Olex

I found the link on wikipedia page on Eve Online.

The topic description begs a question ("apparent dichotomy"). Apparent to some specific person or as an absolute? Keep in mind that sexual desire is deeply psychological and is not purely physical. Thus, if there is a dichotomy, then it is a contradiction within one's mind, and needs to be resolved. The last two questions in the original post are not comprehensible to me.

Why is/was it so hard to format your post?

I don't get it. Why is that comic strip funny?

It looks like there is some variation, so I'll post mine: "Howard Roark." P.S. ... and so are 27% of those who took test, according to the statistics which was given along with the matching character.

I've gotten myself 14-day trial to see what Eve is. After I get through tutorials, I'll start looking for your Taggart.

There is no reason at all to care about this, unless evidence is provided. Until then, it ought to be ignored. What is the point of wasting time on this?

Gosh. Talking about stupidity:

Cute but lame: only five questions?

You didn't define this clearly: complicit in what way? With some actions or defaulting on actions or letting it happen as it goes? What is a definition of non-complicit population?

I've watched the whole movie. I highly recommend it. It's one think to know that you have to defend yourself against terrorists, but it is totally another thing when you see what kind of evil you are facing. Notes: First 45 minutes talk about Muslim threat and brainwashing in general. Around 50 minutes, the movie compares it and links it to Nazi threat of the past.

That is an amazing letter: lots of hand waving about freedom and big bad companies that are trying to change the internet. Of course, all important technical details are not mentioned, especially what constitutes changing the internet (what is the current state, and what will be the new one?). Jeez, why can't they at least post a link to some article that discusses technical side of the issue (and the only relevant side here). EDIT: clarifications

And what do you know that disproves that?

Movie made by the book "Lord of Light" by Roger Zelazny.

@Ifat: I'm suprised no one in this thread has posted a link to "Just War Theory" by Yaron Brook. Close to the end, it discusses occupation. http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues...-war-theory.asp Search for "The question of occupation" to find the part that talks about the topic of this thread. I think the article is well-laid out and consistent.

I did notice, but didn't IM.

I didn't see anything to indicate that it was a joke at the time before this post. Also you have made only a few posts before that, so I didn't have sufficient data to work with. A simple smiley in your post beside your joke would have helped. This sounds like you are implying that I didn't see the film or not willing to think about it. Both are wrong assumptions. Errr... I thought it was based on the movie not on what you told us, judging from the previous quote. Does this sentence describe your position clearly? That's not what I did. I read the whole post. I took your words, where you said you didn't hear well what was said during one part, and yet you asked a question on the morality of what was said. There wasn't any other conclusion I could reach based on your post other then that you need to check that what you heard is what was said in the movie. No, I didn't imply your view is negative. What I did imply is that you kept asking for justifications for each of Wal-Mart doings. Thus, I pointed that out to you openly, since seeking for justification for Wal-Mart actions that you pointed out in a free market do not need a justification, so long as they are not immoral. Not "anything" (which I assume from your post includes reasong on various subjects, such as ethics, etc.), but morally good actions of Wal-Mart (that were you pointed out) do not need justifications. Hmm, I didn't get that meaning. You asked several times in your post "How do you justify this?" I don't see how this meant that you want to see why it doesn't need to be justified. It looks like you were asking for justifications. I did reconsider and didn't find anything that was illogical on my part. I know now that some of your post was a joke, and some parts weren't stated clearly in your post. Other than that I stand with my previous post. P.S. It seems that you think I made a personal attack on you or let my emotions take over me. Neither is true. EDIT: spelling

I have read the article to the point where torture is discussed. I completely disagree with your statement above. Furthermore, I cannot imagine how you can logically state that while saying that you agree with the rest. Entire article discusses one major point: government must protect lives of its citizens and value them higher than the citizens of the enemy state. This logically leads to torture as acceptable method to acquire knowledge that would save lives of its citizens. Sounds like you have issues here: killing civilians in the enemy state to stop the threat is OK, but torture is not, according to your post. That is a contradiction. EDIT: added the quote I was refering to in your post. Furthermore, it was well supported and justified. Here is a snippet:

"Just a personal thing" still have to be logical and be supported with some evidence. 'Personal' things are not exempt from reason. Then, you need to do some research, don't you? And why would anyone have justify this? Why is this have to be justified? Same as above comments. I can say that your personal view of Walmart is affecting your view of it, and you keep looking for some sort of justification. I would start from figuring out what is it that makes your personal view of Walmart negative.

I agree with Kendall here. As for those who disagree, another summary on the issue by Yaron Brook and Alex Epstein can be found here: http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues...-war-theory.asp

I found OPAR very useful. It builds everything from the base. Very logical and consistent. I suggest you read it, instead of asking it on forums. P.S. OPAR = "Objectivism: Philosophy of Ayn Rand" by Peikoff, it is available in public libraries.

Add Alexander The Great to that list.

Awesome. Is it on purpose that the gaze is looking past the viewer?

I don't get it. Why do you need a few ideas from others to find yourself a hobby?

Good points. This reminds of the passage in AS, where Hank realizes that he found reasons to buy things and dress up for meetings with Dagny. The bottomline is: clothing/manners matters if it has reasons behind it.