Sirius1

see Appeal to Consequences of a Belief

I understand free body diagrams, and have a good command of Physics, but I am not seeing the relevance of the example as it is being used. If you are going to elaborate on that, you might want to account for "static equilibrium" vs. "dynamic equilibrium" and also define the potential energy object M is supposed to have. If it is gravitational potential energy, then you would have to account for its distance above the Earth. That would be potential energy which provides movement in a vertical direction (down); F1 and F2 acting on the sides do not alter that because they are acting in a lateral direction. If you are saying "no, it's a battery, capable of providing electrical energy" then F1 and F2 are irrelevant (pushing on the sides of the battery does not increase or reduce voltage). Clarify if I'm missing something or if I have overcooked the analogy. Slippery slope fallacy -- see here: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html

You are saying that a person using free will can become committed to a cycle of addiction (biological or psychological) against their will. You are then saying that a person understanding "determinism" (a term yet to be defined) would automatically know that cigarettes are capable of causing addiction, and would therefore choose to not pick one up. If I have restated the above in a manner that is true to your meaning, then I must ask: 1. how does the 2nd person come by their automatic knowledge? 2. how is it that the 2nd person chooses not to pick one up, if they truly have no choice in the matter? If I am missing something please clarify. I am trying to see your fundamental argument.

mental descriptions: 1. maybe zoom in on the scene where Dagny says, "That's okay, I'm the man." and analyze what she means by that. It's not just a sharp comeback, it's an affirmation. 2. maybe consider the values of the men that admire her, because their values indicate the qualities that they find beautiful in her. 3. contrast with Mrs. Rearden might be helpful physical descriptions: 1. follow the bracelet 2. the gray dress 3. contrast with Mrs. Rearden might be helpful

Just an offshoot post from general chat -- what kind of music do you like? Here is a list of songs/albums that I am enjoying at the moment or have enjoyed in the past (not ranked, just listed). Electronic Artist -- Album -- Song -- link Daft Punk -- Alive 2007 -- all -- Daft Punk -- Human After All -- Human After All -- Daft Punk -- Tron Legacy -- End of Line / Derezzed -- -- Digitalism -- Idealism -- Echoes -- Hyper -- We Control -- Cascade -- Jeans Team -- Keine Melodien -- Linus Loves -- Stage Invader -- all -- The Polish Ambassador -- Diplomatic Immunity -- all -- link Justice -- Cross -- Valentine -- Ladytron -- Light & Magic -- Seventeen -- Ladytron -- Playgirl (Felix Da Housecat Glitz Club mix -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w80vlfjUniQ Jan Hammer -- Escape From Television -- Crockett's Theme -- link Rae & Christian -- Sleepwalking -- Trailing in the Wake -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhzPR--jHoo Tori Amos -- God -- God (Dharma Kaya Mix) -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4cwzfLGub0 New Order -- Power, Corruption, & Lies -- The Beach -- link New Order -- Power, Corruption, & Lies -- Blue Monday -- link Kraftwerk -- Tour de France -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLiai4gg_0Q&feature=related Eliot Lipp -- Rap Tight -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puunw6YEHIA Jazz Artist -- Album -- Song -- link Oscar Peterson Trio -- You Look Good To Me -- link Oscar Peterson Trio -- Night Train -- all Art Tatum -- The Complete Capitol Recordings -- Blue Skies -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LA-CBTXvHHY Art Tatum -- 20th Century Piano Genius -- all Cannonball Adderley -- Somethin' Else -- all -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tSYXpq2kW0&feature=related Miles Davis -- Kind of Blue -- all -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edgjBDXH2ks Fats Waller -- Alligator Crawl -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oeGIQNaqepA&feature=related Scott Joplin -- Magnetic Rag -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNpUylquleU&feature=related Rod Miller -- Ragtime -- played piano at Disneyland for 30+ years! -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQzxgztUv44

The "OODA loop" is one man's dissection of the decision making process. If you overlook the particulars of his profession (fighter pilot) then I think that you can find relevance to what you are doing. Many visual representations via Google image search have it mapped out. It is not the only schematic approach for decision making but it is a reasonable place to start if you are collecting data.

OODA loop

Innocent or not has nothing to do with it in a kill-or-be-killed war zone. Nevermind the fact that our opponents don't wear uniforms to distinguish themselves from civilians, nor do they shy from using civilian buildings as bases of operation (hospitals, churches, schools), or using civilians to assist in the war effort by providing information, ammunition, etc. They know our conventional rules of war and use it against us. Are you ignoring these realities of modern war because they are grotesque? Who do you want to live, Johnny the Marine or the foreign boy that might shoot him if given the chance? It would be more correct to say that being objective requires looking at the evidence presented. By saying "other peoples perspectives" you are opening the door for any number of logical fallacies, the most obvious being relativist fallacy. They're probably blaming the Great Satan. They should be blaming themselves. Get out of a war zone if you value your life. Do not provide safe harbor for aggressors if you value your life.

Do not overlook the fact that there are enemies of the United States that would be glad to see this information be made as public as possible, whether it happens to be true or false. If you are the DoD, of course you are going to suppress it. Suppression is not an admission (or confirmation) of guilt, it's simply the right thing to do in either case (for morale, public support, etc.). DoD's job is to wage war and win. Edit: If you are inclined to disagree with me, or vote me down, I think you should read about Information Warfare. There are many places to start, but if you want to jump into the thick of things, read John Stockwell.

Well, it was very similar to this one posted on youtube in 2007: I took some notes and got some video, might post later.

First of all, you're offering a false choice. Distortion is also a possibility. (Example: straw man fallacy) Second, going to the source is a habit that is consistent with thinking for yourself, and forming your own judgement, rather than relying on someone else to do it for you. Third, it is not necessarily just a matter of their ideas being good or bad, but also how they reach those ideas -- their process. Great Dialogues of Plato, for example -- look what Socrates can do just by asking the right questions! You would be missing an opportunity to learn from a master.

If you are trying to qualify "intellect" then consider ditching the word "smartness," because it is often used to indicate that someone has an abundance of knowledge -- which does not necessarily mean that they are intelligent. I would also go back to OPAR to consider: perception, conception, integration, expression, etc. because there are layers that rely on each other.

Flight of the Phoenix (1965) -- observe the German engineer hard at work to survive. Another version was released in 2004. Also, you probably found this list easy enough through Google, but didn't see it mentioned here: Movies of Interest to Objectivists -- over 1000 movies.

The defense attorney failed too.

I was thinking that if she is building a defensive position for livestock confinement, the first line of defense is the fact that they belong to her. If she overlooks or concedes that point to talk about how animals are or should be treated, then she has empowered her opposition to have a say in how she treats her animals. I am not advocating cruelty, I am just saying it is none of their business.

I think a stronger argument is found in the fact that the horse is your private property and you can treat it however you want. The fact that your horse lacks a rational faculty does not constitute a claim upon your energy.

I think that all of these questions could be answered at the same time by understanding what the basic axioms are -- Existence, Consciousness, Identity -- as Peikoff describes in OPAR (Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand) Chapter 1, Reality. I think that you are considering the foundation to be an act of faith only because you have not had the axioms identified. That is where I would start.

I am going to hear a presentation by Stephen Hawking next week, and I am just wondering if anyone here has a burning question they want answered. If I am given the opportunity, I'll ask. Topic = The Origin of the Universe http://www.science.tamu.edu/articles/787