EC

I've always thought an agressive television and radio advertising campaign might do the trick, similar to the church of latter day saints or something, but with much cooler and slicker advertising (not to meantion the truth in our case). Imagine it though, a philosophy advertised on television, now that would be capitalism in action.

I thought the movie made very little sense, they just did things without reason. I will say the heroine was a hotty though.

I will say this though while I'm glad multiple quotes still seem to be allowed, I understand the reasoning behind what Felipe did. When many quotes are needed to respond to someone it usually implies that the premise that led to all the wrong thinking need to be addressed more than a long winded post. This is why you will rarely see me do multiple quotes, but instead I try and attack the weak starting premise. See my debates with GWDS for an example.

Felipe, no personal insult was intended. I think I said I agree people shouldn't just say they agree without stating their reasons for agreement or disagreement. What I meant is that would be absurd if that was what was disallowed. Not the simple declaritive statemnt, "I agree", or "I disagree" that I would hope that you mean.

Yeah, but why should we respond to them? What I mean is instead of analyzing and responding to others nonsense, simply ignore it, and write your own Op-Ed that promotes your values without acknowledging false ideas. When you analyze and respond to them even in critizism you are implicitly sanctioning their very existence. And yes I did over-exaturate(sp?) when I said everyone was switching of course. What I mean is the nation in general is moving away from the left and ignoring it at a ever increasing pace. Our job as the new intellectuals is to fill in the resulting vacuum with correct ideas.

I agree. When a previous poster says, "Do you agree with idea X?" it is entirely proper to offer an answer. It would be the only way the conversation could continue and make sense to and outside observer. So while I understand the need to crack down on certain people, the free-flowing nature of this forum should not be eliminated, because the quicker pace in responses here allows for more of a discussion than at THE FORUM. While I follow rules that make rational sense I won't follow a rule that results in absurdity like the one being stated. Also what's wrong with linking to THE FORUM if a better answer is offered there, they are not really "competition", essentially the same people are here and there, but here conversations can flow better and there you can get more detailed answers. These to forums should work together unofficially in tandem to create more understanding of Objectivism. It's a common goal and there's not really any money involved here any ways so I don't see why the supposed "competion" between the two would be seen as a bad thing. Or why any Objectivist see any "competition" in a negative light. I don't know I guess I just see the two forums as being artificially divided. Think of it this way, is it wrong to link to a dictionary site to help define a concept? The answer is no. Therefore for the same reason it is NOT wrong to link to the "competition" for the same reason.

What's the point of analyzing and responding to nonsense. Nobody takes this stuff serious anymore. Way more people will watch Fox News than will read a stupid leftist newspaper. This isn't back years ago when Miss Rand was writing and people in general would read articles like that and her responses were appropriate. In this day and age virtually anyone who would read an article like that would simply think that the guy who wrote is an idiot (which he is), decide to not read the NYT (which I don't) and flip on Fox News (which is what is happening) to get an unbiased report. Ignore it in other words, never give pure nonsense the unneeded honor of a response.

What about wasting board space telling others not to waste board space, can't that be done via PM also?

Nonsense. You can be absolutely certain that only capitalism and all ideas leading from it are the only correct ones in politics with no uncertainty whatsoever.

The whole concept of "international rights" is invalid, punk. And it is absolutely false that all nations are all equal or all have some right to exist. There is a hierarchy among nations such that the objectively better nations are the ones that more properly respect individual rights. And a nation higher up in that hierarchy can properly dictate policy or eliminate the illegitiment government of nations lower in the hierarchy of freedom whenever it deems it to be in its self-interest.

The UK and Norway are just as socialist and evil as France so I see no reason why shouldn't be able to dictate policy in our interest to them also. Japan is somewhat of a different issue, they are bit hard to define. But clearly the U.s. is a free-er and objectively better country than Japan also, so we should also be able to morally dictate policy to them if it's in our interest. In other words, no nation is completely soverien, unless it is completely free and rational. A pure Objectivist society would be able to morally dictate policy to the present American incarnation to be consistent.

I find it deeply disturbing that a person would frequent an Objectivist forum and not understand why it is objectively proper to destroy ones enemies, even if that destruction is taken to its logical extention of killing every man, women, and child in that nation, "innocent" or not.

