Buy Essays Cheap -
The Making of a Great Speaker: 14 Things You Need | Inc com
Nov 12, 2017 What makes a good speaker, high quality custom essay writing service -
What makes one speaker better than another? | TechHiveet consultez toute la base ! satisfait ou remboursГ© par notre comitГ© de lecture. В« Jusqu'Г un Г©dit de Henri IV, les Parisiens avaient l'habitude de se baigner nus dans la Seine, la reine de France accouchait en public et la maladie comme la mort des grands n'Г©tait pas protГ©gГ©e par le secret. What. В» ainsi a dit D. Mcgregor The Human. AMSON dans Protection civile de la vie privГ©e. What Makes A Good. Le thГЁme du respect de la vie privГ©e est trГЁs vaste. Essay Of Young Men. Il recoupe un grand nombre de questions portant notamment aux droits Г l'image, Г la santГ©, aux convictions religieuses, au transsexualisme, aux morts, etc. What Makes A Good Speaker. Pour chacun de ces cas, la notion Г proprement parler de vie privГ©e est apprГ©hendГ©e de maniГЁre diffГ©rente. Sun. La notion de vie privГ©e est donc une notion casuelle. Makes Speaker. Certes c'est une notion casuelle, mais aussi, et avant tout une notion moderne. Minimum Wage Essay. C'est cette casualitГ© et cette modernitГ© de la notion de vie privГ©e qui explique le fait que la vie privГ©e en'a fait l'objet que d'une protection juridique tardive. Makes A Good Speaker. En effet, ce droit a Г©tГ© reconnu par la loi franГ§aise trГЁs rГ©cemment par une loi du 17 juillet 1970 (Article 9 Code civil) et pourtant ce Droit avait dГ©jГ Г©tГ© affirmГ© depuis assez longtemps au niveau du Droit international (Article 8 de la CESDH en 1950), mais Г©galement par l'article 12 de la DГ©claration Universelle des Droits de l'Homme des Nations Unies qui dispose que В« Nul ne sera l'objet d'immixtions arbitraires dans sa vie privГ©e, sa famille, son domicile ou sa correspondance, ni d'atteintes Г son honneur et Г sa rГ©putation. What Theory. Toute personne a droit Г la protection de la loi contre de telles immixtions ou de telles atteintes В». Le droit au respect de la vie privГ©e : domaine et protection Le domaine du droit au respect de la vie privГ©e La protection de la vie privГ©e Les limites tangibles du droit au respect de la vie privГ©e Les limites aux atteintes au droit au respect de la vie privГ©e : le consentement de la personne et le droit d'information Les limites de ce droit dans certains domaines prГ©cis. [. Makes A Good Speaker. ] Nous comprenons donc trГЁs nettement que le droit au respect de la vie privГ©e est un droit extrГЄmement large, peu prГ©cis, et qui Г pourtant besoin d'ГЄtre fortement encadrГ©. Who Wrote Sun. La notion de vie privГ©e en elle-mГЄme n'Г©tant pas dГ©finie de maniГЁre claire et prГ©cise, nous pouvons nous demander quelles sont les limites de ce droit, qui malheureusement ne peut rГ©pondre Г toutes les exigences de la sociГ©tГ©, ou satisfaire les besoins et envies de tous les citoyens. Makes Speaker. Les limites tangibles du droit au respect de la vie privГ©e Comme nous avons pu le voir de maniГЁre succincte dans notre premiГЁre partie, le droit au respect de la vie privГ©e comporte certaines limites tangibles, qui empГЄchent parfois une rГ©pression suivant certains domaines, ou certaines atteintes. In The Sun. [. A Good Speaker. ] [. What The Bible Living Together. ] Le droit au respect de la vie privГ©e et ses limites Jusqu'Г un Г©dit de Henri IV, les Parisiens avaient l'habitude de se baigner nus dans la Seine, la reine de France accouchait en public et la maladie comme la mort des grands n'Г©tait pas protГ©gГ©e par le secret. Makes A Good. ainsi Г dit D. What The Bible Say About Living Together Marriage. AMSON dans Protection civile de la vie privГ©e. Makes. Le thГЁme du respect de la vie privГ©e est trГЁs vaste. Does The Bible Say About Together Before. Il recoupe un grand nombre de questions portant notamment aux droits Г l'image, Г la santГ©, aux convictions religieuses, au transsexualisme, aux morts, etc. What Makes. Pour chacun de ces cas, la notion Г proprement parler de vie privГ©e est apprГ©hendГ©e de maniГЁre diffГ©rente. The Pros Of Abolishing Minimum Wage Essay. La notion de vie privГ©e est donc une notion casuelle. A Good. [. Acres. ] [. What Makes A Good Speaker. ] Cependant, dans un arrГЄt du 2 Octobre 2001, la Cour de Cassation affirme que le salariГ© a le Droit au respect Г sa vie privГ©e sur le lieu de travail. What The Bible Say About. Si l'on prend compte de cet arrГЄt, le salariГ© aurait donc une totale libertГ© dans l'envoi de mail par exemple. What Makes A Good. Et bien, en principe c'est effectivement le cas, mais Г une limite tout de mГЄme : il faut que l'en-tГЄte du courrier Г©lectronique soit suffisamment explicite pour l'employeur puisse distinguer au premier coup d'?il que l'objet de ce dernier est purement personnel. What Is Collision Theory. [. A Good Speaker. ] [. What Is Collision. ] La jurisprudence est trГЁs divisГ©e sur ce point, qui reste encore une question plus philosophique que juridique. What Makes A Good. [. Movie. ] [. Makes A Good Speaker. ] Par consГ©quent, le droit au respect de la vie privГ©e est protГ©gГ© comme tout autre droit, et Г diffГ©rents niveaux. Movie. Le respect de la vie privГ©e est protГ©gГ© Г la fois par le Droit pГ©nal, et par le Droit civil. What A Good Speaker. En ce qui concerne la protection par le Droit pГ©nal, on raisin in the sun trouve de nombreuses infractions qui protГЁgent la vie privГ©e des personnes. Makes A Good Speaker. Le dГ©lit le plus important est celui qui figure Г l'article 242-1 du Code pГ©nal qui rГ©prime l'atteinte Г la vie privГ©e par l'enregistrement des paroles ou de l'image d'une personne sans son consentement. Essay On Analyzing Portraits Men. [. What A Good Speaker. ] Droit civil Le droit au respect de la vie privГ©e et ses limites. satisfait ou remboursГ© par notre comitГ© de lecture. Commentaire d'arrГЄt de la 1ГЁre chambre civile, 28 juin 2012, n 10-28.492. Commentaire d'arrГЄt de 4 pages - Droit civil. Ensemble de trois cas pratiques corrigГ©s en droit de la preuve. Г©tude de cas de 5 pages - Droit civil. Ce document est un ensemble de trois cas pratiques corrigГ©s en droit de la preuve. MГ©thodologie de la dissertation juridique. Consultez tous nos documents en illimitГ© ! et sans publicitГ© ! avec notre liseuse dГ©diГ©e ! satisfait ou remboursГ© ! Le Conseil constitutionnel veille Г la conformitГ© de la loi avec la Constitution. Of Young. C'est un organe qui a Г©tГ© crГ©Г© par la Constitution de la Ve RГ©publique. 120 documents clés. “ Merci de m'avoir aidГ© Г trouver les directives pour mon entreprise d'outils de bien-ГЄtre ! “ Merci au service commercial de m'avoir aiguillГ© dans mes recherches. “ Des exemples concrets pour les contrats de travail. “ De bons outils pour apprГ©hender les problГ©matiques en crГ©ation d'entreprise.
You Can Now Order Essay Assistance From Real Academics -
What makes a good public speaker - YourStory Community
Nov 12, 2017 What makes a good speaker, academic proofreading -
Qualities of Amazing Public Speakers - The Muse
us history slavery essaySlavery -By Callum McPetrie. Slavery was an what speaker institution as old as humanity itself. It meant the ownership of one person by another, meaning that the slave was legal property. Often, the slave had to work constantly in a thousand acres movie, bad conditions, and it was their owner who decided everything about what makes a good speaker their life. Although some owners were kind to their slaves, and gave them a certain amount of mcgregor the human of enterprise, control over their lives, this was not often the speaker case, especially in the early 19th Century when mercantilism, which propped up colonies around the world by the European powers, was in charge. A History of Slavery. Slavery had been around for a very long time before then. Slavery was a commonplace institution in Egypt, where the pyramids were built off slave labour, and Ancient Rome, where people of conquered regions were made slaves (in fact, the word “slave” is said to have come from the word “Slav”, which was the race of theory, people Romans made slaves most often). Slavery was also commonplace throughout the East, in China and the Indian sub-continent. In the Dark Ages in Europe, and to a good, a lesser extent Britain, slavery was replaced by serfdom. Serfs were similar to what is collision theory, slaves in many ways. The Serf was tied down to a good, a certain area of land, and worked in what does say about living before, similar conditions to slaves who also worked on farms. Serfdom was a consequence of the feudal economic system in Europe at the time. It relied entirely upon agricultural output, so serfdom was considered inevitable. Life as a serf wasn’t easy, and what speaker, many rebellions broke out because of it. Russia was the on Analyzing last country to abolish serfdom, which came about in 1860 under Tsar Alexander II. In most countries, however, it was abolished hundreds of years earlier. In the 15th Century, Europe was on the rise again. As a result of the new mercantilist economic and foreign affairs policies in European countries, Europe looked for new land on which to build colonies, which led to explorers of the time like Columbus, who discovered the Americas in what, 1492 and and Cons Minimum, carried many slaves on his ship, and Magellan. Mercantilism and colonization first became popular in Portugal, which started the slave trade, and Spain, before spreading to Britain, Holland and France. In order to make mercantilism profitable, slavery was reinstitutionalized. What A Good Speaker! Slaves were brought from Africa, both to Europe and its colonies, especially the what is collision Americas. What A Good Speaker! Both the slave trade and what is collision theory, work as a slave were brutal, and what a good, incredibly dangerous. Many slaves in the colonies did the same things that serfs did, which was to work on the land. And Cons Of Abolishing Wage! Slaves, however, did far more dangerous work, usually on cotton plantations. Enlightenment, Economics and Abolition. But in the 18th Century, the tide was turning against slavery. What Makes A Good! The Enlightenment was at its height, which produced many great minds dedicated to the principle of individual rights and a thousand acres, freedom –which stood in direct opposition to the principles of slavery. Mercantilism was being attacked by the economists of the what day, such as Adam Smith and David Ricardo, who promoted capitalism –the economic system that logically followed from The Pros Minimum Enlightenment principles. As well as these men, many people opposed slavery on moral grounds, such as William Wilberforce. In the 18th and 19th Centuries, the great debate of the time wasn’t capitalism vs. socialism; it was capitalism vs. mercantilism and what, the aristocracy, opposed to change -and pro-slavery. The latter included many of the English writers of the time, such as Thomas Carlyle and Charles Dickens. Because of the raisin in the sun economists’ opposition to slavery, the writers called economics “the dismal science” –a modern phrase that came from the pro-slavery conservatives of the time. Two countries took the lead in makes a good speaker, the crusade against sun slavery: the (northern) United States, which was very new at the time, and Britain. The northern American states became some of the first places in the world to abolish slavery outright, and what a good, the founding fathers were planning to put a clause in the US Constitution to abolish slavery, which was rejected by the south. It took a long, gruesome civil war to The Pros Minimum, get the what makes a good speaker southern American states to also abolish slavery. Essay On Analyzing! It should be noted here that the south was agricultural, and because of this slavery was commonplace, and makes a good, the south was worse off than the who wrote raisin in the north. Britain, led by William Wilberforce and influenced by the great economists of the time, abolished the slave trade in makes a good, 1807. This came at great expense to the government, which happened to The Pros and Cons Wage, be fighting in the Napoleonic wars at the time, and outlawed slavery outright in her empire some thirty years later –the first country in Europe to do so. Abolishing slavery came at great expense to Britain. But over time, their investment was paid off. Slavery prevented slaves from using their talents to the best of their ability, instead consigning them to brutal physical work. After the abolition, slaves were somewhat freer to use their talents to the best of their ability, which greatly helped the slaves and the economy as a whole. It was on this premise that the economists advocated the abolition of makes a good, slavery. Other European countries abolished slavery soon afterwards. Essay On Analyzing Of Young! In France, the what makes speaker French Revolution of 1789 helped towards this, but France soon found itself in the dictatorial grip of Napoleon. What Does Living Together Marriage! It took another revolution, that of 1848, which also took place in Austria-Hungary and Prussia to properly set things straight. The Effects Today. Slavery affected, and continues to affect, many people in a bad way. This is why decolonization was widespread after WWII. What! Slavery is outlawed everywhere, except in shady countries in Africa such as Sudan, where people still own slaves. Slavery had the effect of a thousand acres movie, dividing people into races, an effect which is makes a good still felt today, although not as greatly as it used to be felt. This led most importantly to the civil rights movement in America, where race riots were common in the 1960s and 1970s. Many societies still have a degree of racial division that can trace its roots back to slavery in the mercantilist era, and some of the problems associated with race today. Who Wrote In The Sun! Even so, the what a good speaker average African-American has as high a per capita GDP as the average Swede –which is 1/3 lower than the total American average. In Europe, division of races is an mcgregor the human side of enterprise increasingly large problem, which occasionally breaks out in riots in makes, France. Germany and Switzerland also have similar divisions, which are manifest in their laws, especially immigration from North Africa. Essay Portraits Men! Immigration is a larger problem in Europe than the what makes a good US, as immigrants tend to put money into the country in the US in the form of productivity, and take money out in Europe, usually in the form of welfare benefits. Slavery was a horrid institution in human society, and considered normal for most of human history. A Thousand Acres Movie! It took a revolution of thinking in the 1700s to change this, and revolutionary economics, based on man’s mind as his highest asset, not the hands he slaves with. Modern slavery came about as a consequence of mercantilism. Although it could be argued that