Paul's Here

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Paul's Here

  1. This is America?

    A brings out SWAT and a tank.
  2. Happy Birthday to alann

    Happy Birthday, Alann. Have a wonderful day.
  3. This is America?

    Yes, she may have won, but what of the rest of us. SWAT called in whenever we disagree with the govt. mandates.
  4. Zimmerman Verdict

    Zimmerman never testified. His statements were introduced by the prosecution. Another bonehead mistake.
  5. Roderick Scott: The ‘Black George Zimmerman’ Acquitted of Murder in 2009 So, where were the national protests over this verdict? And there is no Stand Your Ground law in NY.
  6. Zimmerman Verdict

    I call these people neo-racists. They are racists who claim to be victims of racism, yet cannot see when there is no racism in any issue.
  7. Zimmerman Verdict

  8. Zimmerman Verdict

    I believe that the evidence was clear that Martin threw the first punch when he struck him in the nose and knocked him down.
  9. Zimmerman Verdict

    I agree, but it is the Zimmerman opponents, like 0bama, who assert that stand-your-ground was the cause or issue involved in this case.
  10. Zimmerman Verdict

    One of the more interesting issues involved in the "stand your ground" assertions is that if Zimmerman would have used that as part of his defense, then the implication would be that Martin was the one who was doing the threatening. I have heard no one bring this issue up.
  11. Zimmerman Verdict

    I believe the law, at least from what I heard about the Florida case, is that if you initiate the attack, you cannot then use the "stand your ground" part of the law for self defense. I've seen this false argument used by those who claim Zimmerman should have been convicted because he created the situation by following Martin. But following someone is not the use of force and is not illegal. Another type of argument went like this. Suppose Martin had a gun and "stood his ground." Could he have just shot Zimmerman? This ignores the fact that Martin threw the first punch. It also ignores the fact that there was no issue of "stand your ground" involve in this case because nobody was threatening the other until Martin struck Zimmerman.
  12. Zimmerman Verdict

    I don't know. But the right to self defense is pretty meaningless if you can't defend yourself or your property outside of your house.
  13. Zimmerman Verdict

    There are many states that do not have "stand your ground" laws concerning self defense. In Maryland, one has an obligation to retreat (except if you're inside your house) under all situations, if retreat is possible. I was discussing this with someone at work, and he gave me an example. There was a man who got out of his car (due to road rage) and was approaching my co-workers car and threatening to damage his car. My co-worker got out of his car and threatened the man, who retreated. My co-worker had a policeman friend and mentioned this story to him. The policeman said that if my co-worker had engaged the man in a fight, my co-worker would have been arrested for initiating the conflict: for not retreating when there was an opportunity. Even in one's house where guns are allowed for self defense, one had better make sure that the intruder is not shot in the back, that the intruder is killed because if he tells a different story about what happened than your story, you're liable to be sued as well as subject to legal sanctions. One has to let the intruder know (presumably by yelling at him) that one is armed with a gun and will use it for defense if he doesn't stop.
  14. Zimmerman Verdict

    What does it accomplish? Never let a crisis go to waste. Or, as Holder put it this time, "We Must Not Let This Opportunity Pass"
  15. Creation ex nihilo

    If you assume that the speed of light was always constant, then it doesn't make sense, within the theory of the Big Bang, that the universe could get this big in only 13.5 billion years.
  16. Creation ex nihilo

    Why couldn't one just drop the epistemological errors and simply state the same basic facts of the theory: All matter was compressed into a highly condensed singularity where no matter or energy existed outside of it, and without the implication that there is a real "nothing" outside of all the matter. Why would it be improper to just say "there is no matter or energy outside this "singularity"? Then, at some point, the matter and energy expanded to produce the form of the universe as it is currently observed. The issue is that there was no "nothing" outside of the singularity, the proper thing to state is that there just was no matter or energy outside of it. The lack of matter or energy outside the singularity is just as much a part of the universe as the singularity. This would be analogous to me saying "There is no 'me' outside of my house, yet this has no implications that I cannot go outside my house or that there is nothing outside of my house. Is there some error with this formulation?
  17. Creation ex nihilo

  18. Creation ex nihilo

    There is also the issue of what constitutes an explanation. Does "something springing from nothing" explain anything? Why is that considered a valid explanation? Why does something that exists require an explanation based upon "nothing"? It's like saying, God created the universe. What does that explain? Not much. What created God? What created that creator? Etc... The only evidence we have of creation is that some entities are created by other entities.
  19. curi says: Where does he say that? curi's statements are entirely unfounded. This is just one small paragraph with a host of problems. All of curi's posts have similar problems.
  20. None of this is true, nor is anything above in accord with Objectivism. The above is pragmatism talking. What do you find interesting in the above? What is inspirational to you?
  21. What do you find inspirational about someone who misrepresents what Rand and Peikoff have said about the subjects at hand. I asked curi to provide citations for his allegations about Rand's and Peikoff's positions. He has not only not answered me (yet) (except to cite the title of a chapter of Peikoff's OPAR), but he also should have provided such information without the need for someone to ask. Anyone presenting an interpretation of someone else's ideas needs to provide citations to objectively demonstrate understanding, truth, and context. Curi has done none of that in any of his flurry of postings. What's worse is that his interpretations are wrong. I don't even trust his interpretations of Popper. As far as I can tell, curi is an eclectic who combines ideas for pragmatic reasons.