miseleigh

I'm sorry to hear you've lost someone you so obviously cared about. There really isn't much you can do about the pain - you loved her, you lost her, it's going to hurt. However, knowing that it's probably best for both of you will likely be your main support, as logic and reason always help, even against pain. That's not to say it's going to go away quickly, but if you know the reasons for it, and you know it will end, it will be bearable. One thing that has helped me in the past is to remember that 'it's better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all'. Even though it's incredibly cliched, I've found it's true - I shudder to think how empty a large portion of my life would have been without the guy I shared it with. Although it hurt when we broke up, it had to be done - we had fundamentally different philosophies, and neither one of us was going to change. I will always treasure the time we spent together, and the pain is gone now - that really does just take time. Another thing that will probably help is not dwelling on her or on your relationship - move on, if you can, and if you can't, do it anyways. If you find yourself thinking about her, smile as you remind yourself you had a good relationship but that it ended for a reason, and then get back to whatever you were doing. I'm glad you think you like Objectivism (it's a capital O, btw, and you might get flak for that if you don't pay attention to it) for what it offers, and not just because it was something your girlfriend enjoyed. Becoming involved in it for that second reason would probably cause you more pain, but as it stands, it sounds like it will help. The Fountainhead is a great book to start with; Atlas Shrugged is the other well-known Rand novel, and it is at least as good as Fountainhead, if not better. I highly recommend both - but then, you'd be hard-put to find someone here who doesn't like them. Welcome to the forum, and just so you know, being here doesn't mean you have to be an -ist if you don't want to be. Saying you're an Objectivist wouldn't make you one anyways - I prefer to simply be as objective as I can, and leave it at that. ~Megan

Character and guilt in a crime don't always have anything to do with each other... 'relevant' is the key word here. Someone may be a thief, but that doesn't mean he is a killer - knowing that he is a thief may sway the jury into thinking that he is a murderer even though he is in fact innocent of that crime. They have little to do with each other. History of violence, on the other hand, is very relevant to a murder charge.

You know, I may not always like Jessica Simpson, but she's got something with this one (at least with the lyrics). I'm impressed. Haven't heard this song yet, but I will as soon as I get to a computer with a working speaker/headphone port...

Sounds great - I don't think irrational discrimination violates anyone's rights, even if I don't like it (and even if the things you mentioned aren't necessarily irrational reasons to discriminate anyways). But now I'm curious what language you would write the Constitution in, and how you determined it? And if some laws are in one language, and some laws are in another, aren't you effectively requiring lawyers and justices to know both languages in order to accurately interpret the laws? Once the Constitution is written, I think there would be a sound basis to require all other governmental proceedings to use the same language as the Constitution, including laws, to reduce contradictions between parts written in different languages. But then the problem is how to choose that language - do we use the one most of the country speaks, one that an arbitrary minority speaks, or one that nobody knows yet? 'These rights may not be taken away unless and until direct violation of another specific human's rights is conclusively proven'? Not sure if that would be enough, but it's a start.

The risk to stock investors is not the same as the risk a thief is taking. When the criminal screws up, he goes to jail - he is risking his own life for however long he would spend in jail for the crime he got caught for. The investor, on the other hand, is only risking a product of his life - his money. In essence, the thief can't value his life very much if he's willing to risk a portion of it for the sake of a few cds, whereas the investor values his life just as much as he did before he invested. Because of this difference, they are not analogous situations. It is not 'risk' that is the differentiating factor - it is what is being risked for what. On the other side, where the thing that is being risked is the same, the differentiating factor would be the value it is being risked for - for example, a man risking his life, or a portion of it, to keep someone he loves from harm is a completely different situation from a man risking his life (or a portion of it) for a cd. Uniqueness holds. I believe the principle the farmer is acting on is actually 'Plant corn when it will grow best.' Period. No caveats. He recognizes that to follow this properly, he should usually plant it in June, unless there's been a lot of rain. 'Don't plant corn before June' is a concrete interpretation of a more abstract principle. I think that a principle, by definition, is a general, abstract guideline. If the thief's guideline is 'Don't steal unless...' he is not following a principle because his guideline is not general - he's added specifics such as 'I don't think I'll get caught' or 'my name is Jones' to it. In other words, a principle with caveats is not a principle, and therefore, although you keep trying to deny it, your question should probably be 'Why act on principle?' Feel free to correct me on the definition of principle if you don't agree. I simply used Google to get mine, which requires some filtering to find, so I could very well be wrong on this. Maybe you should define principle as well? What is a principle?

