Ninth Doctor

Like vote Democratic in 2006 because of the immediate danger of a theocratic takeover? And bomb the “Ground Zero Mosque” as a matter of foreign policy? Or doctors who perform sex changes are, without qualification, morally equivalent to Nazi concentration camp monsters such as Mengele? Yeah, there’s been much that’s ridiculous, and thus worthy of ridicule (er, enthusiastic disagreement). For those who’ve been around long enough to understand the above juxtaposition, here’s an old Bob Marley number that comes to mind:

Is there a particular assertion made in the name of “evolutionary psychology” that you object to? As stated, you seem to be objecting to any inferring of conclusions (or even hypotheses) about human behavior from culture and recorded history. If so, what kind of data set would you approve of?

Esoteric? It's simply nonsense. "If reality is only perception"? It's not, now please, don't try again.

I say the solution to Government corruption (and crony Capitalism) is a Government with no favors to bestow. In this case, a corrupt judiciary, some questions have to be asked: is there no jury? Is there no right of appeal? If you can prove corruption, what kind of redress is available? I think we need an example with more detail.

You wouldn't want Robert Stack coming after you.

Why not consult a dictionary? Anyway, this made me think of a particularly annoying tune:

Translation for the non-Czech speakers among us: Silver moon upon the deep dark sky, Through the vast night pierce your rays. This sleeping world you wonder by, Smiling on men's homes and ways. Oh moon ere past you glide, tell me, Tell me, oh where does my loved one bide? Tell him, oh tell him, my silver moon, Mine are the arms that shall hold him, That between waking and sleeping Think of the love that enfolds him. May between waking and sleeping Think of the love that enfolds him. Light his path far away, light his path, Tell him, oh tell him who does for him stay! Human soul, should it dream of me, Let my memory wakened be. Moon, oh moon, oh do not wane, do not wane, Moon, oh moon, do not wane...

Andrew Bernstein had a spiel he’d do in the Q&A’s after lectures about how to spread Objectivism, and one of the phrases I remember was something like “don’t act like a Moonie”. Anyway, back when I was running a campus club ARI provided pamphlet versions of the Philosophy: Who Needs It lecture and quite a few other pieces to give out at meetings and the student union table. I don’t know if they still do, but that sounds like what you’re looking for.

I hear she was particularly sad after her husband died, about 3 years before she did. Maybe Objectivism ain't all it's cracked up to be!

The case for smoking being unhealthy was made well after Rand started. She’s known to have been critical of the health claims as the evidence was coming in. One could argue that she should have quit sooner, but as a critique of her integrity this one falls flat. Should she have made a public announcement to the effect that she’d been wrong? I think so, but that’s another matter.

Looks like you've been studying Jean-Jacques: The first man who, having enclosed a piece of ground, bethought himself of saying This is mine, and found people simple enough to believe him, was the real founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not anyone have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows, "Beware of listening to this impostor; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody." ~Jean Jacques Rousseau, A Discourse on the Origin of Inequality

BTW, in a very recent podcast Peikoff talks about how he’s taking Jazz lessons. Nothing particularly insightful, and his list of favorites doesn’t jibe with mine (Miles, Trane, Monk, Mingus). Chacun à son goût. http://www.peikoff.c...-most-about-it/ I haven’t been following this thread, and the debate has gone beyond my level of interest so I won’t be joining in, but it did make me think of an example Peikoff used in his ‘76 course, I wonder if anyone remembers the context? Maybe it was intrinsicism vs. subjectivism. Anyway, here it is, best I remember: 4 or 5 different people are shown a projector slide of some red blobs. The first person is a caveman, and he’s just bewildered. The second is an art critic, and thinks it’s a Kandinsky, and either likes or loathes it. The third is a scientist, and he’s elated because it has led him to finally discover the cure for cancer. The fourth is a doctor, and he’s sad because, knowing this comes from his patient/friend, he sees that it’s incurable cancer. I think there was one more viewer, I forget. So the context the person brings to it determines their reaction, emotionally and/or intellectually.

I think the regulars here will concede that when the subject is religion, there’s bound to be some ridicule laced into the discussion. You’re awfully new here to be doing this finger wagging. As to ad hominem, qua logical fallacy it doesn’t belong, but are you sure that’s what you’re seeing? I haven’t looked at all these threads you’ve listed. Anyway, Richard Dawkins recently had a good word to say about the function of ridicule, maybe he’ll change your mind.

There are reports that a former US President has sent a condolence letter to the new North Korean despot. Can you guess which former President?

Hmm. Wow. Touché. But where are you seeing these? I normally only look at “View New Content”, and “Debunking Religious Science” is the only one of these showing up there right now. And that was just someone asking for links, there wasn’t any kind of argument offered one way or the other. I remember seeing “Do you want a headache?” recently, and I didn’t click on it, since my answer to the question is a resounding no. It’s a bad thread title, it gives you no indication what the subject is. There are some pretty thoroughgoing threads of debate between believers and Objectivists. Avila and Jacob86 are two of the believers. I’ve taken part in the past, but my interest level is currently experiencing catastrophic existence failure.

