tnunamak

A bunch of people seem to find this viewpoint rational. Is it valid? I don't see how a living thing necessarily has a higher value to me. Speaking hypothetically, if animals don't have rights, why would it be immoral for me to inflict unnecessary pain on them through torture (assuming I was not violating the rights of anyone else)? If I find joy in pulling the appendages off of small furry animals, would it not be moral to do so if there were no real consequences (ignoring whatever would have made me twisted enough to actually find joy in that).

Even if the study was imprecise to a degree, I think that it does illustrate that Wikipedia can be reliable in comparison to other reputable sources. Why wouldn't they?

A study compared the number of errors in Wikipedia to an encyclopedia (I think Britannica) and found that the number of errors per article was higher in Wikipedia, but the number of errors per volume of text was lower (it had more errors, but distributed among larger articles).

I knew that it wasn't going to be easy, but I certainly didn't expect it to turn out like this. I have lost a friend in the process, and that is because I wasn't thinking clearly and making the right decisions.. which is what I'm trying to do now. At this point I would very much like to stop for a second, get things figured out with her, and then go from there on a more sturdy foundation. I don't know if that's possible, but it's what I'm striving for. I do think I betrayed a friend in the sense that I was dishonest with him while the two of them were together, but I think she understands that I feel that that was a mistake (as does she) and I don't think her respect for me has taken a major blow. I don't know if she will be able to respect herself, but I think once everything is out in the open between the three of us, things will be able to get better. I find it very unlikely that she would ever do the same thing again with someone else; I think we have both realized it was a major mistake, and I think we've both learned our lessons. Whether I'm correct about that as it pertains to her, I can only speculate, but I think I understand her pretty well. I feel like I have no reason to suspect her of doing it again, any more than she might have a reason to suspect me of doing it again. And I don't plan on it. I don't think I will feel very differently than I do now unless something else changes. Good question. I suppose I wouldn't be able to answer until we were in a relationship and I could see how it was going. Thanks, these are my best answers right now but I will certainly keep the questions in mind. Exaltron: I have to admit that I think our situations are pretty different, at least in the capacity that I don't think she's in it just for attention. I will consider your warnings though, thanks.

I agree that she could be taking more responsibility, but I think she wants to but doesn't know how to. I can say that over the last few months she's been through a lot and has gotten a lot better about stepping up to face her problems. I suppose the question is, where do you draw the line, and whether it is worth it in the long run, which brings me to the long term consequences JMeganSnow is talking about. What kind of grinding confusion and see-sawing despair do you predict? I haven't really considered whether there would really be any big issues if we could get past the initial ones that I've described. Could I avoid it all by just being firm with her and giving her the option of finding a resolution or accepting that it won't work?

