RadCap

"It IS pointless to ARGUE with ME. So, STOP doing IT." This is the response from a MODERATOR on a board dedicated to Objectivism? By itself, such a comment certainly raises a question about what STANDARDS are being used for that position. Combined with the previous posts in this thread, it throws such standards into SERIOUS question. It also raises questions about the intellectual standards of the forum itself as well. I have pm'ed GC concerning this behavior and attitude. I suggest anyone else who sees a problem with such an approach to do the same.

"Axions are trivialized when the existence of self-sameness is denied. The denial of self-sameness makes the basic facts referred to by axiomatic concepts unprovable, for they would be hinged to reality by nothing but a "floating abstract."" This is Dunkley's fundamental error. He has demonstrated that he does not understand the concept 'axiom' NOR the concept 'proof' - how they are related and how they are different (his nonsense 'concept' "self-sameness" is further proof of this lack of understanding. A thing is NOT the "same" as itself. A thing IS itself. BIG difference. The latter is identification. The former is a COMPARISON. A comparison OF identities. OBVIOUSLY a comparison CANNOT be axiomatic). An axiomatic concept IS unprovable. It is unprovable BY the very fact of BEING an axiom. The concept 'proof' does not apply TO axioms. The concept 'VALIDATE' applies to axioms. Oh - and Dunkley makes one other error. If a concept is a 'floating abstraction' - it is NOT 'hinged' to reality at all. It has NO connection to reality. A floating abstraction is DIVORCED from reality. It 'floats' unconnected to reality, thus the name. -- Given the fact that these things have been said to Dunkley in the past; given the fact that he has been pointed to source materials which explain these matters in greater detail than could be achieved on this forum; given the fact that he seems unwilling to pursue these materials, and still clings to his assertions about axioms and proof - I fail to see why anyone else continues to waste their time 'discussing' the matter with him. Do you think you can force his mind? You cannot. You have given him all you can give. HE must do the work. You cannot MAKE him accept the ideas. You cannot FORCE him to agree with you. At this point (in fact at a point which occured long ago), you are wasting your time and your life. If someone ELSE is still confused by the topic, PLEASE - discuss it with them. If not, you are done.

" If you can't tell the difference between an analogy and an example, that is not my fault. I'm not going to defend a position I didn't take." I see. You brought up Vietnam. But you did NOT present it as comparable to the situation in Iran. You did NOT think there were similarities which made one relevant to the other. NO comparison, NO similarities, NO analogy - NO reason for mentioning it in relationship it Iraq whatsoever. You just threw it out to throw it out. LOL!!! I cannot tell if that is an example of extreme ignorance or extreme dishonesty. But - either way - you have made it QUITE clear that it is POINTLESS to argue with you. If anyone else did NOT understand why I claim Swig's analogy is FLAWED - if anyone else disagrees, and believes it is NOT flawed - I will be HAPPY to discuss it with you. I refuse to waste any FURTHER time with a man who - besides claiming his statement about vietnam was NOT a comparison or analogy to Iraq - claims it is mere "bickering" to point out that the argument he makes to JUSTIFY his current position - to JUSTIFY widthdrawl from Iraq - is COMPLETELY ERRONEOUS. WITHOUT that justification, there is absolutely NO reason to engage in his suggested action. One simply has his UNSUPPORTED assertion - NOTHING else.

