[Can an Objectivist also be ethnically Jewish?]

An African could be an atheist but he still mantains that he is a Dogon, why? For the Jews and the Dogons their religion is their culture, the two can hardly be seperated except in the case of individual deviations.

[What aspects Of Objectivism are unique?]

Here are some things that come to mind:

-Explicit identification and consistent application of "primacy of existence"

-Recognition of the fact that consciousness has identity and that this is not a disqualifier to it attaining knowledge

-The form/object distinction in perception

-Free will as the freedom to think or not

-Theory of concepts (specficially, the unit perspective and measurement omission)

-Certainty as contextual

-The arbitrary as neither true nor false

-The nature of objectivity

-Life as the standard of value

-The interests of rational men as not conflicting, or non-sacrificial egoism

-Egoism as the basis for individual rights

-The Psycho-epistemological function of art

I must say that Ayn Rand strikes as being one of the most consistent and articulate philosphers I have ever read. I do not believe that her views were all original; what I do know is that her integration of various views was a great achievement. To prove that Ayn Rand wasn't the first to articulate many of the positions you listed I would need to do some researching so as to give references and what not (for the sake of persuasion). By the way, are you saying that no one before ever articulated a particular position you listed or are you saying that they never did it as explicitly as Rand did?

[Peikoff For Kerry?]

How does Peikoff's thesis in the Ominous Parallels fit with what he is saying today? To me his arguments are a significant departure from what he argued in the aformentioned book. To say that those without a clear ideology are not as much a threat as those who seemingly have one is dubious. In fact, Peikoff claimed that Nazi Germany was fiercely anti-ideological and look what happened.

[Peikoff For Kerry?]

Peikoff seems to contradict his thesis in "The Ominous Parallels". In that book he claimed that although Nazi philosophy was anti-ideolgical the havoc that their views caused was great. He went on to say that this same trend in America could possibly lead to the same kind of thing happening in America.

So how comes anti-ideology persons such as Kerry are no longer a mojor threat? How is Bush going to trick America when his motives are so clear as opposed to those of Kerry?

Come on now. Peikoff is not convincing.

[Weird Email About ARI]

Betsy:

Training Objectivist teachers and writers is essential to the spread of Objectivism and the establishment of a new philosophical foundation for our culture. [...]The OAC offers a four-year undergraduate program in the philosophy of Ayn Rand, Hume, Kant, Zen Buddhism, and Fundamentalist Christianity. Who are we to think Objectivism is truer or more valuable than everybody else's ideas? Through a systematic course of study, aspiring intellectuals will receive a thorough grounding in the basics of Objectivism, but we don't go to extremes and claim that Objectivism is all that great. We're certainly not dogmatic about it.

You are exaggerating at this time. Are all of you saying that Objectivism is an esoteric philosophy that one must take 4 or 6 years to master under the instruction of special tutors?

Is it so difficult for someone to become an Objectivist philosopher or intellectual on their own research? If reality is knowable through reason then one does not need tutors to color things. Is this the Shaolin temple where monks study Shaolin Kung Fu techniques (forgive me)?

The ARI should only broadcast Ayn Rand's views and publish books that espouse her philosophy by Objectivists philosophers. The classes in question are not becoming of the philosophy. I am not against college clubs or MeetUps though (organized by individuals not an ARI styled organization).

[Peikoff For Kerry?]

That is false. Objectivism recognizes that people can have mixed premises, inconsistent ideas, and the ability to change. Thus, when choosing between two people with mixed premises, Objectivism doesn't just label people all black or all white. It provides a color chart for selecting the lighter shade of gray.

Betsy, I am sure you might be exasperated so I will leave you with a quote by Rand:

"Before anyone can identify anything as "gray," one has to know what is black and what is white.  In the field of morality, this means that one must first identify what is good and what is evil.  And when a man has ascertained that one alternative is good and the other is evil, he has no justification for choosing a mixture.  There can be no justification for choosing any part of that which one knows to be evil. "

"Like a mixed economy, men of mixed premises may be called "gray"; but, in both cases, the mixture does not remain "gray" for long.  "Gray," in this context, is merely a prelude to "black."  There may be "gray" men, but there can be no "gray" moral principles.  Morality is a code of black and white.  When and if men attempt a compromise, it is obvious which side will necessarily lose and which will necessarily profit. "

I hope I did not take these words out of context.

