Tanaka

I have never met a single person who failed to identify "because it hurts the child" as the reason why they are against pedophilia.

The main difference is that, unlike in AS, ambitious people can just leave for another country if the obstacles to success in their own country become too great. But if, like in AS, the entire world were to at some point become inhospitable for producers, sure, they would eventually disappear. In AS, John Galt's organized strike didn't cause the destruction of the industrial US, it merely served the purpose of speeding up that process, so that fundamental change would occur in the lifetimes of the strikers. To answer what I think is your question: "Would great industrialists shrug or die working in total futility?": Socialism is obviously an unsustainable ideology. It will kill itself. There is no reason to think industrialists can't recognize that fact. There is no reason to expect them all to just let their inertia keep them producing in a fully socialist society, even when there is no motivation for doing so. I think in such a society, producers would shrug even before their breed would inevitably just die off. Reality. We don't live in the world described in AS. It is very much possible for a person who's standard is his own life to act accordingly. Sure, there are obstacles in his way, which will slow him down, but not the kind of impenetrable walls described in AS.

Here's a premise: No amount of perspective is going to change the absolute truth that dragging innocent civilian employees out of a UN building and beheading them in the street is the act of mindless savages. I don't care whether they are claiming to be doing this over a religious offense or war crimes. The only actual reason anyone will do anything like that for is that they're unreasoning savages.

Aristotle said that "a thing is itself" and demonstrated that this statement is an axiom, in Metaphysics (Book VII). That's the Law of Identity. A is A (I believe Thomas Aquinas was the first to state the law of identity in this manner) means exactly the same thing, because A is meant as a placeholder for one (any one) existent: that's exactly the meaning of the concept "a thing".

The difference between those two sentences is that yours adds an editorial comment to Miss Rand's definition. Your comment is somewhat correct (Note: I will go into why it's not entirely correct later in my post), but it is an editorial comment, not part of the definition. Intelligence is a special kind of ability. So "ability" is the genus. "useful for dealing with broad abstractions" is the differentia. Those two together describe a class of existents (in this case, a class of attributes, rather than objects, but existents nonetheless), forming a full definition. No need to add any kind of a moral principle on how intelligence should or shouldn't be used, to fully explain what it is. It is not proper to insert editorial comments of any kind into definitions, not even if they're correct. Some people might argue that chess isn't practical (though most would agree it is, in some contexts), but it's definitely real. Evaluating chess moves is a form of understanding reality. And it's precisely intelligence that is required to play it well. However, there are many reasons why someone would want to understand some aspect of reality. The reason why I would do it is selfishness. So I would never learn chess just for the sake of knowing chess, it would have to be to achieve a selfish goal (such as developing my mind and strategic thinking abilities). Which brings me to the reason why your previous editorial comment ("intelligence should be used to understand reality"), is not entirely correct. One could use intelligence to understand some unimportant aspect of reality (I don't know, like trying to figure out a way to count how many grains of sand there are in the Sahara desert), and that would be immoral. I'd fix your editorial comment with "Intelligence should be used to further one's own life, by understanding aspects of reality useful for that goal." - but I would of course still leave this out of the definition of intelligence.

Sounds like they're well on their way to swindling some money out of the European bureaucracy. Might have to face some stiff competition though, they're not the only ones adopting the "talk to the government about some subsidies" business model in Europe these days.

Yes. Doesn't mean that they should've kept the original damages in place (I'm not familiar enough with the case to say what damages should be awarded), but that cap is a joke. Why would countless years of a man's life, no matter how unjustly and fraudulently he is deprived of them, be worth a maximum of US$150.000? It's so obviously ridiculous, I don't understand how it could exist. If there has to be a cap (and I guess in this society there has to be one, otherwise most people would just start awarding each other tens or hundreds of millions like it's nothing), it should be on a 'per month/year spent in jail' basis, instead.

