nimble

that could definitely work, and most likely thats what will happen.

trilogy would be very easily conceivable. Especially since it is broken into three parts in the book, each part ending on a cliff hanger. It would make for a great trilogy. And I wouldn't doubt that almost the whole Galt's speech will be cut. It has to be exciting for more than just the die hard Objectivists. And not even I, someone who has read that chapter about 15 times in two years, would want to sit in a movie theater watching some actor read that radio broadcast for an hour.

you are joking right? I think that babble doesnt deserve consideration. And one more thing: please tell me you dont associate libertarianism with objectivism. Because that would be a false assumption.

sorry i just found that a bit strange that when i said 'i agree', she had a rebuttal. I didnt really take offense to it.

i think the first point is that one should know that at least originally the Constitution was intended to restrict governmental actions, not individuals. Thats why the founders didnt want a bill of rights, because they thought that any right not specifically granted in there would be in jeopardy. The constitution was only intended to be a form for the government not the people. To put a restriction of individual rights on there would be to contradict the purpose of the constitution.

truthfully, i like to listen to just about every type of music. Indie rock being my favorite. Any thing that sticks out in my mind as a genius, unique composition of musical talent, i will love it. I like pagliacci (opera), a lot of latin based musics (preferably non-english), I like some rap (outkast, ludacris), I like indie rock (at the drive in, coheed and cambria), I like math metal (dillenger escape plan), I like big band era things, I like emo (bright eyes), I like classical for sure (bach being my favorite), and I like what is now called noise music (such as wolf eyes; its just computer generated sounds based on mathematical patterns)

he chose to take the dive. That choice resulted in death. I would say it was poor. But i see that you just stand clear of the use of that phrase to avoid the confusion that is the root of this argument. I probably do attach a different connotation to my phrase than you would, so these are probably moot points.

thank you for the explanation, that wasnt clear before that you disagreed there. But i stick by my statement, it may not be an objectivist statement (although i think it is), but a poor choice will always be a poor choice no matter what the intentions were. It may not be morally wrong to make that poor choice, but it will have the same consequences in reality as any other poor choice would. If someone miscalculates the physics of a bungie jump, and dies. It wasnt morally a poor choice, but the man suffers the same consequences as if it were pure suicide. Like i said, i dont view it as morally wrong, but i would sure call it a poor choice.

it depends on whether you are talking about moral perfection or objective perfection, where every decision you make is the best objectively that was open to you. Moral perfection would be staying consistent, where you could make a wrong choice based on lack of knowledge and still acheive moral perfection.

have you looked in a dictionary?

and i said i completely agree, i dont see why i am getting odd little lectures directed at me. I dont know if im am being paranoid, but you guys act as if you are proving something to me, yet i completely agree with both of you. I dont get why any response is necessary to a complete and total agreement, maybe you can tell me?

you may have forgotten to read the rest of my post, but i said i agree, so i see no need for the lecture. Just wondering what evoked that response.

to use a rand quote "in the realm of morality nothing less than perfect will do." But i know that objectivism does distinguish between those who consciously make poor choices and those who due to lack of knowledge make poor choices. So i agree with your point

Effects of choice do not warrant or prove that free will doesnt exist. The choice is yours to flap your arms, if you die then Darwin would be proud. Remember free-will is choice not effect.

no it cant stop me, but i dont think that was the point of the thread either. The objectivist morality can be viewed as this concerning free will: You always have a choice, coercion and other factors may make it seem as if you dont have a choice, but that choice is always there. You are free to choose whatever you want, but as it is in reality, there are effects/consequences for that action. By objectivist standards the wrong choice is the immoral choice. What does that mean? Well, there is no eternal being to "double jeopardy" you. You dont die from the wrong choice then get morally punished. your moral punishment was death or any consequence that came from your action. Others including objectivist may look down upon you or choose not to associate with you if you make an immoral choice like believing in god, but you shouldnt care what they think. As Rand herself said "morality is a choice" You are free to choose the morality that suits you, but if you choose the wrong morality and make poor choices because of it, reality will punish you. Does this help, student?

im voting third party, but i hope bush wins, since my choice will most likely not win.

i always assumed that he was a francisco kind of character. The kind that appears to "go to the dark side" (to use a jedi term), yet he is secretly working to undermine the system. If he wanted, he could easily cause an economic global disaster such as those portrayed in Atlas Shrugged.