heyrabbit

You think that's clutter? What?! You'd have a heart attack in my house. Can you teach me to be organized?

For once I actually agree with Moonlight Graham. Crusader + Megan +Lauren: First of all, who is obligated to help the nation as a whole, and for what reasons? Not only does socialism not help us as a whole, but it is our nation's chief destroyer. Altruism is presently the predominant ideal in the philosophy of our government and nation. Altruism, through socialism, is what caused this economic and social disparity, and yet your answer is to be more socialistic and more altruistic. If altruism is your standard of morality, why do you complain when the country is not as healthy as you'd like it to be? If taxes were increased to 100%, we'd be living in a Communist state! Nobody here approves of Communism, except maybe Moonlight Graham. Why, then, do you think it's good to be a little bit Communistic?

Why the hell not? That's child abuse. Did you asy, "Next stop... HELL station"? Happy halloween boxing day

I want to watch Garfield's halloween special.

I'm also reading Crime and Punishment The Fountainhead Ninety-three

Sooo cute here's one: Class

Do what Christing said. Focus your eye only on the heel of the foot, and nothing else, not even the rest of the foot. Then just pick a direction. see the foot move in that direction. The foot goes left, right, left, right. Watch it go right to see clockwise, left for counter. Or watch hte head. Her head is tilted to her right when she goes clockwise, left when she goes counter-clockwise.

God damn you, Muran . I had to sit and figure this out

I really can't stomach Chomsky's unintelligible screeds. If his purpose is to inform the world, he should want to learn how to compose an essay - or even just a sentence - in a logical manner, so as to not lose the reader's attention in less than 5 seconds. I can't be expect to read that! If the article is meant to say that one should be concerned about the present actions of the U.S in relation to Iran, I agree. There are too many parallels between the U.S. and Nazi Germany. Even if you disregard that, there are too many parallels between the 2002/3 Bush administration and the 2007 Bush administration. In recent years, and to this day, the U.S.'s had a policy allowing for "preemptive warfare" -- they will start war with anyone they feel will potentially start a war with them. Chomsky is right in viewing this as a fundamental problem with the U.S.'s foreign policy. This basically means they will start a war with anyone for whatever reason or whatever lack of reason. And with the government's amazing ability to control public opinion, I'd say there's a good chance there will be a War in Iran. It's not as if the population smartened up after the War in Iraq. How the gov't manage to control opinion is so simple that it's scary. It's very simple and effective psychology. Present someone with two options, of which one is more desirable than the other, the one you want them to choose! Try it on a friend.It's fun. Do you want to go see ( a crappy movie) or help me do (such and such). You'd be surprised at how effective it is.

This isn't just about naming people-- it's how every word and concept is named. New York, New York. Toronto, Ontario. This is the genus differentia mode of word formation. It's just useful to describe oneself in terms of a first name and a last last name, which is why virtually every culture in the world has adopted this way of naming. You wouldn't call yourself Taylor Meg, or Smith-Taylor-Jones Meg. etc Your name has to be condensed, and it just so happens that that our culture has decided that you adopt the name of the husband. If you don't like it, take the woman's name, or name yourself and shut-up. My sister kept her last name when she got married.

Let's see, my options are collectivist, collectivist, collectivist, or collectivist. I choose...collectivist. It's a fuckin' sad system when my best option is the libertarian party, and they are a fringe party. I hate to say but I'll vote for tory ( and he wants to INCREASE funding for religious schools) P.S. How exactly did Mike Harris "finish the job"?

Yo man, change the picture in your signature.

it makes you a jack-ass ;) P.S. I vote for Jacky Chan

Which riddle are you referring to? Azalroth is right, although I prefer the word "existence".

