basimpson22

Yes, I can avoid it but I'm living at home while pursuing a degree. The parents prefer that I go. Going to church has benefits. I don't miss opportunities for dining out . The parents have an overall better disposition toward me. I get to share the wild statements I hear with everyone on OL. It's an opportunity to socialize (i.e. have awkward conversations with people who are effectively strangers and could really care less).

I get so frustrated with many of the statements I hear in church. It's especially irritating when someone gets up to lead a prayer and thinks it an opportunity for a short sermon. In this prayer/sermon he blamed all the recent natural disasters on this being a "fallen world". Just because you say something with conviction doesn't make it true. These guys can say some of the most ridiculous things and people just nod along. The preacher's sermon centered around Pascal's Wager. He talked about all the things we wouldn't have to worry about in hell: listening to sermons, receiving letters about the gospel.... Something that had me a bit confused is that he said we wouldn't have to worry about people criticizing our lifestyle anymore. Well, Mr. Preacher, we definitely wouldn't have to worry about that if there were no self-righteous bigots like yourself, now would we?

My parents' preacher quoted Mayor Bloomberg this morning. Something about having ample time. Just a random tidbit for everyone.

Lol, I kind of overdid that huh? I don't remember hearing or reading anything about his family putting out the newsletters? Edit: One could put any person under the microscope and find a blemish. One may have prior political biases as well.

Thanks for posting this video.

Surely it's those newsletters of Paul's that were the propaganda. I'm really shocked that a candidate who allowed such things to be published under his name is being seriously considered as president material. Wow, you're buying it too. Buying what? Are the newsletters fake? Sorry, I just read this thread and don't know any of the background. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ItmcIxe5Fs&feature=related I believe allowing this would imply that he either gave his personal approval or had prior knowledge of the newsletter being printed and distributed. It would seem from Paul's response that neither of these conditions were true. I posted a video above. What he's saying is that it's a non-issue to him. I believe he sees right through the allegations made about Ron Paul. One could argue that he was negligent in failing to review the newsletters. One could also debate the authenticity of the newsletters. Sure, they had his name printed on top but how easy would that be to fabricate. Any name could be inserted. Paul wants to legalize marijuana and give amnesty to non-violent drug offenders. This no doubt will be a relief to black communities and has been acknowledged by blacks.

Surely it's those newsletters of Paul's that were the propaganda. I'm really shocked that a candidate who allowed such things to be published under his name is being seriously considered as president material. Wow, you're buying it too.

Mike, I believe you are spreading propaganda. Edit: Not that propaganda doesn't have its uses.

Dr. Tononi says the cortex is a bunch of specialist talking to each other. I actually thought about mentioning this earlier in the thread. Lately, I've been looking into eastern philosophy and I'm not sure who exactly to attribute this to, but certain philosophies suggest that each individual cell in our body has a separate consciousness and that our consciousness is a result of the collection, rather "integration" (as Dr. Tononi suggest), of these individual consciousnesses. Also, they include plantlife in this definition of consciousness. The argument they use for plantlife is the fact that some plant species will stop spreading roots once they detect the roots of another plant of the same species nearby. Perhaps there is a scientific explanation for this?

State his top five (5) foreign policy principles as you understand them, please. State your favorite nominee and their top 5 foreign policies. I wasn't aware that policies were supposed to be bullet lists or for the purpose of short answer questions. So you cannot state his top 5 foreign policy principles. OK. So you can't get an erection. OK.

State his top five (5) foreign policy principles as you understand them, please. State your favorite nominee and their top 5 foreign policies. I wasn't aware that policies were supposed to be bullet lists or for the purpose of short answer questions.

OH hell yeah greybird!!! Ron Paul 2012!! I've been waiting for someone on here to come out of the closet. I made a thread on here about the Republican primaries. I figured people would be unanimous for RP. What's the deal?

Hey Dglgmut, I think I understand where you're coming from. There seems to be so much beyond our own awareness. I believe how we optimize self awareness is through methods that help us access our subconsciousness. I think that's the goal of many eastern religions and philosophies. They strive to heighten their awareness through the use of instruments such as meditation or exploring their dreams. I believe this is what spirituality is about(accessing our subconsciousness). To the typical Objectivist this sort of idea may seem irrational but I personally believe it is essential. The problem arises when one person forces their spirituality on another, but that's a differnt debate. This is my favorite question. Our cells are constantly dying and being replaced by new ones. We are constantly changing physically and mentally.

How do you see the GOP primaries panning out? And who do you favor?

I was watching a little Ann Coulter on youtube. Its good to know the U.S. isn't short of its own religious extremist. She IS a strongly opinionated woman. Perhaps that is why you consider her to be manly. Is that a hint of sexism I see? I love how she doesn't allow people to talk over her. Maybe the problem is that she more closely resembles what you consider to be a "man" than you yourself do. And as far as her appearance goes, I find her an extremely attractive woman. Definitely one of the most attractive women in politics.

I thought this was the rant forum? My God, since when are rants not able to include lapses in judgement and logic. There should be a clause on this fourm. How about "rants subject to scrutiny by politically correct windbags".

