RosszValaki

Honestly if it were merely one person asking me to change something I would have probably did it or ignored them but I wouldn't have complained about it. I am yowling about the 20 different and contradictory requests to change my font. Just when I get it black enough and big enough and bold enough a moderator tells me I HAVE to change it to something the moderator said is more readable and then the moderator proceeded to modify my posts to the way the moderator saw fit. Surly you can see how this might tend to tick someone off? I want my posts to be readable as my point in posting them is for them to communicate some idea. Otherwise I would just keep a frigin journal.

Now that I read my last post I realize that I will be argued with for wanting the Jell-O green instead of red. Maybe someone would like to let me know what temperature and consistency they want? And do you prefer floggers or the traditional paddle?

Hazing? Cant you all just dip me in green Jell-O and spank me? That would get it over with a little faster.

This is the most persnickety group of people I ever met. "Your text s too Green." "Your text is too Small to see" "Your text is too Light" "Your text is too Bold." "Your avatar is too Gory" "I cant Read your avatar" "Change your Avatar" "Change your Name its too Hungarian!" Now its to bold for the moderators and they change it! How about I just submit my posts as a private message and a moderator posts them to what ever the hell the boards standards are as I cant figure the out.

So is it illegal to Disrespect the Koran now? I am going to jail. LOL [Again, to remove bolding.]

(I was going to make my own thread but Ill just go with yours) Newsweek Started a fire storm with the story that US Interrogators desecrated the Koran at Guantanamo Bay. 16 were killed in protests in Afghanistan with 100's injured. And of course Muslim clerics threaten holy war against the United States. It turns out that Newsweek got it wrong and they apologize. So? Lets put aside the obvious reaction of why is American News so anti-American. The reaction in the Middle east is brutal. Islomo-fascist savages running in the streets killing one another is somehow an attempt to make me ashamed of my Country? Its little to me if some GI flushed a copy of that blood dipped refuse. Their reaction only proves they are insane, not that America did anything wrong. [Edited to remove bolding in entire post.]

I was wondering about this. "all states are the inevitable result of initial conditions," It seems like this statement is simply saying that all things are caused. I think that this is correct but it doesn't describe "Will" or "decision making" at all. For instance to say that all knowledge is hierarchal is not to say it is inevitable. In the determinist view I think "Initial conditions" mean "First Prerequisites." As in a prime thing necessary to a specific end. To say that we are determined would be to say that at some point there is a First Prerequisite that was written into our mind at birth that is controlling all our "states" or decision in this case. Am I making sense here?

I was going to ask you to do just that. Thank you.

My Answers. i) Take Out: 2-Chinese ii) Music: 1-Elvis iii) Cars: 2-Chevy iv) Pets: 2-Dog v) Sleep pattern: 2-Night Person

For this to work you have to pick one. Of the two choices pick the one that you like or think describes you the best. i) Take Out: 1-Pizza 2-Chinese ii) Music: 1-Elvis 2-The Beatles iii) Cars: 1-Ford 2-Chevy iv) Pets: 1-Cat 2-Dog v) Sleep pattern: 1-Day Person 2-Night Person

Nice thread. It reminds me of a line from The Fountainhead. Is that on purpose?

This is a typical question from a Christian point of view. It starts with the fallacy that ethics are mandated by God instead of required by our nature as human beings. In that scenario no real ethics are possible. All right and wrong is defined by the arbitrary will of God. As there is no God this means that who ever can define what the will of that imaginary construct is can have the power to dictate right and wrong according to their own whims. In their point of view without God anything goes. No morality is necessary without the threat of punishment from an all knowing overseer. Let him know that the only all watching overseer in his affairs is his own conscience. Ask him this for me: If you were sure it was Gods will would you commit genocide? Would you murder other people for their property? It's no great stretch to ask that because just that kind of thing is in the Old Testament.

If you take phenomenon as meaning "an observable fact or event" Consciousness could better be termed in relation to physical phenomenon. For instance a signal is a physical phenomenon but the data, all the ones and zeros, is an abstract signal communicating information between two or more receivers. In other words Consciousness is a pattern of energy and that energy is the physical phenomenon and the data being relayed between synapses is a free standing wave type of signal. A pattern or a process is something that happens to Physical things but it is not a physical thing itself.