What would be a "principled act?" Refusing to vote until a John Galt-like messiah shows up?

Refusing to vote while attempting to change the philosophy of those living in your country.

Objectivists base their principles and their decisions on the facts of reality. Objectivists can disagree about what the facts might be, especially when the facts are not all known and people have to decide on insufficient evidence. As a result, we can agree on the principles, disagree about the facts, and come to different conclusions as a result.

I would like to think that Objectivists have a principled approach toward the assessments of facts. In that regard, two Objectivists cannot look at the same aspect of reality and then come to a different conclusion or perceive different facts(if their method is principled). Objectivists cannot base their principles on the facts of reality if the "facts are not all known and [their is] insufficient evidence." The facts in this matter at hand are that both choices are evil. Any speculation about what will happen after November is far from fact. Peikoff claims are far from fact. So whence cometh the decision?

[Weird Email About ARI]

So, according to you, any idea that claims to be an absolute or true, is a dogma--regardless of how one came to hold that idea, its actual relation to reality, etc.

Yes! Call a person who by definition is a mystic-a "mysti"c and they tend to get upset. One usually gets the same reaction from dogmatists (when are called for what they are). To answer both you and Andrew I would say that I would not insult your intellects by saying you believe in the arbitrary. I used the word dogma to mean a philosophy that is believed to be true and a "formally stated and authoritatively settled doctrine; a definite, established, and authoritative tenet." If you take offense by me saying this then so let it be.

Finally, you claim that you are not a troll. But according to your signature, you have renounced Objectivism. If you renounced the philosophy which it is the purpose of this board to discuss, then what are you still doing here, if not trolling?

Are we to believe that only self-proclaimed Objectivist can discuss Objectivism? If this is indeed the case I would be happy to leave the forums. By your reasoning anyone who is not an Objectivist is a troll. Is this objectivity!

Andrew:

Clearly, 'dogma' carries more negative baggage than your definition allows for. Wether by your intention or not, you are cashing in on the negative connotation carried with the word 'dogma'. When you use the term, you are using it as a slur against the ARI and the professors that teach at the OAC. As has been repeated over and over, these accusations are entirely unjustified.

I do not believe that my charges are unjustified. The thing is that ARI is a sacred cow on these forums and I have been warned not to molest the cow. The purpose of OAC is to mold Objectivist intellectuals so that they may spread Objectivist dogma near and far. All other considerations are secondary. I gather this by the acceptance criteria and the course requirements . I do not need to sit in one of those classes to know the modus operandi.

Training Objectivist teachers and writers is essential to the spread of Objectivism and the establishment of a new philosophical foundation for our culture. [...] The OAC offers a four-year undergraduate program in the philosophy of Ayn Rand. Through a systematic course of study, aspiring intellectuals will receive a thorough grounding in the basics of Objectivism. Although the program is currently unaccredited, all courses include graded assignments and periodic assessment. The undergraduate program is a prerequisite for our graduate program. --ARI

[Peikoff For Kerry?]

The issue is identifying the DEGREE of evil for both and judging which one is more evil than the other. It is not enough to judge that both are evil and then stop there and refuse to vote for either.

This is like asking me to vote for Socialism or the Mixed Economy by saying the Mixed Economy is the "lesser" evil. I support none of those systems at all; I am a capitalist (this is consistent with Objectivist ethics). How much different is theocracy from socialism/statism anyway? You as an Objectivist would still suffer. Oh yeah, Peikoff claims that the Dems don't have a clear cut ideology (hyperbole 101) but I say they do have a history of getting their socialistic agendas enacted. Consider that both the Democrats and the Republicans support essentially the same socialist policies: social security, more financing for public schooling, free health care and the like. This suggest that congress is likely to let socialistic legislation through before those than challenge the 1st ammendment. The constitution has more loop holes for socialistic ideas than it does for theocratic ones.

Someone mentioned the FCC and its activities implying that the Bush administration was behind the suppression of free speech. What that person evades is the fact that the FCC was created to regulate speech when speech is supposed to be unregulated. Of course, an individual can sue someone who libels them but censorship only occurs when the government restricts speech not average citizens. It does not matter what party is in power the FCC will do its job of restricting free speech.

Peikoff's speech is more a case against government than a particular party. So much for the power of the constitution to limit the power of government.

