TrueMaterialist

Im posting a lot, I kow, but the comments in this thread keep inspiring more questions. Vox, are you saying that, as an artist, I should invest all my time into my art. Surely one does not make enough money for a home, food and clothing off his art, before that art is actually created. What shall I do while I am making my personal masterpiece, become emaciated, die of exposure to the eliments, beg for pocket change, live off of my parents, what? Are you saying that I should suffer for my art?

Im not quite sure why people are saying SAMR had a false premise. If I like porn and I make porn and sell it and profit it off it, because,lets face the music, sex sells better than anything, then how am I adapting to my environment exatly? I think it is a false premise to assume that the person making the porn is not a fan of porn. I mean, its pretty unlikely that a a man who dosnt care for porn, would end up producing it. If I like porn and my customers like porn does that mean I adapted to the environment, or does it mean my customers and I share a common popular interest? Are some people in here trying insist that we have to be influenced, or persuaded to be interested in watching sex?

can some one provide a specific example of what it means to "adapt the environment?" Perhaps some one in here can tell me how they "adapted the environment" to profit off a free market economy? Because "adapting the environment," in the context of the free market, as I understand it, is persuading, or forcing, some one to buy something you have produced, which means to me that people, who buy your product, are adapting themselves to you. I mean, obviously trees will not buy a product you make, so the "environment," in this context, must be another word for "people." But if people are adapting to you, then they must be doing the irrational thing by adapting TO their environment, so it seems to me that functioning whithin this type of capitalistic framework, requires the subjectivity of the consumer, meaning an objectivist would have to have a customer-base, consisting only of subjective people, in order to make any profit. Because, as an objectivist, I will be too busy adapting the environment to be persuaded to buy whatever youre selling.

My uncle says he works hard. He works 8 hour days as a stock analyst and makes about a million dollars a year. He also goes on vacation a lot. My best friend also says he works hard. He's an engineer He works 12 to 14 hour days. He makes 50 grand a year. My cousin is a banker. He makes 200 grand a year. He works 9-5. He says they dont pay him enough. My step-brother is a UPS facility supervisor. He works 10 to 16 hour days, depending on shipment volume, and is always on call. He makes around 40 grand a year. He also says he isnt paid enough. My sister-in-law is a highschool teacher. She worked 10 hours a day, made 35 grand a year, until she was laid off 4 months ago. She had to turn off her cable to make ends meet. All of these people are college graduates. Uncle - master's degree in economic. Cousin - bachelor's degree in business. Best Friend - doctrites in mechanical engineering. Step-brother - master's degree in business Sister-in-law - Master's degree in philosophy, teaching credential. My uncle says he works very hard for his money. He says he is entitled to every penny he makes. He thinks teachers are overpaid. He hates paying taxes...and thinks that the government should raise tuition rates and cut government workers earnings instead. He is fond of the moto "Those who cant do, teach." I guess he felt that his teachers contributed very little to his life, though, when I was a child, he stressed the importance of taking my education very seriously. My sister-in-law feels broadsided by people like my uncle. Her class consisted of 40 children, which she taught for 6.5 hours a day. She says if a baysitter took care of 40 kids for 6 hours, at $10/hr/child. The babysitter would be making $2,400/day. She says she makes less (per child) than a babysitter...and a baby-sitter cant teach advanced algebra, critical thinking and english composition. She also says that people think her work is done when the kids go home. However, the rest of her day is filled with parent/teacher meetings, school meetings, lesson planning, and grading papers and tests. My cousin thinks only lazy people make less than 100 grand a year. When the whole family is together, he is always watching Fox News on the couch, always ont the couch, while trying his best to start an argument with some one. Yesterday, on facebook, he called the people in the Occupy Wall Street movement a bunch of bums, who rather sleep in tents in front of business buildings, than actually enter one and apply for a job. My Friend responded to my cousin's remark on face facebook by saying, "what is it you do again? My cousin's response was "banker." My friend: "Then youre a bumb too. Youre a glorified beggar. You make a profit by loaning out borrowed money at insanely high interest rates...and you arent even ethical enough to give those who you borrow from a descent cut. I bet you try to sell those loans for more than they're worth too. I'm glad those people in tents are finally pulling your card. You dont even do anything tangeable. Youre really just a lowly hustler in a monkey-suit. You dont make or contribute anything tangeable." My step brother single handedly supervises 50 driver and 22 loaders and keeps a time sensitive business (UPS) running smoothly. He is an amazing multi-tasker. He doesnt like how much he is paid, but he believes his position as supervisor looks great on a resume and has high hopes for his future. He doesnt talk about politics because he believes no one really listens to each-other anyway. He once stated "political discussions turn humans into rabid, unreasonable beasts." I dont have much insight to his point-of view, but he is a clever, persuasive man of action, nonetheless. I also remember him saying something like "thoughts are pointless, if no one actually acts on them." To me, it is odd that a banker and a stock analyst make more money than an engineer, a teacher and a ups supervisor combined, especially when also considering that these three people work more hours than the banker and the analyst. Yet the banker and the anaylist feel entitled to their earnings and tend to be condescending and disrespectful toward those who do things that they deem unnecessary. Rand says we should all be allowed to keep what we earn and aquire, because life is a self sustaining process, and we disserve to reap the fruits of our hard work, but how does she measure hard work? Would she say that my uncle makes a million a year, therefore he works harder and his profession is more important, or would she call his paycheck a grave injustice? What do you think her opinion would be on this matter?

