Richard_Halley

Not so... It is clear that they are wanted, which is why the protestors are so desperate to keep them out. If they were not wanted, than all the nonsense about killing local business is absurd. If nobody would shop there, than there is no reason to protest.

Bartwart, you seem to be suggesting that we should get a lot of people who are uninterested in thinking philosophically to support Objectivism (this is the purpose of your slogans, is it not). But this would only cause "the Objectivist movement" to be equal to the Libertarian one. There is nothing wrong with showing people Objectivism, but there is everything wrong with taking the philosophy out of it to do so. As for this: Not to say that this is relevent, but... yes, there is. People are taught their entire lives to be altruistic and utilitarian... these are the standard views of what is ideal.

Why imagine the path, unless there is something overwhich we must travel in order to get from one object to another. In order to get from one object to another--assuming that there is a distance between them--we must travel. You seem to be arguing that we may travel over nothing... Yes, but they are all epistemological tools for viewing something... The fact of the matter is, in order for there to be distance between two things, I have to be able to actually put (metaphysical) tick marks between them.

It is not practical, bartwart, to get people to support capitalism by telling them it helps the poor... that would just lead to a bunch of unphilospohic polical activists.

Yeah, I heard that Sheik Ahmed Yassin has 10,000 men... isn't that what Saruman had?

Your first sentence says nothing... as it is does not tell us what qualities we are looking at. Your second sentence is merely a rewritten version of your claim, with no evidence, provided. More claims with no backing. The "distance forumla" presupposes a measurable number of units from one thing to another (or from two reference lines to each of the objects involved). Laying a ruler down presupposes that there is somewhere between two objects to lay the ruler. Again, what is the purpose of even looking at distance, if not to see how much exists between two objects?

I would be willing to bet that the Supreme Court wouldn't hear it... or would rule against Wal-Mart. This sort of thing has happened many times over, and, if Wal-Mart’s lawyers thought they could win the case, it would be on the docket already.

Yes, Erik... especially when, by your own admission, there is no way to gain evidence to support your hypothesis.

You are going to have to do better than that... you are going to have to give a reason why the concept of distance is valid, when there is nothing between two objects. Otherwise, you are arguing against distance altogether. And, besides, you have not yet refuted the objection which your above statment is in response to, so your claim that you can refute all objections is without meaning. B, in this statment, is what you have to define. What is the rule for calculating distance, which does not rely on the existance of something between the two objects? And besides, why? Why is distance a rule of the game? And of what meaning is distance except as a measurement of all things between two objects? Correct, it does not necessarily depend on a third entity, but that does not mean that it doesn't. And besides, your description of my claim is misleading. My claim is not that the relationship between two entities must depend on itself and a third entity... but rather, is that the relationship between two entites may depend on another entity. As for your last paragraph... I am not, at this time, arguing anything other than this: "in order for there to be distance between two objects, there must be something between them." So that entire paragraph is not, at this time, relevent. And besides, how does air move around an object... as far as I can tell, RadCap's ether reacts the same way (at least I can't see any reason for you to suppose it must be different). Plus, no one mentioned "moving with respect to space," so where this argument came from is beyond me.

Firstly, I said nothing about identity-less entities... You are claiming that, between two objects, there may exist nothing, and that still, the relationship between those two objects is such that they are far apart. Why is the relationship that way unless there is something between them. If you can give a valid answer for that, than your entire view on the matter is correct, in my opinion. For now, I can see no reason why the relationship between to objects would be that they are far apart, unless there is something between them. So my question to you is, what makes two entities far apart, other than that there is something between them.

You are arguing against my point, merely by stating its negation... this is getting us nowhere. The identity of one object does not rely on a second object... the relationship between two objects may (as far as I can tell) rely on a third (or at least rely on that there exists a third)... unless you can give some reason why it may not. Assuming that "everywhere" is infinite, yes. But it appears to me that the argument provided by CapFo is that space is an existant and therefore, is finite. In any case, your argument holds, as a premise, something which directly contridicts the claim which it is intended to refute. You are going to have to give some reason for that premise, or your argument holds no ground in this debate. This plays right into my hands . If I view the universe as a giant grid, placing one object at a random point, and another object at another, there exists "empty" universe between them. If I choose to, I may place another object at any location between them. Your claim is that there need be nothing there, i.e. there may exist, between them, something which does not exist.