"I used Vietnam as an example of how retreating can work in our favor." Yes - you used it as an "example" - as an ANALOGY - as I said. You are saying we should do what we did in the former situation, in the current situation, for similar reasons. That is what makes it a COMPARISON (because an analogy NEEDS to be COMPARABLE - otherwise it FAILS as an analogy - as YOURS has failed). So far, that flaw STILL REMAINS because you keep ERRONEOUSLY claiming "straw man" instead of actually ADDRESSING my arguments to your "example". Your EXAMPLE/ARGUMENT/ANALOGY/COMPARISON (or WHATEVER word you want to call it) is WRONG - and it is WRONG for the reasons I have stated. UNTIL you actually ADDRESS the argument I have provided, your position will REMAIN wrong, no matter how many times you utter the word 'straw man'. You were wrong in your claim of straw man the first time. You are wrong in your claim of straw man this time. And your argument is wrong on the whole. PLEASE address the issue - OR (to paraphrase part of your argument) 'retreat from the battlefield so you can reconsider your position' because right now, you are 'blind' to the arguments being presented You are BLIND to the error of your ways. UNTIL you do one or the other, your posts are POINTLESS.

Swig - I know you are passionate about this topic. But PLEASE try to actually GRASP the argument being made against you instead of simply having knee-jerk reactions to them, resulting in the production of FURTHER logical fallacies. I NEVER claimed you said Vietnam was a threat to the US or US interests. YOU compared Iraq to Vietnam. *I* was exposing the FLAW in that analogy - SPECIFICALLY the DIFFERENCES between them which made the analogy INVALID. The difference I identified was that Vietnam was NOT a threat to US or US interests (whereas the USSR and its satellites were). As I made EXPLICITLY clear, Iraq (amongst other nations) IS the threat. They ARE the USSR etc of this global war and are NOT some proxy battlefield which one can abandon so one can focus 'elsewhere'. So your assertion about a straw man is COMPLETELY FALLACIOUS. And my argument against you STANDS in its ENTIRETY. So to answer your question, my conclusion is in PERFECT STANDING. Yours on the other hand is STILL flawed. It is your darling democrats (grasroots, politicians and ESPECIALLY the concerted efforts of the press) who have NARROWED the scope of this war, NOT Bush. Do you HONESTLY THINK that if it had not been for the CONSTANT and VITRIOLIC attacks against the Bush and this battlefront in the war, that he would NOT have used Iraq as a base of operations from which to pursue his destruction of fascist dictatorships in the area (Syria and Iran etc), thus removing the support and infrastructure of terrorists? IF Bush is less of a 'cowboy' (as you claim) it is because KERRY (the man YOU want to put in the White House to make MORE decisions like this) and his despicable posse SHOT Bush's horse out from under him.

"We left Vietnam, and look what happened. We suffered in the short term, but in the long term we defeated communism by threatening total destruction with our nukes. Somehow, once we were out of Vietnam, we were able to focus on a better strategy." This is wrong on so many different levels. Vietnam was never a threat to either the US nor to general US interests. Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, N. Korea, Syria - these ARE the enemy, not some diversion away from them. And we did not 'defeat communism' by threatening 'communism' with total destruction. Read AR's writings on the Cold War to learn the MISTAKE of that approach. It was DEFINITELY NOT a "better strategy." In fact, Vietnam was part OF that failed approach. INSTEAD of dealing with the enemy (the Soviets and their satellites primarily) directly, we fought PROXY skirmishes instead because we would NOT attack them directly (because they could destroy us just as we could destroy them). We did NOT get rid of communism by threat of military might. It was ONLY the attempt to go AROUND that might - the attempt (FOUGHT BY KERRY AND HIS ILK - ie the man you actually want to put INTO power) to NEUTRALIZE the SOVIET threat to destroy US ENTIRELY WITH *THEIR* NUKES - that helped bring down communism. In other words, you seek to place into the presidency the very man who CONTINUALLY FOUGHT AGAINST the very things which helped produce the results you PRAISE. So your ENTIRE analogy is FLAWED, as is thus your conclusion.

