IntolerantMan

No. Dent falls because the Joker deliberately sets out to corrupt him throughout the movie, especially during the hospital scene. The corrupt cops are simply following orders from the Joker. They are pawns. No. The Joker survives because the screenwriter clearly wanted him to live rather than fall to his death. Batman probably should have kicked him off the ledge for what he did to Dawes and Dent. But then that would not have been very compassionate and respectful of evil human scum-life.

Great example. I got another one for you ... The artist identifies one man as the "white knight" of Gotham and another as pure evil. When the movie is over, pure evil survives, and the "white knight" has been corrupted by pure evil and has to be killed. What is the artist saying?

I think this is the best summation of the movie's theme so far. However, what bothered me more than the moral depravity and tolerance of evil was the ridiculous plot. (spoilers below)

"Operation Chaos" was Limbaugh's attempt to make one of his stupid predictions come true--that Hillary would be the Democratic nominee, even if she lost the election. Limbaugh made that statement back in February. And, in early March, when it started looking worse for Clinton (and Limbaugh's dumbass prediction), he then concocted "Operation Chaos," convincing conservatives that they should vote in droves for Hillary in the primaries. Coincidence?

I bet the original prankster on your staff was Karl Raade. Wasn't it? In this picture on your DPH history page, he looks like he's dreaming up some Jamie Clay-related trick to play on the world. Also, I'm thinking Jonah Loop was in on it, too. Those guys seem like they are very close buddies. The way I figure it, it was most likely Karl who came up with the idea in the first place, but it was Jonah who actually made the changes in IMDB. Correct me if I'm wrong.

JC, Thanks for dropping by. I, for one, hope you will tell us your story. And I promise to be nice. I urge everyone else on this thread to be nice, too.

Over at the IMDB message board for Atlas Shrugged, someone with the screen name "anti0918" said he emailed Jamie Clay (I) about Clay's involvement with the movie, and Clay apparently replied: "I'm not at liberty to talk about it at this time. Sorry to be so coy." Maybe the movie-version of John Galt will disguise himself in public to look like Jamie Clay, but in reality he will be some other, younger and more handsome actor. With Hollywood magic, the possibilities are plentiful. Another thought, maybe Galt has a device that makes him appear to be someone else. It might even be related to his device that renders the Gulch invisible from the air.

According to executive producer John Aglialoro, they are going to cast a "nobody" (i.e., an unknown) in the role of John Galt. Read the latest interview. Since my first post in this thread, Jamie Clay on IMDB has now split into Jamie Clay (I) and Jamie Clay (II), but so far I see no real evidence for the existence of a Jamie Clay (II), and I think it is curious that this split occurred shortly after my initial post on this forum. I did a little more research on Jamie Clay (I), and I discovered his Survivor Audition Video on Photobucket.com. (Now that I've linked to it, I wonder how long it will remain public. So you might want to watch it soon, before it gets taken down.) I know the video is only an attempt to get on a reality show, but it is at least an indication that Mr. Clay (I) wants to do something more in the entertainment world than create visual effects for the movies. So, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that he has actually been cast as John Galt.

Jamie Clay, according to IMDB, is playing John Galt in the upcoming movie of Atlas Shrugged. He is a member of the SOLO Objectivist forum, where he says: He is going to be 53 on June 4th, according to his IMDB profile. Having worked primarily in visual and special effects, it appears that John Galt will be his first major acting role in a movie. More information about him can be found here.

First of all, I did not refer to the substance that fills "empty" space as "ether." I did not give it a name. And I did not attempt to describe it in detail. I don't know what it is. All I can say for certain is that something must exist there, because the existence of nothingness is contradictory to the law of identity. I did say that God cannot be what fills space, because God also contradicts the law of identity. That is not the definition of matter of which I'm aware. Look it up in a good dictionary. If your definition were true, then subatomic particles themselves could not be matter, because they are not "assembled" from other subatomic particles. If I knew what filled space, I wouldn't reveal that amazing knowledge in a post here. I'd publish a paper on it. But I think that such a discovery might include a new form of matter. Throughout history scientists have discovered different types of matter that were previously undetected, yet suspected. I wouldn't be surprised if another is discovered that explains much of the mystery of "empty" space. My earlier point, however, was simply that the existence of God is impossible and thus cannot be what fills space.

You're wrong. An Objectivist is necessarily an atheist, because he upholds reality and reason. He denies any kind of supernaturalism and contradiction. And since God is supernatural and/or contradictory to reality, you cannot believe that God is possible and honestly call yourself an Objectivist.