A non-vote means that you are voting on one or the other by DEFAULT, and the choice is no longer determined by you, but by the accumulation of everyone elses vote.

I am not voting, period. It is wrong to say that the party that wins is the one I supported inadvertently. Besides, my vote would not change the outcome of the election.

If you know that Evil #1 is worse than Evil #2, and your refusal to vote Evil #2 contributes to the election of Evil #1, then you have chosen the worse of the two evils.

I suspect that you are using "know" to mean certain. If that is the case then I am not certain who will turn out to be the worst. I do however know now that both are evil. I also have a idea that socialism is a threat from both parties while theocracy is a non-issue.

My non-vote does not contribute anything. Only those that voted for the so-called greater evil contributed to it.

[Peikoff For Kerry?]

Betsy:

Peikoff is using Objectivist principles and other Objectivists are also using Objectivist principles when they disagree with him.

Objectivism does not give guidance as how to choose between two evils. It gives guidance as how to choose between evil and good. All an Objectivist can do is estimate which candidate would be more effective in actualizing his evil ideas. The decision to support Bush or Kerry is not a principled one but a pragmatic one (more concerned with practical results than with theories and principles). Not voting would be a principled act.

On another thread you were asserting, without evidence, that ARI and OAC forbid dissent and spread dogma. Here's evidence that they don't.

If both sides were using Objectivist principles they would have reached some agreement. Since they have not then their decisions are not principled. I know the difference between personal disagreements and philosophical disagreements mind you (hence, the comment you alluded to).

[Peikoff For Kerry?]

I think it is this type of protest that Peikoff is denouncing, since it represents a type of moral agnostcism: a refusal to find out which of the candidates is more evil

It is more like a false dichotomy: either you vote for X or Y or be immoral. One would be justified to say that I am an agnostic whereas the candidates are concerned if I claimed that I could not say if anything of them were good or bad. But in fact, I am saying that both of them represent evil ideas that would not see America improve. Peikoff uses the word "apocalyptic" in terms of Bush's motives but I disagree for the following reasons (and those stated before). If Bush wins this election all he has again is four years to rule. Cheney is not a fundie at all. Of course, the chances are that he might change Cheney (as VP) before the 2008 elections. By that time any evil that he and his fundie crew wanted to foist on Americans would have been detected (he does not have clear way because of congress, the Constitution and fellow Republicans). I would venture to say that Democrats would take election '08 if Bush behaves "badly" in his next term (if there is one). All Peikoff has shown is that Bush's fundie base is highly energized. The fact remains that most Americans are not fundies and even if someone takes the bible literally that does not automatically mean that they (consciously) want theocracy (somehow a theocratic America does not jive with the book of Revelations). The sought after votes in this election are the "undecided" and the "swing" votes. The candidates have already tickled their respective bases.

Confronted with the two evils, I would refuse to vote while still exposing the evil of both parties.

[How does one identify "hunger"?]

1. The body figures this [insert cuss language]guy is not going to feed me, so there is no point in being hungry.

Here you seem to support my hypothesis well.

2. After both the stomach and the small intestine are empty, they cease to act as organs of digestion and start to help with removal of waste. This is from Dr. Moser. If this is true, then it would not make sense for the body to want food while this is happening.

Still a strong supporter!

Hunger does come back fully, thereby showing that the "abuse" does not permanently destroy the hunger mechanism.

Suppose you stop walking on rocks barefeet but instead wear some ultra comfy shoes from that time on; the fact remains that the sole of your feet would regain its softness. I imagine that your spouse could even make you chuckle by tickling it at that stage. Please note that I never said that the abuse would inflict permanent damage. So I must say your objections are off mark.

The stomach is not abused by fasting.

Oh, do come on! So starving your child for a month is not abuse? The act of starving a child has the sme effect on the stomach as diligent fasting.

The stomach can be abused by overeating, by eating foods that are hard to digest, by eating bad food combinations, etc. During a fast, the stomach gets a rest and recovers from abuse.

This may be true in individual cases and it depends on the length and type of the fast. Both fasting and poor eating habits may be deemed abuse.

Macaroni and cheese would not be the best foods to eat on the first day of a fast of any length. Fasts must be broken properly

.

Perhaps!

[Peikoff For Kerry?]