Fundamental question for the election: Who seeks to defend America on terms OF America? Bush DOES (though imperfectly by Objectivist standards). Kerry does NOT. Bush stands up for America (because god tells him it is right to do so). Kerry rejects such a stand (because HIS god - the global consensus - tells him to do so). Thus which position leaves men alive and free to fight for liberty and objectivism? Replacement of American sovereignty with subjugation to international consensus as the GUIDING PRINCIPLE of the government CERTAINLY does NOT do that - not at ALL. The war AGAINST the US by terrorists and states who sponsor them will continue no matter WHICH man is elected. Therefore the question of half-war/no war is an invalid one. Blanking out the war will not change the fact that a war IS taking place. Thus the only question is - who will even TRY to PROTECT America in such a war? Bush WILL (for some right reasons and some wrong reasons). Kerry (as the false question ADMITS) will NOT. If you want to keep America safe from religion, you NEED an America to exist in the first place. By encouraging further attacks on the US and US interests - and by subjugating the US and US interests to the world court (literally and figuratively) - Kerry GRAVELY threatens that existence - and does so in the VERY immediate future. A vote for Kerry is a vote to turn American existence into something worse than existence in Israel. While facing the constant threat of terrorist attacks, at least Israel still holds SOME form of independence for itself from the 'global community'. IT still decides what is best for ITSELF. A Kerry presidency will result in greater terrorism IN the US (such as is faced by the Israelis on a daily basis) and less control over what the US can/will do about it. (It is presidencies like the Kerry one will be which PRODUCES nuclear threats like North Korea - because it is neither pro-active nor unilateral in its actions.) Giving in to the socialists in power in Israel - ie the 'no war' option - never made Israel freer or resulted in a better philosophy for the country. It simply produced greater subjugation and greater Israeli deaths and destruction of their wealth and their society - while ENCOURAGING its enemies to attack it more. Stronger defense - even for the wrong reasons - has created a more secure Israel, and has left them alive AND free to address whatever wrong directions their govt might pursue. The latter is Bush's perspective and will be his results. The former is Kerry's perspective and will ALSO be his results - except it will be Americans who are dying and it will be American wealth and society which is being destroyed. One other thing to note: rejecting Kerry's global collectivism does NOT mean defending Bush's religious agenda (any more than rejecting Bush's religious agenda means defending Kerry's global collectivism). This is another false alternative. BECAUSE of the way the US govt is designed, one can SIMULTANEOUSLY fight an external war with an external enemy - AND - fight philosophic battles against domestic enemies and their agendas. Its not one OR the other. It can (and should be) one AND the other. But that is NOT how the conflict here is being framed. As such, this framing is invalid. Voting for Bush does NOT mean endorsing NOR agreeing to his domestic agenda. It does NOT mean agreeing with the whole of his philosophy. That is NOT how the American govt works. Voting for Bush so that our defense against terrorists and their states CONTINUES, does NOT mean you are suddenly rendered MUTE and HELPLESS when it comes to fighting against collectivised health care, against govt charity, against any and all forms of altruism (religious, socialist, fascist or otherwise) - INCLUDING fighting against altruism IN the war being waged (ie HOW and WHY the war is being waged). Accepting the false alternative as if it were somehow valid - as if it were true - will only lead to great destruction. For a rejection of reality can ONLY lead to destruction - especially when the enemy one would retreat from - one would NOT fight (no war) - are pursuing nukes.

This would be a deadly combination - deadly to American sovereignty and independence: http://tinyurl.com/4cgrn Kerry as President and Clinton as UN Secretary-General.

I read an extremely brief article many many years ago which described in very general terms how our sun could be used as a telescope - one strong enough to view objects the size of houses on planets in other solar systems. Now, in the intervening years, I have read different articles describing gravitational microlensing and the like. But I haven't seen any articles (at least not for the layman) which have repeated the claims of what could be achieved by using our sun to such ends. If I recall correctly, the process would have involved the construction of some unspecified telescopic device off the Earth. But I don't really know much more beyond that. And I've only been able to google info on the more contemporary, down to earth use of such techniques or approaches. Do the specifics of this old article's claims ring a bell for anyone? I would be very interested in learning more about the specifics necessary to create such a fantastic telescope.

