Actually "2" is a symbol representing something.  2+2=4 exactly because of what "2" and "4" represent.  As Godel proved, though, even a system as simple as the natural numbers will have truths that cannot be proven. K, what you're really jumping into here is conflating ...

We agreed a while back that in the context of this discussion, "right" and "wrong" weren't morally-based yet.  Simply saying that a statement about nature is either true or untrue. The sky is blue: right. Dirt is lighter than air: wrong. Ah, I'd forgotten about that.  Maybe it s...

Xan, It will be impossible for me to respond to everyone's thoughts about stuff. Please point out specifically if you disagree with something and explain why you disagree. What do you disagree with, specifically? #11 is begging the question and should be removed. #17 is circular and useless and sho...

First disagreement: "disagree" has only one "s". 11. The definition of “right”? is: In accordance with fact, reason, or truth; correct. The definition of “wrong”? is: Not in conformity with fact or truth; incorrect or erroneous. Money shot – Something (intentionally broad) is “ri...

Kshartle wrote:It's ok that we dissagree though!

Who are you and what have you done with Kshartle!!

Zero percent the ideal?  I'd have thought you'd say that something is only legitimate if 100% of people vote for it.

LCMS has no official position on it.  I certainly don't like it, and think it should be discouraged (without some good reason).  But then I also don't like the whole process of huge thick expensive fancy caskets, of mutilation of the corpse (embalming), etc.  I'd like to be wrapped in a burlap sack ...

I knew about Harry Browne long before I had ever heard of the PP or any of his books. I knew him from the '88 and '92 campaigns, when I was 9 and 13. I think that's probably pretty rare. Harry Browne was the Libertarian nominee in 1996 and 2000.  Were you 9 and 13 in 1996 and 2000, or were you 17 a...

The idea that a society can be anarchist is a generalization that a group (subjective amount) of people can interact without some group of individuals dominating and forcing the others and the general moral reasoning being that it's wrong for humans to force others. [emphasis added] Sorry, there's ...

I think the problem would be that with this strategy he could end up keeping way more in cash, more than 35%.  Which I really don't see any advantage of at all.  Taxes are a percentage of what you gained, so it's a little silly to avoid gaining anything at all in order to avoid taxes.

Kshartle wrote:I'm going to start a site called AssBook.

Guess the premise.

Your autobiography?

I keed, I keed!

Bonds are likely a bad investment.  I think what I'll do is limit them to 25% of my asset allocation (allowing for swings between 15% and 35%).  That'll limit my losses in case I'm right, but also will allow me to profit in case I'm wrong.

I would think that my insurance for items stored in a bank's safe deposit box would be covered under the "nobody knows what's in there except me" plan.

It doesn't sound like there's a conflict at all.  If your 5-10% allocation is compatible with both the PP and BH, then where's the argument?

I've been wondering about this too since my wife and I plan to retire overseas and pay our own medical expenses. It's not an issue for me because I just received my medicare card but my wife is 17 years younger so I wonder if we are going to have to make the Obamacare tax shared responsibility paym...

He's an additional $100/month or so.  It's not bad.  Fills the need perfectly to cover us in case of something unexpected that could ruin us.  Which is exactly what insurance is supposed to be! Oh, one other thing we found is that there's no such thing as a policy you can go out and buy which covers...

I've been in exactly that situation for quite some time.  I've had catastrophic policies from United/Golden Rule, and more recently Humana.  Obama keeps threatening to take it away, but so far keeps delaying that.  (I'll leave how asinine all that is for another time...) For me and my wife both, it ...

My own personal conclusion is that the universe is pointless, but realizing this is terribly depressing, so each human must, in order to avoid succumbing to depression, avoid realizing this by never asking the relevant questions or subscribing to a faith that argues against it. That's a pretty toug...

Just because there are a lot of them doesn't mean that some aren't right. The ultimate unprovability of the Big Questions leads me to conclude that either the universe is pointless (we discussed Nietzsche here recently), or that we must expect revelation from outside the universe.  I would suggest t...

Well put, Mountaineer.  And for anybody who's curious about Maundy Thursday, perhaps particularly those who aren't liturgical, there's an excellent post about what it is and why (and you might just consider going to services tonight): http://pastelder.blogspot.com/2014/04/maundy-thursday-grundonners...

Here here. That's "Hear, hear". Morality based on a man in the sky that nobody ever sees or hears from but just beleives exists (95% of the time because their parents did) is a complete delusion. So then we have your morality, based on.....  um.....  Your own beliefs on what's right and w...

My guess is that most jobs in medicine are nurses, technicians, etc; jobs which are always in demand, but without a whole lot of pay, and generally not requiring a huge amount of education.

Could even include doctors' secretaries, insurance billing specialists, etc.

Proving things is only possible with a basis of assumptions that the parties agree on.  There is no such thing as a proof with no assumptions.

Your example about cars and traveling is grounded in a certain reality, and a certain set of assumptions. Your claims about morality have no such ground.  You're trying to establish the ground.  So you really do need to define every concept.  You can't just say "in accordance with reality"...

That being said.....the idea that decisions can be proven wrong but not proven correct could imply the existance only of immoral actions and by default everything else would be moral but there would be no duty neccessarily to do anything other than a duty to not do what is immoral. I would think th...