The Guru Kid

I personally follow this rule: If you sprinkle while you tinkle, please be neat and wipe the seat.

Isn't it pretty hard to build a dam on the sea? I imagine a dam to protect say NYC would take millions of dollars and would still be pretty unsafe. This is the only point that troubles me and makes me worry about Global warming.

One of the troubles of securing borders from terrorists from Iran is that it is extremely difficult to point that back towards the Iranian government. India has been trying to do that for years against Pakistani sponsored terrorists in Kashmir and the rest of the country.

I'm still watching it but so far it looks pretty good. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4...freedom+fascism

Forbes My whole family is on a visa in the United States so i am not a big fan of the law. What do you guys think?

I understand that the spending needs to be cut before taxes but in terms of achieving political goals, it is easier to tell people, "Hey, the government is taking *your* money and because you want taxes to be cut, spendings should be cut". The other way is to say that spendings such as Social Security, Welfare, Medicare, NASA and others is immoral. Most of us basically agree on things except for the point that i think nobody hates spendings. But we can show people that they hate taxes.

I'm still not sure what you mean by an intellectual revolution. Do you mean everyone should be familiar with and follow Objectivism or start thinking rationally on their own and come to the same political goals as Objectivists without necessarily agreeing with the acutal philosophy. Moreover, i don't think it needs to be a revolution--which implies a sudden change in thinking--but that an evolution would be okay too.

So you do support flattening the tax instead of eliminating tax from the bottom up or some other option. Somehow i feel that wouldn't go well in the current political environment. Heck! they (liberals) complain about legitimate tax returns by saying they favor the rich. "what's a couple hundered thousand out of millions for the rich?"...ughhh.... Can you explain what you mean by an intellectual revolution? Cheers, The Guru "not really a kid cuz i'm 19 now"

Spending less sounds like a good option. But in terms of appealing to the American people, where would the cutting of the taxes start? For example, supppose spending *was* lowered considerably. Whose taxes would you cut first? Also, i'm assuming that said politician would not start by teaching Objectivism.

[see also Taxes: Government Financing In A Free Society - GC] According to Objectivism, taxes are evil because they are forced upon the citizens of the country. I agree with this and would be glad to live in the United States where i get my full paycheck and not have to worry about tax returns and stuff. My question is about the transition to no taxes from what we have now. That is, if an Objectivist politician were to propagate reducing taxes what strategy would he take? Would you start with flattening the tax curve? or would he start by eliminating the tax from the lower end? Opinions?

The thing that confused me for the longest time was the difference between "selflessness" and benevolence. There is nothing wrong with wanting to save lives. The reason why is more important. If they say they want to save lives for a "higher purpose" or for the good of mankind then it is selflessness. Realize that they are being trained to save lives and that most of them would probably not do it if they didnt have gear on them (which would increase their chances of dying)

I think most of the controversy sparks because of Brown's claim that the Priori of Sion *exists*. Except for that disputed point, everything else he says is part of the novel, part of the fiction. He says that the descriptions of the paintings and historical records are accurate but he never says that their interpretations are factual. The fact that a *character* from his book interprets the record should not be taken as fact at all but at most a slight possibility until further proof is achieved. What I am disappointed about is that in the midst of all this controversy people forget what a great work of fiction this really is. It's a heart thumping, adrenaline rushing action novel filled with historical speculations.

The global warming point that you made reminds me of many other such contradictory viewpoints held by certain people. On one front they worry about the overpopulation of earth. "Who will we feed and clothe 9 billion people by 2010?" that question is so out of context it's not even worth spending time over. How can you worry about Global warming killing humans and about overpopulation at the same time?

Strikes in general aren't immoral but don't always lead to a positive result unless the workers force the employer by not letting him hire other workers or damaging property etc. If this whole thing was with a private organization, not only would workers get paid according to the demand for workers but also the strike would be short lived because the employer would just start firing a few leaders and hiring new ones to work.

