Dismuke

Not only that - but it would also make the government by far the single biggest investor in the marketplace. That would be a very bad thing. So you happen to be Wal-mart and the government is thinking of making a huge investment in the discount retail sector - specifically Sears Holdings which controls K-mart. Sears and Kmart are dud companies in a downward spiral and, if things continue as they are, they most likely won't even be around in a few years. But with an infusion of billions of dollars - well, perhaps somebody could turn that mess around for at least a little while and, if not beat Wal-mart, certainly make Wal-mart a lot less profitable by having to contend with a competitor it would otherwise have easily knocking off. Ah - but the government might decide to spread all that money around and invest in a variety of retailers if Wal-mart would just agree to stop engaging in its "evil" policies that make things very tough for union grocery baggers and mom and pop merchants. Also, look at the sort of pressure that the managers of teachers retirement funds and such already come under whenever they have investments which are not Politically Correct. Imagine the uproar the Environmental Wacko crowd would have if the government had investments in comapnies such as ExxonMobil.

I think a lot of it is due to automated impressions we picked up during our upbringing. Observe that people also have a certain reaction when they see roaches that they do not when they see common houseflys which are probably just as dirty, if not more so. Spiders area almost always protrayed as being dark and creepy. In every representation of a "haunted house" there are always cobwebs. Spiders are always a big part of Halloween decorations. And, of course, some bite. I don't have a fear of spiders - but I sure as heck would not touch one, even if I knew it was not one of the kind that bite. If I need to get rid of one, I will either step on it, swat it or, on occasion, chase it into a cup and let it go outside. Somehow the thought of actually touching a spider - well, that shows I, too, have accepted the common mindset to some degree. By contrast, when I was a kid, I used to play with ants, grasshoppers, crickets, worms, grubs, June bugs and doodlebugs all the time and never gave a moment 's thought to touching them.

Fear can be irrational if one is well aware that it is way out of proportion to any objective threat. For example, I know very well that a wasp on the other side of the room is not likely to sting me. I also know that wasps are rather clumsy when flying around from observing other people trying to catch and swat them for me. I have yet to see anyone trying to kill a wasp for me get stung by one. I also know that a single wasp sting is not all THAT painful. I can understand why a normal person would kill any wasp that comes into the room - one does not want to take chances of later on accidentally provoking it. But for me to feel as uncomfortable as I do when one is in the room and to have to ask other people to kill the things for me - well that is not rational. It is not like a cobra has crawled into my office and one bite by the thing and I am gone. Now, the fact that I have an irrational fear does not mean that I am irrational. How I respond to that fear, however, is something which is open to judgement on whether or not I am rational. There are some instances when such a fear gets in the way of one achieving his values - and to simply give into it without at least trying to overcome it very often is irrational. In my case - well, my fear of wasps does not have that much of an impact on my life. I don't worry about it. I just ask someone to kill the evil creatures for me or keep bug spray handy. I do have another fear, however, which does have a bigger impact on my life - flying. I hate flying. Everything about it freaks me out. I don't really enjoy even being a passenger in a car and, at high speeds and in heavy traffic, I am actually rather nervous being a passenger. I am somewhat of a control freak - and not being able to do anything and being entirely at the mercy of someone else to react to emerging situations that could impact my physical safety, well, that makes me very uncomfortable. Airplanes are the very worst of that sort of thing as far as I am concerned. Take-offs are the very worst part for me - I can hear the engines straining and I just KNOW that I am going to hear a funny noise, the engines will stop and I will be in a free fall. When the plane reaches cruising altitude, I do a bit better and, if the flight is smooth, I enjoy looking for geographical landmarks from the window. But if there is turbulance - well, every bump freaks me out. 9-11 really freaked me out as far as flying was concerned because that added a whole new dimension to something that I was already very uncomfortable with. And the fact that our government is more concerned with not offending the sensibilities of terrorists than protecting my safety - well, that doesn't help things either. Is there a rational basis to be concerned about flying? Sure. Your fate IS in somebody else's hands. Planes DO crash. On the other hand, statistically, it is the safest way to travel. The technology has been around since the very early 1900s so it is not like riding along with a test pilot. Flight insurance is dirt cheap - and it wouldn't be if flying was as dangerous as I fear. Nevertheless, flying scares the crap out of me - and for it to do so to such a degree is an irrational fear. More than that, it is something that does jeopardize my ability to pursue values. There are occasions when I do wish to visit other parts of the country and to visit people who live in them. For that reason, I fight the fear in the sense of actually MAKING myself get on airplanes whenever I have a need to travel either for business (which is rare) or for pleasure. If I had allowed my fear of flying to get the best of me, I would never have been able to visit New York City on the three occasions I have so far. That is one of my favorite places in the world - and my life would be less wonderful if I didn't get to go there every so often. Now, if I have a choice between driving and flying I will usually opt to drive even though it takes more time. A certain amount of extra time is worth being spared the stress of having to fly. But places such as New York City are not really possible for me to drive to simply because the trip there and back would cut into either most or all of the time that I have available for the trip. My attitude with one's irrational fears is, if they are getting in the way of one's quality of life, do your best to recognize that they are irrational and fight them to whatever degree you are able. If it doesn't significantly impact your quality of life and it is something such as a fear of spiders and wasps - well, that's what they make bug spray for.