Im sorry, but I believe you are begging the question here. By what standard do you claim that a man's life would still be "worthwhile" if he lost the values of his buddies, or his child, or his wife, etc.? You are ASSUMING exactly that which is under debate. You are ASSUMING that a man's life IS worth living EXCEPT for the loss of VERY rare extreme values (specifically his ABILITY to value). I have to disagree completely. Just because one is still CAPABLE of valuing does not mean one considers one's life worth living WITHOUT a SPECIFIC value. Now, it may be true, according to YOUR heirarchy of values, that your life would INDEED be "worth" living without your wife, without your child, without your buddies, as you claim. But by what right - by what principle - by what standard - do you claim that heirarchy to be universal to all men? And that IS your position here - a position I believe to be erroneous. A man may believe his life would NOT be worth living if he could not have the value of his wife (child, buddies etc). And a man may believe his life WOULD be worth living if he could not have the value of his wife (child, buddies, etc). EITHER position IS valid - because the degree to which one holds that value may be higher or lower in one's heirarchy OF values. But you are claiming the former is an INVALID position - that one CANNOT properly hold that position. Again, I have to disagree completely. You are asserting that life without X values (one's buddies, one's child, or one's wife, etc) IS definitely "worth" living. And you are further asserting that, while the absense of any of these specific concrete values still leaves life worth living - the absense of Y values (code of military ethics, or some other abstract principle) may or may not leave life worth living, depending upon your heirarchy of values. By what logic do you claim this to be the case. I see no evidence of this - in reality or your arguments. It appears you are trying to suggest that ANY concrete value is something a man can live without, but the abstract principle which that concrete embodies is something he cannot live without. Your argument appears to be that NO SPECIFIC CONCRETE is worth one's life - that the concretes are ultimately interchangable. And thus, if you die for your wife, your child, your buddies, it is NOT them you are ACTUALLY dying for. You are only dying for the IDEA of them. You don't die for your wife, you die for 'love'. You don't die for your 'child', you die for 'family'. You don't die for your buddies, you die for 'friendship'. I have to disagree STRONGLY for a final time here. I believe you have set up here a FALSE dichotomy.

IF I understand you correctly, you seem to be suggesting that your argument all along has simply been: the immediate value one dies for may not be the value which one has actually given up one's life for. To support this assertion, your last example posits a scenario where a man dies to achieve the value of killing some of the enemy, but what he is 'really' doing is dying for the more fundamental value/virtue/principle freedom. IF that is indeed your argument, then you get no disagreement. But your original complaint is that my premise is somehow incomplete. I specifically stated: "Your life is your STANDARD of values. It is the standard by which you determine your heirarchy of values. And there may be some values you are simply not willing to live without." Please explain how this premise does NOT include the argument you claim to have been making all along. My so-called 'incomplete' premise does not identify WHAT value one is not willing to live without. It simply claims that such values can exist and that one considers one's life not worth living IF the value cannot be achieved. I do not see how your 'additional explanation' changes this premise in the slightest. Note that in my statements I say you claim this has been your argument all along. I state it this way because I do not see how this can have been your claim all along. For instance, in the post where you challenged my premise for the very first time, you provided some examples of your supposed 'additional explanations': "a soldier who jumps on grenade to save his buddies" "a parent who pushes a child out of a truck’s way as he runs in front of it" Please tell me what more fundamental value/virtue/principle is supposedly being accepted in each of the cases you provide. Instead of the value of the lives of his buddies, what more fundamelntal value/virtue/principle is being accepted? Instead of the value of the life of his child, what more fundamental value/virtue/principle is being accepted? As it stands, no matter which direction you claim to have been going with your argument, I do not see the sense in them. -- Oh - and in spite of all this, Happy Birthday.