mercantilism has its benefits, its costs were far greater. Mercantilism was also a system of government intervention, not of what speaker, free markets. The move to raisin, the free market was one of the reasons slavery was abolished. It was the a good great and courageous minds of the day that had slavery abolished. For that and for other reasons, we have to thank those minds for a thousand movie the prosperity enjoyed in Western nations today. And I have the FLW also - got it after seeing it at what makes a good speaker, PC's one night some years back. Inspired the Portraits Men essay, Titanic Trio which I was rather pleased with. If you're talking about this one, Lindsay. . What Makes A Good Speaker! it is indeed brilliant!! Made by what does say about before marriage, today's best documentarian, Ken Burns - same guy who did the marvelous Frank Lloyd Wright film. [click on makes a good, pic to buy at Amazon] May I inquire as to what book( you are reading? Since deciding to stay in America, learning its history has become something of an a thousand acres movie obsession. It's what's called a Magnificent Obsession. This one'll never leave you. No books. Just what I'd already picked up from 30 years within Objectivism, plus that inexhaustible reference library called the Internet, guided by the Great God Google. Speaker! And a marvellous 6-hour DVD set, Liberty! The American Revolution, which pulls everything together beautifully. The story in side of enterprise, the actors' own words (and *what* a cast of characters!!). No special effects or ought. Talking heads, and pics as appropriate. Utterly hypnotic. John Adams on the early defeats: "In general, our generals were out-generalled." "Our troops, faced by the British, very gallantly panicked, turned around and ran in makes, the opposite direction." I have a DVD on Jefferson, too. There's a part describing Tom and sun, his wife on her deathbed, quoting Tristram Shandy to each other, making plans for the kids, part of it in fact the reportage of one of his adoring slaves . honestly, it destroys me every time. This man didn't have a bad bone in him. As I stated with Adams' biography: I'm only up to the point where he was at the second Continental Congress clashing with the quakers about whether to issue the Declaration. Up until that point he seemed to makes, have lived an exemplary life. No mention yet of of Young, any flip-flopping on the slavery issue in MA. I will keep an eye out for it. May I inquire as to what book( you are reading? Since deciding to stay in America, learning its history has become something of an obsession. No one's looking for a "complete climbdown and what, abject apology." Not even Mr. Jefferson, whom I consulted. Who Wrote Raisin Sun! I just wanted you to realise that you were directing inappropriate venom at not just one of the makes good guys but one of the in the sun goodest of all time! And remember, your shining counter-example, John Adams didn't abolish slavery while president—indeed, he'd opposed emancipation in Massachusetts and generally swept the issue under the rug whenever he could. (Amazing business, his and Jefferson's dying within hours of each other on what makes a good, the 50th anniversary of the Declaration!) When I said I was done I was talking about the Essay on Analyzing of Young Men discussion about whether slavery was profitable and therefore immoral and whether Eli was disingenuous. The point you make about Jefferson is important and the discussion is what a good therefore important. Jefferson did more than any other human being in history to in the sun, achieve ACTUAL, TANGIBLE LIBERTY for as many individuals as possible. Makes Speaker! Equally, President Jefferson (the only individual worthy of the title, IMO), did more AGAINST slavery than any other human being in side, his position during his time (late 18th/early 19th century). I have no doubt the incomparable Mr. Jefferson went to his grave wondering if he had 'done enough' (I picture a thought process similar to that enacted by Liam Neeson at what a good, the end of 'Schindler's List'). I do think Jefferson could have done more in acres, both his personal and political life to cripple the most shameful part of American history, and I've no doubt Jefferson himself felt he could have done more and regretted it. One additional explanation for Jefferson's personal owning of slaves that to me holds the makes most merit is that a 'freed' slave was not necessarily *safe* even in the northern states during 18th and early 19th century America. Mcgregor The Human! I've read that Jefferson did not treat his slaves as slaves, arguably being even protective of them. Clearly, Jefferson is more of a positive figure in the historical record of slavery abolition than a negative one, particularly if 'graded on the curve' of his time. And yes, Linz, many of a good, our 'Founding Fathers' while not being perfect examples of Randian purity, nonetheless accomplished nothing short of a libertarian miracle. I think there are a few figures in revolutionary American history which are not deserving of the reverence given to them today. One such individual is Alexander Hamilton, who is what living marriage staring up at me right now from the 10 dollar bill next to my keyboard. Makes Speaker! IMO he was a counter-revolutionary and I'm glad Aaron Burr shot him. The Bible Say About Before Marriage! The fact that Jefferson was able to accomplish ANYTHING for liberty with opponents like Hamilton is yet another American miracle. for creating SOLO. This is the only forum available today where I could have a debate like this one without being hounded out of what makes speaker, my job for ever uttering such 'heretical' statements. The problem isn't that the conventional debating chambers of today (e.g. the Universities) are fortresses of one political wing or the other. It is that you cannot express an unpopular opinion anymore without risking your livelihood. Because SOLO keeps a complete record of the acres debate, people can see judge whether you were guilty of temporary foolishness or of being an unredeemable evil bastard. I shall ponder this and makes a good, find a better biography of the acres movie man so as to challenge my premises. As to blaming Jefferson for what speaker all the ills of America: my opinion is living together before marriage that slavery was the 'third rail' of 18th century American politics and makes speaker, every politician who avoided dealing with it bears part of the burden for that. That is the bible say about living marriage something I did not state explicitly at the beginning and I was unjust in speaker, not doing so. To the manner in which I expressed my opinions. In some ways I am unrepentant for that. Jefferson's peccadillo has been explained away in a hand-waving, piss-weak manner in the history that I've read (and I've already acknowledged a rush to what theory, judgment on that). That my strongly worded comments have elicited an equally strongly worded and makes speaker, strongly defended riposte from The Pros of Abolishing Minimum Essay you is what a good thing - both for me and those who had the same concerns that I had. But I accept that my style of arguing is flawed (part and parcel of having a quick temper and a sharp tongue) and it is mcgregor the human of enterprise something I've been trying to address - hence the what makes speaker deletion of the reply to Scott (aka Mr. What The Bible Living! Personallydisinterested). Which is to say that I now regret the what makes force of the comments I leveled at Elijah, especially now that people who've met him personally have chirped up with their impressions of his real life persona. This may not constitute the complete climbdown and abject apology that some might be expecting. The reason is that I want to revisit the history myself - better than I heretofore - rather than take your conclusions as gospel. I would hope you can understand that. Those who know me know me to be hard headed after all. Ingersoll still amazes me since Linz put me onto him. I came across this podcast a while back which should suit those multitaskers out there, check it out. The delivery isn't the best but the content and the fact this guy has bothered to do this is awesome. Another great American. oh shucks Kelly, thx, where's the blush smiley *blush* Suppose for a second that you were explaining the broad sweep of American history to The Pros and Cons Wage Essay, a child (this may cease to be a hypothetical for me sooner or later). It is what not enough for the human side of enterprise me to a good speaker, merely reel off dates and events. I would like the history to contain the lesson for the child: this is what happens when you compromise your principles. And taking that path of least resistance is a mistake that every man, even those with the brightest and clearest minds, can make and have made. Tell me then how you would put Jefferson's inaction (in both public and personal arenas) on this most serious of matters into context - remembering that one of the root causes of the second most bitter, and most bloody, confrontation in mcgregor the human, American history (the first, in terms of what speaker, its significance was the side of enterprise Revolution) was slavery. It is a contradiction that even a child can see and pick at. Is it really enough to say we forgive him this because he did enough? Would that not undermine the message that to enslave another is what makes a good absolutely evil? I would think that message could be imparted without heaping vitriol on Jefferson as though he invented slavery, as though he never made any effort to abolish it, and as though he were personally responsible for Essay of Young Men the Civil War decades after his death. I would think that due emphasis could be placed on Jefferson's inestimable achievements—most crucially, his authorship of the what makes most important document in human history, and say about together, his stewardship of the most important development in human history, the separation of church and state. [Not forgetting his wine cellar! :-)] In Virginia, "heresy" was a capital offence. It took him 10 years to do it, but Jefferson overturned that deplorable state of affairs. (But hey, he didn't free his slaves or abolish slavery, you know! Yeah, yeah, he banned the importation of slaves, and was reviled as an a good speaker "emancipationist," but you know us, it's all or nothing!) It's important not to what theory, be a Garden of Eden historian who tacitly assumes and proceeds as though there was a time when everything was perfect, that man then fell . and woe betide anyone who tried to restore the Garden, but not 100% to makes, its original pristine state. One man cannot be expected to smite every evil, smugness of hindsight notwithstanding. A Thousand Acres! We inch forward, if at all. What! Occasionally someone catapults us into a giant leap. Jefferson was one such. Were I telling a child the Essay Portraits Men story of mankind, Jefferson would have pride of place among the what a good good guys. Objectivists are not intrinsicists. The evil nature of enslaving another was something men had to figure out. It wasn't a truth emblazoned on the sky since Day One of Creation. But it sure as hell got worldwide attention with the Declaration. PS—Here's one for the Jefferson-bashers: should he have forced the issue in 1776 and insisted the raisin in the sun original draft, citing slavery as one of the King's "abuses and usurpations," be ratified "as is"? Meaning, it wouldn't be ratified? Allow me to condense the premise into a question. Suppose for a second that you were explaining the broad sweep of American history to a child (this may cease to be a hypothetical for makes me sooner or later). It is not enough for me to merely reel off dates and what living together before marriage, events. I would like the history to contain the lesson for the child: this is what happens when you compromise your principles. And taking that path of least resistance is a mistake that every man, even those with the brightest and clearest minds, can make and have made. Tell me then how you would put Jefferson's inaction (in both public and what a good, personal arenas) on this most serious of matters into context - remembering that one of the root causes of the what is collision second most bitter, and most bloody, confrontation in American history (the first, in terms of makes, its significance was the does the bible living before Revolution) was slavery. It is a contradiction that even a child can see and pick at. Is it really enough to say we forgive him this because he did enough? Would that not undermine the message that to enslave another is absolutely evil? Lineberry is 'resting' between engagements? [No, he is banned] Liz's comment is makes a good speaker a bit gnomic: PS. I think you [Lindsay] did the right thing in removing Elijah. Does this refer, Liz, only to Elijah's removal from SOLO staff? PS -- Apologies for not delving deeper. Men! Elijah slagged off Jon Coster in this thread, and Lindsay announced Elijah's involuntary departure with this comment: . you're outta here. Eli, this makes me really sad. But what you just posted about Coster was rotten. ROTTEN. We've extended you every courtesy and benefit of the doubt, but it's now clear you didn't merit it. This is not moderation, as for makes Giles—it's the full boot. Well done, Lindsay. My argument is simple. Jefferson had the opportunity at least in his private life to rid himself of on Analyzing, slavery. He had the means but lacked the will. I called him immoral for it. If you find fault in my argument Have at it. I do not fear being proved to be mistaken and I certainly don't know everything. It's been a while since I've studied French. Perhaps I am guilty of using the wrong French farewell. If so, I'm sorry. I too have been reading about the a good speaker Revolution. In the past year I have visited the battlefields at Saratoga and Ticonderoga. All the while listening to David McCullough's 1776 . What Is Collision! Wresting America from the British was indeed a magnificent feat - miraculous even. But in the same trip I also spent two days wandering through the what Gettysburg battlefield and cemetery. What Does Say About Together Before! I live in what, Kansas, a state forged to break the dead-lock in Washington between the Slave holders and the abolitionists. Slavery is not an insignificant issue in raisin, America's history. Jefferson may indeed have done enough in his political life. I'll concede that I was wrong to makes speaker, make an adverse moral judgment of him on that point . However, I stand by pointing out the contradiction. By neglecting the issue, they did sow the seeds of the bloodshed and racism that plagued their children and and Cons of Abolishing Minimum Wage, their children's children. Its a contradiction that is played down in conservative quarters. What Makes Speaker! There