Proverb

You add the DEX bonus to a ranged attack as opposed to adding the STR bonus to a melee attack.

The whole WWJGD thing would tend to just complicate things in my opinion. For those who understand the reference it's neat, but when asked about it in curiosity I think it would make people ask, "Is that some sort of religion?" I find at that point it's hard to continue to explain anything effectivley because there stuck on the concept of religion.

I resent that. ;-D

I would like to ask you to define what you think 'rational self-interest' is and how it is determined. I think at that point we may be able to have a clearer understanding of your understanding of Objectivist ethics and may continue. Though some of the responses thus far have been a bit sarcastic, which is due to your seriousness in your package-dealing, I think you would be served well in considering some of the reasoning behind most of the comments thus far. In short, again, life qua man is not merely staying alive and producing to that end, it is a pursuit of happiness and the enjoyment of it, tempered by rational self-interest which is determined within the context of each individual's life.

xeper I believe the burden of proof, specifically to the effect that "video games (in their entirety) are irrational", is on you my friend. And to save our time (which could be used to play D&D online like I do) present your arguments on the thread as opposed to forcing us to infer your arguments from links. This quote more clearly emphasizes a point I was trying to make earlier: A rational, and I will go as far as to say and Objectivist's life is not only comprised of meeting the requirements of biological existence. I say this again because, as you may not realize, taking this stance on video games is automatically and by proxy damning any exercise of the mind that is not for the ends of explicit production or "biological management." This is the essential that is opposing your initial statements and is the fact that has put the burden of proof in your hands.

Movies: - hijack an individual's senses, disabling their ability to perceive reality through reason. - encourage participation in an economic system that sets the individual as a financial means to others. - in the making may involve the sacrifice of the physical and/or mental well being of others (see: EA's treatement of employees). [...] Alchohol: - hijack an individual's senses, disabling their ability to perceive reality through reason. [...] Books: [...] The Internet: [...] Do you see my point? These statments are unsupported and not linked to any facts involving video games and thus are easily ported to almost any form of sensory stimulus. Aside from that: Have you even considered the fact that a perfectly rational person may consider a video game an enjoyable means to recreation? Have you considered the fact that the rational mind is not merely a means by which to run the awesome machinery we call our bodies but is also an end in and of itself; and that "living" is not merely the set of actions that are required to keep our bodies running but is a whole process that includes the recognition and the enjoyment of the fact that life is worth living? I play many types of games, and often, and it is, at this juncture in my life, one of the most enjoyable things I do along side and in direct compliment to my work, my writings here, and the people in my life. Do you only work, sleep, and eat? If not, name anything that you do other than those mentioned and I can say the same sorts of things about that. Granted, there are those who allow sensory stimulus and the like (again, type here really doesn't matter) to run their lives and adversley affect their daily life. However, I don't think your statements here are adressing the topic of "video games" to that effect but are rather, attacking the concept of them as a whole. Which, as I illistrated above, is slightly unfair. I must say that this stood out as blatanly wrong to me. When was the last time some one held a gun to your head and said, "Buy this game so I can be rich"? Nobody forces people to buy video games, and as long as people buy them voluntarily they are engaging in one of the most moral actions available to man, mutually beneficial trade. I thought I'd give xeper the benefit of the doubt. :-)

If I, as a civilian, have the ablity to download google earth and take a look at a large percentage of that country at 10cm/pixel resolution, I am almost positive that sitting on some mainframe in the pentagon we have an up to date snapshot of the whole country. That being said, why wouldn't we be able to launch a percision attack on all military/infrastructural targets with a couple of war-ready aircraft carriers? I think that, with enough planning, it could be accomplished in one mid-night raid. If someone throws rocks at you, even if they miss, doesn't that mean that their already commited to harming you? It's hard for me to think about what it would be like to wake up to radioactive fall-out coming from LA, from which I live less than 400 mile away.

One Word: Firefox! lol Thanks David!

Thanks for that.

Wiki about the video detailing possible factual inaccuracies.

The thing that bothers me most is the fact that, of all the cameras that could have easily captured the 'crash' into the pentagon, only five frames-- FRAMES --of footage were released detailing only a fireball and not one single part of an aircraft. All other survailance footage of the area was scooped up within hours of the incident. They aired footage of the planes going into the towers, why not the footage of the "plane" going into the pentagon? Honestly, this video made me sick as I had never really thought about how many of the events of that year could have been put in motion under totally different circumstances. ....almost $1.0B in gold being moved away from the towers the day before?!! Why? Again I'm not vouching for the validity of the information in the video, but it's provocative in the least.

Video I'm the last person to talk about conspiracy theories, but this video provides, at least alleged, evidence supporting some interesting thoughts about 9/11. Let me know what you guys think. Thanks! P.S. I LOVE this new skin!!!

I just had the same problem and required manual validation.

