He wasn't speaking about genetic predispositions to prostate or breast cancer. Let's speak honestly. He said what he meant to say. He meant somehow moral causes of diseases and ailments. Reminds me of the christian flaggelant movements.

Your earlier comments about people having 'diseases inside of themselves' don't need further references.

I'm sorry, Robert, but I didn't read Thorin's comment like that.

I can partly agree with him, that some people are more predisposed to get illnesses, and certain cancer forms are hereditary, like a certain form of breast cancer, where women, who have relatives, mothers and sisters, who had breast cancer, have chosen to have preventive mastectomies done as the probability of themselves getting it is very high.

It's a common perception mostly in the New Age circles that we cause our illnesses ourselves through negative ways of thinking, and that you also can cure yourself through positive thinking.

But this is actually a problem for people who suffer from some very aggressive lethal illnesses, such as certain forms of cancer, and it can create a lot of guilt feelings in the patients, that they themselves are responsible for their condition, that they themselves have brought them into their situation. And some of them are taking measures in trying to heal themselves through alternative healing, some very painful and always extremely expensive. So, besides fighting a serious illness, they also have to fight those feelings of being alone, of having caused their own situation. And that is inhuman in my opinion.

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

Let's speak honestly.

You first... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

to be honest, I'm amazed that we've made it as far as we have! Humans are destructive, selfish, and primitive creatures. Give us another 50,000 years to evolve, and those spending figures might reverse - but I don't know if we'll be around long enough to reap the benefits!

Back in the beginning.,

Well humans in this form have been around for quarter of a million years and in any supposed aggressive form have been around since we were any tiny living creature several billion years ago..

one of the base propositions of this thread is that humans are inherently 'bad' (or let's say towards the negative.. being self destructive) yet we are still here.. still creating.. still growing.. still maturing.

It is certain that humans like all animals will continue to struggle against our better natures and against the environment but look at what we have achieved..

We are the fortunate children of a technological age that suddenly hit gold some 200+ years when we found power, steam then petrol. We take one finger and press a button that churns out cars, medicines, plastic buckets and things our ancestors could not even imagine... We do 1 percent of the work and the machines do the rest.

When I look at the world we live in I see so many miles to travel but a heritage that makes me proud because we have already travelled so far.

I don't see the fallen from grace or expelled from Eden creatures our belief systems tell us about but I see the hope and aspirations of my Grand-Mother, and my work and effort, and with some care and carefull planning, the future for our Grand-Children.

I certainly don't see either individualist or collectivist. I see the universe's most wonderful animals created by god or nature that have existed for longer than we can remember... existing because we can.


Oh sorry.. I got lost.. Science,. Money., Humans... I assume one is an endevour, the next is a collatoral device and the last was just a description... All of which were in reality created by us.. and made practically possible by the majority of those similar to us but who have probably never heard of SETI type projects but keep punching out the bread, cars, light, tables we all consume.

Just throwing a spanner in the cogs... (I've been away for so long I had to start at the beginning of the thread.).. Now where we?

---

But Kant has been thoroughly bashed on the front of Universal values a long time ago. What is universal is just culturally derived from common practice in the beforementioned culture. For instance it is okay for an american leader to be pro executions, but that is not okay for a european leader since in europe consensus is against the procedure. So for that there is no universal value. And I would be seriously surprised if you or anyone else could come up with something that is a universal value, because that would also have to be TRUE for ALL.

Surprise: Truth, Righteousness, Reliability are three out of many universal values which are appreciated in every culture.

Is truth really universal? And what is truth? For instance an author who is writing a fictional book is not stating something that is in a strict sense true, but it is still upheld in many societies as something good. The theory behind a nuclear bomb is in many ways TRUE, but most people do not see it as something "good".The only things that are universally true is well-formed formal sentence logic. Some mathematicians do not agree on this and says that mathematics in a closed system based on mathematical logics is also true.
Righteousness? Whose righteousness are you talking about? George Bush certainly believe that he is that. You do so, and so does many others. Problem is that their definition of it is not the same. I do not think I am righteous, I know I am not. So that can't be universal.
Reliability? If that was something universal, how come then that most things and people break when either the warranty or the contract has run out, the rest break their reliabality thingy before that date.