The knowledge gained from scientific research oontributes to our over-all understanding of reality. without scientists, that knowledge would simply not exist in the minds of philosophers. If science discovers truths about reality, those truths must be incorperated into a philosophy that attempts to explain reality, if these truths conflict with a philosophy, then that philosphy must be rendered in order for it to remain valid. A philosopher might attempt to refute evidence found through scientific research, or attempt to scrutinize the methods that a scientist used to come to certain conclusions. This happens every time a discovery is made. Usually the people doing the scrutinizing are those who find that discoveries conflict with their lifestyle, behavior, religion, philosophy etc. Philosophy ( as a verb) is the acts of observing, then explaining, but scientists adhere to The Scientific Method. This method includes experiments and tests and ends with reporting findings. Reporting finding. Many of those finding contribute to philisophical discourse. In this way science comes before philosophy. A scientist can be a philosopher and a philosopher can be a scientist, but a philosopher cannot be a scientist, if he insists on gaining knowledge about reality through purely philisophical methods. Explaining an observation, using logic alone, did not lead to the discovery of electricity, nor did it lead to our ability to harness it, example. We can sit around a logically speculate about what a lightening storm is, but we would never come to the conclusion that we can harnness that energy to light and heat our homes, especially if we had no no idea what lightening was. We would come up with many wrong conclusions. One cannot trully discuss or understand a truth that science uncovered, without having all the knowledge one can gain regarding that truth. "Scientific knowledge," and "scientific fact" are funny terms. They seem to imply that science created this knowledge, of certain facts, when science did nothing of the sort. The is the difference between science and philosophy. This is why philosophy is consisdered an art: philosophy is the act of creating morals and codes. It is the act of creating an explination. Science refers to the act of dicovering knowledge.

