Richard_Halley

I find this hard to believe, given that the stated purpose of the tax breaks is to get individuals to act differently than they normally would. "tariffs" and "tax breaks" (in this context) are EXACTLY the same. Both are for the sole purpose of fooling with the economy and both are achieved via the same method--i.e. taxing businesses that outsource more than those who don't. One merely claims to be giving "breaks" while the other admits to be doing nothing but stealing.

Just as any honest, rational man would be.

"j/k" is instant messenger slang for "just kidding."

Is that really all there is to it? Or is there a reason you can't accept it? I will provide you with a few good reasons why not to accept it, as an example... We can observe that our choices are just such, choices. You can prove inductively that freewill exists. Also, because freewill is a necessary precursor to knowledge, the "scientific" arguements against freewill are stealing concepts. They use freewill to disprove it? Not possible.

AmbivalentEye: You should be aware that no one here is out to prove anybody else wrong (if that was their purpose they would be recognised as a troll fairly quickly)... What people here want to do is acertain reality. Such is not a matter of opinion, because reality is Objectivly knowable. See my point?

If by this you mean: "Can someone invent Objectivism all by themselves, or do they have to be taught it?" Than... of course they can, Rand DID!

You seem to think that I am somehow personally attacking you, just to be clear I am not. You also seem to be drawing a lot of inferences from what I have said that are not there: "you reject (4)..." and the like. Let me quote (4): I do not reject (4) at all (although I appreciate your willingness to call John Hospers on the phone to prove it, such proof was unnecessary). In fact, my entire arguement relies on the validity of (4); it requires that Hospers used the term in the same sense as you have (which is as you have quoted from his book, unless I am mistaken). It requires that Rand drew a distinction between your usage of the term "intinsic" and some other usage. To quote myself: And you are still missing it... As MisterSwig quoted Rand: Clearly, Rand DID draw a distinction between two forms of the word, Hospers' form, and the above stated--"It can be taken to mean..."--form. To return now to the initial cause of this discussion: I claimed that "inherent" was a somewhat misleading term to someone who is relativly unfamiliar with Objectivism (note that I did not claim that "inherent" was an incorrect term, as I do not believe it to be, just a misleading one). You asked me to explain how it was misleading. I responded that it could be equated to "intrinsic." Now clearly, as I have said that "inherent" was not an incorrect term, I was using "intrinsic" not as equal to "inherent" but, in fact, in the way that Rand mentions in the quote provided by MisterSwig. So let me repharse my origional claim, applying that usage to the word intrinsic... "Inherent" may be taken--by someone who is unknowedgable about Objectivism (and therefore incapable of recognising the full context of the word)--to mean "good of and by itself, regardless of context, standard, source, recipient and recipient's knowledge." Do you see my point now? Now clearly someone with strong knowledge of Objectivism (or merely its value theory, for that matter) will easily see that "inherent" does not necessarily mean that. Someone with no such knowledge, however, might make the mistake of thinking that you meant that life was valueable as seperate from "context, standard, source, etc..."

Plus, Alex Lifeson can play.

Was that before or after he voted against it ?

It is relevent because some people were claiming that AI is impossible (in the sense that there is no way to invent such a thing, that it is metaphysically impossible). I agree that this discussion is entirely a waste of time until someone offers evidence one way or another.

You seem to be missing the point, Stephen. The point is not that you misquoted Rand or misrepresented Hospers or anything of the sort. In fact, I never even tried to allude to such things. The point is that Rand drew a distinction between Hospers' usage of the term "intrinsic" and some other form of the word. She says that only one value is 'intrinsic' (she puts it in quotes), "in your sense of the term." Again, while it is possible that these quotations and this clause about Hospers' sense of the term were included by mistake, such a mistake would have been uncharicteristic of Rand's writings. Hospers' "sense of the term," it is now clear, was that something is "intrinsically good" if it is not the object's effects, but the object itself, which is good. It is clear to me (pending some evidence showing otherwise), that Rand at least recongnised some other useage of the term "intrinsic," and that if using this version she would not consider life to be "intrinsic value." Usually, I have heard "intrinsic" used to signify that something is valueable as seperate from a valuer. Clearly rand would have rejected any such value.

What makes marijuana an exception?

Usually the term is used to denote that one holds a certian thing true, even though one does not KNOW it.

You would be at Gonzaga then? (don't feel like you have to answer that if you don't want to, just interested). I'm sure we have many threads which can set you straight ... I would be interested to hear some examples of your "personal philosophy" and how you see it as compatible with your religious beliefs. Welcome to the forum.

Me. I don't "believe" in anything... I know a lot of things, but I don't have faith, I don't "believe." I imagine many of the other posters here can accurately say the same thing.

The question is: What meaning does the video game have that driving around in groups in a car all night dosen't. There is an argument to be made that video games have a certian--well not aesthetic, quite--value in a similar way to, say, playing a sport. Many games have skillful aspects... reflexes, quick thinking, stratagy, etc... While I am not prepared to fully make this argument, it should be clear, by now, that video games are not to be dismissed in the same way as riding around in cars all night. Incidentially, the individuals who take part in the actions you describe usually do so for the deliberate purpose of being aimless, and for the reason that they "have nothing better to do." It is certianally correct to disapprove of such an action for such a reason. Whether or not video games ought also be disapproved of--whether the goal behind playing them is to avoid doing anything--is a seperate matter.