Normally here a swede for instance will come up with that it is a universal value to not spank children. An american will come up with that it is not okay to eat children. Most cultures will come up with that sex is not okay with children. But there is probably somewhere out there a spanking cannibalistic pedophile who will go "Oh yeah! Says who?".

IMHO a too exaggerated example to be taken serious.

Yes it is exaggerated, but obviously you couldn't prove it wrong.

So the only viable option is to say "that freedom is the abillity to live by the majority values". Which is actually the system behind most cultures way of instigating laws. But it is not TRUE freedom in every sense of the word. And thusly true freedom is a chimera sought after by lesser souls without contact with reallity.

Sad that you are believing this. I think that many of the people who don't wish to see (and even fight for) a better world are just slaves of greed and envy or of ignorance.

And now you are putting words in my mouth that I never said. Stop doing that. I find that it is a large infringement on my personal freedom that your doing.

I do fight for a better world in more ways than you would understand. But that does not make me into a such an idealistic person that I do not see how the world is. By better understanding it I can actually do more.
Question: What have you done personally to make the world a better place for other people without being egoistic while doing it?
Answer: Nothing. (And I can prove it)

You are well meaning young man. But you are seriously lacking in knowledge. I suggest that you study philosophy to get your argumentation straightened out. Because you are right now just reinventing a wheel that was finnished in constructing more than 2000 years ago. And if I might add, it is fun like heck to study philosophy, but not easy.
If you want to read up some more I suggest John Rawls "A Theory of Justice". I found that book really good.

Carl

I'd like more clarification on all of these points you are trying to raise here. Thanks.

Hello R/B.
And I who thought I was clear for once... *phew* What I was trying to prove was that the young gentleman in question did not really have a good grip on what the concepts he was using really entails. My point in all cases was that there are no Universaly Valid Values, and that the Concepts are hollow and meaningless as Universal Values, however commendable they may be as Goals.
What people often do is take something that perhap's should be a Goal and make them into Universal entities. Bush for instance is doing that a lot, I am positively shure you can find an apropriate example in and from him.
How about you read the book i mentioned?

Carl

---

It is SEXY to DONATE!
Skype = demiurg2

You cannot have it both ways. You just said that all libertarians want to stop both corporate and other wellfare. You have to decide on one of them.

The Futurist Manifesto was written by Marinetti. I think you should read it. It says the same things you do just a lot better.

Is it liberty to stop people and corporations from doing welfare? I thought that was totaliarism.

Any person or any corporation can do whatever welfare they wish, to whatever extent that they wish. However, no one has the right to force them to do any of those things. If they choose to do them freely, more power to them.

So your libertarianism is all about you being against everything else for the sake of it? And wanting to force everything to your view?

No, it means that no person or entity has the right to initiate force against anyone else. Meaning that you can believe whatever you wish, as long as you don't seek to make me pay for it, or force me to do anything to support it. It doesn't matter what you believe, or I believe, as long as we both have to live as a result of our choices.

I guess that you do like speed and moving pistons and rushing steem to? Read the futurist manifesto man.

I have no idea what this means.

---

It is SEXY to DONATE!
Skype = demiurg2

Thorin, they are to christian right-wing to believe in genetics.

That is why they think you are trying to euthanase people. For them god created them to obey his will and have money in the wallett and babes in the bank while they are naked around hemp-growers.
On of the most useless things one can do is actually trying to make them understand GATTACCA;-)

My few öre!
Carl

Your earlier comments about people having 'diseases inside of themselves' don't need further references.

Okay. I understand. Well - I know, only a few vocabular problems, just expression problems. I hope this time it sounds not too confuse.

But what I wrote (I have re-read the post you meant), at least what I meant while I wrote them, has nothing to do with eugenics. Do not connect my comments with this insane, evil "Race hygienic" stuff.

But it does have to do with genetics. Because, I learned in Biology that some diseases, and also the - like I said: affinity - for other diseases are given by parents to their children via genes. Some of them are dominant, these are given directly from the parents to the kids - and some are recessive, they may lack a few generations. So that - say my great-grandfather can have suffered from a cancer (so the affinity to get it is in the genes), and not my grandfather after him was suffering from a cancer, neither my father after, it was "carried" hidden, recessively, to my brother. My Grandfather, and my father had the disease in their bodies, but it didn't come out in them, they were healthy - they just "carried" it. Similar but worse like when you "carry" flu viruses from one sick person to "give" them to another without getting the flu yourself.
So my thought was, that people can't know whether they got the "bad" genes or just "carry" them to the next generation. So, if there is any substance triggering something of your genetic heritage, you can become sick, and your brother not, though he had the same substances around. You (becoming sick) had that gene, he (remaining healthy) didn't have it or is just "carrying" it maybe to one of his children or grandchildren.

