Eurynomus

MERDE! No Atlas, eh? But thanks a lot, Laszlo! I have been looking for those titles, too! You found that on ARI? I didn't even think to look there. Thanks again. And if anyone can find Atlas in French, let me know! Oh wait, nobody is going to find it: Atlas Shrugged, au contraire d'autres romans d'Aynd Rand, n'a jamais été traduit en Français. Nobody ever translated it, apparently.

I was wondering if anybody knows where I could possibly buy the French version of Atlas Shrugged? Or even The Fountainhead? All I have been able to find is Virtue of Selfishness. I suspect Atlas exists in French, because the title is listed on the Wikipedia entry. Anyone know where I could buy it?

I am not OVERLY familiar with this man... for what it's worth, my French professor labelled him, "somewhat of a fascist" ... then again, that might not be worth much, considering my French professor is from France. But there you go, a French perspective on the guy.

No, it wasn't quite as exciting as I had hoped it would be. I have only watched O'Reilly a few times, so I don't know everything there is to know about him, but from what I have heard of the guy, his arguments against Dawkins were just as poor as I expected them to be... Although, doesn't O'Reilly have somewhat of a reputation for going nuts with these conversations? He seemed pretty reserved, and he even gave Dawkins a nod at the end, saying that his book was fascinating, or something like that... Obviously that's expected professional courtesy for a talk show host, but from what I have heard about O'Reilly, he usually doesn't give in to things like that.. And I was surprised to see Dawkins so calm, cool, and collected... but then again, the only other clip I have seen of the man is from that interview he did with Ted Haggard, where he was almost yelling at him.

ahhh gotcha -- because I always come across videos that have been deleted on YouTube due to copyright infringements... RIP Chronic(what)cles of Narnia... But you're probably right about the O'Reilly thing-- and it just occured to me that maybe Dawkins will post it on his website.

Right, thanks. ... so FoxNews doesn't have any copyrights that will prevent the clip from being shown on those sites?

Oh, I thought that was just a term DarkWaters coined. MY mistake!

Nevermind. If anyone needs another link: http://www.wispolitics.com/1006/20070416obama.mp3 Well, as far as I could hear, Obama has committed the fallacy of the "stolen concept", as Dark Waters described -- it does not seem as if he has been taken out of context. The only word I can think of to describe this is, "ironic". Last week on my campus, some organization staged a rally to ban abortion. This was done by showing pictures of genocide victims, holocaust survivors, etc. next to pictures of aborted fetuses, in an attempt to equate the two concepts. A giant group of students protested the rally, pointing out the disconnect between holocaust victims and aborted fetuses. It's ironic because I recognized at least a handful of the people who seemed to be leading the protest against the abortion-banning rally as volunteers on Obama's campaign from when he had and will be coming here. I'm aware that being a volunteer on a campaign doesn't necessarily mean you endorse that candidate -- but I wouldn't be surprised.

DarkWaters, Is there any other spot where I can find that audio clip? Or maybe even a transcript of Obama's speech? The link doesn't work for me.

I read The Art of Fiction and found it good for several reasons. First, and obviously, it's a great guide to writing. But second, maybe more importantly -- if you are brand new to Ayn Rand's ideas, interested in learning more about them, and have started your journey by reading The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, as I had, I would say this book is almost a must-read. A while ago on this forum, somebody had brought up the topic of whether or not their boyfriend was a "Howard Roark"... and there was a reply that a lot of people, after reading books like The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged get this "rockstar" mentality, where they follow the characters' actions without knowing why... in this case, I believe it was that the boyfriend was acting indifferently towards the poster, seemingly like Roark. To an extent, I was guilty of doing that, as well --that is, imitating the characters' actions and attitudes -- after having been introduced to these brand new ideas. But the Art of Fiction gave some insight into why Rand has her characters behave the way they do, and I saw that I was acting the way I was for all the wrong reasons. ... of course, I'm sure all I really had to do was step back and look at what I was doing, why the characters act the way they do, etc., and it would be pretty easy to figure out. But the book is a good slap in the face if that's not happening. I'm sure there are other pieces of literature where Rand discusses her characters, etc... but I definitely recommend this book, especially for anyone with that "Rockstar syndrome".

