Illuminaughty

Perhaps music isn't worth what its being sold for today and the downloading is a compensation trying to swing it back into normal levels.

Because a happiness is your beings way of showing the best possible life. Sure, you can be minimalistic and try to be happy with just being alive... but you'll be much happier and spend a more productive existance reaching to the end of your ability trying to live the best life possible.

Objectivism allows for personal interpretation of of what's good for you outside what others think: drugs may be good for some and not good for others. Its my opinion that drugs are good because I don't use them as a way to get away from something, I use them to enhance what is. And as far as someone not doing drugs because they said they don't want to become fodder for the war on drugs... so a man pointing a gun at you will get your freedoms rather than your resistance? That doesn't sound objectivist at all.

People that fight good people may be trying to get them to wisen up. The best way to win an argument is to hurt them by showing them their own idiocy as it is. I wouldn't go so far as to say these people are doing that for the good of good people... but just keep in mind its a possibility (that seems to go forgotten often).

Keep in mind for a hacker (the bad form of the word) to exist he must be better than the original programmer, finding a hole in the original programmers work and using it for his own purposes. While hackers may be unethetical (predatorial) they must exceed the ability of the original programmer. Keep in mind also that just because something is a corporation doesn't make it automatically all good, either. Also, keep in mind a lot of the great hackers of the world were hired into big companies' to program. What then, of hacking to show ones' prowess at programming to get a job? That's like shooting better than a marksmen to angle at his job as a friearms instructor.

Feminism can be defined by irrationally defending people simply for being female. In this consideration ayn would always side with the rational party, not just the one with a vagina. So yes, she is anti-feminist, pro-individual.

Because doing so is intra-species predatorial, and the ultimate good for us is what's good for the rest of our species. Doing things that pray on our own species is ultimately anti-thetical to our existance. Keep in mind just how complicated the initiation of force can be though.

Haha. Yes of course. Some people arrive to the conclusions some have arrived to through rand on their own. I'd say rand hastened some decisions I would've made eventually by showing me a few pieces of information. I'd say that some of my ideas came from rand, but know realistically I would've arrived at these in time at any rate, it probobly would've just taken a bit longer to define these things and make a solid morality out of them.

Its called warpathing. Look it up. Most companies consciouslly allow it. If they don't they simply have a closed netowrk that requires a login. If your friend is using one of the many open networks out there, those networks are designed for just that and there is absolutely nothing wrong with it.

What? The unconscious mind is what gives you feelings. I harly think rand is someone who says its bad to follow what you feel, or your gut instinct, as long as you mix it with thought to understand why it is you have that feeling. Feelings are just precognitive thought patterns felt instead of understood.

Ask him exactly what's wrong with objectivism. Go from there. All he's doing now is making a point to show that he vaguely dislikes it. That's not nearly enough to win any argument, so get whatever he's trying to say out of him and debunk from there.

Yep. I'd burn a flag to protect the freedom for which it stands. I've patriotism only if my country is truly noble. A country that has more people in jail than any other country in the world, spends as much on its military as the top 30 OTHER COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD DO, and try to outlaw guns is no country I'm proud of. Its a pity I'll probobly never live to see this country be heroic, if it ever decides to run with capitalism rather than the communism manifested in seemingly random ideals here and there.

Nothing changes in an emergency. Morals and physics do not change. Only the sense of danger and condition of things changes. You may have to live a different way, but there's no reason to change your moral system because of it. If your moral system changes when an emergency arises, its not a solid system to begin with.

Humans are the only sentient being. I think that's what you were aiming for.

If it does, its socialism. Just like our government is limited socialism because of the industries it controls.

If you're referring to judiasm, then no. You cannot mantain an atheistic moral structure and a seperate, mutually exclusive dogma at one time. If you mean race, then only if you don't live to irrationally further your race by doing and working towards race-oriented goals. The aryan race is a bunch of crap and so is all the eugenics with it. Work on finding brothers of the mind, they're much more important than brothers of ancestry.

Its not. You're erroneously thinking that law enforcement officers are automatically moral. That the system isn't intrinsically flawed. That legal equates to moral. Any system of laws where someone can get life in a cage for selling marijuana cannot begin to claim morality.

Don't worry. You'll either accept life as it is, and find good things in places you never expected, or crash and burn into the realm of depression. Neither is final, so don't get too excited or sadden by this however.

Foolish. She wanted to find a man of equal values that could dominate her, because she's so used to the corrupt dullards that she dominates day in and day out with her superior mind. She doesn't want to be dominated per se, she just wants a challenge. It means the person wants another with a confident sense of will. Enough to risk raping someone because you know their inner thoughts. That kind of intellect isn't an ordinary kind.

The reason more younger people are lazy today is a combination of technology and a societal standard of not standing up to your children.

Nothing would be federal. Each city would control its own laws, statutes, police force, and contribution to the overall military. The government is an unnecessary middle man existant only to perpetuate its own existance; like a mafia ring squeezing its victims for protection money. I mean taxes. To live. To work. To own property. In an objectivist country as described, things would be corporate run, not federally run.

The premise of a relationship is flawed. Imagine your best platonic friend coming up to you one day and asking suddenly "promise me you'll still be friends with me tomorrow". Is that something an honest person can do? NO. An honest person knows their friends define themselves by actions, thus the friendship could be ended by certian actions. Yet the first thing you do in any relationship with a title is make that promise. The first thing you do is satiate your insecurity of what could and possibly will happen. Nothing more than comforting words of no value meant to ensare someone into a relationship they don't want to be in by using guilt of the original commitment to keep them after they're grown disinterested (how many married couples can you say still act like newlyweds?). Marriage is a corrupt institution that has no place in a rational mans' life.

You bet your ass it would! (pun intended)

I always have to do it; don't use "big words" to confuse ordinary people and/or family. Should this be done or should you use big words and try to get people to learn them? Is tact worth the compromise?

What about the fact meat is healthy for us? Isn't it moral to do what's best for ourselves? Besides, butchering provides money to repopulate stock. Animals aren't things with feelings to be considered, but non-sentient machines to be used as tools. Especially with rand's view of the biggest tree in the forest being the most successful by stealing light from its smaller neighbors and thus becoming the biggest, most healthy tree, I wouldn't of thought I'd even seen this argument arise. On the other hand, I do like veggies, I just wouldn't want a diet of ONLY them.