It's like with the blood groups: When parents have A, and the other B, they can - depending on their recessive Genotype - give birth to children with A, B, AB, and 0. That's why the blood test is sometimes complicated.

---

It is SEXY to DONATE!
Skype = demiurg2

R/B, it is not polite to put words in someones mouth.

He wasn't speaking about genetic predispositions to prostate or breast cancer. Let's speak honestly. He said what he meant to say. He meant somehow moral causes of diseases and ailments. Reminds me of the christian flaggelant movements.

Your earlier comments about people having 'diseases inside of themselves' don't need further references.

I'm sorry, Robert, but I didn't read Thorin's comment like that.

I can partly agree with him, that some people are more predisposed to get illnesses, and certain cancer forms are hereditary, like a certain form of breast cancer, where women, who have relatives, mothers and sisters, who had breast cancer, have chosen to have preventive mastectomies done as the probability of themselves getting it is very high.

It's a common perception mostly in the New Age circles that we cause our illnesses ourselves through negative ways of thinking, and that you also can cure yourself through positive thinking.

But this is actually a problem for people who suffer from some very aggressive lethal illnesses, such as certain forms of cancer, and it can create a lot of guilt feelings in the patients, that they themselves are responsible for their condition, that they themselves have brought them into their situation. And some of them are taking measures in trying to heal themselves through alternative healing, some very painful and always extremely expensive. So, besides fighting a serious illness, they also have to fight those feelings of being alone, of having caused their own situation. And that is inhuman in my opinion.

---

It is SEXY to DONATE!
Skype = demiurg2

If I am ignorant than perhap's you can alleviate that in a small measure since I am an ignorant idiot that gives you the heebie jeebies. I have a couple of questions about libertarianism that you might answer so that I do not have to stumble like that through life.

1. If I understand Rand correctly, and there is a big chance I have not, she and her libertarian predecessors advocate that no one should force any one to do anything. Am I correct in assuming that?

2. If I was correct on question one then; To argue for Rand is in a way trying to "educate" people in libertarianism, and educating is a very short step, or no step at all, from coercion into a belief. And is not coercion the same as forcing? Then my question would be, is it not a logical paradox to actually argue for libertarianism?

3. Wouldn't you as a libertarian agree that violence is the penultimate way of forcing someone?

4. Would you agree that language can be used as a tool for violence?

5. Since we both can agree that you are in no position to actually do any violence on my person, my follow up question from the above would be. Are you not using name-calling as a weapon of violence to force me to be silent and not threaten your core values?

Yours sincerely;
Carl

---

It is SEXY to DONATE!
Skype = demiurg2

And let's not get into the willies;-) I think there is enough testosteron snowing in here as it is;-)

Carl

---

It is SEXY to DONATE!
Skype = demiurg2

*Handing a cool beverage to cRunchy*
Now your post is back in buisiness!
Sorry!

to be honest, I'm amazed that we've made it as far as we have! Humans are destructive, selfish, and primitive creatures. Give us another 50,000 years to evolve, and those spending figures might reverse - but I don't know if we'll be around long enough to reap the benefits!

Back in the beginning.,

Well humans in this form have been around for quarter of a million years and in any supposed aggressive form have been around since we were any tiny living creature several billion years ago..

one of the base propositions of this thread is that humans are inherently 'bad' (or let's say towards the negative.. being self destructive) yet we are still here.. still creating.. still growing.. still maturing.

It is certain that humans like all animals will continue to struggle against our better natures and against the environment but look at what we have achieved..

We are the fortunate children of a technological age that suddenly hit gold some 200+ years when we found power, steam then petrol. We take one finger and press a button that churns out cars, medicines, plastic buckets and things our ancestors could not even imagine... We do 1 percent of the work and the machines do the rest.

When I look at the world we live in I see so many miles to travel but a heritage that makes me proud because we have already travelled so far.

