hunterrose

You might be making this more complicated than necessary. I'd define "axiom" as an unproven statement that is accepted as true (validated?) and often used to validate other knowledge. I understand this desire for a method to "rigorously" validate an axiom (and don't think the fallacy of the stolen concept does so.) But everyone necessarily uses axioms - you're making implicit use of axioms in your gray box. I don't think there's ever a situation where you need to explicitly recognize axioms. But IMO it's more intellectually rigorous to do so.

Republicans are just as much to blame, and probably more to be condemned for their part in this affair. Indeed. When the Democrat says we need more regulation the Republican replies... that we do need more regulation, just not as much regulation as the Democrat is asking for. :wacko: Bad principle vs. no principle??

I particularly liked the parts where she didn't yea or nay on the Bush Doctrine, and when asked "are we in a holy war?" didn't give the right answer...

I don't think you should answer the question by showing why humans deserve life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but rather answer the question by showing that humans require LL&PoH.

What then is this individual saying about the role of government? Because if the right to life (and by extension all rights) are arbitrary constructs, wouldn't the idea of a "role of government" also be an arbitrary construct?

Just so I understand: by "identity", here you mean values/preferences/reasons for choosing x over y? Again, correct me if I misinterpret: If man has free will, then he creates his own (initial?) values. I think that (if a person passively and volitionally allows it) one's environment/nurturing can affect the things a person values, as your America vs. Eastern countries example suggests. But I do not think, even if one's initial values are wholly/partially created by one's environment/nurturing, that such origination means that one doesn't have free will, or that this initial set of values can't be volitionally altered. I believe the disjunction to be a false dichotomy: I don't see why not volitionally creating one's initial values precludes one from having free will. I think I understand your argument for the disjunction, but since I've already assumed a lot, it's better that I explicitly ask. Why do you feel that Either there is no free will, or if there is, it creates itself. this is true? (If I've indeed misinterpreted your argument, please explain where I've misunderstood you, particularly what you mean by "it creates itself.") At any rate, this is an interesting topic

FYI make sure you wait for the September (7th?) price cut!

Granted

There's nothing more harmful to the Objectivist movement than those rejecting people who are merely partial to Ayn Rand. For what it's worth, I too doubt Thomas even claims to be an advocate of Objectivism.

Does that mean that anyone who is the Democratic or Republican nominee is equally nuts simply by party association? Or is being Libertarian nuttier than those other two parties?? As far as McCain/Obama go, they do sound equally bad in the original quote.

I think Gates gets undue criticism for these current efforts of his. It's kinda of fun to identify what's "fundamentally" wrong with the "world's richest man" when he decides to give up his day job for charity work, but I think it's offbase. Gates essentially said that the poor don't get some advances of technology as fast as the rich do. Does anyone really disagree with that? He suggests that organizations can do something about it. And while I have some disagreements with his proposed strategy and its implementation, I don't think the idea itself is such an abomination. After reading his paper, Gates isn't even being altruistic. He proposes that organizations go by his ideas for the benefits it provides. With that said, I do agree with this quote from another commentator on Gate's effort.

I don't see how it's a philosophical matter. AFAIK, "matter" isn't a fundamental concept in Objectivist metaphysics, and the relationship between energy and matter is even less relevant to philosophy. To the original poster: why did you look in a philosophy dictionary for a defintion of matter? IMO it's like looking in a philosophy dictionary for a definition of gravity - it's something that philosophy needn't (and probably shouldn't) be defining in the first place.

Like D'kian said, existence here is defined as everything that exists, so even unknown aspects of existence would still be included in the concept of existence - when they were discovered to exist in the first place. What would be the alternatives: 1) sensory perception is "important" but not fundamental to knowledge 2) sensory perception is immaterial to knowledge? If a computer were to simulate the sight, feel, and taste of ice cream through electrode stimulation, that would be a sensory perception. But what you have to remember is that this doesn't mean that the (simulated) ice cream exists. Just as seeing a stick bend when put in water doesn't mean that the stick is bending when put in water.

...wait, how are you defining "rationally"? Certainty of knowledge is contextual, not "complete" in the sense I *think* you mean. Different contexts of knowledge hold different discoveries. A certain person can still check her facts or desire to broaden the context of her knowledge. Whatever else it means, being certain doesn't mean being all-knowing or infallible in one's conclusions.

There would be a reason to not mushroom Tehran? Or there might be a reason to reconsider the need to mushroom Tehran. What else would there be to consider if Tehran had renounced and refrained?

So long as the problem is limited to whole numbers, it certainly is a very simple, effective, and intuitive solution. I was thinking in a similar vein. I used determining whether A-B (or B-A) is divisible by 3.

Bah, then put up a spoiler alert. Stop holding out on us! Very very nice

You meant that there is a solution for every x that is greater than 2? I agree, especially if a student asked why only those two solutions worked. Tell us how it goes Area A= x*y Perimeter P= 2(x+y) Like John McVey said, there's no solution, whole number or not, if x<=2 or y<=2. At 2, the square's perimeter would equal 2(A/2 + 2)=A+4 i.e. the perimeter's going to equal more than the area. All the more so for any number less than 2. And while I don't have a definitive quickeasyfast solution to show why no other numbers besides 4x4 and 3x6 work, I used A/x + x = P/2 to test some values for x. (If A=P, then A/x=y.) At very low (e.g. at or below 2) values of x, the x makes the perimeter>area (units aside). And "high" values of x make A/x significantly lower than A/2, low enough that adding x isn't enough to prevent the area from being greater than the perimeter. </geekspeak>

There are much, much, much more than two types of sense of life. Take d'Anconia and Galt - both had positive ones, and yet their senses of life were unique. It showed in their reactions, and those unique senses of life might cause you to like one character more than the other. I kinda agree with that. IMO people with similar philosophies but antagonistic senses of life (even if they are both positive ones) aren't going to be very compatible. But based on this information (they both are excited about something) alone, those senses of life aren't similar. I do agree that sense of life isn't the only thing that should be considered in terms of relationships.

I was watching Evil Dead just the other night I love good horror movies, and I'll probably check some of the Horrorfest movies, particularly if they're getting a good buzz. I've heard some here with less than positive opinions of horror movies as a genre, and there are some scare flicks that even I don't particularly care for (e.g. Devil's Rejects) but... meh.

...Not entirely Ignoring for a moment the subjectivity of "ordinary"... Why would government be legit in forcing parents to prove they can handle ordinary childcare needs, but be acting illegitimately in forcing parents to prove they can handle anything above and beyond ordinary childcare needs?

And what is your principle, then? As I understood it, your principle was if you create a vulnerable human being, then you are responsible to mitigate that vulnerability According to that principle, if you create a human being who needs a million dollar surgery to survive, then you are responsible to mitigate that vulnerability... and if you were deemed unable to pay for a million-dollar surgery, you ought to be denied the right to reproduce? Your principle doesn't distinguish between "normal vulnerabilities" and "exceptional vulnerabilities" - so do you have a better principle, or is the distinction subjective?

What if the child requires, say, a million dollars' worth of healthcare - ought the parents be forced to be legally responsible for this child's "forced vulnerability"?

I personally think Americans *are* tough, civilians included. I doubt there be many people unwilling to fight what they considered a necessary war.

Good ole blackdiamond, keeping the boards busy I think my position would be between those two understandings (assuming the statements are correct representations of the positions.) I don't think that infidelity will necessarily mean that this particular husband will be less productive at work in the long or short term. But black, would you agree/disagree that infidelity would necessarily prevent one's productiveness qua one's marriage from being as virtuous as it could be?