simonsays

I watched the first ten minutes and stopped after the following words (paraphrased): "The money changers now control the press." This sounds like a silly consiracy theory. Next they will be blaming Jewish people for it. I think the problem with the Federal Reserve is not that it is private but that it has a monopoly on the issuance of currency. Other private corporations should be allowed to issue their own currency in a rational society.

US Somali air strikes 'kill many' Thoughts?

The way I see it, at least Chavez has balls. The guy is after raw power and he is getting it. Anyway, his country is on the road to serfdom now, and while it would be nice if it would die quietly, I doubt it will do so. I think it is only a matter of time before it presents itself as a security threat towards America.

Wow, that was an excellent reply Dismuke. I understand what you are saying, but I have difficulty in believing that this is what Objectivism actually holds to be true. If you are right then I need to vastly change my view of Objectivism! This could entirely be the case since I have only been studying it lightly for a couple of years. What if I value promiscuous sex? I look at a girl and objectively identify her as bad looking, but there are some aspects of her (namely the parts between her legs) that I can value therefore I go ahead and do it. There are other threads on this; the only reason I bring it up is because it is an extreme example that should help me in understanding this. If we replace "watching a movie" to "having sex with a girl", and things such as "acting", "plot", etc, to be aspects of that girl's physical appearance or personality, then we basically arrive at the conclusion that casual sex with girls who might not be up to standard, while not being objectively best, is still OK and one should not feel guilty about doing this. Is my analogy valid? If so, are my conclusions valid?

If you acknowledge that something is crap how can you love it? I'm a bit confused

I don't think it has any implied meaning, it is just standard English. Such as "the ideas of Ayn Rand" or "the miracles of Jesus Christ". I don't see why this would stop the dialogue flowing.

Yeah he definitely meant 4. Btw, thanks for your reply to my question earlier it was very helpful. Give him a break, I want him to continue posting! Here are my views on the topic. Personally I know exactly the kind of girl I want to marry, my problem is that I am not the kind of man I want to be yet. It will take me another 5 years before I have matured enough, advanced in my career, worked on my body a bit more, etc, etc. What I am saying is that I will need to work on myself to become the kind of man that my kind of women will be attracted to. In the meantime, I think it would be immoral of me to abstain sexually; I want to be an experienced lover, sending my future wife to high places. Therefore I think I agree with Inspector, but also Moose, in that sex with someone who is not your ideal can be moral if done with the right motivations.

Inspector, I have not made up my mind who is right, either you or Moose, but I have a question for you. I want to compare what your philosophy says with my own sexual experiences, whether I have conducted myself sexually according to principles that you would agree with, or according to principles that Moose would agree with. As far as I see it, there is a smooth continuum of sexual possibilities, but for the sake of argument lets assume 6 main possibilities: 1 You have to know and love everything about the women in order to have moral sex with her. 2 Or can you just love some of her ideas and values and hate some of her other ideas and values, and like her looks and still have moral sex? 3 Or can you despise most of her ideas and values but like only a few and like her looks and still have moral sex? 4 Or can you not know what her ideas and values are (because you haven't talked about them), but have sex based on her physical appearance alone? 5 Or can you not know her ideas, and also not like her appearance and still have moral sex, ie using her as an orifice? 6 Or can you hate both her ideas and her appearance and still have moral sex, ie using her as an orifice regardless of her bad/evil ideas? Where is the line drawn at when sex is moral? I know that your answer might depend on context, but in order to simplify it for me let's assume a context; that the guy is Joe Blogs, ie a normal guy in a normal situation (say in a coffee shop) who meets a girl. So, assuming these 6 possibilities and the above context, where is the line drawn as to when sex is moral? Feel free to criticize any of my assumptions. The reason for them is to make it simpler to understand for me, because I am having a hard time following it otherwise. So far in my life I have stooped to number 5 on the list a few times. Everytime, it lead to unforeseen negative consequences, some of which were huge consequences and some of which were small ones. I have also been up to number 2, which was the best sex of my life, but then lead to a horrible break up, when some parts of her negative sense of life impacted on our relationship. Therefore I personally, do not know where to draw the line. What about you Inspector? (and others)

If you were at an art gallery and you met an art student who hates herself and every other human being, would you have sex with her if the two of you were completely alone and she offered it? This is what the girl looks like: Look at that girl's eyes in the picture and look at her lips. I think that any healthy, red-blooded, single male would have sex with her, despite her self esteem issues and outlook on life. It may not be the best sex, but you would still do it. You might even feel bad afterword, but you would still do it. This is because of testosterone. Argument from intimidation alert: Anyone who argues they would not have sex with her has a low level of testosterone in their blood!

I'd love to know where these investments are that yield 12-18%! Also, with higher rates of return such as this, the risk of losing all your money increases. What happens when the government fund "only" makes 5% one year, ie 60% less than expected revenues? Or what happens when they make a loss?