I don't see the fallen from grace or expelled from Eden creatures our belief systems tell us about but I see the hope and aspirations of my Grand-Mother, and my work and effort, and with some care and carefull planning, the future for our Grand-Children.

I certainly don't see either individualist or collectivist. I see the universe's most wonderful animals created by god or nature that have existed for longer than we can remember... existing because we can.


Oh sorry.. I got lost.. Science,. Money., Humans... I assume one is an endevour, the next is a collatoral device and the last was just a description... All of which were in reality created by us.. and made practically possible by the majority of those similar to us but who have probably never heard of SETI type projects but keep punching out the bread, cars, light, tables we all consume.

Just throwing a spanner in the cogs... (I've been away for so long I had to start at the beginning of the thread.).. Now where we?

---

It is SEXY to DONATE!
Skype = demiurg2

1. If I understand Rand correctly, and there is a big chance I have not, she and her libertarian predecessors advocate that no one should force any one to do anything. Am I correct in assuming that?

No. You're 100% wrong. This is silly. Rational thinkers believe that noone should initiate force against another individual.

2. If I was correct on question one then; To argue for Rand is in a way trying to "educate" people in libertarianism, and educating is a very short step, or no step at all, from coercion into a belief. And is not coercion the same as forcing? Then my question would be, is it not a logical paradox to actually argue for libertarianism?

See above as your labelled '1' question contains the faulty premise within your number '2' point.

3. Wouldn't you as a libertarian agree that violence is the penultimate way of forcing someone?

Yes. And fraud is a type of abstract or indirect 'violence'.

4. Would you agree that language can be used as a tool for violence?

In cases of fraud and related matters. See above.

5. Since we both can agree that you are in no position to actually do any violence on my person, my follow up question from the above would be. Are you not using name-calling as a weapon of violence to force me to be silent and not threaten your core values?

This is madness. I called you an 'idiot'. This is now a 'threat of violence' in your estimation. I cannot 'force you to be silent. Me calling you out for being an 'idiot' is not a 'weapon'.

Nothing you say has or can somehow threaten my 'core values'.

Yours sincerely;
Carl[/quote]

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

1. If I understand Rand correctly, and there is a big chance I have not, she and her libertarian predecessors advocate that no one should force any one to do anything. Am I correct in assuming that?

No. You're 100% wrong. This is silly. Rational thinkers believe that noone should initiate force against another individual.

Hm, so what you are saying is that I misinterpreted it in the way of me saying "that no one should force any one", where it should have stated "that no one should 'initiate' force against any one". So what you are saying is that it is not okay to start a beef, but it is okay to use force to defend yourself?

2. If I was correct on question one then; To argue for Rand is in a way trying to "educate" people in libertarianism, and educating is a very short step, or no step at all, from coercion into a belief. And is not coercion the same as forcing? Then my question would be, is it not a logical paradox to actually argue for libertarianism?

See above as your labelled '1' question contains the faulty premise within your number '2' point.

Then I reissue my question number two with the alteration from number one.

3. Wouldn't you as a libertarian agree that violence is the penultimate way of forcing someone?

Yes. And fraud is a type of abstract or indirect 'violence'.

Good, and I totally agree on the fraud part.

4. Would you agree that language can be used as a tool for violence?

In cases of fraud and related matters. See above.

And wouldn't you agree that the same might be true if language is used to convay threats and to willfully hurt people?

5. Since we both can agree that you are in no position to actually do any violence on my person, my follow up question from the above would be. Are you not using name-calling as a weapon of violence to force me to be silent and not threaten your core values?

This is madness. I called you an 'idiot'. This is now a 'threat of violence' in your estimation. I cannot 'force you to be silent. Me calling you out for being an 'idiot' is not a 'weapon'.

If you agree that words can hurt, than it follows that words can be weapons. To quote Cicero; "The pen is mightier than the sword".

Nothing you say has or can somehow threaten my 'core values'.

Good, I actually do not want to do that. At most I wish people to look at things from many angles.

Yours sincerely;
Carl

---

It is SEXY to DONATE!
Skype = demiurg2

Interesting. You've just agreed with all of the points I have raised except for an understanding of 'words hurt people' type objections.

There's no type of world I can imagine where you can escape the possibility for having your 'feelings hurt'. If someone gives you the middle finger while you walk across the street....or if you are called an 'idiot'.....or your girlfriend dumps you there is and should not be any legal protection against these 'harmful words'.

