Groovenstein

Hmm. D.O., you do present some good points, and I think I need to stew on them for a bit before I can get any further. Also, please understand that the scenarios I envision are on the exceptional side of life. I hope you know that I am not at all suggesting that one should make a regular practice of dishonesty.

Olex, would I spell that "Опэра Бэдняка"? Thanks! (I hope that's how. Otherwise I'll be disappointed that I've lost what I learned of the Russian alphabet. )

What do you mean "feel like a king"? What feeling?

I suggested a starting point in an earlier post. Consider the question "in light of the situation and the parties' relationship." Perhaps we can work to putting some more meat on this very basic principle, if you accept the principle. First, though, do you think there is such a thing as an inappropriate question? If so, then do you think my very general principle is an accurate starting point for determining appropriateness? As an example, your wife has every right to ask you if you're having an affair. Your waiter probably doesn't. They might subjectively have some level of relationship in mind, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's objectively reasonable. Say your waiter is into S&M and has absolutely dreadful manners. You're lunching with a business acquaintance and the waiter decides it's a good idea to ask you in front of God and everyone if you're into S&M and you want to join his little party. Your acquaintance might interpret a "none of your business" to the waiter as a yes, and all of a sudden it's the hot topic at the office that you wear leather in your spare time. So here, I don't see how the question is to any extent the waiter's business. I also see that your acquaintance might draw an inference you don't want him to. Am I missing something? I understand these scenarios are tough to fathom, because they involve idiots who totally lack decorum. But sadly, sometimes one must protect oneself from idiots. You say "frequently" rather than "always." Can you refresh my memory about some such situations where they chose to lie? Also, I'm interested to hear situations where they refused to answer. If you disagree with me here, that's okay, we'll disagree. I'm just not comfortable saying that you should have to reveal information you don't want to reveal because someone exceeded the scope of his relationship with you. And I think sometimes refusing to answer is not a practical option, when refusing to answer is actually answering.

You'd be well served to avoid this kind of talk. It's simply ridiculous. There are, no doubt, icky strippers. But by and large, they do very well taking care of their bodies. If you're going to be up close and personal with a customer, you're going to do better financially if you are clean. To everyone: If you have not been to a strip club, or you don't know any strippers, you're better off informing yourself before you conclude anything. I have been to several clubs myself, I have friends who have been to several, and I am friends with some strippers. For the most part, they are not these big whorish make-out parties that many people seem to think they are. Most of the girls don't do crazy freaky sex stuff with anybody and everybody. Most of them are no more or less horny than the general population. If you think that strip club = brothel, and/or that stripper = whore, you are very much mistaken. If you want to say that stripper is a bad life decision, you can make the argument. If you want to say that strip clubs are bad, go ahead and make the argument. I'm interested. But before you make the argument, get the facts straight. You will make yourself look silly with wholly uninformed assumptions.

I think the fact that it's none of his business is essential here. Maybe sexual orientation is a bit of a distant subject, but I can easily think of others that might not be. What if he asks if you're impotent? About your genitals? About your preferred sexual positions? The point is that he has no business asking the question, and thus, when declining to answer is insufficient, he has no reasonable expectation of an honest answer.

Because the issue has been raised here, I will address the issue of strip clubs for those not in relationships. For those not in relationships, I see nothing wrong with going to strip clubs per se. For those of you who have never been, I will share with you my experiences. I have been to a few different strip clubs in Nebraska, one in Kansas City, and one in Montreal. Every one has been largely the same. There are a bunch of tables. People sit around and watch the dancers on stage. The dancers walk around and talk to customers and ask if they want private dances. The private dances vary. In the U.S. clubs I've been to, dancers may contact the customers (except for genitals), but customers are emphatically NOT permitted to touch the dancers. In the Montreal club I went to, customers could touch anything but the pubic area. I got a private dance on my first couple strip club ventures, but have not since then. They don't do anything for me. I do not go into strip clubs at all to become aroused. There's nothing arousing to me about a total stranger dancing for money. I just go to look at naked girls, like real, live sculptures. I was shocked in Montreal to learn of the level of contact permitted. I will pay to watch a girl dance, but I will not pay to touch her. The point of touching is to display affection, and hiring someone to give affection to is just silly.

