SamuelS

human shields don't die if you don't launch munitions at them

in my city you're allowed to have half a dozen chickens, no roosters. I can understand the no roosters thing, I'd voluntarily join a community that had that rule... I know it's a tautology, but, arbitrary rules are arbitrary.

I was in daycare from just a couple months old -- at first in a more 1-on-1 environment, then in a school-like setting with perhaps a 15:1 ratio of kids to adults -- and while I don't recall anything occurring there that I'd characterize as abuse, I also never really bonded with or trusted my mother and I was horrified of being left there every day, often breaking down into a screaming, sobbing mess for the first hour or so of the day...just because there isn't obvious abuse happening doesn't mean it's not damaging children.

http://feeds.feedburner.com/FreedomainRadioVolume6feeds.feedburner.com/FreedomainRadioVolume6

so you're going to pretend I didn't acknowledge the correction? that's not very honest. nor is it very honest to say you want to know what others think then complain that they don't just agree. enjoy your mental masturbation, I'm out.

I had to ask google what internationalism is, and I still don't understand in·ter·na·tion·al·ism ˌintərˈnaSHənlˌizəm/ noun noun: internationalism; noun: Internationalism [*] 1. the state or process of being international. "the internationalism of popular music" the advocacy of cooperation and understanding between nations. [*] 2. the principles of any of the four Internationals.

you're likely more informed than I on this stuff, thanks for correcting that.I'm with Kevin on not really understanding the second part...but I think there's room in there for it to seem infinite, in the same way a möbius strip seems infinite, it could well be that the "origination events" are coming from a black hole in a universe being fed by a black hole from ours (the magnet thing)...does that make sense? of course, my hypothesis doesn't explain how it all got started in the first place.this is all wild speculation, mind you, and I pretty much lost interest in theoretical physics after gaining a very simplistic understanding of the quantum mech stuff. I figure it may not be possible to figure out the origins or size of the universe, and I don't see any practical implications if we did understand it all...philosophy, on the other hand, has the potential to be extremely practical and practicable.

I've got a hypothesis that expands on that idea, it goes something like this -- the exit point of a black hole is a new universe being created, what we see as the coming into being of matter/energy in the early universe is much like the random movements at the bottom of a vortex (think water going down a drain, the end of the funnel moves wildly), this creates an infinite re/pro-gression loop -- I visualize this similar to the way a magnetic field reenters the magnetic object -- and much like a fractal/mandlebrot image it's identical at every level.quantum mechanics seem to cause some problems with the mandlebrot metaphor, this creates superficial differences in each level, the levels on the whole appear the same, but zooming into a particular point on one level will not be identical to the next.without quantum mechanics there's no room for "free will"...I've got a pet hypothesis that we (humans, maybe all animals) are a sort of "quantum event generator", in other words choice is a quantum event, tied into the fact that we are observers, in the quantum mech sense.regarding the typewriter monkeys, I wrote an algorithm for that, in perl -- # works on strings similar to how the "++" operator works on numbers# requires array references to the "current word" and the charset# current word is an array of positions within the charset which can# be translated back to a string using: join('',@charset[@current_word])sub inc_string { my ($current_word_aref,$charset_aref)=@_; my @current_word = @{ $current_word_aref }; my @charset = @{ $charset_aref }; my $cwlen = int(@current_word); $current_word[$cwlen-1]++; if($current_word[$cwlen-1] == int(@charset)) { for(my $i=$cwlen-2; $i >= 0; $i--) { if($current_word[$i] < int(@charset)-1) { $current_word[$i]++; for(my $ii=$i+1; $ii < $cwlen; $ii++) { $current_word[$ii]=0; } return(@current_word); } } for(my $ii=0; $ii <= $cwlen; $ii++) { $current_word[$ii]=0; } } return(@current_word);}-- to run that code in a basic way:@charset = (a..z,A..Z);@current_word[0]=0;while(1==1) { print join('',@charset[@current_word])."n"; @current_word = @{ &inc_string(@current_word,@charset) };}

I'm so sorry for your loss, Grizwald, I lost a dog to cancer a couple years ago and it's just awful. It sounds to me like that dog of yours had a great purpose in this life -- to make you happy. In my case, I got another dog rather quickly and in a lot of ways that was really helpful for coping -- it was devastating to walk in the house and be so alone -- and giving me an outlet for playfulness and affection that I don't get so much with people... I think of death like turning off a TV, there's just nothing, but that doesn't make the experience of existing any less valuable, quite the opposite. I still bawl about it sometimes, she was a great dog and didn't get to experience nearly as much life as she ought to have.

I enjoyed those analyses Kevin and Culain...I've listened to that debate a few times -- extra because I wanted to share it with some people I know that had fallen for PJ's movies -- and it only gets funnier...the fact that PJ couldn't accept personal responsibility for his employment situation was the death throws of his arguments, IMO, Culain you summed that entitlement attitude up pretty darn well near the end Stef's response is perfect, something along the lines of "if it's the best, go do it, I'll join"and welcome to the board, higherself

honesty...integrity...you're doing a disservice to philosophy if your actions show that you would rather have social contact with people that want you shot than to live the values you profess. Stef explains it really well:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uaJAtMuIck

I never would've joined if the forums weren't visible to the general public...it gave me a chance to see what was being discussed and the general atmosphere in here. That said, I assume everything I type is being recorded somewhere, even if I don't hit submit -- ESPECIALLY if I don't hit submit -- if I was writing backdoor spying programs for the NSA, backspacing would be an automatic flag.I'm sorry you didn't realize the openness of the forum before posting sensitive information, that's got to be a real bummer. I hope you can continue to contribute with that reality in mind.

