FeatherFall

Any moral code presupposes a standard of value. Anything can be judged good or evil if the right (or wrong) value-standard is chosen. There is, however, only one value standard that is objective; the standard of life. Life is the proper standard because no values are possible without it. Does that help?

Just to dispel the confusion, Dianne Durante wrote: I think the confusion came when she compared winners of best picture to highest grossing pictures. During the article she made no claims regarding what should have been best picture for any year.

The morality of tattooing is dependent on each individual's aesthetic value judgments. If they value using their skin as a medium for a permanent piece of artwork, tattooing is moral. If they don't, it is immoral.

Do you ask every person you meet about their sexual orientation? Is it possible people you thought were psychologically stable and heterosexual were actually homosexuals who do not broadcast their preferences?

Amen. I would have posted something similar if I hadn't read what you posted.

Starbuck, you don't have the power of clairvoyance, so don't guess at what other people are reading. Jrs, please offer examples of this with an explanation that shows the Israeli action violated rights. True. Were Palestinians subject to different treatment because of their religious identity as such, or because their religious/ethnic identity was associated with a violent anti-Zionist movement? Also true, but do you realize that non-Jews can vote and be elected to public office in Israel? What rights does the Israeli government deny non-Jews that it acknowledges for Jews? It was my understanding that many Palestinians fled Jewish-controlled land because of propaganda spread by other Palestinians. Do you have examples of forced expulsion? I can think of a recent example of the forced expulsion of Jewish property owners. While Israel does have a state religion, you haven't presented a powerful argument that it is a theocracy. The Brits denied the right to immigrate. I believe that the land was considered a part of Syria before British rule. I agree. Great. So let's answer the question. You believe they did, so prove it. The quote I presented leads me to believe that when Irgun used the word "terrorism" they were using it in a different context than we use it today. It is proper for a country to use fear (read, terror) to defeat enemies during wartime, as well as deter enemies when not at war. The bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, while tactically good choices from an investment/destruction standpoint, were also great examples of terrorizing an enemy into submission. When we use the word today, we are typically describing killing for killing's sake. Even the quote you just presented does not offer enough context to conclude that Irgun was attempting this. But killing for killing's sake isn't even what the Islamists are doing today. They have employed terror as a way to force others to submit to Sharia. It is simply a tactic they chose in a conflict, a conflict in which they happen to be the agressors.

Starbuck, I think I chose my words poorly. I didn't make any claim regarding the legitimacy of the Balfour declaration. JRS used the following quote to support his claim that Isreal is the agressor in the conflict. It's true any legitimate government needs to protect the rights of the non-Jewish. My point was that the Jews didn't require any legitimization through British declaration, and that the JRS hadn't offered a convincing argument to support his claim that the Zionist movement took action in conflict with the concept of rights.

While Israel is officially a Jewish state, the government protects the rights of any individual, regardless of religion. I am curious as to why you think that they started "the war". I am not all that sure I understand what war you are talking about. Is it the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Or was it the Israeli action against the British occupation? Also, why do you believe the British had just authority in making the Balfour declaration in the first place? The links you gave have not convinced me that the organizations referenced are true "terrorist" organizations. Irgun's stated goal was retaliatory in nature. Can you offer evidence that this was not the case? From your link, regarding Lehi's self proclaimed terrorism: Though I don't like the Idea of Lehi dealing with Nazis, or the accusation that they were funded by extortion and bank robbing, the terrorism charges remain weak. The only detailed descriptions of these two group's (Lehi and Irgun) attacks were against the police, military and political leaders of Britain. They also sabotaged infrastructure. There are only short passages regarding bus bombs and the like. These passages lack enough context conclude that they were not necessary actions to achieve legitimate wartime objectives. I have no choice but to dismiss your recent opinion until you provide that context.

Perhaps she held that position because she recognized that if a fetus had a right to be born, there would be a conflict of rights. Birthing a child is painful, risky business. To say that a fetus has a "right" to be born would be to say that human survival requires we physically harm the mother. But if we identify the harm to the mother caused by the process of birth as a requirement of human creation, we see that it is clearly not a survival requirement. Ayn Rand acknowledged that rights are based on man's survival requirements, and also that there are no conflicts of rights. Given this, and given Rand's above quoted statements, the reasoning that leads to the Objectivist position should be painfully clear. That being said, the question remains, where is it proper to draw the moral line? This is a question that may yeild a different answer for each potential mother, as it is dependent on varrying personal situations and convictions.

I have trouble understanding how Hugo Chavez fits into matriotism. -edited to add link

A lot of Americans make fun of Canadians, but I rarely find them making serious remarks. When serious remarks are made, they are regarding Canada's liberalism, and the hatred is absent. On the other hand, I hear a lot of Americans denouncing America with the full force of emotionalism.