I'll get it started. "Snooping" means asking a personal question that is inappropriate in light of the situation and the parties' relationship. I include "in light of the situation" because a situation might arise between total strangers where an otherwise inappropriate personal question becomes appropriate. Example: A person sees a stranger collapse on the street next to the stranger's wife. The stranger's wife asks the person to administer life-saving treatment. The person says he will do so, but first asks if the stranger has any medical conditions that might interfere with the treatment. This type of question between strangers is usually inappropriate, but here it is okay because it is relevant to the life-saving treatment. I think someone holding or running for public office opens himself up for inquiry into anything reasonably related to the office he holds or for which he is running. For example, it is important to know whether a judicial candidate (a would-be law applier) has shown respect for the law he is going to be entrusted to apply. Thus, I think inquiry into his criminal record by news media, legislative committees, et al. is appropriate, and the candidate should answer honestly. An inquiry into a criminal record that would not be appropriate could be if a stranger in a bar comes up and asks you if you have a criminal record. Then you can lie.

Just to double-check, "Fattigmans" is all one word like that? Wait, you know Norwegian? What's Saami? What alphabet do they use? Thanks D.O. Don't get frostbite.

An issue arises in many snooping questions because declining to answer might be interpreted as an affirmative response. For example, let's say you are a closet homosexual. You have a coworker with whom your relationship is strictly business. That person asks if you are a homosexual (let's assume she asks out of innocent curiosity and not malice). This is clearly an inappropriate question. Problem is, if you politely decline to answer, that might be interpreted as an admission. If you weren't homosexual, wouldn't you just say no? After all, people generally don't hide their straight orientation. So in this case, where (1) the question is inappropriate, and (2) declining to answer might be interpreted as an answer one way or the other, you are well within your province to lie. If either or those criteria are not true, then I think lying is wrong, and you should either answer or decline to answer, depending on the context. A situation where the question is inappropriate, but declining to answer would not be interpreted as an answer, could be where a stranger asks how much money you make. Saying "none of your business" does not suggest an answer. You could be broke or wealthy and answer the question that way. So you should not lie. A situation where declining to answer could be interpreted as an answer, but the question is appropriate, could be as follows. Say you are applying for a job as a security person at a bank, and the interviewer asks if you have any convictions for crimes involving dishonesty (e.g. fraud). If you decline to answer, that could be interpreted as a yes. But the question is clearly appropriate, as it is reasonably related to a legitimate concern of the employer (who is considering you for a position requiring a great degree of trust). Therefore, it is wrong of you to lie.

Thanks for the love, people! I hope there are more coming. I know for sure there are people here who know Dutch (ahem, Maarten ), German, Hungarian, and Ukranian. Hopefully we can get some Italian love, too. And some sort of Scandinavian!

Are you not a fan of the aesthetics of the Dutch language? Don't like the way it rolls off the tongue? Just imagine there was a band in the Netherlands called ____, and your American friend asks you what the band name means in English, and you answer "Poor Man's Opera". That _____ is what we're looking for. A literal translation, meaning how you would say it in your own language. It's not my fault if your language has aesthetic deficiencies. The people to whom you need to complain about that are long gone.

Many of you are familiar with my band, Poor Man's Opera. We are designing some t-shirts. Part of the design may include the band name translated into various languages. (It will likely be an Armani-style t-shirt). We need help translating the band name into various languages. In my experience, online translators are incredibly unreliable, so we're asking you (our oh-so-diverse Objectivist community!) for help if you're fluent. You won't get paid, but it will also take only about four seconds of your time. So, translate "Poor Man's Opera" into any language with a Roman-based alphabet, and post the translation here. We would like Cyrillic-based alphabet translations as well. I imagine you would have to post that as an image. Thanks for your help, folks!

These two statements come across as highly demeaning. The first adds little of substance, leaving me with only the implication that the issue raised was stupid (which it was not). The second is just plain silly. You make a sweeping generalization about 22-year-olds, and your "argument" consists of a song reference. I started law school at 21. Was I too young for that? Some might say it's harder than their relationships.

In my experience, you're right. I've sold our CDs to a chunk of people I know who say they have no problem downloading from the big bad major labels, but they don't mind paying us because we're "independent" and "small," and because our CDs "aren't too expensive." The one that really amuses me is when they say that the major labels put out so much crap. They chastise the companies that want $20 for a CD with one or two good songs on it. Yeah, um, no. First of all, if it's such crap, why do you see the need to steal it? Second of all, if you only like one or two songs, why are you buying the CD for $20 instead of buying those one or two songs for $1 or $2? Oh, the lame rationalizations.

