kufa

I agree with you. I wouln't choose to live in nature except under a situation like communism, and if I did, I would be sure ot bring some hining boots, a water-filterer, and some hunting materials. I am not hardcore, I just said that I like nature. note that I said "if I can survive." I just got into hiking, so I am not all that experienced, but I hope to go on a lot more hikes during the winter. Well, first of all, i'm a girl. One reason I started this thread was that a lot of objectivists would always prefer being in a man-made environment than ever being in nature. The thing about cities and such is that it is predictable what you might find there. Nature has "mystery" which can be much more exciting than something man-made. Nature can be hostile and deadly, but if it werent, it wouldn't be exciting. It is definately invigorating to have a little danger in life, it makes you realize how much you appreciate life.

I apoligize if there has already been a thread on this, I couldn't find one. Ayn Rand said it would not be sacrifice if one risked their life to save someone that one couldn't bear life without. I would be willing to risk my life for someone I love, but I am lost on the "couldn't bear life without" phrase. As much as I love my friends and family, life would still be bearable if I lost one of them. My happiness is affected by friends and such, but I can see values in the world without them. The only situation where I can see a mans life unbearable without their lover is if the lovers love the only value in his life. If ones happiness depends on someone else, isn't that a bit second hander? I cannot understand this and if someone would clarify it would be great.

I like nature for all of the reasons you mentioned, with an addition: I love it because it is challenging. Since I was young, I have been extremely intelligent (not to brag) and almost everything is easy for me. Hiking and what not is difficult, it makes for a nice change. Another reason is the fact that if I can survive in nature, it always is an option. So if the commies come and take over, I can always go live in the forest .

Who likes the outdoors and why?

From the web cam. I am the girl.

In the Virtue of Selfishness, Ayn Rand mentioned "emergency situations." If I remember correctly, she said that it was okay to violate the rights of others if a your life is in danger. I found this very philosophically interesting, and was suprised to see that nobody had discussed it. It seems like it would be quite controversial. I would like to know how many people would put another persons life on the line to save themself. I know I certianly would.

I am in a similar situation as you. What I have decided to do is join the peace corps (I'm in it for the adventure, not altruisticly ) and then go to college to become a mechanical engineer. I am hoping that the two won't be too easy, or too boring.

Heres a new idea: make two seperate versions. Most people wouldn't have the time to sit the extra 3+ hours in the theater. I admit I would be bored, I actually skipped past the speech when reading, then returned to it after I finished. It would be cool to do this with a movie. In the DVD version, there could be a choice, the shorter or longer cut. The longer cut would be more or less the whole book, and a viewer could watch it in sections if they lack time. The theater version would be, obviously, the shorter cut. Parts of Galts speech would be cut, as other things would be, but that way more people would be interested in the longer version. AND more people would go to the movie, as opposed to being deterred from reviews and friends complaining about the speech.

I like the way you think Tsuru. That is what I was trying to say earlier in the post, but I am afraid that words and I don't have all that great of a relationship.

I have to disagree on hte 90% theory. Almost everyone I know has a different religious system than their parents taught them. As a child I did believe a majority of what I was told. But now I don't still believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, or a in multitude of things. If I could filter the information about these things, it is irreasonable to say that other children cannot filter other things. Mooses idea kind of resembles the midevil outlook on classes; they thought that people would never be able to change their social position, people were simply born into their lives. It was all about where a person was born, that which they could not control. It was a very anti-free-will time. Moose's idea sounds that way to me. It is the same idea a lot of government officials use in their approach to the masses, that the masses are a mindless herd of sheep waiting for a good shepard. I think every child, age, say, six and up, as well as every adult(adults were[/] children at one point) has the basic choice of whether to think or not to think. If they choose not to think, they will end up being one of the "90%." It doesn't mean they have to believe what their parents, or any other "brainwasher" told them, but that they choose to believe it, or not to believe it. Even if 90% have the same religious beliefs as were taught them, it is through evasion, not through brainwashing. In response to dark_unicorn, there is a difference between teaching children to believe what a parent believes and child abuse. Regardless of the situation, child abuse is wrong, religious issues included. Force is wrong too(ie. whipping your child if they ditch church). I agree with hunterrose. Regardless of what people believe, it is meaningless if they inherit it without examining it and knowing why they believe it. If the "90%" theory is correct, they why should children be taught anything? If they are incapable of evaluating it, why would any other person be? I will remind the reader yet again that adults are prior children.

You do have a point there.

I disagree with this. The purpose of government is to protect citizens from having their rights violated. I suppose prison can be said to "punish" criminals, but only in a manner so that they do not decide to violate others' rights again. It makes sense that if prisoners couldn't work that governmnet would have to pay for them, but what would that mean for the ones who could work? Many of them would try to make themselves not able to work so they wouldn't have to. Of course many prisoners could pay for their stay--if their stay was short. It is just ridiculous to have them sitting there doing nothing when they could be doing something productive.

I don't know much about our prison system, but isn't the main point of prison not punishment, but the protection of the other citizens? If so, wouldn't it be reasonable to make the prisoners work for their daily rations? I know convict labor used to be legal, but I am not sure if it still is. I don't see why, if a man has committed a crime, he should get free food from the government. He should still have to earn his sustinence, which means he should still have to work for food. Should the government use this system? Comments or improvements on my theory?

The problem I had with that passage was that it implied children(future adults) will automatically believe what they are told for all time. Children do not remain children forever, they grow up and are able to discern between true and false lessons. Almost all peoples ideas differ in many aspects from what their parents taught them. It is because they learn to THINK. It is irreasonable to say they cannot think about religion and decide whether they want to believe it or not.

I completely agree with you on that last quote. I just don't particularly care if a person is bad so long as their actions don't affect me. When I said "whatever floats your boat," I should have emphasized the your. I meant that as long as it doesn't hamper with somebody elses boat(particularly mine), I don't really care how a person chooses to float their own. Objectivism states (im paraphrasing) that man must place his own happiness as his highest moral value. I recognize that makes a person happy may be wrong, but if it effects only that person, I don't see what harm there is in allowing them to continue such behaviors. If somebody were to force them away from the torture path, that person wouldn't have the slightest right to do so, nor the reason, if it affects only the liker of the movies. It would violate the basic right to life.

Hey, I say screw altruism. Harry ought to be a horcrux, but instead of killing himself, for the "greater good," he should screw everyone else over and decide to live for himself.

I have often thought of this subject, and I agree that some things are completely morally irrelevant. Some of the conversations (specifically the one about horror movies) are utterly ridiculous. Whether a person enjoys horror movies, or anything to that extent, regardless of their reasons, is unimportant. Its simply a matter of preference, like whether hot dogs or hamburgers are better, with no definition as to what "better" means. If the nature of something is pleasure, I say sure its moral, even if it has no worth. To quote Ayn Rand: "The purpose of morality is to teach you, not to suffer and die, but to enjoy yourself and live." Whatever floats your boat...

I recently got into a bit of trouble at school. When administrators questioned me, I was reluctant to answer and often replied "I plead the fifth." When the official began to speak of my punishment, I argued with him, I do not believe what I did was wrong, there were no rules prohibiting it, except vague, non objective ones. The administrators eventual verdict on my situation was that, "If you would have been cooperative, you would have gotten off with no punishment." Should I fight for my innocence on matters in the future, no matter how small, and risk punishment and possible expulsion, or submit and agree to an unearned guilt? The answer seems obvious, but I am wondering if expulsion or a few days suspension is worth merely serving a couple hours of detention.