"I am anxiously awaiting the source for that amazing fact. It sounds like utter bollocks to me."
You don't need to be a rocket scientist to know that no tax break ever gives any money to any taxpayer. It's the taxpayer's money to begin with. When less money is taken, the differing amount is not a gift. $0. Whether or not it is the wealthy. If anyone ever claims that one cent is given to any taxpayer through the method of a tax break, that is utter "bollocks".
That "one observation" is huge. It includes the variation of species and the distinct sequential progression/change on a lengthy time from one species to another (noted in a wide variety of species. I guess it is all "one observation", then the new information that confirms the timeline is part of that observation!
Yes, an excellent example of how laws are moral matters somewhere along the line. The DMCA is the government saying it is immoral to copy stuff that many consider to be fair use. Legislation is nothing more than government "letting us know" what it thinks is moral or not.
"You like to force your choice [of not smoking] on others."
Caught you in a lie. I have no problem at all if you decide to smoke. Just don't force me to. Choose for yourself, not me.
"Nobody is forcing you to do anything because you have the freedom to LEAVE."
Here come the little metal darts. No harm, right? Mace in the face is OK. And that mime running around in the park who bitchslaps people at random. Don't complain. You have the freedom to LEAVE.
" If I pass you in the park one day smoking, I am in no way giving you enough smoke to cause you cancer. Look up the word "negligible"...Lung cancer is survivable 60% of the time"
Just a roll of the dice, eh? Breathe deep, everybody. Here comes Johnny Tobacco-Cloud. You're PROBABLY ok. Every once in while I read a post that almost makes me want a ban on all smoking...when someone is so enamoured of it that they think it is some sort of sacrament or benefit to force others to smoke.
"Keep your morals off my body!"....public smoking bans"
Public smoking bans have nothing to do with "your body". They involve (quite simply) stopping rude people from physically assaulting others without their permission. Right to smoke? Yes, I defend that. Right to force others to smoke against their will? Well, how could any reasonable person defend that!
Shhhh. He thinks he has every right to force you to fill your lungs with deadly toxins, but you can't DARE to make any apt analogy with other situations of a person's careless/rude actions causing direct physical harm to innocent and unwilling (and unasked) strangers standing nearby.
You'd think that if they guy wasn't a total jerk, he'd at least as permission of everyone nearby before he did this. I guess the concept of "manners" is too much for him.
The difference is indeed moral. In terms of morals, you are the one who likes to force your choice on others. I don't like to smoke (and am in fact allergic to it). You do. You in fact love it so much that you think it is a great idea to force others to smoke as well, even though this is in fact a form of physical assault. In your morality, it is OK to assault others. But not in mine. Scuse me, here come some little metal darts. Those scratches on your arm are harmless, not a form of assault at all, are they?
Why not take up chewing tobacco? Never met a chewer who liked to force others to chew.
I'm just pointing out that the evolutionary model is based on observation of phenomena which have occured, and all evidence that keeps rolling in fits the model. It's rather solid, like thinking the sun will rise in the east in the morning. Yes, there is some FAITH involved in thinking that it will rise tomorrow in the east, but that is not much.
"Republican politicians don't care about the economy. That's a ruse to cover their passing on more wealth to the wealthy through tax breaks"
Here's one amazing fact: The total amount of money that the government has given to the wealthy through tax breaks is a whopping huge $0.
"If giving tax breaks to the wealthiest isn't class warfare, I don't know what is."
It isn't. Perhaps the "class warfare" here is that you deceptively failed to point out that the tax breaks applied to ALL taxpayers (not just the rich).
"...because they can't justify giant tax breaks to the wealthy at the expense of the lower classes any other way..."
You are referring to something that didn't happen and no-one tried. There was no "expense" for the lower classes, since the tax rates went down across the board.
"I have no burden to prove intelligent design is wrong"
If you state something is a certain way, you have a burden of proof to back up your claim. Why state that something is so without any basis or reason? (I'm very much against "intelligent design", but I do feel that if you make any sort of assertion, be ready to back it up).
