unskinned

I would say Japan is not at all trustworthy. Not that I don't admire what is going on over there.... Japan is still a highly collective culture and could not handle too much freedom. I doubt they have grown the intellectual roots of individualism. As an example of this, I would like to reluctantly offer that they have not thought up very many new ideas. Like the Germans they are technologically advanced and can improve on old ideas: their miniaturization of electronics is dwarfed by the german upgrading of an aircraft propeller to a jet. The original ideas don't seem that common. Anyone who knows about them understands that, even when their prosperity was at it's height, they were steeped in collectivist hive like values. We should maintain what control we have over their destiny for as long as possible. Nuclear weapons are entirely out of the question.

No, being Spiderman is pretty much a career. A highly inconvenient one at that. Peter Parker can do what he wants, first and foremost. He can choose to be an alcoholic. He can choose to devote his life to Calcutta. He is allowed to be immoral. If he doesn't charge money for saving the city, in addition to making money off the photos, that is still immoral. And yes, he is choosing to be a slave.

That's one argument I've never fully understood. Would you (or anyone) mind explaining it further? I guess "the moral is the practical," is that what you mean?

Donations alone would be enough. Take the National Gallery (Mellon) in Washington and Carnegie Mellon University as just two examples of the kind of funding that would be available. And that was just for art, just imagine if their political protection were at stake. Also, it would be hard to be cynical about supplying voluntary taxation to an enlightened civil government.

It's true that people benefit from valuing humanity and the anonymous good, but the rest of what you say is contrary to Objectivism. Wouldn't you charge money? Even in addition to the photos, an egoist would get money where he could. We're talking about the prevention of at least tens of millions of dollars in damage by super villains. You're career does not make you a slave to the citizens of New York. Red Adair charged. Red Adair Edit: PS: Incidentally, maybe there could be a hotline that is $200 a call, but connects you with private fire and ambulance companies... and Spiderman. Instead of having someone be a slave.

This is one case where we can thank God for nuclear weapons.

Other than calling it Thus Spake Zarathustra, Kaufmann is the translation I am quoting from. I was not making a comparison to the Bible in language, however. I am making a comparison in the communication of philosophy, and especially ethics, through story telling. You're right, Zarathustra is prophet of the ideal, not the ubermensch. That's a significant error on my part. Still, he is an example of how men who are not "golden pups," using Plato's language, can act correctly. In a way, he is as much of an ideal as any man alive at the time could have. Certainly Thus Spake Zarathustra could be described as a "presentation of the ideal." He himself is not the ideal, but I still think the comparison holds.

And that's all true if the sentence stopped at echo, but I wrote "...echoing Nietzsche in the ways discussed above." Here are the ways I meant: 1. not her specific view of the self, but more generally that her view of self was about completeness involving reason, senses, will, and feelings, like Nietzsche's, and as opposed to a catholic or platonic flawless ideal. 2. the presentation of philosophy through fiction, especially with a lonely hero who laughs out loud, experiences joy at living, walks in the sunlight That is what I meant and I have to say that is pretty much what I wrote, nothing more. I think Objectivism is completely different from Nietzche because Rand discovered and named the axioms at the beginning knowledge where Nietzsche inappropriately spoke of "metaphysical faith" in the "god of truth." I wasn't disputing this or the originality of any part of Rand's philosphy that she brilliantly wrought from that discovery, or that she observed and thought through on the road to that discovery.

(Dr.?) Speicher, what relavence do your quotations have to what I wrote? "Her view of the ideal (perfect) man as being complete, rather than a flawless and omnipotent self willing character, was at least echoing Nietzsche in the ways discussed above. " Where did I imply that Ayn Rand was a Nietzschean or a subjectivist?

Nietzsche thought Kant, for example in Critique of Pure Reason, gave an incomplete view of the self. Nietzsche, and supposedly Goethe, had a view of the self that did not let reason, unrealistically separate from feelings and senses and will, negate life and reality and all the other things that reason might posit without senses. In other words, Kant had an incomplete view of the "self" that lead him to error. To put it in Objectivist terms, reason is free will and it depends on the senses. So, Nietzsche was an advocate of a complete self. He presented his ideal, complete, perfect man in Thus Spake Zarathustra. I'm pretty sure the presentation of a character like Zarathustra as a philosophical ethical example, similar in style to the bible, inspired Rand to write about Roark. Her view of the ideal (perfect) man as being complete, rather than a flawless and omnipotent self willing character, was at least echoing Nietzsche in the ways discussed above. Thus, Nietzsche-->Zarathustra--> Ayn Rand-->Roark and also Nietzsche:Zarathustra, as Ayn Rand: Roark I guess I should have been clearer.

"What he aspired to was totality; he strove against separation of reason, sensuality, feeling, will (--preached in the most horrible scholasticism by Kant, the antipode of Goethe); he disciplined himself to the whole, he created himself...." -Nietzsche praising the romantic writer Goethe Sorry if that is childsplay for most of you but I just think it shows an awesome connection. On the totality and completeness of a human "perfect" ideal: Nietzsche-->Zarathustra-->Ayn Rand-->Roark

Actually, Bill Maher is really not funny. Even in style. That is, assuming it were possible to ignore the relentlessly offensive subject matter. "When you ride alone, you're riding with bin Laden" I know what you're probably referring to, making fun of church goers. But Bill Maher jokes from the perspective of people who said "I don't feel like going to church" and then concluded "there is no god." In other words, he represents feelings worship and thoughtlessness. No, there's nothing going on there. Nothing to laugh about. His show makes me laugh about as often as any person on the street could.

