Bryan

I highly recommend the Sparrowhawk series of novels. They are written by Edward Cline, who is an Objectivist, and are set in the period of history of the events leading up to and including the American Revolution. While they are fictional, they are historically accurate, with some excellent background historical information. There will eventually be a total of six novels, the fourth was just released in December.

That is the most foolish law I've heard all week. I can understand why people would uneasy to profit off of the death of a family member, but that is no reason to make a law preventing the sale of organs to people who literally need them. As long as the irrational law makers don't get their way about banning stem-cell research and cloning perhaps this will change sometime in the near future. I’ve always thought this to be the most beneficial potential use of cloning technology, the ability to grow "test tube" organs. A friend of mine works at a "call center" for organ donations and he has told me the same thing. The selection process is very stringent for potential donors, which is understandable considering where these donated organs/tissue go. It would be insane not to discriminate given the nature of the business. Considering that fact that people that die are in poor health it would be very hard to find usable organs to go into living bodies. Thank you for the lengthy reply I think the non-profit status is irrelevant, especially given the current legality of the business and what a touchy issue it is in general. It obviously would not be immoral if it were a for-profit business, and appears that it does provide a lot of people with gainful employment.

Are there organ donation centers that do purchase organs from cadavers? Is there a greater demand for organs and tissue than there is supplied through donations? If so, would offering money for organs and tissues help satisfy some of this demand? If someone willed their body to their family after their death to sell the organs for profit, it would be a good way to help alleviate some of the costs related to death. If your company doesn't pay only because it gives them the legal "ok" to discriminate, that really isn't a moral reason, it's a practical one. Does discrimination even apply to dead people? Speaking strictly from an economic approach, if there was an open "organ market", it would function in the exact same way that any other free market functions. There would be a market-clearing price for a heart or liver, which would maximize profits based on demand for these organs. As far as my personal body, I am an organ donor. I have no problem giving my organs away after I die because I am not aware of any economic benefit they could directly provide for the people that would survive me. If there were an economic benefit, I would demand in my will they sell my body for as much money that they could get for it.

Welcome to the forum I just turned 26 and am also relatively new to Objectivism, I've been studying it for about 2 years. This is a great place to learn.

Because if it their intent is to argue that the encounter was rape, they would have to disregard that quote because it completely invalidates their point . I knew there was something in the book that said that she never attempted to call for help, but I never have had the book available to me when I'm on this site. Thank you for pointing out that quote.

Why do you think have to leave? I don't think you have said anything in this thread that is out of line. I agree with you that I would not classify the "article" linked as an attack. It was not funny, but that's another issue.

I disagree. While the characters and settings of Napoleon Dynamite were more believable than that of movies like Dumb and Dumber, I take the characters just as seriously as I do in any comedy, which is NOT AT ALL. I find comedies with more believable characters and situations to be a lot funnier than over the top comedies like Dumb and Dumber or Ace Ventura.

It’s definitely a joke. I just can't understand what the point is. Did the author have malicious intent? Even if they meant no harm, it’s really not that funny.

I've seen it over 10 times .

Watching this thread evolve, there appear to be 3 separate problem/issues here. 1. Obviously, the problem of how moderators do/don't do there jobs and the judgment they exercise in doing so, specifically the case regarding Mr. Speicher and the moderator NIJamesHughes. 2. The actual workload of the current moderators. From what Mr. Laughlin has said and you ellude to above, even if the moderators do their job perfectly, there is still a large percentage of this board that goes unmoderated. 3. The issue involving a "hacker" (which I find to be the most bizarre/disturbing issue that has popped up in this thread). These are three separate issues and need to be dealt with accordingly. That being said, this is the best online forum I have ever participated in. I hope that all these issues are resolved. If Mr. Speicher does not return, he will be missed.

Myself, I'm not sure if you have read every post in this thread. Regardless, I suggest you read/reread Post #27 by Betsy . Betsy dissects the every interaction Roark and Dominique have up to their first sexual encounter. I have never seen a better explanation of that particular part of the novel, it should answer all of your questions.

I too am a male and have no desire to "spread my seed over many partners". I find many different women attractive but that does not mean that I desire to have sex with all of them, even if the opportunity presented itself. Hangnail, you cannot lump all males into one category of sexual appetite just because you fall into that particular category. There are many men who think the same way you do, but there are also many men that do not. The same goes for your categorization of all women only wanting one sexual partner.

Obviously with any plan, the more detailed it is and more constitently it is implemented, the better the plan will work as designed. It seems that you are arguing here not against the Fair Tax plan itself, but whether the government will implement it as it is intended. I share your concern given the federal governments track record, but that is a separate issue entirely. When considering a tax reform, we have to assume that it will be implemented as intended. If we don't, what is the point in considering any type of tax reform at all? This goes back to Oakes argument between a more fair tax system versus a more transparent tax system. Looking at the big picture, the war can be fought on both fronts. A completely voluntary tax sytem can be continued to be advocated, while also working to make the current system of extortion less of a burden. I am not certain that the war against involuntary taxes will ever be won. But winning smaller battles that reduce the overall tax burden are still better than nothing at all, and certainly better than a move towards higher taxes and larger government spending (which is what is being advocated by a larger number of the population, even if they don't realize it).

I agee entirely. I'm saying that even if it is a mental illness, what is the point in treating it? If you can live a happy life being gay, why go through intensive therapy and emotional hardship to try to make yourself ungay?