Hi guys. Over the past few months, I've created the most complex situation I've ever been in, and I don't think it would hurt to get as much feedback as you're willing to give concerning what I should do and what I should learn from this. I'll give as much background information as I think necessary, and for more you can reference this post that I made a while ago: http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showtopic=5083. The point of that post was to figure out how to get over a girl who happened to be one of my best friends' girlfriend. In case you're wondering, this post is about the same girl. This turned out to be much longer than I thought, but if you can bear with me, I could really use some advice. Starting around March of last year, I met this girl through one of my best friends. I was slightly interested in her, although I didn't say anything, and my friend told me that he wasn't interested in her. Things looked good. Then I didn't really see her much and she ended up liking him a lot, eventually getting him to say yes to a relationship. I saw her even less at the end of the semester (this is all at my university), and eventually summer came and I didn't see either of them at all. When I came back from the summer, they were still together, but he had transferred to another school a few states away, so they were in a long distance relationship. This persisted until just recently. So over the course of this year, this girl was my circle of friends, and eventually got pretty close to us. Needless to say, I was still interested in her but it was futile because she was dating my friend, even if he did live hundreds of miles away. As much as I tried to let it go and get over it, I found myself becoming more and more attracted to her the more time I spent with her. As I would later find out, it was the same way for her (although she was a little more discreet about it). We were always flirtatious with eachother and I know I felt a lot of emotional tension when it seemed like we were falling for eachother but we both had to act otherwise. This proceeded until about 2 months ago. I came to visit her on my way back to my room, around midnight after studying all day. We were sitting on her bed talking, and eventually the tension I was talking about reared its head and finally was shattered when I kissed her and things got heavy. This was while she was still in a long distance relationship with my friend. This was my first mistake. Afterward, we talked about it, and she said she felt guilty but we both confessed that we had felt very strongly about eachother. I spent some time thinking about what had happened, and decided that I had made a mistake by violating the trust that my friendship with her boyfriend was based upon, and that I had no choice but to tell him that something had happened with the two of us. At the same time, I decided that having a relationship with this girl would be a much greater value than my friendship with her boyfriend. I concluded that I would be at no moral fault if I were to engage in such a thing as long as I was being honest about it; it may be a bit unkind to do such a thing to my friend, but I don't feel like that is violating a moral principle and I think I'd be gaining a greater value by doing so. So I told her in writing (I don't think I would have been able to articulate myself any other way at the time) that I (or we) would have to tell him eventually, but that I would refrain from doing so until she was ready for it, and until we had things between the two of us figured out, so as to avoid from making the situation any more complex than it had to be. This was my second mistake (making a promise that could contradict one of my moral principles, being honest with my friend, if she decided she was never going to be ready). A few times, I would talk to her a little, and we would both conclude that she needed a little space to make some kind of decision about whether she wanted a relationship or not, but inevitably we would end up seeing eachother again and would be intimate with eachother again (another mistake). This occurred a few times before I spoke with her. When I talked to her in person about telling her boyfriend that something had happened, she basically told me that she understood where I was coming from, and wouldn't blame me if I did it, but that she didn't want me to do it because she felt like he wouldn't be mature enough to handle it and that it would unnecessarily cause her own world to come crashing down. I told her if she wasn't going to forbid me from doing it, then I was going to talk to him, so I left with the intention of doing just that. Soon afterward, however, she told me that she wanted me to wait. I'm still waiting a few weeks later. Eventually she told me that she was no longer dating her boyfriend, but not because of what had happened with us. I think she was being honest, as he had basically burdened her from his school throughout the year by calling her all of the time and using her as an emotional crutch, making her pretty miserable (not that it changes whether what I did was right or wrong). At this point, I didn't (and still don't) feel like anything that were to happen between the girl and I would be any business of my friend's, since they were no longer together. This was probably 6 weeks or so after everything started. Then, someone told him something about the two of us flirting with each other. He started calling all of our mutual friends and asking them everything they knew. They couldn't really tell them anything other than what they had seen, which was me visiting her pretty frequently and being flirtatious with her when we were together. This was enough for him to call me about 20 times in one day, but I couldn't bring myself to talk to him without being honest about how I had violated his trust, so I didn't pick up the phone. I haven't talked to him since then either. What I came to find out from talking to her, is that she feels like everyone is judging her (which is true), and that she just wants people to leave her alone. I told her that it is not their business and that it shouldn't impact her decision. People have also told her that if she has any kind of relationship with me, they will discontinue their friendships with her because they would find her morally at fault. It kind of came out that she still cares about that, but if it were me, I wouldn't. In addition, she still cares very much for her ex-boyfriend and does not want to hurt him. I can understand that. On the other side, she feels very strongly about me and has even said that she wishes she had just met me first. I told her either way, she needs to make a decision, and she admitted that she had been avoiding making a decision. I told her to to think about what is important to her, how things could turn out depending on her decision, and which one would be most important, then to come up with a decision. Since then, we have still been physically intimate with eachother and have been seeing eachother a bit. We talked about our values, and she asked me why it was that I was so kind and caring when it came to her, but not to everyone. I told her that she was more of a value to me than most people. We talked about our similarities and differences, and she said that what was important to her was making bonds with people and wearing her heart on her sleeve, while I weigh out costs and benefits, and that I don't let myself feel a full range of emotions by keeping my guard up (remind anyone of when Rearden's brother tells him something about how he has never felt pain, and it's a devastating blow?). I want to say that while our fundamental values sound so different, I think there is quite a bit of overlap. I am compassionate toward her, which she likes, and she is very rational on a day to day basis and has long term goals and does live very much for herself. I think she misunderstood me somewhat, and I told her not to make any conclusions about what I had said to her until I could make sure she explained me clearly (she said not to worry about it). We both feel very compatible with eachother. I don't think I've ever met someone in my life who I've felt able to become so close to. I understand exactly how she thinks, or what she means when she says something, or where shes coming from when she is telling me how she feels about something. She says its like that for her as well. I have felt like I have grown tremendously just from spending time with her by learning more about myself, and I love spending time with her. In addition, while things may have escalated very quickly physically, emotionally I think we have been growing together for quite a while now. It seems like things would work out so well... but then of course circumstance has to show its ugly face, not to mention that we could have both made some much better decisions along the way. To make the possibility of a potential relationship even more complicated, I just found out that the ex-boyfriend plans on coming back to my school next year, because he feels like he has closer friends here. While I think it's a big mistake, and while I can't change what he does, it certainly makes a relationship between us that more unlikely. In addition, summer starts in a month, and she and I will not be able to see eachother for 3 and a half months. I've got a decent idea of how I feel about the whole situation, which is that I still want a relationship with her even if it will be a little rough, but I don't have a clue how that will work with her ex-boyfriend coming back. It seems like we would almost have to break away from our group of friends, which, while I admit I am not very close to except for a select few, almost seems unthinkable, especially for her (she is much more social). I made some mistakes, and I'm paying the price. I've also learned a lot along the way. But this is by no means a simple situation, and I gladly welcome anything anyone has to say about it. I'll try to keep up with replies, and I will consider everything that is offered very carefully. I'm sure there are a lot of things I haven't considered, and also things I have considered that I forgot to mention. It will also probably help to figuring out what my priorities should be in dealing with this situation. Anyway, forgive me for being so longwinded, I've tried to be as concise as possible. Thanks