You seem to be defining God as non-matter and matter. How can non-matter exist "physically" in "empty space"? You have not provided any logic here. You've provided a fantasy that contradicts reality. More importantly, you have a confused view of empty space. Empty space is not the same as nothingness, in the way you seem to mean it. Empty space is not literally empty. That would be impossible. For, nothing is nothing. It's zero. It does not have space or dimensions. It does not even exist. Neither God, nor anything else, can "occupy" it. Just as our earthly atmosphere is filled with invisible gases, "empty" space is also filled with something that we can't see with the unaided eye. And only future scientific inquiry will tell us what that substance is that fills space. Your magical, contradictory fantasy of God does not even qualify as a theory to explain this mystery of physics.

But you don't "get the point." Every notion of God that you've provided has either been proven to be contradictory to reality, or it has been proven to be ungodlike. Your further arguing only proves that you are not here to learn, but to waste our time and promote anti-Objectivist ideas, such as agnosticism.

It is your fantasy of god that has no metaphysical basis whatsoever. Therefore, it is evasive and hypocritical of you to require that my conclusion have a metaphysical basis. However, with that said, I don't want to avoid the question entirely. So I'll simply say this: You seem to be confusing the difference between "nothing" and "non-matter." I said that you can't create something out of nothing. Then you restated my position as "you can't create matter out of non-matter," which is a different position. Non-matter can be spirit. But nothing is nothing, not even spirit. Thus, you have evaded my original point with some wordplay and thrown us onto a sidetrack--a course I refuse to take until you address my original argument. How does your god create physical reality out of nothing? Does he wish it into existence? Or do you believe that something can be created out of nothing? Nothing being a zero or that which does not exist.

You cannot create something out of nothing. Therefore a creature that creates something out of nothing cannot exist in reality. Your "god" is impossible. Would you like to modify your definition? From what does he create this "physical reality"? But before you attempt another definition, I'd like to point out that you really have not even begun to give us a meaningful idea of this imaginary "god." You haven't even told us whether he's matter or spirit, or a combination of both. Try starting there.

I sincerely hope that Hunter Rose will receive the same warning that Jim Devine received. (Personally, I would ban them both without hesitation.) It seems that Rose is in the habit of repeating anti-Objectivist dogma in spite of the many clear and rational arguments on this thread that have proven him wrong. It would be a shame if this board became so polluted with these "open-system" trolls that the fresh smell of reason could hardly be detected any longer. While some of us debate the meaning of the new Harry Potter book, there are those on this board, like Jim Devine and Hunter Rose, who are attempting to manipulate and destroy the very definition of Objectivism. Wake up, people! You are not dealing with honest "open-system" advocates here. You're tolerating the enemy--the enemy who wants to redefine, and thus destroy, the meaning of Objectivism.

More ammunition to support my case. This is the last line of the first post in this thread. The post creator's motivation is pretty clear to me. He wants an "open and free exchange" of ideas, even if what he is preaching is anti-Objectivism.

This is a perfect example of what I wrote about in my previous post: the attempt to steal Ayn Rand's philosophy in broad daylight. Now Erik would have you believe that Objectivism is "the proper view of reality." It is the case, of course, that Objectivist principles are true to reality, but that is not the philosophy's definition. To say that Objectivism is "the proper view of reality" is to strip it of objective meaning--to prepare the way for turning and twisting Objectivism into whatever one believes is the proper way to view reality. This very thread is a result of the influence of the preachers of the "open-system" view of Objectivism--a view held by the wannabe thieves of Ayn Rand's philosophy. As a matter of principle, I hope that the moderators will immediately close this thread and say "no" to the enemies of Objectivism.

This is an invalid analogy. Objectivism is a product of free will--of a human mind. It is a philosophy--an integrated system of ideas living within the skulls of human beings. It is a mental abstraction--not a raw concrete material (or metaphysical fact) to be found in the reality outside our brains. Such a thing requires a volitional mind for its creation. In a certain sense, all Objectivists create Objectivism in their own individual minds--just like the followers of the Wright Brothers create their own airplanes, and the followers of Jesus Christ create their own hatred for their own natural selves. But Ayn Rand was the first one to come up with her philosophy, and she was the first to teach it to others, and she was the first to write it down in books. That is why she gets to name it. To deny Ayn Rand the status of Objectivism's creator is to deny the right to the product of one's own mind. It is an attempt to openly steal another person's mental creation.