RationalBiker

As an aside, I have to say I'm baffled by the idea of amending the constitution to LIMIT the rights of individuals. The purpose of the Bill of Rights and the amendments has typically been to ESTABLISH individual rights or DELINEATE / LIMIT the powers of the government, not the other way around. VES

I just won an auction on eBay for We the Living for $35 USD. I think that is a good price for an allegedly new copy direct from the distributor. Has anyone here already seen it? Does it do the book justice? Thanks, VES

You can base the reasoning of you purpose in life on IF's if you want to, but those IF's will likely remain unanswered. Rather, a tenet of Objectivism (if I understand it correctly) is to avoid basing your answers on that which is unknown, unproven, or not substantiated as reality. You state that I assume there is no god, whereas I stated there is no evidence that a god exists. There is no rational reason for me to assume (believe) there is a god. In my mind, the active assumption is on the part of those people who DO believe there is a god when there is no evidence to support that claim. If you can establish to me that you have proof of the existence of a god, I'll accept your premise that I was the one assuming. However, I will take an amateur stab at addressing the question in your earlier logic circle. To be moral and productive, because that makes me happy. The only way I see this to be a circular issue is if you have the idea that the goal can accomplish itself. If the goal is to happy, you have to have an activity, method or means to get to the goal, or a series of smaller goals. Virtually any "ultimate" goal has a series of lesser goals or activities necessary in order to achieve the larger goal. I'm not sure this helps you, but I tried. VES

Are you saying that the fact that someone can say something makes it so? There is no fact that establishes a god exists. Therefore, in your example, they can say man exists for the purpose of a god, but it wouldn't be true. VES

I have ordered 5 books through Amazon's Z shops over the last week or so. RM, CUI, FH, Anthem, and IOE. About 40 bucks for all of them. Definitely a great deal. VES

Thanks for addressing that concern. I should clarify that it wasn't that I actually thought you were considering doing that so much as that it was one of the suggestions (or very similar) I had read earlier in the thread. VES

In my home, I teach my son to be an independent thinker. I don't endorse a complete "freedom of expression" because that would be absurd. (Eddie Izzard's comments about "babies on spikes" as an example) Rather, I encourage him to express himself freely in rational, constructive ways. However, despite the fact that I may encourage him to express himself freely in that manner, that doesn't mean that my house becomes a stage for anyone who wishes to express themselves freely SIMPLY because I promote that ideal. The same holds true of this forum as I see it. This is the "home" of the family and friends of Objectivism (pretty much with GC as the patriarch in my understanding). By family I mean those who ARE full-fledged Objectivists, and by friends I mean those who seek more knowledge with the specific goal or inclination to BECOME a full-fledged Objectivist. I would further suggest that this is not a wading pool for people to test the waters. That should be done with Ayn Rand's books, IMO. (Or any acceptable more definitive literary work) I'm reading AR's books now, and I see this forum as a means to supplement that, not replace it. No offense to the forum or it's operator (especially since I rather like both), but I do not find this forum the place by which to decide whether I would want to be an Objectivist or not. One MUST rationally go to the source of the information (AR) in order to find out if it makes sense to them, if it indeed fits into their view of life. This seems to be supported by the fact that I have noted several times when more senior members would direct people with questions to specific parts of AR literature. To suggest that the objectivist philosophy suffers and wouldn't be worth pursuing because one was banned from this forum is illogical. That said, as a person who has not YET specifically declared himself a full-fledged Objectivist, I would hate to be relegated to some small area of the forum reserved for the neophytes. I would expect that if I were disruptive, but not because I'm simply still developing my base of knowledge in this philosophy. It is sincerely my goal to explore this philosophy and respectfully challenge it with questions if necessary, but not to disrupt others or attempt to convert them to other ideologies. Sorry for my longwindedness.....

Thanks for the suggestion Tryptonique. Normally PBase doesn't have a problem like that. I will try my dphoto account. Here's another edited a la matrix influence. My son is the "model". VES

Nice Gallery! I especially like the older b/w photos, particularly the one by the tent with you cooking. VES

I like to have good equipment, but I don't delude myself that it's a substitute for vision or skill. A good manual camera in the right hands can produce equally stunning images. I'm putting money into my gear now so that I may make money off it later. My current camera is the 10D, which is also a very capable DSLR, but it's lacking in capability compared to the 1 series digitals. My main interest in going with the pro body is quicker more accurate autofocus, more durable body, better imaging sensor, and more resolution. I have a buyer for my 10D already when the other body comes in. VES

Thanks erandror! Until we have a photography forum, here are a couple of the forums I read.... dphoto.us Great forum, great atmosphere, free gallery space, excellent admin. Has several (knowledgeable) members that were ejected from another more popular web forum for a variety of very arbitrary reasons. http://www.robgalbraith.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?Cat= A more formal atmosphere, very knowledgeable members, I tend to lurk more here than post. A couple of reps from major DSLR camera manufacturers bless these boards with their presence regularly. (and no, this isn't the site referred to above) www.dpreview.com (this is the site referred to above) The operator posts interesting news, and the forums CAN sometimes have useful information, but the signal to noise ratio is lower. A lot of the knowledge base this one once had has moved on to either of the two above boards, or any of several other pro-oriented boards. That's a decent start.

