RobinReborn

I still haven't thoroughly investigated this because I'm not sure our culture can discuss rape rationally. I'll chime in two basic arguments from psychology and history. 1) Punishment is most effective when applied directly after the crime. Somebody who committed a crime and is immediately punished can (ideally) turn that punishment into a motivation to change their behavior. If you are punished decades after your crime, there's nothing you can do to change your past behaviors and its possible that your criminal behaviors have ended without punishment. 2) Legal systems are old, sexist and don't change quickly, and in the US the defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty. There's not much a woman can do to prove she was raped beyond a reasonable doubt so long as the man claims it was consensual.

Maybe they were inspired by Donald Trump's comments that Mexico should pay for to build a fence between the US and Mexico. for what it's worth, I'm pretty sure most Muslims in the US would pay a tax that size... Let's keep in mind the positives of this situation, the virtuous Christians who oppose ISIS will leave the middle east and move to more virtuous rational countries!

Great article: http://oliveremberton.com/2014/how-to-find-your-passion/

Interesting answer. In terms of Peikoff, what were the top three foundational concepts you resonated with? A... Is there a reason that you avoided answering the Peikoff question? Seasoned citizens are curious... A... I didn't dodge it, I admitted I don't know much about Peikoff's work... furthermore I'm not sure why people are claiming I've listened to 70+ peikoff podcasts or how that makes me a slow learner. I find Peikoff entertaining but can't stand listening to him for long (he calls answers to questions that are less than five minutes podcasts). @Mikee I think the response to somebody who is not worth bothering with is ignoring them. Unless you have nothing else interesting in your life.

Special needs is one of the biggest problems in public schools today. I was diagnosed as special needs in Kindergarden. Thankfully my dad was enraged and got my out of the program, by the 6th grade I was in a gifted and talented program. The issue is that special needs teachers often get paid more than regular teachers. The system is overzealous in diagnosing learning disabilities and many of the special needs teachers themselves are learning disabled.

WW2 was the last "good" war. And any benefits we derived from it have been thoroughly pissed away...Well you do not count Bob, because the all knowing RR eliminated your opinion since you were not born after 1946. Be nice to him, he is not too quick and apparently was able to listen to 70+ Peikoff podcasts. A... Resorting to ad hominem is a sign that you are wrong. People born before 1946's opinions count, it's when they try to use their age as leverage in an argument that's the problem. @Selene, not sure what you're talking about regarding Peikoff. I've listened to some of his podcasts but haven't read his books (and am not sure if they're worth reading).

The problem with arguing with you is you give vague and nebulous negative statements about me without referring to any specific details. I know about war, but I also know that it's highly unpredictable.

I would hope that somebody born after 1946 would believe that all wars the US has fought within their lifetime were wastes of lives and resources No idea what the references to a sister are about.

Was Alexander the Great moral? Was Cortez? What about Khan? Which conquerors do you consider to be the most moral?

@Brant, how about you talk about it rather than doubting me? @Selene, that sounds about right, but Iran is a large enough country that Israel can't nuke every city and it's pretty clear to me that if Israel nuked Iran the entire middle east would invade Israel.

#7,16,18,20

So, which side is better--now--and why and what should the better side do considering what is doing--now? I rant to vent, not because I'm paranoid. All that's needed to for Muslims to rip out the fascism infesting practical, on the ground--now--Islam and/or let it be ripped off them, then we can have peace which is not submission. I have consistently come out against any religious war, but I don't mind pointing out that of the major monotheistic religions Islam is the worst. It's a religion justifying conquest until there's nothing left to conquer. The only problem is that conquesting is also used against fellow Muslims, so it's doctrine is in effect one of perpetual warfare, but in reality only whenever enough Muslims get up enough energy for it, which might take centuries. I also rant to bait you into more of your easily refuted statements --Brant BTW, WTF are you replying to?--my rant isn't on this thread, is it? So, which side is better--now--and why and what should the better side do considering what is doing--now? I rant to vent, not because I'm paranoid. All that's needed to for Muslims to rip out the fascism infesting practical, on the ground--now--Islam and/or let it be ripped off them, then we can have peace which is not submission. I have consistently come out against any religious war, but I don't mind pointing out that of the major monotheistic religions Islam is the worst. It's a religion justifying conquest until there's nothing left to conquer. The only problem is that conquesting is also used against fellow Muslims, so it's doctrine is in effect one of perpetual warfare, but in reality only whenever enough Muslims get up enough energy for it, which might take centuries. I also rant to bait you into more of your easily refuted statements --Brant BTW, WTF are you replying to?--my rant isn't on this thread, is it? So, which side is better--now--and why and what should the better side do considering what is doing--now? I rant to vent, not because I'm paranoid. All that's needed to for Muslims to rip out the fascism infesting practical, on the ground--now--Islam and/or let it be ripped off them, then we can have peace which is not submission. I have consistently come out against any religious war, but I don't mind pointing out that of the major monotheistic religions Islam is the worst. It's a religion justifying conquest until there's nothing left to conquer. The only problem is that conquesting is also used against fellow Muslims, so it's doctrine is in effect one of perpetual warfare, but in reality only whenever enough Muslims get up enough energy for it, which might take centuries. I also rant to bait you into more of your easily refuted statements --Brant BTW, WTF are you replying to?--my rant isn't on this thread, is it? Unfortunately individual Muslims can't do much to rip fascism out of Islam. Islam has been divided whereas once it was (relatively) united... it's grown much more violent since it has been divided. Islam had a relatively short period of time when it was better than Christianity of Judaism, I don't think it's inherently worse than either though right now it clearly is. In practice Christianity has conquered more and destroyed more, though that is in part because its' been around longer. This perpetual conquest isn't inherent to Islam, Islam used to be mainly controlled by the Ottoman Empire, it wasn't really a threat then (except to Russia, which is often an enemy of the west). For the record, it's not clear to me that you've refuted what I've said or understood it... your rant is on this thread.