I have had a phobia of wasps ever since I was 5 years old. I actually remember when it started: I had a nightmare of seeing an "ouchie insect" on a flower. I woke up screaming and my parents rushed into the room. I was very confused and my father explained to me that I had a nightmare and told me what a nightmare was. It is perfectly reasonable for people not to want to mess with wasps and to be uncomfortable if one comes near. But my phobia goes beyond that. If there is a wasp sitting on the wall on the other side of a large room from me and poses little or no threat of stinging me, I am profoundly uncomfortable. Unfortunately, the space between the drop ceiling in my office at work and the building's roof has wasp nests in it - apparently there is some sort of opening in the building where they can get in. The wasps frequently get trapped in the florescent light fixtures in the ceiling and they usually die. This time of year is particularly bad because it is too cold for them to live outside. But there is enough heat above the drop ceiling to keep them alive through winter and apparently they try to come down for the heat. Every so often, one of them gets past the drop ceiling and I end up having a wasp flying around in my office. People know by now that if they see me all of a sudden come running out of the office slamming the door behind me that I have been paid a visit by a wasp - it has become an office joke. Then one of my staff members ends up having to go in and kill the big bad wasp so that their brave and fearless boss can get back to work. Is my phobia irrational? Of course it is - a phobia by definition is irrational. Do I plan on doing anything about it? No. I have asked myself if a life without fear of wasps would improve my happiness to such a degree as to be worth the rediculous amount of time and money I would have to spend in a shrink's office trying to be cured of it. The answer is - no. If I had that time and money, there are countless other things I could spend it on that would contribute more to my long term will being and happiness. It is far cheaper to just stay away from the evil creatures, ask people to kill them for me and have lots and lots of wasp spray on hand around the house. Spiders don't bother me too much - I know that most of the varieties I see around my house are harmless and probably beneficial. But I am not sure if they are harmless to my cats who tend to try and make "friends" out of bugs that come into the house. So, if I see one, I usually step on it. One time I woke up and saw a spider hanging down a few inches above my head. That was rather freaky. Had I remained asleep, it probably would have simply landed and walked off.

Not only are there Whole Food Markets in Texas, the chain actually got its start in Austin, Texas. In fact, last year they built a brand new headquarters and flagship store in Austin. See: http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/company/pr_02-22-05.html I have been in it - it is pretty nice. However, I much prefer another Texas chain called Central Market which overlaps slightly with Whole Foods except that Central Market focuses more on gourmet and specialty foods wheras Whole Foods focuses on "natural" foods and goes after the hippie market more. Central Market also started out in Austin but now has locations in the other major Texas metro areas. Their stores are actually tourist attractions with their Austin stores being the city's number 2 tourist draw after the state capital.

Here is an actual Objectivist joke. I did not make it up - I heard it several years ago. - - - - - Did you hear about the Objectivist beauty contest? No. Well, it was pretty much like any other beauty contest except that the measurements were omitted.

You know, Vladimir, with statements like that, you leave yourself open for someone to shoot at you: "speak for yourself brother!" No, I am not going to do that - well, at least not in such a tone. Rather, I am just going to say that in making such a statement, you are presumably including yourself - correct? I am going to assume, here, that your answer is: yes. So I have a question for you: Let's say sometime in the future you discover either on your own, or because someone has pointed it out to you, that your judgement has been inhibited by such a bias. Once you become aware that it has been thusly compromised what will you do? Will you reevaluate your judgement consciously recognizing that such a bias exists and make extra sure that you are not letting it improperly get in the way of the facts? Or will you evade the issue and cling to your belief? THAT is my answer to the issue that "everyone is biased." Maybe they are. But it is their job to be on guard against it, get past it and look at reality and not at their emotions and wishes. - - - - Perhaps somebody more knowedgable about science can also answer something for me - doesn't science have certain procedures and/or methodologies in place which , if followed properly, works to pretty much help scientists recognize and get past any inappropriate biases that they might have?

It isn't at all adventageous for a rational person to pretend that an actual threat of harm does not exist. If such a threat DOES exist, then the rational person wants to know about it so he can deal with it. Refusing to give any sort of credibility or sanction to the Joseph Mengalas of the environmental movement is not the same thing as denying any sort of actual harm. Someone first has to prove that such harm actually exists - and if you pay very close attention, even most global warming advocate scientists do not make that claim. Most admit that it has yet to be proven - but we need to act as if it were true because of the allegedly dire consequences if it were. A rational person who refused to recognize environmentalists for what they are, by contrast, IS an example of pretending that a GENUINE threat of harm does not exist. I don't think that most Objectivists have much of an opinion as to whether the climate is warming, cooling or remaining more or less stable. And whatever the answer is, there is no reason for them to say that any such proven findings are a hoax. It will simply be a fact of reality. What Objectivists are saying is a hoax is "global warming" - which, as I mentioned in a previous posting - is NOT the same thing as the purely scientific study of climate change.

Vladimir - Here is an interview with a very famous scientist. It is not about global warming - but he is an environmentalist. Read what he has to say. Ask yourself if this is a person concerned about your life, liberty or happiness. Or if you were hit by a bus tomorrow, would he regard it as a mixed blessing because, while your inability to consume additional resources would be a great thing, the sort of stuff that funeral homes inject in bodies might have all sorts of possible consequences to the soil and water table? http://www.reason.com/news/show/30894.html Pretty disgusting. Would you give serious consideration to any sort of policy recommendations made by this guy on grounds that he is an "expert" and a "scientist"? Would you even listen to a such a person - or would you run like hell the moment he walked into the room?