To clarify a couple things that some may have missed. The version of the Prisoner's Dilemna was copy/pasted right off of the 2003 Encyclopedia Britannica CD. It's reproduction has not been altered by me. Secondly, the original author lumped Objectivism in with the crowd he/she referred to as "ethical egoists". Therefore, when I referred to an objectivist society, I was only doing so in response to the premise put forth by the original author in referring to "ethical egoists" (not capitalists). Since I'm new to this, I may make mistakes from time to time in my terminology. That said, I appreciate the wide and varied responses pointing out all the problems with this "dilemna" in a much better fashion than I could. VES

Okay, here's a shot I like.

Thanks for the encouraging comments! I may just post a few in Aesthetics, thanks for the suggestion. Not sure if what your shooting, but I'm waiting for the Canon 1D Mark II (Digital SLR). I'm on a pre-order list close to the top and should get it within a month or so. VES

Legally speaking, most jurisdictions have laws relating to "Cruelty to Animals", not simply "Destruction of Private Property". However, realistically speaking, coming to one's abode and killing the owner's animals may result in consequences beyond what the law would provide. VES

Yes, thanks for asking. http://www.dphoto.us/forumphotos/showgalle.../500/ppuser/279 http://www.pbase.com/vsteven I believe some of these are pretty good, but I'm still learning quite a bit about photography. VES

Mine is blatantly simple. I'm a very rational person and I'm a cop. Hence: RationalCop. On other (non-O-related) forums I'm known as VernStevens, Futbolhead, Canonshooter and Sgt. Rockhead. I guess I have a forum identity crisis. VES

I really enjoyed Kill Bill Vol. 1. I like action movies, and QT movies. I looked forward to Vol. 2, then was let down when I saw it. I went into Vol. 2 expecting it to be like Vol. 1, having not read or followed anything about it prior to the viewing. The pace of the movie is considerably slower, the action is greatly reduced and it focuses much more on the QT dialouge, humor and unusual situations. I may give Vol. 2 a second shot and try to view it from fresh perspective. While Vol. 1 is supposed to be a tribute to Japanese style martial arts films, Vol. 2 is more of a tribute to the Chinese version of that genre, based on what I have read since I saw the movie. All that said, they are both quite obviously QT's style, and I've observed that either people like him or they don't. VES

When I want a source for comparative stats between different countries, I go to: www.nationmaster.com (edited due to serious blunder on MY part, sorry) http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_tot_cri_cap Granted, the US is high on the list, but UK beats it out as well as Finland and Denmark, with the Netherlands, Germany, Norway and France nipping at the US's heels. (edited due to serious blunder on MY part, sorry) Now if we look at Murders per capita, we are RELATIVELY high on the list compared to the UK (and most European countries), but only .04 per 1000 as opposed to .01 per 1000 in actual numbers. In Assaults per capita, we are much closer at 7.7 per 1000 (US) vs. 7.5 per 1000 (UK). There's a lot more comparative information on that web site for those interested in perusing. VES

Yes, in most cases I am in agreement with you there. VES

Isn't asking the question about the lyrics weight relative to the "song" different from asking how much the lyrics weigh relative to the music? A song is, in my mind, the sum of it's parts, the lyrics AND the music, and how well they flow together aesthetically. VES

Personally, I don't think so either. I viewed it as a story, as opposed to an historical portrayal of an event. My opinion is that it is a brutal assault on the senses. Easily more brutal than the first 25 minutes of Saving Private Ryan. That said, I think it is presented in a very artistic manner cinematically speaking. However, no one besides Christ and his "entourage" is displayed in the even remotest favorable light. The Jews and Romans both were equally portrayed as "evil" in my opinion, with the Romans taking a giant lead in the physical abuse arena. As an aside not specifically related to the above quote, I think that viewing art from people that don't share the same philosophy of life can be a healthy thing. Christians, in my experience, tend not to challenge their views by seriously entertaining the views of others. I would hope the views of the objectivist are solid enough that stand up to viewing art with different motivation. I also think it would be incestuous to simply stick with those forms of entertainment that strictly adhere to one's viewpoint. How does one learn without looking outside that which he already knows or believes? VES

Thanks Don, I appreciate the welcome. I just went north to Herndon, VA last month for a band competition my son was involved in. It was a day trip, which was about 4 hours up and 4 back, rather grueling with 8 hours or so competition in between. Good experience for band though. VES

Thanks all for the responses. It's pretty much a wash as I figured, but for more reasons than I suspected. This philosophy requires that I view things in a different light than I had in the past so exercise is necessary to change my thinking muscle. VES

I found this in the 2003 Encyclopedia Britannica CD edition. By "ethical egoism", the author was referring to Objectivism. What is the (or an) Objectivist response to this criticism? I have thought about it some, and with my limited knowledge so far, these are the issues I have with this position: 1. Is there in fact a claim that we would ALL be better off with an Objectivist society? 2. On what do they base that the confessor will be freed instantly? Confessions USUALLY result in convictions, then time in prison, unless plea bargained or the confession is thrown out. In fact the whole premise of the figures they come up with based on the iterations of confess/no confession doesn't make sense to me. 3. The author assumes "purely" self-interested in motive, not "rationally" self-interested in motive. He then therefore assumes the self-interested response would be not to confess. If the objectivist values integrity and honesty, then the moral choice would be to confess if in fact one committed the crime. This is being responsible for one's actions. 4. In the second problem, he again ignores rationality and the open ended nature of objectivity. As the objectivist learns or observes that the traffic is becoming congested, it would be in his rational self-interest to reconsider mass transportation, if that would indeed reduce his time getting to work. Are these valid points that I raise? Are there other issues with these scenarios? VES