You say you understand the difference between defensive and offensive, but then say differently - about "the middle east", stating (in effect) : They are always fighting so what's the difference why, and who wins, who loses? Youve made it clear that it's been not practical (only) for Israel to initiate violence (of a non-defensive nature) not acknowledging nor apparently recognizing, that Israel would not do so on principle - that is, morally. Even over the past several decades when it held the nukes and overwhelming military power to do so. This in itself is an amoral argument. By invoking belligerent equivalence you imply moral equivalence and therefore put paid to morality. I'm curious: What is "morality" to you? is there any action or any person in your frame, that is or was "moral"? Do you judge everything only by pragmatism? Do you have any idea how much fallout Israel's nukes would cause? Aside from the international response and condemnation, they'd have to deal with the fallout themselves. Israel continues to fight assymetric warfare, that is they attack opponents who are weaker than they are and kill tens or hundreds times more people than they lose. And large regions of oil would not be accessible, driving energy prices way up. Morality is practicality in the long term. Can you give me a long term practical solution for Israel's continued existence in the middle east (especially considering the historical precedence of countries in that region lasting about 100 years on average)? @Greg, the curse came when the Ottoman Empire fell. Israel's significance is religious and geopolitical (due to its proximity to the Suez Canal) in importance, hardly curse worthy.

Bob, let it go. He flew 28 missions. I did not. You did not. Thank him for his service and move on. A... Service towards whom?

Stallman is a major ideologue who doesn't let practicality into his perspective. He's against Uber because he knows that the information collected them will be used to invade privacy.

Wow, this thread got ugly and insulting pretty quick... @Brant, sorry I don't accept your paranoid definition of Islam. Islam has been around for around 1300 years and has varied in its tendency towards violence over those years. There's no reason to believe it will be violent permanently. Ultimately Islam did initiate force against Christianity, but then decades later Christianity initiated even more force against Islam. It's a stupid conflict and while one side may be better than another rational people shouldn't take sides in conflicts between the irrational. @Selene, more paranoid nonsense. No need to go on a crusade to eliminate a philosophy based on the actions of 1% of the adherents. Furthermore if you look into the history there's quite a bit of US meddling in the Middle East which these terrorists use as justifications. Not that I expect you to actually look into that, you'll probably just attack the way I think and spout more irrelevant facts that don't counter my argument.

What's special about the Jews and Israel is an unfortunate tendency for those people and that region to fall prey to violence. I don't believe in historical determinism and I'm not an Anti-semite but some basic knowledge of history leads me to my thoughts on the situation. The land currently called Israel has been called many different things over the years, it's been conquered by many different empires. I think the life expectancy of occupation of that region is about 90 years and there is always massive violence as it transfers occupiers. Jewish people have been kicked out of nearly every country in Europe at some point in history. They enjoyed relative acceptance in the Ottoman Empire, but shortly after it fell Mossad arranged something called Operation Magic Carpet where they "rescued" jews from throughout the middle east (except Iran). Now there's a large concentration of Jewish people in a small region of the world adjacent to one of the most important transit points for international shipping surrounded by countries that are unstable, violent and some of which may acquire nuclear weapons in the next few decades. In practice, there's not much that the USA can do to save Israel. There may be hope for Israel to save itself diplomatically, but I'm not optimistic about that. Meanwhile they are trying to solve their problems with violence.... it will not work out for them in the long term. Robin: Facts - Operation Magic Carpet was in 1949 and only from the Yemen, long after the Ottoman Empire fell (1918) and limited to 45,000 Jews. (The Imam of Yemen ~permitted~ that number out of the population of 46,000 to be airlifted out in American and British transport planes). Like there, Jews in most Arabic countries had been for generations relegated to second class or guest status (Dhimmis). As in Yemen, immediate with the founding of Israel, violent incidents and killings in many Arab countries against them dramatically increased. You think they should have stayed? Do you understand the difference between (almost exclusively) defensive "violence" - and offensive? If it went by the morality of its enemies, Israel has, and has had, the military capability to control or possess several times its present territory. Ask yourself why it hasn't. OK, so I thought that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ezra_and_Nehemiah Was part of Operation Magic Carpet, I guess it has a different name but it's the same thing only a different time and country. As for whether Jews should have stayed in the Middle East, I don't claim to be able to predict alternate histories but now that there are basically zero jews in the middle east outside of Israel (and Iran) the situation becomes harder to resolve peacefully. Think about it, part of the reason the US can negotiate treaties with almost any country in the world is because there are citizens of almost every country in the world in the US. As for defensive and offensive violence, I do understand those concepts. But I don't think they apply too well to the situation in the middle east. People have been fighting there for centuries and everybody claims they're using defensive violence and their enemy is using offensive violence but they have different religions, and languages and histories etc so they continue to fight amongst themselves. The US should not have any long term interests in the region, it's too unstable. Israel does not have the military capacity to control much land outside of its borders, it's military is too small and there are too many people who hate jews near Israel. Its military is very strong (partly because of a nationwide draft which is completely immoral) but there is a significant anti-war movement in Israel. The more land it controls, the harder it becomes to control it and the more likely it is for another country to attack it. It's military strategy of occasionally using excessive force (in conflicts where the aggressor is hard to discern but Mossad and Israeli intelligence can often concoct a convince story to make Israel look like the defender) is practical in the short term, but not in the long term. It's not clear to me what a practical long term strategy for Israel should be. I do not think the US can save Israel.