I think the whole altruism vs. benevolence thing got to me. So as i understand it, a rational man would respect others' lives and their right to live but don't have the responsibility to make sure that they maintain it (which is what an altruist might say).

I understand the situation a little better now. But i still think that changing your course of actions based upon the probability of danger to others--others being strangers who are of no value (except for potential value) to me--is immoral or at the very least amoral. And if you are going with probability, at what probability should you change your actions: 20%?, 50%? For example, say you were driving in a heavy duty truck or an SUV and you have enough safety devices to assure that in case of an accident you and your car would remain perfectly fine (obviously this is hypothetical and as you can see, i'm trying to remove all the potential risk to yourself involved in the process). Now say you were running late for a really important business meeting and you could lose millions if you didn't reach there on time. Wouldn't it be moral for the person to go on the highway at 100 mph? Of course he's not trying to crash and he'll avoid other cars as much as possible.

yes i understand how speeding in itself is wrong because it endangers your life and compared to your boss being angry at you for being late, driving safe is a better bet. What i don't understand is the generalization that any activity that involves the potential loss of other human lives is immoral. I think my pilot example explains what my query on the matter is. Or to give a real example:Backyard Cyclotron p.s. I might be going off on a tangent here so if a moderator wishes, i could create a new thread.

So it's immoral to endanger others' lives? So if i have guns in my house and there's a possibility that a thief will steal them and use them against someone, i'm endangering their lives and i shouldn't have guns? If i'm an airplane pilot, i'm being immoral because i'm endangering people's lives because something might go wrong just as it would if i was speeding when i'm late for work. Or an even more related example, there's always a chance of an accident even at low speeds. Does that mean i should stop driving altogether?

I take it you mean a d20 system without magic or supernatural beings. There are other RPG games out there that just have factions and soldiers with different type of guns. Also, you could use "magical energy" to enhance weapons as long as you have a scientific reasoning behind it, it would be rational.

Now that i think about it, that was my underlying question behind it. Is taking a class in philosophy going to teach me any more than reading a book and discussing it with others? The value i wish to gain is to recieve a general knowledge on 'philosophy' because the only thing i know on the subject is Objectivism. I'm also afraid that after learning about Objectivism, i'll simply scoff at all other philosophies and end up being bored, frustrated and with a low GPA. I think i will go ahead and take 'philosophy and relegion' because i learned from talking to my seniors that it's nicknamed 'intro to philosophy' since they teach about antiquity philosophers and some relegion (not necessarily dealing with God). Thank your for your responses.

I go to a technical school (WPI: Worcester Polytechnic Institute) and very few philosophy courses are offered in. On top of that, the courses offered run something along the lines of "ethics in engineering" by which they mean altruism for the most part. Also the others offered are "Philosophy and relegion" and "environmental philosophy". So my dilemma is, should i take some of these classes just to check out other philosophies, or would it just be a waste of my time? thank you

www.whatisobjectvism.com I introduced myself to objectivism with it.

Legality is derived from morality but not all immoralities are illegal. For example, it is immoral to sacrifice yourself for the sake of others but that doesn't mean we make laws against anyone who does so. On the other hand, sacrficing others for yourself (murder, theft etc.) is immoral and illegal.

hmmm. Perhaps i should've said the Objectivist view on the matter is pro-reason. And i say that agnostics try to rationalize because most of the agnostics i've met use the old argument "can you prove god does not exist?". For them, statements are just "out there" and unknown and calling them true or fale BOTH require proof. Even on the instances when i make a ridiculous and trivial statement to prove my point, they nod and say that it could be true. Getting kind of off topic here.

In other words, follow the good old adage "don't jump to conclusions". One of the biggest topics you see rationalization is in the area of Atheism vs. Agnosticism. Atheism argues pro-reason and states that since the existence of such an thing as god cannot be proven, by default, it does not exist. Agnosticism argues through rationalism and chooses the statement "There is God" first and then try to prove it one way or the other.