airborne

I was just watching news and they were discussing a recent basketball match where a man lost three fingers after having a large firecracker hurled at him. The news crew then showed how easy it was to acquire the said firecrackers which can cause so much damage. The Objectivist position would probably put the responsibility on the basketball organizers. I don't know if to say rightly so though. Why would it be wrong to ban such an item(a specific firecracker which can cause serious harm/death)? Since in an Objectivist society certain adults are banned from normal activities arbitrarily(legal ages determined by an average age of full maturity - which cannot possibly take every individuals maturing process into account) so why cant certain items be banned which on *average* will cause much physical damage to property and man. I think my issue with this stems from some very fundamental ideas which I'm having a problem with right now. I'll try and identify them and maybe you can point out resources(books) that will help me most - 1. Theory=practice - Prudent predator(still not resolved even after reading the thread on the forums), and civilians buying bombs, missiles, dangerous firecrackers or rocket launchers for personal use is rightful use of liberty(theory) which is good(practice). 2. A blanket legal age(which is perhaps set to some scientific average but cannot account for everyone) which I've come to understand is the Objectivist position on tackling harmful relationships and substance misuse etc

How do I view dianahsieh's post as html? I'm seeing all this code which is making her post hard to read.

I agree, the man is evil. What is a metaphorical extension and what do you mean by this? Yes, that was silly statement in retrospect. "He is evil for as long as he is evil" - I fail to see how this helps me determine if someone is evil. EDIT: I deleted a few of my replies because I understood what you wrote only after I began writing my question to you I just suddenly understood while having re-read this a few times. No one can truly determine if the man is evil since we cannot introspect into his mind. We can make our best objective judgments in determining this however. So I guess "evil" is not time dependent rather philosophy-dependent(his beliefs/attitudes), but "time" is our(an outsiders) best means of objective judgment. A guy who has not committed a crime in ten years can almost certainly be trusted(or said to be not evil) compared to someone who has not committed a crime in 2 months(given the ideal context). Am I on the right track? btw how can I quote like DragonMarci, a quote within a quote?

A man who steals chocolates from a petrol station. Is this man evil or was his act evil? He's not evil, nor are his acts. I know evil is an absolute so in that way his act is evil but of a way lower degree then say a murderer. So a man who occasionally does stupid acts. A man who kills another man. Assuming he did this without a valid reason then he is an evil man - but how long is he evil for? What if he becomes the CEO of one of the biggest companies and vows to himself never to do such evil again? Is he still evil - or was he once evil? A man who sexually abused his kids but stopped one year ago. Evil but again same problem as above. A man who sexually abused his kid but stopped since yesterday. Lets make this more interesting by saying that in this case he apoligised to his kids and reported himself to police authorities vowing to change and become a better man. Is he still evil? Perhaps someone is evil if justice has not come his way. So a murder is evil, unless dead, in which case he is no longer anything. A man who sexually abused his kids is evil until he changes(how this is judged I dont know).

The idea of 'sense of life' appeals to me because of it manages to explain to me this delay in new reasoning/beliefs and the necessarily corresponding emotions. However, it seems random to me. How did Ayn Rand come up with this? she herself claimed to not have a clue in psychology. How can one suddenly come to the conclusion that our emotions are the response to a sum of all our experiences/beliefs?

I'm devising a plan for independent learning, since I am likely enlisting November 08 I will not be in any sort of classroom. I don't like to waste time so I will read/write/learn/live as one should. This is my brief plan needing input. 1. Read one book a week, two if possible. 2. Integration by writing notes and posting questions I have here or to a relevant forum 3. Writing essays and recording speeches(youtube), not sure where to get input for essays and don't mind paying especially since I'll be working. 4. Try to be more proactive on this and other philosophy forums by replying to questions I think I can answer - other people may find holes in my reasoning Apart from this I may be able to get Financial Markets certification at the Securities Institute(although I'm trying to figure out if it will be worth it. The material is easily self-taught, the only advantage is I have a teacher correcting essays/statements). Any suggestions welcome

Living wills?

John Allison claimed that many Forbes 500 CEO's are influenced by Ayn Rand, and there are also many famous multi-millionaire traders who made public the fact that they admired her work. E.g. Monroe Trout. Being an "Objectivist" is hard, at least that is what I've come to conclude after being on these forums. No billionaire, let alone multi-millionaire is going to spend vast amounts of their time studying all sorts of deep philosophical abstractions... they are busy people. Sure they do have hobbies and I'm not saying they cant, maybe a few do but that is the exception.

War supplies being? food? or weapons? And when you say at "war" do you mean actually engaged in combat, or "war" like we have with Iran and America now?

In an Objectivist state would local corporations be barred from trading with an "enemy", e.g. Iran? What would be an argument for such a case? Personally I think that it shouldn't be barred. If its an enemy is posing such a direct threat then the state should be going on a military offensive and not just banning corporations from trading. It is like banning a Pizza Store from selling food to a local communist club -- indirectly "helping" the enemy.

Please list some books you've re-read and those you intend to re-read. How to make money in stocks by William J. O'neil ( 3 times) Reminisces of a stock operator by Edwin Lafevre (3 times) The Fountainhead ( 2 times... well almost, another 100 pages) I intend to read Atlas Shrugged again as well...

Under an Objective government would dueling to the death be permitted? E.g. A sport where two opponents fight until one dies. I don't see a problem with this politically, given that both fighters granted consent. Edit: Sorry, posted it in Ethics by mistake. Should be in Politics.