I would recommend not the stock market but the forex market (or foreign exchange market). If you trade the stock market with small sums then your account will get eaten by commission. Best retail forex broker = https://fxtrade.oanda.com/ With this broker you can trade commission free and with as little as $1. They make their money off the bid/ask spread and their spreads are the absolute lowest in the industry. I can't recommend them enough. Also it will take at least 3 years to learn how to trade properly, and you will probably lose a lot of money in the process which you can view as your tuition fees. Oanda.com has a free game in which you can trade on the same real money platform but for play money. This is a good starting point to learn about the market, but expect to lose money when you start trading with real money! Just my 2 cents worth

BBC article on the same story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6219626.stm

So what our difference is here is on our assessment of the long term economic impact of converting to a metric system. I think we both agree that we should leave it up to businesses and individuals to decide. In closing I would like to link to a funny story on CNN about an English engineering company using Imperial units of measurements while Nasa used metric units, causing the loss of a Mars orbiter.

Metric is spreading, and I submit this is because of rational reasons to do with efficiency. From Wikipedia: These are highly irrational objections.

OK, even if I accept that the benefit from using a more efficient keyboard is not worth it, I am not sure how you can argue that the metric system has minimal benefits, and even more puzzled by being proud of the old system. From Toward a Metric America: I am obviously not arguing that government should force people to use the metric system, I am saying that educational institutions and businesses will convert to the metric system over time, as they already are doing, because the system has major benefits that will improve efficiency.

Take for example the QWERTY keyboard. It was designed to purposely slow down the typist so that the keys would not jam as often. Yet we still use it today even though other keyboard designs have won all the speed contests. Why? Because people are used to this system and do not want to change. The benefits of changing are high and the costs would be minimal (ie objectively a better technology) but people, myself included, are too lazy. When Roark, designs a new style of building that is objectively better than traditional designs, he also faces the lazy drooling face of the masses who are too lazy to see the truth. When scientists developed the metric system with all of its objective benefits, they also face regular people who are "damn proud". konerko14, if your new punctuation system is objectively better then you should stick with it as reality wins in the long run. However, I would submit to you that it is not better for the reasons I stated in Post #22.

According to a book I read by Tony Buzan (I can't remember which book it was as he has a lot of them), when a person reads a sentence the eye does not move from left to right. Instead, it flits around the sentence, onto the end of the sentence, then to the line beneath, then above, etc, rarely in a straight line. This apparently happens mostly subconsciously, and if true explains why people can tell near the beginning of a sentence that its a question.

Thanks for the sources, much appreciated. Incidentally, I was wondering whether the title of this thread "Debating a friend" is correct grammatically according to American English? I am English and someone told me that Americans don't always use prepositions. So whereas a Brit would always say "Write to me", an American could say "Write me". Similarly, I would normally say "Debating with a friend" but decided, because this is an American forum, to try out "Debating a friend". Does this make sense?

I have been telling a friend about Objectivism over the past few days and one of the issues he strongly disagreed with was the "is ought" problem. I do not know much about philosophy and therefore found it difficult to argue that you can derive an ought from an is. Can you guys help me out? Whats the best way to concisely show that you can derive an ought from an is? After you guys have posted your responses, I will come back and tell you his responses. The purpose of this is that I am finding an immensely valuable exchange of ideas when debating with my friend, and even though he is a dirty Marxist (lol), I find I am learning more about Objectivism when debating him.

As I understand it, these people are Mormons who have been raised as such since birth. I think they have a very positive sense of life, but that the impulses of religion are so ingrained within them that they cherry pick the areas of Objectivism that they like in order to fit in with their religion. Ayn Rand said that in a competition between food and poison, poison always wins, ie that compromise with evil is bad. However, are these religious people not better than 99% of most religious people? I am finding it difficult to condemn them when they seem to have such a benevolent sense of life. Thoughts?

No they ought not to be forced to give up their swing set. The forest is different than the swing set because I can buy another swing set but I cannot buy another forest. The forest is unique and cannot be replaced.

I lost the ability to use the forest! I don't understand where you are coming from here?? I'm trying to figure out whether you are being overly pedantic on purpose or whether we have a genuine misunderstanding here.

This article makes me have renewed faith in the BBC's ability to report both sides of the climate change debate: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6115644.stm

I understand why I can't "steal" the land according to Objectivism, but do you not think it would be in my interest to "steal" it considering it is my top value? (I put steal in quotes because I would prefer to use the term 'political action' but I know you guys would think of that as theft so I'll just say "steal".) You don't have to own something to value it, you could lend it temporarily and often, as in this case with the grandfather permitting everyone to enjoy the forest. How can you argue that the neighbours should just watch the forest being felled? I think you might call this an example of the prudent predator principle? However in my eyes the neighbors have nothing to lose by declaring the forest public property. Everyone trusts each other in the town to use common sense in not voting other property out of people's hands. They have nothing to lose by "stealing" the land.

I already said. - "it was owned by a wealthy neighbor who died and left it to his son who did not value the forest at all." This is exactly the same as when I said: "The best solution that an Objectivist would recommend is to raise enough cash to buy the land from the logging company before any trees are felled." However: "Suppose that I try this solution but the local people do not raise enough funds. Am I to lie down and accept the loss of one of my top values?" I don't think my question has been answered yet.