tnunamak

I respectfully disagree. The only thing calling upon the heart to do extra work is a need for oxygen. There are really only two ways that the body would need large amounts of oxygen due to weight lifting. The first would be to turn it into an aerobic exercise, which would require you to do sets of huge numbers of reps and tiny amounts of weight, like benching 1000 reps of 5 pounds, which is obviously impractical and pointless. The other way is to saturate your muscles with lactic acid, which is what eventually happens with anaerobic exercises and is the cause of muscle fatigue. To remedy this, the body uses oxygen to metabolize the lactic acid. However, this happens gradually and doesn't demand nearly as much oxygen per minute as a cardio exercise such as running would. By increasing the intensity of a weight lifting workout, you will only cause the saturation to occur sooner. Then again, if someone has evidence of an individual keeping their heart rate at over 160 or so bpm for the duration of a weight lifting workout, I'd happily shut my mouth

Like I said, because the exercises are very short and intense, weight lifting is primarily anaerobic. It doesn't require the heart to go into overdrive to supply oxygen to the muscles.

This is a point that I'm not sure whether I agree with. By putting muscle mass on your arms, legs, back, etc, you're increasing the load that your heart must support. Someone pointed out that body builders often have heart problems. Steroids or not, it's worth considering. By doing cardio (I'm not talking about the low intensity stuff everyone's arguing about), you are putting stress on your heart specifically, that is, its ability to pump blood through your body. It makes more sense to me that this would stimulate muscle growth in the heart and make it stronger, moreso than the secondary effects it would feel from high intensity weight training, which is anaerobic. This is really the only reason I would consider cardio though. Weight training has been shown to be very effective for fat loss (not necessarily weight loss, but usually more pounds of fat are lost than muscle is gained), due to the extra calories that the extra muscle uses. Weight training has other benefits, such as how it makes the bones stronger. I also find it more enjoyable.

Another thing to keep in mind is the cost. It costs significantly more to get a certain number of pixels on one screen than it does to get it two seperate screens. I'm using two 19" LCD's and they work great.

In that case, the movie must not have the moral implications that I thought, so nevermind

I thought Pitt and Jolie were both assassins working for free-lance agencies... meaning they are criminals, or am I missing something? I was deeply disturbed by this movie, it seems to me to be a reflection of a recent trend to glorify criminals in such a way as to de-emphasize their crimes, and consequently, to justify their actions. The characters are portrayed in such a way as to gain empathy with the viewer. Or am I completely off the mark?

This is the only case where I would approve of doing what one would consider sub-par work: if the aspect that makes it sub-par is not what you derive value from. It took me a few business classes before I realized that, in a world where businesses are focused on pleasing the customer at any cost, I will either not be successful, or will not enjoy what I'm doing. So I dropped that major. I think this mostly applies to the retail side of the business world, where the consumer wants the store to be pretty, etc. If you're selling industrial air conditioners for apartment buildings, you probably won't run into this problem as much.

My girlfriend is a junior majoring in chemistry, one of the more difficult majors at my school, which is itself fairly challenging school. For the last year she has been working as a residential assistant (basically staff for her dorm hall) to get a free room, since her parents stopped paying for school (that's another story). This consumes a lot of her time but from her perspective she doesn't have much of a choice because she thinks it's too late to transfer to another school and she wants to graduate and go to grad school. Since getting into upper level classes, she has been getting lower grades when she sees other people around her still managing everything effectively. She spends a lot of time studying, and even when she feels like she has covered everything and feels confident about a test, she gets a disappointing grade on it. This has been happening consistently for the past two semesters. The school is small, and as one of its advantages, professors having office hours during which people can stop by is emphasized as a good resource for doing well in their classes. When she asks her professors how she can do better on the next test, etc, they tell her to study more, when in reality she has studied more than most people. She thinks she just can't grasp the necessary concepts from her classes and thinks she made a mistake by coming her. She thinks that she is dumb and her self esteem has been falling. She is also finding that she doesn't like most of the people at the school (with an obvious exception ), but instead of not giving them much thought like I tend to do, she feels like she "has to deal with them" and she doesn't want to, whatever that means exactly. I think the killer is that she is losing her motivation. She says she would love chemistry if she didn't feel like every test grade she had was a big "You're stupid!," but she still says she might have made the wrong decision about coming here and picking her major. She is constantly questioning herself. What options does she have? Where should she start to solve the problem? How can I help her specifically? Thanks!

