Mimpy

I did not realize Eric Daniels was involved in this project, too, but also left before the school opened. Now they are down to five students! That is really disappointing. I think the biggest obstacle to acquiring more attendance is accreditation. Nobody wants to go to a school that is not even recognized as being at least the same standard as the rest of the schools in the nation.

I agree. Pandora rocks!!

Tenure, I think most people do not stay at the main resort. They stay at a nearby motel/hotel.

I remember in middle school all we learned was the scientific method. It is engraved in my mind because they repeated it so often to us. I attended a public school, by the way. So I think my education in that respect was fine. I am in college now, and everything we learn in biology pertains to evolution. It is assumed to be completely correct. If it were proven incorrect, the entire curriculum would be pointless. Everything is taught from an evolutionary point of view. So in my experience, if people are preferring creationism over evolution, it is their own doing.

You should read good books. I am assuming you are familiar with at least some of Ayn Rand's beliefs since you posted on this forum. First, read good philosophy. That way you will know how to think properly and defend yourself intellectually. Then, read whatever you wish, whatever interests you. That is one way of becoming smart. Though I must ask, why the sudden change? And why do you, of all things, want to be smart?

I was not aware that Amazon had purchased the storybook. I think that's great. I do wish they had published more copies of the book, though.

Neville did not create the virus. If you remember, a woman scientist and her team created As for why he would want to find a cure, there are two main reasons I can think of: a. He was a virologist by profession, so obviously he was genuinely interested in the field. and b. He loved the world and mankind and wanted to see it restored.

The vampires also destroyed the huge lights Neville turned on in front of his house when he saw them coming. Neville mentioned in one of his videos that when he captured the female for testing, one of the vampires came out into the light and growled and glared at him. Neville noted that perhaps because food was scarce for the vampires, they were ignoring their instinct to stay out of the light. I do not think that this would mean that if they were in the light for a few minutes, they would die right away. The viewer had no chance to discover what would happen in such a case because Neville blew them up very soon.

I took his "revelation" at the end more to be the result of quick thinking. He said that he was "listening," but we all know that he was just smart. I agree that without that injection of religion the movie would have been practically perfect. However, when Smith said that he was "listening," I took that more to mean that he was just thinking and integrating the sum of his knowledge to formulate a plan. He recalled his son's voice, he saw Anna and the child...I felt he was putting things into perspective. That is how I saw it. I know, of course, that God was implied. The movie still maintains its merit, though!

I saw I Am Legend last night. I thought the movie was excellent. It was action-packed, funny at times, emotionally tugging, and haunting. There was not much dialogue throughout the movie, so that left every point to be made by Will Smith's actions. It was a telling story. What I thought was really poignant was Will Smith's courage to continue to survive. Most people would just commit suicide. His motive for why he tries to survive, , was noble and right. I thought the whole movie represented good morals. As for the ending: All in all, I thought Will Smith played a very heroic character, who was strong, determined, and passionate. I highly recommend this movie.

Mammon, if Objectivism is defined as Ayn Rand's philosophy, then OPAR describes Objectivism because Dr. Peikoff only discusses what Ayn Rand herself believed. So to understand Objectivism, you must understand OPAR. Any other book will not necessarily represent Objectivism but of course might supplement your understanding of the philosophy. You can, of course, also read Ayn Rand's three major non-fiction works: Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, The Virtue of Selfishness, and The Romantic Manifesto. Dr. Peikoff's OPAR, however, basically covers these three works, as well.

Just trying to understand: so you think that man is not born tabula rasa? Do you instead think that he holds some form of innate knowledge? And if so, what is your argument for this and how does evolution have anything to do with it? When you say that Objectivism does not take into account the "evolutionary causes," I am not sure what you mean. Evolution is the metaphysically given. How we individually came to exist cannot be changed and instead must simply be dealt with. So how do you find that evolution might affect us in more ways than we recognize?

It's party time for me. And lots of nice presents. Happy Holidays!!

