Formelyknown

The ethical thing to do is to ask someone else want to take care of this child if nobody want it, kill the child. There is no virtue of taking care of a19 year old baby with a defect you are not responsible of. I approve of the parents behavior. Forcing someone to pay for a 100 pound cucumber is just evil.

[View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=g-high-rec&v=LBTEG7NbVFQ]

Tesla maker want to sell its car directly to customers. http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-75324105/

The world need a t-shirt saying : I 'm fat but you are the sucker who's paying for my health care.

I can ascertain utility by observing non-monetary use. In The Ethics of Money Production by Guido Hülsmann, he noted that, "...the monetary use of a commodity ultimately depends upon its non-monetary use..." (thx to Nielsio). What is the non-monetary use of BC? It doesn't answer the question of utility at all.

Another thing. Libertarian suck at humour. We should be able to ridicule poeple like Bill Mayer and look smart at the same time. [View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ybud1Ai1dWQ]

It's been a long time since I took the test, but I know I wasn't a Rational. I think I was an Idealist. When I was a kid I wanted to be a wise man and I really valued Truth and Compassion. I was vehemently pacifist and what turned me away from politics and towards anarchism was my study of secret government policy in the Middle East/South America/Latin America/Africa. I wasn't into libertarianism until I found out that Ron Paul, a Libertarian(whatever that was) was the only guy calling out the government on it's war crimes. I started paying attention to him and his supporters, which is when the rest of my Marxism was shattered into bits. So that being said I fully understand what you're getting at. You have to find the thing that really matters to them and approach it from that perspective if you want to get any progress. For me it was being a peacenik. For some it's fiscal policy. For some it's Corporatism. it's always going to be different. Idealists are also often drawn to ideas like the ones at FDR. Rationals can come to ideas based on logic and reason, Idealists can come at them out of a strong desire for a better world. Guardians and Artisans have different primary values. Guardians value security, often short-term security, most. Artisans value the experience of life - joy, excitement, savoring sensations. So I'm not surprised if FDR and communities like it are overflowing wtih Rationals and Idealists wondering why those darn others don't see it the same way. These personality type differences are part of why that is. ^ I I What he said

What would be similar to a tax in a voluntary society would be something like this: The shopkeeper sign a contract with local community to pay 1 bitcoin per month the maintain the roads that lead to his shop. The shopkeeper will set the prices so that all peoples purchasing his stuffs will help him pay for the road. You won't see it but it will explain why you paid 2 bitcoins instead of 1.96 bitcoins for your family weekly grocery.

