The Nemesis of all Hippies was the dreaded Red Neck. They had absolutely no tolerance for a Hippy. Hippies were not completely passive. I have seen a lot of Rednecks get their Ass kicked by those peace loving Hippies.
There’s a good subject for a thread: what IS a hippie? 
To me, a hippie is someone who grew up in a very protected world, then goes out into it and project those things and values on it. They believe in peace at any price and think violence won’t solve anything. Two prime examples are Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton: Both were willing to do just about anything to avoid conflict. They have a delusional view of the world and appeal to the public in the name of peace – not realizing that that kind of peace leads to the peace of the grave.
I know, I probably sound like a ‘redneck’. But dammit, men are dying because of our past appeasements. We can’t have peace by giving in to evil.
[quote]makkun wrote:
I think that’s an invalid assumption: outside of the US these arguments are wielded regularly as well - so this discussion is not about the US only.
[/quote]
It is true that these arguments are wielded outside the States, however, the issue in question (to which Coulter, and HH vicariously, was referring) is illegal immigration in the US, most specifically across the Mexican border. True, that there are illegal aliens who are outside this issue, but they (in my understanding) are by far the minority. But this is somewhat on the periphery in that I just wanted to be clear that it’s not immigration I’m against, just illegal immigration.
I don’t know, they seem to like moving here and fighting for their citizenship an awful lot. We could save them the move…
- The key part I put in bold.
- I think you misunderstand me, when you pay your personal income tax, they care where you live and work i.e. address/residence form. Not so much that you/I can’t move/work anywhere, but someone is paying attention so that an individual doesn’t live, and work, and draw welfare/healthcare in say, Denmark and pay all their taxes in Switzerland, right?
[quote]I think here is where your misunderstanding lies: I can’t speak for Alwyn Cosgrove, but I certainly don’t support illegal immigration. Your country has every right to try to defend its borders against people crossing it illegally. But there are a few points that have to be brought up in this discussion:
Unfortunately, at least in Germany and the UK, activists against (illegal) immigration tend to blow the problem out of proportion and link it to all kinds of dangers to culture and society.[/quote]
I think there is some hyperbole on the part of our officials as well, however, I do think we are talking about two different magnitudes.
I agree, IMO, DHS is one of the worst government reorganization disasters in US history, if a presidential candidate ran on dismantling it, he’d get my vote almost regardless of other political policies. And you’re right, can’t say that I’ve need to worry about the no-fly list or biometrics, but even being forced to leave nail clippers in Char de Galle is no service to ‘the war on terror’. Like sticking a finger in the leaky dam.
[quote]Yes, he does. And that is the kind of rethoric I meant earlier: Offering a variety of languages in public services to the many guests in your country is more of a courtesy than a sign of an invasion. Having lived in a country (Japan), where you mostly don’t get this courtesy (at least not 10 years back) in council services, you start appreciating the fact that not everyone is a language genius (like many of the pure english speakers I met there who after years in the country relied on their English) and that offering services in the most spoken other languages just speeds up the process.
Please tell me this is just a misperception on my part and not yours.
Don’t know. I think we have our stereotypes that we project on each other.
Makkun[/quote]
Good to know that we’re not on entirely different pages.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
I agree, IMO, DHS is one of the worst government reorganization disasters in US history, if a presidential candidate ran on dismantling it, he’d get my vote almost regardless of other political policies.
[/quote]
Good call. DHS seems like a disaster to me. Another layer of bureaucracy, while politicians pat themselves on the back publicly for helping to keep the country safe.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Ms. Rand was a philosopher. I doubt very much that she had anything to say on an issue like this.
[/quote]
Leaving aside the issue of whether or not Ayn Rand was a philosopher, or if she was, what sort and quality of philosopher she may have been, what sort of statement is this? Philosophy is, at its root, political; and Rand certainly was making political statements. You don’t think she’d have something to say about an issue as vital as immigration? Headhunter, immigration is not a new topic that we’ve just invented… Plato wrote about it in the Laws and in the Republic.
If you seriously think of Rand as a philosopher, and think that she wouldn’t be concerned with immigration, well… I suppose that shows the level of regard you have for Rand’s depth of thought, and for philosophy in general.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Ms. Rand was a philosopher. I doubt very much that she had anything to say on an issue like this.
Leaving aside the issue of whether or not Ayn Rand was a philosopher, or if she was, what sort and quality of philosopher she may have been, what sort of statement is this? Philosophy is, at its root, political; and Rand certainly was making political statements. You don’t think she’d have something to say about an issue as vital as immigration? Headhunter, immigration is not a new topic that we’ve just invented… Plato wrote about it in the Laws and in the Republic.
If you seriously think of Rand as a philosopher, and think that she wouldn’t be concerned with immigration, well… I suppose that shows the level of regard you have for Rand’s depth of thought, and for philosophy in general.[/quote]
The primary of focii of philosophy are epistemolgy and metaphysics. Ms. Rand puts more emphasis on the first. Politics is a derivative of the two.