Rational [Re]programmer, Well you have forced me to explain myself. HAHA. Damn! Here we go. I must say, I respect your fairness a great deal. You ask questions and make no assumptions on my intended meaning. This is a rare attribute, one I wish more people had. I like speaking with people like you. I have noticed your fair responses in here. Often, many people see a post as an argument, or an assertion, but I find assertions lack power. Sometimes I get frustrated with these blind assertions. Your question is a good one. Questions are far more powerful then assertions or arguments. Honestly, I had no "moral" in mind. I am offering no "correct" way to act. This story, which I guess was more of a play, was a commentary on both philosophy and science. The reality in this story is...the grandmother was sick and there was no demon. However, the father could not prove to the grandmother that the demon was not there. He, in fact had no real, physical proof to offer. All he could really offer as proof was this: He was told by doctors that what the grandmother saw was a result of her mental illness, her brain's confusion between what was in her mind and what she observed in the physical world. This is in fact subjective proof. The father had faith that the doctors were correct, but he did not really know how the doctors came to this conclusion. The father believed her brain was abnormal. He concluded this because grandma did not act like other people, but when she took meds, she began to act more like other people. The father knew that when she took the medication, she would stop seeing demons, but is this hard evidence that the demon is not there? Proof: you see the demon. When you take meds, you don't see the demon, thus the demon is not there? If people get really drunk, some thoughts may make sense to them, though those thoughts may be completely irrational. they perceive the world in a different way, but are those perception true? The absence of evidence is not evidence. I cannot claim that God does not exist because I cannot find him, just as I cannot claim that God does exist; it is just that I have not found him yet. If I make conclusions like this, I am being irrational. In this context, I can only reasonibly conclude that I have no conclusion. In fact, the only thing the father could really prove was the absence of physical proof. That absence was his only means of proving that the demon was not there, but he could only prove this to the child. He and the child could investigate the room and they would not find a demon, thus they would conclude that a demon is no there. He and the child would then agree on this conclusion.This investigation, however, would prove the opposite to the grandmother because if they took her into the room, she would see the demon. The grandmother and the father agree on one thing: Only grandma can see the demon. This conclusion however means something different to each of them. The scientists and the layman would agree on the same thing. Let me put it this way, without scientific understanding, one can prove that atoms do not exist in the same way the man proves to the child that demons do not exist: Atoms do not exist because if we look for them in your room, we will not find them. Only a scientist sees the Atom. The scientist would say, "just because you cannot see the atom, does not mean the atom is not there.I have observed an atom. I understand the atom much more than you do, therefore you are the blind one. You are blind to the atoms existence." Even if a scientist attempted to show us an atom, would we all agree that we are observing the same thing? Would we actually know what we are observing? We would have to believe the scientist when he said, "you see, that is an atom." If a man is firmly convinced that an atom does not exist...and he is shown this "atom." He would attempt to rationally justify his conclusion by rationally questioning the scientists methods and understanding of what he is observing. He might say, "we agree we are both seeing something, but I dont believe you truly know what that something is." How could the scientist reason the man away from this conclusion? I was once told to count all the things I know to be true and then ask myself how I know. Most of the things I thought I knew turned out to be beliefs. They were things that some one told me were true. The only things I really knew were true were basic things that I myself could observe and test. If those tests proved my hypothesis correct every time, then I could conclude that I know some truths. All other things, to me, would be inconclusive, so as a rational person, i would have to conclude they were, to me, inconclusive. Even the fact that the planet spins and revolves around the sun, must be inconclusive to me, because I have not really observed this happening. I can only believe this happens, which I do. Here is were I completely agree with Ayn Rand, though I admit that I question her in other areas. (I do believe she was a very intelligent person and respect her as such) What I believe and what I dont believe are inconsequential, in the sense that my belief will not change the actual truth. A fact, observed or unobserved, believed or not believed, is still an objective fact, whatever that fact is, whether we know of this fact or not. My ignorance, or denial of a fact, however, may have consequences for me, or for humanity. Likely, my belief that something is a fact, when it is not a fact may also have consequences for me, or for humanity. For example, if humans are not melting the polar ice caps and killing off life that is crucial to our survival, if we are not causing the planet to change faster than life can adapt to those changes, then the planet and humanity is safe, but if we are causing this to happen, then we might be causing major problems for ourselves. This concept, is, with out doubt, a fact. I must agree this is true. You must agree this is true. A scientist must agree this is a true, an objectivist must agree this is true, a subjectivist must agree this is true and, yes, even a Christian must agree this is true. But this fact cannot be used to confirm or deny anything. The different interpretations of this fact is the problem because this fact can be used in an argument for all of the beliefs mentioned above, even the most irrational of them. Observation is not the problem. The problem is the interpretation of the observation. A christian will say, "I can prove that God exists, but the proof I offer is conditional. First you must believe that what I am showing you, is truly what I am showing you, that my evidence is, in fact, evidence." This means, in order for us to be convinced by the evidence, we must become Christians. The problem: we require the proof before we decide to become Christians, but we must do the opposite and abandon all of our conclusions. We must first be convinced without being convinced and only then will we agree that what the christian is providing as proof...is truly proof. This is the same with a scientist. He can say, I will show you an Atom, or I will prove global warming is a real occurrence that is caused by man, but first, you must abandon your personal conclusions. He then will show us something that we do not really understand, but this is not enough because we don't understand what we are observing. We require much more knowledge, therefore we must become scientists ourselves. If we believe scientists are full of crap, then we are being asked to become a scientist before we the validity of scientific research is proven to us. The same goes for philosophers. We must believe before we learn enough to know. We must buy into a specific method of understanding. This has nothing to do with who is truly right. So should science come before philosophy? Good question. I have used philosophy to put all methods of understanding what we observe into question...and by doing so I have also questioned philosophy. Funny how that works. Observation is the first step to gaining true knowledge, but what happens when we jump to explaining an observation, before we actually question it, before we explore it, before we test our hypothesis and attempt to apply those preconceptions to the physical world? A philosopher might claim that he can simply observe and then explain, based on the outside knowledge of everything he understnds, but is this rational? The nature of proof must be questioned. Lastly, in the context of this post, some people, on this site, have accused me of making the same point over and over. It is true that I am making one point in each discussion, or many points that support the some point. The truth is...that is what we all do. We are attempting to make one grand point. An example of a point is not the same as repeating that point. Rather it is an application of the concept to the physical world. Those examples are thus tests. I am testing my point, in an attempt to prove it is univerally valid. This is both philospical and scientific. Also, those same people have assumed that we do not share the same conclusion, which is evidence of the problem with interpreting an observation. It is a testiment to their own misunderstanding of the message they observe. Often, when I question or argue, I will not make my conclusion known because I want to explore exactly how they are determing the meaning behind my message. I may agree with their conclusion completely, but their preconception of where I am attempting to direct the conversation might make them unaware of my true intentions. This is not my fault. The only thing they have to do is question me, as you did, but if they continue making assertions, then they are actually arguing with themselves, with their own interpretations. This is how I know that one is not truly observing, or exploring the information. They are unstead defending themselves without really needing to, thus they are defending themselves from themselves. Their preconception has blinded them...simply because I am coming from an angle that is mysterious to them. Unstead of attempting to solve the mystery and expose my position, which would be fairly simple, they regress inward, they shut down and the only respsonses I get are insulting ones. When the truth is....9 times out of 10, I agree with their conclusions, yet they cannot see past the way in which I present the information. They observe and then they explain. They do not do not question, explore and test. Agreeing on a conclusion is often pointless, like "blah, blah, blah." "I agree with that." "Thank you. We are smart." The interpretations, the applications, the questions, the tests, the exploration.....these are far more important than anything else..

