Yeah, but it's only for another 5 months. Then I will be providing a service for a private company. This company, however will get a very large portion of their reimbursement from medicare. It can be no other way, for now, with ER, thanks to all the government intervention.
Hope that goes well for you, well done...
I saw a few documentaries on psychopaths - I'm not sure if this was the one that I saw - but it was on this website:
The one I saw it turned out the one of the guys who was looking at brains was himself a psychopath and didn't know it - there are a few gene markers - and if you only have one of them, it's different to having all of them - also the brain of a psychopath is different - they apparently have trouble seeing emotion in faces and can't tell if someone is sad or not. According to Sam Harris psychopathy effects 1% of our population.
I mentioned in another part, but in case you don't read it as its easy to get lost in this thread (I know I have)........Read "snakes in suits" good book on corporate psychopaths.
In the libertarian utopia envisioned by MCT you would have had all of the freedom in the world to starve to death. You have no loved ones or friends to bail you out then you are free to die. And in this freedom you can have a last heartfelt thought and sentiment; at least MCT and his wealthy family have been extricated from the tyranny, theft and slavery of taxation.
Glen - it would seem so..... glad I'm not the only one who sees that it might have that effect..... still very confused about what makes this guy tick!
but I best add....we are all naive in different areas.....I do like his intellect.
A lack of experience, understanding or sophistication? I beg to differ. I think the altruistic morality that you've all been sold by our primitive ancestors and cohorts is naive, thinking compassion is some basic principle of morality rather than a behavior stemming from the rational interpretation of empathy and sympathy. You guys feel, like children, instead of think, like adults. I understand opposing theories, take them seriously (before I realize they're not representative of objective reality) and have lived read, debated and refined my process and philosophy. Naive is not the word. Honest is.
representative of objective reality...there it is again that dammed objectivism...
I have you ever seen "black books" its an english comedy and in the first episode he swallows "the little book of calm" he than runs around quoting it all through that episode as it was assimilated into his body. Which of AR's books did you actually swallow (hook line and sinker I might add)....or did you drink her ashes....I am yet to see a unique thought in that animated head.
damm almost forgot the smilies :):).....
Some of Objectivist material I find to be nothing short of amazing, some is OK and some is shit. I read hundreds of books before I ran into OPAR by Leonard Peikoff and have read at least 50 or 60 books since. I am not going to make excuses for the fact that there is one objective reality and I see it clearly, more clearly than Ayn Rand.
I am a determinist. She is most definitely not, which is ridiculous. I don't agree with her framework of interpersonal relationships, most notably male/female, procreation and sex relations. I believe that the Native Americans had a valid claim to the land. She dis not. And Ayn Rand uses metaphor to support conclusions. She talks about a soul and spirit, which I think only cloud the issue knowledge about reality.
As stated modern physics contradicts your "rational" understanding of the world. Physics is far more objective by definition compared to philosophy which is just a macro view of the highest quantum probability. Without a good understanding of physics its like claiming you know how a computer functions because you can build a PC from macro components.