The Law of Identity is what you base everything on. If a thing is not itself, then you would not have designated it "thing". Concept formation is a hierarchical structure of abstraction. This applies to everything you "know". You "know" something based on previous knowledge. The word "law" requires some kind of previous knowledge of, say, police, or punishment, or guidelines. The word "police" requires a knowledge of men who police, the instances in which they police, and men who are mischievous. The word mischievous requires previous knowledge of wrongful action. Knowledge of action requires a knowledge of motion. Knowledge of motion requires the knowledge of the concept "motion", which is acquired by a process of abstraction by isolating two separate objects in your thought. Isolating two objects in your thought requires that you identify the two objects by memorizing the linear measurements of the objects within each object. Thus, knowledge begins when you identify linear measurement by perceiving it with your senses. Arguments are literally algebraic equations! The substitutions may be anything, but the equation is always the same. There's a reason why essays are supposed to have a theme and a few key points. In order for a statement or argument to be true, it has to be logically cohesive. Your theme is a generalization of its constituent key points. Your key points are generalizations of their constituent ideas. You would not write an essay about Stem-cell research and talk like this: Stem-cell research is the most promising line of research in science today. Fire trucks are fun to drive. Billy rode his bike. This particular research has a great deal of potential because dogs age faster than humans, cats are independent, and trees the at of my out horse way xylophone. Therefore, if you write a book about "law", and you cannot define the word "law", you've told me that you have no constituent ideas -- you don't know something. You might know other things, but you don't know enough.

Has designated her name "Designate". Good name

Nothing? Yeah it's nothing. My original answer was going to be a "time sandwich". Didn't apply to everything, though

To know who I am is to know I'm real To delusional men I'm not a big deal Experienced by all Known only in part By all involved Of which I am a part. To know who I am you need your senses A bitch to he Who denies my presence. To know who I am One mustn't stall To know who I am For he who does Knows not at all The pain I'll cause To he who breaks My first law. To know who I am One cannot lie For I am the one You must identify To know who I am Who am I?

I'm going to explain where we're fundamentally opposed. You've said before that you don't think morality should be based on axioms. You say that you're not sure where morality is a useful concept. What you fail to realize is, not only is morality a concept, but everything you say and think is a concept. Knowledge is understanding reality, and you're only means acquiring it is through reason(thinking). "Thinking" is the process of concept formation, which is a mathematical process of identifying reality. To think is to identify reality. If you deny the initial equation on which all subsequent equations rely, your opinion is false. This little equation, this little axiom you've denied, is the Law of Identity. To deny the Law of Identity means to negate every argument you'll ever make. To deny the Law of Identity means, not only do you think that you don't know anything, but that nobody has ever known anything, or will ever know anything, for the entirety of existence. THAT is the position of the subjectivist. The problem with this, for the subjectivist, is that he cannot deny the Law of Identity without accepting it, for thinking requires your brain, which requires the existence of yourself, which requires the existence of earth. You have to use it to deny it, that's what makes it an axiom. In order for what you say to make sense, your concepts have to be clearly defined. The concepts your concepts are defined by have to defined. The concepts your concepts' concepts have to be defined, etc. This goes on for infinity, which in the case of a human is whatever level we are able to perceive with our sense. If, at any point, your concepts are not properly defined, it means you did not think. For example, take the word "man". man = an adult male person, as distinguished from a boy or a woman. adult = having attained full size and strength; grown up; mature: an adult person, animal, or plant. size = the spatial dimensions, proportions, magnitude, or bulk of anything: the size of a farm; the size of the fish you caught. This is the task you've presented to me when you lay out a jumbled, false argument based on false premises. I could question the ancestry of any one of your many concepts(words) trying to get you to define your ideas, and normally it would be an arduous task to identify where one of us missed reality. For example, to paraphrase you, "Drugs expand the mind". In order for me to falsify your argument, I need to find where you went wrong. What is your definition of Drugs? What is your definition of expand in the context of the mind? What is a mind? etc etc. And that is one sentence of of dozens in any given argument. Now, hopefully you will appreciate why I'm baffled when you refuse to proclaim one definition of the key word from your entire essay! It's like claiming that frogs are the best animal, and not being able define the word "frog". You've immediately invalidated your argument. So long as you deny existence, nothing I say will ever make sense to you because I do not exist. For these reasons, I will have to discontinue arguing unless and until you accept reality. Before you decide to graft your already accepted premises onto the terminology I've presented to you,claiming that you "do accept reality", ask yourself whether or not you checked your premises. The answer will be no, and it will be evident when I question the source of your ideas, to which you will refuse acknowledgment.