You are right. Buying the CD gives you a possessory interest in the CD itself, and that's it. (Reselling the CD would be a violation of the copyright owner's right of distribution were it not for the first sale doctrine.) The DJ who takes existing tracks and rearranges them has violated the copyright owner's 106(2) right to create derivative works, defined in 101 as follows:

Remember, though, that just because a business goes under doesn't mean that its assets vanish. They'll go to creditors, partners, or someone else. Perhaps by now the artist exercised his statutory right to terminate the transfer, perhaps not. Unless it's public domain (not likely), someone owns it. If you want to find out who, start by seeing if it's registered with the Copyright Office, and then follow your nose.

It's not different, ethically, in any material way. It's different for the RIAA because illegal downloading is on an exponentially larger scale than copying off the radio ever was, and because they can see how much downloading is taking place. If they could track people taping the radio, they might care, but I doubt much. I just don't see it being big enough to be worth their time. What exactly are you suggesting this is relevant to? In other words, where exactly do you think the quality (or supposed lack thereof) of the music played on the radio fits into the moral equation?

We now have a page up on MySpace at www.myspace.com/poormansoperamusic. Our site at www.poormansopera.com has clips of all the songs as you know, and the MySpace page has full versions of two of them. Feel free to ask us to add you as a friend also!

One thing I find helpful about discussion is that it sometimes results in discovering an issue more fundamental than the one confronted. You might have done so here, and if so, that is fantastic. This statement of yours suggests that your emotions might not match up with your rational conclusions. Other statements of yours suggest you might have issues with arbitrary assertions and with the means of acquiring knowledge. I think it could help you to put aside the issue of astrology and consider whether you have issues with any of these things I have suggested. If so, then you should consider resolving those more fundamental issues before resolving the astrology issue. There are other threads on this forum discussing these more fundamental issues. I suggest you read them and participate in them if you have questions. And, of course, if you have questions about something specific to Objectivism, the best source is Ayn Rand's own writings.

A good way to start is to tell us, in as much detail as you can, what things you have observed and what conclusions you have drawn from those observations. This is a better explanation for what I meant when I said "lay out your theory." This is important because you said: " My point is this: Many of the everyday, easily available incarnations which these things are found in are incorrectly done, and therefore do not count as viable evidence against their true forms." If you would like people's thoughts on this, then it would help tremendously to tell them what you think these "true forms" are. If this suggestion makes sense to you, I hope you will follow it so the discussion can progress. If it does not make sense to you, I invite you to ask for clarification.

If you think these things work, why did you ask in your first post that we consider the possibility that they could be proven to work (which assumes that they have not been so proven)? How about your thoughts? It's rather silly to post something you know, or should know, is not going to be well received, without anything to back it, and then ask us to disprove it. Perhaps you would be interested in disproving that a gmnhet is not inversely proportional to a blaheysn? Not without knowing what they were, right? So, lay out your theory. If it is contrary to Objectivism, then place it in the debate forum in accordance with the forum rules. Finally, I am curious, what is your purpose for this exercise? Why is this question important to you? Are there other questions you have of greater importance? Why not answer those first? Finally (really this time, I promise ), welcome to the forum.

No, it isn't, even if you're implying that all crimes be strict liability, i.e. without intent requirements. Involuntary intoxication is a form of insanity. If you slip a crazy powder into my drink, and I start shooting at cars because I think they're vampires trying to exterminate the human race, are you really going to hold me responsible for murder? If you would say yes, i.e. that people who are involuntarily intoxicated are responsible for their actions, I wonder if you would also say that a girl who had been slipped a roofie could "consent" to sex. If you think this is different, why so?

Results are generally released in November. No laptop version was offered. The index finger on my right hand still hurts. My handwriting is messy at it is, so by about the sixth question half the struggle was just writing something remotely legible. Thanks for the good wishes. I'll let you all know in November. Hopefully the news will be good. Interestingly, the MA bar people let us keep the questions for the essay part of the test. So if you really want to know what was on there, feel free to ask. If you are just curious what the questions look like in general, this page has all the questions from the past several years.

Sadly, I did not get 200 questions on common law burglary. I feel as though it went okay. Not great, just okay. But one thing I've learned from law school exams is that when you're in a pressure cooker test, it's extremely tough to tell how well you actually did. I've gone out of law school tests feeling horrible and ending up with excellent grades, and vice versa. So I'm adopting a "Who the hell knows?" approach with this one. As I said earlier, it's out of my hands (and out of my head until November). Day two, the essay day, is tomorrow. I'm not looking forward to handwriting for two blocks of three hours.