Sigh - my argument still remains (and remains the same). Consider the NEW example you provide. This "alternative explanation" you offer is not an EXPLANATION at all. It does NOT explain WHY he makes the choice. It just identifies that he DOES make a choice. And, as I have said a couple times already, the fact THAT he makes a choice is NOT under dispute. If you read back through thread, it is a GIVEN. The question of WHY he makes that choice - why he chooses death - and if that choice is MORAL, is what we are trying to explain here. You do NOT do that. You do NOT offer an explanation of WHY a man chooses to die to protect his value (freedom) instead of choosing to live potentially without that value. ALL you have said is that he does CHOOSE (agree, contract - and now pledge) to do so. WE KNOW THAT. We KNOW he 'pledges' to die if necessary to save a value. We KNOW he makes a 'contract' with himself to do so. We KNOW he 'agrees' to choose one action rather than another. The question is WHY he makes that choice - WHY he makes the contract with himself - WHY he pledges to die if necessary. You have FAILED to answer that question. I don't know how to make this any clearer.

To put it simply, we KNOW man CHOOSES death in X situations. This was NEVER in question. The question is WHY does he CHOOSE death, and is that CHOICE moral? By claiming a man chooses death BECAUSE he chooses death, you are asserting that there is NO reason man chooses the one value over the other. Your assertion in a nutshell: KNOWN____________Man chooses. KNOWN____________What does man choose? KNOWN____________Death. UNKNOWN__________WHY does man choose death? ASSERTION_________Because made has made an agreement/contract. ASSERTION_________What agreement has man made? REPEAT KNOWN_____To choose. REPEAT KNOWN_____What does man choose? REPEAT KNOWN_____Death. REPEAT UNKNOWN___WHY does man choose death? REPEAT ASSERTION__ad infinitum Thus you have not answered the question. Instead, you have made an infinite loop. And circular reasoning is erroneous. It is a logical fallacy. That is what I TRIED to point out in the post you are now contesting.

You claim the quote you cite is not accurate. Then you turn around and prove that it IS accurate. You SPECIFICALLY claim that a man chooses death because he makes a contract with himself to do so (ie he chooses death because he has made a contract to choose death). Please explain how this is DIFFERENT from my original characterization of your argument that a man chooses death because he has agreed to choose death. If you cannot demonstrate a difference between these two statements, then my entire set of objections remain - and still need to be addressed. I will repeat them here: "In other words, you are saying a man chooses death because he has agreed to choose death. But that is not, as you suggest, an EXPLANATION of why he chooses death in these instances. It is merely a restatement of the fact that he does choose death when faced with the choice of living without any of these values. As such, you haven't answered the question which was asked, because you haven't provided an actual alternative at all." Thus contrary to your claim here, I DO grasp the assertion you are trying to claim as fact. I DO understand that you believe the actions of the sculptor and the wife-saver are supposedly derived from SEPARATE premises. MY point is that you have NOT PROVIDED a separate premise. You have provided nothing but a CIRCULAR statement: a man chooses death because he chooses death. Obviously, as I indicate in my repeated passage, this doesn't actually EXPLAIN anything. Which means, so far, NO alternative explanation for a man's value choice in these instances has been provided. I therefore respectfully suggest that it is YOU who did not understand MY argument here - NOT the other way around, as you claim.

Megan I have to ask you to check a couple of your premises: - Please tell me WHAT STANDARD you use to justify your claim that socialism is 'working' in Europe. - Please tell me what you define as 'doing well' - specifically when it comes to Europe. When doing so, please provide some examples of such 'doing well'. Additionally, since your comments proceed from the premise that Europe is doing better than you estimate it should given that it is socialist, please state where you would EXPECT it to be instead. Again, please provide some examples