I think you are missing the point. If you were Jewish would you allow yourself to be treated by and take pills proscribed by Dr. Josef Mengele? Let's say he is a great doctor and NOBODY doubts his medical abilities. Aren't his medical and scientific qualifications besides the point if he wants to see you dead? The leaders of the environmentalist movement have been very explicit in stating that they wish to see us dead and that they regard human beings as a blight on the planet. Regardless of whatever scientific credentials such a person has, would you take political and policy recommendations from someone who wishes to see you dead on the basis that he has "credentials?" To answer your question, no, just because someone subscribes to such an ideology does not mean that they are not capable of doing good science. But what difference does it make? Such people want to see us dead - and they are actively proposing policies towards that end. If some highly reputable scientist could demonstrate that Vladimir's death and the subsequent medical research on his body (let's say you have very unique genetics and physiology) could objectively provide some sort of alleged scientific benefit towards some allegedly noble event - would you therefore volunteer to be strapped in and give him permission to inject the poison? That is basically what taking the policy recommendations of environmentalists amounts to. Reisman's point is that even if the scientists could allegedly prove "global warming" - it does not make any difference. Even if it was allegedly proven, it does not follow that we should, therefore, commit mass suicide which is what the environmental movement is basically demanding via their hostility towards technology.

There are certainly valid occasions for going into debt. Big ticket items such as houses or cars are definitely examples. Having use of such things while one pays for it is, for most people, often worth the price of the interest. But even here, people end up getting into trouble by buying more house or car than they can responsibly afford based on their income level. I would love to have a bigger house - and I would certainly be able to qualify for one in terms of being able to get a mortgage. But my monthly costs would go up big time if I did that. Why do I want a bigger house? Because I am a packrat and the house I have is already filled up with all sorts of neat junk that I have picked up in estate sales and such. Of course, if I had a bigger house, it would only be a matter of time before I fill it up too and will be wanting an even larger one. I have three large floor model radios from the 1920s and 1930s. I never listen to them as they only pick up modern stations. I have them because I think they are really cool and they are quite beautiful - and because I was able to pick them up for very little money at auctions. Do I really need to have another one? If I have to buy a bigger house to make room for another that I pick up for a "bargain" somewhere - well, is it really a bargain? How important are neat old radios to me? Not very, actually. My passion is collecting vintage records - radios are just one of a great many side interests that I have. Perhaps it would make more sense if I just learned to make better use of the space I already have and be far more selective about the sorts of stuff that I drag home - and if there is something that I want really badly, perhaps I should consider getting rid of something else in order to make room for it. If more people had such conversations with themselves, I think they would be able to avoid a great deal of the troubles they get into. I do think there are contexts where carrying over a credit card balance for non-necessities is ok. We can use the TV example. If one has a family and has only a modest income, television is a rather inexpensive form of entertainment. If the family television set were to suddenly go out, they could decide to go without television for a few months and save up some extra money by not going out to restaurants until they have enough for another television. But, in doing so, the family is having to go through those months without eating out and without television. Putting the television on a credit card and using the money saved up from not eating out to make card payments enables them to still enjoy television and only have to give up eating out. Sure, there are interest charges. So maybe to pay the interest, the family must give up one additonal meal out. That would probably be worth it for most people. And even thought he family is carrying over some credit card debt, they are still living within their means because they have made the necessary adjustements elsewhere in their budget in order to pay the debt off. Where people often get in trouble is, once they have seen what they were able to do with the television, they begin to think that they can just as easily do the same with all sorts of other things that they have always wanted to have. At some point, they either run out of other expenses they can cut or are unwilling to cut other expenses and an ever increasing amount of their paychecks end up going to pay off interest on a debt that never goes down and only goes up. The only way to get out of that trap is to go on a major long-term austerity program so that one can not only pay off the interest but also start making a dent in the actual debt. Unfortunately, once a person has "upgraded" his lifestyle, such an austerity program tends to be all that much more painful.

Maybe it is off topic - but I think it is a very interesting question. Were Keating's designs rational? Well, assuming that you agree with Ayn Rand's views on architecture, the answer is: of course not. But it does not follow that some company or developer who hired Keating over Roark was necessarily irrational to do so. Let's say that some sort of retail or restaurant chain is going to expand and needs an architect to come up with a design for all of the new locations. Let's also say that this business primarily caters to a particular demographic that, by and large, is NOT receptive to Roark style buildings but does respond favorably to Keating style buildings. Let's say that the person in charge of making the decision personally actually prefers Roark style buildings and looks upon Peter Keating with contempt. Well, his primary job function is not to educate or elevate the aesthetic tastes of his employer's customers. His job is to make his employer as much money as possible by enticing as many people from the target demographic into those locations as he can so that they will spend money on the company's goods and services. If his employer would make more money by building aesthetically horrible looking stores that its customers would love, then it would be an entirely rational decision on his part to build such stores. Nor is such a decision a compromise of his own aesthetic integrity. It is no more appropriate for him to use his employer's business to crusade for his aesthetic values than it is for the checkout person at the local supermarket to use the time the customers have to spend in front of him as a platform for proselytizing in favor of religion, political candidates or even Objectivism. If you are a mass merchandiser, you might think that contemporary tastes in clothing, furniture, books and magazines are utterly disgusting and degenerate. But if you are in such a business and you plan on staying in business, you had better carry the sort of clothing, furniture, books and magazines that your customers want or they will go elsewhere. I can even come up with a personal example. Since I am the go-to person regarding my employer's phone system and since the call center reports to me, I am the one who makes the decisions regarding the hold music that customers hear when they call into the call center. Some while ago, I found myself having to shop around for new hold music. Well, I happen to have a very huge record collection of several thousand vintage 78 rpm records and it briefly occurred to me to turn the hold music into a sort of Radio Dismuke On Hold. I am sure some customers would have enjoyed it. But I am also sure that many more would, at the very least, regard it as a bit eccentric and some would actually have a very negative reaction to it. I ended up picking some music that I regard as utterly valueless and banal - a sort of bland, commercial "soft rock" style elevator music. I chose it because such music, unfortunately, is all over the place these days and is more or less what people expect from hold music. I doubt anyone will ever say how much they love the hold music - but I also doubt that anyone will complain about it either. This was not a compromise of my aesthetic integrity. It is not my job to use my employer's resources as a means of promoting my kind of music. Now, if I were to include such music on Radio Dismuke on the basis of a market survey that my doing so would attract more listeners - well, that would be a compromise of my aesthetic integrity because the very purpose of Radio Dismuke is to provide a platform for promoting my kind of music. And, as for my comment about whim worship - well, whether a given purchase is a whim or a well-earned rational value is highly contextual. If you can barely make your house payment and your kids will need expensive new school clothes in a few months and you decide to blow the last few hundred dollars left in your bank account on a weekend trip to an expensive resort hotel, that is a whim. If you have been working hard and want to reward yourself and have been looking forward to taking such a trip and can easily afford it, well, that sounds pretty rational to me. If you are the travel agent, it is not your job to determine whether the customer's motives are whim driven or not. Your job is to sell as many trips as possible - and if some customers choose to put themselves in the poorhouse because of it, that is their problem, not yours.