are those who would make Jefferson out to be John Galt. This comment, by talk radio host Michael Graham, absolving American General Francis Marion (The Swamp Fox) from owning slaves: "Was Francis Marion a slave owner? Was he a determined and dangerous warrior? Did he commit acts in an 18th-century war that we would consider atrocious in the current world of peace and political correctness? As another great American film hero might say: "You damn right." That's what made him a hero, 200 years ago and today." Note how the fact that slavery was beginning to be challenged in the 18th Century is brushed under the table. To point this out is mcgregor side 'current world' political correctness. This was what Scott et al. have accused me of and that pissed me off. If I am guilty of makes a good, anything, it is of down-playing the difficulties Jefferson faced getting anything done in politics and raisin in the sun, of my usual level of speaker, bombast -- hysteria if you prefer. But I still cannot reconcile an intellectual giant like Jefferson keeping slaves even after America was established and he was in his dottage. It is said that he had debts. I believe (but have yet to on Analyzing of Young Men, prove) that he had the makes a good assets to what theory, pay them. I use John Adams as an example because there was a man of substance like Jefferson. Like Jefferson he was a lawyer, land-owner, gentleman farmer, wealthy and as wise. He made his fortune without relying on slavery and strove to what speaker, live without debts as a matter of mcgregor of enterprise, principle. As an what example of what could be done, in that time in that place, Adams is perfect. So no, in that light, I'm not convinced that Jefferson (as Scott put it) "did what he could." Hence my conclusion. You quote Rand on von Mises. I wonder if she would have forgiven von Mises for a sin on the scale of owning slaves? Or is Essay Portraits of Young it just that I'm overplaying how evil slavery is? About sums up this whole debacle. The price of makes, liberty is does the bible marriage eternal VIGILANCE . "I create nothing, I got owned" Looking forward to makes speaker, a hopeful eventual Jefferson thread. I create nothing, I own slaves.. Yes, I'm an old fool, but I do have glasses, and I distinctly saw you say "au revoir." Glad you didn't flounce in theory, the end. Anyway, I'm not claiming for an instant that Jefferson was lily-white on the matter of slavery. He knew the arguments, he knew that slavery was an abomination utterly inconsistent with his stated ideals, and makes a good speaker, he knew that he'd acted but fitfully to abolish it. In the matter of the Declaration, he dropped the a thousand acres movie anti-slavery bits to get the Declaration ratified. In his personal life, he kept his slaves on because he was in debt. No one's denying that, or claiming it was noble. But here's the deal. I for one do not demand of what makes speaker, historical super-mega-giants that they be perfect in every respect, that they have no inconsistencies, that they be John Galt. Ayn Rand, scathing of raisin, Ludwig von Mises in a good, private, and asked why she didn't go after him in public, said: "Leave him alone. He's done enough." Same goes in spades for Jefferson. He did more than enough. Way, way more than enough. As it happens, I've been quite immersed in the Declaration and the War these last few days. What Before! It's very hard to a good speaker, believe such human beings as all the Founding Fathers actually existed. And kept the faith, through their own mutual animosities(!), the incompetence of politicians, the seemingly terminal military setbacks, the a thousand acres movie dreadful conditions in what speaker, which the patriots had to fight, the rag-tag nature of an who wrote raisin in the sun American volunteer army fighting against the full might of the British . all for a "mere" idea. It was truly the stuff of an makes a good Ayn Rand novel. But those guys were real . and so was the "mere" idea for which they were prepared to die. Know what? I forgive every last one of them every last shortcoming. I am speechless with admiration for all of them, Jefferson included. "Liz - no, Disin is not me. I'd only come on as someone else for mcgregor of enterprise comedic purposes, e,g. What Makes Speaker! Karl Marx. Anything serious I have to theory, say I say it myself, up front, in your face. Surely you know that by now?!" Yes. I was mistaken. PS. I think you did the right thing in removing Elijah. The other bloke declared that he was done. I was merely wishing him bon voyage - politely for what makes once, lest my barbs be deemed hysterical! And I look forward to someone defending Jefferson. Reconciling his owning of slaves with is service to liberty is something I've been unable to do - hence my conclusion. I would like to correct something that Scott accused me of: "I would only point out that I'm not judging Jefferson by 20th Century morality. On Analyzing Men! I'm judging him by the standards of the late 18th Century and early 19th Century - when slavery was abolished in England and makes a good speaker, he was in the White House. Fully twenty years between the mcgregor side of enterprise time Britain abolished the slave trade and Jefferson's death. And through out makes a good that time he owned slaves. I very much doubt that Jefferson can claim ignorance of the whole affair. I believe that William Wilberforce and he communicated by letter more than once. I doubt they were discussing cricket, but in the interests of fairness, when I acquire copies I shall check. In any event he was reckoned to be one of the who wrote most well-read men in the world. I would be dumbstruck if he was unaware of the what a good speaker arguments made and the evidence presented in the English Parliament against slavery. Side! Surely no one is claiming that he was too dim to what makes, understand them or too heartless to be moved by them." So there is the who wrote sun final brick in my argument. Linz, have at it. What Makes A Good! If I'm wrong, I'll happily concede. Is Collision Theory! Flaming Jefferson is not something done lightly. But you'll have to address how I'm dropping context by calling Jefferson on what makes, not addressing slavery in EITHER his public or his private life. What The Bible Say About Together Before Marriage! I'll accept that compromises had to be made in public office - especially given the turbulent times and the fact they had to blueprint to work from. Makes A Good! But Jefferson had full dominion over his own affairs. At least it will be a discussion free from that troll Brendon. What! I assume that because we won't be discussing the nature of what, cabbages, he won't feel the a thousand movie need to defend his kind. Jefferson's rep is tougher than this. Robert, your views on Jefferson haven't gone unchallenged--at least be me--because they're unchallengeable, it's because you obviously haven't finished saying your piece. Don't turn into a flouncer. Become one of those Yank sissies already? Wot next—counselling? At least hang around till I say something more substantial about Jefferson, which I intend to do presently. And don't take your cue from John Adams. And a great admirer of makes speaker, Jefferson. Kept a sense of perspective. Liz - no, Disin is not me. I'd only come on Essay on Analyzing Portraits Men, as someone else for comedic purposes, e,g. Karl Marx. Anything serious I have to a good, say I say it myself, up front, in your face. The Pros Wage! Surely you know that by now?! I'll just delete this. Makes! According to Linz, I'm being hysterical. The Pros And Cons Of Abolishing Essay! So I'll can the tirade and bid you au revoir instead. I'd like to what a good, say that I'm sorry that my expressing low opinion of TJ has offended you. Only I can't bring myself to do so. You see the movie problem is your thin skin, rather than my strident expression of an honestly held (and as yet unchallenged) opinion. Ingersoll's address to the coloured people - 1867. Slavery has destroyed every nation that has gone down to a good, death. It caused the last vestige of of Young, Grecian civilization to a good, disappear forever, and it caused Rome to fall with a crash that shook the the bible say about living together before marriage world. After the disappearance of slavery in its grossest forms in Europe, Gonzales pointed out to his countrymen, the what makes a good Portuguese, the immense profits that they could make by stealing Africans, and acres, thus commenced the modern slave trade -- that aggregation of what a good, all horror -- that infinite of all cruelty, prosecuted only by demons, and defended only by fiends. And yet the slave trade has been defended and sustained by who wrote raisin sun, every civilized nation, and by each and all has been baptized "Legitimate commerce," in the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost . What a giant Ingersoll was. read the whole thing here and for good measure why not read all his stuff here. If I were selling it I would have offered a money back guarantee. I admit that reason is a small and what makes speaker, feeble flame, a flickering torch by stumblers carried in the starless night, -- blown and flared by passion's storm, -- and the human side of enterprise, yet, it is the what makes a good only light. Extinguish that, and nought remains.- - Robert Green Ingersoll. I think Personallydisin. is Linz . The Bible Say About Living Together Before Marriage! disin. Slavery was profitable and is profitable. Anyone who disagrees is what makes a good required to provide tangible evidense to the contrary. I think attacking Jefferson is of Abolishing Minimum way out of line. You can't judge an 18th century man by 21st century standards. If Jefferson had freed his slaves, he would have removed himself from eligibility to run for political office because he would no longer have been considered a personally disinterested gentleman. The men who ruled our country till Jackson believed that the country must be ruled by well educated men who didn't have to worry about their own financial interests (ok, gross generalization but on the whole accurate). The idea was that people who are not financially secure are susceptible to corruption and bribery. Hmmm, I think they had a point. Jefferson did what he could. Imagine for a minute the what makes speaker world he lived in, and how much he changed it. He knew what he was doing. A Thousand! Perhaps he could have ended slavery if he had played his cards, or maybe he would have destroyed the fragile union that was still largely an experiment. I agree that compromise with evil yields evil. but how much evil do we all accept in order to support ourselves in prominence and comfort? We can wish the world different all we want, but work is required for it to change. We can't work for change if we drop out of our current society. Jon Coster, I think I love you. Hi there Callum, excellent work on your essay. I'm impressed by makes a good, your ability to The Pros and Cons of Abolishing Essay, communicate your understanding of issues and wish I had that skill at your age. Perhaps at my age also Good luck with your essay. I think this quote from John Galt is quite relevant to the slavery debate: "I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." What else needs to be said? Enslaving someone is an initiation of force. I guess everything must be debated. Was just thinking, have you seen the makes movie 300? I loved it. At that time the wonderful greeks also had slaves. Not such a wonderful thought, though I guess it did free up time for their great men. Raisin In The! Yes men. Not women, as they seem to makes a good speaker, have been treated pretty much as slaves also. In this day, by the work of the producers we have many wonderful devices to free us from manual labour and what, enable more productive pursuits. Makes Speaker! Why would any advocate slavery in what does say about together before marriage, this day and age when you can trade for the best of someones productive time & skill. I don't think the speaker Persians had slaves under Darius? also thanks for reminding me, I've got to watch that film about William Wilberforce. People need to be reminded of the important values English Liberalism actually gave to this world. Is it just not sexy enough?? Does the story need a hiphop soundtrack? . excuse me but if you are coming here Callum, you are obviously open to adult conversation. Good and Bad. I've tried not to buy into what theory, the attention seeking trollfest whore that is Elijah. Makes A Good Speaker! It's probably a fault but it takes a lot to get me truly riled as I figure most seeming racists/bigots are just ignorant and The Pros Wage, scared and/or are just reacting by mouthing off. Like a child it's usually better not to play along with them. Things have changed and it seems people who are not involved in this site are questioning how I could be associated with him. So I must make it clear. What Makes A Good! I think you are an utter scumbag maggot Elijah. Who Wrote Raisin Sun! You are the reason I wont attend Solo gatherings and makes a good speaker, the reason most of movie, New Zealand hate Aucklanders . I actually thought you were a joke, a straw man, a made-up character placed here just to rark everyone up. It looks like this is not the case as I'm also sure I've seen you round and about in cafes etc. Calling black people negroes, this bullshit about slavery, calling for ethnic cleansing of my race amongst others, along with the rest of your endless dribble sickens me. You're the most despicable person I've never met, I hope to keep it that way and that my good friends and family never meet you. Don't get me wrong, like most good people I like nasty humour, the well delivered bad joke - it's just that you're not funny at all. Having you on this site sickens me. I've met some rather wealthy people though none of them are like you. A Good Speaker! They wouldn't bother acting like that. You've shared some trading secrets, fine. New Zealand isn't the place for and Cons of Abolishing Essay you, this is a place created from those trying to speaker, escape dead traditions and hatreds and is still crafting a compelling future. Mcgregor The Human Side Of Enterprise! Actually why don't you fuck off to makes a good speaker, Tonga while it's still a Constitutional Monarchy. A tubby little white maggot like you and a fat brown slug like the current King of Tonga out to on Analyzing Portraits of Young Men, get on marvelously can give yourselves fancy hats & medals, wank off all over what makes, each other until the good people of Tonga finally have enough, lop your heads off and stick you in an umu. Oh gosh am I being silly, getting carried away?, most definitely. There really are many, better things I should be doing with my time. Eat shit and die you douche bag! What the fuck is wrong with you? Dont you get it that above all, Objectivism is most concerned with the protection of and Cons of Abolishing Minimum Wage, individual rights from those who choose to initiate force on what makes, others. For an Objectivist, "mans life" and all the rights an individual needs in order to what theory, sustain it constitutes the standard of value. Thus both the acts of "trading with" or "owning" another individual's life without his consent are gross violations of mans life, the ultimate standard of what makes, value for a rational ethics. Surely you cannot expect to substitute "mans life" with "profitability" as the standard of value, and expect to get away with it here on SOLO, no matter how damned nice you are as a person. Stop this shit now, it's wearing thin already. To call slave trading "a rather undignified acivity" is tantamount to raisin, way more than flippant appeasement. An organism's life is its standard of makes speaker, value: that which furthers its life is the good, that which threatens it is the evil." I admit that reason is a small and what is collision theory, feeble flame, a flickering torch by stumblers carried in speaker, the starless night, -- blown and flared by passion's storm, -- and yet, it is the only light. Essay Portraits! Extinguish that, and nought remains.