I see it now... just took a little thinking about. The government doesn't own your property so they cannot use force to remove you from it.

One thing I haven't considered until now is, to what extent is the government using force to tax its citizens, when the citizens have the option to leave the country?

"The draft law — which also introduces new penalties for music pirates — would force Apple Computer Inc. (AAPL), Sony Corp. (SNE) and others to share proprietary copy-protection technologies so that rivals can offer compatible services and players." http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,188650,00.html At least Apple's considering withdrawing from the French market.

Where does one begin to define "free will?" This is something I've thought about before. If you could map out the universe down to the most basic unit (some kind of extremely small particle I would assume), on a macroscopic scale, the particles would be interacting in such a way to cause all actions and events to occur. For example, biologically, we are composed of atoms, correct? And when certain processes occur in our brains, what is really happening is those particles that compose those atoms that compose molecules that eventually compose what we call our brains, those particles are sending signals through our brains by however it is that their nature tells them to interact. On that level, our choices are made by whatever the particles are doing. Am I wrong? When you look at the big picture of all of the particles in the universe, when people interact with eachother they are interacting with those other particles... could you write a nearly infinitely long equation describing these interactions? In this sense you could predict where the particles would be going and what interactions would occur, couldn't you? I'm not describing it too well but do you follow where I'm going with this? Does the concept of volition disagree with this idea?

Correct. And they will be voluntarily funded. People will be willing to pay for private forms of protection, whether they have to pay the government to get it or otherwise. The use of force is illegitimate, so whatever values have been gained by using force cannot be values (sound familiar?). Just like how it's a stretch to say that exploring the New World is nearly equivalent to exploring space. No, the scientists are not the equivalent of terrorists, but the point is that you are advocating that we should support the "lesser of all the evils," which is, in fact, still supporting an evil. How did anyone "escape from tyranny"? As far as I know, the colonists were still under the same government control until they broke away by the means of war. Is this what you are suggesting we should encourage? Not to mention that in space, colonists would be unable to survive without the government bringing them supplies, so escaping the tyranny would be nearly impossible. Discussion certainly warrants the use of analogies. They are great for getting a point across. But they cannot be the basis of an argument. In addition, there is a difference between using an analogy, and using historical evidence. But I hardly see how Columbus's excursions correlate so closely to space exploration.

That is correct. The government should have the goal of putting rapists behind bars. But not with money stolen from me or anyone else. I'm glad that rapists are behind bars. But I'm not glad that the government steals money to do it. In this sense, it is not justified. If someone forced be to buy a nice car, I would really like the car. But it would not be a legitimate use of my money. How can you support any project? If all of the world leaders were terrorists, would you support the "cleanest" one? The only explanation you have provided, that I can find, is: What is your reasoning behind this? How are "an infinite number of possibilities" going to arise? What kinds of possibilities and how do they justify spending all of the money? Making analogies to the past does not validate your argument. Analogies are good for getting ideas across, but they cannot prove an argument. If they did do it, would their venture have been profitable? Do you think the risks associated with doing such a thing would have been justified to a private company?

The truth is, stolen money cannot be put to a legitimate use by the government. The best we can do is try to prevent as much harm from being done as possible. However, I fail to see how the space program is a better alternative than more military spending or something the public will see a direct benefit from (relative benefit... the greatest benefit would be if they hadn't had their money stolen in the first place). From what I understand, your essential point is that space exploration falls under the government's jurisdiction for the reason that it is essential to national defense, so that it is as justifiable a use as any alternative. What are these benefits that we will get that we cannot live without? How do these so-called benefits make the program essential?

