The Sailor

It works! It was designed to provide basic rules, in an attempt to provide humanitarian treatment of prisoners. Without it, there would be no recourse, after the war to punish in-humanities. Nothing is 100% effective, even we mistreat prisoners, as current events will attest. Except for Vietnam, most prisoners in every conflict, we have been treated humanely, and freed at the end of the war. If you are equating living as you do now, as humanely, not going to happen. Sure some instances of brutality are going to happen. We have laws in a free society, during peace time, and still people are killing each other everyday, why would you think that POW camps would be different. You have to remember in war all Moines are going to the military. POW's are low on the list for food and supplies, feeding their own, and supplying the war machine is priority. Long before the war, and you can check this for yourself, sanctions were applied, trade with other countries were blocked months, sometimes years before the actual war, in attempts at diplomatic solutions. War is the final diplomatic solution. This is true, of every war in history. ECONOMICS start wars, there is no other reason.

Hailey - are you telling me, this is a tenant of Ojectivist view. If so, then I have some problems with it. Yes you can make a moral judgment. I would much rather live in world filled with love then hate. What about positive emotion, is your position, they have a less important role. I am still learning the objectivist views and will say, I have not read Rand yet, book is on order. However, I am beginning to see some disturbing views. Most of the comments, anybody makes, have been corrections to grammar or nit picking a single word used. Often by wroth memory, of canned phases, lifted, from I assume to be, Rands book. Is there anybody here, with an intellectual thought of their own. I can read Rands book, and nobody can live a singular philosophy 100% This board appears, at first glance, to be very interesting. It is rapidly losing appeal. Maybe a name change to the Ayn Rand canned phases board, is in order.

Red, your primary problem as I see it, is your unselfish ability, to allow others to take control of YOUR emotions...i.e. they are irrational, so you get angry. During my time in the Navy. I attended several leadership management courses. I don't recall where this statement originated from, however, in one of them, I heard this statement. I am para-phrasing.."Emotions are power, emotions are exclusively yours, allowing other to dictate your emotions, give them power over you" When ever I was confronted with situations as you described. I always remembered that phase, and being the selfish person I am, refused to allow anyone to take control of ME. I am the only person that can make me angry, I have to allow it. Don't know if that helps, but it works for me, most of the time.

Hatred is an emotion, all emotions are good. They are gentle reminders of ones existence. If one has the capacity for love, then the opposite emotion must also be present. I do not believe it possible, to be devoid of emotion. Acting upon that particular emotion, by initiation of force, ( I hate them, therefore, I will use some form of violence on them) would be irrational, unless it was in defense of ones life.

Yes. I concede, that it does. My argument to the statement on no reality, refers to the perception of reality. This goes to my point. Who created these precision instruments? Man created them. Based on the current knowable reality to achieve the results he perceives to be correct....perceived reality, agreed upon by many, proved by the same means, and presumed to be truth. When I say man creates his own reality, this is what I mean. When new instruments are created, based on new perceived realities (knowledge) then more of our own existents is revealed, and new realities are created or maybe exposed is a better word. The best minds, equipment, mathematics, and instruments of the day, still can not answers the questions of why are we here, where does the universe end, is moving beyond the speed of light attainable...etc...because man has not created the reality or defined it, to the point needed, to answer these questions. Some will say these things are un-knowable (impossible, again, I hate that word), I do not blieve this, I think everything is knowable. Now that we have gone off on this tangent, which I assume, helps in determining what school of thought defines my views. Back to my original post, can we decide which school of thought, I most closely related too now.

Hmm... Let's try this again. I do see your point. My apparent contradiction seems to be based on weather there is/is not, a real reality. I say no, there is not, a real reality. There in, lye the rub, because I said "My perception can be wrong" and later said "There is no real reality" My perception could be wrong as compared to other perceptions, by other people, not as compared to reality. Reality is the perception we are comparing. Example: 15 people look at the sky and see the color blue, at the same time, another 15 people look at the sky and see the color red. Who is correct and what is reality. You will never know. Science may say one group is correct and the other incorrect, however, this is based on more perception by other people (the scientist). Who is to say they are correct. Scientist uses equipment and experiments based on other scientists perception of what is real. If way back when, the definition for red and blue was reversed, we would still have the same dilemma. So what is the reality, it is what we as people have agreed upon and constantly changes, because, we created it.

