FeatherFall

I believe sexual orientation is volitional. It is the result of countless value judgements. Some very basic value judgements are questions such as: Do you value feminine traits in a partner or masculine traits? Do you value a partner who's biology is more conducive to sexual interaction with yours? Or rather, do you value one who might better know how to interact with your biology because their own is similar? The list of questions certainly isn't exhaustive. One must also consider whether or not one values a family. Under the current social climate, it will be more difficult to raise children for a homosexual. I have yet to see convincing evidence that supports the notion that sexual orientation is deterministic.

That depends how you download. If you are getting the music/movies/programs from a source that pays royalties to the owners of the intellectual property, or the owners are not asking for payment, then there is no reason to feel guilt. If you're downloading stuff from a source that offers the intellectual property of another without the sanction of it's owners, then you are attempting to gain a value by denying the source of that value. You are acting contrary to the principle that people have a right to the values they create, and you undermine your own rights in the process. That's something that should cause you guilt.

I don't remember where I read this information, but some publication said that the Italian We The Living movie was made without Ayn Rand's consent at the behest of Mussollini's regime. It was seen by the fascists simply as an anti-communist movie. Then it was banned when they realized that it was anti-statist.

The main character was played by Val Kilmer. When the movie began, I didn't like what I thought was a story about an aimless drug addict. I had enough of that in high school to need to see it on film. But once I realized what the movie was about, it got my interest. I think I may even watch it again, now that you've brought it up.

**Jacob bows** I think what he is trying to say is that even if (1) were restated: People who avow altruism are immoral... This person's writing is a chore to read, and it's a good window into his psyche. That isn't to say the window has a great view.

I'm not a geologist, but the sediment argument sounds suspicious. When you described what the video apparently shows evidence of, I got the picture of water laying small amounts of sediment in at a time. Thus, a second layer of books could be laid over the first, and then you would have a geology consistent with both analogies -- one that says that each layer is like a row of books. It still wouldn't support the claim that fossils are much younger than we think. Besides, did they discuss carbon-dating? While intelligence probably did grow with evolution at one point, I would wager that any significant growth happened long before the rise of ancient civilization. The reason we are capable of outbuilding the pyramids now is that our knowledge base has grown, not our intelligence. Besides, they didn't have to lift the stones, they could have rolled them up ramps or done something equally mundane. I'd also be willing to wager that some building substances that were used thousands of years ago would have yielded to pressure and eventually conformed to the forces causing the pressure.

Before going further, you should study Peikoff's work on the relationship between fact and value. Now, on to your poster's argument. Ayn Rand did not "have cynicism for anyone who avows that they wield the aegis of the righteous". She herself avowed to wield that type of aegis, and she trumpeted others who did (like America's founding fathers). Ayn Rand was not a cynic, nor did she promote cynicism. Most of this post is an attempt to knock down a straw man. Observe: This certainly was not Ayn Rand's train of logic (in fact, those two statement's do not even address egoism). She did not justify egoism through altruism's failures. She justified it on it's own merits, and her justification is not addressed in the entirety of this person's post. This next bunch is a blatant attack on Objectivity. It also leads me to believe that this person has read nothing of Objectivist non-fiction. The choice of a standard of value must be made before one can have a code of ethics. Objectivist ethics hold that only one choice for this standard is valid -- man's life. Nhilism and religionism are based on invalid standards. No cantradictory maxims exist within the body of Objectivist ethics because it is based on the only valid moral standard. Again, this is not true if the moral point of reference is man's life on this earth, in this reality. We can judge others actions without rejecting self-interest, if we are interested in life on this earth. In this respect, Kant is correct. Happiness is not the standard of moral behavior. Given a proper standard of morality, and within a normal context, hapiness is the emotional response to values obtained through moral behavior. A proper moral standard allows you to gauge what is right, given a context. I am not an expert on Kant, but this statement shows that he was trying to develop morals without reference to context. Any moral code that claims to do so has no relevance on this earth, and no relevance to man. In a morality based on man's life, some value-contexts require killing, while no value contexts require theft.