In 2006 there are many corners of the earth that have yet to be inhabited. The rate at which food production is growing is faster than the rate at which population is growing, and the earth is FAR from reaching is population capacity. Maybe by the time we will be able to colonize the moon or mars we will be able to build cities on the water. Space colonization is just too far away to be able to accurately predict the consequences. And when there is a demand for people to go to space, which will occur long before the world runs out of room, a private industry will develop much faster than NASA has. Even if NASA can give my children a future, do I want them to do it? I trust the laws of demand to provide an adequate solution better than I trust the government. Even if every great expedition was government funded, does that justify them? The exception makes the rule; by giving the government an exemption from respecting the rights of its citizens to keep their money, you are renouncing the principle entirely. While I disagree with you, let's leave the focus on the space program for now. For now I will say that there is a difference between not being hopeful about current treads, and acknowledging suicide. EDIT: Not sure why, but the quotes aren't working properly. Can anyone help me out? Done: (You had one extra close-quote.) - sNerd

Yes, the money has been stolen, and if it is going to be used for a collective purpose then it should be used in a manner that will give most back to the people that it was taken from. Do you think NASA is the answer to that? You quote Ayn Rand as saying that NASA is the only government organization that "has brought the American citizens a return on their forced investment," I think that I am getting more of a return from my money being spent on things like roads, police, and other organizations than I am from NASAs little adventures. How is NASA doing me more of a service? Do you think the United States is committing suicide? I don't. Why waste all of those stolen resources?

How can you support a program that is paid for by money taken from people who don't want to use it on the program? Have you heard the phrase, in reference to, for example, a radical group such as the klu klux klan, "I don't like what they say but I like that they can say it." This is based on the idea that you can support someone's right to free speech without supporting their actual speech. This seems to lie in parallel with the idea that you can support someone's right to use what they produce (money) in a manner that they choose, without supporting the actual manner that they choose to use it. Let's ignore for a moment all of the flaws of NASA and other such government institutions. If someone doesn't want to spend their money on NASA, do you still support them being forced to spend it on NASA? You say half the country is glad to see tax money spent on a MMM. This means that half is not glad to see their money go to such a program. Who is to say that that half doesn't have a say over what they can do with the money they earn?

Check out USNews's college rankings, they are very detailed and have a lot of information that you might not otherwise find as quickly: http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/college/r...index_brief.php I would consider it a good investment to spend the $15 to have full access.

That small? Am I the only one who thinks it is ridiculous that for every $1000 I pay in taxes, $7 goes to NASA? What benefit do I get from watching someone walk around on the moon, or from seeing pretty pictures of galaxies thousands of light years away? And how many times has NASA failed when a private program would have used some common sense and avoided the problem(s)? And if it all justified because of possible military benefits, I just cannot see how spending billions on various space explorations can compare to putting that money directly into the military. By the time NASA finds anything useful for the military that would justify the billions of dollars that are being poured into it every year, private companies will be miles ahead and the entire effort will have been in vain. Just give those companies a little time, when there is really something to be gained by space exploration, someone will recognize it and take advantage of it themself.

I believe that there are penguins living in New Zealand. I believe that New Zealand actually exists, even though I have not been there. These facts have been observed and recorded by others, and have been communicated to me through different means. But there is a difference in forming a conclusion from what scientists tell me happens in their labs, and from an arbitrary person, who someone has told him, rather than explained to him, that some higher power exists and he has a bunch of conditions that he wants us to respect. I was actually raised in the LDS church until I was about 13, when my parents split up and my father, who I lived with, stopped going. My brother and my mother are still adamantly "faithful" in the church, as you might say. When I was younger, I believed all of it, because you believe what people tell you when that is your primary means of forming conclusions (as it is for children). Right about the time that I started making my own conclusions about what I believed to be true or false, right or wrong, was when I was no longer active in the church and could get a broader perspective on it. I would question the validity of it all on a regular basis, I prayed and basically said, "God, people are telling me you're there and that if I just listen, I will know you are there." I was very earnestly trying to find some reason to keep believing it all, but as time went on, I fell away from it because no one gave me a reason not to, except for "because I know it's true." Every once in a long while, when I am visiting my mother she will convince me to go with her to church for just one day, and I will go, and I will listen, and I will think to myself that all they are doing, is saying that they love God, saying that someone from hundreds-thousands of years ago told them they should love God, saying that they will do anything God tells them to, and I'll think that they haven't given me a single reason why, or how their statements can be interpreted as true. Where is the evidence that any of it is true? Some religious extremists are willing to, and often do, die for what they believe is true. They can "feel" that their beliefs are true, their god speaks to them... and I'm sure you think that those people are mistaken. Do you really think that they are lying when they say that they believe it? If they aren't, if they really do believe all of it, how can someone of another faith, Mormon included, makes the same claims about their own religion as a means of validating their beliefs? How have you rationally concluded that your faith is not faulty?