That's neat about Eaters of the Dead, I had no idea it was beowulf right down to the name "bulva." Maybe the prologue was offensive and your friend burned it...

I think Michael Crighton is a great writer in style. His books are enjoyable. It sounds like he is about to get back in my good graces with this global warming honesty, BUT... He is a luddite. Not a marxist exactly, but a luddite in the same way that Marx was. The theme overwhelmingly mixed into his novels is that man is an impotent, bumbling, unworthy guest in the universe. Technology has evil magical powers. The dinosaurs win, The alien wins, the micromachines achieve a stalemate, etc. Two examples of this are the slogan from Jurassic Park, "life finds a way..." to reveal man's arrogance, and what could be called his "declaration of destruction" which makes up the prologue of the book "Prey." In this prologue technology is basically declared to have magical evil powers that, combined with man's freedom to produce and trade, inevitably lead to disaster and the end of the world.

Every man has the individual/personal/self justified right to life. Included in that right is the right end his life, whenever he pleases. It has been said "you own your own life." So does that mean that indentured servitude is legitimate under capitalism? If you can end your own life, why can't there be legitimate circumstances for buying or selling it? Question: why would you want to? Answer: For the same reason people did in 17th Century England -->America, to make money for when you are freed. Just for example.

Good call. Either the being is rational and has rights or is not and has no rights. No holocaust neccessary. Maybe we should amend the constitutional language ahead of time though. "All rational beings are created equal." Also, concerning drones, aren't we about to have robots do all our work for us? I think it's very possible. If they could get them to recognize "competing textures" using refined sensors or radar or something, then drones might be able to recognize almost any situation. They could download programs off the internet written to allow them to understand certain situations at a time. Is it mentioned seriously by anyone? I know Sony and Honda have some pretty amazing robots> http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/News/Press/200312/03-060E/' target='_blank'>

There is a right to self-defence not mass destruction. Nukes are illegal in a rational in the same light that handguns are legal. No contradiction there. End of discussion.

Who controls Iran after it is destroyed? What will they do with it? Also, what about countries which are formally states but include specific tribes, parishes, neighborhoods, mini-states that are the real source of terror within the country? In other words what do you think of the "failed-states" threat in relation to terrorism? Is there even such a thing?

The whole point of selfishness being that you don't have to worry too much about all the other people who suffer by their own dependency. Am I right? Even though it is remote, we should demand Laissez Faire tomorrow if it means abandoning 20% of the country to short-term brutal poverty (mostly bad people). Because we are supposed to be selfish, we shouldn't let that stand in our way. Isn't that right?

You forgot W. T. Sherman.

Thanks for the rec. The first few notes of "Godzilla" from EricWhitacre.com could introduce the type of music I would like to see for that scene in the movie. Did anybody else hear/notice that?

One of the worst movies I have ever seen.

"How about just calling it XMAS?" Just get over it. The Christians named the american winter holiday. The objectivists didn't. You could start a new holiday but who would want to? The spirit of Christmas is completely pagan. And it's about a birth, not a death. The biggest figure in Christmas is Santa Clause anyway. Yes, he is an altruist but he can easily be made over into a capitalist (elves, workshop, happiness through productivity, trading gifts). We don't live in a vaccum. As for gifts, sorry if this is too obvious, but those Asian Pears are unbelievable. Smith and Hawkin, I think. People will thank you for months afterwards.

I appreciate your good nature. However, my comment is not ignorant as I was not claiming that anal sex is not any of the following things: moral, highly pleasurable, possible, one big choice For the reasons previously stated anal sex may be psychologically, pleasurably, morally correct. It is not physiological sex, however. Yes, you can have anal sex without pain, blood, maybe even without feces, just as you can have plantsex without splinters. I would bet that the effort involved in preventing both categories of discomfort is the same however. The woman does not have to have a colonic (or whatever) to have carefree sex. I am aware that women and men are different, and that many women need a lot of time to orgasm, and have a lot of difficulty with this. I have encountered noone claiming that this can be considered the norm for sex or that that is not largely psychological in nature. Most importantly, the man can often wait or go again. Heterosexual sex is more simultaneous and engages both genetalia at the same time, ie physiological. I'm not sure I have a moral problem with any human sex discussed on these couple of pages . As for oral sex, I think that it is usually explicitly non-simultaneous. That being the case it is not physiological, irrespective of the sexuality of the partners. I'm not saying it is wrong, just not physiological from the perspective of a hypothetical child choosing based on mutual pleasure alone. But obviously there is such a thing as mutual oral sex. Therefore I could be wrong in asserting that there is some rational factor which makes this naturally unappealing.

I've made the case that it could concievably be many little choices, therefore still up to choice/psychological premisses. Not that it is one big choice. Also, "Sex is physiologically heterosexual" because the woman and man are specifically and sexually designed to have sex with each other. They are both feeling similar sensations at the same time. I don't need to be too explicit to assert that traditional homosexual sex consitantly involves blood and the foulest substance on earth, feces. It is not physiologically correct. If you meant that it is technically possible to have sex with a man, very true. True of animals and trees as well. The adjective "physiological" can awarded to heterosexual sex only, though, for the reasons I have just given. And I would add the adjective "moral" can be attatched to homosexual sex where it cannot with animals and trees, just to clarify out of respect. "I like Susie and enjoy spending time with her," of course Bruce too. Point taken. This was really the conclusion. With all the previous train of thought I think Bruce is out of the picture, however. Ha ha. My point is that a part of the automoatic sexual attraction we have is from the value judgement of the ability to have children with someone, learned.