I blame religion for my brothers' personality disorders. It was etched into their minds that sex before marriage is a horrific crime against your soul. Within months of their first sexual encounters they were diagnosed bipolar. They are 10 years apart. God! they weren't even able to fully enjoy their first sexual encounters. I think sex ed should encourage kids to have sex. That its enjoyable. Maybe that's the case in other parts of the country but in Tennessee you get a double dose of anti-sex in School and Church. It creates such an internal, unnatural ambivalence that people often just go fucking mad. My older brother's life was irrevocably altered. Hopefully my other brother, who was diagnosed Dec. 2010, will be able to cope sooner.

Awesome! You know about the triune brain theory. I just found out about it a couple days ago. I hope its the same that I found. That the human brain has three parts: reptile, mammal, neo-mammal(human). Edit: Yep, that's it. That would make for an interesting discussion thread. I have a test today otherwise I'd probably start the thread myself.

I believe this explains well what I've come to conclude about you. I believe that you are simply looking for someone who shares this opinion with you. That supporting the government as an Objectivist is contradictory. I'm not looking for people to agree with me for the sake of finding like opinions. All of my close friends already agree with me. I'm trying to understand how a philosophy like Objectivism, populated with very intelligent people that have a huge amount to offer, can go on for decades with this core contradiction slipping by seemingly unnoticed. What I've generally gotten in response are generally evasions (i.e. that I'm taking things out of context, that I'm rationalizing, etc) which don't actually address the question but instead criticize the way I'm asking the question. I'm not sure what the intention is behind these sorts of responses, other than perhaps what you alluded to, that people go to great lengths to not go through process of working out contradictions because they don't like where it takes them. Well, i suppose tax evasion is a volatile issue. Objectivists uphold rational self-interest, therefore, I suppose they believe that the risk isn't worth the reward. One might argue that they aren't considering their fellow man or future generations(1). Well, you won't find any Objectivists martyr's,lol, as they don't believe in self-sacrifice, I suppose not even for the cause of their esteemed ideaology. I am interested in your ideas on dealing with this issue. 1. Rand herself wasn't very fond of children

Xray, you sound like a GHS groupie. All hail King George!

Firstly, I do not speak for "O"bjectivists. Although I attended NBI in the mid 60's before "the break," I refuse to be associated with where the post Randians like Peikoff imprisoned Ayn's philosophy. Second, if there was a sufficiently organized group that refused to pay taxes and was willing to resist being arrested, yes they would be shot. See the American Indian Movement, Randy Weaver and numerous other resistance movements or individuals and how the state dealt with them. You can count the bodies. However, Agorism, as defined in Anarchopedia here is a completely legitimate model. We had a number of Anarchist conferences at Columbia University, City College and Brooklyn College during the 60's and early 70's as anarcho-capitalism, left anarchism, libertarianism and mini-anarchism battled issues and definitions and tried to come to a cohesive place where we could all unify. Jerome Tucille and others were wonderful thinkers to be involved with. One of the key areas of battle was the different views on property: By preferring the term "free market" Agorists are not bound by the implications of the term capitalism. While some Anarcho-Capitalists may believe in replacing all public property with private property, Agorists argue that non-state common property can be legitimate and should be respected. Like Anarcho-Capitalists, and unlike Libertarian Socialists, they believe that private property extends beyond current possession. Private property, particularly in land would not continue infinitely, but must actually be used in some regular capacity to avoid being considered abandoned. Whereas some more extreme Anarcho-Capitalists believe that all property should be private (neo-Lockean) property (hard propertarianism), Agorists are soft propertarian and believe that collective property is permissible. So, to answer your question, I think big "O" bjectivists have huge problems with Agorism, but they are not running this forum, or I would not be here. Adam I see your point. Refusing to pay taxes is probably too brash as well as blatantly self-incriminating, lol.

shoot?! you seriously think people will be executed for refusing to pay taxes? That's ridiculous. Of course, you may simply be employing hyperbole. So from your comment may I assume that Objectivists are opposed to the idea of Agorism?

they're not the only ones with guns. besides, that's a speculative answer. Lol, if they shoot us how will they collect their taxes.

It's possible you might be the first person to read I Met God who understands that I am no less hostile to religion, its dogmas, and its dogmatic clergy than I was when I was an atheist. Surely you're exaggerating. Lol, I think you'll appreciate this video. Hopefully you haven't seen it already.

Aristocrates, Once upon a time, it was inconceivable to have a formal separation of church and state. But it happened. It's the economy's turn. I have no doubt it will happen. These things move slowly, though. In our remote control culture, we want it now. And if we don't get instant gratification, we'll show them. We'll change the channel. But social reality doesn't work that way. Only technology does. Notice how mainstream people get irritated when they talk about a war that is underway. I fully believe that their irritation is partially due to the fact that the show doesn't change. It's still there the next day and changing the channel doesn't work in making it go away. As to Nick, I can't tell what his intentions are. I'm not too impressed with any subtlety on his part. I think it's far better to get the obvious stuff right first, but that's my manner of thinking... Michael I was reading up on Neil Schulman and then it led me to reading on Agorism. To me this seems to be the best solution to our coercive gov't. Instead of separating economics and politics you are eliminating politics altogether. What else is so great about this method is that a non-coercive tactic(holding true to libertarian form) is used to defeat a coercive system. The two big parties approval ratings are at an historic low. Why should we pay taxes when neither party is satisfying their constituents?