Before you can have a correct political system, you must understand your nature, and how you acquire this knowledge. You would not attempt to impose a political system designed for ants, for ex, because ants function differently than does man. She identifies man’s nature and THEN suggests a political and economic system that matches her metaphysics (our reality as men). For her, that system is capitalism.
To say that the root of philosphy is political is not correct.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
The primary of focii of philosophy are epistemolgy and metaphysics. Ms. Rand puts more emphasis on the first. Politics is a derivative of the two.
[…]
To say that the root of philosphy is political is not correct.[/quote]
First of all, are you really trying to each nephorm – of all people – about Philosophy? That would be like you trying to teach me about Economics. Oh wait…
Second, it’s amazing you don’t see a disconnect between your statement and your conclusion… Then again, that’s just another sign of psychosis.
Really, you match all the symptoms so perfectly it’s not even funny:
"
Psychosis is a generic psychiatric term for a mental state in which thought and perception are severely impaired. Persons experiencing a psychotic episode may experience hallucinations, hold delusional beliefs (e.g., grandiose or paranoid delusions), demonstrate personality changes and exhibit disorganized thinking (see thought disorder). This is often accompanied by lack of insight into the unusual or bizarre nature of such behavior, difficulties with social interaction and impairments in carrying out the activities of daily living. A psychotic episode is often described as involving a “loss of contact with reality”.
"
(from Psychosis - Wikipedia )
Not that I’m a trained medical professional, but apparently on these boards any formal training is irrelevant, so I’m pretty sure my advice is just as good.
[quote]hspder wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
The primary of focii of philosophy are epistemolgy and metaphysics. Ms. Rand puts more emphasis on the first. Politics is a derivative of the two.
[…]
To say that the root of philosphy is political is not correct.
First of all, are you really trying to each nephorm – of all people – about Philosophy? That would be like you trying to teach me about Economics. Oh wait…
Second, it’s amazing you don’t see a disconnect between your statement and your conclusion… Then again, that’s just another sign of psychosis.
Really, you match all the symptoms so perfectly it’s not even funny:
"
Psychosis is a generic psychiatric term for a mental state in which thought and perception are severely impaired. Persons experiencing a psychotic episode may experience hallucinations, hold delusional beliefs (e.g., grandiose or paranoid delusions), demonstrate personality changes and exhibit disorganized thinking (see thought disorder). This is often accompanied by lack of insight into the unusual or bizarre nature of such behavior, difficulties with social interaction and impairments in carrying out the activities of daily living. A psychotic episode is often described as involving a “loss of contact with reality”.
"
(from Psychosis - Wikipedia )
Not that I’m a trained medical professional, but apparently on these boards any formal training is irrelevant, so I’m pretty sure my advice is just as good.
/quote]
That’s it? That’s your response? Man, my nailing you on being the child of hippies really upsets you! You being this upset shows how living in your insulated little fantasyland can really effect your mental state. Is this somehow connected with your fascination in calling others (me) psychotic? I’m not a trained medical professional either, but that bears investigating.
After reading your posts and how irrational they are, I don’t think you’re a prof at all. I think you are probably a custodian. Its really nice of Dr. Sowell to allow custodians to converse with him at these faculty lunches. He and his colleagues must get a chuckle letting you speak.
I know I do.
LMAO at you, Mr. Bucket-and-Mop.
[quote]hspder wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
The primary of focii of philosophy are epistemolgy and metaphysics. Ms. Rand puts more emphasis on the first. Politics is a derivative of the two.
[…]
To say that the root of philosphy is political is not correct.
First of all, are you really trying to each nephorm – of all people – about Philosophy? That would be like you trying to teach me about Economics. Oh wait…
Hmm…“I have these credentials from a fancy university so you must be wrong!” Wow, you’ve got me there, Mr. Janitor!!
My degrees (one in Philosophy) is from the University of Michigan, as long as we’re waving our worthless degrees at each other.
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
lucasa wrote:
I agree, IMO, DHS is one of the worst government reorganization disasters in US history, if a presidential candidate ran on dismantling it, he’d get my vote almost regardless of other political policies.
Good call. DHS seems like a disaster to me. Another layer of bureaucracy, while politicians pat themselves on the back publicly for helping to keep the country safe.[/quote]
I also agree. The only way they could have made it work is if they dissolved a number of agencies and remade them as HS. Istead they just added the extra layer with no visible benefit.
If I awoke at 0300 with her snoring, blowing bad breath, and naked next to me in my bed I’d be the happiest man in the world, knowing that package of brains and beauty is my woman (I’d have her bod lookin’ like vintage Cory in no time too/;0)…
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
The primary of focii of philosophy are epistemolgy and metaphysics. Ms. Rand puts more emphasis on the first. Politics is a derivative of the two.