Its Hungarian for "The Evil One." Its a name I picked up arguing with Christians. "Oh no the Evil One is going to post!" Its not meant to be self abasing more along the line of a term of endearment. Ominous isn't it.

Did you know this was writen by Andrew Niccol? The writer of: The Truman Show S1m0ne The Terminal Upcomming is, Lord Of War and Paani This is one of the best writers in Hollywood.

More knowledge. Yes, it was metaphorical. In reality I have been thinking about going to College and studying Philosophy. As an adult my academic drive is the highest it has ever been. Its like a painful hunger at the moment. The Moment I first picked up AS I was in love with Rand. I went through all her books in less than a year and started rereading them. I don't know about you but the central purpose in my life is my own happiness. A life of quiet academic study might not look all that interesting or sexy to some but it sounds like a dream job to me.

This is a movie I really like despite the death of the "hero" at the end. Its a story of a man that rediscovers his bliss and decides to junk his whole life and start over. He was mediocre at his job because he felt nothing for it. He figured that our a little to late. He took that job as a rebound from failing at an endeavor that he really loved. The restaurant they owned that he bought with money his Mother lent him. After that he was a defeated man. The man was trapped. Trapped in a dead end job. Trapped in a loveless marriage. Trapped in the role of an ineffectual Father. At some point he realized that he wanted a do over. He wanted to go back to High School and make some different choices. His lust for that teenage twit was a lust for the value he had lost. In the end he knew he couldn't get that back and realized that he was about to do something horrible. I think the way he stepped back from that girl and re-imposed on himself the hated role of an adult was heroic in a sense. At some point, just before the writer makes the error of equating mindless death with poignance, he starts to look forward to the rest of his life.

This thread made my brain bleed. I thought an Axiomatic concept was an irreducible primary that couldn't be argued against without some reference to it agreeing with its fundamental premise. And, In the "Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy" A Priori is defined as; "A proposition is knowable a priori if it is knowable independently of experience." I cant think of a thing I know independently of experience. Whether its knowing that particular proposition without experiencing it or knowing ANY proposition with no experience of anything.

I've never hear it put like, "philosophy for Rearden" or "philosophy for Ragnar" before but I get it. My CPL would be to "dive as deep into the pool as it goes and scrape the botton looking for more." So I think that would be "philosophy for Ragnar."

Maybe I can get rid of the "Self-mutilating pity monger" tone if I depersonalize the question and make it more general. You have made a mistake in your past that your sense of justice compels you to make amends for but there is no way to properly do so. In the context of this question the "proper method" is to contact a person that you have wronged but doing so is impossible. In the context of my amended context "wronged" means "to knowingly speak falsely."

[LOL. Love the verbiage. Its more like exfoliation than self flagellation but I see some truth in what your saying. Someone once told me that you have to spend as much time getting Christianity out of your system as you did putting it in. I have seven years of philosophical detoxing out of twenty years of infection. I guess I still come across as wearing a hair shirt and a mortification "Cilice" belt. BTW: I like green. "#336600" Thought I might mention it.

Has anyone read Harry Binswanger's "The Biological Basis of Teleological Concepts"? Could you tell me a little about it?

"Existence is prier to Consciousness" Is what really showed me that Creationism could never be logical. If you have a Universe that is created by consciousness then at some point you have that single prime consciousness with nothing existing to be conscious of. That just doesn't compute. LOL

I wonder at what point I became an irreparable monster in the shape of a pot. LOL The damage I and others have done to me are something with which I must live. As to how extensive it is I don't yet know. Its been 7 years now studying Objectivism and I feel like a personal renaissance took place. I read Galts speech out loud and all at once. The whole novel was at the same time soothing and irritating. Now I wonder how I could ever have thought the way I did then. In the end I know what people believe is their own responsibility. I just wish I could get hold of them and tell them I was and idiot back then and would you please disregard everything I told you.

There is an abundance of people that need to make sure you understand where they're coming from. When you try to point out a fallacy or introduce something that is in opposition to what they already know the first response is to say You don't understand what They are talking about. It immediately puts you at odds with the person to which you are talking. Try to find the common ground you both stand on first, expand on that. This at least makes it posable that they MIGHT hear you out when a philosophical divergent occurs. Otherwise you will be seen as an attacker and the first response will be to defined themselves.