It's true, I wish they would do the whole show. Does anybody know if these things are available online after they are aired? I don't have a TV in my dorm room...

I haven't paid much attention to Dawkins -- but I've seen his name come up a few times on the forum. So, I thought there MIGHT be some interest in this : http://richarddawkins.net/home He's going on The Factor on April 23. I can only imagine how that will go.

This would be what I suggest, also... and he actually DID do this -- although at the moment I am not in the mood to dig through The Apology and find the exact place (I'll get back to you later with that) -- but he told the court that a just "punishment" for what he had done would be to be given free meals in the hall where all the heroes and athletes dine. Yeah, I'd be interested to see what you think after reading a bit more of Greek history... and I'd like to see what others think, too. I still need to think this out a little... I'll post more when I give it some more time.

Agreed -- but what should he have done to that end? Should he have fled when Crito gave him the chance? Or should he have acted earlier? To me, what Socrates tells Crito in regards to rejecting his offer to escape is reasonable -- if the society in which Socrates had chosen to live were a just society that did not sentence men to death for impiety, etc. If Socrates were to see his life as the standard of value, what should he have done? I think the solution should have come far before the trial even happened. Don't you think that if he saw his life as the standard of value, he should not have opted to live in Athens in the first place? OR, is it more of a case where, since there was no other freer society in which TO live, he should have chosen to live in Athens but not to abide by its laws, since they are not objective laws... and when that law gives him an unjust verdict, he should not follow that verdict either?

Alright, this is me thinking aloud here.....err, typing aloud?... concerning Socrates' acceptance of his death sentence. So, there are probably going to be errors/contradictions in my thinking somewhere, but that's the point of me posting this... Basically, I am trying to figure out whether or not Socrates was right in accepting the verdict given to him by his peers in Athens. I'm thinking this through and right now I see it this way: In Crito, Socrates describes his reasoning for not fleeing when Crito offers him the chance, and part of that reasoning is based around the fact that Socrates had accepted and agreed to obey the laws of Athens for his whole life, through a just agreement or social contract, and for one person to decide whether or not they want to follow the law would be to destroy the power of law itself. More or less, as far as I see, Socrates was saying that if he didn't like the way Athens was run, or didn't accept it, he should have either made a movement to change the law or gone elsewhere. In addition, Socrates lived in Athens during a time where trials for impiety were somewhat commonplace. So, with this in mind, was he right to accept the death sentence after his trial? I would say that originally, Socrates should not have put up with the laws of Athens at all. If he lived in a society that could try people for things such as impiety, he would be making a contract with an unjust agent... which I would consider to be an irrational thing to do. The problem I have encountered with this is -- where else would Socrates have gone? If I remember the story correctly, I am pretty sure it was said that although Socrates had praised some other city-states, Athens was agreed to be the freest, despite those several faults. There was, to the best of my knowledge, no America, nor was there any other similar country where freedom of religion and freedom of speech was openly embraced. What do you all think about any of this, or any other aspect I didn't include? ... again, I apologize for this being pretty messy, but it's kind of coming out my head as I go along.

I'm still smiling from watching that. .... It was a bit... ridiculous.... in a good way.

