Talk-Polywell.org

This: Usefulness, purpose, or utility are characteristics only of living things. cannot be read as having the same meaning as this: Tools have no purpose except to those who use them. The two sentences are contradictory. /shrug/ Both sentences say exactly the same thing They most certainly do not! ...

Within the scope of what she was discussing, [Rand's] arguments are reasonable Yeah? How about this: An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the...

Jccarlton wrote:what population would you be comfortable with and how would you plan to get there? How would you "manage the decline?"

When did you stop beating your wife? Type of thing.

Since the warmistas are the NWO Agenda 21 types they'll then proclaim the only solution is to reduce humanities carbon footprint, humanity being made up of carbon unit's and all. What a load of bollox! I believe the evidence for AGW is overwhelming, but I wouldn't for one minute advocate culling hu...

pbelter wrote:Wind Farms cause global warming

Looks like the wind farms raise the temperature of the surrounding area

Unless by surrounding area they mean across the entire planet, this isn't global warming.

Diogenes wrote: I gave $200.00 just today to a fellow I have known for some years. He is one of these people to whom I have referred earlier. He is about to get evicted, and his girlfriend is pregnant.

Ayn Rand would not approve.

Diogenes wrote:People get into trouble when they try to equate one zeitgeist with another.

Which spells trouble for your universal moral law.

proof of the existence of God may very well be the consequence of the ability to conceive of the idea, especially if the purpose of God is to serve as an artificial guide star. Proof - for an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent being? Perhaps in your head proof means something like ' ooh, that's su...

Also see the continuum fallacy.

Note: The fallacy causes one to erroneously reject a vague claim simply because it is not as precise as one would like it to be. Vagueness alone does not necessarily imply invalidity.

You say there is a boundary. Prove it! I can't prove anything.. and neither can you. :) I would think that most reasonable people recognise that there is a difference between a minor and an adult and as such the law determines a somewhat arbitrary age upon which a minor becomes an adult. But no one...

Interesting Rand factoid - she spent most of her life denouncing the welfare state... but then happily accepted social security and Medicare when she got old, poor and sick. Ad hominem eh? No, not really. Her hypocrisy indeed shows her in a bad light, but it was not a gratuitous attack on her chara...

Diogenes wrote:Her arguments are solid, and better than anything her opposition has presented. I put her up there with Friedman, Hayek, and Smith.

So you can't fault her thinking?

Even her claims that selfishness is the highest virtue and altruism a moral evil?

Usefulness, purpose, or utility are characteristics only of living things. Complete nonsense. Tools have utility. Tools are not living things. Are you again having trouble comprehending, or are you just trying to think up stuff to respond back? It's you who has problems communicating your thoughts ...

You say there is a boundary. Prove it! I can't prove anything.. and neither can you. :) I would think that most reasonable people recognise that there is a difference between a minor and an adult and as such the law determines a somewhat arbitrary age upon which a minor becomes an adult. But no one...

Fermat's last theorem was merely the first example that came to mind. The point is that just because *YOU* cannot prove something, doesn't mean that it cannot be proven. Fermat's has been proven. You didn't do it, and probably can't. The one certainty in philosophy is that nothing is certain. There...