doesn't matter the country and doesn't matter if they have dual citizenship (and it shouldn't, you're a traitor if you are of one land and work for anothers political or mili
In short your a great man, and people resent you for it. Or to put it even more concisely: You're an objectivist.