I'm afraid you're just going to have to toughen up and cope.

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

*Handing a cool beverage to cRunchy*
Now your post is back in buisiness!
Sorry!
.... SNIP SNIP My Diatribe stuff

Tar :)

In some ways I wish this thread was named differently.

For me 'money' has no real meaning outside of a sense of personal security come pleasure.

I am almost certain that all humans use money as primarily a way of securing their need, desires and alieviating their fears.

Science is (for us educated outside of an overtly religious society) a way to practically forward ourselves or a way of averting the worst of the problems we could face.

Humans as a category is quite plain and simple as long as we accept that we are the most 'creative' but not always the most intelligent of this worlds creatures.

The first post was about whether we as humans can change our ways when it comes to the way we allocate funds.

I suggest that if we change the language of the arguement (perhaps just for a second to the microcosm) we might ask whether you or I (anyone, a human) could happily shift our resources (money, power, or quest for personal security & happiness) from the self to the universal (science = universe, outside, world or social) discovery.

I suspect we do this all the time in so many ways but do not always acknowledge we do.

I have no problem paying taxes... I need roads, hospitals and sewer cleaners.

I hate paying taxes for guns & bombs.

I love paying taxes to employ soldiers who will stop mad people from killing me.

I accept my neighbour is old and needs care. She worked in a factory for 40+ years and made bolts that may even now support the chair I sit on.

Who Cares!!

SETI is a wonderful idea and more than that is a premier project when we think of distributed computing.

For me science can some times give us hope for a wonderful future (our best hopes and aspirations). Money is just a transactionary device we have accepted that can be swapped for something of value as long as we fight to make every cent, paisa or penny count and Humans... Well humans are neither individuals nor collective beings...

This forum shows us every day that we are both collective in love of friendship, family and community and inherently odd in our sense of self.


I wish this thread were called "Aspirations, Gains and Crazy Creatures"

Maybe it would make less sense but then I would probably make more sense.. Hehe..

(Sorry for my bad smelling..)

---

Interesting. You've just agreed with all of the points I have raised except for an understanding of 'words hurt people' type objections.

There's no type of world I can imagine where you can escape the possibility for having your 'feelings hurt'. If someone gives you the middle finger while you walk across the street....or if you are called an 'idiot'.....or your girlfriend dumps you there is and should not be any legal protection against these 'harmful words'.

I'm afraid you're just going to have to toughen up and cope.

The part of me toughening up was not my point. My point was and is that you are a fraud. You use words meaningfully to hurt people so that they will shut up and bend to your will. And as soon as someone does not agree with you, you start badgering them with words like 'idiot' so that they will shut up and go home so to speak.
But this time it did not work.

The reason for us agreeing is because you are diverting from your ideology and or do not see that it contains logical errors.

One last question. Have you actually read Rand? I have, and I can't really see her agreeing with you. Perhap's you went wrong and read the Rand Corporation manual instead?

Carl

---

It is SEXY to DONATE!
Skype = demiurg2

No I cannot understand that. The WHISC, or former SOA, has not been called "School of Assassins" without reason. It is the most fascistoid facility since the Napola in the "Third Reich". Each cent the US government is spending for them is one cent too much.

>snip some comments about the WHISC<

And for such an institution the US government is spending Millions of Dollars? Incredible. It's a shame!

Both, the WHISC and the Klan - but also the ideologically similar NSDAP(AO) belong banned and forbidden. To let them do their anti-human things, even to let them publish and congregate, is a perversion of the constitutional rights.

I don't know what to say to you here, Thorin. I can't make it any simpler.

The reason the education system exists is that some people begged the gov't to use force against others to provide it for them. The reason the WHISC exists is that some people begged the gov't to use force against others to provide it for them. The principle is the same: using gov't force to make other people provide for things they would never do on their own. It doesn't matter whether it's health care or War in Iraq. You believe others should be forced to provide for things you agree with. Other people believe that you should be forced to provide for things they agree with.

If it's OK for you to use force to make me pay for your silly education programs, you can understand why it's OK for others to make you pay for the WHISC and the CIA and War in Iraq. It's just using force against others. You don't have to like what they force you to pay for, just as they don't have to like what you force them to pay for. But that's the system you're supporting.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Eloquently said!
I just wished I had said it:-)

Is it okay if we share the deodorant? It's an environmental friendly spray I have.