Oh, and regarding Russ Feingold: Although I give him credit for not voting for the Patriot Act (I think it was irresponsible for anyone to OK something they haven't read), I would cringe if he had a chance at the presidency. Having recently moved away from his state, I know a little about him. Aside from the list of despicable votes that was listed earlier in this thread, he is the picture of a career politician. He is a neigh unstoppable candidate in Wisconsin because his values are malleable; he tailors his platforms so they will bring him more votes. Like Hilary, votes seem to be his only motivation. That sends up flags.

I'd like to see what you have done so far, once you get your comp up and running. Are you familiar with the Objectivist position on emotions and the subconscious?

That's true. It was in my High School library. I would have done a report on it; that's if I was in the habbit of completing assignments when I was in high school.

(emphasis mine) "Could never win?" I don't think Hillary has a very good chance of winning, but I think she has a chance. Remember, New York and California are electoral powerhouses. Plus, Hilary is trying to give the appearance of tacking right on defense issues. If Condi said she was running, I think she would have a chance, and I would vote for her given what I know now. I think she would be more likely to run as VP.

Because of the possibility of executing an innocent person, I think the death penalty should be kept for extremely heinous crimes (Multiple murders or rapes, combined rape and murder, prolonged torture), and should have an evidence benchmark - like video/photograph or DNA evidence. It should also be reserved for situations where no compensation for the victim is possible. I understand Objectivism doesn't explicitly support or denounce the death penalty, and it is my understanding that the same goes for forced criminal labor - someone please correct me if I am wrong. As far as it helps to keep costs down, I think chain gangs should be used. This would help to pay for prisons and compensate victims. A small fraction could be kept aside for the criminals themselves so they would have a nest egg to use after prison. It is, after all, hard for felons to find work, and this would give them some extra time at nobody's expense. If this type of forced labor were allowed, there would be an argument against the death penalty in any case where the victim still lives. Precautions should still be taken to make sure nobody makes a business out of being a victim. The value of the death penalty is hyper-dependent on context.

In the 4th paragraph under The real Bush target, Safdari indicated that the media denounced Ahmadinejad as a hardliner. By the tone of his article and the use of the qualifier "but," Safdari paints Ahmadinejad as a moderate. While he may sincerely believe that Ahmadinejad is a moderate and that Iran's intentions are peaceful, I disagree. I don't care if Bard is a propagandist. People are free to ignore his judgments and make their own based on the facts he presented as well as their own knowledge of the history of the region. Did he lie or misrepresent the truth? If you think he quoted a source that was inaccurate, please present evidence. Also, please offer your definition of "Zionism." I sense that you were using the term to denote some clandestine Jewish conspiracy. Though truthfully, Zionism was a movement to establish a sovereign Jewish state. It succeeded in its goal decades ago, and thus the term is obsolete. It is now the responsibility of the Israeli government to protect its citizens. That means, among other things, killing Palestinian terrorists. Please, place the blame for Palestinian civilian casualties where it belongs; at the feet of Israel's aggressors. Iran can claim no sovereignty. Sovereignty can only be claimed by states that protect the individual rights of their citizens -- states like the US and Israel.

Hassi, Bard listed many sources, including Associated Press, Reuters, The New York Times and a host of other publications. Some of these same publications were used as sources in the article you linked to. You claimed that Bard was not an objective source, could you elaborate on this? I assume your problem is with the writer and not his sources. A person can both take the side of an issue and be objective. I think what you meant to say was that Bard is biased. Am I correct? Do you think Bard's conclusions are a result of dishonesty? If you think Bard is being dishonest, please present some supporting evidence. Personally, the conclusions I draw from the facts lead me to support a line of thought closer to Bard's and further away from Le Monde Diplomatique's Safdari. The conclusion Safdari draws is that the US is harming its own interests by obstructing Iran's peaceful nuclear program. He claims that Ahmadinejad is not a "hard liner." I disagree on both points. Ahmadinejad is as belligerent as Kim Jong Il, and it is in America's interest that Iran remain incapable of producing nuclear weapons. If that means they can't have nuclear power, fine by me. Iran needs to recognize individual rights and Israel's legitimacy.