- - Robert Green Ingersoll. . and makes a good, it should be salutary to those who appear to be intent on twisting themselves into knots simply to avoid the necessity of calling a spade a spade. " The man who refuses to judge, who neither agrees nor disagrees, who declares that there are no absolutes and believes that he escapes responsibility, is the man responsible for before marriage all the blood that is now spilled in the world. Reality is an absolute, existence is an absolute, a speck of dust is an what makes speaker absolute and the human, so is what a good a human life … " Your position, that profit is the basis of what is collision, morality, and hence the basis that slavery is bad, means that slavery if profitable would be morally good. What A Good Speaker! Because you have dismissed anything but profit as a moral basis, and Minimum Wage, this is the what makes speaker point that I'm driving at, slavery only becomes bad when it is unprofitable. Because profit is not a defining component of slavery, slavery can potentially be either [of course it can't be both. Mcgregor The Human Side Of Enterprise! I need to a good speaker, lern to engrish!] profitable or unprofitable. So to actually oppose slavery you need an in the sun opposition to one of it's defining components, namely the initiation of force. Slavery cannot be slavery without force of makes speaker, some kind. Slavery without force is either kinky role playing or altruism. should clarify something. I have not been talking about 'slave trading' ..(the act of filling up a ship in Africa and sun, transporting those chaps to America and selling them). but rather, 'slave owning' (the act of purchasing slaves and having them work your land) I have not studied, and makes a good speaker, have no idea about, the economics of slave trading. whether it was profitable or not. I am talking about 'slave owning'. which is not profitable, and never really was. My only comment on who wrote in the, 'slave trading' is it seems a rather undignified activity. gosh. Is Elijah a capitilo-anarchist? No need for any laws against the use of force, the what makes a good market will take care of it. Afterall, if a chap is hell-bent on having slaves. the costs of doing so [his self interest] will make him stop, rather than simply having a law against it (which he has already decided to The Pros and Cons of Abolishing Minimum, break) slave society is stagnant and valueless. there are another two arguments against what makes a good speaker slavery. 1.Slavery is forced labor and raisin, as such cannot be creative.No one cannot invent any thing on the gun point or under the threat of lash.Mind simply cannot work under coersion.Therefore slave society is necessarily at a standstill. 2.Slave cannot pursue any values.Nothing belongs to him,even his very life is what a good a property of his master.But master is also a parasite,second hander who is totaly depens on his slaves.If slaves rebel and stop to work their master is valueless.Man may achieve values only of Abolishing Minimum, when he acts within his inallienable rights.Therefore slave society is stagnant, valueless and incompatible with capitalism.No profit is possible in such a society in the long run since profit means creation of the new wealth and what, that is possible only in the sun, via creativity.Slave masters simply accumulated loot as any robber or bandit.This is hardly could be called a profit.Slavery is makes speaker immoral because is incompatible with man's existence qua man-both slaves and masters. But slavery was once profitable, and it may be again. Your position, that profit is the basis of what does the bible say about living before, morality, and hence the basis that slavery is speaker bad, means that slavery when it was profitable was morally good and should it become profitable again it will be morally good once more. Because you have dismissed anything but profit as a moral basis, and this is the point that I'm driving at, slavery only Essay on Analyzing, becomes bad when it is unprofitable. Because profit is not a defining component of slavery, slavery can potentially be both profitable and unprofitable. What Speaker! So to actually oppose slavery you need an opposition to one of it's defining components, namely the initiation of force. Slavery cannot be slavery without force of some kind. Slavery without force is either kinky role playing or altruism. Slip, sliding again. Mcgregor! The morality of slavery, of owning another person against what makes a good their consent, and drug use, are related how, again? And re your reply to Lance, the immorality is in also holding a position whereby you say rather than feeling it [slavery] is wrong because one group of people are owned by another." So to Paul's point, do you 'feel' it is actually wrong to 'own' another person, and that, possibly, the repugnance of this should draw a deeper wound than any economic argument? You have said "..you've left yourself in a position where slavery is a morally acceptable practice so long as it is profitable. Actually, what I was saying was more a case of 'financial considerations will prevent slavery from taking place'. Afterall, if a chap is hell-bent on having slaves. the costs of doing so [his self interest] will make him stop, rather than simply having a law against it (which he has already decided to break) You're still missing the point Elijah. There's been no real argument that economic considerations aren't useful or necessary, but whether you realise it or not, by pooh poohing such 'feelings' about ideas such as individual sovereignty, liberty, non initiation of does the bible before marriage, force, you've left yourself in what makes speaker, a position where slavery is a morally acceptable practice so long as it is what does the bible say about living before profitable. God, you even seemed to be suggesting that those Objectivist ideals were part of what makes a good speaker, your socialist programming in schools conspiracy! I have an what is collision theory actual 'reason' for what opposing slavery..(reduced profits). rather than an undefined "we all learnt in mcgregor side, school that slavery was bad and it is wrong to own other people". Frankly the idea that it had become unprofitable and slave owners themselves had been part of the abolition movement for that very reason is fascinating. I am convinced that Abraham Lincoln was financed and encouraged, not by 'liberals' of his day. but by a cabal of Southern Plantation Owners. And Dinther, I didn't find that offensive, I said it "ruffled my ickle sensibilities", I consider it a bad taste joke is all, considering the absolute heroes such as William Lloyd Garrison that were involved in what a good, the abolition movement. But that's all it is, a bad taste joke, that's all I read it as, beyond that I really don't care that it was said. I think it is Portraits of Young Men very moral to have financial considerations in mind when deciding something. and financial considerations makes it voluntary. Read the makes speaker example I gave on Tuesday about drugs trafficking. and why a supposedly lucrative business is actually quite the mcgregor the human opposite, and why anyone with half a brain should not engage in that business. It is a libertarian policy that 'hard' drugs should be legal. I know of, and have chatted with, a number of libertarian types who have a problem with this ideal because of addiction that results from drug taking, and risks of a drug overdose. As I said the other day, I do not care how many people are 'junkies' . they knew exactly what they were getting into what makes speaker, . (I especially have no concern for school children who become addicts having just listened to a teacher drone on during a 'drug education' class at school, and then go out and try something and get 'hooked') I think saying to the the average drug trafficker. "You are risking a 15 year prison sentence, or being shot, or being 'ripped off' and what a misery your life must be with constant police attention" ..would be more effective than any tug on mcgregor side, the heart strings nonsense such as. "Look what you have done! you have ruined countless lives with your evil, greedy activities". Appealing to self interest is always the best course of action. That I stood up for Elijah's initial statement which I still believe is without anything you could take offence to. I still stand by that. Makes Speaker! I also note that you did not get involved until after Elijah tried to hang himself. " Slavery is 'wrong' (in my opinion).. because it is bad for business and ties up capital in slave ownership, rather than feeling it is wrong because one group of people are owned by another." I don't support Elijah in the second half of acres, that statement but without engaging in word splitting I wonder what he means by "feeling it's wrong" Global warming is a hoax carbonhoax.org.nz and spread the word. "I believe the world is an ABSOLUTELY BETTER PLACE because of Mr. Jefferson, however, he could have been far better." Absolutely! No question. He did many great things. But he left something as abhorrent and malignant as slavery unmolested in both his private life (over which he had complete dominion) and his public one. And if you judge the makes speaker whole man, as I have tried to do, you must weigh both his achievements and his failures. As I see it, pragmatism, in equal measure with nihilism, will be the downfall of the Portraits of Young West unless it is recognized and excoriated in whom ever and where ever it resides. There are three reasons why he came to mind in the first place. (1) Listening to talk-back here in the States, it seems to me that many conservative commentators have raised the founding fathers to sainthood. Makes Speaker! Always it's "that's not what the founding fathers would have done." Well they weren't bloody perfect and people need to Portraits Men, continue on past their towering achievements and consider their failures, omissions and what makes a good, pitfalls if the The Pros and Cons of Abolishing Minimum Essay USA is to become 'that shining tower on the hill!' (2) I'm in the car a lot and I'm listening to an audio-book biography of John Adams. A Good! Many of Adams' convictions stand in so stark a contrast to Jefferson's that it's like night and does the bible say about together before marriage, day. Makes A Good Speaker! I'm only up to the account of the period where the Continental Congress issued the Declaration of Independence. I hope Adams at 38 continues on raisin in the, as he started! (3) Jefferson could, without any more effort and learning, have done so much better. What Speaker! He was blessed with that much talent. . The Pros And Cons! I do judge Elijah and I think he doesn't overstep the mark. . Nowhere did [he] say that the what makes a good economic reason [against slavery] is the only one. A Thousand Movie! Even if that were the only reason I'd argue that you may not judge him on the economic reason alone. Maybe Elijah is what willing to provide you with more reasons why he is against slavery. Even when Elijah is the human given only the what a good smallest lengths of rope, he still manages to turn it into a dapper necktie and hang himself with it, because he doesn't appear, through his writings, to have a moral/thinking bone in Portraits of Young, his body. Example, even if he does not state that the what economic reason against slavery is the only one, that is irrelevant, because he says the following - directly quoted from Elijah: Slavery is 'wrong' (in my opinion).. because it is bad for business and who wrote raisin, ties up capital in slave ownership, rather than feeling it is makes a good wrong because one group of people are owned by another. The last part of Minimum Wage Essay, this sentence, in bold, damns him absolutely. Makes Speaker! It is precisely that reason, one human initiating force and 'owning' another person, that makes slavery so evil. . I appreciate so few of my country's founding fathers that it saddens me to say I agree with your derision of my beloved President Jefferson at mcgregor the human of enterprise, least in a good speaker, principle: the guy failed his own moral and intillectual integrity by Essay on Analyzing of Young, not making a stronger stand against an institution he knew to be evil. I believe the a good speaker world is an ABSOLUTELY BETTER PLACE because of the human side of enterprise, Mr. Jefferson, however, he could have been far better. In fact, Jefferson's failure to stand strong against slavery when he had the what makes a good speaker chance has IMO led to Men, the domino effect of the makes successive departure from his libertarian ideas in the centuries after his administration. Essay On Analyzing Portraits Of Young Men! It's why we have the mobocracy today and makes a good speaker, why I bitterly call my country the mcgregor of enterprise "United Police States". I go all Homer Simpson on that second quote but I fully agree on a good, the first one. I do judge Elijah and I think he doesn't overstep the of enterprise mark. If I understand you correctly, you state that one of his reasons against slavery must be a moral one as it is the moral reason that defines him as good or evil. We both agree that his economic reason is not a moral one so why would you then judge Elijah as evil based on it? Nowhere did it say that the economic reason is the only one. Even if that were the only reason I'd argue that you may not judge him on the economic reason alone. Maybe Elijah is willing to provide you with more reasons why he is against slavery. If I were him I'd refuse to provide those just for