Well, your definition does not take into account the origin of the object in order to satisfy the condition of 'being alive', does it? That point still stands, and was only an aid to the discourse. I can do without those, but then I could be confused with a very silly and lean, but concise and unambiguous expression algorithm. I'd rather not do without the aids and adornments. It's a bit uncomfortable to stop every once in a while to beat around the bush and touch on these side issues, as if the perception of whether you are proposing a definition or a theory would make any difference in the main line of thought, when it doesn't. Please don't force me on this, though. It is very dull to write like a machine when you want to express ideas and concepts, as opposed to expressing algorithms and recipes. Duh? What am I supposed to say here? I don't even know why you said this in the first place /emoticons/emotion-1.gif I won't dally here, so as not beat around the bush. Your definition does not take this into account, though. You didn't give birth to yourself. Your motion can be attributed to human beings who copulated, and a female human being who gave birth, plus several humang beings who nurtured you. Are you not alive? Well, you do move against gravity. And so does the roomba. You do not take into account the origin [of the object being tested for 'life' status] in your definition, and this is what I meant. This is a weakness in it. If I knock you out with a sedative every once in a while, only letting you up when I please, does that make you be not alive? If someone abducted you while anesthesized, what difference would it made on whether you are or not alive? The roomba, like any 'living entity' (which we can identify thanks to the preconceptions we are retrofitting our definitions into) has a birth. It can also be forced to stop moving out of its own volition. Is the fact that it is easy to force it to stop moving enough to make it be 'not alive'? What if it didn't come with an on/off switch, and was solar powered? If we had an unobtainium which allowed for freezing (loose meaning, as in 'stopping the movement of') all of a human's atoms (by your definition, killing the human, because it could no longer move), and the human was periodically subject to this device's operation, would the human not be alive whenever the device was not operating on it? Why, again, is the roomba different? Birth is significant to the argument (and so is the origin of the object we are trying to clasify as 'living' or 'dead'), because it means that everything alive right now was assembled at some point. Maybe it was inside a womb, or in some juicy spot where a cell suddenly started spending resources on replicating its internals and splitting off of the duplicates. Or a factory. What's the difference, according to your definition? Take this as an opportunity to refine it, or drop it. Or maybe accepting that the roomba is alive according to your definition, and being 'ok' with that fact (and deal with the philosophical implications or whatever). Or maybe point out where in your definition of life isthe origin or the traceability of the start of the movement taken into account. 'Moves by itself against gravity', states your definition. Well, after you turn it on, it walks around, goes back to charging, and starts moving again... you didn't order it to start moving again. You do expect it to, just the way you expect a sleeping newborn to wake up a while after falling asleep. The child responded to its genes. The roomba to its wiring. Where is the structure of the internals taken into account? Is a newborn thought of as alive after he has already slept and woken again, or right after taken out of the beautiful, organic factory that we call 'womb'? Or is it when it is self-conscious, or autonomous? (If so, when is any other mammal considered to be alive, and why is it different?) Why would the roomba different from the newborn? My thoughts on the matter are, sadly, irrelevant. Furthermore, that bit of reasoning gets you in a tight spot: If you came in the night and kidnapped my newborn child, would I wake up the next morning and think, "Oh gee.. it must've woken up and moved itself right on outta here!" No way, I don't think I would. Is the child, therefore, not alive? Also, repeat the same thought experiment placing the newborn within the unobtainium described above and having it stolen while, in your definition, it is dead. Nay, a cell is an object. If the cell stopped functioning, but is not still disassembled, is it no longer a cell? It is still a cell: it is still an identifiable object which fits the archetype we use to describe a cell. I got to see dead cells once. They were cells encased in plastic. It was readily identifiable and it had a shape, just like the living ones I got to see when I put a leaf under the lens (so both are objects). Why dead? Those cells no longer had the mechanisms that I mention in my definition, so they are dead to me. They weren't moving, so they are dead to you, too. They weren't self sustaining, so they are dead to Victor, too. But they were cells. For 'Entropy', refer to the classical thermodinamics definition. Also, for context, have a read through of the second law of thermodynamics. On second thought, only reading through the second law of thermodynamics should do the trick. I do not mean to offend with this behavior of pointing out where to get the info instead of running the risk of dancing in circles because of a mistake I can make in writing. I am just lazy. And do not want to dance in circles, too. Ah, wikipedia will do as a source for the info, unless it says something blatantly stupid. I read the articles I refer to earlier today, so they should be OK. Niiiice one.

Dear Monaco F1 racing dude. You never shown that you have a standard to evaluate a valid claim. You never though about what make something valid, but on rationalize all the bullshit and prejudice you learn from your childhood.

IP tell me not to use my own physical body and propreties to do stuffs. Using others people factory is using other peoples propreties without permission. Just that destroy the guest's case for IP. But noo, he has to keep rambling like it was the same. If I were stef I would tell him to F**ck off already. I know how to grows tomatoes maybe I should IP how to grows tomatoes so that no one else sales tomatoes.

Am I the only one who find this thread funny and LoL?

If you are trying to investigate other people's views, confusion certainly does come from how they define things. It's clear very few people here have done much actual research because when you do research this is a basic thing you learn early on. You must define terms very carefully or your data will not be meaningful. The question in this thread was whether atheists need certainty to be atheists. This depends on whether all atheists believe there is a 0% chance of God existing (certainty) or not. So it goes right to the %'s. If you want to know why someone believes what they believe about this, I think that you will also be much more effective in doing that if you've been very precise up to that point. The more vague you are, the more you rely on them to correctly interpret terminology, rather than explicitly make clear what the meaning of it is in this instance, the more muddled your results will be and the more likely you are to misunderstand what they really believe and why. You just repeat what you said before. I disagreed with your obervation and showed that you are a muddler either. There is nothing to investigate. I don't want investigate

Confusion doesn't come from definition or how people define knowledge. Since the beginning of philosophy, It is coming from poeple claming false philosophical problems. The question is simple: If it is possible that God could exist, what make this concept of God even 1% possible. Surely those poeple are basing on something other then I can't know everything, right?