Welcome to the forum, bicklevov. From what I have read in this post, I agree with what most everybody else said about volunteerism and charity. I, too, have been through the NHS system, and I'll tell you what I know. First, as John McVey said, the NHS is an organization that appears to have as its goal an installation of altruistic ideals in its members. The degree to which this is apparent is most likely different from high school to high school -- at mine, it was almost unbearable (As a sidenote, I hadn't read Rand during high school -- all I knew was that I FELT kind of uneasy about the idea of forced volunteerism... I say "forced" because, although you are not OBLIGATED to join the NHS, if you are in the grade range and you do not, you will be constantly nagged by your teachers and guidance counselor about joining, and they will tell you that your chances of getting into a good school will greatly diminish if you don't join-- to a highschool student, at least, that seems pretty forceful... especially since, if you are in competitive classes, getting into a good college is all you focus on throughout high school). Also, as John McVey said, and beat me to, the Ayn Rand Institute had apparently set up a program a few years back to counter this very problem -- I wish I had known about it. Here is the press release from a few years back: http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=New...cle&id=6139 I would take John's advice in contacting them. Now, are you a junior or a senior? I assume you are a junior since you are still talking about college applications? If that's the case, you still have time to act. So, as others said, do what you like doing, and do what is important to you. If you have discovered what your values are, and after thinking about it, membership in the NHS does not infringe on those values, then by all means, go for it. BUT, you do not need the NHS to get somewhere in life, contrary to what your advisors will tell you, or at least, what they told me. For example, I have a friend who for whatever reason, couldn't join the NHS. But he made up for it -- he was captain of a sports team, involved in numerous after school activities, and was a member of just about every extra-curricular political organization the school offered -- except for being a school officer. His grades weren't SPECTACULAR, as in, they weren't straight A +'s, but he was a solid honor roll student -- probably something like a few A's and a B on his report cards. He was involved in AP classes and did pretty well on his SATs, although, once again, not spectacular. But all of these things gave him character and values -- and because of that, he was not only accepted to far better schools than some of the top kids in the class (who were, of course, all members of NHS), but he got a lot of money from those schools as well. If I'm not mistaken, there is actually somebody on this board who is a member of a college acceptance committee -- maybe they will tell you differently, I can't say. But, from my personal experience, and from what I have seen, there are other ways of getting into a good school that don't involve membership in the NHS. In fact, if I remember correctly, most college applications, in the essay section, have either a free-write, or an essay option asking you to describe some volunteer activity or something along those lines -- those are perfect places to explain your view on volunteerism and why you (potentially) valued other activities over NHS. Colleges want someone with character. Welcome to the forum, bicklevov. From what I have read in this post, I agree with what most everybody else said about volunteerism and charity. I, too, have been through the NHS system, and I'll tell you what I know. First, as John McVey said, the NHS is an organization that appears to have as its goal an installation of altruistic ideals in its members. The degree to which this is apparent is most likely different from high school to high school -- at mine, it was almost unbearable (As a sidenote, I hadn't read Rand during high school -- all I knew was that I FELT kind of uneasy about the idea of forced volunteerism... I say "forced" because, although you are not OBLIGATED to join the NHS, if you are in the grade range and you do not, you will be constantly nagged by your teachers and guidance counselor about joining, and they will tell you that your chances of getting into a good school will greatly diminish if you don't join-- to a highschool student, at least, that seems pretty forceful... especially since, if you are in competitive classes, getting into a good college is all you focus on throughout high school). Also, as John McVey said, and beat me to, the Ayn Rand Institute had apparently set up a program a few years back to counter this very problem -- I wish I had known about it. Here is the press release from a few years back: http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=New...cle&id=6139 I would take John's advice in contacting them. Now, are you a junior or a senior? I assume you are a junior since you are still talking about college applications? If that's the case, you still have time to act. So, as others said, do what you like doing, and do what is important to you. If you have discovered what your values are, and after thinking about it, membership in the NHS does not infringe on those values, then by all means, go for it. BUT, you do not need the NHS to get somewhere in life, contrary to what your advisors will tell you, or at least, what they told me. For example, I have a friend who for whatever reason, couldn't join the NHS. But he made up for it -- he was captain of a sports team, involved in numerous after school activities, and was a member of just about every extra-curricular political organization the school offered -- except for being a school officer. His grades weren't SPECTACULAR, as in, they weren't straight A +'s, but he was a solid honor roll student -- probably something like a few A's and a B on his report cards. He was involved in AP classes and did pretty well on his SATs, although, once again, not spectacular. But all of these things gave him character and values -- and because of that, he was not only accepted to far better schools than some of the top kids in the class (who were, of course, all members of NHS), but he got a lot of money from those schools as well. If I'm not mistaken, there is actually somebody on this board who is a member of a college acceptance committee -- maybe they will tell you differently, I can't say. But, from my personal experience, and from what I have seen, there are other ways of getting into a good school that don't involve membership in the NHS. In fact, if I remember correctly, most college applications, in the essay section, have either a free-write, or an essay option asking you to describe some volunteer activity or something along those lines -- those are perfect places to explain your view on volunteerism and why you (potentially) valued other activities over NHS. Colleges want someone with character.