I am quite certain that John Kerry and his lawyer friend are not what America needs right now. The thing that concerns me is that Peikoff is supposedly using Objectivist principles to come to the conclusion that Bush is the worst choice of them all. Am I wrong? I also think this is why Argive made the following statement:

As an Objectivist, I am supposed to have intellectual certainty and yet on this issue I honestly don't know who is the better choice.

The fact remains that we are to choose between two evils. The only certainty possible is that America is going to be worst off either way. All the while Peikoff is telling us that we have no other rational choice but to vote. Ayn Rand said that to speak of evil while implying one's neutrality is wrong. If I don't want to vote but loudly proclaim that I have no reason to vote given the evil that is before me what is wrong with that?

[Weird Email About ARI]

Daniel:

For you to question the honesty of the wonderful people at the OAC, without any means, on your part, to know how they conduct class, is downright dishonest. Furthermore, the only evidence you DO have is the reports of those of us on this forum who are in the OAC. Yet you ignore and MOCK those reports.

I understand most of what you say. But one factor that must be taken into account is the fact that ARI screens its students rather well. I would like to think that it is for this very reason that such problems may not arise.

DPW:

To compare the study of Ayn Rand's ideas to the study of Christ[ian]dogma, to imply a dichotomy between Objectivism and objectivity, and to imply that the OAC is seeking mindless agreement is insulting, arbitrary, and unjustified. Stop it.

Your statements seem to assume that Objevtivism and objectivity go hand in hand by default. Objectivity is what Objectivists proport to be using but many fail in that regard. Why the need to create a straw man here? Attending the classes does not make on mindless so much as it would make one single-minded. By single-minded I do not mean principled but dogmatic. I will take not of you concerns though.

Andrew:

The purpose of the ARI is to the spread the ideas of Ayn Rand throughout the culture.  Working to increasing the number of Objectivist intellectuals is not the same thing as spreading dogma.  Whether Objectivism is dogma or not requires the independent judgement of each individual, judgement that seems to be encouraged at the OAC according to accounts made here by people who have attended.

Dogma: a belief or set of beliefs that a political, philosophical, or moral group holds to be true.

Given the definition above I am perfectly justifed in saying that ARI wants to spread dogma. I never said anything about religiousity mind you. The purpose of turning out intellectuals is to spread the dogma. The truth of Objectivism is most often taken as a given. The purpose of ARI is not question Objectivism but to spread it. One wonders whether Rand herself would want such an organization in existence after the (cultic) problems that arose with the Nathaniel B. Institute. Note: I have never said Objectivism is a cult but the fact remains that some people develop a cultic following nonetheless.

Oldsalt:

Daniel and crew: You are feeding a troll. Stop it.

I am not a troll FYI! I would like to think that you are the troll for posting an insult without much elaboration. Clearly you want to stir up my emotions while not offering anything of substance (isn' that the definition of a troll?).

[Weird Email About ARI]

I'm not sure this is worth responding to, but what the hell. Look -- why take a class on Aristotle? Why take a class on Plato? Why take a class on geometry, for that matter, when you could just read Euclid? Obviously, because there is a benefit to learning from people who are more knowledgeable than yourself in the topic you wish to learn about.

A class on Aristotle is usually an unbiased look at what he believed and why. the professor may or may not be an Aristotelian philosopher. I never said you can't take a class on Plato. A class usually doesn't last four years you know. Likening geometry to Objectivism is a risky deed. One cannot just read about a branch of mathematics; mathematics requires a lot of practice. Why don't you just buy a book on geometry and practice at home? Of course, you may think that you are not disciplined enough to practice dilligently and sometimes the text book's explanation may not be sufficient. That's why you would want a tutor. You can learn as much about Plato and Geometry from your own efforts.

I've seen it happen. More than a few times. Want to know the response? Usually a few minutes of debate, and then the class moves on. No hassle.

Until grading time comes around, right?

I can imagine a situation in which someone might be removed from the class for taking some particular position -- say, for example, someone decided to become a rabid communist.

I am sure that at the Karl Marx institute anyone who shows symptoms of rabid laissez faire capitalism will be thrown out too. After all, the official dogma cannot be challenged. It doesn't matter that you had to read all the works of Karl Marx before being admitted to the classes. It does not matter that you passed the entry exam showing you have a good grasp of what Karl Marx believed. The purpose of the classes is to turn out Marxist intellectuals (in the case of ARI Objectivist intellectuals) who would then seek to spread the official dogma. The idea is not to produce indepedent minds at all.