*Handing a cool beverage to cRunchy*
Now your post is back in buisiness!
Sorry!
.... SNIP SNIP My Diatribe stuff

Tar :)

In some ways I wish this thread was named differently.

For me 'money' has no real meaning outside of a sense of personal security come pleasure.

I am almost certain that all humans use money as primarily a way of securing their need, desires and alieviating their fears.

Science is (for us educated outside of an overtly religious society) a way to practically forward ourselves or a way of averting the worst of the problems we could face.

Humans as a category is quite plain and simple as long as we accept that we are the most 'creative' but not always the most intelligent of this worlds creatures.

The first post was about whether we as humans can change our ways when it comes to the way we allocate funds.

I suggest that if we change the language of the arguement (perhaps just for a second to the microcosm) we might ask whether you or I (anyone, a human) could happily shift our resources (money, power, or quest for personal security & happiness) from the self to the universal (science = universe, outside, world or social) discovery.

I suspect we do this all the time in so many ways but do not always acknowledge we do.

I have no problem paying taxes... I need roads, hospitals and sewer cleaners.

I hate paying taxes for guns & bombs.

I love paying taxes to employ soldiers who will stop mad people from killing me.

I accept my neighbour is old and needs care. She worked in a factory for 40+ years and made bolts that may even now support the chair I sit on.

Who Cares!!

SETI is a wonderful idea and more than that is a premier project when we think of distributed computing.

For me science can some times give us hope for a wonderful future (our best hopes and aspirations). Money is just a transactionary device we have accepted that can be swapped for something of value as long as we fight to make every cent, paisa or penny count and Humans... Well humans are neither individuals nor collective beings...

This forum shows us every day that we are both collective in love of friendship, family and community and inherently odd in our sense of self.


I wish this thread were called "Aspirations, Gains and Crazy Creatures"

Maybe it would make less sense but then I would probably make more sense.. Hehe..

(Sorry for my bad smelling..)

---

It is SEXY to DONATE!
Skype = demiurg2

You cannot have it both ways. You just said that all libertarians want to stop both corporate and other wellfare. You have to decide on one of them.

Forgive me if I was unclear. They want to stop welfare, of all sorts, from the gov't. What individual corporations or people choose to do on their own is entirely up to them. Their choice. Or not.

The Futurist Manifesto was written by Marinetti. I think you should read it. It says the same things you do just a lot better.

Thank you for the recommendation.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

.....
Is it okay if we share the deodorant? It's an environmental friendly spray I have.

I never share deodorant because in the wilds of Birmingham (Central UK) any animal can track us and will try and eat me thinking it was you..

I'd rather they eat you than me..

That's 'Science, honey & humans' in a nut shell :) (Application, Value, Flesh.)

Hehehehehhe...

---

Interesting. You've just agreed with all of the points I have raised except for an understanding of 'words hurt people' type objections.

There's no type of world I can imagine where you can escape the possibility for having your 'feelings hurt'. If someone gives you the middle finger while you walk across the street....or if you are called an 'idiot'.....or your girlfriend dumps you there is and should not be any legal protection against these 'harmful words'.

I'm afraid you're just going to have to toughen up and cope.

The part of me toughening up was not my point. My point was and is that you are a fraud. You use words meaningfully to hurt people so that they will shut up and bend to your will. And as soon as someone does not agree with you, you start badgering them with words like 'idiot' so that they will shut up and go home so to speak.
But this time it did not work.

The reason for us agreeing is because you are diverting from your ideology and or do not see that it contains logical errors.

One last question. Have you actually read Rand? I have, and I can't really see her agreeing with you. Perhap's you went wrong and read the Rand Corporation manual instead?

Carl

Nothing. NOTHING I have said is in any way particular to my philosophy but to many other traditions. It's just simple school age level reasoning. What about 'Do not initiate force against your fellow man' do you not understand? You spend god knows how many hour typing paragraphs about nothingness. Oh...and for the record, if she were alive today I'm certain she'd agree with everything I've said to you.

You seem fixated on the supposed 'violence' done to you by one person that called you an 'idiot' over the internet once and continue to type about it.

What so called logical errors are these you speak of? Nothing you can possibly say can baffle my imagination more. I can't wait.

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!