oldsalt

Old Geezer: First off, I didn't ask you to prove a negative. I asked you for information (though I stated it in the negative). I made a positive statement that you said was untrue. What information do you have that makes you say it is untrue? As for naming a specific amino acid that you can't get from a vegetarian diet, I can't give you one. My doctor and nutritionist told me, when they were discussing my dietary requirements, that I *had* to eat a specific amount of meat so that I got the proteins I required. This is why I used it as an example -- and only an example. It is a scientic question that has nothing to do with ethics, neither does it speak to my main (ethical) point. Nothing concerning the particulars food makes any difference to the discussion of the morality of eating meat. While debating the merits of eating this or that might be interesting, I fail to understand how merely saying that one prefers a particular diet furthers the debate on the ethical question. The focus of my post was that, no matter what one's preference is, the moment a person advocates force to back up that preference, they are advocating the abrogation of rights and, as such, are morally reprehensible. I've tried to point out the underlying assumptions made by most vegetarians I've met, which inevitably lead to an advocacy of force. (Sorry I can't help on the amino acid thing. I know I ought to be more curious, but my situation is so all-encompassing that I just get bored dealing with all of it. It would be my whole life if I let it.)

I would be interested in seeing Ms. Rand's notes on Eddie. His character seems to be somewhat inegmatic to a lot of people. I know what I think, but I'd be interested to know if I actually get what she meant. The only thing I remember her saying specifically about his character was in a discussion about who represented the most common type of man. Most people thought it was Eddie, but she said that it was Dr. Stadler. Stadler was common in his assiduous evasion of the truth.

I'm not sure I understand all the parsing of "Marxists" and "communists" poohat goes on about, but I do agree that a general "no trolls allowed" ought to cover things nicely. It would automatically ban all offending communists, as well as any other variety of goon who merely wants to argue for argument's sake.

Reactor: Apparently you didn't fully read the above entries. If you read Objectivism: the Philosophy of Ayn Rand, by Leonard Peikoff, you will find the info. on metaphysics you seek.

I hope that made sense. I have days when what seems reasonable to me comes across to others as gibberish. It's an amino acid, broken synapses thing. Heh.

Old Geezer: I have had many discussions with vegans and vegetarians over questions of health. My own health is atrocious and I am pretty much boat bound most of the time because of it (Oh, I live on a boat). Fellow boaters who are vegetarians talk to me all the time about the kinds of things you've mentioned; they seem to think that all my genetic make-up could be changed if I just ate differently. They are always respectful to me personally. Anytime I've delved any deeper, however, these lovely, non-activist people would have the world acting on their beliefs BY LAW (i.e., by force). It would, their argument goes, be healthier for *the most* people in the population, cause less harm to animals, end government subsidies to factory farms (freeing up the money to support organic farming), put an end to obesity -- the list goes on and on, and changes with each discussion. These are nice people who would never dream of hurting another human being. At first, our discussions only went as far as the kind you are talking about. We discussed the merits of this and that. I tried to get them to back up their assertions with science, asking them to give me something to go on besides blantantly biased pamphlets and books and their own understanding. (For an instance of this, consider that you didn't give me anywhere to go that says we don't need certain amino acids found only in meat. You merely said that it was untrue. I know you were giving the short answer, but the short answer does nothing to persuade and, in fact, I have been told differently by the doctors who dictate my diet.) Whenever we got into discussing the actual facts, the conversation invariably turned to the morality of eating animals in the first place. This discussion provides a fine example of the kind of question which buries a false assumtion, such that any direct answer to the question grants the assumption. The assumption in this discussion is that it is immoral to eat animals. It is a question, then, of ethics, not science. Science is used because the ethical aspect is more inflamatory and it is easier to persuade using science. The fact that the speaker doesn't have a clue of what he is doing isn't relevant. If you are to ferret out the true meaning behind the questions being debated or discussed, to paraphrase Toohey, don't bother to examine such assumptions, merely ask yourself what they accomplish. That's the short answer, anyway. ;~)