The proof of his claim is your negative irrational attitude versus his benvolent rational approach. And I am an independent objective observer to you both. Why are you at this forum Styles? Why don't you leave?

A better question is why wouldn't America have this right?

I'm beginning to believe him and GWDS are intimate friends.

I'm obviously not an expert on epistemology, but I think this is wrong; the concept is pregnant not "pregnant women" which is a phrase.

Ahhhhhhh....I give up. Did you actually read (and absorb what you read) those threads or just skim them. And the thread I linked to does completely answer what you asked and in an earlier post here I listed a proper definition. I think you just need to read ItOE a few more times maybe?

We should all bid on it till it gets into the millions of dollars just to mess with her. And then eventually tell her that our bids represent how much we appreciate her work of "art in the same way as her work of "art" in any way represesnts John Galt. Now that would be funny.

I can guarantee Alex's ideas are a million times more rational than yours, and the reason you choose not to deal with them is because it seems you must not have the mental capacity too. It seems you have no answer to reason and observable facts of existence with out ignoring valid arguments and resorting to arbitrary and absurd conclusions. What I presented to you is the Objectivist position. Are you interested in Objectivism or in trying to convince Objectivists of the existence of a non-exixtent entity via irrational arguments? If so any Objectivist that accepts your nonsense should never have claimed to be an Objectivist to begin with.

Quantity of anything. Quantity as an abstract concept. Of course the quantity has to be within the universe. But the concept cannot apply to the universe itself. Whenever we speak of a quantity there has to be bounds involved,i.e, between here and there, or from point x in time to point z in time, etc. But the universe itself is unbounded so the concept of quantity and therefore the of a concept a number to represent that quantity cannot exist for the univere itself. You can keep going and going with out coming to the "end", a bound, for the universe. There is no bound. The universe is boundless is both space and time. Therefore without any bounds quantity or therefore any number (especially infinity) cannot be applied to the universe as a whole. Time and space are relational concepts between existent within the universe, and cannot therefore not apply to the universe itself, just its constituents. The universe is not "in time", its eternal. And it's not "in space", it's boundless. And the universe has no size, it's "asizal". With apologies to Alex and Dr. Binswanger if I haven't explained their respective ideas with 100% accuracy.

It applies to quantity. Read Alex's essay that I previously linked to, he can explain it better than I can, and it clears up all this mess that's written in this thread. Warning, it is very abstract, and it may take reading it a few times to completely understand, but trust me it is worth it.

AdAq, previously I pointed out an essay that would answer your problem with the universe being both finite and eternal at the same time (no infinities!). You have obviously chosen to ignore it. The concept of number doesn't apply to the universe. To do so would steal the concept of quantity. To have a number you must have a quantity, but to have a quantity you must have bounds. The universe is unbounded though so "infinity" or any other concept of number cannot apply to it. Therefore the universe is both finite and unbounded, not infinite. The universe is defined as all that exists. There is NOTHING else. This is not a hard concept here. There is no "existing non-existence" where any god can hide. You call the concept of infinity absurd, which it is, and then proceed to define your "god" as infinite. You don't see the absurdity in that nonsense? The universe has always existed, and will always exist. The universe is eternal. The universe is finite, and unbounded without implying an absurd infinity. The universe is uncaused. The universe, simply put, is, because it is all that exists, and existence exists, and it is all that has ever and will ever exist. Period. There's nothing to logically argue about here without drawing on the arbitrary as your first premise.

There is none like I stated in my previous post here.

I think I understand now Sarah, you thought that I and others were implying that some people have more "power" or higher rank in an rational society because they are naturally gifted? No, no, no. I can't speak for anybody else here, but that's not at all what I meant, that would almost me "Nazi-ish" or something like that. I do mean ambition and drive, a man can have all the brains and "natural talent" in the world but he still has to *choose* to do something with it, he has to choose production, virtue, and morality it's not intrinsic. He has to choose to become an "elite", it's not his "destiny" because of random attributes at birth. It's also why I like you, because I have noticed those attributes in the way you present yourself to the world.

Eddie-- you seem to be very confused on how concept formation works check out http://forums.4aynrandfans.com/index.php?s...st=0entry3179 @ the "other" forum. Maybe it will help solve your confusion problem.