I am going to have to take a different position here. I am going to try something other than simply explaining, or arguing my position, for a change. I am in the mood for story telling: Son: Grandma said she saw a demon in my room. Father: Don't be afraid, son. Demons do not exist. Son: But Grandma swears she saw one and Grandma never lies. Father: This is true. I have never known your Grandma to tell a lie. Son: So, then there must be a demon in my room because she said she saw one and she never lies. Father: I have no doubt your grandma was telling the truth. She did indeed see a demon in your room, but, still, demons do not exist. Son: But if grandma does not lie and grandma saw a demon, then demons must exist. Father: It is true that your grandma never lies and it is true that she saw a demon, but it is not true that demons exist.I promise you, if we investigate your room, we will not find a demon anywhere. Son: But Grandma says only she can see the demon. Father: Yes, she is right. Only she can see the demon. Your grandma has a mental illness that causes her to see things around her that aren't really there. These things only exist in her imagination. These things are very real to her, but only to her. Do you understand? Son: I think so. Some one should tell that she can stop hiding because there is no such thing as demons. Father: I will try, but I doubt she will listen to me. Son: Why? Father: Because when she is off her medication, like she is now, she will not believe me. Son: Why? Doesn't Grandma trust you? You wouldn't lie about something like that. Father: Yes. Your grandma trusts me very much. She knows I would never lie to her about something like that. Son: Then, why wouldn't she believe you? Father: Because she knows she is the only one who can see the demon.

Dante, You seem to be an avid replier, so I must ask why you have not yet responded. You do not have to. I am sure you have an answer to these questions, so I will assume that you are busy and will respond later. I hope you do not think I am attacking you or objectivism. The first post I made in here was indeed a little harsh, I should have been a little nicer. I will let you know where I stand in this post, but I still hope you will answer my questions, if possible. I believe that the best kind of person is one who comes from having nothing, is very productive and works for eveything he owns and works alone for the positions in life he obtains. I believe a man who does this without anyone's help is the strongest type of man. Do you agree? If a man, at any point in his life, required altruism, or was helped by an act of altruism, then his process of "living" was not a self -sustaining one. If we define life as a self-sustaining process, then it must be fair to say that this man is not a life, nor is he living a life, nor does he have a life. If life is a self-sustaining process, then one who has not sustained his own process, at any point, must not have a real life. If what a man has is a result of other people's efforts and not his own, then those things are not his. If a man has reached any position, as a result of other people's efforts, then he does not disserve that positions because it was not the man who reached the position on his own, but the efforts of other's who lifted him, or lowered him to that postition. A man like this is more despicable than an altruist because, at least, the altruists who supported him and gave him a position, did some sort of work to put him there. Perhaps they even sustained their own processes of life, but for some reason also sustained his. This means these altruists are are far more stronger than he is because they worked to sustain their own life-process, while still having the ability to sustain his. This man is a weak person who was given that which he was not strong ehough to earn and, therefore, he is unworthy of all he possesses. Many people like this are put in positions of wealth and power...and, once they are, many call themselves objectivists and scorn altruists and those who claim to be in need, even though altruism is the reason he is where he is and has what he has, and his existence was always one of taking from others, whether it was offered or not. This is, in my mind, the worst type of man, a man who should be scorned and cast out of society. The best type of person, the strongest, will NEVER accept anything from other people, when it is not being PAID to him in some way. How can one, who is not like this man, claim objectivism as his philosophy? .

Dante, "Having, on principle, the right to dispose of the fruits of one's labor is absolutely required by man to engage in the self-sustaining actions which maintains one's life." First, I asked if you were implying that labor is the only factor that determines ownership. I did not state that is what you thought. So, you believe that labor is not the only factor that determines ownership? If a person does not buy a TV with the money he earned, however, I have not violated the "the right to dispose of the fruits of one's labor required by man to engage in the self-sustaining actions which maintains one's life." Correct? What principle have I violated in the context of "man's right to engage in the self-sustaining actions which maintains one's life." Further, I am not asking you to "express an entire theory of property rights in a single phrase." I am simply asking for another principle besides labor that determines the right to ownwership, in the conext that you presented to me, which was the definition of the "right to life." In the definition, life is only defined as not simply a state, but a self-sustaining process," which leads to the concept that obtaining property is a self sustaining process, leading to the conceptt that, since obtaining property is a SELF SUSTAINING process...and I steal some one's property, I have violated his self sustaining process that is defined as life ( a self sustaining process). Also, I am not being argumentitive, I am asking you questions. An agrument requires that I counter your point with one of my own, but I have not done that.

