JASKN

Those were some quality questions for a large scale, general audience. Carson seemed interested in her ideas, whereas Donahue seemed interested in his audience.

Right. Your post about how a God no one ever saw or talked to is an almighty Egoist who is incapable of contradictions and created everything out of himself, is meant to demonstrate how out of touch with reality I am.

You are right, I should have said: There is no other rational way to read what you wrote.

This is a complete non-response to what I wrote. I guess I should not be surprised that the irrationality of belief in a god has infected your thinking. Since belief in a god requires no evidence nor do your arguments. The rules of logic and argumentation are nullified in a reality ruled by "the irrational".

Nice comic relief though: dogma denounced by a religionist!?!? (You can't make this stuff up).



You have no idea how Kim Jong Il died. What evidence do you have that he died peacefully? The words of a lying totalitarian regime? Oh, I forgot, you need no evidence. You have as much evidence about Kim's death as you have for the existence of a god, which is none.

He may have been killed by his son and brother to grab power, which wouldn't be unusual. You don't have to be a mind reader: He had his food tasted for poison; He starved millions of people; He murdered many others; He thought himself a god. These are not the actions of a peaceful mind and if somehow he wasn't bothered by any of this, then he was delusional, which also isn't a peaceful state of mind. Actions and words have implications, oh, I forgot, you don't consider implications.




I haven't presented my "theory", I have only shot down yours.

My position is the same as Ayn Rand's: contradictions do not exist in reality. I know this is not your position, no surprise then that a logically consistent, rational argument is not forthcoming from you.

It is clear to me that when Ayn Rand says "nature forbids him the irrational" she is talking about nature as apart from man. This is confirmed by the other quote I provided about what "the irrational" is: "The irrational is the impossible; it is that which contradicts the facts of reality; facts cannot be altered by a wish, but they can destroy the wisher." -- Ayn Rand, The Objectivist Ethics

"The irrational" is the impossible so clearly it does not refer to the machinations of an irrational mind, to which everything is possible, even possibilities that contradict the nature of reality. Use yourself as evidence of the truth of that statement.



Which is it? You weren't responding to the OP or you don't recall? I doubt you "seriously doubt that you changed any meaning". If you thought you hadn't changed the meaning, then you would have said "I didn't change the meaning". As it is, this is an admission that you did change the words and you just don't know whether you changed the meaning or not. Maybe you should find out.

You "don't recall" to whom or what you were responding? If you don't remember what you wrote, you can always go back and read it. It doesn't matter whether you "recall", in your first post you quote someone using the words "the irrational" and you then go on to argue against "irrationality".

You are putting a lot of energy into defending irrationality. You had to change contexts from nature apart from man where "the irrational" doesn't exist, to a volitional mind where contradictions can exist. You argue in favor of the latter in order to preserve the former -- could that have something to do with your irrational beliefs?

Now that's one graphic relationship.

So...that would be your age(x) minus seven, times two, I think. So 2(X-7) for for older or 1/2 X+7 for younger.

A Conferacy of Dunces by John Kennedy Toole.
I've reread this book every year for more than 20 years now.
I still laugh out loud the whole way through.

"you can always tell employees of the government by the total vacancy which occupies the space where most other people have faces."

1. No and no but I would recommend doing some serious soul searching on your standards. What reasonable expectations are and whether yours are in alignment with that and more that reality is in alignment with that. I suggest that only because the nature of your question makes me think that there is an embedded premise that there are not a significant number of people with whom you could potentially be happy. The fact that those people who fit with us really well are rare does not imply that they are impossibly rare even though it may feel that way sometimes.

2. I've always like the "1/2 your age plus 7" standard fore ascertaining significance. So if your 28 then 14+7=21...so 21 and up would be appropriate. Very far outside of that range and it is unlikely that the two would find themselves in similar places in life. A lot more difficulty in being connected with huge differences.

I'd clarify it by saying if it is something you can openly discuss with your spouse then it is a healthy fantasy. If not then that speaks volumes. Fantasy is perfectly fine and odds are the longer the relationship the more it could even help, but if you are doing it without her knowledge and afraid of her reaction to it then that is the time to check premises.

So this is what you think the person meant when they wrote those words? So, by implication, you assume that the person saying that is saying that all men have always been rational in everything they have ever done? After all, if they had done anything ever so little that was irrational, they would go "boom".
Is that your most intelligent interpretation of the author?

Lets call this what it really is:

your body has just been nationalized

They released a teaser poster. OH MY GOD IT SUCKS SO BAD.

No one would ever doubt your extensive expertise in that area.

This is a delightful surprise, implied speculation of doom and schism aside. I'm not going to read any more tonight - I'm going to bed happy.

I found the first movie to be extremely awful to the point of being offensive and insulting. They took what I consider to be one of the greatest works of art ever created, if not the greatest, and turned it to some mean little ripped off political piece, and a very poorly done one at that. This kind of book deserves the very best, but this was just a cheap little rip off done with complete disrespect to the book.

