tadmjones

I saw an interesting show about capturing photo evidence of a phenomenon called sprite lightning, it seemed scientists were interested to know why it reached so high "up" or I suppose why it seemed to interact with regions so high in the troposphere.

Socio-forming as opposed to terra-forming? Little human centric, besides what if the socioforming works and the climate doesn't change, then what are you going to be left with?

I had never heard of Rand, just ran out of Dirk Pitt and was still in the mood to read and AS was on the bookshelf. When I finished , it was "holy shit!, who is this guy, and where can I get more?!"

frank we may finally have something in common I for one would love to see the Marxist debaters drop the dialectical materialism and hash 'it' out, here here and bravo

I only make the distinction political/economic when I think people see them as separate. By politics I mean interpersonal relationships , the activities between men. I use terms like trade to denote a moral transaction , not necessarily a monetary(or monetized) transaction. So politics would in some sense 'enable' economics, but economic activity is not really separable from 'just plain' human activity, unless you focus on the monetary issues and mean to describe only that aspect. A is A tends to get lost in most discussion when speaking of politics. One example often seen is when people refer to society an entity and ascribe actions to it, or attributes of it, dropping the context that that concept refers to a way of viewing a group of individuals and that only the individuals so viewed can act and have describable attributes.

I think the 'o'ist' solution to the 'world domination of capitalism' is to appeal to reason and show Russians and whomever else, that capitalism is the only political/economic system that recognizes and protects individual rights , rights belonging to all men by their nature.

I think you missed my point about A is A and poison. If the toxic level for me is 5mg , then well that's what it is , no matter what I think about that or even if I know it or not, 5mg will kill me. Yours may be 6mg, but the same applies.As to which "ism" or philosophy correctly describes reality( basically the goal of isms, yes?) only reality will answer.

In practical / general terms "A is A" as it relates to poison would mean, arsenic is a poison. At a certain level (each person's metabolism may vary, and it may even be that certain levels can be tolerated through some kind of built up immunity)but at the level of toxicity to an individual it will kill them. The properties of arsenic will not change, A is A, the specific level needed to cause death will not change, A is A. The level of toxicity can not be what it is, and at the same time 'be' what it is not.

DA I agree with what you have stated about property rights and how they relate to material value. I also envision IP in LFC to recognize the pianos in the example as being owned by F and W respectively. But I believe creation and manipulation of reality are more fundamental to ownership than the resultant things owned.

Property rights facilitate trade in society by being an objective reference to settle ownership disputes. The concept of ownership, being fundamental to the principles of property rights and their applications, reflects the need for man to act in order to survive, reality does not provide the things of survival 'free', man has to manipulate reality through creation and productiion in order to survive and thrive.

LOL,I'm not sure if NYC represents the best example of society functioning on reasonable application of property rights visa vis LFC, ie transfats, big gulps, handguns , ecigs, horses ect. Agan thank you for controlling the pace of the discussion and efforts to keep it on track and relatively tangent free. We have I think arrived at the idea that ownership and property refer to relationships between entities. People own things, it is morally right to 'see' this relationship and societies can make laws to reflect and protect that relationship. Is it now where/when we discuss what the abstraction 'property' can/should or can not/should not apply to ? Is it only applicable to physicality? I ask because I think the anti/pro IP debate hinges on the implementation of law as it applies to objects and not intrusions on the principle of ownership per se. By that I mean, the design of the widget I invent is my property and I want to protect that ownership, in the same way I want my ownership of my bicycle protected. But the protection of that ownership is obviously going to be dependent on the identity of the thing owned. Physically taking my bicycle is possible , but not permissible, adherence to principle by others is my first recourse to secure my rights and appealing to government for restitution my last.

Now that the fact of Franz's ownership has been demonstrated both legally and morally, we can assume that this relationship between Franz and the piano pertains not only to Wolfgang but to the society at large, yes? Wolfgang's and Franz's interactions as regards the piano are not separate from or operate under different legal or moral stictures than Franz's and anyone else in society, correct? Just trying to stay up to speed and not jump ahead.

If there are any intellectual components to sexual satisfaction , they are expressed in things like being desired by another and being responsible for another's pleasure, things a robot can not satisfy(if you know it's a robot).

skylabIt's not my thesis, this poster posited that as a thesis on a different site.

#162 harley "Part of this ethical refusal involves anecdotes of exception---my boils, my aunt's need of a transplant, etc...a bit more justifiable is indeed the question of moral hazzard as to how doctors might exploit government participation." In reality the refusal is based on , to paraphrase Thatcher, free hospitals are great but hard to build when you run out of other peoples' bricks "everyone else' in the world? is going on by pretending that socialism is practical(will work), so far America is still holding out on that , but I'm not holding my breath

Well you could start by describing what you mean by worldview, and perhaps your insights and opinions as to what you think mine is. I read the study you linked to in post #20 and I am not sure what to make of it, or your reference to it.

Assuming the IPCC and its activities and research are amoral and nonideologic, if the maths describe accurately the results of natural processes, what then? Other than a scientifically detailed understanding of the physics of the paleoclimate, whats all the hubub?

The only standard in a debate, that for it to be a rational debate, is that both sides recognize that the A cant' change based on either side's view. A stays the same, it is what it is independent of anything.

Actually last count , using' my dna' as the identifing characteristic, there's like 7.161 billion races

What I was implying was in answer to the morality of the signing and what that would say as to our nation's position on torture. The main implication being that human rights protection is a founding principle the Constitution adheres to and given the civilian control over the military ,signing a document that pledges to abstain from tortue would be little more than symbolic, no?Add to that the idea of argreeing to 'rules of war ' in the first place. Are you implying signing would obligate other nations to some standard of moral reciprocity where by they would not torture our POW's but only if we sign?

Not being familiar with the text of treaty , my first thought on the torture aspect is that the US has established civilian control over our military , and the Constitution prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, so signing an international treaty that agrees in that effect would be symbolic in nature. What does restraining a state's warmaking powers mean or look like? And other than a threat of war how is it enforced ? It would certainly be moral for the government of US to sign agreements with other sovereign nations that are founded on like principles of individual rights protection, but signing agreements for the sake of not being accused of not signing them isn't a principled stand worth a moral judgement.

2046 said #43 Tad: Conservative thinkers tend to emphasize tradition, conforming to cultural norms, bourgeois morality, and social hierarchy. Liberal thinkers tend to emphasize diversity and independence. Of course there is plenty of crossover, Rand has both left and right strains in her writings. Ok, thanks for the clarification. I was confused because I use the terms right and left when describing a political spectrum to mean individualism on the 'right' and collectivism on the 'left'.

2046 What did you mean that individualism is a leftist value?

We could try and eradicate termites to buy some time ,too, no?

frank This thread seems the perfect opportunity to discuss the thesis that Rand was making it all up as a marketing ploy, that her philosophic foundations were rooted in Russian rationalism and that her fiction and subsequent nonfiction was basically bs and she only published it in the hopes of it being sold to a gullible public.