JASKN

Most of the folk passing it on must be people who simply want to say something negative about Romney. The rest are folk who are unable to think in terms of ideas. Instead, they act like school-kids: "He said potato-ee!"

When the infant is born and starts breathing air on its own, that is the moment the umbilical cord is in fact superfluous not at 'viability', however that is defined. edit: Viability is just another kind of potential.

There is also the status of the infant's consciousness to consider. In the womb a fetus is effectively in a sensory deprivation chamber. Once born an infant's consciousness will be aware of reality through the senses in the same manner as an adult (although of course not with adult skill from the first). As the Objectivist case for rights centers on having a faculty of rationality, and that requires awareness of existence, the moment of birth is when 'the lights go on' and the infant's consciousness can begin differentiating and integrating and understanding the surroundings.

And yet, he could make bajillions, but that would go against the "core" of Wikipedia -- so says a snooty representative in an email reply to me after I wrote my distaste for the endless Wikipedia begging for money. "Wikipedia will never take money from advertisers."

I don't like fund raisers because there are no standards. What's enough? -- no price there to let us know.

This looks like really good news:

http://www.slate.com...r_ayn_rand.html


In fact, now that I have a deeper understanding about Cato, I believe almost all the name calling between libertarians and objectivists is irrational. I have come to appreciate that all objectivists are libertarians, but not all libertarians are objectivists.

Productivity at its core is about taking personal responsibility for achieving the values you desire, and this should be interpreted much more widely than simply the values that a career provides. It's about being an active creator of values, not only in the professional realm, but also in the areas of personal relationships, romantic love, and leisure time and hobbies. It's about being a value-achiever, and this might mean forcing yourself to go out and meet new people (when focusing on the values of personal relationships), or working on your communication in a relationship, or even forcing yourself to set aside work and enjoy the value of some downtime. In this last case, taking responsibility for achieving the values of peace and relaxation might require doing nothing (even when this is difficult for you), or purposefully finding a mindless way to pass the time. If those are the values you feel a particular need to focus on, productiveness means that it's up to you to figure out how to attain them.

Really?

Being a hero is more than a random opinion, it’s about a sense of life as well as the willingness to succeed. You can’t fake that kind of fearless character in the face of death defying odds.

Neil Armstrong rode to the moon in a ship that no one knew for sure if it would work, if it would come back, or if he would live. The ship comprised less computer parts than your average modern car. The first moon landing was one big crap shoot and the stakes were history or deadly failure for the learning curve.

Richard Nixon was advised to have a speech prepared in case the astronauts died. It was a real possibility; Nixon took NASA’s advice and did have one ready just in case the landing (or departure) failed. NASA had a procedure in place if the astronauts could not leave the moon and what would be said and done before breaking communication for the last time. There was real concern that the Lander could have been a stranded tomb.

Think about that.

Paltry funding issues aside, the man risked it all in the name of science and pure accomplishment. As far as I’m concerned, not only is he a hero but your average Occupy [Random Location] mook would be advised to learn what the crew faced and how a real man approaches the challenges of life.

Here's a very simple one. Local drug dealer comes up to you, tells you he's gonna kill you if you don't do something he asks. What should you do?
1. Nothing.
2. Do what he asks.
3. Tell the cops he threatened you, but you have no proof except your word.
4. Tell the cops he threatened you and he's dealing drugs.

To me, the answer is obvious. He initiated force, and that means you have the right to use whatever means are available to get rid of him. If you can get him arrested for the threats, fine. If you can't, you may try to get him arrested for the drugs.

And, if you can't do that either, and the threat is serious enough (or he threatens not only you, but defenseless children as well), you may also get a gun and shoot him dead.

Laws are useful, but they aren't perfect. While this thread isn't about that, even the right laws would sometimes fail to protect you. When that happens, you aren't morally obligated to die by them, just because you support the idea of laws, or even the specific laws. There is no dichotomy between being for a state of laws, and acting outside the law when it fails. You can in fact do both at the same time, because a state of laws isn't a utopia.

Mine started at 19. Think of it as a way to explore the wonderful world of hats

What's the point of having a 300 hp engine, with the speed limit at 60? It's fun, that's the point. We live comfortable lives, with lots of free time on our hands, and we like to spend it playing. We play with cars, we play with computers, and we play with guns. Problem?

