Elle

I'm a first year student and I will be starting on the Calculus series in the Fall as well. I'm looking to obtain my Associates in Arts and Sciences with a focus in business, and then transfer to the University of Washington (where transfers basically have to have the AA to get in with the new admissions requirements). I'm looking at a dual major in Economics and Philosophy, and hopefully either and MBA or law degree after that.

Right on, I enjoy night classes a lot because they are longer and don't infringe on my work hours. What classes are you taking?

The reason I am asking this is that I am nineteen and will be voting for the first time in my life in November. To me, voting is a HUGE deal and has been ever since I was old enough to go to the polls and help my parents cast their ballots. The problem is that I am having a diffficult time reasoning why I should vote for any of the candidates running in the upcoming election. So in addition to the poll question I am also wondering exactly what process it is that each of you, specifically, go through in making this decision. I don't want anyone to feel like I am pressuring them to state how they will vote, I am more interested in the process of deducing the best candidate.

Yes, I was taught this "robber baron" bunk in my state funded high school education, too (and my public high school is #1 in the state!). Just remember that they chose to seek employment from those factories, and were not forced to remain employed there if they did not agree with the conditions. The common counter-argument to that is that they had nowhere else to work - however, how is that of any concerned to the factory owner? and why should it be? If the conditions continued to be that bad then who would work for them? In the end it is in the employers best interest to improve the conditions so that he will actually be able to have and retain workers. People, rational ones anyways, won't buy them and if they do they will have to deal with the consequences. If companies were to mislead consumers into believing these products are not harmful (in order to create a false demand) then the government would have the responsibility of stepping in to protect individual rights. But really, it just comes down to supply and demand for that question. And from one fledgling to another - you didn't come across as belligerent or idiotic and the only stupid questions are the ones you don't ask at all (out of fear). This is a great place to learn so ask away!

That surprised me, I saw that movie for the first time when I was 8 and thought she was the "coolest" woman. Since then I've come to see her as a lot more, but for an 8 year old to idealize Dominique is something I hope my daugher (if I have one) does. She is a lot like my mother (personality-wise) in that portrayal and although I didn't become aware of Objectivism for another 10 years after seeing it for the first time it was a rental steady at our house.

I have been enjoying that combination also! As for old, I'm 19 and I think there are a good number of people who read and post who are in the 18 - 25 demographic.

I was simply stating my position, and clarifying my understanding of yours. Olympic College Bremerton, Washington community colleges offer great night classes

I accept your sincerity so let's get down to the main points and let me make sure I am clear on your stance and that you are clear on mine. By all means correct any misinterpretations so we can set this all straight and proceed in discussing. My interpretation is that you believe that the death penalty is morally sound, but doesn't work in the real world (politically) where human beings and their ability to reason are fallible. Therefore you think the death penalty should not be legal. I think that now, especially with DNA testing available, that the death penalty is morally sound and can be used effectively as a detterent and punishment of murderous crime. I am not denying the reality that innocent people have been sent to death row, but I think we can agree that technological advancements make our justice system much more reliable. I think that the purpose of our government and our justice system is to protect rational individuals who abide by laws set as a code appropriate to the life of Man from those (irrational) individuals who would infringe upon our individual rights. The justice system is the policeman of individual rights, and the death penalty is the consequence of taking the life of another human being. Duty, in the Kantian sense, is avoided by Objectivists. However, I think no rational individual will avoid the term duty as applied a just government and justice system based in defending individual rights. I look forward to continuing this discussion once these points are clear. I have to go to class until about 9:30 PST so I will get back to you sometime after then.

With all due respect, Objectivist, your disgust with my commentary does little for me. Perhaps you should address my above points and refrain from the attempts to degrade my intelligence.

No, but not because it is immoral. They don't value it (they have Dagny to value instead) so what good would it do for them, they have a lot else going on.

This seems to be to be a glaring logical fallacy. The death penalty in and of itself can not be flawed, it either is the death penalty or it is not. Wouldn't the flaw, if there is one, lie within the legal system and the individuals responsible for carrying out the law - since human is fallible? The death penalty has not killed innocent people, individuals who have wrongly condemned innocent people to death row have - because reason is fallible. I just think that's a rather important distinction to make.

I am confused as to how it can be wrong in one sense (the "political sense") and right in others. Please explain.

My apologies... you nailed it (what I believe, though not what the prof said) though here: I didn't want to say to much and sway the results of the poll before people had a chance to say what they thought originally. I agree, and this is the larger context within which the conversation was held. I think this claim was made to get people thinking, and I wouldn't say with any certainty that it is actually the position that my professor holds. He enjoys playing the roles of various philosophers as we discuss them in order to make us think (and usually get pretty aggravated) about the fallacies in each philosophy. It is unfortunate that we won't be covering Ms. Rand, because I'd really like to see his attempt at being in her position.