I have wondered if there was such a file and whether Ayn Rand was officially regarded by the government as a "subversive." If you think about it, Ayn Rand was about as "subversive" as anyone who has ever lived - in the rational and good sense of the word, of course. Mark my words - when Objectivism finally does start showing up on the radar screen as a major cultural force, there are going to be plenty who will regard it as subversive and there will be a highly organized campaign to smear and discredit it. If you think the behavior of the loony thugs on the Left and their accomplices in the mainstream media towards such a wishy-washy uninspiring figure as George W. Bush and the attempts to smear and even jail commentators such as Rush Limbaugh are sickening and over-the-top, wait until they start going after Objectivists. It will make the assorted smears by people such as the Brandens seem almost benevolent by comparison. And, depending on who is in power at the time, there may even be FBI files about things such as people's private lives. We might as well start bracing ourselves for it - and recognize that it will be a symptom of our success.

I think the availability of easy and cheap consumer credit has certainly created a form of pseudo-affluence amongst a certain rather visible subset of our society. They are visible because they tend to spend their money in ways which are visible - nice cars, nice houses, nice clothes, cool vacations colleagues at work hear about, nice restaurants, etc. We consider such people "successful" and have no idea that their personal assets are in the negative. Saving and investing one's spare money is not as visible and the "lifestyle" of such people tends to look somewhat less "cool." I think this tends to create a widespread impression amongst the public that one's financial success is based on how much money one spends and not how much wealth one has. It takes a certain amount of discipline and long term perspective to be able to say: just because I have the savings and/or credit to buy these really cool clothes (or whatever) and could actually own them by simply saying "yes" it does NOT follow that I should. Quite frankly, a lot of marketing these days is targeted to appeal to whim. This is not a criticism of marketers - that is a rational and normal response when one's marketplace is made up of a large number of whim worshipers. I kind of wonder how many people who regularly drop $5 on a cup of Starbucks coffee drink pay off their credit card bills each month. Of course, context is everything. $5 on a cup of coffee is a nice, occasional treat and if you enjoy it with friends and linger awhile for great conversation, it is a relatively cheap form of entertainment. But there are people who go to Starbucks every day and my guess is many of them have debts at the end of each month. My grandparents - who were young adults in the Great Depression - would have been scandalized at how many times I have bought that $5 cup of latte - something I could make at home for myself for perhaps 35 cents maybe. When my grandparents were young, a soda pop was something people regarded as a special treat. The big name brands cost 5 cents (about 75 cents or so in today's money) and for that you got a 6 ounce bottle. Bargain brands such as Pepsi were popular with kids because they came in "big" 12 ounce bottles. Today, one can get 44 ounce super duper big gulps for about the same price or less in inflation adjusted money. Few people today think of a soda pop as a luxury item - and people today drink them like people once drank water and have the pounds to show for it as well. Somehow, I suspect that folks back in my grandparents day got more pleasure from those occasional 6 ounce bottles of Dr. Pepper and Coca-Cola than do the people today who drink those same beverages daily at lunch time and between meals. The kind of lifestyle a person choses to lead is a reflection of his hierarchy of values. It takes a certain amount of independence for a person to organize his heirarchy of values in terms of which pleasures he chooses to pursue based on the limitation of his means (i.e. by the present facts of reality and future long term demands on his wealth) rather than the often attractive and tempting hierarchy of values offered by the popular culture and marketers complete with all sorts of wonderful buy now pay later deals. And if one is motivated by social-metaphysics - well, one is especially vulnerable to the appeals of popular culture and marketing.