If someone decides to depart substantially from Objectivism, what value is ARI getting from their investment?

My point exactly. They are not looking for peoplewho take objectivity serious they are looking for people who subscribe to Ayn Rand's ideas. The classes are to make them more articulate in espousing those ideas not to question those ideas rigorously. Consider a seminary is dedicated to producing good Christian theologians who embrace the official dogma. Can anyone graduate from OAC who thinks that alturism is moral?

By the way, thanks for the shameless insults you hurled at me.

[Thoughts on George Smith's "Atheism"?]

If someone could prove objectively that God exists, then every Objectivist would accept that truth. All it takes is sufficient evidence.

What evidence would convince you?

If god says that man is not an end in himself but a servant to him; what will you say? If god said that reason is not man's only path to knowledge but divine revelation and intuition what will you say? If god said that man's moral purpose is to make his neighbor happy; what will you say? If he said that he created the universe ex nihilo; what would you say?

Would there still be Objectvist if a personal god existed?

[Thoughts on George Smith's "Atheism"?]

Bowzer:

Not surprising since, as you say here "It is a pretence to say that Ayn Rand's philosophy as she articulated it is comprehensive," one can pick and choose whatever parts of Objectivism one wishes to suit one's purposes of the moment...of course you would have no objection to his supposed "use" of Objectivism.

I made the comment about Mr. Smith to show that it is because he was a former Objectivist why his views on certain matters seem so fimiliar. I do not appreciate the straw man you have proposed. I never said that "one can pick and choose whatever parts of Objectivism one wishes to suit one's purposes of the moment". I did not say that he used Objectivism, per se, rather I would like to think that he used objectivism. Besides, Rand said that one can pick and choose parts of her philosophy that one agrees with but one cannot then refer to oneself as an Objectivist. Smith does not say he is an Objectivist.

Non-scientific and non-naturalistic modes of explanation are not at all equivalent with the arbitrary. You are just supporting my argument against the book by showing how the author lacks an understanding of the real issues.

Oh yeah? Above you are broadening the scope of our present discussion. We are using the word arbitrary in the scope theistic claims. Such claims concern things "spiritual" generating and maintaining things that are natural. It is through science and naturalistic modes of explanation (reason) that we gain knowledge. Anyone attempting to use a different method is proposing the arbitrary within this context. Are you implying that somebody claiming to be reincarnated is not an arbitrary claim?

How about backing this up? You show me where Miss Rand ranked atheism because I can't for the life of me find an article along the lines of "Atheism: The Core of Objectivism." In fact, she only even used the word "atheism" about a dozen times so good luck.

Objectivism subsumes atheism, it an atheistic philosophy. Ayn Rand not using the word atheism countless times does not negate my claim.

Not one single principle of Objectivism is predicated on the view that there is no god. Do you know what the word "predicated" means? Again, show me where in the world you are getting this.

Predicated on: If an idea or argument is predicated on something, it depends on the existence or truth of that thing.

Core: of central or fundamental importance.

If there is a god then Objectivism is false. I am here refering the concepts of god the are prevalent in the West. Am I wrong?

Fred:

The central core of Objectivism is reason.

Atheism is the only reasonable view whereas the existence of god is concerned.

" I am an intransigent atheist, but not a militant one. This means that I am an uncompromising advocate of reason and that I am fighting for reason, not against religion." --Ayn Rand

[Thoughts on George Smith's "Atheism"?]

Bowzer:

1) George Smith cites Ayn Rand in numerous places in that book but be aware that he has only a superficial understanding of Objectivism. I don't consider Atheism: The Case Against God to represent any part of Objectivism.

This is incorrect. The fact remains that he was an Obvjectivist but he has since left the philosophy. Of course, anyone who has read his articles and books knows that he is known to defend Ayn Rand but nonetheless he finds her view of the role of government (along with others) to be lacking. I would say that he did not write a book on Objectivism but atheism using many elements of Objectivist epistemology. From what I know he understands Rand very well.

2) Smith misses all of the fundamental points that should be covered, e.g., the nature of the arbitrary, existence and only existence exists, etc.