Those are good too, although with the 'No right to tell people what language they should speak' I would add 'as long as they don't expect to be understood.' Perhaps a better phrasing would be 'You do not have the right to ask the rest of the country to learn your language, so if you expect to be understood all the time, it is suggested that you learn the dominant language. If you don't, do not be surprised if you can't find a decent job because you don't speak your boss's or customer's language.' Edit: Also, 'If you are a foetus, you have no rights.'

I would disagree, because the (unrelated) past actions of a person have no effect on the actual facts of the current particular case. Anything pertaining to the crime currently under consideration should be known, however - for example, if a man is on trial for murdering his wife, the jury should know if there were any domestic disputes or reports of abuse between them, to help establish motive. A theft, on the other hand, would have no bearing on that case; the jury may be predisposed to find the man guilty if they know he has commited theft in the past, even though that one fact makes no difference on the man's guilt or innocence in his wife's murder. This management style would be effective for any employees who value money highly enough to work harder for it. Other rewards could be used as well - extra vacation time, for example. I don't see how it could be a negative impact for others, unless they believe they have a right to receive the same thing as others without putting in the same amount of work (in which case I wouldn't want them working for me anyways.) I don't think there are better ways of encouraging employees to work hard. The only other method I can see would be using fear/punishment instead of reward, which would only motivate the employees enough to avoid the punishment rather than actually doing their best. Also, they would probably just quit and find a better company to work for rather than work in that type of environment. Failure is proof that the desire wasn't strong enough in most cases. There are a few where the failure was unavoidable, or due to an unforseeable accident, or limited due to an unchangeable factor. For example, someone who is intelligent but does not pass a test probably didn't care enough about the test to study enough for it. However, someone who is not as intelligent might not be able to pass that same test no matter how hard they try or how much they want to. In essence, if there is no obvious reason for failure, then the only possible problem left is that the desire wasn't strong enough.

So far this topic has been fairly serious, and I'm sorry if this changes the tone and bothers people. I received this in an email last week, and I believe it pertains to the topic at hand. Although I found it hilarious, I do think something similar to this would be a good addition to the Constitution.

I'm somewhat confused about this aspect of your argument - who created those rules, to whom do they apply, and how are they objective and not arbitrary? Another argument you put forth also has me confused: First off, you say 'state' rather than government. As far as I can tell, the law merchant you mention was a form of government, with the added problem of a lack of enforceabilty in any manner other than boycotting the non-complier. Law applied in this manner would likely result in geographical pooling of people who share the same views and use the same protection agency, putting that agency in power the same way a state would be - or at least putting a unified system of law in place, even if enforced by several different agencies. Perhaps I'm simply misunderstanding the idea of market anarchy? It seems to me that any person wandering into this geographical area with a different view of justice would soon find himself at the mercy of those who lived there, unless the coutering protection agencies were willing to start a gang war to resolve any problems.

Frank Herbert is good, and his son (Brian) is carrying that tradition on fairly well with his prequels to the original Dune series. I like Niven's Ringworld books, although I haven't read all the related Kzin ones yet. I loved Friday by Heinlein too. Douglas Adams is fun, Orson Scott Card starts with a children's book and grows - Ender's just cool, and Bean rocks. Ray Bradbury's good too (how is Fahrenheit 451 not scifi?) The Cure by Sonia Levitin is a well-written dystopian novel with a large historical side, for any who enjoy cross-genre books. It's somewhat disturbing, but then, dystopians tend to be... The science fiction element of it is downplayed, though. I'm currently tearing through Piers Anthony's Bio of a Space Tyrant series. Four down, one to go, and no complaints yet. Who else do I like? Crichton's got some good ones, Stephen King does as well (though not actually science fiction, I think), and I also like Clive Cussler. Does Madeleine L'Engle's stuff count as sci-fi? I like her too...

I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say here. Are you saying that emotions are not rational? Can you provide an example of a 'rational process' that is not dissectable by a conscious mind? Although I don't know much about modern neuroscience, I don't believe that thorough, rational introspection defies it. Am I wrong, or is that not what you are saying?

Mmm, useless trivia... I used to have a couple small books of that. Here's a few tidbits I still remember. (Not guaranteed to be entirely accurate, since my memory isn't always reliable ) ~A thirsty camel can drink up to 8 gallons of water in one minute. ~The giraffe used to be called a cameleopard, as it was believed to be a cross between a camel and a leopard. ~President Taft once got stuck in the White House bathtub. ~Covering your mouth when you sneeze, and the 'God bless you' from others that often results, began as a superstition that your soul could escape when you sneezed, and the devil could enter. ~People who are afraid of the number 13 are called triskaidekaphobes. Most hotels do not have a 13th floor. ~October 5th 1582 through the 14th did not exist in Catholic countries- they were skipped, by order of Pope Gregory the 13th, due to the buildup of error using the Julian calendar.