Well, I happen to be "one of them, an Objectivist" so that "refers to me" as well. And I do "lack scientific training and knowledge." I am utterly clueless on the subject and have had no formal training on it since my very mediocre high school education. Clearly all Objectivists do NOT have scientific training and knowledge. So, do you now repudiate your bizarre inferences? If not, why not? Oh, and be sure to tie back your answer to ITOE quoting exact passages. Hmmm. For some reason, I didn't think Objectivism was one of those philosophies which required people to parse words and sentences with a fine tooth comb in order to extract "meaning." I was under the impression that Objectivism held words and sentences to be a means toward the end of expressing ideas. I was also under the impression that Objectivism held that ideas - good ideas and bad ideas - arise from and are held in a specific context. I was also under the impression from Dr. Peikoff's Objective Communication course that one of the essential requirements of engaging in an argument (assuming that one's motive for doing so is to understand and to persuade) is to make an effort to understand what the other person (not just his mere words) actually means and the specific context from which he is coming. Somehow I don't see you doing that. No effort to understand Vladimir's ideas or to explain why they are false while making reference to Vladimir's context. I just see nitpicking of his words and sentences along with assertions backed up by your context, which, as ought to be obvious to anyone, is very different than his. So perhaps you ought to address the relationship between words and sentences and ideas - explicitly tying everything back to ITOE, of course. And what is the Objectivist position towards ideas which are false? Does it draw any distinction between ideas which are false because of lack of knowledge or confusion? Why or why not - and make sure your answer is backed up by OPAR. And do you understand the Objectivist position regarding context? If so, please demonstrate that you do - tying it back to both ITOE and OPAR. Finally, show the philosophical ramifications that the interrelationship of words and sentences with ideas has on the issue of context and the status of individuals who hold false ideas based on faulty contexts - and please prove that your position is consistent with the views of Ayn Rand and Dr. Peikoff and that you have communicated it objectively as defined by the principles referenced in Dr. Peikoff's Objective Communication course. Of course, if you do answer those questions, I will just tear the sentences apart and take offense at various implications that you may or may not have meant. Then I will make a whole bunch of other assertions and ask you a new round of questions. And when you reply, I will do the same thing over and over again. And if you have the mindset of a clueless newbie, you will act like a sucker and take the bait and keep posting replies so that I can keep it up. And if I tried this with someone whose knowledge of Objectivism is still limited and he was foolish enough to take my bait, I could sit back and watch him continue to keep digging himself deeper and deeper into the hole in his misguided attempts to actually answer me seriously. And if you do not answer the questions - well, I could then point to it and try to create the impression that you are being evasive and are not prepared to back up what you say. So perhaps, David, you should not even bother to answer my little line of questioning in the first place. Because, if you do - well, it will be heads you lose and tails you lose. You would probably be wise to see if for what it is and to ignore it. I have the same advice for Vladimir. I just figure that since Vladimir's posting style has (legitimately) been questioned recently on this board, and since David was the one who chose to use this thread as a means of bringing that subject back up, I thought that I would take the opportunity to use it to point out that Vladimir is not the only person whose posting style leaves much to be desired.

Exactly - in a backhanded sort of manner. That was the point of my posting. One can take darn near any false premise or imprecise statement and, if one takes it far enough, one can infer all sorts of horrible implications from it. Because the universe is a whole and is interconnected, that is the nature of a falsehood - it is rarely self contained. And, as you said: "but I wouldn't have thought to look at it that way." Precisely. And neither would I. And neither would most people. So the question is: why did David choose to take it that way? More important - why did David choose to regard it as an insult to himself personally when there was zero evidence that Vladimir had such intentions? Ho-hummm. You said the same thing just the other night. Guess what? I said it too. And now you and I are repeating ourselves. And exactly why are we repeating ourselves? Because David chose to deduce in a "backhanded" sort of way certain implications that he decided to take personal offense to, he was able to find a platform in which to write the following: Amazing how similar that is to what we were saying just the other night. And yet there is nothing in this thread by Vladimir that warrants him being subjected to a rerun of what you and I dished out to him a few evenings ago. Vladimir did NOT misrepresent "the Objectivist position." His point was about the scope of philosophical verses scientific inquiry. The only way Objectivism per se was involved was simply due to the fact that it is an instance of a philosophy and, thus, is limited in scope to whatever valid limitations any philosophy is properly limited to. One may agree or disagree with Vladimir's point here - but it simply is NOT an example of the sort of Objectivist bashing that David is trying to make it out to be. Furthermore, there was NOTHING in the thread to indicate that Vladimir regards Objectivists as "despicable" and nothing that he said which even remotely approaches "slander." (If anyone is being slandered here, there is a much stronger case to suggest that it is Vladimir as he is the one being jumped on for stuff he did not say). Of course, all of this is very conveniently reminiscent of what you and I were talking about the other night, isn't it? Except that the other night, what we were saying was deserved. In this instance, it isn't. So why did David choose to bring all this up? I am sorry, but I am not a clueless newbie and I did not fall off a turnip truck yesterday. I recognize GRANDSTANDING when I see it. Well... have you ever considered that maybe part of the reason might be that he feels that nobody has grasped HIS essential point which was the difference in the nature and scope of scientific and philosophical inquiry? There is a legitimate difference between the two. I will be the first to admit that Vladimir (and a great many other people as well) needs to spend more time studying and reading and less time arguing. But any form of communication is a two way street. It is a fact of human psychology that a person is not going to do a good job of listening when he is focused on trying to get the other person to at least recognize his context and accurately understand his point. One also has to keep in mind that it is very difficult for a person to learn and grasp basic points when he has multiple people throwing out assorted Objectivist "factoids" at once - and that is assuming a best case scenario where all of the multiple people actually know what they are talking about and are able to present that information in a non-confusing, non-hostile manner. Bottom line is what I always tell newbies: there is no substitute for studying the source material and the odds of someone new learning something about the philosophy from a message board are slim to none and more likely will result in confusion and an inacurrate impression of what the philosophy stands for. I have learned a lot from message boards such as this - but that is because I have studied the philosophy for years and have the context needed to recognize which postings contain valuable information. Again, we covered this the other night - and I resent the fact that it has been opened up and is being rehashed because of how David choose make "backhanded" inferences in such a way as to conveniently bring it back up. Furthermore, what you are saying is NOT applicable to David's approach in making his points to Vladimir. What David does in response to any unclear or inaccurate thought expressed by Vladimir is rip what he says apart and innundates him with a flood of points from the Objectivist literature followed by what amounts to a demand Vladimir to grasp and agree with him - and if he doesn't, Vladmir's next response will be subjected to more of the same. Even if one assumes that David's points are 100% valid and are consistent with the Objectivist position, Vladimir, nor anyone else, can be expected to grasp anything from such an approach on grounds of crow epistemology. Here is an example of the sort of heavy handedness I am talking about: Keep in mind that he is demanding that Vladimir jump through all of these hoops just so that he can defend his point that there is a difference in the nature and proper scope of science verses philosophy. How much time do you suppose someone knowledgable about Objectivism would have to spend in order to comply with such demands by presenting the Objectivist postion on these matters - and explicitly tying everything back to ITOE? And how long would such a posting be? And, even if it was posted, who would bother to read it besides David who would undoubtely use it as a basis for demanding even more of the same? Such demands are simply NOT reasonable or justified. Furthermore, one does NOT need to be an Objectivist or have ever read ITOE in order to make the point that there is a difference between science and philosophy. I am sorry, but the fact that Vladimire does not and cannot comply with such demands is NOT a valid example of what Inspector and I were taking Vladimir to task for when it comes to not being familiar with the Objectivist literature. Like I said, I know grandstanding when I see it. Furthemore, the purpose of argument is to inform and persuade. One does NOT do either by overwhelming one's opponant with and burying him under one's superior knowledge of the subject matter. That accomplishes nothing other than silencing one's opponant and perhaps convincing oneself that he has achieved some sort of "victory" over the other guy. At best one might be able to intimidate one's opponant into compliance and submission - but the person sure as heck will not have any actual understanding. A rational discussion has to be a dialogue with both parties making an effort to understand the other's context. I am the very last person in the world who will apologize for or make excuses for inappropriate behavior on the part of Vladimir. He is a very good friend of mine and I wish nothing but wonderful things for him. I would not be doing him any favors by sanctioning inappropriate behavior on his part and by keeping silent when I see it. The fact that he is my friend does not exempt him from the facts of reality. Vladimir does need to spend more time reading the literature and less time trying to argue with people here. But I will be damned if I sit back and watch someone who, for whatever reason, has chosen to have some sort of personal animosity towards Vladimir twist his words so as to create a platform to drag up points that I had no choice but to state in public about my friend so that they could be used to beat him over the head again. Vladimir needs to be held to the same standards of behavior that the rest of us do - and I agree with RationalBiker that the moderators have been VERY good about giving him the benefit of the doubt in a number of instances, which, as his friend, I very much appreciate. I know others do not share the same context that I have by virtue of knowing him in person - but he is worthy of the benefit of the doubt that has been shown. My advice to people in general after a number of years participation in various boards is this: Heated debate is fine and wonderful if both parties benefit from it. But the very minute that you sense someone is out to defeat you - back off and do not respond to that person at all. You have nothing to gain from such a person. Of course, you have to make sure that your own behavior is appropriate, not only because it should be appropriate, but somewhere down the line, you will run into someone who, for whatever reason, takes a personal dislike towards you and will attempt to drag your previous behavior back up and use it against you. I have seen it happen over and over again.