People getting sick was a good reason to start searching for the cause. We found out bacteria and virus was the cause. What reason I have to start searching for the cause. God is the that thing that suppose to be the cause witbout even trying to search. Where i should point my telescope or micoscope that show even an indirect effect of god. Some planets was a good answer for some strange gravitational observation. Yes I can say God doesn't exist because nothing create the starting point for it existence. And no, the beginning or the why of existence is not a good reason to come up with an hypothesis of God.

How the frack you guys still waking up in the morning? Must be hard to choose between toast and cereal. How about breathing? Should I do it today? [blahblah] If a Theist can say a god exist without proving it and I can't say he is a nutjob. I have no problem to say with a positive claim that he doesn't exist.

What an happy ending. At the end he met is creator. What a touching story.

How the hell constructing a public transport is statist?

Wow. Talk about overthinking about a 2$ donation. If it is so small why it affecting you so much. What if need to take a bus? Really!? That what your concern? Ok how about he gave 500$ and his car broke? I find it strange that you write about your sadness about 2$ now when it happenned before. Why now? Why writing a note for buying stuffs. Do you often leaving a note on the vendor machine to explain why you took 1 can instead of buying a pack of 12? There is strong emotional reaction about this indeed but not only from the listeners. Smoke machine much, that original post was...

"I think is realy stupid to base association on race or cultural background." People generally tend to prefer their own race over others, this is Genetic Similarity Kin Selection. "Even if there is number saying that 100% of murderers would be black. You still missing the 80 % who are good citizens and the 20% of the really bright members that smarter that the 80% of white peoples. So it is really a bad way to create a community." I'm sure an intelligent black man could be of better use in a black community, helping it grow and prosper. "And I didn't talked about that dumb religion we call culture...." Culture is a biological construct, and expression of our distinct genes. You're parroting Stef here. People don't tend to prefer their own races. They are borned surounding by a majortity of their own. It is only a question of proximity. In fact, more we go near a multicultural city like Montreal and more you'll see multiracial couples. Sorry but intelligent poeples don't like the other 80% of chimpazes. They are not from the same race or culture for them. I know, I can't live around 90% of the other whites dumbasses. Culture is not a biological construst. Any person that know a couple adopting chinese babies can see that. It so dumb to even start a study on this. It is only a begot that try to rationalize his own prejudice. I'm not parroting Stef I'm not a FDR Lemming and I'm far behond stef's. I was 12 and saw culture is just peoples scared to question the status quo of his environement. Any individual with a minimum of critical thinking can see that.

Yawn. Biological determimist was debunked. http://www.psychohistory.com/originsofwar/01_killermotherland.html

You keep conflating and mixing statist problems with others anarcho ethics.Then mixing races with nation and genetic in a big pot so that it is impossible to have any constructive discussion. I don't thing someone in this board disagree with someone refusing to associate with someone base on color. But tbat doesn't follow that mixing races is a good or bad thing. Multiculturalism is a statist idea where is it possible to force peoples living together under the same government by hqving double standard under the law base on religion culture and color. On another note. I think is realy stupid to base association on race or cultural background. Even if there is number saying that 100% of murderers would be black. You still missing the 80 % who are good citizens and the 20% of the really bright members that smarter that the 80% of white peoples. So it is really a bad way to create a community. And I didn't talked about that dumb religion we call culture....

If I understand catron, The perfect strategy is to give genetic altering pills, nurturing and form racist gated community. No trade should ever be agreed between races.

The effect of genes doesn't determine the individual. The scientist who actually cloned animals which is a better way to judge genetic vs nurture then twins.They will tell you clones with identical genetic are all different in the way they behaves.

Education need more rap. [View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7k7ob438hk0]