tjohnson

It's interesting if you make the analogy with firearms in the US. The pro-firearm lobby thinks if everyone has firearms then the "bad guys" are deterred. The other side argues that having guns all over the place increases the likelihood that they will be used and result in needless deaths.

LOL. You have a way with words Dan. I have 3 daughter and 2 grandsons. I spanked my first daughter somewhat, my 2nd daughter somewhat less and my 3rd daughter hardly at all. From my experience spanking is mostly about the parents venting anger and frustration. As I got older and "matured" I did not have so much anger and frustration to vent and so I dealt with my children in a more rational way. Now I have seen it stated that you should be calm and administer the spanking in an orderly fashion and frankly, I don't know what to say about that except that if I wasn't angry I don't think I could spank anyone, in fact, I would find it quite silly.

I think the idea that aggression is a good thing is related to the idea that competition is the ideal of human achievement. If you don't buy into that then the aggression doesn't look so good.

I do.

Oh you mean like the war in Iraq the US started? Is the US bearing the onus for these damages?

Unfortunately everyone is not as open-minded as you Dan.

There is no way to reason with him about his views on war.

Yes, and we should use physical punishment on them because that will make them much more angelic?

I agree 100% Discalimer; I have no use for doctors. If I had cancer or heart disease i would treat myself and I'm not kidding. I have learned more about health in the last 3 years than my doctor knows about it. So the whole healthcare issue to me is academic. Insurance is supposed to protect individuals from catastrophes, it's not supposed to be for trivial things and that's exactly what is happening - in both private and public systems and the mixture of them. I applaud insurance companies that would get involved in preventative medicine and that's something that could be done by governments or private companies equally well.

I also found this by Joseph Rowlands here; This is definitely in conflict with wave-particle duality. I don't why he thinks something can't be knowable without the law of identity. We know a great deal about photons even if they act like waves sometimes and particles at other times.

This person did. http://www.geniebust.../04e_ex01C.html

The pen is mightier than the sword.

Two truths from your statement will always loom; consumer needs (food, clothing, etc.) and people getting sick. The article on Ford's achievements and societal benefits can be applied in medicine as well. Granted, there are corporations that take advantage of sick people...extremely disheartening. However, it does not negate the positive aspects of free market medicine. A lot of the money goes into research and development, both in medicine and surgical procedures. I seriously doubt the government could duplicate the advancements by pioneering doctors and engineers if they regulated them. Ideologically, there may be a difference, but a dollar is a dollar. ~ Shane Yes but health insurance is the issue Obama was speaking about, not technological advancements in medicine. Do the health insurance companies invest in R&D to help make people healthier? Or do they try and make profit by charging high premiums and paying as few claims as they can?

Wow, there's a lot of comments on that article! Very controversial. I think it's pretty obvious that repeated physical punishment will lead to an attitude that "might is right".

But surely there is a difference in profit from making consumer goods and profit from people's illness?

Nope, every day is an adventure.

I don't know if it qualifies as romantic art or not (seems like a rather academic question) but I definitely enjoyed the first season. Why is it so important to pigeon-hole everything into some category? I watch TV for diversion, not to tax my brain. For that I try to figure out my 16 year old daughter.

Wow, I wonder how fast he was going.

I found this link on the above page. See here. My first thought is that we have only been technologically advanced enough to go to the moon (manned) even though the earth is around 4.5 billion years old. Why would expect other lifeforms in our galaxy, if they exist, to be any more advanced than us? Maybe a million years from NOW one could expect humans (and others?) could colonize the galaxy but I see no reason to expect to see evidence of intelligent life in our galaxy at present.

Well, at least you care if Canada gets nuked or not What is your criteria for the selection above?

I wasn't offended by his statement because I interpreted it as referring to US foreign policy. I think it's way out of line to call him a "jew-hater" based on that comment.

Try this next time [sarcasm]Enter sarcasm here[/sarcasm].

Maybe you have provided the elusive term yourself here, self-sacrifice. The traditional meaning of 'sacrifice' is to give up a lesser value for a greater one but a 'self-sacrifice' is to give up a value for nothing?

I don't think a person would give up a greater value for a lesser one unless they were forced to or were tricked into it. Maybe this is the point - people are tricked into believing it's better to put someone else's interests above their own. Objectivism tries to help people realize this is happening?

I don't think a person would give up a greater value for a lesser one unless they were forced to or were tricked into it.