My apologies, again , I remind you that I am not educated. Thank you for the clarification. I have already been reprimanded on my grammar, via email, and well add this to my apologies. I do the best I can, and well make an effort to correct my grammar. I hope that everyone will overlook my future faults, in grammar. I thank you in advance. Education and Intellect are not the same thing. If you believe they are, you are only educated. I do not agree. Just because my view or interpretation of perception does not agree with yours, still does not prove a real reality. Only more perceptions. I did read over the views of Kantists, or what I could find on the Internet. I can only assume, you are attempting to say, I am non-intellectual. What I read seems to indicate that point. I am not a dreamer, I do believe in science. it refines perception.

What about the first ape like human that picked up a stick for a weapon, what evidence did he have or prior knowledge for that to work did he have. Pure conceptual thinking no science involved. he was also the first scientist, after he picked up the stick, to prove his theory.

This is basically John Nash's equilibrium theory put in another way., is it not.

Don your right, I misquoted me, my appologies. Back to my original question, since I am not ObjectiVist, then by your difinition I am "Metaphysics and Epistemology" are these folks more inline with my views or someone other group. I do agree with number one of your statement: I think Man does create his own reality, don't believe there is a real reality. Only a reality that we all agree upon. "Man has set foot on the moon" now I have no personal proof of this, only proof provided by some one else that altered my reality and changed it. Convinced me beyond doubt. Some one just decided this was possible and made it a reality. A thousand years ago this was beyond human reality. There was no scientific evidence that this was possible, so where did the idea come from and how did come to be reality, I think because some one did it and we all agreed upon the new reality. same with science, until some one thinks it, science won't prove it. Is my position more clear. I do believe in science, just not a end all be all.

Ok thanks DON, getting closer so I am not an Objectionist, but you missed quoted me. it is There is no time element to this, how do you know that in the future say 3,000 years from now evolution won't make it possible for a man to have wings and fly accross the atlantic without an airplane. Just because science disproves it now, doesn't mean anything. Science said flying was impossible once, braking the sound barrier, to produce sound accross the air waves, etc... the impossible became possible.

I believe very little of what I hear and about half of what I see, in my view perception is not alway correct. In other words if the thing I see can not be eqauted to my current perceptions of prior life perception, then I view it as something new. So I guess my answer is "what it is", however I also believe in the impossible, there are a lot of NEW things I don't know about, doesn't mean they don't exsist. I am constantly looking for new things.

Ok as I said in another post, I'm not educated, but I'm also not stupid, but I am confused. I never attended college, but very interested in the topics on this board, and would like views on what you think I am, I need a label. A little on what I think: I am retired U.S. Navy, enlisted when I was 17 in a very technical rate, Operation Specialist. I have been around the world several times, seen hundreds of places and cultures, thousand of people. The one thing I have come away with is this: No matter what kind of bazzare thought you can come up with, somewhere in the world - some just did it or are doing it or just got through doing it. For example take this statement "Some one got their head cut off", now I don't know where or when or who, but I know it happened, I don't need proof, I simple know. The world is a big place and with 6 billion plus folks onboard, trust me it just happened or is happening now, or is about to happen. So why can't this type of thinking be applied to science, or if it is, what type is it, because that is what I am. I also see the word impossible bantered around alot. I don't like that word. Here is the difinition of impossible: Impossible \Im*pos"si*ble\, a. [F., fr. L. impossibilis; pref. im- not + possibilis possible. See Possible.] Not possible; incapable of being done, of existing, etc.; unattainable in the nature of things, or by means at command; insuperably difficult under the circumstances; absurd or impracticable; not feasible. I think that word needs to be changed to "beyond current human understanding" or at least the difinition. So do my beliefs fall under the preview of Objectivism or philosophy or some other view.

Thanks for your answers, makes sense now. of couse most thanks to capitalism, sorry stephen, your answer shot over my head like a stray electron, I'm sure it is correct, just didn't understand. I'm not a college graduate, so you got into a little deeper detail then I needed.

My guess is that extending life spans even to 150 years will be devastating. Where you gonna put all these super people, how you gonna feed them all. World economy will topple, Social security for sure. Will there be people making factories, if so, when do you begin implanting, 5 yrars old, 10 years or only if something breaks. Who pays for it, or will it be for the rich only. Will it cost an arm and a leg for an arm and leg

Can someone explain in laymans terms, why there is solid matter when according to a TV show I saw, which did not explain it, that the building blocks of all matter, Atoms, are composed of a very small nucleus, and even smaller protons and the remaining part 90% of the atom is NOTHING. This on the surface, to a novice like me, would appear, based on common sense, to completely discredit quantum threoy.

I have learned in my years that the ONLY thing impossible, is for; two mountains side by side, without a valley in between. Just because we are not smart enough to figure it out yet, doesn't mean it won't happen. Everything can be solved by mathmatics, so can conscious machines, just a matter of time. Probably not in my life time.