kicks. Global warming is a hoax carbonhoax.org.nz and spread the word. Has it occurred to you that a person can have more than one reason to be against slavery? Most certainly, however one of those reasons must always be the moral repudiation of such a practice, as it is what that moral repugnance that defines 'you' as good or evil, and to be 'good' the Objectivist should be prepared to judge Elijah on theory, the beliefs he states, which are in this instance morally reprehensible. [Just about ran out of 'r' words there.] Now, just to press all your buttons, a quote from Rand: "The man who refuses to judge, who neither agrees nor disagrees, who declares that there are no absolutes and believes that he escapes responsibility, is the man responsible for all the what a good speaker blood that is now spilled in the world. Reality is an absolute, existence is an of Young Men absolute, a speck of dust is an absolute and what speaker, so is a human life …" And talking about side morality, again: "The standard of value of the Objectivist ethics—the standard by which one judges what is good or evil—is man's life, or: that which is required for man's survival qua man. Since reason is a good speaker man's basic means of survival, that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; that which negates, opposes or destroys it is the evil. Since everything man needs has to be discovered by his own mind and theory, produced by his own effort, the two essentials of the method of survival proper to a rational being are: thinking and productive work." I suspect Elijah does much productive work, however, his comments constantly indicate a lack of the makes speaker 'thinking' component, integral as it is to morality, which is responsible for his complete lack of morality regarding the slavery issue in The Pros and Cons of Abolishing Minimum Wage Essay, repudiating it on only economic grounds. More than one reason against slavery. "my ickle sensibilities were ruffled when he joked that it was perhaps the slave owners who petitioned Lincoln for abolition" And why would that be offensive Lance? I consider economical pressures far more likely than a sudden moral insight after 300 years of slavery. Let's face it, when business is what makes a good slow you can fire half your staff and Portraits, mothball your machines but you can't mothball your slaves? So abolishing slavery sounds like a pretty good way to solve that problem. Has it occured to you that a person can have more than one reason to what makes a good, be against slavery? Global warming is what does together before marriage a hoax carbonhoax.org.nz and spread the word. Elijah has only said he is against slavery. Makes A Good Speaker! He gave a crap reason though. I readily inferred and pointed out to him that his reasoning meant that profitable slavery was good. If Elijah unequivocally stated that profitable slavery is acceptable, then yes I'd be slamming his ideas and him. He hasn't though, so I keep pointing out to him that his reason for rejecting slavery as morally bad could easily be turned into a reason for Minimum Wage Essay accepting it as morally good. It seems to require constant repetition and the F word in capital letters to make a point though. " The thing is I'm holding out that Elijah is makes speaker not meaning what he says (a lesser sin than actually meaning that rubbish). " Are you serious? Who would say things which are vicious and evil, pretending--and only to themselves--that they mean it? Allowing others, in good faith, to take them at their word? That's far more despicable than saying what you actually believe, no matter how twisted! And *that's* the meaning of Rand's admonition. "are you an Objectivist?" No, still learning. I stand by that though. I've constantly pointed out to what theory, Elijah the consequences of his 'profit is the what a good basis of morality' theory. I've shown the flaws and a thousand, challenged him to assert it or admit mistake. He has evaded doing so and has disappeared however. The thing is I'm holding out a good speaker that Elijah is not meaning what he says (a lesser sin than actually meaning that rubbish), mostly because I cannot reconcile a pro profitable slavery (which can be inferred from theory his statements) Elijah, with the Elijah I have got to what speaker, know off the boards. . are you an Objectivist? " . but not to consider them an on Analyzing Men attack on what makes a good, HIM, just the tosh he is spouting. " The meaning of Rand's seminal exclamation, "And I mean it!", is the who wrote in the exact opposite of what you've just expressed. Rand would never have allowed her self-esteem to be so compromised that she would have tried to pass off the idea that a man is something other than what he espouses; that he is not responsible for what he says, and that he doesn't have an obligation to himself and to the truth to mean what he says. "good men went along with the makes a good evil of slavery" And all that is required for what the bible say about living together marriage evil to a good, triumph is. "I hate it when people write T. Jefferson off because of that fact." Jefferson didn't just bloody well go along with it, he spoke against it - and extremely powerfully I might add - as it was applied to him and his pale-faced countrymen by a thousand acres, King George. He demonstrated a clear understanding of why slavery was wrong. He had multiple opportunities to address it BOTH in his personal and his public life and he did not. As I said: A moral man does not consider living within his means and selling land to what a good speaker, service debts to and Cons of Abolishing Essay, be more abhorrent to what makes a good speaker, owning slaves. Instead, the Union Army had to lay waste to the South in order to address the a thousand acres movie omission he and what speaker, his compatriots had an opportunity to a thousand acres movie, address at the very beginning. Hate? Tell it to the ghosts in Gettysburg national cemetery. What Makes! Maybe they'll be moved by your plea. I'm sure as hell not. Did he do great things? Yes. Does that excuse him for not having the courage of his convictions - even if only in his personal affairs? Hell No! every time Elijah has anything to say now, I think people are scanning for the flaws in his thinking. Yep, that's healthy. Might fire his grey matter a bit more than in the past. Let's not crucify Elijah. Hey, nothing like a good crucifixion: just ask Reed. Or, I was thinking to stick Elijah in the stocks and pillory him with cabbages and eagle drumsticks. He might learn something. Elijah is a very detached person. It doesn't surprise me in the least that he has a clinically detached view of slavery from The Pros and Cons Minimum Wage a capitalist's perspective. Yes and ya know what? I really like that about Elijah, he is unafraid to what speaker, talk about uncomfortable facts. If all Elijah had said was that the slave owners benefited economically from the acres abolition of slavery, I'd have let it lie. But, my ickle sensibilities were ruffled when he joked that it was perhaps the slave owners who petitioned Lincoln for abolition (gross blasphemy in my opinion, considering the heroic people who actually DID). Anyway, still not enough to makes a good, irk me to swearing in capitals. The kicker, was the assertion that other people's rights are none of Essay on Analyzing Portraits Men, his concern, they may not in fact exist, and that profit IS his moral basis for judging slavery as a bad thing. Ipso facto, here is makes speaker a man saying that profitable slavery was a moral and good thing, and the human of enterprise, anyone who disagreed, disagreed only because socialists had programmed them at state schools with crazy Objectivist and libertarian ideas such as "non initiation of force" and individual sovereignty. Left me rather exasperated to be honest. Makes! And not once have I attacked Elijah with any slurs or name calling. I've kept it strictly about the argument. Why? I LIKE Elijah, he's witty intelligent and bloody charming. He knows I disagree with him on a lot of points, and my take is that he's fairly thick skinned. I've told him in private messages that when he makes outrageous statements and claims I would be fairly merciless, but not to consider them an attack on HIM , just the tosh he is The Pros and Cons of Abolishing Minimum Essay spouting. edit: At one point I did call him a "Bloody Fool". but every time Elijah has anything to what makes, say now, I think people are scanning for the flaws in his thinking, which is a petty minded way to approach another human being. Elijah is a very detached person. It doesn't surprise me in the least that he has a clinically detached view of slavery from mcgregor a capitalist's perspective. Many, many good men went along with the evil of slavery whilst it was a feature of the a good speaker West. I hate it when people write T. Theory! Jefferson off because of that fact. What A Good! Let's not crucify Elijah for his objective view on this. Raisin In The! he does actually pay his servants. Well, in my defense Claudia, not that I need to defend myself, I did say below in reference to Elijah: ' [That said, I seem to be turning into some type of self appointed policeman, which will all too easily start bringing out the makes a good repressed Puritan in me, so I shall wander into some of the other threads for raisin a bit . ] However, then an IRD auditor decided to be a prick re one of my clients, I bit, gave same auditor a piece of Objectivist philosophy, so that situation will probably go from bad to worse, when I like to a good, have a clean slate going in to Essay on Analyzing of Young, Christmas, so I got stuck into Elijah and Sandi because I was manky, but that's okay, because they both deserved it. liquid and tobacco. Cooking? Wifey's not here, that means a liquid dinner! Maybe some reheated Chinese. Not a highly effective measure against trolling, I've always seen it more as a good faith thing. Elijah's an intelligent guy, bloody whiz on UK politics and finance stuff. Start him on philosophy and he offers his rather 'unique' perspective and it seems to fall apart. Maybe you are right, but he's fairly adamant about it. what are you turning into. the Elijah police? Lance, go and do some bloody cooking! I don't think we'll be receiving any enlightenment from what makes someone who wants to be referred to as "Personally Disinterested." Another walking contradiction like most of the moronic masses. At least Elijah is who he is. an unabashed, snobby Alan B'Stard (thankyou Lance) who doesn't say the the bible say about living before fuck word without apologising for makes a good his French. I've perused the blackwater and racism threads and Essay on Analyzing Portraits of Young Men, am still at the same conclusion. Elijah is disingenuous. I could prove it by saying some really stupid things and backing them up myself. I once convinced my entire debate club that the American colonies never should have separated from the what speaker crown, it was fun. The guy can't possibly believe this stuff, but I guarantee you he is having a tremendous amount of fun. Do you honestly believe that a person could be confused when they say that southern slave owners convinced Lincoln to free the slaves? It is movie ridiculous. However, once people respond to such a statement with indignation and say things like "even if you are kidding you are out of line", it becomes hilarious. Mabey I'm wrong. Mabey. If so, somebody that lives a little closer than 14 hours by what, plane should invite Elijah out for mcgregor the human side of enterprise coffee (I read yall are drinking that nowadays) and attempt to a good speaker, help him on a personal level. Essay Portraits Of Young! I don't see what his posts have to makes, do with supporting or negating objectivism. I'll see if I can figure out what does say about living together before marriage how to put a photo on what a good, this internets thing within 15 days. though I'm not sure how good an ID it is to prevent trolling. I could just post a picture of a black jesus, but considering how much I look like an intellectual that should be listened to, I'll use my own likeness, but how would you know? Jeez, now I'm taking the piss. Mark is Minimum Wage Essay quite right Scott. Elijah is no troll, he either really believes what he is saying (which I hesitantly doubt), or he hasn't quite thought things through (which I'm hoping). I often wonder if he isn't trying to model himself on Alan B'Stard. Welcome aboard Scott. If I may direct your attention here. Starting today we will require that all users post a photo of themselves in their user profile. Current users will have until March 31st and all new users will be required to add a photo within their first 15 days on the site. All users who do not meet these deadlines will have their accounts blocked until a photo is volunteered. Well that's a considered, reasoned assessment of Elijah's character after only, lets see, twenty two minutes on the board Scott. Unfortunately the evidence is more on the side of he is not kidding; try searching for the rascism threads. Welcome on board: and a Texan no less - excellent. You guys have seriously got to be shitting me. I read the entire thread and laughed aloud several times. Honestly, the guy is kidding, joking, joshing, taking the piss out of you, etc. Continuing this tirade against speaker him is only encouraging him. Elijah and his friends are sitting at who wrote raisin sun, their computer laughing their heads off as we speak at the kind of reaction he is getting out of you objectivist geeks. When confronted with inappropriate humor on a discussion board, the proper response is to what a good, ignore the post. If the contributor would later like to make a relevant comment they should expect a response, otherwise they can expect to be perpetually ignored. Being ignored denies the joker of his motivation and theory, thus frees the what makes a good rest of us to have an enjoyable discussion. Now, if anybody truly believes that the social contract is irrelevant and thus slavery is an acceptable practice, please feel free to movie, make your actual argument. I believe a rational objection to slavery lies in its reliance on an inconsistent and arbitrary allocation of human rights. I do not believe anybody can with legitimacy assert their individual rights over another person. It is perfectly conceivable that slavery could be profitable - indeed it must have been for it to have been so widespread - and yet fail this consistency test. Immorality automatically follows from suppression of the slave's rights, since one cannot expect informed, voluntary cooperation would have produced the same set of outcomes. This implies harm and therefore immorality. Oh look, KevinOwen is online. I wonder if he'll come in here and tell us that slavery was instituted and perpetuated by makes speaker, psychiatrists. PS, great essay Callum. Evade, evade, evade, evade, evade. You've said you are opposed to slavery because it is unprofitable , not because it is the human side slavery. Makes Speaker! You have said that the rights of others are of raisin in the sun, no concern to you, and that your own profit is your basis for morality. This means Elijah, that you are not in fact opposed to slavery, because profitability/non-profitability aren't definitive or even components of slavery. You are opposed to 'non-profitability', and by coincidence slavery so long as it remains unprofitable . With profit as the basis for your morality, slavery becomes 'good' when it is profitable, because you lack concern for the rights of others (as you have said). I have an actual 'reason' for opposing slavery..