I'd like to point out, again, that you still have not defined your morality, or presented any argument against mine. It's for me to try to explain to you why it's immoral because you don't accept my definition of morality, and you don't even know what you think about morality. That's the problem -- you don't think about it. You've accepted morality to you is an asbolute, undefinable truth and your only means of understanding it is your feelings. What's immoral about drugs?(I'm talking about recreational drugs, although other drugs can be included) What's bad about destroying your mind and your capacity to live? Remember that the anti-mind is the anti-life -- we're humans. If destroying your means of survival isn't bad, what is? Just because you're immoral to a small degree does not mean they cease to be immoral, just as stabbing yourself a little doesn't mean your not hurting yourself. Morality is a human concept. Man creates concepts, not "society". Society is not a rational being, it's a bunch of rational beings. Man can share his ideas and form similar ideas as other men, sure. In that respect, everything is a social construct. You only view morality in terms of interaction with people because you're opinion has been that man is a means to the ends of others, not an end in himself. Man exists, according to you, to sacrifice his life to other men. How could you be immoral on an island? What would be immoral about suicide? Nobody is around to interact with you, so why should you care about your life? What do you mean morality doesn't exist?. Our only means of identifying morality is our minds. Our only means of implementing is by means of a rational philosophy in the field of ethics, which is a normative science. It is a science. You're a blatant socialist, and you've completely denounced the free market. Wealth is literally material commodity. Our money is valued in gold. Wealth isn't "access to resources", it's a tool used for exchange. I don't have "access" to your house, or "access" to a gold mine, I can only trade with whoever is willing to trade with me.

This thread should be locked

Right, that's me explaining the contradictions in you're vague proposal of a system of government, where you outlined at least two key elements.(from Politics and Debate). If it's a straw man, why did you not correct me? 1. Authority is to be abolished 2. Workers gain control of the workplace Immediately, your definitions of "authority" and "worker" are brought into question. If you're giving workers control of the workplace, you're in effect giving them authority, which means you're not abolishing authority at all -- you're redistributing it (your favorite word) So what constitutes a worker and why should they get authority over non-workers? You don't say. We also don't yet know what a non-worker is. Also, if workers need to be given authority, who had the authority in the first place? Are CEO's not workers? Is someone able to be more of a worker than someone else, thus granting them more authority? Or is it just that people with menial, low level positions are workers? In a situation where a CEO is to hire an employee, who dictates the conditions of employment? If you're abrogating the CEO's right to set the conditions of employment, you're abrogating his right to be a CEO, thus abolishing the free market. I don't think you're really against the free market, even though your ideas are consistent to that effect. That then leads me to believe you're probably against the intellectual hierarchy. Deciding which system is "good" or "bad" is a question of morality. What's the use of a free healthcare system in Darfur, or a privatized system in Ethiopia? These countries have crappy economies because of the fundamental code of ethics of their countries. If you fix the system, a healthy economy and a healthy country would be the result. It's sort of like debating about health care systems for germany in 1943. Notice the health care provided to the jews as a result of Germany's code of ethics

vampires win, sorry some random. can't argue with this reasoning. zombies vs vampires

Really, name one straw-man argument. I resent that claim because my responses to you have been meticulous. If you want to talk about styles of argument, you've used Argument from Intimidation at least a couple times. It's the lowest form of argument.

iron man wears lipstick and eyeliner? I dunno, didn't look like he couldn't withstand a roadside bomb. ;)