"Having, on principle, the right to dispose of the fruits of one's labor is absolutely required by man to engage in the self-sustaining actions which maintains one's life. If these actions result in the ownership of a T.V., then the theft of that T.V. is a denial of the principle of property rights and is detrimental to the victim's well-being. The principle of property rights is vitally connected to one's right to life. " 1 So we agree that I did not confuse "the right to life" with "the right not to be killed immediatly." 2. Are you implying that labor is the only factor that determines ownership? If, so can gifts be considered private property since the receiver of the gift did not labor for it? Is stealing NOT more of an act of labor than receiving a gift? My mothered labored to produce me, she caried me around for 9 months and gave birth to me, the she worked very hard to raise me, does that mean that she has the right to own me?

2046, hello, were you speaking to me, if so, what random things did I make up and attribute to the guy?

Dante, "Having, on principle, the right to dispose of the fruits of one's labor is absolutely required by man to engage in the self-sustaining actions which maintains one's life. If these actions result in the ownership of a T.V., then the theft of that T.V. is a denial of the principle of property rights and is detrimental to the victim's well-being. The principle of property rights is vitally connected to one's right to life." 1. So you agree that I did not confuse life with the "right not to be killed immediatly." 2. Are you implying that labor is the only factor that determines ownership? If so, then can a gift be considered private property of the person who received the gift? You are assuming that every person who owns a tv, labored for that TV. What if the person stole that TV from some one, then I stole it from him? Is stealing not also a form of labor? I must work to steal a tv, right? If I break into some one house and steal a tv from a man who received it as a gift, did I not work for the TV, where as the man did not?

Dante, You are so confident. My words: "Since the act of stealing your big screen television does not kill you, the act is not a violation of your right to live." This means, taking your tv will not kill you immediatly, nor will it EVER kill you, not tomorrow, or 50 year from now. And having a tv is not "required by man to engage in the self-sustaining actions which maintain one's life (in any sense of the word). You must have thought I randomly chose TV as an example.

When I was a kid, the old man next store was nice, when my friend and I accidently threw a baseball in his yard, he would invite us in and give us candy, while we sat in his la......wait.....oh, no....uh....uh...nevermind. LOL

I'm glad those jokes of parents chose to use our tax dollars to cry about a football.

She's 89........... are we even sure she knew what she was doing? If she was 50, i would say she was a stupid, bi#$% for not understanding that kids and even adults make mistakes, but, seriously, it's a damn football. Why the hell would you call the cops over a football? Principle, i guess, thus the parents are stupid asses. If I was a cop I would be furious that I was even asked to settle such a petty dispute, when i could be out helping people with real problems,

Profanity is all about timing. You cant use profanity all the time or it loses its emotional power. Im not tlaking about the boring curse words. Im talking about c#@$. Yeah, thats the one.

I know i am double posting, but these questions relates to my post above. My cat can open every door in my house. For door handles, he jumps up, hangs from the handle using his front claws, then uses his hind legs to push backward off the door frame. He does this as a single action because he knows that he cannot simply kick back on the door-frame without hanging his weight on the handle and he also knows that simply hanging from the handle will not give him the momentum to open the door. For door-knobs, he does the same thing with his lags, but he twists with his front claws. He does this correctly every time...and he can do this in other houses as well. His reason for doing this is not simply to get food, but to look for me, find a place to sleep or look for his cat toys. Is he not making a choice to open doors? Did he not learn how to open doors, by watching me and other people? I am not sure if he did because people dont kick off door-frames to open doors. He figured that technique out for himself. He somehow knew that the door-frame was stationary and the door itself pulls outward...and he some how knows that pushing off that doorframe is how he applies force to open the door. he also knows to push open the door from the other side. In this case he just runs, jumps for the handle or knob, while throwing his momentum into the door. He also plays games that require altering strategy with other cats. SO how can we reasonibly conclude that he is not rational to some degree, when he is clearly making a choice, clearly applying a strategy to achieve a desired effect and when it is clear he learns? I am not implying that he thinks linguistically, though I am sure he understnds the general meaning behind certain words. Also, when my younger cat is hungery, she often goes for his bowl before her own. Unstead of getting angry, he patiently backs off and lets her eat. He doesn't have to. She isn't a threat. He simply wants to. He makes a choice to let her eat from his bowel. He deosn't do that with my parents cat when my girlfriend and I take him over to their house. Their cat is a girl too, but for some reaon he dislikes her. Is it not clear he makes choices and has preferences? How do you explain this? How do you fit this into the idea that man is the only rational animal. After observing this behavior, I could not make a decision on whether or not he was performing ratinal actions. Logical Reasoning simply forced me to accept it. i suppose I could make up unreasonible excuses in an attempt to convince myself that what I am seeing all the time is not actually happening, but I would not believe those excuses. Further, have you ever watched chimps use tools?<have you ever seen them push the button they are asked to, the right button out of 150 buttons, even when their arrangments are changed?</p> Have you ever seen a dog parent a cat? Do you know their are actual accounts were wild dolphins rescued drowning people, dogs, and even pigs, pulled drowning children out of pools? How do you explain this?