Ckalan1, ask yourself what properties "nothing" has. You will find that it has a complete lack of properties, including the most basic property of being real or, "existing."

You might have all of your questions answered, but I would still like to chime in. When you refer to consciousness here, it is correct that consciousness does not effect reality... Well, it does, but only in the sense that it provides thinking entities with the data necessary to function. It's volition that would be effecting reality in the sense that I think you mean, volition being an aspect of some consciousnesses.

This calls for the "FASTREPLY" button... Welcome!

If I were him I wouldn't lighten up. I am a little offended by the holiday, too, but not on a personal level -- I suspect I would be offended personally if I was black. The reason this holiday is more intellectually offensive is because it is not, like most holidays, based on mythology. Mythology can be easily dismissed, where Kwanzaa seems to be firmly rooted in secular altruism, which is much more devious.

Donald Trump's assets take a lot more military power to protect than mine. I don't think that a flat percentage of income is necessarily logical. Large companies and ultra-wealthy individuals have more assets to protect, and thus should have more incentive to contribute to military/court funds. The burden of the costs of government shouldn't be equal; ideally, the burden would be proportionate to what it takes to protect the assets and life of each individual. While a flat tax might approach this ideal on face value, I'm not convinced that it is correct. The government is supposed to protect rights, including property rights. Forcible taxation contradicts such an organization's purpose.

I don't have children, but I figured out the Santa thing before my sixth Christmas (my 6th Xmas was the day I turned 5). While some kids might be crushed by the knowledge, my mother was more disappointed than I was. However, I don't see the benefit of propagating the Santa farce. Remember, kids don't have to believe in Santa to have fun with him and the presents "he" gives.

I was thinking this myself, but didn't suggest it because it would contradict my position on new talent. I should revise my position -- Only new talent for the main protagonists. I like the idea of casting Morgan Freeman as Akston. And I could picture a lot of famous actors as the villains. Like Robbins as Stadler, and either Kevin Spacey or David Cross as Jim Taggart.

I didn't struggle with either of them, but I am a painfully slow reader. I take enough time to make sure I understand everything, and if I don't, I get a dictionary and re-read. I think appeals to IQ are dangerous, and not because intelligence is unquantifiable. My experience with one IQ test (the WAIS-II) was that it was weighted for linguistic skills - that is, your verbal intelligence was much more of a factor in determining the final score. Whether or not this even approaches objectivity, I don't know. But I would guess that if someone took the same test and had a full scale score that was around 150 due to a phenomenal performance score and a lackluster verbal score, they would have a harder time with texts like OPAR and ITOE when compared to someone who's 150 IQ was based on a higher than average verbal score.

It's been a while since I chimed in with my suggestion for new talent for most characters. As far as Dagny is concerned, what about Ravane, does she act? Hey, Ravane, do you act?

Sexual orientation refers to the gender(s) one seeks to find romantic relationships. Romantic love is an emotion, and emotions are physical manifestations of automatized value judgments. Hal raises a good point: It is not clear what specific value judgments contribute to sexual orientation. But there is a method that will create clarity. First, we need a rock-solid understanding of the definition of romantic love and its antecedent concepts. Then, we need an enormous list of all of the concrete examples of value judgments pertaining to all of romantic love's antecedent concepts. Then, we need to eliminate value judgments that do not pertain to romantic love. Finally, we need to sift through what is left and sort them into groups indicating male, female, and gender-neutral decisions. This, of course, is most useful as a tool for introspection. The answer to this question applies to more values hierarchies than those involving sexual orientation. For this reason, I think the question deserves its own thread.

This part makes me smile:

After thinking it over, I've come to the conclusion that my suggestion isn't appropriate. Though, perhaps the rules could caution people? In cases where people play the dogma card, it would be simple just to link them to a cautionary aside in the forum rules. Plus, it would make 'em look extra silly.

I'd like to clarify my previous post. I think the type of value judgments that determine sexuality are usually made very early during development. Because of this, people do not necessarily even know that they are consciously deciding their own orientation. But, it is still a consequence of volition.

I like where SoftwareNerd was going with his last post. Defining your understanding will help us to know where to take this. Emotions are instant representations of one's subconsciously held evaluations. If you have made a value judgment enough times, those beliefs will evoke an emotional response when you encounter a certain situation. Guilt is the emotion evoked by actions taken that are in conflict with your established moral principles. I said should in my last post because there are objective moral principles. The principle in question: It is wrong to accept a value while denying its source, therefore it is right to feel guilt when you do so. If the correct value judgments have not been made, then the wrong emotional response will be evoked (or, at the very least, no emotional response will be evoked).