Thanks for the reference, Ms. Snow. My previous definition was something like, "the perfect society through technology." It's good to finally know where the word comes from. LFC currently best safeguards to protect individual rights. This type of society will not come about in the absence of the right philosophical climate. Its failure after introduction would involve people first abandoning the right principles, then developing the cajones to disobey the body of law. Like the founding of an LFC society, this process will most likely take generations.

Point taken. I found it very hard to take in some of the things that are alleged on the Web, a little harder than anything I've seen about the Holocaust. I was originally hoping that Israel might be using this pull out thing as a way to cut off responsibilities of governance while intensifying strikes on terrorist activity. I am disappointed. Well, at least we won't have to wait long to know if nuke smuggling is something to fear.

Fear No Evil, do you anticipate any new existential threats to Israel as the conflict unfolds? I see Iranian nukes as a problem, but barring WMDs do you think other nations in the area have some surprise in the works?

I'm more concerned with Iran having the bomb. DPRK is said to already have it, but at least they have China next door to keep them in check. This doesn't make me feel very comfortable with the situation, obviously, but it does seem to make the situation less threatening in the short term. Iran seems to have dillusions of being a regional super power. Plus, DPRK is more about power, whereas Iran is about Islam -- I think this makes Iran the more likely of the two to use a nuke. In any case, I don't think the Gaza pull out will effect what Israel chooses to do about Iraq. I'd like to see some daring commando action by Israel in the absence of US action, but I fear they might not have the capability. Iran is two countries away, and unless they go in through the Gulf, they would have to go through some combination of Turkish, Syrian, Jordanian, Saudi Arabian or US occupied Iraqi airspace -- and the US might not be cooperative.

Iraq had WMDs in the past that were unaccounted for. The weapons inspecters hadn't found evidence of their destruction. So where did they go? I've got two theories. One has Saddam getting spooked by American posturing and destroying them. The other has him getting spooked and sending them to Baathist allies in Syria. Until you find out exactly what happened, you cannot objectively claim anyone was completely wrong. You paint with a broad brush. Who is advocating war on Iran and Syria? I am, but I don't think you were referring to me; if you were, you have misrepresented my reasons for advocating an attack on Iraq. The middle east, is a cancerous region, and to cure it we must cut out the whole tumor, not just a little peice of it like Iraq or Iran. No point? Would you rather let the right ideas stay neglected long enough for the West to crumble? Even if America doesn't do what is proper now, someone has to advocate what is proper. Isolationism and retreat aren't strategies that work. No "Sea of Glass" on the menu? Then I'll take the Baby Steps with a side of Head-Out-Of-The-Sand, please.

You've drawn a distinction where none exists. The proper phrase of both 1 and 2 is: Freedom is a survival requirement of man.

The latter has never been proved, and to my knowledge, no correlation has ever been shown. The scientists' experiments would have had to identify the specific chemical decision making processes and shown a causal link to the test subjects convictions/choices. There is currently no way to interpret a person's conceptual knowledge by way of brain chemistry/physics, so an experiment to verify non-volition is impossible at this juncture. I bear witness to every choice I make, and the notion of volition is further verified by way of the fact that it is one of the requirements of concept-formation. On the other hand, simply because the faculty of volition would have to exist as a matter/energy component of the brain is no reason to dismiss it. -edit for clarity

I don't know about "God's green earth," but here in reality there might be a values context that requires it. For instance, it might be seen as a bonus in the fashion industry (this is just conjecture; I have very little knowledge of the industry).

The visual presentation was disgusting. The subtlety I was referring to involved the way those visuals showed the creators' evaluations of how athiests promote their ideas. Obviously, I disagree with that evaluation (it seemed to include all athiests), even if some "crap out of their mouths."

I like the recent turn this thread has taken. Felipe, could you please enumerate how adults should act toward a child when they are not the parents of said child? This "brain exercise" will help me clarify everything you have posted recently. I think two or three sentences ought to do it (if my understanding is correct). Feel free to write paragraphs if that's what is required.

If I remember correctly, that was the episode where "eating backwards" became a fad along with atheism. A theme through that episode was that that atheists crap out of their mouths. I could appreciate that one and not get offended. Sometimes, it is the subtle stuff that's the best.