Trebor, Your statement: "If I understand your question, then no, I did not and I would not say that "rationality = reason + volition." Reason and volition are inseparable. It's not as though one one could have a faculty of reason without volition (rationality = reason) or a faculty of reason with volition (rationality = reason + volition). My formula: Rationality = reason + volition, means both reason and volition are required to be rational, not one or the other. It mean that volition + reason IS rationality. Linguistics is deceptive, so I try to avoid it as much as possible. I prefer to use the terms and turn the other words into their mathematical symbols. Its one of the best ways to see the truth or, lack of it, in any given lexicon. You said: "To have a rational faculty (reason) is to have a volitional faculty. To have a volitional faculty is to have a rational faculty (reason). Our reason, our rational faculty, is our volitional faculty. We have to choose to use reason, choose to be rational, and in choosing to use reason, in choosing to be rational, we are able to identify the alternatives open to us and then to choose among those alternative." So do you mean: reason = rational rational = volitional volitional = reason That these terms all mean the same thing and can be use interchangeably? So, I can say volition, or rational, or reason, And each term will mean the same sum of all three terms? do you mean that the definitions of each term is actually one defintion? So are you saying I must always make a personal choice to come to the right conclusion?

I would like to pose this argument. a "right" is always a divine idea. It implies that we were predetermined to have something, that some how we are entitled to things, for reasons that are never explained. A "right" is a conclusion without reason...a value judgement, based not on fact, or logic, or reason. a "wrong" is proven far more easily. We have "wrongs." Whatever we decide to do without a logical reason is wrong. For example: Why can't I kill a child? Well, since there is no logical reason to kill a child, it is wrong to kill a child. It would be an irrational, illogical, unreasonible act, therfore it is wrong. This is just an exploration....take what will from it. Scrutinize it if you want to. At the very least, we must conclude that more "rights" are determined by our conclusions of wrongs...and some "rights" are wrongs because they are unsupported by logical rational reasoning.

Your jump from the concept of "the right to life" as discussed in Rand's essays and Trebor's post to the impoverished "right to live" (which you seem to define as the right to not be killed immediately) is invalid. Show me where I defined life in that way please.

to clearlify my last post: here is Samr's question: "Would you agree that a king that has inherited his castle without the _explicit_ use of force (everybody in the country believe in the divine right of kings), has a right to own it, and no man or group of men might take it from him by force, or from his future generations? Would you agree that the same principle applies to a king actually owning the whole land of the country?" I will take his added unneeded detail out, to show you how the question still functions: "Would you agree that a king that has inherited his castle without the _explicit_ use of force has a right to own it, and no man or group of men might take it from him by force, or from his future generations? Would you agree that the same principle applies to a king actually owning the whole land of the country?" Do you see how the question still makes sense, without the detial that you are incorrectly calling a premise? The minor detail that you are attacking is an inconsequential one. I will answer Samr's question first: My answer is NO. No man has the right to own all the property in one country, or on earth, and deny the other men the right to property.if anyone here interpreted his question to mean this:Since, kings and the people controlled by them, beleived the false premise that a king had a divine right to rule over people and own all of the land and therfore had a phyiscal right to that land, would you agree that a king that has inherited his castle without the _explicit_ use of force has a right to own it, and no man or group of men might take it from him by force, or from his future generations? Would you agree that the same principle applies to a king actually owning the whole land of the country?And any one in here meant to answer:"The premise that a man has a divine right to anything is a false one and therefore the conclusion that "no man or group of men might take it from him by force, or from his future generations" is also false because a false premise always leads to a false conclusion,"then their answer is correct.

To all those who state that samr's post began on a false premise, Samr's post was a question, not an argument. Therefore a premise was not needed, whether it is a true premise, or a false one. Premise: a proposition supporting or helping to support a conclusion. Since no conclusions are made in his post, no premise is needed, so to assume that he had one is to begin your agrument on a false premise. Those who argued that he had a premise made at least five unjustified illogical conclusions. 1 You wrongly concluded that a question required a premise. 2.By wrongly thinking a question had a premise, you wrongly concluded that his question had a conclusion. 3. you wrongly thought a question, on its own, is support for a conclusion. 4. you wrongly assumed that one question alone is an argument. 5. You assumed that "divine right" would have been his premise if he had one. Therefore, any one who argued that his question began in a false premise, began their argument on the false premise that he had a false premise, or the false premise that divine right was the central topic of his question. Therfore...all those arguments would lead to false conclusions. Further, how can one argue with a question? You can answer the question, not answer the question, or you can choose to disregard the idea of "divine right," reformulate it and answer it without any consideration for "divine right." Whether or not there is a God is beside the point. Fact: Kings inherited the land and rule over men and property on it. Kings owned everything. They believed it belonged to them because they believed it belonged to their bloodline. Question: Did the people have the right to take a king's property(all property, by force.) Now that "divinity" is clearly out of scope, why not answer the question, why avoid it? We are all reasonible in here, arent we?