Preach!
The best thing gays can do for themselves is to remove the idea in their own minds that their values are somehow stigmatized. That's breaking old thinking habits in exchange for new ones. If you don't think you are an oddball yourself, nothing people say will affect you much, and they will eventually just absorb your attitude about yourself without realizing it.

He may have *changed* the way people view gays but not necessarily for the better.
And I am not thinking in just in terms of my Objectivism but in terms of someone who is gay.
Milk wasn't a hero or a role model of an advocate for rights. He was a stereotype.
Like the so called "gay pride" events where exhibitionists wear appalling clothing (or no clothing), get trashed in public and flap their junk at passer-by what he did was more harm than good.

That would be ideal. I assume anyone on this forum would advocate allowing business-owners and employees to enter into whatever contracts they agree. Some employers may agree to unions where every employee has to be a member; others may say they will fire anyone who they suspect of being sympathetic to unionization. I doubt any Objectivist would suggest that a system with countervailing controls is better than one without controls. However, when one has to choose between a system with certain controls and one with a different set of controls, it is fine to prefer one to the other.

I understand your point.
And Dragon Lady's point as well, I should clarify that I don't mean "emotional pain" in the sense of "he hurt my feelings" but rather a tangible loss of a companionship that the owner of an animal purchases and works towards.
So let us analyse the difference. Mind you, I am basing this on the notion that the purpose of law is to make the victim whole. In the case of willfully and viciously killing someone's pet I am calling the pet's owner the victim. So assuming that the purpose is to make the victim whole:

Difference between a doll and a dog
1) a doll is a manufactured thing. While one could make a "one of a kind" doll it would be possible given time and resources to make an exact replica. A doll doesn't change (except wear and tear which is in the owner's control anyway) it doesn't grow, it doesn't learn.
a dog (lets leave cloning out as that is not mainstream at this time) is a creature that is born. If you lose one dog you can hire the breeder to produce another puppy from the exact same bloodlines but there really is no way to determine exactly how it will play out. A dog is formed by experiences, again, not possible to replicate.

2) a doll is a static thing- it sits there, it *is*
a dog has a relationship with its owner. Again, I can buy a new dog by the same dam and sire and treat it the same way, but there is no guarantee that it will be anything like the dog I lost.

3) your point about the sentimental value of a doll (belonged to the person's dead daughter) this is not what I am arguing by "emotional pain" as explained above. A sentimental feeling of attachment is not quantifiable- I wholly agree with Dragon Lady on this. Perhaps we need a better term that "emotional damage"? I don't know what that would be so please accept the explantion I've given. The sentimental value of the doll is not qualifiable and indeed can be lied about. I believe companionship value of a well bred, well trained working dog is quantifiable. My dogs are well trained. They guard my home. They understand what I want of them when I want it. In many ways they are tools that enhance my life. That is quantifiable.

I will use an example of my favorite dog to explain what I believe the value to be.
Let us say dog, advance ordered from one of the country's best breeders of her kind, comes from champion bloodlines and during the pre-pickup weaning period is raised in a specific environment in a specific way. There is a waiting period to get in line for a puppy here.
Lets say the price of the puppy is $2000 and she is 2 years old now.
$2000 plus $500 a year on vet bills.
2 years on training on a daily basis. Time is money. I own a business. My time is valuable. If I have to start from scratch I lost two years. That has a very real value to me.
I usually work 18+ hours a day. I deliberately arranged to have this puppy available at a time when I could spend 4 months of its formative period spending most of my time with it. That also was not only a tangible value but also something that I would not be able to repeat any time in the near future.
A combination of the careful choosing of breeder and the circumstances of the breeding/weaning and my altering of my lifestyle in the beginning *and* my ceaseless work with this dog has created a remarkable animal. My dog is of a breed that many find tempermentally problematic. Mine has none of these issues and people familiar with the breed are constantly remarking about how exceptional she is.

So... if some lunatic comes into my locked gated yard and kills her in cold blood.
Am I owed $2000?
Would $2000 make me whole?
I think objectively not.
I think that person not only maliciously and willfully destroyed my property but incidentally stole two years of my hard work, not to mention the 3 months of planning that went into acquiring her.

To respond to Dragon Lady's query about how I could justify this as being objectively different than a pet cockroach:
1) averaging out lifespan of species cockroachs live an average of 6 months- that means that the most tangible companionship I could be deprived of is 6 months total as opposed to 12-20 years for a dog
2) while roaches can be bred for certain qualities one could hardly argue life enhancememnt (exception-maybe a scientist who uses them in experiments? roach circus sideshow?) given by a cockroach. Mine dog guards my home. Well.
3) roaches have not been noticed to form attachments therefore a roach could be replaced without much difference with another roach. You replace my dog with another dog and it will not automatically listen to me, do my bidding, and protect my family, my home and my own person.

Objectivist style = the style that suits the rational purposes of an Objectivist. Wear the clothes that you think best reflect the type of person you are and the goals you have and the expenditure you can afford.

And don't forget the Liger.

