Felix

Brilliant defense of one of my favourite movies. I couldn't have done it any better. Nice to see that someone sees the same things in the movie I did.

In "First Things First" by Stephen Covey (The add-on book to the Seven Habits) there's a nice quote saying: "The good is the enemy of the best." meaning that people very often don't get the best they could get in life because they are afraid of losing the good they already have. However, I'm the first to agree that taking such a step takes a big amount of courage. Especially in a system that "already has the good path laid out for you to follow", namely: get good grades, go to college, get a degree, get a good job, buy a house and start a family. And if you do something different, something's wrong with you. In addition to that there's the idea that this is also your birthright. At least that's what I am being taught.

To add my two cents: "Education" stops me from actually learning anything. To me, all education is, is a way to put people into certain boxes to sort them out for employers more easily. All I get out of college is the possibility to take exams. And if I pass these exams, I get a piece of paper saying: Felix is an engineer. I can't say that I actually learn much that will help me in the job I'm planning to have. I picked all the specialization I could get - right from the beginning of college I knew what I wanted to do. Still, I have to take classes without knowing what I should ever use the knowledge for. I seriously doubt that this benefits anyone. There's a nice quote by Margaet Mead: "My grandma wanted me to get an education, so she kept me out of school." Basically, all my time is consumed by taking classes and learning for tests. I don't have time to learn much of what would actually benefit me and it is pissing me off by now. But hey, it's only a year left and then I'm finally free. I then have my piece of paper. And without that, thanks to the educational system, I would not be allowed to do what I want to do. So my point here, from someone who "reaps all the benefits": I would rather pay for the education I need than be forced to get a "good education" that is nothing but a waste of time. The thing is: I love learning, but education has nothing to do with it. And that's exactly why it has to go.

Hmmm ... ... to this day the national emblem of France, Marianne, is shown wearing this cap. So the Smurfs are the French. Just look at this image. Looks like Smurfette, doesn't it?

A little spelling-exercise: How many checks would a spell-checker check if a spell-checker could check checks? Now that I think of it: It can't check spells either. Felix casts silence-spell on himself without being checked ...

Thanks. That was the answer I was looking for.

Right. But the problem is that an inefficiently run nuclear power plant can destroy half a country if it blows up. I don't doubt that this is irrational and goes against his self-interest. The problem is something different: He might say: "Oh well, it will work out fine." and that's that. This is stupid, no doubt about that, but hey, you can't assume that everyone acts rationally. The problem I am adressing is how one can stop the idiots from harming the rest of the population. And to what degree one has the right to do so.

There's a thread on that exact topic already. SoftwareNerd provided a link in his post above. Maybe that helps.

I thought about that before. But I have a problem: What can the police do? The threat is only potential. It's not like this guy is having a nuclear weapon and intentionally trying to blow up the place. He just doesn't regard safety measures well. Can the police intervene in such a situation? And if so, on what basis?

That was my argument. But I don't think it has much impact here. He agreed that in the end you end up in big trouble for screwing this up so badly. But that was not his point. His point is that it is possible for you to completely screw it up with nobody being able to do something against it. And the customer-boycott-idea doesn't really catch here. Because, if the price is right, someone will buy it. I don't doubt that. mrocktor 1. Some will buy his energy. Because some people won't care. I don't doubt that. 2. If the price is right, why not? Someone will sell it to him. You can't trust that everyone is moral. Besides, I'd bet that this guy will still get all the services he needs simply because he pays for them and hardly anyone will make the effort to make that discrimination. After all, this is the usual response to "What if there is someone who has no property and nobody gives him work." Somebody will. It only takes one person. sNerd, thanks for the link. I have yet to check it out. Maybe that thread contains the answer to my question. Proverb, do you get problems for "criminal neglience" before or after something bad happens?