Is violating someone else's rights without the intention of doing so a crime? if not then is the violating of rights allowed only when it is by mistake?

I noticed a few things that caught my attention in the video... One scientists who claimed everything followed logically but only if you accepted the "initial bizarre proposition" .Which he claimed does man have a right to live as long as he wants to providing the technology exists/ the most basic right - the right to stay alive? "Its not a right at all"- he should only live as long as "nature decrees one stays alive" .."as an animal of this planet"(48:30 in google video) Another one just refused to talk about his work but was quite happy about talking how he is now this "angry" man and talking random rubbish and personally attacking him. (52:30 on google video) and another one who claimed he is dangerous and that a genius like aubrey could spell mans destruction because he has the wrong "vision" All in common with his opponents was there attack on him, or other random topics, but not his work. Maybe it was the documentary only putting in things which they thought would interest the viewer,,

Very good IntellectualAmmo, (Villainy: An Analysis of the Nature of Evil , Andrew Bernstein). This is exactly what I was thinking about... Take me as an example. I hated philosophy, because from all those countless texts I was taught at school all I concluded was that reality isn't knowable through reason and everything can be argued. I wanted to find answers but I was confronted with impossible texts in the masses(most of which didn't make any sense whatsoever and weren't consistent either). Why should I spend a lifetime traveling the world and studying to figure out how I can understand life, and maybe not even get anywhere? ... I just kind of(I say "kind of" because I was still passively looking out for something) accepted that I had to live with contradictions and that I was maybe intellectually incapable of ever "knowing". This also meant that at many times I would sanction an evil philosophy, be it political or metaphysical - whatever was "practical", more accurately, pragmatic. That is... until I discovered Rand(one of my philosophy teachers on a army academy on a kibbutz in Israel introduced me to it). I read "Philosophy: How you need it" all night. I could tell I made a massive discovery. This was clear, concise, logical and inspirational. I am now continuing the study and facing the problems that I have never been able to face before with my mind. If I had not read Rand, I don't know what path I would be taking today. What kind of things I could possibly be convinced to advocate later down the road in my life. Maybe there are many like that, who could've been something alot better had their minds not been beaten into a pulp.

In Israel there was a very famous Objectivist philosopher called Moshe Kroy.. he was teaching at university at a very young. Many years later however he began writing about mystics and all sorts of weird things that have nothing to do with Objectivism. At this point you either assume the guy didn't understand Objectivism - which would seem silly, or he was just evil. His story is a weird one, apparently he was invited to a Atlantis, like Galt's Gulch, in South America. He just disappeared, many think he was murdered. from: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid...Article/Printer

HBL?

Does the evil man try to program society with his own philosophy? So a Priest may practice his philosophy and also spread it. Or does the evil man have his own philosophy and distribute another? A Priest may advocate certain ideals and claim they give you happiness but not act by them himself. I know this is really vague, but I'm just feeling around here blindly trying to figure it out. I remember Toohey in FountainHead advocated selflessness but he was actually acting selfishly to gain power(sacrifice others to yourself - while preaching sacrifice yourself to others).

After reading Objectivism, I've become very negative about the world(and I've read this usually happens). Now, since I was and still am considering army service in Israel, the thought came up about fighting an enemy for an enemy. As a soldier, I don't understand how one could fight for any "free" government in this day. Terrorism needs to be fought, but how do you handle the fact that when your away from home your fighting terrorism which threatens your life, but when your back home you need to fight a government which robs your money and may even be continuing on statist trends(environmentalism, taxes, "Free healthcare", "free education")? Does this not encourage you to say 'f*ck em both'?

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8...;show_article=1 Something about this is just wrong. What exactly is this author trying to do by saying that Sept 11 was less "terrible". What could her motivation possibly be? What is this - some kind of Toohey trick whereby you compare one event with another?

Just watched the movie about Nick Leeson, the rogue trader who brought down Barings Bank and caused an estimated $1.4 USD Billion dollar loss. I noticed things very similar to Peter Keating. "Promise me you'll love me no matter what" when faced with greetings and people congratulating him he felt very bad/guilty, tried to push off the compliments he resorted to drinking and would come back home throwing up what started as a small lie to cover one of his traders loss just grew bigger until it turned into a account into the hundreds of millions, in fairness though he wiped out the loss the first time but he figured he could keep speculating on losses with the banks money next time He was sent to a singapore prison. These days he is a general manager of a football club in Ireland, wrote a book about stress and is a demanded speaker. He certainly must know about stress because he's 40 and looks like he could be my grandpah.

What do you mean? what is practical in principle? and what is it in relation to what is practical in reality/long-term/short-term?

Will check it out.

Just quickly, I can definitely objectively agree with what your saying now. Just the one point I cant agree on, because I cant bring the abstract to concrete is that me, one individual, doing one isolated immoral deed, can be impractical rather than more practical for the event. I've read both Fountainhead and Shrugged, re-reading Fountainhead now and there are still events which strike me as being impractical/not in Roark's self-interest. Its either immoral and impractical or moral and practical from what I understand but somtimes it would seem that the moral is alot harder to do or actually seems more impractical.

Wow KendallJ. That helps me understand alot. softwareNerd: Right, well this is one of the concepts I have to get my head around. The fact that not testing out gear will be practical for me. Right now I don't think the fact that I test one piece of equipment will bring down the store.