piz

In some cases the gender of words is even reversed. For example, in Latin, the word for farmer, agricola, is masculine in gender but feminine in spelling, masculine words typically ending in -us and feminine in -a. Latin also has a "neuter" gender with words ending in -um. I recommend these sources on the etymology of gender: http://www.etymonlin...php?term=gender http://en.wikipedia....ology_and_usage Whether or not the term is an anti-concept depends on which definition is meant at the time; there are perfectly correct usages of gender. Don't forget that the same word can refer to multiple concepts, as in book, a written or printed work of fiction or nonfiction, usually on sheets of paper fastened or bound together within covers (I'm reading a book.), and book, to enter in a book or list; record; register (He booked the sale.)[1]. [1] http://dictionary.re...com/browse/book (examples mine)

People (as in "We the People," i.e. the citizens of a country, a.k.a. The Public) and Family are valid concepts - they are each a kind of Group. They don't have a physical existence - metaphysically, only the individuals which comprise them exist. Epistemologically, the concepts are essential for talking about a group of individuals holding the relationships defined - they fulfill one of the primary purposes of concept formation: unit economy, the ability to denote a wide range of existents via a single concept, making thought and communication simpler and more concise. Note that genetics are not essential to Family. Adopted children, for example (and of which I am one), are in fact as much members of their adoptive families as biological children. You are correct that family is not necessarily a value (this is true in my case). The concepts themselves do not include or imply any evaluation, positive or negative. Now, all that terse explanation aside, welcome to Objectivism! I hope you gain as much from it as I have, and that's a lot!

So pierced ears are immoral?

The few times I tried marijuana way back in the day, I felt nothing. Literally no change. I don't know if that means the drug doesn't affect me or I just didn't do it right, but it was as if nothing happened.

I don't understand - how are Ms. Hsieh's words taken out of context in Ms. Speicher's post? One might argue about the accuracy of Ms. Speicher saying that Ms. Hsieh "attacked a FORUM member and my friend for saying something he never said and she made up," but the outcome of that that would depend on the accuracy of Ms. Hsieh's claim that Mr. Oliver's original post was "[a claim] of irrationality and ludditism on the part of Dr. Peikoff." However, that doesn't matter to the post I'm replying to here, because what I've quoted from Ms. Speicher are her own words, while Liriodendron Tulipifera is saying that Ms. Speicher took Ms. Hsieh's words out of context. Ms. Hsieh's words were quoted literally, with a link to the full post provided for reference and no additional comment on them made.* How could context have been "kept more" than that? For context purposes in this post, the above quoted post by Liriodendron Tulipifera and the links in that post (plus the further links in those posts) provide all that I believe is necessary. Also, please read carefully the notes below. (This post is soley about "What constitutes 'out of context?'" I'm not commenting either way about what either Ms. Speicher or Ms. Hsieh said, the validity of their claims, the nature of their dispute, the tone of the argument, or whether anyone anywhere is a good Objectivist or not. I'm also not attacking Liriodendron Tulipifera in any way. I've edited this post at least ten times in an attempt to eliminate anything that might be considered offensive. I apologize if my effort has been insufficent. I'm just trying to clarify how Ms. Speicher's post can be interpreted as taking Ms. Hsieh's words out of context, in the interests of understanding what standards are used for determining whether sufficient context has been provided in a post like Ms. Speicher's. Don't take the particular example used here as anything other than a source for examining that question. I would have used a different example if one were at hand. Also, it's a shame that I need to include all these disclaimers, but the current discussion environment involving the individuals mentioned here demands them.) * The closest thing to an additional comment is "others do not hold the same values as I do," which doesn't bear directly on Ms. Hsieh's words and is almost not a judgment at all (no one holds all the same values as anyone else).

Right. Regular ones, or the seasonal, bell-ringing kind.

How do you get "you want a child to do what you say out of trust"? Or that what I wrote contains the implication you state? I just don't see where either of those comes from in what I wrote.

I didn't say "blindly," nor imply it. And the psychological reaction of a child to a betrayal of this kind (however mild one might think it is) is far more subtle than "oh, then Mommy and Daddy must have lied about everything."