There may be valid arguments offered regarding health matters as they pertain to factory farms. Not knowing any of the science, it still seems reasonable to argue that the healthier the animal, the healthier the meat provided. My point, however, isn't that there are always better ways of doing things, but the forcing of people to behave by standards not of their choosing. While a chicken defecating on another chicken's head is certainly not aesthetically pleasing, we aren't eating that chicken's head. Buying free range or organtically grown meat (or vegetables) is a choice. If you choose to allocate your resources for that, it is your perogative. No one here would argue otherwise (and still be an Objectivist, anyway). This isn't the thrust of an activist's actions, however. They do not want us to have any choice in the matter. They consider it morally reprehensible and would have their morals forced on the rest of us. Saying that the health claims about eating meat are dubious is also not a valid reason to override my rights. One could also argue that we evolved into kind of creatures we are only after we began to eat meat on a regular basis (specifically, our brain evolved). There are certain amino acids required for human health that are available only in meat. Vegetarians and animal rights activists like to say that we no longer need meat, but I've never seen any objective scientific studies to back that up. Even if there were valid studies, that still would not give them the right to determine my choices. Remember, as well, that the arguments always go further than just eating meat. The arguments against supposed cruelty to animals extend to scientific studies using animals, as well. These arguments all ignore the requirements of human life. Just because we can think and be sensitive about how we use animals doesn't change that fact. I would respectfully remind you that when you grant premises to one who would take away your rights you are playing a dangerous game. Just because they say that they are looking out for life doesn't mean that they have any respect for human life. If a person is for government mandated regulation of what we may or may not eat, or for regulating scientific study using animals, they are not fighting for man's betterment, no matter how they have managed to convince themselves otherwise.

While my parents were members of a fundamentalist church, their own way of thinking contradicted what I learned in Sunday school. The first time I really questioned what I was being taught was after I asked my father who he loved the most, my mother, my brothers, or me (hey, I was young). He answered that he loved himself first! This was a stunning answer, given what I was being taught about being unselfish. He went on to explain that if he didn't love himself first, he wouldn't be able to really love anyone else. This one insight changed everything for me. I actually fell in love with ideas after taking a Great Books class during my junior year in high school and, thus, I began my lifelong love affair with philosophy and the history of ideas (and their consequences). I wasn't introduced to Ayn Rand until my early 20's, when I read Atlas Shrugged. It was like coming home. Everything I had been thinking fell into place. I've never looked back. The older I get (and compared to most on this board, I'm REALLY old), the more first-hand knowledge I have of the consequences of today's prevailing ideas, the more I see the truth of Objectivism. Miss Rand's philosophy, along with a good knowledge of history, allows one to cut through the muck being offered as wisdom these days, and understand the world around us. One is able to see the evils in our world for the ancient evils they are, whether the justifications are dressed up in environmentalist, conservative, liberal, or even tricked-up libertarian rhetoric. It has been a glorious journey.

I'm not sure if you were asking me specifically, but I'll offer my two cents, for what it's worth. The surging costs of all insurance premiums have the same cause: government regulation has instituted a growing number of middlemen into the system, which has caused all medical costs to soar. These middlement dictate a kind of cookbook medicine, which defines the acceptable protocols of treatment to be followed by doctors (regardless of the requirements of individual patients). This is only one factor in rising medical costs. More regulation means more oversight (which costs), more office personel who do nothing but deal with regulations and insurance people (which costs), higher malpractice insurance, higher overhead, etc. These costs have to be paid for. These days, because of the socialization of medicine, the costs are paid for by increased insurance premiums and taxpayers -- whether they actually use the services or not. When people do not pay directly for most of their medical needs, they tend to use the service more. This "frivolous" use of medical services raise the costs to everyone. The specific costs of disability insurance can be traced to the much greater demand for disability payments -- much of which is unwarranted. Businesses pay most of the cost of disability insurance for their employees (mandated by the government, who also dictates who you buy from), so it doesn't seem to hurt the individual much. It is thus used as just another way to get something for nothing. It's a version of the old "The insurance companies are rich so they can afford it." rationalization.

People would do well to study just what happened to Martha Stewart and how the law was used against her in the most biased way possible. She was accused of lying to the police. The way she was prosecuted for this ought to send a chill down your spine. She wasn't prosecuted for perjury, for lying under oath. Law enforcement is allowed to lie to anyone they are talking to, but citizens have no such right under the law. Of course, people do it all the time without being prosecuted for it. The courts would be clogged even more than they are if they were. This law is used as a tool of intimidation and is used primarily to threaten witnesses. That the government was able to secure a conviction against Ms. Stewart is a prededent we should all be afraid of. Should I speak to the police at all about anything? If they decide I've lied to them, I've left myself open to charges. As an aside, compare what happened to Ms. Stewart, who was not under oath at the time, to what happened to Bill Clinton, who lied under oath to a Federal Grand Jury. The results of these two cases are telling. See Eugene Volokh's blog, The Volokh Conspiracy, for a fairly reasonable legal discussion of this case.

Family background is both Protestant and Jewish. My parents were church-goers, but I knew something was really wrong with the whole thing by the time I was 10 (they tossed be out of Sunday school for being too disruptive! They didn't like my questions. Heh.) I became an atheist at the age of 16, after reading St. John and then Marx in my Great Books class.

I have a good perspective on the medical profession in America. I worked in this area from 1962, both before and after Medicare (i.e., the first step on the road to socialize medicine) was instituted. I know firsthand how detrimental to medical care this has been, both as a professional and as a patient. I loved my work too much to stay -- along with many, many others. We have not gone as far (yet) as Britain has. We have been socializing the field incrementally. You mustn't scare the natives; they must be brought along slowly, so they won't realize what's being done to them. Now, however, we've come far enough, and the government interference in medicine has caused enough problems, that fully nationalized medicine in just around the corner. As a consequence, the brain-drain has begun.