I just had a discussion with a friend of mine about regulations (if they should be done by the state or by private institutions). We discussed doctors and everything and for everything he was bringing forth, I had a counterargument ready why private is better. But then he started talking about Nuclear plants. And here I was lost. His argument was like this: "If there were only private controls for nuclear plants, let's say that there is one nuclear plant that is run horribly. It does produce energy but there are hardly any safety standards. What will happen? Your private control finds out: This is horrible! , what are they going to do? They can publicly proclaim: Oh how horrible! and that was about it. Some energy-company will not be buying their energy, but someone will, if the price is right, usually someone who lives so distant that he doesn't have to care. Some people will quit their job (and they will then be replaced by less qualified people which makes matters even worse). Now everyone knows that this plant is a ticking timebomb. And nobody can do anything against it. As long as nothing bad happens, your hands are bound. Any intervention would be an initiation of force, which is not allowed, not even to the police. So then we have the odd situation of a giant threat to everyone and nothing can be done against it." I totally lacked a counter-argument. What would you have said? Thanks.

That Matrix-plug would be neat. You push a button, and then: I know Kung-Fu.

Okay, let's try to end the confusion. The definition of altruism as used on this forum: Putting other people's interests above your own. More specifically: Harming yourself for other people's good. Your definition of altruism: Doing something that benefits other people. The reason for this verbal fight is the simple fact that you can do something of benefit to other people without having to sacrifice your own needs.

Wow. I love it! This is brilliant. Thanks for the link.

Actually, they are doing shit, if you know what I mean.

First of all, the fact that you are free to work for them or not is actually all the justification needed. However, the reason people actually work for corporations and thereby give up part of their money is regularity of income. Creating the products and selling them takes time. And if the idea fails, the money isn't made at all. But this doesn't really matter for your income. You get paid on time. If the company is successful, it deserves its money simply because it didn't force anyone to work nor anyone to buy their products. In the end, big profits are the result of offering something of a high value to people by only paying a comparatively small amount of money for production. This is only possible by finding a new way of creating additional value for people. And this only works for a short period of time, because competition will copy your idea and this will, in the end, raise your wage because your productivity was increased by the new business process.

Fatherland is a book. I've read it. It was written by Thomas Harris, as far as I remember.

As far as I see it, placebos are the best-tested medicine we have, because every medicine is tested against them. Do they work? Of course they do. Your mental state seriously affects your physical state and the other way around. These two are interconnected. Placebos are used because the very fact of taking a pill produces an effect in your body that corresponds to what the doctor tells you it does. I read of a test where they gave people amphetamines, telling people they were getting barbituates (downers). Then they took these people's blood and found that they (who were getting sleepy despite the amphetamines) had produced hormones that caused them to be sleepy in such an amount that beat the effects of the amphetamins. Even if your mind doesn't affect the outer world, it tremendously affects your body. Of course the placebo-effect is proportionate to the degree of belief. For example big red pills affect you stronger, because they look that way. And if you don't believe that it works, it won't.

I still consider myself a student. Calling yourself "Objectivist" would imply that you are an authority on the subject given the definition Ayn Rand gave.

I like this idea most. It is the audio-feature I like about it. And I know that this is not very expensive, especially because the tape can be recorded and then sold afterwards. This mp3-recording is often part of the service of such teleseminar-offers. A question and answer format would be great. We could collect questions on this forum beforehand and have one of the moderators do the interview.

Hal, I think you are right. Within the framework of pre-plato philosophy my ideas about discrete space don't make much sense. However, his paradox is a nice way of showing the problems with infinitely small pieces of space. So if you take the argument out of its initial context, it becomes quite valuable.

I should say that I don't know if that was his intention. He could aswell have said it to annoy his fellow philosophers.

Yes, but given the time he made this remark, it's been quite brilliant. He practically proved that if space and time could be broken down infinitely, we wouldn't live in the universe we apparently do. I think it's brilliant.

I' m not against space exploration per se. I am against the space program as it is currently running. Building a missile shield would have a purpose. So would building a space station. Or a thousand other things. But decorating the universe with American flags can hardly be seen as a valid purpose for spending at least 20 Billion Dollars each.

I've always seen Zeno's Paradox as an argument for discrete space. And quite a brilliant one, actually. Because if this is the case at some point the runner and the turtle are at one point in space which then allows him to progress past the turtle. It's an attack on the concept of infinitely small things. And it's a good one.