You have come here and offered views which are contrary to Objectivism while giving no reason why you think those views are better than the Objectivist ones. You then expect me to offer you a blanket refution for all possible objections to my own (and Rand's) views? Frankly I don't have the time for such a venture. Instead I provided you with the Objectivist views, and waited to hear your reasons for disagreeing, with the intent of then showing you why you were wrong. For example, when you said that all emotion is good (and provided no objection to the Objectivist view), I presented you with the Objectivist arguement like so: No, emotion is subconcious, so it is exempt from all moral judgment. Now, if you fail to see how subconsciousness exempts something from moral judgment, than you should ask (1, you will see why I am counting in a moment)... if you fail to see that emotion is subconscious, you should ask (2)... if you disagree outright with one or more of my premesies (infinity, one for each possible argument against my point). In order to present you with a proof I would have to make an infinate number of points. Then, when I was done, I would have to answer all possible objections to each of my points in answer to 1, 2, infinity. Granted, I could have presented an entire inductive proof of Objectivism, but this would require much work (much more than I have time for), and even this could garner many objections and questions. So, rather than guess at exactly what your disagreement was, as don has, I decided to hear your arguement first. Also, I find your persistance in targeting me somewhat disturbing--such comments as "does anybody here have any independant thought" (quoted roughly from memory), which are now obviously targeted at me, are completly uncalled for. Furthermore, given your continued use of me as "an example," if find any sincerity in your apologies to be far-fetched at best. You will excuse me if I am wrongly suspecious of you... You have certianly given me reason to be.

Yes I find that question interesting too... I agree with your consideration, but add a clause (in italics)... If there is no contrary prior agreement between the prospective mother and father, than upon intercourse, the father agrees to deal with the consequences of that intercourse.

Correct, Stephen... I should not call it possible... Not even metaphysically possible--metaphysically being the qualifier which removes Peikoff's point from the discussion, and the qualifier which I forgot to include in my origional statment. My main point, however, was that there was not evidence to establish it as impossible either. That point remains valid.

No, a belief in God is a belief in an omnipotent being, i.e. a beleif that A may be non-A. God is not defined as "the greatest concievable thing," God is--and must be, in order to be significant--the suggestion that an omnipotent, omnipresent being exists. Both are rejections of the law of identity, and so is "God."

No, Stephen, I have not read the full context of the letter, nor will I have the letter at hand any time in the next few weeks. However, based on the fact that you are arguing that "inherent" and "intrinsic" are equal, I can guess that if the individual to whom the letter is addressed had presented a view contrary to that, you would have pointed it out. Also, in the quote you posted, Rand DOES differentiate the addressee's version of "intrinsic" from the regular version, she included an entire clause for the purpose of doing so. This indicates that the addressee had presented some specific sense of the term "intrinsic," and that Rand had believed that it required differentiation from some other form of the word. It is of course possible that Rand included that clause by mistake, but this sort of thing would have been uncharacteristic for her, and I have my doubts that this is what happened. If you can include another quote from that letter--or any information about the context (I will trust you to report facts accurately for now)--making it clear that this is not the case, than I would be happy to hear it. For the time being, and operating on the information I have, I suspect that the term "intrinsic" is used in an unusual sense in the letter which you quote.

Or perhaps economics and wars are both motivated by the same thing... What is economics but values in practice? Why would one go to war except that something one values is at stake? Get my point?

Really now, because I was pretty sure that the ONLY support anyone on this board has offered for G.W. Bush was in regards to his war in Iraq. The only discussion you could POSSIBLY have been refering to, when you talked of your "disturbing trend," was the one where the primary point was that one ought to vote for the preferable candidate. Why would I want to? Just like you, I think Bush is a bad guy. My only support for him comes from his (albeit, limited) willingness to go to war in defense of our country, nothing else, and this support is ONLY in prefernce to Kerry (who I believe would not be willing to do so). This has been made clear a number of times and in a number of threads. I find it far-fetched that you have simply missed reading my posts on the subject, or misunderstood the topics at hand by so much as to think that I, and others, are supporters of the religious right. Assuming that you have not made that mistake (i.e. giving you the benefit of the doubt), the only conclusion that I am left with is the one I have twice presented here.

There is something inherently wrong with giving tax anything... and besides this giving tax credits to companies who hire in America is a problem becuase it interferes with the natural workings of the economic system... it is hard to tell exactly what problems will arise from such actions, but it is almost a sure thing that problems will arise.

Why not? What about living a singular philosophy is in contradiction to human nature? Really? Or would you rather live in a world filled with people acting on love than hate? Actions are subject to moral judgment--they are volitional--feelings are not. Hopefully not... positive emotions serve the same purpose as negitive emotions, specifically, they are automatic clues as to how our values corrospond to a thing/situation. Really? I have only seen this done to you once, which was a correction from "Objectioness" to "Objectivist." I see no problem with that.