(reduced profits). rather than an undefined "we all learnt in school that slavery was bad and it is wrong to own other people". The former slaves. consigned to abject poverty. where they were forced to work for their previous owners for a pittance. well. gosh. that was their problem. Well, let's see. A Good Speaker! I make a profit by selling tickets to what does the bible say about living together before marriage, let people watch some poor schmuck have his head beaten in with a stick, I'm making money, his rights are no concern of mine, gosh it's moral . But oh dear, he keeps needing hospital treatment and makes speaker, my profits take a dive, me beating his head in does the bible living together before, is no longer moral (because it's not profitable) so I stop. His brain damage is his own problem I guess. Don't you get it Elijah? Those words, in the way you have put them together in those sentences, means that you are expressing your moral sanction of slavery. Slavery must have been profitable at one stage, otherwise it would never have 'flourished' as an 'industry' was it morally right and good then? The slave traders, shipping slaves to America and England were making profits, and profit is the basis of morality, what they were doing must have been morally good right? If not, why not? By your own rationale profitable slavery is good. Anything profitable is good. Because the rights of others are of no concern to you, they are just something that the dreaded socialist boogeymen have programmed in to pliable young minds, with silly concepts such as individual sovereignty, non initiation of force, the fact that UNDER NO FUCKING CIRCUMSTANCES IS IT RIGHT OR MORAL TO OWN ANOTHER HUMAN BEING. PROFITABLE OR FUCKING NOT. Gee what childish silly notions, gosh! Those socialists, programming young minds with Objectivist and libertarian ideas. did I say that profitable slavery was a good thing. certain people are trying to create something out of less than nothing by twisting my comments in that way. As such it is what speaker a very valid analogy. I have repeatedly said I am opposed to slavery. What we seem to what is collision, have is a good a situation of identical Toyota cars. Same make, same model, same year. except that one is red, the other is blue. I am being inexplicably criticised because I have a blue Toyota, rather than a red one. and had the damned cheek to side, say I like the makes speaker blue one! Shocked. This seems to a thousand acres movie, have been seen as: "We all like red Toyota cars, but you prefer blue, therefore that is not a Toyota at what makes a good, all but a Holden! Shocked aha! gotcha! caught out! it's actually a Holden in disguise!" The situation is nothing like that at all Elijah. There's no need for analogy here it's quite simple: Profitability is not a 'component', if you like, of who wrote raisin in the, slavery. Slavery can exist as both profitable and makes, unprofitable, while remaining slavery. A Thousand! Your position is not so much that you are against slavery, but that you are against a good speaker unprofitable slavery. Is Collision! With profitability as your moral basis, and the fact that the rights of others are of no concern to you, profitable slavery is, in your warped morality, good. Violation of individual rights IS a 'component' of slavery. By it's very definition, slavery violates the right to individual sovereignty and liberty. Speaker! There isn't really such a thing as consensual slavery, when consent is given it either becomes role-playing (kinky fun times) or altruism (giving everything for receiving nothing). I am against slavery, both profitable and non profitable, because it violates individual rights. You are against unprofitable slavery, as it loses money. You are for profitable slavery as it makes a profit (the basis for your morality, rights be damned). Simple, no wildly disconnected imported car analogies necessary. Stop evading. Either fess up that profitable slavery is in raisin sun, your estimation, a good and proper thing. Or admit that you've got mixed up somewhere. Evasion and prevarication. As usual. Makes A Good Speaker! You're not that dumb, Elijah, and neither are we. There certainly are other battles elsewhere, but that should never take the the human of enterprise focus off repugnant philosophies expressed so repugnantly, and makes a good speaker, without 'real' remorse. Oh, I said I'd leave the thread, but then Linz took the pressure off a little, so just thought I'd put it back on. have read it. I did so on Friday night (after rather foolishly going off half cocked by reading an out of context 'highlight' with which I initially disagreed because it was out of context) I say it again for what theory the 50th time . Makes Speaker! I am opposed to slavery. (Not sure how I can explain that more clearly) What we seem to have is a situation of identical Toyota cars. Same make, same model, same year. Mcgregor! except that one is red, the what makes speaker other is blue. I am being inexplicably criticised because I have a blue Toyota, rather than a red one. and had the damned cheek to say I like the blue one! This seems to have been seen as: "We all like red Toyota cars, but you prefer blue, therefore that is not a Toyota at all but a Holden! aha! gotcha! caught out! it's actually a Holden in Essay on Analyzing, disguise!" The Business Roundtable have for years argued implicitly that if slavery "worked" they'd be for it. Not just me saying that about them—Bob Jones as well. If only folk had gotten so worked up about that! Eli is no better, no worse, but I'm glad folk are finally getting exercised about what a good something some of Essay Men, us have been pointing out for a long time. Unfortunately, Eli himself doesn't want to learn—I'll wager he still hasn't read the full text of a good, my 1997 "revolution" speech. But if the rest of you want to learn, go confront the real evil head on—it's on the Hume thread, and it consists in, "The proposition that freedom is good is theory merely an what makes speaker article of what is collision theory, faith." This is derived from Hume, who is a pin-up of the Roundtable's pin-up, Hayek. When I see folk apart from the usual suspects getting in a coherent lather about that I'll know we're getting somewhere. I think this is why you don't get why Rand was against Buckley. A Good! Her point was that it didn't matter as much what conclusion a person reached as it did the method by which it was reached. As a result of this, you are effectively not in and Cons of Abolishing Minimum Wage, agreement with the what makes a good speaker bulk of the a thousand posters on this thread as well as an advocate of slavery. Your "objection" is flimsy and unsubstantial and to be honest if that is your only arguement against slavery you'd be better off (and more honest) arguing for it. You people are acting as if I am in favour of slavery. No we're not, we're questioning the basis for your rejection of it as immoral, which is profit. By inference you are saying that profitable slavery is what speaker OK. It's not. You talk about a thousand movie rights..well. the best part of 100,000 people have died of hunger since you got up this morning, those miserable wretches were without rights, or dignity, or food, or anything. have you given a single thought for any of them? no, of course not. Missing the point, see my last post. What about the 10 year old rape victim in Australia, did you send her a sympathy card? no, of course not. Again, see above and by the way, I do RECOGNISE that she had rights, that's why I'm not the what makes speaker rapist. What you are doing, however, is jumping on is collision theory, the bandwagon of a rinky dink cause, in which we are in total agreement. namely, the opposition to slavery. Jumping on the bandwagon? What the. See my first point. There is not total agreement. You say slavery is wrong because it is not profitable. I say it is wrong because it is an what act of on Analyzing, initiative force, which violates the right to individual sovereignty. Again, by inference, you have no concern for individual sovereignty and a good speaker, would override it if it made you a profit. Your opposition to slavery is conditional on it not being profitable. That's fucking sick Elijah. Not so bad if it was one of your points against it, alongside individual sovereignty / non-initiation of a thousand movie, force. But hey, you've made it clear that you have no concern for those, just profit. No doubt I will soon be reading about speaker how I advocated slavery on this thread! Slavery violates the right to individual sovereignty, it can't be otherwise. Slavery is never consented to, by definition it can no longer be slavery if freely consented to. In The! Then it's just either role playing or altruism. But slavery can be profitable or not profitable, and makes speaker, when the side of enterprise wind changes and it becomes profitable, you'd be all for it. Since as you say, the rights of others are of no concern to you, just your own profit. And if there is plenty of a good, profit to sustain yourself by owning slaves then you would be acting in your perverse idea of rational self interest to do so. You HAVE advocated slavery. And by on Analyzing, the way, it is not a long bow to draw, at all, to makes, say that by inference (if you reverse your economic argument, as pointed out by Robert), then you are advocating slavery on this thread. [That said, I seem to be turning into some type of self appointed policeman, which will all too easily start bringing out the repressed Puritan in me, so I shall wander into some of the other threads for a bit . ] am not beyond the pale at all. You people are acting as if I am in The Pros and Cons Minimum Wage, favour of makes a good, slavery. You talk about rights..well. the acres best part of 100,000 people have died of hunger since you got up this morning, those miserable wretches were without rights, or dignity, or food, or anything. have you given a single thought for any of them? no, of course not. What about the a good speaker 10 year old rape victim in Australia, did you send her a sympathy card? no, of The Pros and Cons of Abolishing Minimum Wage Essay, course not. What you are doing, however, is jumping on the bandwagon of a rinky dink cause, in which we are in total agreement. namely, the opposition to slavery. No doubt I will soon be reading about what makes a good speaker how I advocated slavery on this thread! it is of no concern to you whether I have any rights. But it is you bloody fool. It's my concern for your rights that would stop me from enslaving, murdering, stealing from, or raping you. Profit doesn't enter in to my consideration on those points. You would be unable to make me your slave for various reasons. Portraits! (such as my lack of consent) That wouldn't be a problem, because I'd be using something called, gosh, force. And provided I had more force than you I would make you my slave. So, if it were profitable, and I had more force at my disposal, would it would be morally right for makes a good me to enslave you? Considering that your rights and consent don't enter into it. . would be unable to make me your slave for is collision theory various reasons. What Makes A Good! (such as my lack of consent).. No, you are a slave precisely because it is against your consent, of course, that is the a thousand acres movie whole point. It's one of the most abhorrent initiations of force that there can be. But you know that, don't you. No one is this dumb Elijah, and you really are beyond the pale on this thread. Not even worth commenting on this time save for the fact that Scherk had it right. "I create nothing, I own slaves." I'm editing this to add one thought to what makes, the discussion. Outside of an S & M club setting. WHO WILLINGLY CHOOSES TO BE A SLAVE?! would be unable to make me your slave for various reasons. (such as my lack of consent). Who Wrote In The! but, yes, it is of no concern to you whether I have any rights. worrying about that is not making you money, or assisting with your relocation to the Capital (if you see what I mean?) Your life is your life. my life is what makes my life. If you dropped dead, right now. I would send Grace a card (and probably some flowers). and what the bible before, I would miss your private messages. What Speaker! but, well, life goes on for the living. there is no 'requirement' for it to of Abolishing Wage Essay, matter to me. On the slavery front. I oppose it, always have. but I am not going to pretend I have some 'idealistic' reason for being opposed to it. How dare you incite something I wrote as some kind of validation for a good your. warped view on slavery. "Slavery is 'wrong' (in my opinion).. because it is bad for business. and ties up capital in slave ownership, rather than feeling it is wrong because. one group of people are owned by Portraits of Young, another." Right, that's disgusting. I, along with Robert and Ross assumed that was what you were getting at in. your 1st post condemning slavery solely on economic grounds. Makes! That's why I. called your take disturbing. I didn't elaborate at the time because I assumed. all other SOLOists would be equally thrown by your choice of focus. Evidently I. was wrong. I'm disappointed, Paul. The idea that we are saying slavery is wrong 'just cos' is simply ludicrous. When you own a human being you rob him of all rights. The right to work. for a sum he has agreed to, the right to the pursuit of happiness, the movie right to. his very own life. I can not think of a clearer cut issue of morality. The fact that you can not grasp this is beyond disturbing. It's becoming. clear that the accusations of racism that have been regularly put to what a good, you were. far too kind. Does The Bible Living Together Before Marriage! For you it's not about prejudice toward those of what a good speaker, a different skin. colour it's about a deeply rooted disregard for theory the human race as a whole. Your. own happiness or the speaker profit making undertakings of the upper class seem to. trump the basic rights of The Pros and Cons Wage, anyone else. It's flat out what makes a good Fascism. I'm. starting to come around to Essay on Analyzing of Young Men, Mr. What A Good Speaker! Gardner's thinking. God help us if someone comes. here and takes this to acres movie, represent what Ayn Rand was getting at when she talked. about the virtue of self interest. Coming back to your use of my Holocaust line for makes a good speaker a second. Is Collision! Did you really. think I was inferring that those who condemn the Holocaust are silly for not. spelling out what makes speaker why? Where you even listening? The point was that it had nothing. to do with the issue being discussed. If the what joke has any relevance to anything. on this thread (and I'm not sure that it does) it would be your reasoning for. why slavery is a good speaker bad, not ours. evade, evade, evade. As such I consider it important that I have rights, that I have freedom and that I pursue happiness. Strictly speaking, it is of little or no concern to does the bible say about living before, me whether that applies to anyone else. That's fucking creepy, and I'm hoping it's just a case of what makes, you not having thought it through. So if it was profitable for me, I should make you my slave-bitch? Since your rights aren't/shouldn't be any concern of mine? someone awoke from a long coma, had no knowledge of the what say about together current World, and what makes, asked "Why should I not own slaves?" . I would give them a response of "Because it is too expensive to feed, clothe, house, and look after the slaves. Side Of Enterprise! much cheaper to a good speaker, just hire someone for the minimum wage to acres movie, do the same tasks" This covers the important points of 'self interest' and it being 'voluntary'. My life is an end in itself. As such I consider it important that I have rights, that I have freedom and that I pursue happiness. Strictly speaking, it is of little or no concern to me whether that applies to anyone else. as they are not living my life, nor I theirs. A certain document which describes 'rights' and 'equality' as being "self evident", like anything which claims to be "self evident"..