I think you’ll find a good number of threads about religion started by believers who come here to debate. They’ve discovered Ayn Rand, like her politics (or whatever else), and religion is a sticking point for them. So why shouldn’t they ask their toughest questions? Naturally the quality of the answers is going to vary. I, non-believer, started one thread that was religion-themed, and I defy you to find any ridicule in it. http://forum.objecti...ndpost&p=281408 I don't know what threads you've been reading, I don't follow them all. But it doesn't sound like the tenor of this forum.

This calls to mind an annoying section of Anne Heller’s biography of Rand. She juxtaposes a strong statement of Rand’s in favor of honesty with the revelation that Rand lied about having a fiancée in order to get out of Russia. It makes her look like a hypocrite. Kant’s answer to a critique of his categorical imperative, where he denied that it was moral to lie to a murderer who asks where his next victim is (Kant says to just refuse to answer) comes to mind. That’s wasn’t Rand’s view of honesty.

Here's a couple resources: http://richarddawkins.net/ http://www.youtube.c...ser/Thunderf00t I can't get this tune out of my head, so I think I'll share: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DyiEBXhiJw&feature=related This one's maybe more relevant to the thread:

This looks good. It's a few months old, so it seems to have flown under the radar. No indication of a release date, so it may just be hype and hot air. Hope not. http://www.futureofc...nt-domain-movie Hat tip to Roger Donway. http://www.atlassoci...iness-prejudice

Between Qaddafi, Osama, and Kim Jong Il, 2011 has been a good year for the Reaper. But there’s still a couple Castro’s, a Chavez, and at least a couple Iranians, and only two weeks to go. So c’mon mate, we promise you’ll get more cowbell. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZOHY7Z5eaQ

The Jacket has a nice piece on the Hitch. http://reason.com/ar...er-hitchens-rip

Ed Hudgins of TAS has written a nice piece on CH: http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=11502&view=findpost&p=149893

Here’s material from Hitchens as relates to Ayn Rand and Objectivism. While his overall attitude was certainly negative, I feel he distinguished himself by not engaging in outright misrepresentation. If only all critics were as honest. Here’s an article he wrote in 2001, featuring interview quotes from Nathaniel Branden and John McCaskey. http://web.archive.o...3,16581,FF.html Here are comments he made at a book-signing event in Miami. http://www.objectivi...ndpost&p=101006 And here are some photos of him with some TAS people, from when he spoke at one of their events. I gather he wanted to include an essay by Rand (Requiem for Man?) in his collection of Atheist writings, and was not just refused, but was given some kind of wearisome runaround by the estate, leading him to have a lower opinion of, well you know, that group (ARI etc).

This is sad news, though expected. How about some mirth? Here's a funny quote from the AP report: Hitchens was an old-fashioned sensualist who abstained from clean living as if it were just another kind of church. In 2005, he would recall a trip to Aspen, Colo., and a brief encounter after stepping off a ski lift. "I was met by immaculate specimens of young American womanhood, holding silver trays and flashing perfect dentition," he wrote. "What would I like? I thought a gin and tonic would meet the case. `Sir, that would be inappropriate.' In what respect? `At this altitude gin would be very much more toxic than at ground level.' In that case, I said, make it a double." Even better, here's his indepth linguistic and cultural analysis of fellatio: http://www.vanityfai.../hitchens200607 This piece appears in his latest collection, Arguably. Typically, for the audiobook versions of his works, he did the reading. He had a great voice and delivery. Here, presumably because of his health, another reader, Simon Prebble, did the reading. Prebble has a proper British accent, and sounds, well, proper. That makes this piece all the funnier, but you'll just have to take my word for that and content yourself with reading it. My friend David Aaronovitch, a columnist in London, wrote of his embarrassment at being in the same room as his young daughter when the TV blared the news that the president of the United States had received oral sex in an Oval Office vestibule. He felt crucially better, but still shy, when the little girl asked him, “Daddy, what’s a vestibule?”

There’s Jeff Walker’s The Ayn Rand Cult, a chapter in Michael Shermer’s Why Do People Believe Weird Things, and other sources. I’ve encountered cultist behavior among Rand fans, both in person and online, including on this site. I suggest reading Eric Hoffer’s The True Believer, I think it can immunize you from the bug. 1. I didn’t vote Democratic in 2006, so, at least according to one Objectivist “authority”, I don’t even understand it. Therefore no. 2. Guided by her moral code, she achieved far more in life than I have, by the same age and (naturally) in total. But what would “perfect” mean? Is there an individual you hold to be perfect? 3. She once publicly said that homosexuality involved “psychological immorality”. She didn’t know what she was talking about and should have passed on the question, sticking to her valid point that it is not be the business of the government to regulate what people do in their bedrooms. Note that she never wrote on the topic, this was a one time Q&A thing.