I've only skimmed this thread but when I see your question I think, can we have any major technological advancements without becoming dependant on them and the resources required to maintain them? Is our addiction to living in a computer-oriented world dangerous? People would have told you so around Y2K, but had they been right, would it have been better to never have begun using computers in the first place?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14139027/ "SHANGHAI, China - China slaughtered 50,000 dogs in a government-ordered crackdown after three people died of rabies, sparking unusually pointed criticism in state media Tuesday and an outcry from animal rights activists. .... The five-day slaughter in Mouding county in Yunnan province in southwestern China ended Sunday and spared only military guard dogs and police canine units, state media reported. Dogs being walked were seized from their owners and beaten to death on the spot, the Shanghai Daily newspaper reported. Led by the county police chief, killing teams entered villages at night creating noise to get dogs barking, then beat the animals to death, the reports said. Owners were offered 63 cents per animal to kill their own dogs before the teams were sent in, they said." ------------------------------------------------- Thoughts? EDIT: Here's another slightly different article: http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/08/0...s.ap/index.html

The correct one

What is it about some people (or human nature) that makes them inclined to be immoral? Pleasure? Discomfort from doing the right thing? What are your thoughts?

What about tribes that built permanent settlements/villages? "Groups [of Ohlone/Costanoan Native Americans] moved annually between temporary and permanent village sites in a seasonal round of hunting, fishing, and gathering." How do you determine what is considered "property?" If I build a house and say it's my property, does that specify ownership? If my tribe builds a permanent village, and we say it's "our" village, does that specify ownership? If I build a house in a permanent village, but only live there three months a year, do I still own it?

Taken from 'Wikiquote': "'[The Native Americans] didn't have any rights to the land and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights which they had not conceived and were not using.... What was it they were fighting for, if they opposed white men on this continent? For their wish to continue a primitive existence, their "right" to keep part of the earth untouched, unused and not even as property, just keep everybody out so that you will live practically like an animal, or maybe a few caves above it. Any white person who brought the element of civilization had the right to take over this continent." o Source: [Ayn Rand] Q and A session following her Address To The Graduating Class Of The United States Military Academy at West Point, New York, March 6, 1974" Was the US ethical in its removal of the Native Americans from the land and claiming it as their own? Did the Native Americans really have no right to the land they were living on?

I understand and agree that it is immoral, that is, against one's self interest, to violate the rights of others, but putting that aside, where do the rights stem from in the first place? What makes them inherent to man, as opposed to animal. If we were to discover another race of sentient beings with a capability for intelligence much like our own, would they have the same rights? If men did not live in civilized society, would rights still exist? That is, did men living in the circumstances of cavement have rights to respect of each other? I'm just trying to get a handle on where they originate from.

I apologize for the vague hypothetical. I was trying to generalize it into a question like, "what responsibilities does a man have after committing immoral actions in order to become as moral as possible once again." I guess I'm having trouble drawing the line between the idea that the reason that you shouldn't kill, rape, etc is because you are violating the rights of others, and because to do so is to forfeit your own rights and deny reality, drawing the line beteen that and how it would be correct to inflict punishment on oneself for doing so if no one else had done it already. Actions do have consequences, but who is to decide what they are? If I shoot at someone and he shoots back at me, that is a fair punishment for my being immoral, but if he doesn't shoot back at me and I walk away, should I punish myself? If I steal and the that man I steal from dies soon afterward, is it proper for me to cut off my own hand in the absence of a justice system to do so for me (just an example, I don't know that cutting off a hand would be proper). I can understand that one should try to pay back his victims in any capacity possible, but what if there is no way to pay them back? Should he still punish himself? Even if no one else would know that justice was done?

Hypothetical situation: A criminal has years of crime behind him, having done awful things to a lot of people, never having been caught. Finally realizes his immorality. He makes a major philosophical turn-around, and realizes all of the things he has done wrong. Unfortunately, because of the time that has passed, and because of the nature of his crimes, there is little he can do to undo them. Morally, should he hand himself to the law for punishment, or just continue with life? I would think that there is no reason for him to hand himself over once he has realized his mistake, as he is no longer a threat to society and does not need any outside help understanding the nature of what he has done.

Ok, I think this clears up any remaining bits of confusion I had in my original post. Thanks. I think in my mind I've always wondered about whether this applies to sex. Is it impossible for physical stimulation, completely abset of any mental stimulation, to be pleasurable or a value in itself? It seems to be for some people, or are they just kidding themselves? I've always thought (and felt) that if you perservere long enough with consciously held beliefs, they will sink into your subconscious or integrate into a new one. Otherwise, how does one successfuly transition into a new philosophy? I guess this is what I personally need to work on more. Sometimes it can be very hard to pinpoint one of two possible sources of an emotion, I don't think there's any avoiding the transition where the subconscious is partially in conflict with the conscious... I think that's just part of growing out of bad habits and beliefs. I think I will work more on accurately identifying the sources of certain subconscious conflicts I sometimes have. Thanks guys

Just something I've been thinking about. Certain people I know would just not be able to grasp certain concepts which must be understood to fully comprehend Objectivism. I know, because I've tried explaining, and even simple things just don't get through (not because they reject it, because they can't understand it). How do these people fit into becoming morally ideal individuals? Do they have a chance at it?