In any case, proper respect for Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff (and anyone!) does not require you to agree with all their statements. I disagree with Ayn Rand on homosexuality and the whole "woman president" thing. I disagree with Dr. Peikoff on a number of topics. If Dr. Peikoff is going to be publicly rude while expressing what he thinks, I don't have any problem with people reacting as though he's behaving like a rude jerk, because, well, he is. Rudeness isn't in itself immorality. Like politeness, it's a type of behavior which has certain consequences. If he's fine with those consequences, that's his business.

As for me, I wouldn't call anyone an Objectivist who doesn't stand 100% on their own judgment when it comes to applying principles to particular cases. I don't care WHO said WHAT. I use my OWN reason.

Slippery slope is a logical fallacy, but just because something is a logical fallacy that doesn't mean that it *can't* produce true statements, and it IS true that since government regulations follow precedent and the logical extension of previous legislation/regulation, once you make the statement that it's legitimate for the government to require this or ban that in the name of protecting SOMEBODY, sooner or later this will metastasize into the government attempting to wholesale protect EVERYBODY via ever-increasing regulation.

What makes slippery slope a fallacy is considering a trend without reference to the underlying causes of that trend, so, if you use it you wind up with statements like "my puppy is twice as big this month as it was last month, at this rate in less than a century it will be larger than the known universe!", because you're totally ignoring what causes the puppy to increase in size and thus the causes that will also ultimately limit that growth. So, if you were to make a statement like "eventually the government will regulate every second of every day!" this would be false, because long before it reaches that stage the country would implode from sheer pressure of stupidity. But it's not wrong to say "if we open this door, we're going to get ever-more oppressive regulation until, boom, collapse".

Imagining your savings being moved around actively to maximize its value? This sounds like trying to play the arbitrage game. The relative trading ratios between the instruments being analyzed for what is deemed the most advantageous positioning at the moment. If you perform this evaluation yourself, you are rewarded/penalized for the accuracy of your assessment. If you delegate it to another to do for you, you are still being rewarded/penalized for the accuracy of your assessment of the individual/organization selected to handle it.

In the end, it comes down to quantifying it. Money is the abstraction. What can money be objectively reduced to? Dollars, euros, yen, in the case of fiat systems, commodities such as corn, wheat, gold and silver have been used to assess various aspects dealing with this very inquiry. Without a standard, determining an accurate measurement of maximized value or worth with money amounts to comparing the results taken from rulers that expand and contract while you use them to determine a specific length.

Reading the comments section reminds me why fans of Rand try to avoid the Objectivist movement.

I don't know.

Honestly? Rather than try to figure whether it's "proper" to feel such a thing (like enjoyment), for myself I just try to understand things as they are and then feel accordingly -- whatever those feelings might be. Though, as now, sometimes it's important and instructive to try to examine one's feelings, to determine their nature and source.

On the subject of the guilty suffering, I don't believe that I feel "enjoyment." There's a certain sense of satisfaction that comes with knowing that justice is done. For instance, when my wife and I watch any kind of true crime story, we'll certainly root that the murderer (or whatever) get caught and receive his comeuppance. But I don't think I relish the thought of the punishment itself or the suffering it will produce. Rather... I think I regret its overall necessity; I regret that the crime was committed in the first place. I don't smile when I think of the penal system, or smile to think of all the guilty who suffer there (never mind the innocent). I feel confident in their purpose, but I rather wish that fewer people committed crimes and that fewer punishments were necessary. I think my attitude towards such criminals is closer to pity.

As my wife and I prepare for our first child, I sometimes imagine about that child's transgresses, and my role in providing discipline (and yes, punishment). I do not expect to take any pleasure in that, though I regard it as necessary and moral. I do not expect that my child's suffering will ever make me happy, even (or perhaps especially) when my child deserves it.

And I know that you've specified "monstrous injustices" and the attitude of the "victim," though I thankfully have little personal experience with such things. There is... one family member that does come to mind, admittedly . If I heard that she suffered greatly, I think I would nod in appreciation in the sense of "I knew that something like this would result," but even there, I don't think I would "enjoy" it, exactly.

When I heard news of Bin Laden's death, my feelings were of relief, and my thoughts were something like, "oh thank goodness," but I don't think I gave any thought to whether he had suffered. If I knew that he had, while I believe I would again acknowledge that he "had that coming to him"... even there, no, I don't think I would myself take pleasure in that knowledge, or "enjoy" it. What if my family had been among Bin Laden's victims? Would that make a difference for me? Maybe it would. But I don't believe I can honestly say.

Perhaps this is somewhat analogous to my feelings on war? I'm no pacifist, you know? I think that some wars are absolutely just, moral, necessary. And yet... and yet, I don't think I take any pleasure in it. I regard war as frightening and frequently terrible, and I regret its sometimes necessity.

It is sometimes necessary to amputate a diseased limb. To put down a rabid dog, though once a family pet. To punish one's child. To war against a neighboring country. To incarcerate (and perhaps execute) a criminal. These are moral actions. And yet, I believe myself to be orientated towards production, creation, growth, and I take my pleasures in those activities. Where destruction is necessary for such growth, I accept the fact. But it may be too contrary to my grain for me to actually enjoy that destruction.