So, if you engage in a form of physical assault against others, the onus is on them to scram? So much for smoking being a personal choice: your idea is that it is something to be forced on people (if they don't like it, leave). I hope you like my similar idea of going into this public space and throwing metal-tipped darts in random directions. If one hits you, it is your problem. Don't like it, leave.
"So you also support banning beach campfires and park barbecues? "
Have you ever stood in a line for a bus or whatever and all of a sudden the guy behind you whips out a Weber grill and fires up the briquettes? YOUR INVALID ANALOGY...END OF LINE.
"Public smoking bans have more to do with keeping cancer-causing poisons out of your body than putting morals in."
They have everything to do with personal choice and extreme rudeness. It is (or should be) my choice whether to smoke or not. By being rude enough to smoke in a public place, the tobacco abuser is forcing others to smoke whether they want to or not. I support your right to smoke, but not to force your choice on others. If you must have nicotine, why not chew instead? Unlike with burning nicotine, I've never seen a tobacco chewer force strangers nearby to chew their tobacco.
Well, the term "objectivism" specifically refers to her ideology, after all. It is kind of an unfortunate name, because sometimes "objectivism" isn't any more objective than Catholicism.
Marxist Hacker was correct in his claim. Ayn Rand's ideology of "objectivism" includes an element where it makes a strong faith assertion concerning religious matters.
"It's just the superstition and willful arrogance of assuming that what you see is real, and what you don't see isn't."
Well, excuuuuuse the scientists for ignoring hallucinations and fevre-dreams, and being so narrow-minded that they only use valid evidence in their considerations.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah. So we must lick the boots of our masters and "thank" them as we grovel. Thank them for letting us keep the crumbs.
"I am anxiously awaiting the source for that amazing fact. It sounds like utter bollocks to me."
You don't need to be a rocket scientist to know that no tax break ever gives any money to any taxpayer. It's the taxpayer's money to begin with. When less money is taken, the differing amount is not a gift. $0. Whether or not it is the wealthy. If anyone ever claims that one cent is given to any taxpayer through the method of a tax break, that is utter "bollocks".
That "one observation" is huge. It includes the variation of species and the distinct sequential progression/change on a lengthy time from one species to another (noted in a wide variety of species. I guess it is all "one observation", then the new information that confirms the timeline is part of that observation!
"See the DMCA as a good example"
Yes, an excellent example of how laws are moral matters somewhere along the line. The DMCA is the government saying it is immoral to copy stuff that many consider to be fair use. Legislation is nothing more than government "letting us know" what it thinks is moral or not.
"You like to force your choice [of not smoking] on others."
...Lung cancer is survivable 60% of the time"
Caught you in a lie. I have no problem at all if you decide to smoke. Just don't force me to. Choose for yourself, not me.
"Nobody is forcing you to do anything because you have the freedom to LEAVE."
Here come the little metal darts. No harm, right? Mace in the face is OK. And that mime running around in the park who bitchslaps people at random. Don't complain. You have the freedom to LEAVE.
" If I pass you in the park one day smoking, I am in no way giving you enough smoke to cause you cancer. Look up the word "negligible"
Just a roll of the dice, eh? Breathe deep, everybody. Here comes Johnny Tobacco-Cloud. You're PROBABLY ok. Every once in while I read a post that almost makes me want a ban on all smoking...when someone is so enamoured of it that they think it is some sort of sacrament or benefit to force others to smoke.
"Keep your morals off my body!" ....public smoking bans"
Public smoking bans have nothing to do with "your body". They involve (quite simply) stopping rude people from physically assaulting others without their permission. Right to smoke? Yes, I defend that. Right to force others to smoke against their will? Well, how could any reasonable person defend that!
"Public_health != morals"
I disagree here. Laws are always moral matters.
"Don't like my mace in your face? Leave."
Shhhh. He thinks he has every right to force you to fill your lungs with deadly toxins, but you can't DARE to make any apt analogy with other situations of a person's careless/rude actions causing direct physical harm to innocent and unwilling (and unasked) strangers standing nearby.
You'd think that if they guy wasn't a total jerk, he'd at least as permission of everyone nearby before he did this. I guess the concept of "manners" is too much for him.