I know one group of people who would be very much against it coming back - and that would be precisely the credit card companies. I remember one year at Christmas time, one of my credit cards sent me a notice that they upped my credit limit. The limit on that one card alone (never mind all my other cards) was already rediculously high in terms of my ability to handle that level of debt based on what I was making at the time - and here they were raising it. Not only that, they included a note that said: "Congratulations on your new credit limit. Here's a helpful hint: By using your XYZ Card for the things you need such as groceries, utility bills and car repairs, you can free cash up for things you want such as Christmas gifts, electronics and vacations." So here they are - willing to extend me more credit than I would be willing to extend to myself if it were my money being lent and they are encouraging me to go into debt to buy my necessities so that I can blow my money on luxuries that I really don't really need and can't otherwise properly afford. And all one needs to do is look at the credit card ads and see that they spend a great deal of advertising money to encourage their customers to live beyond their means. Sure, some of their customers default as a result of such irresponsibility. But apparently enough of them continue to make their payments - and I would assume that the credit card companies make very big money from people living such a lifestyle. If they could end up in jail in the event their financial situation suddenly deteriorated, my guess is that quite a number of the credit card companies most profitable customers would think twice about living in debt for frivolous reasons - and I am sure that would not be something the credit card companies would welcome. I also suspect that commercial banks would be a bit hesitant as well. The bright young entrepreneur who has a brilliant but risky business plan might be a bit reluctant to start that new venture on borrowed money if it involved the risk he might end up behind bars as a sex slave to some thug. As for what I think about debtors prison - the notion of attaching jail time to what is essentially a civil matter is a bit disturbing to me. When you loan someone money, you do so knowing full well that there is always a risk of default. That is what running a credit check is for.

They will be able to bottle the stuff in trendy looking containers and sell it as something "natural" to a bunch of back-to-nature wannabes in places where lots of lefties congregate such as Whole Foods Market, Ben & Jerry's and Starbucks

Change that to "scientific explanations of climate change" and I will agree with you. "Global warming" involves more than mere scientific study of what the climate, is, in fact doing and why. It is an ideological agenda. The mere use of the term "global warming" in today's context automatically assumes the premise that it is caused by capitalism and that the warming is necessarily a bad thing. The climate is changing. It always has changed. That is why we have had ice ages and periods when the climate has been much warmer than it is today - and all of this happned before the "evil" Industrial Revolution came along. What causes the climate to change and what forces are in play when it does? That is a strictly scientific question and requires lots of specialized knowledge. However, when it comes to evaluating the validity of various scientific theories that may be put forth to explain it - there is indeed a philosophical aspect to the issue. The philosophy of science is a very valid and specialized field of study. Objectivism has no opinion at all on the various specialized issues within the philosophy of science as Ayn Rand was not a scientist and never addressed such issues. However, it is mandatory that a proper philosophy of science be based on a proper metaphysics, epistemology and perhaps even ethics as well - and in that respect Objectivism has a great deal to say and offer.