I agree with the "too much" sentiment. A man who bulges looks as if he values physical looks highly enough to spend a few hours a day working out rather than doing something I would value higher (a more intellectual activity). Even the Daredevil picture qualifies as 'too much' for me, even if the muscles are something he needs for his job. I would never find a man like that physically attractive. It's like he's saying 'I am man, hear me roar, but you won't hear me do anything more interesting.' A person's physique shows a great deal about what they value, and men with bulging muscles rarely value the same things I do. A healthy body is a good thing, but choosing body over mind is not something I prefer. Edit: Rand also seemed to prefer the body shape JMeganSnow put forth - weren't Roark and Galt much thinner and angular rather than bulgy? That's my preferred physique, as well.

Yes, my statement "Even if we couldn't trade anything of value with them, we should still try to respect their rights, and they should try to respect ours" was somewhat off, because I think that mutual respect is a trade of values in itself. Even if mutual respect doesn't count as a trade, then we should still respect their rights. If we don't respect their rights, don't we grant them sanction to disregard ours? Edit: grammar

Why wouldn't we be able to trade with ants? Even if we couldn't trade anything of value with them, we should still try to respect their rights, and they should try to respect ours. I think they'd have to understand that it will be very difficult for us to avoid stepping on them, but we could certainly give them areas that we could avoid for that purpose. Edited to avoid repetition of earlier statements

Well, studies have shown that apes can at least teach their children sign language without our help once they learn it. I think it was Koko who did that? What does language have to do with conceptual or rational thinking? (That's an honest question, not meant sarcastically or anything, though it may sound that way.) Also, what is meant by 'language' here? It sounds as if it's more than relaying information. I will try to take a look at the papers you mentioned. Thank you for pointing them out.

That is not what has been implied. What specific scientific literature are you referring to? Would you mind quoting from it? Did the research take into account possible cultural differences? I've also been wondering how a human would act who hasn't been taught in any way. What concepts would he know, if any? An experiment about this probably hasn't been done, but it's an interesting line of thought. Is conceptual thinking actually innate in humans, or do we need to be taught specific ones?

It is. Thank you for reading one of the articles under discussion. I appreciate that. The article was obviously intended as the study in the title, and not as evidence for or against conceptual thought it apes. The fact that I am using the data presented to try to show that one way or another says nothing about what the article intended to do. I do not see this as an error. I also think it was not meant to be a scientific theory, and is instead more along the lines of a thought experiment. Again, they were not trying to prove anything about conceptual thought. Therefore I am sure they would not have seen a reason to define the terms you mentioned. As an aside, I thought it was clear they meant the psychological functioning of the average adult in society, which does require 'rearing', as it is specific to the society the person was raised in. The telephone pole thing was an anecdote later in the article. The data they give us does not support that particular claim. The example on chow is somewhat supported, although it does appear that they assumed Matata was actually talking about chow when Kanzi said she was. The coincidence factor there is high, though (he had no idea that a person was walking into the other building with a bag of chow, and Matata certainly saw this.) Really, I think you missed the point of the article here. They are trying to show that apes can imitate some actions, with the help of cultural immersion and a trusted person, that otherwise would not be possible. In other words, an ape will imitate it's mother more than it will imitate a rabbit. Likewise, they believe that an ape will imitate a person who helped raise it more than a person who just appeared one day. Come on! The data is that the ape has been watching, runs out, picks up two rocks, hits them together, and then makes an arm motion that some people interpretated as a simulation of a liberated chip. it would have to be a fairly major coincidence for him to do that while meaning something else or meaning nothing at all. As for 6, I agree with you. Not sure what you were saying for part 7. That is not all the data. Some of those were in responses to questions or actions. Direct responses, I might add, not ones with 'banana me you' thrown in. You also did not add the ape's actions. All the data would be as follows: Bill gave Kanzi fresh blueberries yesterday but did not give Nyota any. Bill is now talking to Nyota. “BLUEBERRIES YESTERDAY” Nyota, while looking at Kanzi “BLUEBERRIES GRAPES TODAY?” Nyota, while looking at Bill Bill offers frozen blueberries “NO ICE” Nyota "I'm sorry but I don't have any fresh blueberries. They are all gone." Bill to Nyota “CHILDSIDE CHILDSIDE, CHILDSIDE CHILDSIDE” Nyota Implied: Bill tells Nyota that he doesn't think there are any blueberries on Childside. “SUE” Nyota "Sue's on Childside?" Bill to Nyota “TALK TALK TALK SUE NOW” Nyota 'You want me to call Sue on the telephone.' Bill to Nyota 'Peep-yes' Nyota. This was referenced elsewhere in the article -> the apes make vocal sounds for yes and no rather than using the keyboard. Sue is called, it is found that she ordered blueberries after a previous conversation with Nyota, and the blueberries were arriving as Bill and Nyota talked. Compare that to the 'fable', if you will. By the way, your use of deragatory words such as 'fable' when referencing data is not appreciated. It is an 'interpretation', perhaps a wrong one, but not a 'fable'. Please, enlighten the rest of us as to another reason one of the apes would have said this, especially when referencing a visitor not in the room rather than a permanent resident. The expectation of a reward for this sentence would only be there if the ape knew that Mari was outside and needed blankets and juice, and I doubt it is simply an imitated sentence that the researchers said often. We don't. P-Suke, on the other hand, displays if his wants are not met. Kanzi translates for him. Apparently he stops displaying when somebody gives P-Suke what Kanzi said he wants. This article was not intended to prove the idea we're discussing. I also do not think it is an article intended for professional publication. I would like to see you prove that they've suppressed data. No offense meant here, but your own interpretation is also obviously biased, and your arguments that all the interpretations of data are pure anthropormorphism are less than convincing. I would love to read that article. Please post it as soon as you find it. And you first point is the same thing I'm having a problem with, as well