And, as an added bonus, the guns will also come in handy if an armed insurrection were to ever be in order. We don't all have blind faith in the government. Some of us have studied history, and know that governments often turn bad.

Back in the first movie Bruce Wayne learns by experience during his world peregrination (before he encounters the League of Shadows) that people who either steal food or face starvation are not of the criminal class he wishes to fight. With her "what you have to do" lines the third Batman movie is putting Catwoman among the excusable and redeemable. She is an individual redemption analogous to the entire city of Gotham's course of redemption over the three movies. She is necessary as a character in order for Bruce Wayne's moral victory over Gotham to have a concrete result, i.e. a visible "show not tell" happy ending that Wayne can continue to have after leaving Gotham.

Not true. As long as you reject false gods and embrace his noodliness, the Flying Spaghetti Monster will overlook the rest of your puny, misguided personal ambitions to be in charge of your own destiny.

Wow, I have been on vacation in the country for awhile, didn't have relaible internet.

SPOILERS

1) Cat Woman did want to leave her life of crime. She gave indication she felt trapped in her life of crime. She said the following

“Once you do what you have to do, they won't let you do what you want to"

The way in which she said this gave me the impression that she was not satisfied with her life of crime even though throughout the movie she did claim that she was "doing what she had to do", that is acting based on pragmatism, even in order to escape the consequences on her past pragmatism. With this in mind I think her arc is very clear.

2) Bane, did not seem to represent egaltarianism.The Leauge of Shadows was an organization of ninjas. Ninjas in reality were mostly peasants who killed feuadal lords in secret to preserve their way of life. They did this by disguise and appearing to be things or people that they weren't, this is also how batman fights. So we are looking at a society of people with east asian medievalist values. Honestly if you watch the first movie you will understand this. They have a concept of justice, but one based in eastern-paganism rather than humanism/individualism.


Bane was also rejected from the the leauge of shadows for being a broken monster of a man who lived in a prison all of his life. He was too crazy. The only thing he cared about was a little girl in that prison. Although the film never states this it seems he saw something in the girl that was of value and chose to protect her, even at his own cost. The girl escaped from the pit and he didn't get out until he was rescued. Even then he was still fundementally broken and crazy, but still attatched to this woman.

Bane to me represents base altruism.

3) The pit was the most important symbol in the whole movie. At first we are convinced that Batman was weaker than Bane because Bane escaped from the pit. However it was revealed that he did not, he was rescued, the girl escaped. She escaped because she was probably going to be raped to death by prisoners, and wanted to live. In order to escape, Batman had to find a reason to live, not a way to die.

Metaphorically the pit was the fact that his symbol of justice that he had built was torn down in the second movie. Batman didn't represent justice anymore, but villainy. He sacraficed his reputation in order to preserve the good of society (in his mind). Later in the movie this has really bad consequences actually.The love of his life died, and it turned out she didn't even love him back. He lost a lot of his money and was crippled. All of his values were crushed. He was basically coasting without any purpose in life.

At the beginning of the movie, even though Bane has a death wish, he is purposeful and driven, and strong. Batman is physically weaker and has no real reason to fight beyond duty.He will get himself killed. Alfred tries to explain this to him but he won't listen. Late though when Batman reaffirms his sense of purpose and his will to live, he is stronger than bane because a full selfishman against a full altruist always wins. Bane and the girl want to die in order to fufill someone elses wishes and get revenge. Batman "doesn't want to die while my city burns".

Metaphorically Batman got out of the pit by burning the image of batman into the eyes of everyone, faking his death, and continuing to live a personal life in a foreign country while exploring new (hotter) romantic options. He rebuilt his symbol of justice (Batman), corrected the mistakes of the second movie (all the lies), and got over his dead-not-girlfriend.


To me it seems the movie was about how people who value their own life can defeat those who worship death.

The carefully chosen name of the girl's so-called band makes for great headlines and visual gags.

What a downer your post was!
This movie wasn't about sacrifice, it was about good guys vs. bad guys, and fighting till death. That it was executed so skillfully and that it even touches on some of the bigger ideas is probably what explains the excitement Objectivists -- or anyone -- have toward it.