I was wondering if anyone here has driven or owns a hybrid car. They are touted at 65 mpg at best, which is about the same as the Vespa I was looking at buying for significantly less money. Of course having a car is much more convienient than a scooter that doesn't go much faster than 40mph, in an area where it rains 9 months out of the year. Also, I am not in the know about the prospective improvement in hybrid gas mileage... your thoughts?

I was just curious to see what you all are going to say, and how you will explain it so I hope once you vote you will post and let me know what you think but more importantly why.

If Kant sets out to refute Hume, because he understands how dangerous Hume's "Nothing Exists" philosophy is, then why does he end up in such a mess? More specifically, if Kant is setting out to establish and objective (and I mean this in the anti-subjective context, not in the Objectivism context) universe in which there is an absolute right or wrong answer to every question then how can he remove the "outcome" of an action from one's consideration of right or wrong? This seems like as much a scientific blashphemy (or at least a logical fallacy) as Hume's causality and the lacking "nessecary connection" between cause and effect. Perhaps my grasp on these two philosopher's ideas isn't solid enough, but both of their systems seem to invert on themselves. Am I headed in the right direction with this? Anyone with a better grasp of this, I would be interested.

Crushing the competition is secondary, and has to be for any company to be successful. Obviously the profit is prime, and that entails producing a product with a value for the consumer. Competition is a secondary outcome, and therefore a secondary concern. The example I would use for my company is that we can't be concerned about crushing the competition (mainly by havin the most clients) if we only consist of two people in a small office. Obviously the profit is #1, and with that comes the creation of a product of value. Anti-trust folk tend to put the cart before the horse. I don't have a link, but I think that the basis of that fallacy is simply that a fixed market could never exist in the real world.

The Man Behind the Money by Justin Martin is a decent bio, and might help you to formulate some idea about Greenspan's approach to life, and even if it doesn't help you... he is a very interesting man; worth reading about in my opinion. At a speech given by Ben Bernanke (one of the Fed governors) about a week ago and he mentioned that Greenspan would often have a runner bring him the market numbers as he spoke in order to ensure he wasn't creating a crisis - and used this as an example of how the perception of what the Fed might do is often a bigger player than what the Fed actually does (as far as market volitility is concerned). I think that is one of the biggest reasons that he has not made and frankly Objectivist statements, if he is an Objectivist. If he wasn't the Fed leader then things might be different, but I guess we will all have to wait and see. I have heard quite a few people compare him to Rand's Francisco, as someone else mentioned earlier in the thread, and I was wondering if someone could explain that to me a little more in depth.

I'm caught up now, this end of quarter school stuff is a time consumer though. I hope this thread doesn't die out, but unfortunately I can't get in depth about what I've read thus far because of time constraints... perhaps we could select a point to read to and then make another thread?

I agree with you. The point I was trying to make is that it would be refreshing (for me at least) not to be hit on based solely on the physical. However, if it were purely for the intellectual I think that there would be little there to suggest romance without any kind of physical attraction. So obviously a balance of the two is the way to go.

I think this is a good question, for both males and perhaps even moreso for females who are trying to introduce themselves to males and want to showcase more than simply their physical assets. For women I think their presentation of themselves can say a lot about how they value themselves and whether or not their self-esteem is intact, but I think in addition to that many women (I know I feel this way so I am going to make a generalization here) want men to notice them for things that go deeper than the physical. I think this may circle back to the problem of celebrity worship, where American women feel as if they are constantly on a stage or TV and need to fill the role of the "perfect" women - and instead end up feeling like a piece of meat. Feminists play this up as victimization to a social construct of what beauty is, but really this is a self inflicted "ideology" that can not be applied to all women, and only works if women except the basic premise that what is being shown to them is actually what is beautiful. I think the most effective way for a man to showcase his values to a woman he finds attractive is simply to engage her in conversation about those values via talking about his and her experiences and finding correlations between two seperate lives that make it possible for you to relate to each other. I think the reason the "20 questions" approach to dating works so well is that you can both give and get a very good idea of a person's sense of life simply in how they talk about it. Take the fantasy situation. Why not just tell her exactly what you see? The way you describe beauty is certain to say a great deal about your values in my opinion.

My apologies Argive you did say "almost". I did not intend to take what you said out of context, just overlooked the word.

It's really a shame you think you could "ascribe mathematical certainty" to that.

I just started this book today, and I was wondering who has read it and if anyone would be interested in keeping up an ongoing dialogue. I have not read anything by Peikoff before but I was looking for some Objectivist lit other than Rand, for a bit of variation. Perhaps I should read more of Rand's non-fiction before diving into this book, but I'm into it maybe 30 pages and hooked.

My question to you is this. If these women are so easy to obtain, then are they really what you're after? I would ask yourself if the reason you enjoy exercising your ability to seduce has anything to do with the power you feel you wield when these twenty year olds are looking at you with that "he's so dreamy" look. As a woman I can relate to this, mainly because at 19 I'm the one getting checked out the majority of the time. At first it's a rush and a novelty, but after awhile you might begin to wonder if those idle stares and wandering eyes really deserve to look at you at all; I do.