Censure the Opposition

Humor me and offer some examples of these qualities, please. I think you missed my point. My argument is not that some things lack identity altogether, rather that some things lack objectivity that contributes to that identity. My ultimate question: is it therefore possible that the objectivity lacks while leaving a subjective identity intact (Such as art? ie. what constitutes art)? Thank you, I'll check that out

You answered my question with a question. I am greatly offended.

Check the "U.S. Convoy in Iraq Attacked" thread under the "Current Events" section. It seems to be a fairly prevalent opinion. I'd start on page 3, foregoing all the differing opinions on what kind of nuke to use.

(I hate to single you out like this as I agree with most of what you say, but you wrote the most recent post pertaining to what I have to say, so I quoted you.) It seems like many are stating that when acting in response (Self-defense, retribution, whatever) to the initiation of force, the innocents harmed in the application of responsive force are the sole responsibility of the original initiator. I agree they share a large portion of the blame, but the fact still remains that the responding party dropped a bomb that killed innocent third parties. This is even more prevalent in situations where there are other options that would result in less innocent casualties as well as when the responsive party foresees the impact it will have on the innocents. To say "It's not our responsibility to ensure that innocents are protected from our bombs in the middle east because we didn't cast the first stone" is not only immoral, it states that we don't care about the consequences of our actions, so long as we can find someone else to blame them on. In the end, the innocents are still dying directly at the end of our guns and bombs and we have to be, in part, accountable for that.

Must it exist as anything other than simply "music" though (Whatever that can be defined as)? If so, what then. Most things that exist currently have an identity that can be objectively decided, but to say that anything currently lacking that identity (as a result of missing objective criteria) must also have some ability to be objectively judged is naive. Obviously I can't prove the negative (that this objectivity does not exist), but I feel I'm still lacking any proof that it does. What about other things that currently exist primarily on a subjective level? Can you say that something like love will eventually be broken down into objective properties simply because it exists and therefore has identity?

As for the original question, I'm going to agree with some, disagree with others and say that no piece of music can objectively be critiqued as good or bad. While objective criteria exist that may have logical progression towards either conclusion, good or bad, the conclusion itself would always be subjective. Saying that Bach produced more meaningful works than Britney may be socially accepted by pretty much everybody, save preteen girls, god bless em, but it is nevertheless a subjective judgement of the two based on value systems. Context is also a matter of concern for such a sweeping statement, but for all intents and purposes, it seems that we can ignore that. One thing that I am confused by. How does anyone (feldblum) know that objective criteria exist for judging music when they haven't been discovered. Seems like a non-objectivist ideal to me, more to the side of mysticism.

If you haven't figured it out yet, the common source of reference objectivists use for defining terms is any and all of Ayn Rand's works. I strongly suggest you get on with reading them as I experienced the same lengthy discourse as a result of my lack of exposure to Rand. Funnily enough, that's probably why it's such a headache (For both parties) when an objectivist discusses an issue with a non-objectivist as the non-objectivist has made the careless mistake of assuming that dictionary definitions apply to whatever they may be debating.

It doesn't take much intellectual effort to perform most blue collar jobs, factory work on a production line being highly synonomous with physical production. The involvement of natural production in a process that has been initiated by man doesn't negate man's involvement. If you plant a seed and through natural process (With added input from man ie. water, exposure to uv rays) it grows into a flower, does it suddenly cease to be man's? Can you even really own anything under this assumption with intellectual thought itself a product of natural process in one's brain. It's an extreme, but that's the logic you're presenting. I'm still confused as to how your logic negates the idea of humans as property. It seems to have something to do with "The right to life, and that which is required to sustain it. To pursue values and productive achievement as an individual sees fit for his own existence; as is determined by his own volition. To exist as an end in himself, not as an end to others." (definition by Charles M. Hildreth) A death sentence takes all of this away, not on suspension, permanently. So how do you say that he has not become the property of the government to dispose of as they see fit? And for the record, I'm against capital punishment, but that's irrelevant. Now is this your opinion of natural rights or your concept of State law? Sounds like punishment for violation of rights to me, though I could be wrong. All I know is that when I overdrive, overload, and deprive my car of necessary sustenance, the police can't touch me because my car has no rights. On a more personal note, I have been made aware that my posts are a wee bit abrasive, perhaps even offensive to some. If this is indeed the case, I do apologize, it was not my intent to come here to abuse. I'd appreciate contact from anyone who has experienced this on my part in order that I can better myself as I'm still not 100% sure as to what was so offensive.

You'd have a hard time convincing me that humans aren't produced. There's a reason it's called re-PRODUCTION. You have a man and a woman who each offer input creating output. Sounds like production to me. I'm not offering an opinion on ownership or property there, but it's definetely production. By your right to life logic, would a man convicted of murder one and receiving a death sentence become property? Obviously he is losing his right to live because he took away someone else's same right, but does he become property? And Betsy, subhuman animals do have rights. If they didn't, I could come over and kill all your cats and all I'd receive would be a citation for destruction of property.

The problem I see here is that the prisoner's dilemma offered in the original post has a few errors to it (At least compared to the one I have seen utilized time and time again by economists). It's supposed to be fairly straightforward. First, the prisoners are supposed to be guilty, there's no question of whether or not they committed the crime (At least in their minds). With that, you eliminate the possibility that they are confessing to a crime they didn't commit and the ethical dilemma inherent in doing that. Most importantly, the confession is tied to ratting out the other prisoner, so hopefully that eliminates some of your doubts as to how realistic the scenario is. With that plea bargain, it's plausible to assume the prisoner would get no jail time. You also have to assume that the prisoners each have no idea what the other is going to decide. So, the best outcome for the individual prisoner is no jail time. The only way to achieve that is to confess and rat out the other prisoner. Therefore, if both act in their OWN self-interest trying to get no jail time, it would backfire and they would both end up with 15 years (Or whatever figure, it really doesn't matter). The best outcome for both is a handful of months jail time (Since they're both guilty anyway) and the scenario is designed to show that in SOME cases, cooperating for the "greater good" is better for everyone. There's no inherent premise about all of society acting a certain way because that gives insight into what the other prisoner would do and negates the whole exercise (as capitalism forever has shown). Also keep in mind that it's an economic construction and economic models rarely truly reflect every detail of reality. Hopefully that helps with some of the confusion.

BAN HIM, HE'S A COMMIE

I appreciate the clarification. Banning "disruptors" and "spreaders of proganda" is something I support, but not the banning of the proverbial commie, if only because I have little faith that only true communists on this forum would be labeled as such. Any mention of a welfare state or even public healthcare, and I'm deemed a commie. Good to know your true opinion. And, btw, the ads are the best part!

Like the US government for example. It's well-known that one of the US' primary oil interests is in Iraq, to claim ignorance as to the source of the specific fuel you put in your car is no defense.

If you had bothered to read my subsequent post, you would have realized that I was stating just that. Please don't twist what I say by taking it out of context.

Agreed. If you choose not to elaborate on that statement Sabbath, at least direct me to the research. I'm here to learn.