EC

No it doesn't, but I will inform that Mr. Speicher has his own forum now and he recently elaborated on this subject there. It initially confused me too.

The crow experiment has to do with how many discrete units of information can be processed my a conciousness at one time via direct perception. A human can look at a group of x and say, "Yep, there's three x there." And the limit to that is about seven discrete units. Any more than that and one has to count them individually and form a concept that encompasses that amount, eight or nine, etc. This has nothing to do with any type of memory, but instead it deals with what is and what is not directly perceivable.

Okay. It's just that when I see the term liberal on social issues I think things like Affirmative Action and Welfare. Stuff like that.

Oh sorry the Speicher's forum; forum4aynrandfans.com

Objectivism should have been capitalized here, I made a mistake that I just corrected

It seems that we have WonderWoman on the forum!

Go read about it there I'm not going through a whole thread again.

What? The whole first chapter is the Objectivist Ethics.

This last paragraph goes right to the heart of why yours and the TOC opinion is immoral and wrong. It explicitly says that perfection and complete and accurate knowledge is impossible which objectivism completely rejects.

Cole on the other forum this was discussed and I thought along your lines at first too. However after some discussion it was brought to my attention that an objective reporter should just report the basic facts, i.e., what happened, when, where, etc. But a commentator, someone like Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity, etc. can properly add in other comments and analysis like in your examples.

AqAd-- Well it is my "main point", since this all started when I challenged your usage of the word capitalism on an Objectivist forum. I still haven't figured out what your main point is except maybe to debate Objectivists and tell them when their philosophy doesn't jive with Catholic dogma.

I would like to offer an anology that I thought of that may illuminate why Objectivism's definition of Capitalism is the objectively correct one regardless of what the term/concepts originator's original meaning was or what any number of people, even if it were 99.999% percent population of the world, stated it to be. Imagine a group of people that are just starting a new language, and for my purpose I'll just make it English. Let's say this group, let's call them the sky-daddy worshipers, decide that they will call the liquid that is in the ocean "water". Now they understand that if they were to drink this water they would get sick, so the water that they can drink from lakes, etc. they call "pure water". Whenever they refer to the water they can drink they always call it pure water to distinquish it from water from the ocean. So time passes in the land of the sky-daddy worshippers, until a group that I will refer to as the enlightened few come along. The enlightened few are quite a group indeed, a group that rejects faith and instead use's only reason and scientific knowledge as their means to define and understand the world. Through their various studies the enlightened few had come to find that ultimately water and the pure water were the same at the chemical level, being namely H2O, exept the "water" had various salts and other pollutants in it that made you sick if you drank it too. So having a new more objective and rational defintion of water being H2O, instead of "the liquid in the ocean" they realized that their definition was the more fundamental one and that the "pure water" in the lakes should be what is refered to as actual water, while the ocean water was the unpure version that should not be considered fundamental. The enlightened few decided to show the world why their definition is the objectively correct one for "water", but the worshippers of the sky-daddy were going to have none of it. "But the word was originally meant to mean something else," they said. To which the enlightened few replied, "The original meaning was wrong. What the concept of "water" implicitly entailed is NOT what you originally thought is did." "But even if you're right how dare your little tiny small group go against the will of what the rest of sky-daddy worshipping-kind has arbitrarily decreed it to be," said the primacy of consciousness loving sky daddy-worshippers while invoking the fallacy of argument from intimidation. To which the enlightened few simply replied, "Our definition of "water" is the objectively correct one because it cuts directly to the heart of what the concept "water" means. It contains no contradictions and no unpure elements such that it needs to have another concept placed in front of it to understand its true meaning. The water that you drink, the water that you insist on calling "pure water" is properly defined as H2O, and whether you or anyone else besides us ever acknowledges that fact is largely irrelevent because A is A."

Ahhhh...me too. How can I forget? I actually liked that show a lot though. And it really P*ssed me off when they cancelled it.

So, to make sure I understand what you are saying I'll restate it as I see it-- Objectivists and anarchists would agree that individual rights are the key to a free society, but Objectivists know that a strictly limited government is the only way to achieve that end, while an anarchist would protect them by... how? Wild-west shootouts? I'm not trying to be sarcastic or anything, I just personally don't see how any other way but a government of some sort would work if the goal was the protection of individual rights. Edit: But, I do see your point of how it would be hard to defend the need for some government on moral grounds with an anarchist since they tend to be nihilists by nature.

No, the proper political system of Objectivism is capitalism. Liberterianism does not equal capitalism.

No OPAR is Peikoff's educated discussion of Objectivism. Objectivism is whatever Ayn Rand said it is, i.e., her writings and whatever other sources she explicitly endorsed. OPAR wasn't one of them because she had already passed away, although it was based on a course that LP taught that was explicitly endorsed by her.

But in Objectivism the moral is the practical so your statement does not follow.

Beauty tip number one: try and look as much like Jessica Alba as you possibly can....

I forgot all about Epcot til you just brought it up. I loved that place when I was a kid too. There' not many places where you get to go on scientific carnival rides and essentially tour every country in the world in one park. It's pretty cool.

All right! Including these ninja's I just noticed.

I also saw it today and would highly recommend it, it's an 8 or 9 out of 10. Principled characters (both good, bad, and mixed), plenty of violence, beautiful women, what else can you ask for in a movie?! :D

Hmmm...I wonder if He's winning?

That's why I labeled the thread handedness, and not "are you left handed?". I was trying to "unbias" it to the extent that is possible here.

The correct context is life of a man qua man. Not life in the biological sense you seem to be alluding to, i.e., simple survival, but life as a man using reason in a productive purpose for the ultimate end, his happiness.

An Einstien-Bose Condenstate is when mattered has cooled to within a hair of absolute zero and a glob of many atoms of it is all in one quantum state and acts like it is one bosonic atom. This is usually accomplished using multiple lasers to kick out energetic atoms and less energetic atoms are trapped in a magnetic trap.