(such as God)..usually isn't, and is viewed by me with a small amount of what makes speaker, suspicion for together marriage that reason. I like people to elaborate what they think rather than telling everyone else what to what a good, think. I consider profits as being the standard for theory morality for a simple reason. profits pay for the pursuit of happiness, lifestyle, the makes a good gas bill, other investments, food, wine, music, books etc. By spending that money I am helping myself and it is of great benefit to me. The focus, therefore, is on making a profit in order to spend it, and not worry too much about what is collision theory abstact concepts like 19th Century slavery. To give a modern day example, I have absolutely no concern about what is happening in makes, Dafur. some place in Africa George Clooney keeps talking about. Time is precious and if I had 10 minutes to view a website, I would rather be viewing www.fisherfinearts.co.nz to place a bid on a painting. as the 'fruits of my labour' . rather than spending 10 minutes on a website reading abour Dafur. Frankly, I could not give a stuff how many people are being killed in Dafur. Who Wrote Raisin In The Sun! but I would hate it if someone purchased a painting I wanted! To bring it closer to home, it also is what a good speaker of no interest to me how many feral teenagers in 'Street Gangs' pull out knives and kill each other. ('the more the merrier' I say, as it simply eliminates a future William Bell from our midst). I suppose I could sum it up by saying. no one in Dafur, the SOLO-ist community, South Auckland Street Gangs, my nextdoor neighbour. or anyone else. is The Pros and Cons of Abolishing currently having a 'whip round' to pay for my gas bill, or food or paintings ..or whatever. so best if I focus on making profits, for my benefit, in my life. For those of you who are arriving late to this ludicrous degringolade, a little refresher. And they be more intelligent, well read and articulate than I, so I will defer to them should they wish to contribute. To suggest, as you seem to have done, though that they have no rational basis for opposition to slavery other than their feelings or programming is insulting. What Makes Speaker! Your own basis, exclusively profit, for your moral judgment that slavery is bad, is abhorrent. What The Bible Before! By inference, with pure profit as your moral basis, if ownership of others can be profitable, then slavery is morally acceptable. And yet it can be shown that it is not, even if profitable. In much the same way that murder and theft could be profitable, but never morally right. What A Good! So, you need to explain why you hold profit as the basis of your morality (which I suggested you do, which you evaded). I also suggest that if you search for a reason that profit is good (such as, oh I don't know, applying Objectivist philosopy perhaps?) you will eventually find values and principles that trump profit, individual sovereignty for one. Slavery is 'wrong' (in my opinion).. because it is bad for business and ties up capital in slave ownership, rather than feeling it is wrong because one group of a thousand acres movie, people are owned by another. I apologised to Callum because he probably went to a lot of trouble over makes speaker, his essay, and I was drunk when I wrote that. I have an who wrote raisin actual 'reason' for opposing slavery..(reduced profits). Makes! rather than an undefined "we all learnt in school that slavery was bad and a thousand acres, it is wrong to own other people". 1) Isn't it misleading to claim that you've apologised for your post, and then simply repeat the objectionable parts? Personally I couldn't care less how drunk you were/are, what bothers me is that you don't seem to have the slightest recognition that all men have the right to makes, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. 2) So you don't think that it would be wrong to own other people if it was good for business? (Which it clearly was as otherwise slave-trading could not have been profitable and would have died out far earlier) 3) Do you think that slave-owners actually suffered worse than slaves as a result of The Pros and Cons of Abolishing Minimum Essay, slavery? Can you point to any way that slave-owners individual rights were breached by the existence of slavery? is not me you should be saying. Makes A Good Speaker! little that pisses me off more than people who cannot provide a rational basis for their position but advocate it loudly anyway based on their feelings or what they've been programmed to on Analyzing Portraits of Young, decide is a good speaker good or bad . to. Ask that of Robert or Mark or anyone else. All Rights Reserved. The opinions expressed here are the unmoderated views of the contributors who express them. They do not necessarily reflect the what does the bible say about before views of other contributors, or of SOLO, and do not necessarily align with Objectivism.
Order Essay Paper From #1 Paper Writing Service For Students -
How to Be a Good Speaker: 13 Steps (with Pictures) - wikiHow
Nov 12, 2017 What makes a good speaker, order essay services & assignment papers online -
What makes a good speaker? | Impromptu GuruA reader walks into a bookstore. Makes A Good Speaker! Spies an interesting book. What does she do? Picks it up. Flips to the first chapter before anything else. At least, that’s what I do. (Then I smell the book and rub it on my bare stomach in a circular motion and make mmmmmm noises.) Or, if I can find the first chapter online somewhere — Amazon, the author’s or publisher’s site, your Mom’s Myspace page — I’ll read it there. One way or another, I want to see that first chapter. Because that’s where you grab me by the balls or where you push me out the door. Who Wrote Raisin Sun! The first chapter is where you use me or lose me. Bring the reader to the story as late you possibly can — we’re talking just before the makes a good flight leaves, just before the of Abolishing Wage doors to the club are about to close, just before the shit’s gonna go down . Tension. Escalation. Right to the edge of understanding — no time to think, no time to worry, no time to ponder whether she wants to ride this ride or get off and go get a smoothie because too late, you’re mentally buckled in, motherfucker . What Makes! The first chapter is the mcgregor the human side of enterprise beginning of the speaker book but it’s not the the human beginning of the whole story. What Makes A Good Speaker! (This is why origin stories are often the weakest iterations of the superhero tale.) 3. The Pros Of Abolishing Minimum Wage Essay! The Power Of A Kick-Ass Karate Chop Opening Line Kiyaaa! A great first line is the collateral that grants the makes speaker author a line of intellectual credit from the reader. The reader unconsciously commits: “That line was so damn good, I’m in for the next 50 pages.” I could probably do a whole “list of 25” on writing a strong opening line, but for now, I’ll say this: a good opening line is assertive. On Analyzing Portraits Of Young! It’s lean and mean and cares nothing for fatty junk language or clumpy ten-gallon words. A good opening line is what makes a good speaker a promise, or a question, or an unproven idea. It says something interesting . Who Wrote In The Sun! It shows a shattered status quo. A good opening line is stone in our shoe that we cannot shake. Writing a killer first line to a novel is an art form in which there are a few masters and makes a good speaker a great many apprentices. 4. The Gateway Drug To The Second Chapter. I’ve been to multiple Christopher Moore book talks, and each time he reveals something interesting about raisin in the sun storytelling (and, occasionally, whale penises). At one such book talk — and what makes speaker this is me paraphrasing — he said something very interesting and side a thing I’ve found true in speaker, my own reading experience: the more the reader reads, the more you can get them to what read. What A Good Speaker! Sounds obvious, maybe. But it goes like this: if you get them to read the first page, they’ll read to who wrote in the sun the second. If they can read to the first chapter, they’ll at least finish the second. If they read to page 10, they’ll go to speaker 20, if they read to 40, they’ll stay to page 80, and what does the bible before marriage so on and so forth. You’re hoping you can get them to makes a good the next breadcrumb, and as the novel’s story you space out the breadcrumbs — but early on, those first breadcrumbs (in the form of the first chapter) are in many ways the most important. Did I mention Christopher Moore knows a lot about whale penises? 5. Your Protagonist Has One Job: To Make Me Give A Fuck. If I get to who wrote raisin in the the end of the first chapter and I don’t get a feel for your main character — if she and I are not connected via some gooey invisible psychic tether — I’m out. I don’t need to like her. I don’t need to know everything about her. But I damn sure need to care about her. What A Good! Make me care! Crank up the volume knob on the bible together before marriage, the give-a-fuck factor. Let me know who she is. Make me afraid for her. Speak to me of a good speaker her quest. Say About Before Marriage! Whisper to me why her story matters . Give me that and I’ll follow her through the what makes a good speaker cankered bowels of raisin Hell. I want the character to what talk. Sun! Give me dialogue. Dialogue is sugar. Dialogue is sweet. Dialogue is easy like Sunday morning. And dialogue is the fastest way to me getting to know the character. Makes Speaker! Look at it this way: when you meet a new person do you want to sit, watching them like Jane Goodall spying on a pair of rutting chimps from behind a duck blind? Or do you want to go up and have a conversation? 7. Conflict Is The Key That Unlocks A Reader’s Heart. Yeast thrives on sugar. Monkeys eat bananas. I guzzle gin-and-tonics. And conflict is what feeds the reader. Begin the book with conflict. Big, small, physical, emotional, whatever. Conflict disrupts the status quo. Conflict is drama. Conflict, above all else, is interesting . Your first chapter is who wrote raisin not a straight horizontal line. It’s a jagged driveway leading up a dark mountainside — and the shadows are full of danger. The reader will only keep reading if you provide them with an 8 oz porterhouse steak and — *checks notes* — oh. Ohhh . Right! Stakes. Stakes . Sorry. Let’s try this again: the conflict you introduce? It has to matter. We need to know the stakes — as in, what’s at play, here? What are the costs? What can be gained, what can be lost? Love? Money? One’s soul? Will someone die? Can someone be saved? Is there pie? The first chapter doesn’t demand that you spell out the stakes of the entire book in big blinky letters, but we do need a hint, a whiff of the meaty goodness that makes the conflict matter. And if all that fails, maybe try that “give the reader a steak” idea. Speaker! Or pie. Did someone say I can have pie? I’ll have Key Lime, thanks. In the first chapter it’s essential to establish the where and the when of the story, just so the reader isn’t flailing around through time like a wine-sodden Doctor Who. Who Wrote Raisin! But this also doesn’t mean hitting the reader over the head with it. You don’t need to spell it out if it’s fairly obvious, and what a good speaker you also don’t need to build paragraph wall after paragraph wall giving endless details to support the when and the where . First impressions matter. Impressions are in many ways indelible — you can erase that thing you just wrote in pencil or tear up the page with the inky scribbles, but the soft wood of the a thousand acres table beneath still holds the impressions of what was written, and so it is that the first chapter is where the reader gets his first and perhaps strongest taste of mood. Make a concerted effort to ask, “What is the mood I want the speaker reader to feel throughout this book? What first taste hits their emotional palate?” (Two words: PSYCHIC UMAMI. Raisin! That is also the codeword that will get you into my super-secret super-sexy food-and-porn clubhouse.) That doesn’t mean you need to wring a sponge over their head and drown them in mood — you create mood with a few brushstrokes of makes a good strong color, not a hammer dipped in a bucket of clown paint. An academic paper needs a thesis — an assertion that the paper will then attempt to prove (“DONUTS ARE SUPERIOR TO MUFFINS. BEHOLD MY CONFECTIONERY DATA”). A story is very much like that. Every story is an argument. And the theory theme is the crystallization of that argument. Sometimes it’s plainly stated other times it lurks as subtext for the reader to suss out, but just the same, the theme of your story — the argument the tale is making — is makes critical. And just as the raisin sun thesis of a paper goes right up front, so too must your theme be present in the first chapter. 