RI1138

I'm no theif, but I've broken into three houses that I've lived in after finding that I've been locked out. Basically all you have to do is take off the screen and open the window (sometimes you don't even need anything to pry it with). If the screen is on the inside, the flimsy metal tabs that hold the screen don't help, they bend under slight pressure. If a theif wants to get in, he will, unless you go to exhausting lengths to stop them.

reminds me about an ad I saw on a bus: "If both of these people smoked a pack a day eventually one of them will die from it" (emphasis mine)

because many global warming activists support using the state to handicap industry.

This is the point where you steal everything they own (and give it to the poor) and denounce them for being selfish when the try to stop you.

also note that these third world countries are hardly in a free market situation. It is in fact the governments (the third world and first world ones) that are causing the problems. Although, I do think you can agree with the Marxists in that the situation is not ideal.

even if you hear on this forum and others that it does in fact end up philosophically sound?

I don't think this is anything suprising. It's well known that animals can conduct learned behavior, but can they actually think? The results are certainly impressive, but they don't mention how many repititions it took to get them to "learn" something. Animals have memory, but they do not have the capacity for rationality.

happy belated birthday nofearnolimits! About people not listening to your arguments/opinions when you are young. It happens to everybody. I hope you are not trying to debate anything with your parents, as they will always see you as their child, and probably wont take you too seriously until you're changing THEIR dipers . It is definately possible to be smarter and more rational than people who are older than you, the age of a brain means nothing if it's empty. A better approach to talking about serious issues with 'older' people might be to take the Socratic approach rather than trying to come up with proof as to why they are wrong. Question their beliefs, why do they think this? how did they come at that conclusion? This type of approach might make those who would normally dismiss you because of your age engage in serious discussion with you because they will think they are teaching you something, and maybe you'll learn something too. Most of the people you hear those Ad Hominem arguments from are probably people who don't understand logic in the first place. Ask them what a syllogism is and they'll probably think it's some kind of raunchy sex act. I think its a good thing to get into these ideas when you're young because then you will be able to see though all of the false people in the world and ultimately not lose sight of your dreams. Recently, I've been listening to a lot of Freedomain radio podcasts by Stefan Molyneux (Anarchocapitalist, but still heavily influenced by Rand) and he argues that its not even worth it to debate with these people. You should spend your time looking for people with open minds who are genuinely interested in seeking the truth, because in the end you will have much better conversations with these people, rather than getting into confrontational arguments with close minded individuals (remember that you gain nothing by engaging in a poor conversation). But if you want to be taken seriously, you have to prove that you're capable of something. Once you start doing things that people think you are too young to do, they'll start to listen. edit: I'm 20 if anyone's interested.

upon the first reading of Atlas Shrugged, I did find Galt seemed rather one dimensional, however, when I went back months later and re-read just the third part, Galt seemed like an amazingly deep character (since he was the personification of Rand's philosophy), while Rearden was just "some guy" . What one has to remember about Galt is that he is a person with no contradictions in his thinking, and therefore does not have to struggle like other characters. Perhaps its a fault of Rand's writing that she attached Galt too closely to her philosophy, so for someone reading AS without knowing much of her philosophy he seems rather flat, although I don't see how it could be any other way.

what brower are you using? (anyone who has gotten this message) I use firefox, and have not gotten the message yet.

One problem with turning AS into a movie, and it has something to do with a 60 page monologue But really, that thing was described as going on for at least two hours. How could such an important part of the book be translated onto screen? (without boring much of the audience) Although I do think a movie such as this would make a good response to "an inconvient truth"

are you cuddlee?

Hah I also put my currency as the Roark, I guess great minds really do think alike sometimes

That's a good point. Did Rand state how long she thinks it should be? 70 years seems like a decent amount of time, but is apparently arbitrary.

Okay, I can agree to the points in the last two posts. I suppose that it then follows that intellectual property should be able to be exchanged indefinately?

I had accidently posted a thread regarding this subject, without noticing this one was on the same page (sorry about that, Groovenstein ) I did do a search before and found some older threads, but did not notice this one. Basically, my problem was that I had downloaded movies, games, music, and software in the past, but do not any longer, and I was wishing to remedy my ways. I can easily grasp that the illegal files should be deleted, if I am to be true to myself. I figured most of it out, but one thing that I'm still debating with myself over is the intellectual property of a dead person. This was addressed very briefly on page 3 in this thread, but not to much extent. I used Jimi Hendrix as an example in the thread I had posted, but it can be applied to anyone. Do one's heirs have a right to the deceased's intellectual property? I know legally they do, but the law isn't always correct. Should (intellectual) property rights be transferrable upon death? What if no heir was named and the money is now, years later, going to somebody who had no hand in the creation of the music in question? The responses I got in the other thread consisted of the fact that it is legally someones property, therefore they are entitled to payment, but I want to know if they are rationally entitled to the property in the first place. (Mainly, im concerned whether it's wrong morally and rationally, rather than under the law.) Currently I'm thinking that if someone didn't create it, and the artist is dead, it should be fair game to obtain a copy of the music for free, although I even have counter-arguments to this brewing in my head right now.