I'm always on the lookout for someone to play Francisco, just because it seems like a hard role to cast someone for. After seeing 300... Rodrigo Santoro? He is actually not the image I got from reading the book -- that Christian Bale picture that was posted a while back was more along the right lines... but I just don't see Christian Bale pulling it off. http://imdb.com/gallery/granitz/5865/Gerar...drigo&seq=5 He's on the right

Alright, I finally got around to finishing it. The second half was just as good as the first. I particularly like the point you stressed about the floating ice caps not affecting sea levels... how do people generally get away with their claims that if these floating ice caps were to melt, the Earth would be flooded? Also, I had never really looked at the graphs too closely -- I never noticed the 800 year lag between warming and CO2 emissions. That's a PRETTY important fact that is avoided at a public university environmental class... Once again, Bob, thanks for posting this paper! It should be mandatory reading for high school science students...

No, the way he protrayed Paris was the same mannerisms, etc. of Balian, just a lot weaker. ie, he was the same character as far as his voice, tone, and expressions went, but ultimately not as heroic as Balian was.

Bob, I am about halfway through your paper, and let me say, thank you for posting that. The only education I have had on global warming was an environmental class taught by a professor who is convinced of man's large contributions to the climate change... oh yeah, and Gore's movie, if you can really call that education. Anyways, while taking his class, I was aware that there is a debate going on and that other scientists had said that there was no such "consensus" on the facts, but some of the evidence the professor had presented from his research was pretty clear. For example, his huge thing was how humans create 6 billion (he always emphasized how much this was) tons of CO2 per year, and the millions of tons of methane produced by humans, as well. What he DIDNT do was provide some CONTEXT. It would have been nice to know that human CO2 emissions only account for 4% of the total emissions. And that ruminants are included in some of the calculations! (I had heard the CO2 thing a few times before that, actually, but this just goes to show how the guy was leaving some crucial data out) Anyways, I just wanted to say thanks, this report is really well-done, and I can't wait to finish reading it.

hahaha, eloquently put. Agreed, his CHARACTERS are different -- but the WAY he acts, not so much in LOTR, but definitely in Troy... it's like he just took Balian and made him a total loser... Maybe its just that Orlando Bloom the PERSON is too distinct? So that it comes through in his movies too much.. I'm not sure...

You know, all my friends give me crap for liking that movie, but I can't help it. I bought the Director's Edition DVD with about an extra 40 minutes or so, describing (not too detailed, though) Balian's actual background in war, and another little sub-plot with Sybilla's son becoming king. I also recommend the soundtrack, if you're into that sort of thing... The locations are amazing, the story is great, and the acting is incredible -- I agree with you, Moose, that the Syrian actor definitely deserved to win an Oscar for his performance -- he's incredible. The only thing I have a problem with, as far as acting goes, is Orlando Bloom. He WAS suited for this movie, and did a good job, but does anybody else get the impression that he is more or less the same character in every movie? Or at least, speaks the same way?... Troy, Lord of the Rings (a little toned down), Kingdom of Heaven... etc? Just a pet peeve I guess...

I never listened to the whole DIM Hypothesis lecture, so I am not exactly sure of Peikoff's reasoning for voting for a Democrat over a Republican. I also know that documentaries tend to sway things quite a bit... Still, like the others said -- Moose, I REALLY hope you are right. I didn't pay close attention to the DIM Hypothesis forum, but I saw that you disagreed with the notion that one ought to vote for a Democrat over a Republican (right?)... and I am assuming that your experience with Christianity and what you perceive as its decline are the reasons why. And if what you said is true, I would agree with you in voting Republican. I have always detested the decently far left, but never paid much attention to the right. If even half of the things in this documentary were true, I would have no qualms about voting for somebody who opens the door to policy that leans a little more left versus somebody who favors policy that leans more in this direction. Then again, thats If I HAD to vote -- I never understood why it's immoral to abstain from voting altogether -- one day I'll have to put in the hours to the DIM Hypothesis lecture.

It's true... but I wonder just HOW FAST the evangelical movement is actually growing.