A possible solution to the threat of Islam

[Rich Engle]

You can go on Amazon and get a used copy of Goleman's "Emotional Intelligence: 10th Anniversary Edition; Why It Can Matter More than I.Q." starting at 11.98 US.

I'm just saying...

[zantonavitch]

Barbara,

Do you mean to ask who in the end should decide what is "extra objective, and deeply factually neutral" and what "subjectivity and personal opinions" need to be "stripped away" in the judges?

Why, Kyrel, of course.

He has made that clear in many posts.

Michael

Michael: Grossly false. Objective law shouldn't be such a nebulous and difficult concept. I favor and promote rule of law in all government matters -- such as with captured jihadi suspects -- and with a principled consistency few or no other Objectivists do. I don't know what "many posts" you're referring to, and I'd be interested in reading even one that could be so twisted. My advocacy of objectivity, neutrality, and impartiality in law -- and even in journalism -- is unambiguous and emphatic. "Mental cruelty" laws, in defense of children, currently widely exist. They just need to be tweaked a bit, in consideration of the genuinely and objectively evil act of "teaching" innocent, vulnerable children religion.

[Brant Gaede]

Barbara,

Do you mean to ask who in the end should decide what is "extra objective, and deeply factually neutral" and what "subjectivity and personal opinions" need to be "stripped away" in the judges?

Why, Kyrel, of course.

He has made that clear in many posts.

Michael

Michael: Grossly false. Objective law shouldn't be such a nebulous and difficult concept. I favor and promote rule of law in all government matters -- such as with captured jihadi suspects -- and with a principled consistency few or no other Objectivists do. I don't know what "many posts" you're referring to, and I'd be interested in reading even one that could be so twisted. My advocacy of objectivity, neutrality, and impartiality in law -- and even in journalism -- is unambiguous and emphatic. "Mental cruelty" laws, in defense of children, currently widely exist. They just need to be tweaked a bit, in consideration of the genuinely and objectively evil act of "teaching" innocent, vulnerable children religion.

Is secular dogmatism okay, then? BTW, I know of something worse for children: Your fault! It can't be my fault, for I am an adult and know much more than you and I can't be evil or wrong so if I shit on you there must be something wrong with you that denies you my love. So I shit on you and you crawl to me for forgiveness. Therefore you spend the rest of your life looking not for love but for someone to shit on you for the shitter is right and you are wrong and there must be love behind that crapper!

--Brant

Edited September 17, 2008 by Brant Gaede

[Selene]

Comrade Zantonovit:

We know that the State knows best how to raise children, look at how well they pick up garbage.

And Comrade we know that the State knows best what is "mentally cruel" to children, but unfortunately we would have to include all of your specious and unsupported fantasies that would fall into your Order as to what is and is not mentally cruel.

And Comrade, my child's teacher is a lesbian who comes in with a whip and leather boots, but she is Madame Commissar's live in companion, so what do we do about those children.

Comrade as a free man, if you ever try to take my child into one of your re-education classrooms, well suffice it to say, I make head shots and you can't wear body armor there.

Am I clear Comrade, stay off my land, stay away from my children or face the consequences.

What is this the audacity of Marxism?

Adam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Kyrel,

It was a couple of years ago or so, but my antenna first wiggled on this issue when you mentioned that you could author a book that would save humanity if only you could find a sponsor. I don't have time to dig that far back.

But let's not quibble. I presume that if you aren't suggesting you be the one to set the standards, you won't mind if Barack Obama or John McCain "tweak" the laws, depending on who wins. After all, the winner will get paid by taxpayers to so tweak.

Is it fair to say that?

Michael