No, they are based in reality. Logic is also based in reality, which is why it is a part of Objectivism. But Logic is not something to be accepted on faith. It must also be validated. Of course not. The foundation for Logic, in very simple terms, is the claim "contradictions cannot exist". That claim is substantiated by the reality around us, not taken on faith. There is one alternative: accept nothing on faith, start with reality instead. Ayn Rand wasn't the first person to do that, but she did a better (or at least more consistent) job of it than most others, imho. Now, you might say: But wouldn't that mean I am assuming that reality exists? Yes, of course, that is a fundamental assumption, but it isn't taken on faith. It is taken on the opposite of faith: evidence. Everything we observe proves that reality exists. "Reality doesn't exist" cannot even be stated without contradicting it right then and there.

The resume of a career jihad-i, Abdel-Hakim al-Hasadi: 2001: - fought against the evil American invaders in Afghanistan 2002: - captured in Peshwar, Pakistan - handed over to the American government - transferred to Libya 2008: - released by Libya ~2005-2008: - recruited Libyan jihad-is to fight against the evil invaders in Iraq; these fighters are now under his command in Libya 2011, early March: - the leader of the Libyan rebels - still a great fan of al=Qaeda - "members of al-Qaeda are also good Muslims and are fighting against the invader" - Al Qaeda has returned the favor, issuing a statement for Muslims to support the Libyan rebels, as that would lead to the imposition of "the stage of Islam" in the country; - refuses the notion of non-Muslim military involvement in Libya, but would instead welcome Turkish help 2011, mid March: - on the verge of seeing his forces annihilated by the Libyan army; 2011, late March: - US, NATO ally (according to the US and NATO, he himself has expressed no such allegiance - probably thinks it would come across as plain silly if he did) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8407047/Libyan-rebel-commander-admits-his-fighters-have-al-Qaeda-links.html

It is fine for a political party, engaged in an effort to achieve a specific purpose, to act in a way that will best help them achieve it. In this case, a pro-Capitalist party would have to obey the law, and ask everyone affiliated with it to obey the law, if they are to do anything. I'm sure they are under far greater scrutiny than anyone else in a socialist country like Norway, and would be in trouble if they didn't do that. But that is different from advocating always obeying immoral laws, as a moral principle. Even if you are only advocating it in mixed countries, not dictatorships. The principles (of altruism) Norway's laws are based on are often antithetical to Objectivism. Putting forth the principle "obey them" would be the logical equivalent of just putting forth the altruist principles themselves. It's the same set of principles, phrased two different ways. So in terms of moral principles it's either the principle of obeying bad laws, or Objectivism. It can't be both. But, in practice, one must acknowledge the existence of the guns pointed at one's head, and obey the people holding them there. Not on principle - at gunpoint. The difference is huge. There is no need for principles when guns are involved. Principles are meant to guide the choices of free men, not help them better obey thuggery. If I was a politician in Norway, my advice to the people would be this: When dealing with your fellow citizens and with proper laws, you should use principles; when dealing with unjust laws, you should be pragmatic. I cannot advocate you breaking any laws (because I'm being pragmatic too), but I also don't have any moral principles to help you deal with them. "Moral principles to help you deal with immorality" is a contradiction.

Well we can't have gangsters in the water parks, can we? Not even if they're teenage white girl fresh off the plane Yakuza members.

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what the purpose of this military action is, and how it will be accomplished. All I see is some bombings that will achieve nothing except retaliation from Qaddafi, probably against civilians, maybe even American civilians.

The part about his coins resembling official US currency (and being marked with the words "USA" and "dollar") is being ignored. He was in fact convicted of fraud, because of that fact, not any of the things said in the link.

Supportive of what? Effective action by "some other country"? Could you be more specific than that?

I think his definition of what liability is would be very different from ours. I don't understand where he is getting the notion that nuclear plants are causing massive liabilities for their owners. The proper liability of nuclear plants, in a Capitalist political system, is the damage they cause in the case of accidents. Since nuclear power is the safest form of energy production in the history of the free world (both to human life and to property), the price of insurance against liabilities from accidents would be smaller than pretty much any other business's. From the way that argument is phrased, I don't think he even understands that the source of any liability is the government, in the first place. That without government, there would be no legal liabilities for screwing up. There would be no laws.