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/tomato http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/berry http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/fruit Sorry, but the tomato is a fruit, as such are defined by science. We call it a vegetable because we use it like one. My point about context stands.

Regarding the tomato, you have it exactly backwards. The proper category for the tomato is fruit, by the definition thereof. But they are used in the same way as vegetables, so are considered vegetables in everyday situations, like making grocery lists. One's cognitive capacity is not harmed by calling them vegetables in everyday situations and fruit in "technical" situations because there is no contradiction between the different contexts. With Santa, on the other hand, when a child learns that a cherished, deeply held belief is false, it can cause him to doubt the validity of everything he's learned and, perhaps more importantly, damage his confidence in his ability to distinguish reality from fantasy. In addition, even though ultimately the child must decide to accept things that he's taught, he does depend heavily on his parents to help him make sense of the world. Learning that his parents have permitted him to persist in a false belief can make him lose his trust in his primary guides (and rightly so). That's the potential harm in allowing children to believe that Santa Claus is real.

I couldn't tell if you were replying to my post, but the actor I chose for Cuffy Meigs is Ned Beatty. I don't know what the picture I chose is from, but that's pretty much what Meigs looks like in my head.

No. I just remembered - this is how I've always pictured Meigs. I added this to my collection (link in previous post).

Depends on the child (and the parent). Some people were horrified that I took my four-year-old to see Jurassic Park when it first came out, fearing he'd be traumatized. To the contrary, he loved it! Of course, he had a firm grasp of the difference between reality and fiction. Just as importantly, I knew that he had that grasp. If the parent knows what the child can handle, there should be no problem.

Hey, a fellow band parent! Congratulations on your and your son's success! My boy is a senior drummer in his high school band. There's nothing they've participated in to rival what your Cary Band Day sounds like, but they've played in many competitions, as well as at the Daytona 500 pre-race parade three years ago and Disney World last year. I share announcing duties and help with the pit crew. Lots of fun! I'm going to miss it, too.

Thanks! By the way, in a similar vein, in 1982 or thereabouts I declared myself the Supreme, Ultimate Ruler of the Universe. My first act as Overlord was to immediately order everyone and everything to continue doing exactly what they had already been doing. The universe has been under my dominion ever since - you're all obeying me right now!

I've heard that term before but don't know what it means. Where can I find a description?

I might at some point come up with someone who better matches my mental image of Mr. Thompson. My image of him, by the way, is rather fuzzy, just like the character's looks are described in the book. Bush is actually pretty close, though (in looks - I definitely agree that his personality is dead on for Thompson). Don't forget, these are how I see the characters. YMMV.

OK, how about the new Mr. Thompson?

That's the one I'm least satisfied with. Now that I think about it some more, I have a better idea. I'll put it there in a few minutes, once I've found a picture that I like.

The descriptions are the actor's names, the image names are the characters. If for whatever reason you can't see the image names, let me know and I'll post a list here.

Because for all intents and purposes, everyone treats a tomato as a vegetable and not as a fruit? When I first learned that a tomato was a fruit and not a vegetable, I just thought "Hm, interesting" as I integrated that fact into my technical knowledge of fruits and vegetables. But when I make a grocery list, I put tomatos under the heading Veggies, not Fruit, and my cognitive ability isn't harmed in the least by the supposed contradiction. I would see nothing wrong in teaching a child that Santa Claus is an amusing fable or a cute story that goes along with the holiday. The child would know it's fiction and could enjoy it on that basis. I do have a problem with teaching a child that Santa Claus is real.

Take a look here for my own ideas on various characters in AS. Note that I've selected the actors based solely on how I picture the characters' looks in my own mind, with no regard to acting ability, what kind of person they are outside of acting, or any other consideration whatsoever (including, in one case, whether or not they're still alive!).

Or a substitute teacher.

I hope so, too. We'll see... Tight-rope walking over a canyon. Without a net.

Chinese, Beatles, Chevy, Cat, Day I win! Where do I pick up my prize?