plaintext

I agree. If the parents and child agree then the case would never be in court. Did someone contend otherwise?

Same thought occured to me. I think being on page 2 is one reason. Best place is at the top of page 1. Would help if those two changed their aliases to, say, "Vixen" and "CutiePie" . Just kidding.

This is similar to what Ayn Rand says in "The Art of Fiction".

It is true that people mature at different times. As I understand it, the law allows a judge to pronounce a "child" between 14 and 18 as being a legal adult.

I never studied imaginary numbers. I have a question about negative numbers. Are they "real"? A negative number is a positive number that I am looking at upside down. I mean, like height and depth. A depth of 1 unit is a height of -1 units.

Many members are young if I believe the poll on the site. Can this site be advertised to colleges? Do all the Objectivist campus clubs know about this site? Can they help promote it.

Objectivism rejects this line of reasoning. Economics might tell you that capitalism is "better" because it produces more, etc.. Objectivism does not take this tack. To Objectivism, the only justification of capitalism is that it is the morally right system. That is what makes it correct. To argue that it is not correct, you have to take a step back and argue with Objectivism's Ethics.

Interesting. If a child is a minor AND has not been legally emancipated, what control should the parent have over what the child does?

One needs to establish context first: is the girl legally competent to make decisions?

I see that this thread was re-opened. FaSheezy and I had continued the discussion elsewhere. To provide continuity, I will post FaSheezy's final post from our parallel discussion and also my final response. int find_jan_first (int year) { int firstDayInJan; firstDayInJan = ((5 + (year - MIN_YEAR) + count_leap_years(year)) % DAYS_PER_WEEK); return (firstDayInJan); }[/code] [code]int count_leap_years (int year) /*<--- I dont understand why that is there*/ { int leapYears; int hundreds; int fourHundreds; leapYears = (year - (MIN_YEAR - 1)) / 4; hundreds = (year - 1501) / 100; leapYears - = hundreds; fourHundreds = (year - 1201) / 400; leapYears += fourHundreds; return (leapYears); } To which, I replied: Yup. Declare those three. One is a function. The other two can be declared globally. They are CONSTANTS (convention is to use CAPS) that are unchanging and are used in various functions. Treat the two functions she has given you as "blackboxes". They work, and you can use them, but you do not need to understand the internals for the purpose of this exercise. You can call the first to get the starting day for the year. Then print Jan. With that done, you now know the last day of Jan and thereofre the first day of Feb. So, print Feb. And so on. The only complication is whether to print 28 or 29 days in Feb. I suppose you can write a little function that can have a passed in and can tell whether it is a leap year or not.

Excellent! A repeated (and possibly "infinite") if-else is exactly what you need. To do that, you need a "loop". do {

"I've read it too. Its the one where the Scandanavian is stopping ships, the Argentinian is stopping clocks, and the American is stopping motors."

Dominque, Unfortunately, I think the discussion about elitism has been obscured, rather than illustrated, by the issue of Eddie's non-invitation to the valley. If this is still an issue in your mind, I'd suggest stepping back and making the question a little more abstract. Are you asking: - Is Eddie just as moral as Dagny? - Is Eddie just as competent as Dagny? - Is Eddie just as "indispensible" as Dagny? - Something else? Your posts seem to indicate you think Dagny and Eddie as equally important parts of "the motor". Is this true?

Yes, Dagny would have slept with Rearden if the world considered him ugly. Unless he was disfigured in some way, I doubt she would have considered him ugly. Often, character shines through.

This other thread, started by Dominique, might show you where she's coming from.

If you were in her position, what would you want the husband to do.

Was that humor? or serious? How would Roark and Rearden score on this quiz?

Andrew, Does this persson think that values are subjective but other observations are objective? Is this the type of person who doubts whether the chair they sit in exists? If no, then you're already halfway home. If yes, you've got serious problems. Other than what has been mentioned above, one way to tackle this is to play devils advocate and ask "how do you know that picture exists"? You take them in steps from the validation of their senses to the validity of reason. Thence, to the validity of reasoned morality.

Wow Dufresne, Sounds like you need to change employers! In the context of Howard Roark, though, this was not an issue. The goal -- low cost housing -- was an objective one. One can complain about govt. financing etc., but solely as an exercise for an architect, building low-cost housing was a cool task.

Would you prefer to do work that you enjoy? If yes.... the enjoyment of work is a value, just like the things you get from money. If no.... is it because you think it is not possible to enjoy any type of work? Or, do you think you would not be able to get enough money doing work you enjoy?

How could a building be great if it did not serve its purpose?

While I agree with the main thrust of your post, I'd like to add that medication and such may be a good short term way to deal with the symptoms while one tackles the cause.

You're probably right Hal: attitude has a big role to play.

This news story shows where free speech is going in the US.

A related thread