You have listed a series of measures, and called them "effective". But you never said what purpose they are "effective" for. What exactly are you saying they're going to achieve? If it's to remove Qaddafi from power, I don't see how any of the things you listed and call effective will achieve that. Those measures are going to achieve the continuation of the civil war, with both sides entrenched among civilians in their strongholds, not the defeat of Qaddafi. Obama, in his 10 minute speech yesterday, did not set any goals for this intervention. He didn't define what would constitute victory, and there was no mention of Qaddafi's removal.

Looks like the US military is about to fight another war with its hands tied behind its back, thanks to a UN Security Council authorizing the limited use of force. There's no way Qaddafi can be removed withing the limits of that resolution. If the Republican Congress agrees to authorize the use of force, based on this, they're just as inept as Obama.

Their choice should be looked at in the wider context of their prior commitments. They signed up to work these jobs long before the disaster. It's a career choice. If they chose their careers fully aware of both the benefits and the potential dangers, and it was a worthwhile trade for them, then it wasn't a sacrifice. Not running away now is of course also not a sacrifice. Giving up their values and integrity by breaking their commitment to do these jobs would be the sacrifice. But, of course, if the context changes and TEPCo. or the government asks the workers to do things they did not sign up for (like go on a suicide mission), then the above argument becomes irrelevant. Then the decision no longer has anything to do with what they signed up for, it should be made in the new context.

The reactors aren't critical, there's no fission going on. Decay heat production will decrease over time, until eventually the water will stop boiling altogether. All they have to do to prevent a total melting of the core is to continue pumping sea water until that happens. That definitely won't happen. The radiolysis of water is very different from electrolysis (the reaction you're describing). It results in H2, H2O2, and some other stuff (H, HO radicals, etc.), but no O2. The reason for these explosions was the mixing of hydrogen released from the reactor with oxygen outside of it. The explosions did not occur inside the containment.

Sophia, you are right about the levels measured in Tokyo (and the so called exposure to foreign rescue workers, and US soldiers on the carriers offshore) being entirely insignificant. The coverage of both amounts to scare mongering by the media. But there are some inexact claims in the quote you posted: That's misleading. Ambient radiation exposes one to that amount of radiation damage in a year, not a day. In contrast, the levels at Fukushima are usually reported in mS/hour, or microS/hour, from what I noticed. The exposure from those levels should be added up for each hour, to determine the overall exposure of a person, and compare it to the overall natural exposure of the average earthling in a year. As far as the workers at the plant go, that math will result in dangerous levels of exposure. 260mS would be the radiation one would be exposed to if they spent the entire year in the most radioactive spring itself. People living in the area are exposed to about 10mS/year, five times the global average. Also, the highest level of radiation measured at the plant site was of 1000 mS/hour, this (Wednesday) morning. One hour of exposure to that is enough to cause radiation sickness. That's why the plant was evacuated, and they plan on using helicopters and fire trucks to keep spraying water instead.

The question is a little ambiguous, so I'll cover all the bases. 1. If you mean "make the argument that all the things we perceive as reality are...": That claim would imply a definition of the speaker: 'he who isn't conscious of anything'. But the claim also implies that he is conscious of himself (the use of the word "I" or "we" implies that). Obvious contradiction. 2. If you mean "all the things except the existence of our consciousness..", Ayn Rand wrote in Galt's speech: "A consciousness conscious of nothing but itself is a contradiction in terms: before it could identify itself as consciousness, it had to be conscious of something." That makes sense. How would a consciousness identify itself for what it is (a consciousness), if it wasn't conscious of anything? When a human identifies himself as a conscious being, that's due to him observing his consciousness at work (becoming conscious of lights, sounds, etc). Even a crazy person can't invent the notion of his own consciousness out of thin air. He too had to be conscious of some part of reality at some point. Someone who's never perceived anything about reality has no consciousness. I guarantee you that he won't make any arguments containing the word "I", or any other words that reference the reality he's never perceived. 3. If you mean that we could perceive some things as reality, even though they don't exist, that's obviously true. Mental illness and the breakdown of sensory organs are both possible. It is something we must guard against just acting on, without any critical thought about what we're perceiving. Asking the person next to you is not a good way to validate your sanity. If you're hallucinating, the person next to you is probably a hallucination too. But, if watching A Beautiful Mind has taught us anything, it's that he'll pretend you're perfectly sane and working with the government to defeat the Russians.