He had no dependency on her love. He continued working for her after discovering that she loved Rearden. His love for her was his own, and he knew she did not and would not reciprocate. If what you say is true, he would have given up and left as soon as he found his goal of earning her love was not possible. Also, if this 'dependency' was true, he would have left to go to the Gulch when Dagny did rather than stay with the railroad. The fact that he was not as intelligent as Dagny does not mean he was dependent upon her intellectually, either. It simply means he was objective about their respective intellects and knew that the railroad would do better with her at the head of it than him, and knew that he would be unable to create a similar railroad no matter how hard he tried. I think he kept working there for the same reasons Dagny did- he loved the railroad and everything it symbolized. The main reason Dagny could give it up was because it no longer meant the same thing to her that it used to, whereas it still does for Eddie. Eddie looked up to Dagny - Galt did not. In other words, Eddie placed himself lower than her and therefore didn't deserve her. He recognized this when he stated that she would be able to start a railroad anywhere and he would not. This is probably why he was able to accept her affair with Rearden as easily as he did. Galt, on the other hand, knew that he was worthy of and deserved Dagny.

If they use reason, they will probably be able to understand 'rights' once we get a translator; if not, they wouldn't have them anyways. As for the second question - why would that make a difference to whether or not they have rights?

Perhaps 'unwilling' was the wrong word. I can certainly accept killing someone to protect my own life, but I do not think it would happen. Although I know that life has no intrinsic value, that idea has not yet been fully integrated. I was brought up with the idea that it does, and consequently I do not think my automatic reaction in an attack situation would be to shoot someone with a gun. There would be a delay, where I would have to think 'I should shoot this guy before he gets me' and by then he'd probably have me and the gun would still be in my purse or pocket. It isn't that I actually value the attacker's life more than my own, or that I'm 'being nice'- it's just that I think my reactions will be a lot slower if my weapon is a deadly one, due to the premises I still hold, and therefore a gun would probably be next to useless.

I'm not comfortable carrying a gun. I would not want to kill someone; I would much prefer to find another way to incapacitate them and let the law take care of justice. Having a gun with me wouldn't do me much good if I am unwilling to shoot.

I'm glad you've studied these experiments enough to know that it's always the case that the intelligible phrases we hear about were pulled from the middle of unintelligible ones. I certainly haven't. In addition to reading the paper, you may want to look at some of the videos, too- there is one where the researcher wears a welder's mask preceisely to try to avoid cueing. One difference between the study being done by the great ape trust and previous studies is the cultural element, where the bonobos are being raised almost as a child would be. As far as I know, this couldn't fall under the normal idea of 'experiment', but is probably crucial to the issue, and likely has a great impact on the abilities of these apes. Also, there appears to be a great deal of variation between the individuals, with the younger ones showing a higher capacity for intelligence. Perhaps that trend will continue.

I suppose it depends on what they mean by 'induce'. What's the line between 'inducing' and asking?

So when it says "Whoever induces any person under 18 years of age of chaste life to have unlawful sexual intercourse shall be punished by..." it's saying that you can have sex with someone under 18 as long as you don't ask them to and it's not forced? What about if they're both 17 and both virgins at the time? Is the one who asked the one who commited a crime? It's still statutory rape if there's a one week difference between a 15 year old and a 16 year old though, right?