EclecticIdealist

The act of voting legitimizes the violence of those representing themselves as agents of the state acting in accordance with the will of the people. Or put another way, voting reinforces the belief in the minds of the people that the actions of people representing themselves as agents of the state are justified.in short, voting reinforces the belief in opposing moral categories of individuals.

What precisely is meant by "legitimize". If one means "to make legal" and thereby serve as a universally justifiable defense of action, then voting creates the pretense in the minds of those who vote, but does not create the pretense in the minds of those who consider voting to be immoral rationalization for the initiation of violence.

Are scientific assertions backed by reason and evidence "Rights"? According to the saying, Might is a justification or defense, not a right.

The authority to decide and/or act.

Focus may be narrow or wide, sharp and clear, or fuzzy and indistinct. As for binocular vision, each eye has a focus and the brain attempts to create a monocular image. Sometimes, the brain will substantialy ignore the visual image of one eye because it is distorted from or less intense than the image from the other. One could say the focus of the brain is on the better image. Psychologically, one tends to focus on fulfilling immediate needs, then immediate desires, then longer term needs, lastly longer term desires. The better able we are to shift the focus away from immediate desires to longer term desires, the better off we will generally become. Philosophically, focus is where your attention is. As to an ultimate end-poin5, I don't know the context for the question, but if you mean an ultimate purpose or reason for existing, I would say, "survival".

To be focused is to have one's attention and efforts directed at a particular locus to the exclusion of other loci which may detract from the effectiveness of that attention or effort in accomplishing a desired outcome.

I've always been curious... Australia has a reputation for having more than their fair share of the most dangerous animals in the world. To what extent (if any) does this fact actually impact your daily life? Can you have pets, babies, toddlers, and small children freely roam a fenced-in back yard, or are such places too dangerous for animals and small humans to be left unattended?

That's a rhetorical question, right?

Your statement presupposes that most people who turned their gold in back then were. In fact, most were simply afraid of being fined and/or imprisoned for failing to turn it over.

Until the US Gov. pulls a Roosevelt and makes any substantial private gold ownership illegal again.

Marriage in one form or another has been around for as long as there have been tribes of humans. Whether or not marriage is a statist institution or a religious one really depends on the degree to which one considers the supposed authority of the tribe or family to be statist, or religious. In many cases, there is no clear distinction between religion and the state, as religion lends itself well to decreasing the cost of "ownership and control" of the masses and astute political or state leaders throughout history have been aware of this and used it to their advantage wherever possible.

... the terms "Newtonian" and "Einsteinian" are highly contrived and designed to appeal to the ignorant masses bamboozled by pseudoscience and pop-psychology. or put another way, "the terms 'Newtonian' and 'Einsteinian' are terms typically selected and used with the intent of being attractive to the unlearned masses who are commonly hoodwinked by pseudoscience and pseudo-psychological concepts and terminology that are often simplistic or superficial. I'm suggesting you not use them, that the ideas will either stand or fall on their own without the need to attempt to borrow credibility by comparing them to known physicists.

It's easy to say "get over it" or "her past is none of your concern, only her present and her future desires". It's another thing to be psychologically and emotionally mature and/or healed/recovered enough to be there.

I don't believe they ever said it was, and I could teach a "two year old" to type that. Surely you've something more intelligent and substantive to say than parroting words like a two year old.

Happy Birthday Stefan. Thanks for provoking thought and discussion.

When you can't think of an intelligent response, simply respond... not an argument.

I agree with the approach recommended by Donnadosoth; however I have a few things to consider: Review Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals". Almost every rule is particularly suited to a televised debate, regardless of which side of the political aisle you are on. Pay particularly close attention to Rules 2 & 3 about areas of expertise, as well as Rule 5 about the effective use of Ridicule. Also take a few cues of the politicians who always avoid answering the question asked of them and instead answer the question they wish they had been asked. Be sure to keep things friendly, funny, and the ridicule pointed, but light. Keep reminding the audience of all the questions your opponent has failed to answer while dismissing any questions asked of you that you refuse to answer as being sophmorish, immature, and irrelevant, etc. First and foremost, make it entertaining and you'll be more likely to win the audience to your side, even if they don't agree with your position. The more you can make your opponent unlikable and seem mean-spirited, angry, or in some other way unlikable, the better.

Yeah, if I wanted to live on the dole, I'd go to NYC, Seatle, SF, or some other such city

So Mike's negative reactions (use of sarcasm) are not an argument; however, his reasons for using sarcasm are the same reasons why he said there were no rational arguments on the forums on this topic when Stef asked many months ago (which is not an answer to the question). In short, you seem to be suggesting that Mike is being sarcastic because there aren't any good (by his judgment, and perhaps yours) arguments and therefore, he either A) Seeks to inspire good arguments with his negative sarcasm, or B) Seeks only to express his disdain for the lack of good arguments.

How important is religion to you? Would you be alright raising children to be Baptist, Catholic, Methodist, or some other form of Christianity, or perhaps Jewish? (I'm perhaps wrongly assuming you would not be interested in raising a family Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, or some other non-Judeo-Christian religion)

Given that we are currently living under such a system, and given the fact that it can get much worse than it presently is, and given the remote possibility that our vote might actually count towards moving us away from even greater tyranny, I don't hold with the argument that "not voting" as a protest against the current system of oppression is the wisest course of action; especially given the propensity for others to vote for greater tyranny. I can, nevertheless, understand and even respect the difference of opinion, that refusing to vote in an election where one's vote will not count (the elections are rigged, or the election essentially a foregone conclusion for a particular district) could be the more ethical choice. Personally, I view simple voting or not voting to the be LEAST effective thing a person can do... even participating in such a public forum as this I consider to be of at least nominally greater value, as one stands a greater chance of persuading others by voicing an opinion than by simply casting a ballot.