I agree that there isn't anything inherently wrong with sex, since no action itself can be measured on a scale of morality, so I suppose that my question should have referred directly to the motivations behind the acts of sex themselves. And you would say that this is the point where it becomes immoral, correct? I guess this is something I have trouble with with all kinds of topics. For the sake of simplicity, say there are two components of motivation involved with sex... the moral component, which you described as being the healthy one, and any immoral component, or unhealthy one. In the case of sex, say that my primary motivation is the healthy component, but I still go into it knowing that I'm going to get attention, alter my emotional state, etc, expecting that to some degree. Is it wrong if my unhealthy desires are the deciding factor in my decision to have sex, even if they are just a miniscule amount compared to the healthier motivation, but just enough to change my decision and make me want to do it? Or does the unhealthy part have to be the primary motivator? Or am I looking at it incorrectly? I guess something I've been struggling with since reconstructing, or constructing for the first time, my philosophy and values, is how do I consider my unconscious desires and emotions, resulting from my old philosophy, or lack of one, when I'm making decisions based on my new new one? For example, consciously, I've decided that it's moral to have a healthy relationship with someone whose values I respect and admire. But say I'm pursuing a relationship with a person and they are extremely physically attractive, attractive enough for me to have immorally pursued them solely based on that quality before restructuring my philosophy. If my old philosophy, which largely remains with me subconsciously, is subconsciously encouraging me to pursue this person because of their physical features, how do I pinpoint that that's the source of those motivations/desires? Couldn't the person's physical qualities, coupled with their personality traits and values that I admire, also motivate me in a healthy way to pursue them? With different questions, I guess I sometimes have trouble distinguishing between the two, and deciding whether I would be making a moral or immoral decision. This could be applied to sex as well, although I'm not really sure that's a problem for me at the moment, but to relate it more closely to the original question of the thread. I think the solution lies in introspection, but I will admit that when making tough decisions during my philosophical transition, I've had trouble with that as well. I know it takes a while before the subconscious can completely absorb the implications of a consciously chosen philosophy. I think this ties in very closely to what I'm talking about.

For the purposes of this thread, let's call sex anything having to do with at least two people sexually stimulating each other with touch, sight, or sound. Something I've been thinking about, especially after reading through the threads concerning masturbation and pornography, is when sex becomes hedonistic or immoral, the costs outweighing the benefits. For two extremes, lets say on one end is a happily married couple who recognize and celebrate each other's values with the act of sex every few days. On the other end might be a rebellious teenager who goes to parties, distorts his judgement with drugs and alchohol, and engages in sex with half a dozen random people, doing things that would make the average american sick. I'm going to say that there is at least one point in between those two ends of the spectrum that would still be moral, but not at either end (this can be discussed if anyone disagrees). This would mean that there has to be some point where sex becomes immoral because of how the individual(s) is/are engaging in it. How do other acts which might be considered sex, "but not really sex," such as talking/visually stimulating over the phone or internet play into this? In other words, what exactly determines what makes sex moral and what makes it immoral? Does it have to do with the whole, "whatever it is, it's moral as long as there are no better alternatives?"

I was disappointed. It seemed to me like too many characters and scenes were crammed into too small a space. The plot just didn't seem to tie together well. You know how in good books and movies there are lots of little plot lines going on that all tie together into the main one... I just didn't see that with this movie. It seemed like it was just jumping from one scene to the next with an overemphasis on insignificant things (like rogue and her boyfriend). In my opinion, as entertainment, modern movies like this are good. As art... different story. V for Vendetta and The Matrix are two of the few that I consider to have artistic merit.

After reading Ayn Rand's "Introduction to Ninety-Three" essay in The Romantic Manifesto, I've been wondering something. What, to Ayn Rand at least, makes a good work of art, or at least, a good piece of fictional literature? I think I have a pretty good understanding of that, but what I'm curious about is, what was it about Victor Hugo's work, as works of art, that she liked so much? I've just started on Les Miserables, and while I haven't read much about Jean Valjean, Hugo starts off by extensively discussing the bishop. He says all kinds of things about how he is as good man for devoting his life to others, etc. If the bishop is one of his "heroes" who is representing certain ideals like altruism, what would Ayn Rand think of that particular piece of his work?

My original question was whether there was valid reasoning for the idea that torturing an animal is immoral, so I assumed that your answer meant yes, because of the specific motivations that would probably exist. My question was directed more towards the idea of whether there was a parallel between torturing an animal, which has no rights, and a human, which has rights, regardless of the motivation to do so. I apologize for miscontruing things.

Then I disagree. How the torture is motivated is irrelevant to whether the actual act of torture is immoral. In contrast, killing someone cannot be morally motivated and the act itself is a violation of someone's rights, so the act itself must be immoral. Inflicting pain on an animal is not immoral in itself, what is immoral is holding the principles that allow it.