[/quote]
I’m not going to attempt to address this statement, because doing so would take far too long and be far too boring to everyone else. I’ll say that I would’ve agreed with you after taking Philosophy 100 (not an insult; many philosophy departments focus almost exclusively on modern philosophy). After reading Plato, Aristotle, Rousseau, Hobbes, Montesquieu, etc… I disagree.
I won’t disagree with self-knowledge.
[quote]She identifies man’s nature and THEN suggests a political and economic system that matches her metaphysics (our reality as men). For her, that system is capitalism.
To say that the root of philosphy is political is not correct.
[/quote]
Look at these two paragraphs together. We can disagree about the roots of Philosophy, but notice how you agree with me that Rand does suggest a political and economic system. Notice how in my original post I pointed out that Rand was saying political things. Notice how you said that she would not have concerned herself with an issue like immigration. Notice how I then pointed out that from Plato on, Philosophers have been concerned about how to secure the city from outsiders… including peaceful ones who bring cultural or economic disadvantages to the state. If you want to say that Ayn Rand never wrote about such topics, fine; I don’t know her thoroughly enough to comment on that empirical claim. If you want to instead say (as you did) that she wouldn’t be concerned with such an issue, I again say that you must not have a high opinion of her as a Philosopher, or she was less thoughtful than you otherwise claim. As you said, political systems must be based on how men are, including how they form cities and nations. Are immigrants irrelevant to such groups?
Neph,
You said that politics was at the root of philosophy (or something like that). Ms. Rand quite correctly says that before we describe an ideal political system, we have to know the nature of man. We have to further understand how we know anything. If we have an incorrect understanding of ourselves, how can we implement an appropriate political system? For this reason, epistemology and metaphysics precede politics. Politics is a derivative of our metaphysics.
Ms. Rand did not deal with the details of political philosophy, because she believed that our understanding of ourselves was flawed. Because of vague and irrational conceptions of man, because people grasp mysticism, because individuals are taught self-sacrifice as a virtue, our politics is self-destructive. She strove to change the misconceptions at the source, not on the surface.
You can’t have a rational society if most people believe that cannibalism, in any form, is acceptable. You can’t have a moral society if many people believe that physical force is acceptable in place of reason. If these things are changed, the rest follows.
It is for this reason that politics is a consequent, not an antecedent.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Neph,
You said that politics was at the root of philosophy (or something like that).
…snip…
[/quote]
Again, I’m not going to give a full explanation. Following Aristotle, a man outside of society is either a god or a beast; what we are as human beings is inseparable from the city (zoon politikon… man is a political animal). I think we are using ‘root’ in different ways: you seem to be talking about the formal discussion, whereas I am talking about the nature.
And again, this is irrelevant to the question of whether or not Ayn Rand ever had a thought in her head about immigration - which is the issue that started this. I don’t care if you think that politics is first, last, in the middle, or upside-down, the central issue was Ayn Rand and what she did or would say about immigration, given the fact that she wrote about political things.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Neph,
You said that politics was at the root of philosophy (or something like that).
…snip…
Again, I’m not going to give a full explanation. Following Aristotle, a man outside of society is either a god or a beast; what we are as human beings is inseparable from the city (zoon politikon… man is a political animal). I think we are using ‘root’ in different ways: you seem to be talking about the formal discussion, whereas I am talking about the nature.
And again, this is irrelevant to the question of whether or not Ayn Rand ever had a thought in her head about immigration - which is the issue that started this. I don’t care if you think that politics is first, last, in the middle, or upside-down, the central issue was Ayn Rand and what she did or would say about immigration, given the fact that she wrote about political things.[/quote]
Why don’t you read one of her books and decide for yourself? With your wide erudition in many assorted philosophers, you could come on here and shred her arguments. Hspder would begin chanting love poems to you.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Why don’t you read one of her books and decide for yourself?
[/quote]
You’re right about that. I don’t, unfortunately, have the extra time at the moment.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Why don’t you read one of her books and decide for yourself?
You’re right about that. I don’t, unfortunately, have the extra time at the moment.[/quote]
Read ANTHEM. It takes like one good dump on the toilet to get through the thing.
[quote]doogie wrote:
Read ANTHEM. It takes like one good dump on the toilet to get through the thing.[/quote]
Is that a commentary on the work itself, or just on the amount of time it takes to read it? 
[quote]doogie wrote:
nephorm wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Why don’t you read one of her books and decide for yourself?
You’re right about that. I don’t, unfortunately, have the extra time at the moment.
Read ANTHEM. It takes like one good dump on the toilet to get through the thing.[/quote]
Wow, you can read and understand a novel in whatever, 15 minutes! I’m impressed!!! Just, WOW!!!
[quote]
Headhunter wrote:
Why don’t you read one of her books and decide for yourself?
nephorm wrote:
You’re right about that. I don’t, unfortunately, have the extra time at the moment.[/quote]
Wait for the movie on Atlas Shrugged – rumor is it will star Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie… ( http://www.variety.com/VR1117942127.html )
I’m sure Hollywood will make a faithful and complete version… (BTW, I read it a long time ago…)