I hear people talk about athletes and geniuses having "raw talent" that they are born with. But most often, I hear those same athletes and geniuses talking about all their hard work or training. Who knows better, the athletes and geniuses or the people talking about them?

On a side note, sure you hear stories of 2 year old kids knowing how to play the piano, or people who have photographic memory. Prove me wrong, but I don't think the majority of producers or "talented" people were in that category.

A lot has been written by Objectivists about purpose, including Rand. I do think purpose is essential to human flourishing, but I do not think a lifelong "central purpose" which is not subject to change once set is ideal or even realistic for all people.

For reference, I have changed purpose many times, and expect to continue doing so for the rest of my life. One experience leads to the next, which is both limiting and freeing, including for choosing a purpose.

I read somewhere that it takes 10 years to become an expert in any field. Which begs the question, why is everyone in such a rush?

Your best is the best you can do.

Those brilliant young engineers weren't born brilliant, or talented. They spent their childhoods and early adulthoods learning and obsessing over math and computer science, until they got really good at it.

I would say that his biggest positive is his "Ryan plan". Sure, I could give you a lot of reasons why I hate it, but at least it tries to address some issues that need to be addressed.
Today, the American voter is evading reality and hoping that entitlements will be solved "somehow" by "someone". A debate about the future of entitlements says: "We should not evade. We have to decide. If we don't, things keep getting worse". Commonplace wisdom said that social-security is the third-rail or politics: untouchable. Bush Jr. and Obama had commissions to come up with ideas. It was better than nothing, but neither could do much with those. You have to give Ryan credit for being willing to make entitlement reform a signature issue.

Maybe the American voter will want something like Ryan's plan, or maybe the voter will want Obama back with some alternative (e.g. something like Simpson-Bowles)... at least both these would mean less evasion. Maybe the American voter is not ready to address reality in this election; but, at least the political class needs to put the issue to the voter. At least we will have a widespread public discussion of ideas and a "kicking of wheels" about the alternatives. Even if voters decide to wait till a further election, it will be the next step in what is going to be a public negotiation.

Did you stay to watch the end of the movie? Batman succeeds in saving Gotham without sacrificing himself, he gives up the Batman and Bruce Wayne personas to reclaim a genuinely personal life, and he gets the girl. Happy endings all around.

What a downer your post was!
This movie wasn't about sacrifice, it was about good guys vs. bad guys, and fighting till death. That it was executed so skillfully and that it even touches on some of the bigger ideas is probably what explains the excitement Objectivists -- or anyone -- have toward it.

There was never any reason to be enthusiastic. The voters dont' want an Objectivist so no Objectivist will get a party nomination. Your fight isn't against politicians. It's against the public.

Beauty is a kind of value judgment. As a value judgment, the standard of man’s life ultimately dictates the standard of beauty. More particularly, the objective standard of beauty is the physical nature of man qua man. The metaphysically given standard of beauty includes limited ranges of symmetry, proportions, hair colors, etc., all of which are identifiable with the nature of man qua man, and, ultimately, correlated to man’s life as the standard of value. Among other things, visible manifestations of good health contribute to a judgment of beauty, whereas visible manifestations of ill health detract, because these are directed to the requirements of man’s life.

What dictates the limited ranges? Ultimately, man’s life qua man. For example, being relatively big or tall for a man can be considered a good attribute, but being too tall can shorten a man’s life, and be considered bad. It should be understood, of course, that the standards for beauty are somewhat different for man qua man and woman qua woman, but the same principle and ultimate standard applies.

The measurement of these kinds of values, including beauty, is teleological, according to the objective standard of man’s life.

The less relevant a physical characterisitc is to success in man's life qua man, the less relevant it is to objective beauty. For example, blondes may be a bit more popular, but this is far down the telelolgical scale of physical attributes directed to success in life, which means it can become a matter of personal, even subjective preference.

BTW, no projection is needed regarding your animosity here, J. Nicky, for example, immediately noted it regarding your opening post. Animosity, including ad hominem, bursts and oozes from your opening post and others on this thread. Nevertheless, I hope you and others may find my post helpful, and I would value any mutually respectful and civil discussion.

I'd like to see that on a Valentine’s Card you give to someone. Bet that works out real well for you.