The difference is indeed moral. In terms of morals, you are the one who likes to force your choice on others. I don't like to smoke (and am in fact allergic to it). You do. You in fact love it so much that you think it is a great idea to force others to smoke as well, even though this is in fact a form of physical assault. In your morality, it is OK to assault others. But not in mine. Scuse me, here come some little metal darts. Those scratches on your arm are harmless, not a form of assault at all, are they? Why not take up chewing tobacco? Never met a chewer who liked to force others to chew.
I'm just pointing out that the evolutionary model is based on observation of phenomena which have occured, and all evidence that keeps rolling in fits the model. It's rather solid, like thinking the sun will rise in the east in the morning. Yes, there is some FAITH involved in thinking that it will rise tomorrow in the east, but that is not much.
"Republican politicians don't care about the economy. That's a ruse to cover their passing on more wealth to the wealthy through tax breaks"
Here's one amazing fact: The total amount of money that the government has given to the wealthy through tax breaks is a whopping huge $0.
"If giving tax breaks to the wealthiest isn't class warfare, I don't know what is."
It isn't. Perhaps the "class warfare" here is that you deceptively failed to point out that the tax breaks applied to ALL taxpayers (not just the rich).
"...because they can't justify giant tax breaks to the wealthy at the expense of the lower classes any other way..."
You are referring to something that didn't happen and no-one tried. There was no "expense" for the lower classes, since the tax rates went down across the board.
"Truth be told, sir, evolution theory requires faith to be believed"
If evolution requires faith to be believed, than so does everything else in the world.
"I have no burden to prove intelligent design is wrong"
If you state something is a certain way, you have a burden of proof to back up your claim. Why state that something is so without any basis or reason? (I'm very much against "intelligent design", but I do feel that if you make any sort of assertion, be ready to back it up).
"Don't like my smoke in a public place? Leave"
So, if you engage in a form of physical assault against others, the onus is on them to scram? So much for smoking being a personal choice: your idea is that it is something to be forced on people (if they don't like it, leave). I hope you like my similar idea of going into this public space and throwing metal-tipped darts in random directions. If one hits you, it is your problem. Don't like it, leave.
You have a small point. While a faith-based religious assertion is not in itself "a religion", it is religious in nature. It is part of some religion.
"A religion is an entire institution involving a comprehensive belief system....historical tradition...etc."
Now that's nonsense. Your overly restrictive definition ends up excluding a large proportion of believers who just don't go to church or whatever.
Ayn Rand's objectivism does make religious assertions.
"So you also support banning beach campfires and park barbecues? "
Have you ever stood in a line for a bus or whatever and all of a sudden the guy behind you whips out a Weber grill and fires up the briquettes? YOUR INVALID ANALOGY...END OF LINE.
"Public smoking bans have more to do with keeping cancer-causing poisons out of your body than putting morals in."
They have everything to do with personal choice and extreme rudeness. It is (or should be) my choice whether to smoke or not. By being rude enough to smoke in a public place, the tobacco abuser is forcing others to smoke whether they want to or not. I support your right to smoke, but not to force your choice on others. If you must have nicotine, why not chew instead? Unlike with burning nicotine, I've never seen a tobacco chewer force strangers nearby to chew their tobacco.
"One could also conclude that creationism is a theory"
Only if you have no idea what "theory" means in the scientic sense. Next, you can call cherry pie a theory.
"No- but you're close. Didn't we already have this discussion a while back though?"
I think it must have been a dream.
If one makes a faith assertion about religious matters, it is a form of religion.
Good point. It is too easy to forget that there are two separate nations that both have the official name "China".
"All of life is merely hallucination and fevre-dreams"
Tommy Chong, is that you???
Well, the term "objectivism" specifically refers to her ideology, after all. It is kind of an unfortunate name, because sometimes "objectivism" isn't any more objective than Catholicism.
"Objectivism isn't a religion"
Marxist Hacker was correct in his claim. Ayn Rand's ideology of "objectivism" includes an element where it makes a strong faith assertion concerning religious matters.
"It's just the superstition and willful arrogance of assuming that what you see is real, and what you don't see isn't."
Well, excuuuuuse the scientists for ignoring hallucinations and fevre-dreams, and being so narrow-minded that they only use valid evidence in their considerations.