@Selene, thanks for the contextless accusations. You're clearly a wise old man who feels so right that he's comfortable not supporting his arguments with evidence, but feels the right to request support from others... Your history is outdated and I fear you're too old to bother learning all of the new developments, oh well!

Please take the time to check your assumptions, Robin. That comment comes off as uninformed, as if you have never heard of the Baha'i or flogging of women who don't dress according to religious dictates. Pretty well is a relative term, compared to other countries in that region...

But Iran doesn't oppress the 80% of its population which happen to be the original inhabitants. To my understand minorities are treated pretty well in Iran... And Iran was never part of the west... all these negotiations are happening because the West recognizes that it can't rule the world anymore and want to outsource security issues to the countries that are powerful. And if Iran fucks up and uses the nukes inappropriate, the West has a very good excuse to invade and nobody would oppose it.

But Iran doesn't oppress the 80% of its population which happen to be the original inhabitants. To my understand minorities are treated pretty well in Iran... And Iran was never part of the west... all these negotiations are happening because the West recognizes that it can't rule the world anymore and want to outsource security issues to the countries that are powerful. And if Iran fucks up and uses the nukes inappropriate, the West has a very good excuse to invade and nobody would oppose it.

What's special about the Jews and Israel is an unfortunate tendency for those people and that region to fall prey to violence. I don't believe in historical determinism and I'm not an Anti-semite but some basic knowledge of history leads me to my thoughts on the situation. The land currently called Israel has been called many different things over the years, it's been conquered by many different empires. I think the life expectancy of occupation of that region is about 90 years and there is always massive violence as it transfers occupiers. Jewish people have been kicked out of nearly every country in Europe at some point in history. They enjoyed relative acceptance in the Ottoman Empire, but shortly after it fell Mossad arranged something called Operation Magic Carpet where they "rescued" jews from throughout the middle east (except Iran). Now there's a large concentration of Jewish people in a small region of the world adjacent to one of the most important transit points for international shipping surrounded by countries that are unstable, violent and some of which may acquire nuclear weapons in the next few decades. In practice, there's not much that the USA can do to save Israel. There may be hope for Israel to save itself diplomatically, but I'm not optimistic about that. Meanwhile they are trying to solve their problems with violence.... it will not work out for them in the long term.

I suppose I'd find this funnier if I'd actually watched Breakfast at Tiffany's rather than just knowing it was a popular movie before I was born.

@Mikee it's probably because he hopes that racists will be convinced that racism is bad by statistics... Unfortunately most racists are too dumb to understand the thoroughly concept of a Bell Curve: http://www.livescience.com/18132-intelligence-social-conservatism-racism.html

Let me answer that question without watching the video: Firstly, it needs to be taken on a case by case basis, there are many different forms of Islamic Extremism and many Islamic Extremists will never be violent. I look towards mental health and history. There was a time when Islam was more respected than today. There are problems with the form of Western Liberal 'Christianity' practiced in the USA and rather than examine them individually and come up with solutions, people bundle them together and identify them as evil and conjure utopic visions of a wonderful islamic world (based partly on successes Islamic regions have had in the past). Every society has its scapegoat. The US is multicultural and every culture has its own perspective, but there are a few things that most cultures agree on in the USA. The scapegoat of the USA has historically been Africans, there was a time when it was Irish/Italians/Jews/some other groups but for most of history Africans have been the low men on the totem pole. After 9/11 it was Muslims, for a while after that it was gays. Now we have a (partly) African president and gay marriage became legal so the gays aren't on the bottom anymore and Muslims. It's massive social upheaval in a relatively short period of time and some people can't handle that without becoming violent. This also explains the violence of that (poor, white, uneducated) Dylann Storm Roof psycho.