Hello all. My name is Janet Busch. I'm an aging boomer -- and no, I've never been a hippy. I'm a retired R.N. My husband and I live on our boat (for the last 17 years) in San Diego. I am a physical invalid, eternally grateful to the people who have given me this wonderful window on the world. When I was no longer able to work, I decided to go back to school and indulge my love of philosophy. I don't have to tell folks here what a major disappointment THAT was. I continue my studies on my own. I've been a student of Objectivism since my 20's. The older I get, the more life-experience I have, the more I understand the profound truth of Objectivism -- and the remarkable depth of Miss Rand's accomplishment. I can't tell you the profound satisfaction I get from reading the thoughts of the young people on this forum. I long ago quit trying to argue with most people. I got tired of saying the same old things (old to me, anyway) and always having to begin at the beginning. Thus, I am thankful for this forum. It has enriched my days, and, wonderfully, stimulated my thinking.

Golly gee whiz, here I am, just browsing through the intros, getting to know folks, and then I find myself here. Bosch, you've laid out your reasons, sort of, for doing things the way you have. I have no interest in your genre, so I'm not your target audience, profanity or no. As for profanity, in general, I don't care for it. It is so overused that it has lost any kind of shock value and usually points to a lack of thought in the individual who uses it. This may or may not be true in fiction, but it certainly is in life. It might make for an interesting discussion over in "Esthetics." Since I wouldn't be someone who would read your work (as a simple matter of preference, and saying nothing about your artistic values), I would like to make an observation: Obviously, most of the people on this forum know you from what you write here. Matt has read your work and seems impressed. I would like to be as impressed. I especially want to be impressed by those who espouse Objectivist values because there is so much mediocrity out there it is sometimes suffocating. On this forum, I have found that people do not hesitate to offer a stout defense of their arguments, but they do so within a civilized framework, showing a fundamental respect for others, premised on the idea that we are well-meaning even if we are mistaken. I noticed that you were respectful only towards those who offered compliments. When you felt that you were being disagreed with, you didn't offer an argument, rather, you copped an attitude. Perhaps this isn't what was meant, in the beginning, but . . . . You may have something to say worth hearing, but you will do better if you don't behave as though you are being attacked. I thought you were just a little quick off the mark to be offended. I know how one can get to this point by just dealing with the world everyday. These days, people (especially young people) seem to confuse attitude with character and are so insecure in themselves that they attack at the least provocation. It is easy to find yourself doing the same. People of good will can criticize with no disrespect intended. Engaging such people in reasoned argument goes much further than arguing from "attitude" and pouncing just because someone seems too abrupt. Chill, and let us know what you THINK.

Consider what is actually being argued against by (most) vegetarians. As Old Geezer put it, and I have heard, they say that they don't like meat from factory farms. (I won't discuss the agrument about cruelty here.) What would it mean if we closed down these farms and only allowed the organically raised as our sources of meat? The first thing to happen would be a dramatic rise in cost, because there would be a lot less meat. Then, because there is less meat available, and what is available is costly, many, many people would be forced to go without. This is a gross violation of human rights, on the most basic level. What gives anyone the right to determine what another eats. Obtaining sustenance is absolutely basic to the survival of any living thing. This is the same ol' tyranical play for power over people; they've just put on a different mask and use different props. One may argue that there is a better way to manufacture our food, and I'm sure there is. There is a question, for instance, about whether injecting cows with certain antibiotics might be detrimental to human health (because, they say, it causes the bacteria to mutate and lessens the effectiveness of antibiotics in humans). But all such questions are technical and, as such, they are the provence of science, not politics. The government only gets in the way of solutions to these problems when they dictate regulations that stiffle innovation. Morally, if someone chooses to be a vegetarian, it's no skin off my nose. When these people become activists supporting force, however, they put themselves outside the discussion and become an enemy to human life.

I think that Eddie didn't go to the gulch because he chose not to go. He know about the place and he knew about Galt. When he realized that he was deeply in love with Dagny, he also realized that his love was hopeless. He chose not to continue his relationship when he insisted on going to California. While Eddie was not a prime mover, he would have been welcomed in the gulch. Remember that Reardon took his secretary, Gwen, and his plant foreman with him. Dagny would have taken Eddie, as well. I also disagree that Eddie was just an average Joe. He was more than that. His "sin", if you will, was that he never defined his beliefs. He knew that he wanted to do "what was right", but accepted much of the prevailing morality without question. Because of this, he was left unprotected when faced with the ravages of the society in which he lived. I think he is one of the saddest characters in the book.