I'll leave most of this to the more experienced students of Objectivism, but I want to ask about this: How can you know things are true if you cannot see them? Man operates in the world by observing it and making logical conclusions, based on what he sees.

The article that you posted is no longer online, but I would be interested in hearing about what the "aerobic myth" could be. I took a physiology of exercise class last semester, and one thing that became very clear to me was that the aerobic and anaerobic systems each respond to very different stimuli. By hitting the gym, you are stimulating your anaerobic system, and not your aerobic system. There is a reason for why oxygen consumption is measured in volume/bodyweight/time, instead of volume/time. What might be plenty of oxygen for a 150 lb person might be far less than ideal for a 210 lb person. Each unit of body mass/weight needs a certain amount of oxygen. If your pool of oxygen, that is, how much oxygen your system can circulate per minute, stays the same, but you increase your bodyweight, then you have a growing need for oxygen but the supply is not growing. I could see this contributing to many heart-failure problems. While it might not be enough alone to induce a heart attack, studies have shown that having a higher heart rate is an indicator to an increase of the likelyhood of heart failure. The real question becomes, does weight lifting stimulate the cardiovascular system to an extent which causes it to develop at a rate proportional to the amount of bodyweight being accumulated? Until I see specific evidence indicating otherwise (which is why I wish that the link you posted still worked), I'm going to have to say no.

In the situation with the girlfriend of one's friend, how exactly is it different if something "happened" and you were to level with everyone, and what constitutes as soon? Also, I would describe intimacy as anything more than what would be socially acceptable between friends, probably anything beyond a quick kiss on the cheek. The pre-intimate relationship requirements that I would expect to exist would be a solid understanding of the other person's personality and their belief system.

I would probably say that intimacy would be the primary distinguishing factor between a boyfriend/girlfriend relationship and other relationships. I am asking for a specific reason, but I don't want to post the personal details where someone might find them (although private messages would be fine for anyone who wouldn't mind helping me work something out). In the context of my situation the relationship in question is not my own, so I guess I can't ask the question, what is the relationship based on.

Most people, when asked, will tell you that "cheating" on a boyfriend/girlfriend (not husband/wife) is immoral. I don't like the word cheating, it implies that you are somehow "breaking the rules," but aside from marriage, I don't think that most people actually sit down to form an agreement where neither of them can become involved with other people, although it does seem kind of implied. What I'm wondering is, is there some principle that is actually violated when cheating on someone? If you are in a relationship with one person and you find someone better, do you need to officially break it off before entering a relationship with the other person? Are you accountable for any pain this might cause the other person? What if you are the person that the male/female is cheating on their partner with? I would think that the fact that they are in a relationship already shouldn't have any bearing on the morality of your choice. What if the person being cheated on is a good friend of yours? Under what conditions would it be morally right/wrong?

This is one of those questions where I'm not completely sure what I'm asking, so part of this is out of the hope that I can at least figure that out. Everyone knows someone who talks too much... the guy who can ramble on for five minutes about an array of enough random topics to fill a book. For some people, I could see that as being a problem. My concern is somewhat opposite. It seems like, unless my mind has something important to consider, it is just void. I'm not just talking about conversation, I'll be walking somewhere, driving, etc, and realize that I haven't actually thought about anything for a few minutes, that I've just been watching the things around me as if I were watching a movie that I didn't necessarily have much interest in. Concerning conversation, I used to be quite shy and a bit of social wreck with big self esteem issues, so I can understand why I would have had trouble with finding words to talk to people in the past. Now, however, I am probably more confident than most people, and I don't really have any kind of social anxiety when dealing with other people... but I still have trouble with conversation sometimes. Usually I can manage to avoid the akward pauses where no one knows what to say, but that isn't always enjoyable and when it's a good friend then it kind of defeats the purpose. I don't think it's so much a problem with my male friends but with girls, and anyone else who I don't have specific things in common with, even if I'm 100% comfortable around them, it can be hard to keep up with the conversation. I don't think the problem is just conversation however, I think it has more to do with my ability to actively think. Now, if you put something concrete in front of me, like a philosophical question or math problem, my thought processes function quite well. But when it comes to something like conversation, my mind doesn't fare too well. I don't really know how to explain it further... so if someone can figure out what I'm talking about, maybe I can find a way to fix it? Maybe it's not really as much a problem as I think it is?