Proud Father, (in response to your last post to me). Sorry, I do not know how to use the quote function on this website, so I have to quote you manually. Could you enlighten me on how to use the quote function? "As such, attacking a person's ideas and identity should not be illegal. So, I agree completely there." I am assuming by saying "as such," you mean that you agree with my argument. We share a reasonable outlook my friend, but perhaps my argument was somewhat out of scope, though it does pertain to the confusion between "threatening and non-threatening." We do, however, agree that many forms of attacks and many forms of threatening behavior should be exempt from prosecution...and should not be seen as a matter of law. We agree on the following: Not a Matter of Law 1. Attacking a person's ideas. 2. Attacking a person's identity 3. Threatening a persons ideas. 4. Threatening a persons identity. Since we agree that these should not illegal, we must also agree that a person should not be arrested for committing such acts. "Attacking a person's body or his property (e.g. stabbing him or burning down his house) ought to be illegal." I am in agreement. We agree on the following: A Matter of Law 1. Attacking a person's body 2. Attacking a person's property 3. Threatening to attack a person's body. 4. Threatening to attack a person's property Since we agree that these should be illegal, we must, at least, agree that a person must face some type of legal consequences for these acts. "So the real question is: what about threats relating to such attacks?" This is the hard part. There are at least two types of property: 1.Physical Property 2.Intellectual Property If we confuse the two, we are at risk of contradicting our conclusion that "attacking a person's ideas and identity should not be illegal." Intellectual property is defined as: Property that derives from the work of an individual's mind or intellect. This means that intellectual property is, at least, all of the following: 1. Ideas 2. The way an idea is expressed 3.The medium in which on uses to express that idea 4. Art work in all its forms These things must exist in some form a physical state...because that is only way one can prove that he created them. So intellectual property must be physical property. If a man plagiarizes, however, he is transcribing ideas from another's physical intellectual property to his own physical property (pens and paper, for example). This means that the actual owner of that physical intellectual property did two things: 1. He thought of his idea, or his art. 2. He transformed that idea, or art, into a physical form This means: at first, the idea, or art, was not physical, but then the idea, or art, was made into something physical. The thief of that plagiarizes or copies an idea or work of art does three things. 1. He observes the idea or art work. 2. He turns it back into to something non-physical. 3. Then turns it back into something physical again, by regurgitating that information. Therefore intellectual property is both physical intellectual property and non-physical intellectual property. It is: 1.the medium in which one chooses to express his ideas 2.the actual idea 3.and way in which he chooses to express his idea. Intellectual property must be in physical form (recorded or made physical), in order to prove that the artist, writer, scientist, etc, thought of or discovered those things first, but this is only for the purpose of proof. The fact that something is not recorded, or made physical, however, is not proof that the artist did not think of it first. For example, if a singer at a bar sings a song he made up in his mind, but memorized the words and never wrote them down...and never recorded them as being created at a certain time....and someone else records that song on a cell-phone...and later sings the song and creates it as his own, that person has stolen the original artist's intellectual property, whether it can be proven or not. So, an idea must be both non-physical intellectual property and physical intellectual property, simultaneously. Just as a singer sings a song he memorizes, a man in a vocal argument conveys an idea he has formulated before the argument took place. This means: that just as the singers song is his intellectual property, the arguers idea is his intellectual property. So, if I criticize an idea posed by a man, I am attacking his personal property. Criticizing the man's idea is an attempt to prove that idea is meaningless. It is an attempt to bring doubt to that idea...in the mind of the man it came from and in the minds of those who have heard his idea....thus I am attempting to destroy his idea. A man's identity is also a man's intellectual property because it is how he personally defines himself. Thus, if we agree that "attacking a person's ideas and identity should not be illegal," we must also agree that attacking and attempting to destroy, or destroying, certain types of property should not illegal as well." So now we must come to this conclusion: It should be legal to threaten, attack and attempt to destroy, or destroy a man's intellectual property, but it should be illegal to threaten, attack, attempt to destroy, or destroy a man's physical property. It would then be okay to attack a man's intellectual property, so long as it is not in physical form, meaning I cannot rip up an album you own, but I can attack or destroy the idea contained in that album. "The case of trolling on a website owned by someone, after they have instructed you to desist actually goes beyond a threat of an attack, it is actual attack on the person's property." Trolling on a website is only possible when that web site is a forum, or contains a forum. If we agree that one's ideas and expressions of those ideas are his personal intellectual property, then we must conclude that the forum itself is the sum of many people's intellectual property. Without the contribution of other's, a forum is not a forum because no one posts and no one comments. Thus, since the content itself is a sum of the intellectual property of others, it is logical to say that the site is made up of various people's personal property. It cannot be considered private property unless the contributor's sell their intellectual property, or agree to give that property away. Remember, we agreed that we can attack and attempt to destroy, or destroy intellectual property in a non physical form, but we did not agree that we can claim other people's intellectual property as our own private property...because that would be theft. The intellectual property on a forum has been manifested from nonphysical intellectual property into physical intellectual property because it is, in itself. recorded proof that it exists. Thus, if it is physical property of the contributor, it should illegal to destroy or claim as personal property. It is also illegal to deny the person who made it access to that property. One does however have the right to attack the ideas in a post...because by doing so, they are not attacking the post itself, just the idea contained within it. Even a troll does not destroy the website itself, nor does he destroy the physical contributions made by others, though he might destroy the ideas contained within it, but even a man with the some ideas, yet a different interpretation of them can be considered a troll. The difficulty is proving his intent. He may just disagree. This post for example, I wrote with no goal, or self interest, no intent to hurt, or offend. I was simply answering the questions and responding to the information logically and reasonably. I do not manipulate logic to fit a presupposed conclusion, I use logic to come to my conclusion. In this context, this is the only logical conclusion. But I have said enough. I will respond if you show an interest, or have an argument regarding this post. If not, talk to you later. Have a good night, or day. LOL. Have a good whatever, depending on when you read this.