I actually got that from an episode of The Simpson's where Marge has a gambling problem. I would agree that the revised statement "Some feelings are too strong not to obey" is untrue because it is indeed a negation of free will.

Regardless of whether or not homosexuality is a mental illness, it would not be immoral unless it was a detrement to your life. The fact is that people can live rational, productive, happy lives being homosexual. If something isn't broken why try to fix it?

Both. It's an (invalid) excuse to behave irrationally that causes legitimate problems. I would say that you were behaving immorally the whole time. I know I was. I recently put to rest a serious gambling problem that caused immense problems in my life. I absolutely had the power to stop; I just never made the decision to do so. If you are in the midst of a destructive behavior, its a lot easier to point the finger at somebody or something else (I always blamed my problems on a monster inside me called Gamblor ) rather than taking responsibility for your actions. The tricky thing about addictions, at least in my case, is that they are used as an escape from your problems. When I went to the casino, it was like taking a break from reality and nothing mattered except the game until the casino closed. Spending so much time up there (regardless of whether I won or lost) took away from every other aspect of my life and soon my life was in utter shambles. But what did I decide to do rather than deal with these problems? I went and played cards! Even though this was the root of all my problems! Breaking an addiction such as this one is still very difficult even after making the decision to stop. It takes a lot of discipline and self-esteem, something that you lose if you are willingly engaged in an activity that has been destroying you for an extended period of time. But the bottom line is that human beings are volitional, you can choose to do or not do whatever you want. There are no magical powers (or monsters) that force you to do anything. All you have to do is make the right choices. I would not say this is a rejection of free will. Some feelings are indeed too strong to ignore. But instead of immediately acting on these feelings like an animal does, recognize the source of these feelings, why you are having them, and then make a rational choice on what the best way to react to them is. To say that you have no control over your actions is a form of evasion (sometimes a very persuasive one).

I think its a fairly decent book as well. The author has some very good ideas. The book would be great if you just took a black marker and crossed out every place it says "God" or "service to others".

As far as Fox is concerned, I think their motto "fair and balanced" is fairly accurate when it comes to the way they discuss issues. In some cases, they really do give all sides of an issue a look. The entire network does have a Republican-conservative tilt but its far more balanced than the other major TV news sources. I don't think you'll see too much Objectivism on any of the other TV news networks, but you do on the radio. The day before Yaron Brook spoke at the University of Colorado a couple of months ago, one of the local AM radio hosts here in Denver, Mike Rosen, had him on as a guest for a full hour. I loved hearing him debate conservative callers because they would revert to the same canned answers the liberals give them regarding the war in Iraq. “Well I just don’t feel like that’s right.” "But what would the international community think?"

Have you been reading 7 Habits for Highly Effective People ? That sounds just like Habit 1. Anyway, I agree with you that it is simple evasion. Ignoring the facts of reality (or lack thereof) and drawing conclusions from faith is one of the most popular evasions in human history. I was talking to an acquaintance of mine who is an atheist and he was telling me about some theory about life on other planets he heard discussed on that Coast to Coast AM radio show. He went into great detail about classification about civilizations on other planets (on a scale which Earth's civilization isn't even advanced enough to qualify) and how they would go about contacting us. I told him that any speculation about life on other planets is just as arbitrary as talking about what goes on in heaven and hell. There is absolutely no connection to reality, its all science fiction and fantasy. Sadly, I think he failed to make the connection. Edit: fixed grammar

ARI's Media Page has Real Media files of recent television appearances by Objectivists. The top link in the "Interviews" section is Yaron Brook on The O'Reilly Factor on 12/19. My guess would be that they will also have a Real Media file of him on Dayside sometime in the near future, so check that page periodically.

This book has been recommended on this forum before and I'm going to recommend it again. Study Methods and Motivation, by Edwin Locke, available through the Ayn Rand Bookstore is an excellent book regarding this very topic. Its only $12 and its a relatively quick read at 183 pages (although if you do the recommended excercises in the first part it takes a little more time to get through). I have benefited a great deal from reading it.

I saw a guy in one my classes yesterday wearing a T-shirt that said "Serving God isn't just a duty, it's an adventure".

Let's not forget that it is a comedy. The movie isn't funny because the characters possess attributes that you value. It's funny because the characters are utterly ridiculous and you can't believe that anyone would behave and live in such a manner. Take Uncle Rico for example. His character is introduced living in a van in the middle of a field, filiming himself throwing footballs. And he isn't even good at throwing them. He is obsessed with going back in time to "82" where he can relive his high school football days and make his life turn out different. I find this very situation amusing. If this movie were presented where these characters were well-adjusted members of society and examples of how to live your life, I could agree with your position that this movie is of no value. But the movie is not to be taken seriously, it is a comedy.

I think you are misinterpreting Sowell's position on this issue. The basic argument of his column is that the advocates for gay marriage are looking for government approval for gay marriage because they (not him) believe that this will grant them a social sancation on their lifestyle. You are arguing the exact same point that Sowell is. He is pointing out that there can be no such thing as a "right to approval". He is saying that gay activists are trying to have their cake and eat it too. They say that people have no right to tell them what they can and can't do, and then they demand that everyone must tell them what they can and can't do. I agree that this particular column is somewhat ambiguous, and I have no idea what its doing on this "traditional values" website. The column doesn't really support their position either. Capmag.com posts most of the columns that Thomas Sowell writes; I recommend that you check some of them out. There are very few things that he writes about in the sphere of politics and economics that I (and I assume most Objectivists) can disagree with.