I'll second the recommendation to check out Tom Woods...I didn't make as much use of the libertyclassroom subscription as I would like to have, but they definitely have a lot of content you're not likely to run across elsewhere...I was really impressed with Brion McClanahan's lectures in the US History segment, if you're interested in that stuff he's also co-authored a few books on the subject.

I don't know if it's intellect that is lacking so much as integrity to principles and the willingness to explore uncomfortable ideas...I've known extremely intelligent people that are foolish know-it-all types, and I'm sure I at times could be counted amoung them...the difference, I think, is that I do not wish to dwell in foolishness, but wisdom, and the first step on that path is to accept that I know almost nothing.

I think I understand, but it's confusing...even though the exhaust gasses are extremely hot compared to the cold air coming through the intake, their presence in the fuel-air mix causes that mix to burn at a lower temperature, thus reducing NOx...thanks for clearing that up, the original sentence makes more sense with this understanding.

I think your sentence sums up pretty well what Socrates was trying to teach...he wasn't the wisest because he knew anything, he was the wisest because he knew that he didn't know anything whereas the fools think they know everything yet know nothing, so actually know less than he since he at least knows he doesn't know.I share in your frustration, it seems we're all surrounded by fools that think they know yet know naught...and those are the people aiming guns at us for daring to question the status quo. I don't know how to decrease this other than by surrounding myself with the wise and avoiding fools like the intellectual lepers they are.

Thanks for sharing that.One thing was confusing for me, this sentence "The recirculated exhaust gases reduce the high combustion temperatures that generate NOx during combustion." perhaps you're saying exactly what you want to say, but it seems counter-intuitive to me, I would think recirculating exhaust gasses would increase the temperature in the combustion chamber.

Voltaire -- Candide or The Optimist was a great read and quite influential in my early exploration of thought.Thanks for sharing that link, AustinJames, that's an amazing resource and sure to keep me busy!

what does too extreme even mean? can a flower be too pretty? can the sky be too blue? if you've brought the arguments to them in a rational way and they've had time to think about them, their response tells you everything you need to know about them, IMO -- that they're irrational people... to borrow a quote for the Bible -- "Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you."

Sorry for the delay in responding, I had dental surgery last week and my thinking has been cloudy from pain medications, didn't want that to frustrate the discussion.Triumph, have you read UPB? I've listened to the auido twice and am still trying to wrap my head around it all, but my understanding of the man in a coma is that if you propose a moral rule that he can't help but violate, that's an absurd/invalid moral rule. Thus moral rules are only valid if they prohibit certain actions rather than require action ("thou shalt not kill", valid, "thou shalt X", invalid.) Perhaps another way to look at it is to consider the man in a coma as a man locked in a rubber room wearing a straightjacket -- he can't act upon anybody else, so any action he does take is not immoral. This makes sense to me and could be the start of a method to work these things out...in that other thread, somebody (you?) mentioned that a flow-chart would be really helpful with all of this, I agree, I'd actually been thinking about it programmatically, basically the same thing...This leads me to another idea along the same vein -- perhaps virtue would be doing aesthetically positive behaviors that are also personally negative? Things like giving to charity...this is, of course, assuming that the 7 categories are not entirely mutually exclusive.

I was married between the ages of 19-24, and while there was plenty wrong w/ that relationship the sex was great...but I still liked to masturbate...at first she was upset about it but we discussed it and came up with a solution that met everybody's needs -- mutual masturbation...see, sometimes I just wanted to "get off", and I still don't know a quicker way than to take matters into my own hands, but she wanted to be involved, so we figured it out and were able to bond even through masturbation. Hope this helps

I was trying to pin this down in another thread but didn't want to derail the conversation, hoping to explore this with the group.If the baseline for morality is the man in a coma -- he's not evil, at all, because he doesn't act -- what is *positive* virtue? I've got some ideas to throw out there, perhaps others can illustrate this more clearly with other examples or at least confirm/rebut my idea.Let's say the man in a coma is evil=0 and virtue=0, he's morally null. If this is a correct interpretation, then what action can one perform to increase virtue above the baseline?The only thing that springs to mind is helping people to do things that aren't evil...i.e. all of Stef's work on FDR, honestly answering posts on this board, etc.Also, am I correct in my interpretation that only non-actions (not murdering/raping/stealing/assaulting) are UPB? If the man in the coma must be able to do a thing for it to be UPB, and the only thing he can do is not act...that's what I'm getting from that.Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.

privatized != private. the recycling company, the "private" prisons, they're all granted a monopoly by the government, sub-contracting government work is not the same as providing a voluntary service in the market. I have no choice in level of service or price for recycling, I'm forced, by the city, to use Waste Management, Inc.

I think you summed it up pretty well...if liberty isn't the highest goal, and you've got a duty to others, they're just statists in anarchist clothing, IMO...maybe he should check out Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson -- http://mises.org/document/6785/ -- since that seems to be a major area of ignorance with the socialist types.

just a wild guess, maybe you feel shame because your action (donation) pales in comparison to what you claim/think/want-to-be your level of enthusiasm?you can do a lot to support the cause and the show without money -- spreading these ideas and putting them into practice in your own life are two that I aim for.