That usually happens to the victims of fraud. This was a scientific experiment with human subjects. It is the scientist's ethical responsibility to fully inform his subjects of the implications of the experiment. I think you are downplaying the role this guy had in the prisoners getting confused, I think he set them up to become confused intentionally. But let's assume for a second that he didn't do it on purpose (I'm not conceding that point, I just think it's an interesting hypothetical scenario). Let's discuss the ethical responsibilities of a hypothetical scientist who finds himself dealing with a (temporarily) mentally impaired human subject: Would it not then become his responsibility to become the guardian of his subject's well being, for the duration of his experiment? Wouldn't he then become responsible for any damage caused to this mentally impaired subject? If not, then who else would have that responsibility? God? The mentally impaired subject who was rendered incapable of fending for himself?

The prisoners were simultaneously aware of X and they believed the opposite of X? How exactly did they accomplish that?

Only when physical force or the threat of physical force is used to facilitate inflicting that harm, of course. Physical force is not a highly abstract concept, it's pretty obvious what it is. In this case, from what I read about the experiment, the mock prisoners were not free to simply leave. Either actual force (locked doors) or the threat of force was used to keep them there. Why else would one of them have to "seriously freak out" for instance, before Zimbardo was convinced that he should be allowed to leave? Whether someone is "allowed to leave" should never have been in any doubt in anyone's mind. Especially not the mock prisoners'. Convincing someone that they're an actual prisoner is clearly the threat of force. That's what the word "prisoner" means: kept some place through force. Mind you, the fact that they agreed to the experiment is irrelevant. In a civilized society, the use of physical force in almost all cases, except immediate self defense, is the exclusive purview of the government. Individuals may not use physical force to enforce a contract. I believe the contract itself was perfectly valid, however its enforcement, just like with all valid contracts, can only be done through the legal system. --------------------- In conclusion, Zimbardo had every right to perform this experiment, offer volunteers contracts that would require them to go through with the experiments described in the contracts, at the cost of severe financial penalties (penalties which he would have had every right to collect through the Court system), but he did not have the right to threaten physical force to enforce his contract, implicitly or explicitly. In a civilized society, no employer may use physical force against his employees, not even if it's only to make them perform the work they agreed to. The employer's only means of holding employees to their word is the threat of firing, or of lawsuits as per their contract. So the legal and rights respecting way to organize this circus would've been to make it clear to the "prisoners" that they were free to go at any point they so desired, simply by stating that fact. Even during the infamous Hell Week training course for some of the US military's special forces, recruits may opt out of the course at any time by simply walking up to a bell and ringing it. I guess both the prior written description of what the experiment would be like, and making clear that everyone's free to leave at any time, would've made the experiment pointless, but that's not special license to abuse people.

Justice most definitely and obviously hasn't been served. The killer deserves to die, and his death would mean justice was served. That's an objective fact. So the father does have the moral right to kill this man. His act would not constitute an injustice, or the endorsement of any kind of an unjust act (like killing someone who backed into your car). It would also not constitute endorsement of anarchy as his preferred political system. He should be fully aware of the consequences (which mean he either has to escape to a country which won't send him back, or go to jail) before making his choice, and judge whether the trade he is making (giving his own comfort or future for achieving full justice) is worth it, but he has every right to do it. I don't know if I would do it or not, in his place. But, when considering it, being afraid of committing an injustice (against the killer or the society which is letting him out early) would be the last thing on my mind. I find the suggestion absurd, and tantamount to pretending the system did its job, that there is no conflict here and that a peaceful coexistence between a murderer and his victim's family is perfectly feasible.