Nicky

What Ayn Rand said, and Objectivism, are not interchangeable. Just because Ayn Rand liked cats, doesn't mean Objectivists have to like cats. Just because Ayn Rand didn't think gays were psychologically healthy, doesn't mean Objectivists hate gays, or can't be gay. Why? Because Objectivism is not about cats, or psychology. It's about philosophy (metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics and aesthetics). There is one area of Objectivism that concerns homosexuality: politics. In her Politics, Ayn Rand said that being gay is your right, and as such it should be protected and never interfered with, by the government. That is the definitive, and only Objectivist position on the subject. Oh, and ignore Erik Christensen. He has an agenda other than honest conversation about Objectivism. It's hard to tell what it is though, he's not coherent enough for that.

The claim I was answering in this case was that they would have the power to shut a website down based on mere accusation. Not suspicion, not preliminary evidence, not probable cause, but mere accusation. As for the process, it involves a court order authorizing any kind of action. Last time I checked, US judges don't even get out of bed based merely on accusations, let alone issue court orders. So far, out of the arguments made against this bill, the only one I failed to dismiss as either based on false claims or fallacious is that it is ambiguous on what kind of liability companies would be exposed to. If that is true, that's a problem that should be fixed as soon as possible. But it doesn't warrant throwing it all out, or labeling it censorship.

Only if there is an emotional attachment. I place no value on whether my washing machine will still work after I die or not. But that's because, lovely as it is, I have no feelings for it. I do care if my loved ones will live and be happy. It would be impossible to value someone (or something) you love only up to an arbitrary point in time (and I say arbitrary, because the time of your death has no significant bearing on who your loved one is - it would be possible to stop loving them if they change enough). That's because when you love someone, you value them for who they are, not just for what they can do for you. Love is an emotion, and that is what it does: it makes you care for someone no matter what. So, let's sum it up: if you don't have any feelings for things, then you only value them to the point in time (or space, for that matter) they are useful. But if you do have feelings, then it is physically impossible to do that. Add to that the fact that humans aren't robots, but creatures who thrive on emotional fulfillment, and I believe you have your answer: it is our self interest to not only coldly value people when and where they are of use to us, but to find people who share the same values as us, and fall in love with them (value them unconditionally). P.S. We can love things, not just people. For instance a lot of rational people love their work, or a field of activity, or science, or human advancement as a whole, and care deeply what happens to those things after they die.

What do you mean "mere accusation"? Are you saying I could shut down any website on the Internet, merely by accusing them of piracy? Because that sounds like something out of a superhero movie. I don't think it would work though. Pretty sure I couldn't just e-mail an accusation to the DHS, and have CNN.com shut down. I'm pretty sure they would first check if my accusation is valid or not.

That's nice. I'm sure in future appeals to donors, they will add "denying service to customers, in an attempt to make a political statement" to the list of reasons why I should give them money.