Of course, he deals with the arbitrary since he targeted the idea of faith. Here he says:

"The argument from design is ultimately an appeal to miraculous causes, i.e., causes that do not, and cannot, occur in the natural course of events. This is why an "explanation" via design is not a legitimate alternative to scientific and other naturalistic modes of explanation. To refer to a miraculous "cause" is to refer to something that is inherently unknowable, and this "sanctuary of ignorance" explains nothing at all. However much it may soothe the imagination of the ignorant, it does nothing to satisfy the understanding of a rational person[from Why Atheism]."

How else did he counter (in his book) the so-called "first cause" argument but by mentioning the idea that the universe (or rather existence) always was. That is, if every thing must have a cause then god cannot be exempt from this rule. If he could be exempt from this rule then why can't the universe also be exempt from this rule.

3) Atheism is simply the denial of a certain idea--the idea that there is a god. There is no positive case to be made for atheism. Because of this, I don't think atheism is a ripe enough subject to warrant an entire book. Note that in Objectivist literature, atheism is treated only tangentially and as an outcome of positive aspects of the philosophy.

I take issue with your claims that atheism is "only tangentially and as an outcome of positive aspects of the philosophy." Atheism is at the very core of Objectivism. All the principles of Objectivist are supposed to be based on reason and are predicated on the view that there is no god. Objectivism says that existence cannot have a cause, reason not faith is man's only way to gain knowledge of existence, every man is an end in himself and not the servant of others (e.g., men, gods).

It is true that atheism is not a philosophy and therefore cannot by itself be a guide to life. But the fact remains that even if atheism is only a negetative view whereas the existence of a god is concerned; that an atheist may endeavor to debunk that claims of those who say god's existence is demonstrable without the use of faith. Since atheism is not a philosophy and man needs principles to live a rational life some have embraced Objectivism. Objectivism presupposes atheism and all it principles are godless. Again, atheism is at the very core of Objectivism and one does not go on a tangent when it is discussed.

[Weird Email About ARI]

Why does one even need to take classes from the so-called Ayn Rand Institute anyway? None of the instructors can speak for Ayn Rand. I see the whole exercise as silly. I read the works of Ayn Rand and other philosophers. It is a pretence to say that Ayn Rand's philosophy as she articulated it is comprehensive. So I see the classes from ARI and TOC as nothing more than the peddling of dogmatism (yes, I said dogmatism). I mean even a bible school teacher may not tolerate parroting (SO WHAT?).

Look at it this way: the instructor does not like parroting he simply wants you to come to a particular conclusion while incorporationg Objectivist principles. Come to a different conclusion than Ayn Rand and tell me what happens.

[Peikoff For Kerry?]

I think religion is quite simple to defeat, provided one has a rational morality to offer people in its place. We do.

What might a rational morality be? Religion is not predicated on reason and as such it cannot be affected by it. Where ever we find humans who think that emotions are most or all that matters then religion is here to stay. I would venture to say that that is the disposition of most human beings.

[Peikoff For Kerry?]

So we have to choose between the "mystics of spirit” (Republicans) and “mystics of muscle.” (Democrats) My view is that under the leadership of John Kerry there might not be an America that will survive to ever become a theocratic state. Further, it is very difficult to make America into a theocratic state because:

1) The constitution does not allow for it.

2) Not all Republicans would go for it.

3) Just the fighting over which brand of Christianity to be officially or implicitly endorsed would delay or prevent any such actualization.

4) America is more likely to become a socialistic state before a theocratic one. The journey has already begun: social security, (proposed) national health care, the FCC and other institutions and laws are paving the way for it.

5) The white majority will be (if everything goes as foreseen) a minority in some years to come. This means that the Democratic Party would have more supporters.

6) Many immigrants from Mexico and other parts of world are more inclined to favor socialistic state before a theocratic one. This is because with the changing demographics of the American society we will see more religious diversity and as such much sensitivity about protecting rights to freedom of religion.

Although I am not an American, if I had the chance I would vote for Bush.

[How does one identify "hunger"?]

Many years ago, coming off a 15 day fast, I thought I experienced something much like how Dr. S. describes true hunger. Did you ever see a dog foaming at the mouth with saliva while you are opening a can of dog food? I had a similar copious flow of saliva. I had no sensation in the stomach, no suffering, none of the negative things.

After-all the abuse the body essentially gives up on trying to convince you to make some macaroni and cheese. If you walk on rocks bare feet every day for a month the pain that you felt one the first day would not be present when the month expires. Of course, this is because of thickening of the skin in the affected areas of the body. The stomach acts differently after being deprive of food for extending periods of time.