By virtue of the fact that they have mistaken premises, people are sometimes not able to do that. It is very common and normal. And, for that reason, those who do have the correct premises need to be aware of this fact and have a certain amount of patience. That's certainly true. But that is quite a lot of information to shove down someone's throat and then essentially demand that they grasp and understand it or else you will throw even more at them to understand. Do you really expect Vladimir or anyone else who is confused on the issue to absorb all that merely from a discussion board posting? I understand it is tempting to feel that you want to "knock some sense" into somebody - and I have felt that way a time or two myself in discussions with Vladimir. But I am afraid it cannot be done. And repeatedly demanding a person to "back up" a point that you know is already flawed is an open invitation for them to bring forth additional flawed points. Clearly, if someone makes an outrightly offensive statement that one morally should not dignify with a rebuttal, one should ask for it to be backed up. And there are cases when doing so can be helpful in informing the other person. But beyond a certain point - well, it is not productive for either party and, if taken to the extreme, could be a form of browbeating. Nowhere does he assert YOU are incompetent. You are turning this into something personal when it is not. As for "implications" - well, ANY flawed premise is going to have some pretty horrible implications if one follows them through long enough. Taking personal offense to them when none was intended is, in my view, not a particularly productive way to go about one's life and certainly not condusive to being very persuasive in debates. Furthermore, you, me, or anyone else, is incompetent to judge something, if they do not have not been educated in the available facts that are necessary in order to make that judgement. That applies to scientific facts or any other kind of facts. It is not an insult to say that Dismuke is not qualified to judge a matter of scientific fact with regard to nuclear physics. I am not - and my epistemology is pretty sound if I do say so myself. Someone having a flawed (and in this case, honest) misunderstanding about the nature and scope of the legal profession is NOT a slander of Vladimir and if he were to regard it as an example of someone calling him a quack - well, I would say that he is either looking to be offended or is finding an excuse to pick a fight.

Please take a deep breath, David. Vladimir is simply saying that the mere fact that someone is an Objectivist does not alone qualify them to hold views on narrow, non-philosophical subjects when one is not educated in that particular specialty. That is all he is saying here. In and of itself, that position is undeniably true. Vladimir's mistake here is that he thinks that global warming is a strictly scientific issue. It is not. It is primarily an ideologically motivated issue. Vladimir being mistaken on that is NOT an example of "slander." Now it is very true that Vladimir has been taken to task elsewhere on this forum recently for making uninformed remarks about what the Objectivist position is and is not in such a way that a reasonable person could be offended and regard them as slander or disrespectful. In other words, he has already been taken to task on this. And, while I haven't had time to follow all of his postings since and I happen to know he did not even see the postings where I and others took him to task for almost 24 hours (during which time he put up additional postings), at least in this thread I see no evidence he is guilty of any particular disrespect or slander. You may dislike Vladimir and hope that he goes away - but, it is not just to keep beating him over the head with a stick that has already been used. Having a false view of what is a scientific verses philosophical issue is NOT slander or insulting unless one chooses to be offended by it.

Yikes! Have you been talking with John Kerry, lately? (Just kidding - but, if read in a certain way, there is a similarity between the above and Kerry's recent remarks). What if your country was being invaded by dictatorship and, if your country fell and you survived the war, life would be utter hell? Sometimes such situations happen despite people's best intentions to avoid them. And, in some countries, dodging the draft or defying the government has meant not only putting one's self at risk but one's loved ones as well. If one is under gunpoint, any option that is open to one is likely to be pretty awful. I, for one, do not understand how or relate to people who undertake any high-risk profession on grounds that such is what they want to do. It seems totally nuts to me - but there are, without a doubt, many highly rational and intelligent people who do more than willingly choose to accept such positions. As for the military in general - well, I personally wouldn't make it through boot camp without telling the drill sargent exactly where to go and shove it. I don't allow people to talk that way to me. I don't take orders and, while I am all for "teamwork" in a business or any other setting which requires coordinated cooperation, militaries seem to equate teamwork with their own version of what amounts to collectivism. I can't relate to someone choosing to be on the front lines - and for that reason, I can very much relate to your suggestion that such is not a rational decision. However, in reality, I don't think that such a charge is necessarily accurate or just. There are a great many rational people in the military - which I suspect you will agree with. As for people on the front lines, as opposed to less risky assignments, I think the matter can be highly contextual and a choice to be there does not necessarily mean that a person is not rational. Maybe one is fighting for his freedom and would rather die than live under dictatorship. Not everyone has the intelligence and/or the skills needed to achieve the less risky assignments. Lack of intelligence and ability does not translate into lack of rationality - though it usually does translate into less desirable jobs. Some people have a spirit of "adventure" and thrive on high-risk situations. Some become spies. Others become test pilots. I am only guessing here - but it wouldn't surprise me to learn that the survival rate of a low ranking troop in Iraq is actually better than the on-the-job survival rate of astronauts in the shuttle program over the past 25 years. Yet being an astronaut requires a tremendous amount of rationality. A rank and file soldier is a way that those who are into that sort of thing can experience that sense of "adventure." And the job of today's front line soldier is significantly different than it has been in the past where the only requirement was to obey, know how to shoot and be tough. Everything today is going increasingly high tech, even on the front lines. This not only means that one's odds of survival are better, it also requires that soldiers be something more than mindless brutes. It is not a job I would ever take. But, considering the state of the world today and the fact that we are sooner or later going to have to take out our enemies if we are not going to become the sort of Vichy America that the Jacques Kerrys of the world would have us live in, I for one, am very glad that there are some people who do choose to take it. For the sake of all of us, I sure hope that most of them are rational people - which I suspect they are. At the very least, I think it is pretty accurate to say that the typical rank and file soldier of the very lowest rank in the US military is probably significantly more rational and undoubtedly many times more moral than the likes of Jacques Kerry.

