Richard_Halley

In who's sense of the term? Their sense is not the common sense, obviously, as Rand differentiates it from the usual sense.

I don't see a Galt/Fransisco hybred as compatible with the plot line... I do think that Mouch, Thompson, and company, can be mixed into one. However, I think that it is advisable to include Orren Boyle (as a main character contrasting Rearden), and a group of scenes denoting widespread Bolyeness around industry (to replace Ma Chalmers, etc..).

Ok, if you think that existance exists, than you are on the right track... Now consider, for a moment, our method of perception... our senses. How do they work? Use the example of the eyes. Light bounces off of an object and into our eyes... a physical apparatus in our eyes measures the wavelength of the light and sends a signal to our brains, representing color. This has all been a physical process and is infalliable. The same sort of process works with the other senses.

It is possible that you have a point about Bush and Kerry being equals (though I doubt that ANY quote from Kerry can reliably establish this, since he changes his mind so often...). However, you DO NOT have a point about your "disturbing trend" since the "trend" you mention deals with whether it is appropriate to vote for the preferable candidate, not with which candidate (if either) is preferable, and you have given no support for calling this trend "disturbing."

It depends on how you define marriage, Stephen. Marriage can be considered a religious establishment, in which case NO ONE has a right to it. The churches in question may distribute or refuse to distribute lisences as they please. Or marriage can be considered legal, public recognition of a union. In which case any pair (and, perhaps, any trio, and so forth) of individuals has a right to it. In so much as your "marriage" is not a religious establishment, you do have a right to it. But such a marriage is no different than a "civil union" as offered to homosexuals in many states (I am assuming that the same legal benefits apply to both, if not they should). So long as you are only talking about a legal status here, you are absolutly correct. I thought this had been perfectly clear in my previous posts...

Emotions are neither good nor bad. They are subconscious and exempt from all moral judgment. To be devoid of emotion is to be devoid of values.

How about this: I say it is possible because I do not see how it is a contradiction. The only things which are impossible are contradictions. If you can show me that AI is a contradiction, than you have shown that it is impossible. The claim that AI is impossible (or that I have no grounds for suspecting its possibility), simply because I cannot yet provide you with a way to make it, is absurd.

But the two are not interchangable. "Intrinsic," as it relates to value, refers to value as seperate from any valuer. Intrinsic value is an invalid concept.

Firstly, this is an argument that we can never know reality. not an argument that there is none. In fact, you have spoken of many existants such as "sky," "scientists," "people," "equipment," etc... and compared our perception with reality, thus indicating that you believe there to be a reality. I make this distinction because, once we agree that existance exists, I can easily prove that we can perceive it. Does existance exist?

You (or your communists) are wrong. At the beginning of the Soviet Union socialism was implemented beautifully. Its failure was what led to the mixed economy there.

Really? I know of at least a few couples who attend curch every sunday at the local catholic church, and one which spends most of his time there... I imagine they would love to be married there. As I said, gays have every right to legal recognition as a couple... if this is what you call marriage, than yes, judges may perform it.

Unless I am evading reality than I am already accepting that either Bush or Kerry is going to violate those rights. One of them is going to do that, regardless of whether or not I vote, my only choice in the matter is which one. Which one does it the least? You are still ignoring that voting is a statment of preference, not a moral sanction. When you state your disagreement, I ask that (for the first time in this discussion) you explain why. I agree, we need to vote for the candidate who is the best option, I have stated that all along. And if you could please point out which candidate I should vote for as better than both Kerry and Bush and why, than I would be happy to vote for that person. However, for now, I know of no such person and so will be voting for the best candidate that I know of.

Don's statments in response to Sailors last post will suffice as my own.

Yes, Stephen, I said your statment was misleading, not incorrect. The word "inherent" suggusts "intrinsic" to someone not familiar with Objectivism, that is why it is misleading.

Metaphysics and Epistemology are subjects, not philosophies/people. You will find that the "folks" who are "inline" with this view are called Kantists/Kantians. If you want to find out why they (and you) are wrong, you should read Rand's non-ficiton and Peikoff's OPAR. Furthermore, you should note that your own views are contradictory... The idea that your perception can be wrong is not compatible with the idea that reality does not exist. I advise thinking it over some more...

The reasons why Kerry is worse are explained in this thread. I am somewhat disturbed by the spread of the argument which should be contained there to so many different threads. The problem with that spreading, however, will shortly be solved, as I will be posting this statement and link in all of the threads which this discussion has spread to.

Why would you even say this, as you have not read the article. Neither have I read the article. Here is my view. I don't think gays have the right to get married, such would involve one of two things: 1. The state performing marriages or 2. Forcing churches to perform marriages which it believes to be wrong. The state has no business doing either. I do believe that gays have the right to legal recognition as a couple in the same way that hetrosexuals have legal recognition as a couple. Whatever legal benefits SHOULD apply to hetrosexual couples SHOULD also apply to homosexual couples, but marriage is naught but a religious establishment and NO ONE has a "right" to it. The reasons why Kerry is worse are explained in this thread. I am somewhat disturbed by the spread of the argument which should be contained there to so many different threads. The problem with that spreading, however, will shortly be solved, as I will be posting this statement and link in all of the threads which this discussion has spread to.

AutoJC and Skywalker seem to be reading more into the general support for G.W.Bush than there is. The ONLY reason anybody on this board has offered support for Bush is because he DID NOT "turn the other cheek" (as Kerry/Gore/most other poloticians in the world would have). And most people who have offered that support have also mentioned that he is not doing it well enough. The fact is, the posters on the thread which is being alluded to AutoJC and Skywalker have specifically stated that their support for Bush is in preference to John Kerry, no more. A lot of people here seem pro-Bush (in preference to Kerry) simply because he defended our country where Kerry would not have. Is that not enough? Note that, while you may argue that he did not defend our country at all, the attacks in the refered to thread are attacks against supporting a man who did. Thats right, the discussion was moved to essentials and Bush himself was eventually removed from it. The discussion was reduced to the claim: It is immoral to vote for any polotician whom one does not fully agree with. The disagreement with that, not the straw-man he offered up, is what AutoJC is calling "a disturbing trend."

Quoting my previous statment should serve as sufficient response for anyone who is confused by 'slave' and the small part of his argument which is not ad-hom.

This is a misleading way to put it... Rather, I would say that one would be immoral if life did not have some value to him. Therefore, it would be immoral for him to leave the drowing stranger so long as the cost is less than the value. There is never a moral anything regardless of the benefit (or cost) to ourselves.

Sailor, I presume that by your mountains example you mean to say: the only thing impossible is for A to be non-A. The argument you cite is no less than the claim that, by the nature of a software algorithim, it cannot be conscious. Has there been enough evidence presented to prove this, no, I don't think so. But your mountain example is irrelevant to the matter.

The best way to word it is: "Our senses have identities; they are not omnipotent, only infalliable."

Rationality involves a conceptual faculty... When a human infant moves past the perceptual level and into the conceptual, it may then be considered to be rational. Note that it is a rational being at birth, since it already has the conceptual faculty then. No other species has a conceptual faculty, so no other species is considered rational.

There is no assumption involved. God is a contradicition of logical proof; a beleif in god is the rejection of that logic. God is an example of the claim that A is not A. Enough said. The extention of that life and the values which arise from it.

This is not your eyes erring... every bit of information your eyes send your brain is correct, you merely get less of it, have to use more care in analysing it, or get glasses to correct it. There is no margin of error for your senses, only in your interpretation thereof.