Does the legislation that Bush signed only apply to American-made cars? If so, then won't this just further harm the American car industry and really boost the Japanese and German car industries? Or have those countries, too, imposed the same regulations, or perhaps worse ones? If so, then we are all really screwed.

I saw Saltimbanco in October. It was VERY impressive. I have never seen any other circuses do some of the acts this show did. It was incredibly entertaining and completely worth the money.

Welcome to the forum. What have you read of Ayn Rand's so far?

I think more than the issue of what is natural or not, the reason people are so opposed to steroid use is because it does not truly reflect an athlete's effort. We like to think that a star athlete has gotten to where he is by hard work, discipline, and perseverance. That is why people value sports players so much: they truly reflect the results of determination and talent. Nobody argues that it is unfair that Shaq is a giant and Iverson is only 6'. The point is, they both work very hard to succeed. They both have different strategies but without practicing, they would not be able to achieve anything. When someone uses steroids, their performance does not reflect their physical effort. It does not reflect how hard they have worked to get to where they are.

I agree with themadkat. If these drugs are illegal, then obviously the government will meddle. Whether these drugs should be illegal is another issue, of course. I agree that the government should not get involved with private sports teams. I do think that performance-enhancement drugs do give an unfair advantage, however, and so teams should screen for them. If they choose to give everyone these drugs, then that is fine. But if only a few people are taking them, it gives those players an advantage that they did not work for. This is a personal issue, of course. It has nothing to do with the government.

Great find. I peruse PostSecret, too, but I did not notice this. I think it is pretty difficult to determine what the person is trying to say. I certainly do not get a happy tone from it, though. The person sounds sad and disappointed.

To my understanding, J.D. Salinger was a VERY odd person in his personal life. Some of his experimentations with his own body are too grotesque to actually mention. However, I did enjoy Catcher in the Rye the first time I read it, particularly because it was different and brutally honest. I do not think that it is very life promoting, however. The protagonist was certainly not somebody that anyone would wish to emulate. (I do not remember the exact details of the story because I read it a long time ago). From what I remember, he ended up in psychiatric therapy. He seemed to be depressed and confused. In fact, I think it could be possible to argue that some of his recollections of his journey were simply exaggerations of what really happened. Ths is not a far-fetched idea, given Holden's mental state. The story also seemed to be promoting the idea of being different just for the sake of being differnt. Some probably consider Holden to be "cool," but I do not think he was. He was actually slightly crazy. Therefore, an initial attraction to the book, I think, is understandable. When I first read it, I did not know that much about Objectivism. Once I came to learn more, however, I realized that there were certainly many other books that portrayed a true hero.

There is nothing wrong with wanting to help her see the right way of living. I think you should tell her what you know to be true, that it isn't right that she sacrifice herself for someone else and that her friend would not appreciate her pity if he really were sick. You could tell her that she is misleading someone and that when he gets better and she leaves him, he could spiral back into depression once more. What will she do then? Date him again? Show her how this is an endless cycle and that her plan will not work the way she intends it to. If you value her a lot, then stick with it. If she is intellectually honest, she will see reason in your arguments and try to change herself. Good luck!

The statement "It is either raining or not raining right now" is always true. You do not have to look outside to verify it's correct. Of course it is either raining or not raining right now! I am, of course, just trying to show you an example of what is considered an apriori truth. I agree with David Odden that such knowledge is not possible without looking externally first. The only way meaningful apriori truths could exist would be if some knowledge were innate. See Descartes' famous wax example for an illustration of this.

Read "The Nature of Government" in The Virtue of Selfishness.

Apriori knowledge does not require any sensory experience but pure logic. An example of an apriori truth is "Right now it is either raining or not raining." The problem with these kinds of statements is, of course, that they do not provide any new information but state the obvious.

I agree with SpiralTheorist. The writers deserve compensation for shows watched online. There is really not much dispute to it. Go writers.