When I say "rational idea" what I am referring to is a concept or idea that is in accordance with the facts of reality and, as a consequence, is a result of a correct application of reason. I guess it would be good at this point to clarify that a false idea/concept is not the same as an irrational idea/concept and there is a significant difference in their moral implications. I don't find it particularly effective to be talking in such abstract terms it just all that my time allows at this point. It is clear that you are unfamiliar with Objectivist epistemology and thus I suggest you read "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology" as it will answer most if not all of your questions on the subject.

A rational idea can only be arrived at by a rational process.

Well-said Mr. West.

I wouldn't say 'central' but more consequential. Intellectual dishonesty is a concept that comes from analysing the means by which someone arrives at a conclusion. There are three instances, which you may already have read about: 1. A person comes to a rational and factual integration of a concept. 2. A person comes to a rational but erroneous integration of a concept through misintegrated lower-level concept or a misinterpretation of some facts. 3. A person comes to an irrational integration through a direct evasion of the facts of reality and the process (reason) by which to interpret them. The only problem is determining whether or not a concept could or could not be arrived at by error. If not it would be said that the idea/concept is in fact intellectually dishonest. Another factor that has brought the idea of intellectual dishonesty under scrutiny, at least in my experience, is that some ideas may be arrived at by either an error or evasion and the only way to objectively determine the difference would be to "be in someone's" head as it were. This idea is definitely something to be considered in the process of determining someone's epistemology, and is something I forgot to mention earlier in stating that it is possible to judge someone based on their ideas. My cursory statements earlier were perhaps a bit harsh considering your response. However, you will find on this forum that when something is not understood or is misinterpreted the regulars around here will pick at every angle until the nature of the beast is discovered. More later. Your comments on capitalism will bring very curious questions.

If you find the rational composition of meaning in communication childish then you, my friend, are in the wrong place. Because that is in fact what we are trying to do, determine what it is you actually mean to the end of engaging in a valuable intellectual exchange. After all, you are the one asking the questions and most have made an honest effort to address them.

I don't understand. Of course people lie and mislead. I was still assuming that was the case. It's in the context of truthful discourse I should say, that it's very easy to judge a person at a basic level. Given you're talking about such things, as in this environment right here. That aside, I say again that the basis of one's beliefs and values are rooted very intimately in the basic principles one holds, and that it's correct to assume that link.

If you understand why there is no difference between the two, you'll understand how one can evaluate a person on the simple basis of their beliefs/philosophy. Philosophy is the operating system of the rational animal we call man. Whether one is talking of epistemological issues, political issues, or moral issues they stem from the same basic root, the philosophy and/or set of principles one lives by; whatever they may be. This is why an Objectivist, being one who understands why this is true, has an easy time judging people. The very words out of one's mouth and the meanings they convey (if any) are a window to the very basic foundations of that person's mind.

It seems to me at first that anyone who would like any service whatsoever from the government would have to pay a base operating fee. Because after all, the government would be an entity with it's own interests to protect i.e. it's "profit base" so to speak in the people that it serves. This all being constitutionally maintained of course. In a huge country such as our own the discrete amount to be paid for basic operation, as equally distributed among participators, would be minuscule at most so the thought of non-participators or moochers in a fee based government is pretty silly. However, is it correct to bar a person from the service of the courts for not paying fees?

I may hold a contrarian stand point on this, but I am inclined to think that consent is consent is consent. Is it within' the scope of law to "protect" people under some arbitrary number that is held as a universal turning point in a person's ability to make rational decisions? I sympathise with the thought of a manipulated youth and the threat of pedophiles and there should be objective standards by which to judge these situations. What I am offering here however, is that age alone is not the standard and that it seems hard not to consider the circumstances that allow a youth to be manipulated. I am more for punishing parents for allowing a youth to be subjected to compromising situations. There again however, I wouldn't know what kind of standard by which to judge that. This subject is very unclear to me and I thought I'd offer a few points of discussion because I would like to explore this further. All I am certain of at this point is that disallowing a rational and competent 15 year-old the freedom to date whom they desire is not right. Now what to do with an immature and misguided 15 year-old? That seems to be a more complicated issue, however I still don't think that there is a clear standard to judge whether or not a youth is "rational and competent."

Again, I ask: "What is god?" I don't understand what you are talking about but you seem to have a clear knowledge of this thing called "god." Please explain. I'm being a bit sarcastic here but I think most of you understand the point I'm trying to make. In all seriousness however, again, I would like dark unicorn to answer the question.

If one purports to operate on a rational epistemology I ask only one question to those who speak of "God." What is God? I don't know what god is. Literally. I know what one may say is god, but in the epsitemological sense, I don't know what it/he/she/that is. So tell me, before one goes and speak of it as the creator of the universe, what is it?

If you guys are strategically minded I would look into the japanese game called "Go." If you're not already familiar with it, it's a stunningly simple looking game but it breeds new and unique strategies to this day. This is a great site concerning this game: http://www.kiseido.com/