Yes, MinorityOfOne... I agree.

Feldblum, your argument consists of the claim that there may be a distance between two objects, but yet be nothing between them. This amounts to, there exists, between two objects, something which does not exist. In order for two objects to be seperate, there must be something seperating them. And, incidentally, my argument was not, as you claim: "something exists everywhere." Rather, it is: "everywhere, there exists something." As for your oranges with nothing between them (I assume you are allowing things to exist around them), there would be no distance between them... you figure it out.

"Censor the Opposition" is convienently ignoring my previous post, which deals with most of his statments. Anyone confused by his posts, should read mine... and if he has an answer to it, he may feel free to word it in such a way that, by my new policy, I can answer him.

Thanks, MinorityOfOne. But that dosen't say that he wouldn't have been accepted into Galt's Gulch if he had been willing to give up the world... or if it does, I don't see how.

The proper definition of Objectivism is: "the philosophy of Ayn Rand." Which means that only philosophic statments made by her, and those which she expressly endorsed, are to be included in Objectivism. An Objectivist is someone who agrees with Objectivism. An Objectivist would say "I happen to agree with every philosophic view espoused by Rand." Feldblum's person who disagrees with X, Y, and Z is only an Objectivist if X, Y and Z are not philosophic views. I believe Feldblum intended this to be his point... I just think his method of attack could have been better, so I made it better.

Feldblum, in order for there to be distance between two things, there must be something between them. Maybe it is air, or ether, or space, but there must be an existent in the area between your chess pieces or they would all be right next to each other (i.e. touching).

Yes, bartwart, this sort of thing has been going on for years... Walmart often has to deal with activists before building. What I find most disgusting is that people presume a right to vote on it.

"Finish line" is not a good word for it... that makes it sound like death is the goal. Rather, I would say that no one can race forever, and they just run out of gas (or drop out, as the case may be) first.

CapFo's post is as near a definitive statement on the nature of hate as I can imagine. Good work CapFo.

I like your proposition, RationalEgoist... I have decided to adopt a policy of my own... I will not post in answer to any disagreement with Objectivism unless that disagreement is stated as a question. Examples: A post beginning: "Objectivism is wrong about capitalism because capitalism is not considerate to the working class." Would not get an answer from me. A post beginning: "Why does Objectivism agree with capitalism, doesn't that overlook the working class?" Would. My reasoning is that this is a place for discussion of Objectivism, not open philosophic debate. Look at the first example and notice that it is not, in fact, a discussion of Objectivism, but a claim about the nature of capitalism. I believe that this policy is considerate to those who are honestly interested in discussing Objectivism and its implication, while still unreceptive to those who are not. Also, I would like to note that, since this is a place for discussion of Objectivism, names like: "Censor the Opposition," shouldn't be tolerated. This may not be the case, but it appears that that name is an attempt to point out that the admin here are "censoring the opposition." In answer to this unstated claim, I will say again, this is a place for discussion of Objectivism. The existance of an "opposition" is grounds to "censor" them. To be clear: "opposition" is grounds for banning, honest interest is not. Edit: The above policy is only intended for use on posts which are in obvious disagreement with Objectivism. A post in which the poster may think he is agreeing with Objectivism, should automatically be considered to be an error in judgment, and be responded to as such.

Yes, MinorityOfOne, I would like to see that quote from someone other than Branden... For now, I am tempted not to believe it, due to the truck driver and the fact that Rearden brought his secretary with him. Invictus, quote the oath to yourself than ask yourself that question... I think you will find the answer.

By supporting Saddam, you do give up your rights... Again, I sympathize with their situation, but that does not mean that we should sacrifice our troops to save their lives (which is concerning oneself with civilian deaths in war amounts to).

And you shouldn't. What you should support is Israel's right to fight back when attacked, which is the relevent issue here.

You are still evading, read my previous post for evidence. I hope you are ready to provide evidence of this. I, for one, have never heard of an animal deciding it was not worth and killing itself.