I just finished reading the Prudent Predator Principle thread. While I have not downloaded any illegal mp3s or software since finishing Atlas Shrugged, I have in the past. So much in fact, that the amount to purcahse the movies, music, and software legally would be well beyond my means to afford. What should I do with all this stuff? I have a feeling (bad word, sorry) I should delete it, but I have serious reservations about actually pressing the button, because I depend on some of the software for my work/school studies (namely, Photoshop and AutoCAD, and thats $1000 worth of software right there). Is it acceptable to continue to use the software after the damage is done? There would be no way I could afford a replacement copy for a number of years. What about artists who are dead? Surely Jimi Hendrix doesn't benefit any longer from me buying his music. What about TV shows? I can turn on the TV any time and watch them (assuming I have cable or satellite), can I morally download them and watch them when I please instead? Would it be morally acceptable to phase out the illegal files by not downloading more and replacing them with legal versions as my means allow instead of deleting them all at once? Please note that I have accepted that downloading illegally is immoral, and I feel guilty about my past actions, but I'm looking for specific answers to the above questions. Thanks for your help.

I joined up and moved to wackyland. It seems this game has a leftist bias to it. I rejected the proposal to help the poor (can't remember exact wording), and all of a sudden my country is flooded with them!

I saw the movie, but I deleted it from my hard drive, and don't have the time to watch it again (must get to work soon) would you mind citing some of the exact points they make?

I don't think this is saying that art is or can be irrational, but rather, if the art is coming from a rational person, then it does not need to be justified any further, because it should already be rational. Similarily, if a rational person constructed a syllogistic argument that was valid and sound, it too would require no further explanation.

Just a quick comment. Did everyone notice how helping the starving legless man in Africa by taking some money from the extremely wealthy American turned into a defence for "I should be able to download music by an artist illegally because they have more money than I do."? (derrived from his objection to America wanting Sweden to change its loose of copywrite laws). Similar premise, disasterous consequences. Just goes to show that if you grant them one thing, they'll want it all.

Based on the definition you gave in the first post, I would say, judge everybody and everything. Although, I think a better word would be "assess". As has been said before, stay away from judgments based on insignificant things. Example: I work for a student-run architectural design company. We try and spread the clients out as evenly as possible. When we first opened for this summer, I received a job for a basement renovation. The client was quite unkempt (dirty hair, ragged clothing). The client was also waiting for money from some government social program to complete the renovation (probably on welfare). Based on my distrust of the government, I didn't think she would end up going through with the project because the money either wouldn't come, or the process would take too long. Based on these judgements, I formed an assessment of the situation, told my managers, and secured another project for myself. A few days later the client waiting for funding cancelled on me. Based on "Don't judge others" I would have formed no opinion about the client, and would have been without work for several weeks. Rational judgement can be one of your best tools!

Well it didn't really change my views all that much (some opinions have changed). What it did make me do was commit to the ones I already had, since they already were individualistic/objectectivist to begin with. Rand inspired me to stay in my current field of study (which I once hated, but now love with a passion), and helped me get over a rather nasty breakup (I realised she did not share my values, so it was for the better)

Yes, Impressionism was old news by this time, but where do you draw the line? Every art movement was influenced by another, or the rejection of another. I singled out Suprematism (an attempt to portray non-objective feeling) and Dadaism (the art of randomness) because thats when people (who recieved recognition for their art) stopped representing things from reality. You mentioned Nazism as having risen during a period of modern art, true, but Hitler (i'm not sure about other Nazi party members) was a neo-classist, and many modern artists fled Germany at the time. The Communists did support modern art (notably, constructivism) early in the revolution. I would like to know how a piece of art, no matter how bad, can be "invalid" since it is not a logical argument.

He never did acheive his goal (of running across Canada with his amputated leg, he did achieve his goal of raising money/awareness for cancer). His cancer spread, and he had to abandon his run in Ontario (still quite a feat). By the way, I have never seen him depicted with his leg in front. When he ran (from what I've seen from videos) his artificial leg made him do a kind of hop, not very graceful for any kind of heroic representation.