Proud father, While reading this, please note that the term "you" is not directed at you personally. It is the hypothetical "you" (any man). I am using it as a catalyst. I find it less confusing to use "you and another man", then "a man and another man" or "a man and a women," or a "first party and a second party." The use of "you" is not an attmpet to insult you or be unkind to you, or accuse you of thinking a certain way.The distinction between threatening and non-threatening is a difficult thing to determine. What is threatening to one, is non-threatening to another. If a man criticizes an idea you have, it is valid for you to say that you feel threatened because your idea is being threatened. If your idea is a component that forms your identity, then it is logical to say that your identity is being threatend. If your identity is a component of your being, then it is logical to say that you are being attacked. Therefore, you can conclude that a person who is criticizing your idea, is directly threatening you. What are the implications and consequences of condemning a man for threatening your ideas, by intellectually opposing them? If you have ever criticized another idea, then you are as "guilty" as the man you condemn and therefore just as desserving of being condemned yourself? We would have to condemn all of humanity for this. We would all have to lock ourselves up. So it seems that some forms of threatening behavior must acceptible, in order for men to be free. Here is the critical similarity between you and the man. The man who is criticizing your actions or ideas, may be taking the offense against your identity, but he is simultaneously defending his own identity because, chances are, he finds your ideas to be threatening to his own...therefore you are both on equal ground. The man feels threatened by an action you made or an idea you have and he expresses why (Thus he is expressing his own ideas for one cannot criticize another without expressing his own ideas), and as a result you feel threatened by the man. Here is the critical difference, to threaten to lock a man up for his criticism of you on the grounds that you feel threatened, is indeed a threat against the man. He may have threatened your ideas and thus your identity by challenging your ideas, but you are threatening his ideas, his identity and his over-all freedom. So who is threatening who the most? He has challenged your ideas, but he has not threatened your physical being, where as you are threatening all of the above. You are the only one making a physical threat in a circumstance like this. Is anger a threatening emotion? If one gets angry at you and curses at you, is he threatening you, or is he simply angry with you? Perhaps it is something you said or did that angered him. If he expresses that anger by saying. "I dislike you and here is why....." is that threatening to you? Indeed it is because he is intellectually attacking and challenging your actions or ideas. It is your actions or ideas that anger the man. Actions are often the result of an idea, so both these things are components of your identity, therefore the man is threatening your identity once again. But if the man is angered by something your said or did, chances are, he feels threatened by your actions or ideas, therefore you are both threatening eachother. The man cannot criticize your ideas without expressing his own ideas and, chances are, he is angry because he has found your actions or ideas threatening to his own. If he says, "if you try to lock me up, I will fight you." His threat is a result of yours. The critical similarity between your threats is that both are conditional. The critical difference between your threats is, your threat is conditional on whether or no he is silent, but his threat his conditional on whether or not you lock him up for his refusal to obey your physical command. Perhaps you then should be locked up for your threat, seeing as how it was the first physical threat that caused the argument to decline into the exchange of physical threats. Physically, following some one around in public can also be considered chasing some one. This is an interesting subject and one that is hard to come to a concrete conclusion on. What do you think?