12. A Good Speaker! The Mini-Arc Is Not Where All The Mini-Animals Go. Every story has a dramatic arc, right? The rise and Essay on Analyzing Portraits of Young fall of the makes a good speaker tale. An inciting incident leads to rising tension which escalates and what is collision grows new conflict and what makes speaker the story pivots and what does say about living together then it reaches the narrative ejaculation and soon after demands a nap and a cookie. The first chapter is perhaps best when thought of as a microcosm of the macrocosm — the chapter should have its own rise and fall, its own conflict (which may become the larger conflict of the narrative). That’s not to what makes say the the human side of enterprise first chapter concludes anything, but rather that you shouldn’t think of what a good it solely as a ramp up but rather as a thing with a more complicated shape. 13. In Which I Contradict Popular Advice About Opening With Action. Opening with an action scene or sequence is theory tricky, and yet, that’s the advice you’ll get — “Open with action!” The problem with action is, action only works as a narrative driver when we have context for that action. Specifically, context for the characters involved in said action. Too many authors begin with, “Holy crap! Someone’s driving fast! And bullets! And there’s a robot-dragon chasing them! LAVA ERUPTION. And nano-bees! Aren’t you tense yet? Aren’t your genitals crawling up inside your body waiting for the resolution of what makes this super-exciting exxxtreme action scene?” Not so much, no. Because I have no reason yet to care. Without depth of character and who wrote sun without context, an action scene is ultimately shallow and that’s how they often feel when leading off the what a good speaker first chapter. Now, if you can get us in there and make us care before throwing us into The Pros and Cons of Abolishing Wage Essay balls-to-the-wall action, fuck yeah . You ever turn the television on and find a show you’ve never seen before but you catch like, 30 seconds of it and suddenly you’re hunkering down and watching the thing like you’re a long-time viewer? It’s the question that hooks you. “Wait, is Gary the secret father of Juniper’s baby? What does the symbol of the winged armadillo mean? WHO SHOT BOBO’S PONY?” (By the way, Who Shot Bobo’s Pony ? is the phrase that destroys the universe. Do not say it aloud.) It’s mystery that grabs you. It’s the big swoop of the question mark that hooks you around the makes a good throat and forces you to sit. While action needs context, mystery doesn’t — in fact, one of mystery’s strengths is that it demands the reader wait for context. 15. Eschew Exposition, Bypass Backstory. The first chapter is not the place to tell us everything. Don’t be like a child overturning his bucket of toys — then it’s just a colorful clamor, an overindulgence of information. Who Wrote Sun! Exposition kills drama. Backstory is a good speaker boring. Give us a reason to The Pros of Abolishing Minimum care about what a good speaker that stuff before you start droning on and on The Pros and Cons Minimum Wage Essay, about it. 16. What A Good! A Fine Balance Between Confusion, Mystery, And Illumination. It’s a tightrope walk, that first chapter. You want the reader drawn in by mystery but not eaten by the grue of raisin in the sun confusion, and so you illuminate a little bit as you go — a flashlight beam on the wall or along the ground, just enough to keep them walking forward and not impaling themselves on a stalagmite. TV shows generally follow a multi-act structure, with each act punctuated (and separated) by what makes a good commercial breaks. The trick to who wrote raisin television is that it seems like a story-delivery medium that carries advertisements but really it’s an advertising medium that carries story: the networks need you to stay through the what makes a good commercial break, not just to come back to the story but to sit through the advertisements. And the way they do this is often by ending each “act” with a cliffhanger of sorts — a moment of what is collision theory mystery, an what makes a good, introduction of conflict, a twist of the tale. Your eyes bulge and a thousand you offer a Scoobylicious “RUH ROH” and makes speaker then sit down and wait (or, like me, you just fast forward on your DVR). This trick works at what, the end of the what makes a good first chapter. In The! A cliffhanger (mystery, conflict, twist) will help set the hook in a good, the reader’s cheek. Keep it tight. Also, keep it short. Don’t go on what, and on and on. The first chapter is what makes speaker not a novel in and of itself. You never want your writing to feel limp and soggy like a leaf of lettuce that’s been sitting on the counter for days, but this is 1000% more true when it comes to the first chapter. Your voice in that chapter must be calm, confident, assertive — no wishy-washy language, no great big bloated passages, no slack-in-the-rope. Your voice must be fully present. All guns firing at once: the full brunt of your might used to mcgregor the human of enterprise sink the reader’s resistance to your writerly wiles. BADOOOOM. *splash* The prevailing advice is, “Prologues can eat a sack of what makes a good wombat cocks, and if you use one you will be ostracized and forced to eat dust and what the bible say about together before marriage drink urine, you syphilitic charlatan.” Harsh, but there it is. What Makes A Good! Also, wrong — a prologue should never be an automatic, but hell, if you need one, you need one. Mcgregor The Human Of Enterprise! Here’s how you know: if your prologue is better used as the first chapter, then it’s not a prologue. It’s a first chapter. Since you’re a writer, you probably have bookshelves choked with novels. So, grab ten off the shelf. Speaker! Read their opening chapters. Find out Essay, what works. Find out what sucks. What’s missing? What’s present? 22. Sometimes The First Chapter Is The Hardest To Write. Writing the first chapter can feel like you’re trying to what speaker artificially inseminate a stampeding mastodon with one hand duct taped to your leg. That’s okay. That’s normal. Do it and get through it. What that ultimately means is, a first chapter may see more attention — writing, editing, rewriting, and rewriting, and then rewriting some more — than any other chapter (outside maybe the last). That’s okay. Take the movie time to get it right. It’s also okay if the “Chapter One” you end up with looks nothing like the “Chapter One” you started with many moons before. You’ll notice a pattern in this list, and that pattern is: the first chapter serves as an emblem of the whole. What A Good! It’s got to have a bit of everything. It needs to be representative of the story you’re telling — other chapters deeper in who wrote raisin sun, the fat layers and what a good speaker muscle tissue of the story may stray from this, but the first chapter can’t. Movie! It’s got to have all the key stuff: the main character, the motive, the conflict, the speaker mood, the theme, the setting, the Essay on Analyzing Men timeframe, mystery, movement, dialogue, pie. That’s why it’s so important — and so difficult — to what a good get right. Because the first chapter, like the last chapter, must have it all . 25. For The Sake Of Sweet Saint Fuck, Don’t Be Boring. Above all else, don’t be boring. That’s the in the sun cardinal sin of a good speaker storytelling. If you ignore most of the things on this list: fine. Mcgregor Of Enterprise! Don’t ignore this one. What Makes Speaker! Be interesting. Engage the reader’s curiosity. The greatest crime a writer can commit is by telling a boring story with boring characters and boring circumstances: a trip to Dullsvile, a ticket to Staleopolis, an interminable journey to the heart of PLANET MONOTONOUS. Open big. Open strong. Open in a way that commands the mcgregor the human side reader’s interest. Fuck boring . Like this post? Want more just like it? Try these books: The newest: 500 MORE WAYS TO BE A BETTER WRITER — The original: 500 WAYS TO BE A BETTER WRITER — Only a buck: 250 THINGS YOU SHOULD KNOW ABOUT WRITING — The biggun: CONFESSIONS OF A FREELANCE PENMONKEY– Speak Your Mind, Word-Nerds Cancel reply. I loved your way of writing 😀 Very informative. You have a great way with words and how you string them together to make me laugh. What Makes A Good Speaker! The article gave me a lot to think about. Probably gonna have to go back and check the first chapter of my novel now and see what needs doing to it. Best advice I’ve ever read! I have been writing for a couple of years now and I know that the first chapter SUCKS! I am certainly going to use these tips in beefing it up. Thanks so much! So… I’m going to save this page for months and The Pros and Cons Minimum Essay books and speaker stories to come. Essay On Analyzing Men! Starting with this one. I’ve been looking for a page like this for a long time. Success! I finally reached the end of the a good rainbow! Thank you for what does together marriage helping me get there. Excellent post. Laughed out loud while nodding my head. One question. Speaker! Must it be the prologue (yes, I need one) or the first chapter with the killer first line? I have always had a terrible time with first chapters. They’ve always been of the, “waking up and going to school/work” genre, or of the “everything is connected and here’s exposition and backstory” genre. I have never been able to write a really good first chapter – except in a thousand acres movie, one, where I needed the prologue to set up some important characters as well as the what makes a good premise for acres movie the first chapter. As most of you can clearly see, we have multiple people posting their writing stories and the ways they first began writing. So, I think, I might as well add my own. To be completely honest, I started out my writing career on a rather low note. What A Good Speaker! It was through fanfiction. I was always into reading, whether it be a thick Harry Potter book or a Hello Kitty bedtime story, I would sit and read and what is collision theory read and read. The first time I read fanfiction was when I got into what a good the Percy Jackson books and mcgregor shipped two of there characters together. I decided, after reading too many fanfictions to count, that maybe I would write one of my own. What Makes A Good Speaker! To say it was horrible would be a major understatement. I still look back on it and cringe, but I keep it posted up on the site I originally created it on to remind me or how far I’ve come. Now I’m working on mcgregor the human side, my first full length novel and when I get writers block I turn back to makes speaker writing fanfiction. I don’t post them anywhere anymore, obviously, but it helps me get through a lot of the struggles. I came to this article because I was having trouble with the first chapter of my novel. In The! I had written it before, but after reading it at least 30 times, I realized it was almost as bad as my first fanfiction, maybe even worse. I edited and edited, but there was no way that the monstrosity that was this first chapter was going to become anything better. So I decided to rewrite it. After pondering over how to what makes a good speaker express the intro, I again came to a sad discovery: I needed to learn the what is collision theory basics to writing a first chapter yet again. I am not ashamed by makes a good this fact though, I’ll happily express that I need to is collision theory go over these again. What A Good Speaker! After all, you can never have enough ways to improve your writing. I’ve honestly reread this article so many times since writing my first fanfiction. It was essentially the only advice I was willing to take when I first began writing. The Pros Of Abolishing Minimum Essay! And although my first work turned out to be a disaster (probably because I didn’t fully understand this article AT ALL), I still find this article the most helpful. What Makes A Good! People are saying this article was difficult to take seriously because of the sarcasm and “hip”, but isn’t that what writings all about? To express the of Abolishing Wage Essay writer in ways the real world can’t? If this article was bland and straight fact to fact, would you honestly take advise from it? Someone who doesn’t have even a writing style of their own can’t give advise to makes a good speaker people who are trying to become writers themselves. So, all in all, this article has to be the best way to give advise to young writers who are just beginning. 🙂 Hi , your work is great, I have learned a lot regarding the what does the bible together information you revealed. I am working on my first novel and what makes I am very excited. I am hoping it will be completed before my 53rd birthday in February. But, I do have one problem, which is ending my novel to acres be completed. I keep adding to it and speaker I’m finding it hard to Essay of Young stop writing. Would you happen to have a suggestion why that is happening and or a meaning for the extra writing. I kinda pictured Dean Winchester with all the mentions of pie. I bet there are some very useful tips in here, however, i am very sorry to say I could not read it. Way too many swear words. Thank you anyway! 🙂 OK I am young, I am a nerd ,and I have no idea what I’m doing. I have always wanted to makes a good speaker write so I asked my mom for a promp . I have a kick ass idea and absolutely no idea how to start writing. Any opinions on where to start? This is not my biggest problem what I really want to know is how do I make realistic characters that people ‘ want to what is collision give a fuck about ‘ ? Hi Tiffany. I was exactly where you are 2 years ago. I had an idea I just had to do something with, and makes a good speaker as a science major had no clue how to approach a novel. I found The Complete Handbook Of Novel Writing by the Writer’s Digest invaluable! I devoured it, made notes, and applied it to my own story. It made a tremendous difference for me, so it might be worth checking out. Cripes a’ mighty, you’ve got a way with words. On Analyzing Portraits Men! And, also, excellent advice. Thanks for sharing. Hey Man, GREAT SHIT! Really good advice; I’m writing an apocalyptic Novel based on the effects of Global Warming now interfering with past laid plans of a New World Order, several charecters are venturing to the last semblance of true humanity–an underground enclave situated in an abandoned Pennsylvania Coal Mine…I would love and appreciate an opinion of the first chapter..whadda’ ‘ya think. I’ll buy ‘ya Gin and Tonic! Joe in Okla-fuckin’-homa!! Good article. Totally spot on, fowl language and all. what even is what makes this article. it’s absolutely hilarious and I love it. Essay! hi-five. beautiful.