Gee - I thought John Kerry and John Murtha were supposed to be the greatest military leaders of all times. (Did you know that John Kerry served in Vietnam?)

I actually think you are sort of on the path to a valid point - though I don't think it has anything to do with some sort of "ace in the hole." There are situations that one has absolutely zero metaphysical control over yet the outcome of which has profound and extremely significant implications to one's values and perhaps one's entire life. So much is at stake - and yet one is unable to act in any way whatsoever. One is essentially powerless and can do nothing but await the outcome of events. Maybe it is the foxhole situation Vladimir described. Perhaps one is shackled in a cell after being kidnapped by terrorists and is suddenly being dragged in front of video cameras and one of the masked terrorists has has a very long knife. Or maybe a loved one is having an operation. The only thing one can do in such situations is await the outcome of events and hopefully find one's self back in a position where one can take positive action in the name of his values. But while one may not be able to act - one's mind is still alert and, undoubtedly, a lot is going through it at that moment. I think it is entirely understandable and not at all irrational if a person in such a dramatic situation makes an emotional plea to the universe at large that goes something along the lines of: "In the name of everything that is wonderful and good and dear - please let me get through this." Or "My loved one is a dear and wonderful person and has so much to offer and so much living to do - in the name of everything that is dear and just, please let him/her make it through this." Having such an emotion does not negate one's rationality nor does it hamper a person's ability to take immediate action should the situation evolve and provide such an opportunity. If anything, such an emotion is beneficial in that it keeps one's mind focused on one's values. Unfortunately, our culture does not really offer us with much help in terms of providing us with a secular form though which one can give voice and express such an emotion. In her 1968 Introduction to the 25th anniversary edition of The Fountainhead, Ayn Rand talked about how "religion's monopoly in the field of ethics has made it extremely difficult to communicate the emotional meaning and connotations of a rational view of life." She provides examples of how religion has "usurped the highest moral concepts of our language, placing them outside this earth and beyond man's reach." She provided examples such as "exaltation" "worship" "reverence" and "sacred." She then explains: "...such concepts do name actual emotions, even though no supernatural dimension exists." I think that the sort of "prayer" by atheists in foxhole scenarios is a good example of an actual emotion that religion has basically usurped and for which no secular counterpart exists in our culture (in part, possibly, because so many secularist intellectuals today are nihilists who routinely ridicule and sneer at any display of intense emotions other than rage, hostility and hatred.) My guess is many "foxhole theists" address their plea to God simply because no other words come to mind but yet the emotion they feel is very real, profound and deeply personal. This issue reminds me of that wonderful 1979 interview that Ayn Rand did with Tom Snyder: Tom Snyder : You love this country, don't you? Ayn Rand: Passionately. Very, very much and consciously. I love this country for its ideas. And I've seen enough of the other side, so I can appreciate this country. Tom Snyder: You might even get emotional about this country. Ayn Rand: Oh, yes! You want me to get emotional? Tom Snyder: Might even thank God for it? Ayn Rand: Yeah....I may not literally mean a "god," but I like what that expression means: "thank God" or "God bless you." It means the highest possible to me and I would certainly thank God for this country." Somehow I don't think that an atheist in a desperate situation praying to God for the safety of himself or his loved ones is very much different - and such a person is not necessarily any more of a theist than was Ayn Rand when she said "thank God for the United States of America."

It will never happen. That same crowd sure as heck did not admit that they were wrong when it happened last time around - i.e. when they could not longer push Communism and be taken seriously. So they just swapped one set of evil nonsense for another and became watermelons - green on the outside, red on the inside. As soon as their latest fraud is discredited, I am sure they will find some other rationalization for seeking to enslave us. I am sure they will find grounds to oppose solar power if it ever caught on just as they are against wind energy now that technology is starting to be profitable in a marginal sort of way. They will say that the reflection from the solar panels disorients and disrupts flight patters of migratory birds and that the heat from the panels fries certain endangered insets as well as common insects that endangered birds consume. They will say solar energy is unfair to "sun poor" regions of the world that experience lots of cloud cover. They will "discover" some horrible alleged health dangers caused by whatever material the storage cells that make the solar power possible are made of. Leftists lie. They always have and they always will. If solar becomes successful, they will lie about that. And if given enough power they will censor (as they are trying to do now with the "global warming deniers"), intimidate, bully, arrest or even liquidate those who attempt to expose their lies. These people never change. Hopefully a fourth possibility occurs: such people will be as hesitant to show their faces in public as they were in the weeks immediately following 9-11 because fools like Algore are recognized as the total laughing stocks they are and the rest are held in widespread contempt because they are recognized as the neo-Stalinist thugs that they are. Until then, may such people's dreams be filled every night with vivid images of Nancy Pelosi, Cindy Sheehan and Ted Kennedy naked.