[Mental Illnesses]

Have you read Thomas Szasz?

http://www.szasz.com/index.html

I personally do not give credence to anyone seriously (i.e., not metaphorically) claiming to be mentally ill.

Dr. Hurd isn't buying the crap either.

[Objections! Ayn Rand tackled (I think).]

Capelton

You have now called me a liar - and have done so IN PUBLIC. You are therefore PUBLICLY being given a warning for that ad hom attack - and your posting privileges are suspended for 48 hours.

As to your claim that I should KNOW your position, GET OVER YOURSELF. It is the truth that I remember NOT ONE of your posts. If they were anything like the one's you have made in this thread, it is no wonder.

If you wish to continue posting once the suspension has been removed, as I said before - get the chip OFF your shoulder.

--

"I stated that he used a straw man argument so the "I think" is to be understood as me essentially saying that I was of the view that her actual ideas may not have been tackled in any sense"

If you had actually READ my argument instead of apparently being blinded by your anger (or were you "blissfully unaware" of the meaning of my words), you would have realized I said my post was written BEFORE you AMENDED (ie CHANGED) your post to INCLUDE such comments like "straw man". In other words, my post was written BEFORE you ADDED such content - before you CHANGED its context. As such, your defense has NO bearing upon my post WHATSOEVER because it is OUTSIDE their CONTEXT. It is INVALID.

As to your 'tackled' "explanation" you say: "In the case of a football player he might attempt to tackle an opponent and in the end only "grab" wind."

Since you used the PAST tense - ie tacklED - that means the attempt WAS successful. All you have done with your argument is CHANGE the TENSE of the word to try to make your case. But that changes CONTEXT. And that is not the way to defend an argument. As such, the argument is FALSE.

Furthermore, since you claim NOT to be using tackled in the sense *I* defined it, but in the sense YOU defined it, your entire post simply diverts attention away from the fact that "I think" CANNOT be used as a PROPER modifier for YOUR definition. As I stated before, it is NOT rational. The only thing such a diversion does is allow you to respond as IF you have addressed the issue when in REALITY you have EVADED it. That TOO is NOT RATIONAL.

(The fact that you ARE using my definition to identify your word choice and usage suggests that definition was INDEED the one you meant all along, that you got caught using it incorrectly, and now simply do not want to admit it. You seek to 'save face' with a personal attack on me instead. I do not cotton to individuals who engage in mudslinging and ad homs - especially in place of simply admitting error - especially when the errors are simple ones themselves - and especially when those logical fallacies are aimed at me specifically. Nor does this forum allow such behavior. So do NOT engage in them again.)

I DISAGREE!

[Morality of tax fraud and welfare fraud]

"Cheating on taxes...]may be moral in certain contexts"

"Force and mind are opposites; morality ends where a gun begins." --Ayn Rand

Some theif steals government car recently.

Rightly imprisoned.

But, objectivist may be justified?

I would say that I have a right to dispose of my whole income as I see fit. This would mean that if I did not want the government to receive any of my earnings then it is might right to withhold the money (I am resisting the initiation of force). But then again it would be unwise to do so if one wants to live outside the prison cell. Whereas one stealing a government car is concerned it would not be morally right to do so (although one pays taxes). This is because one cannot objectively prove that one's expropriated money was used to buy the car in question (one could argue that this is a case of resisting the initiation of force but yet fail because of the subjective nature of the claim). Again, Objectivism does not endorse the subjectivism of taking the law into one's hands like that. It would be wrong for any human being to take the actions you alluded to.

[Morality of tax fraud and welfare fraud]

If my car gets stolen, and I find it parked outside a house, and the police will do nothing, am I not within my rights to steal it back?

"teal it back?" I was under the impression that the car belonged to you and as such stealing it back would impossible. One cannot steal one's own property. Of course, you could be trespassing if you walked unto someone's property without their consent to recover your car. Another thing is that Objectivism does not advocate one taking the laws into one's own hand (except in cases of present and clear danger) so the act of you repossessing the car without the help of law enforcement officers would be unwise. For instance, you would get no sympathy if you were shot while trying to recover your car. After all, you could have called the police and given them the address and other relevant information instead of assuming the hero role.