Nate

I definately agree that exempt assets shouldn't exist, and that the more proactive measures should be taken (seizure of property) against those who don't pay up. I guess what I'm driving at is that in some debtors borrow money knowing they can't and will not pay it back. If the law was appropriately corrected this scenario would be eliminated.

I'm basically in agreement with sNerd but I have to think further about this. I was going to post some type of example where someone has the option to repay or spend and they choose to spend instead. As a result, they can not repay. Was the money really theirs to spend in the first place? I don't know that "debtor" is the right word to use here though.

WHAT? No. It is because cheating is wrong on principle. There is no possible benefit.

Wrong, it is like arnold schwarzenegger in one of those prank calls he is so fond of, though I can't understand why. RationalBiker is right in saying that could have used a little more context. Also, what do you expect? If you don't want to read spoilers then don't read content about something you haven't finished yet. Duh!

"I study university where it´s quite normal to cheat." I don't see how this is relevant. What would you advise if I said I lived in a neighborhood where is it quite normal to steal? You'd (hopefully) tell me that it doesn't mean stealing is ethical and that I should consider moving to a different neighborhood. Further, consider the consequences this has for you later on in life. You'd be cheating again every time you put that diploma on a job application, etc.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/berkshire/content/art...o_feature.shtml Make up a symbol for an existing concept with no new information and call it a solution. Edit: Am I missing something here? Why does this matter?

These are relatively unimportant, but: the chat link on the FAR upper right corner of the home page doesn't work the quote feature in the chat room doesn't work

What about on oo.net?

This following is a response to a chat request in which a user asked me some questions about life as the standard of value: "why there must BE a standard of good (value?)" The concept of value implies a valuer and a standard of value. Of value to whom? For what? Some absolutists argue that the concept of value is merely a property of an existent independent from any agent. How can you define value without reference to a valuer or standard of value? How would you measure "value" as other metaphyiscally given existents can be objectively measured without reference? A thing can not be intrisically valuable without context. "so now why is this the standard of good? how is it NOT arbitrary to set THIS and not something else as the standard?" The most fundamental decision man faces is life or death. This choice can not be avoided. Every action will impact man's life. If you wish to live, you must choose those actions which promote this fundamental choice consistently, absolutely, on principle. If you need further clarification on why you can't just make choices that futher your life SOMETIMES, check out the free "why act on principle" lecture by Dr. Leonard Peikoff on the registered users page at the ayn rand institute. http://www.aynrand.org/ "so why is it that in Oism one should live for one happiness, and not for one's life?" Where are you getting this? Happiness as an end to itself is inverting cause and effect. According to objectivism, happiness should be the result of successfully achieving one's rational (life-furthering) values. Useful References: Ayn Rand Lexicon - "happiness" and "emotion" "so the good is that which further's a man's goals?" only if they are rational goals furthered in a rational way... "All that which is proper to the life of the rational being is the good." - Galt's Speech "well what if his goals are to cut himself to death?" Life is THE premoral choice. Once life has been chosen these goals would obviously be considered irrational. http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showtopic=5739 --- If you have anything to add or correct, please comment. The requester is free to pm me with additional questions and remain anonymous or post here.

To clarify, I'm not talking about "You can see why presently nobody should be able to get a deviation IQ higher than 195 (or 201 on the 16 SD scale). There are not enough people in the world to 'beat'" here, because this reasoning is flawed, but rather that given the rarity of a 300, it is HIGHLY unlikely.

I "dare" say not. That's over 13 standard deviations above the mean. I'm not going to bust out my calculator, but this site should illustrate my point: http://members.shaw.ca/delajara/IQtable.html

The way I read it: "State declarations of legal tender affect only those monetary obligations that have already been contracted. But commerce is free to choose between retaining [commerce's] old medium of exchange or creating a new one for [commerce], and when [commerce] adopts a new medium, so far as the legal power of the contracting parties reaches, [commerce] will attempt to make [a new medium] into a standard of deferred payments also, in order to deprive of [the state's standard's] validity, at least for the future, the standard to which the state has ascribed complete powers of debt settlement." I read it to mean: "that people may choose to use some new currency" In any case, the way that is written is just awful.

I second this. That lecture has been up for a while though, so you might want to check it out soon as there is no guarantee it will stay up for free.

Outside of reading the first chapter of "The Virtue of Selfishness" which outlines the objectivist ethics, you can read here and here. The greed thread mentioned above can be found here. Edit: links, forgot not to use html... also, topic 5829 appears to be gone now but was still listed in my own personal thread lexicon

BLAST! I missed one. I'm slipping.

"Can You List Five Reasons We Should NOT nuke Tehran?" No. "even to those who have not yet been born" How can you have rights before you exist?

Vague reply from showtime ... "Thank you for alerting us to this occurrence."

Greedy, that was partially out of habit. I avoid actions that will get me booted from many forums. It's a lot easier than finding each forum's policy on such things.

Eric, I'm probably going to be known as the copyright guy on this forum. Actually, rule of reason also crossposted from google video. Click or the little arrow on the google video icon and you can see. I was going to say something, but decided I would just email penn and teller first. Now that the issue has already been raised by someone else ... Well, I'll just post again when I recieve a response. I did find out that these videos have been pulled from google video in the past for copyright violation. (according to the penn and teller forum members) On the lighter side, I'm a fan of this series. That's saying something considering I don't own a TV. JASKN, was that a reference to the frequent use of "F***" on the show? They did a show on that ("profanity") too. www.pennandteller.com

Wrestling in HS, then Brazilian Jiu Jitsu + Muay Thai, various crosstraining ... 9 years total

If such a thing existed (cheap heat needing no external power, etc), then don't you think people would be using it to heat their homes ?!?

How about a thermal mass? Like a trombe wall for your car? (Think dashboards, etc ... maybe even some retractable stuff) You could even draw the radiator fluid out of the radiator with tubes through the thermal mass to create a radiant heating system and use a lead-acid battery and a small heater to reheat the fluid as necessary. Also, some dark colored insulating material could be placed behind the windows. Like the exact opposite of those reflective things people stick in their cars in hotter sunny climates. I imagine this wouldn't do much for your gas mileage though, lol. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trombe_wall http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underfloor_heating

Notified. EDIT: The email address on his website isn't working, or at least isn't working right now. Guess I'll have to try something else.

That's kind of a requirement. If you aren't atheist, you're not an objectivist. You can't just accept the parts you like and say "oh well I'm an objectivist, but ..." Have you asked why that is their policy yet? Why don't you get the information another way? If your father is sympathetic, why don't you ask him to join the mailing list and share the information with you? (This is assuming that this isn't a terms of use or other policy violation.) By the way, welcome to the forums. :waves:

Starting the list for milwaukee.