Fact: Man has a knife. Fact: Man is waving it around Fact: Man claims he is going to violate you with that knife By what reasoning do you dismiss these facts and claim they are not an 'objective' identification of reality? Put simply, these facts clearly indicate that your LIFE has been threatened. As such, the 'extent' you may go to protect your life goes up to and includes depriving the knife weilder of his life (but of course does not REQUIRE you to go that far). This is "objectively determined" by the fact that the weilder HAS threatened your life - not to mention has exibited the means of carrying out that threat. In other words, the man who threatens to violate your rights has placed himself outside the realm of rights. He presents himself as a mindless, rightless animal. And, just as you would with a charging lion or other deadly animal, you do what you can to prevent it from succeeding in its attack upon you. You do what you can to SAVE your life. There is no question about 'what extent are you 'justified' in causing a lion pain' in order to save your life. There is no question about how the 'extent' of pain to the lion may be objectively determined when you save your life. One stops the attack from occuring. One saves one's life. Period. (Note: the example you provide is one of immediate self-defense. In such an instance, one cannot rely upon one's delegated agent of self-defense, and must engage in that defense one's self. ) Regardless of all this, though, I am curious what it is you are waiting for before you accept "this" idea - the idea that one cannot tell the future and thus can only go by facts in evidence. What about these questions do you think changes either of those facts of reality? The extent one responds to force does not change the fact that one cannot tell the future. The objective standards one uses to determine that extent does not change the fact one can only act in accord of the facts in evidence. Simply put, your questions do NOT change these facts, and as such, are not reasons to hesitate in accepting the ideas in question.

I want to thank everyone for their wonderful comments. I really appreciate your kind words and appraisals of my work. I have always looked upon what man can do with awe and wonder. And I consider the truly Herculean feats of both mind and body required to be successful with endeavors in space to be one of the pinnacles of man's existence. With my works, I have tried to capture the grandeur of these achievements of man, along with the stunning beauty of where he is accomplishing them. One of the works which I believe best displays this combination is "Recapturing Motive Power" - which just happens to be today's featured blogad at instapundit.com (Check it out. And check out its home page as well: http://www.cordair.com/smith/motivepower.aspx ). As to future works, Thales is definitely on the right track. I have been so inspired by Burt Rutan's SpaceShipOne, that I am indeed developing different concepts in an attempt to capture that spirit of inspiration. Keep your eyes peeled.

I am not clear exactly what part of my explanation you consider to be 'incomplete'. As I said, the sculptor example was provided because it is an extreme case. As such, it serves as a crystal clear example of the principle which needed to be explained. But that does not mean less extreme cases do not proceed from that same principle. Thus I must disagree with the assertion you make in the above quote. I would suggest, so long as they are using reason when making their choices, the very fact that some men DO choose to give up their life in order to protect something they value indicates they have decided they CANNOT live without that value. Now you claim to offer an "alternative explanation" for such behavior. You say: a man may choose death in order to save his buddies a man may choose death in order to save his child a man may choose death in order to save his country And you claim that such choices are made, not because a man considers these to be values without which he cannot live, but are instead the result ofr some "commitment" he has made. In other words, you are saying a man chooses death because he has agreed to choose death. But that is not, as you suggest, an EXPLANATION of why he chooses death in these instances. It is merely a restatement of the fact that he does choose death when faced with the choice of living without any of these values. As such, you haven't answered the question which was asked, because you haven't provided an actual alternative at all.

I am so SICKENED by the thought of this, I can't even offer a commentary on it at the moment. From the New York Post: TERROR TV SHOW TICKING By SUSAN KARLIN October 5, 2004 -- Here comes Terror TV. "Cable channel Showtime is quietly at work on a new series about the personal lives of an Islamic terrorist cell in the United States, The Post has learned. The series — to be called "The Cell" — will be told from the view points of a group of European and American converts to Islam who are plotting terror attacks here. Showtime says it realizes it is walking into a potential minefield by portraying terrorists sympathetically without pulling punches about their violent aims. HBO's "The Sopranos" and "The Wire" have found success doing that with mobsters and drug dealers. "We're trying to look into the minds of these [terrorists] and the issues driving them, beyond a black-and-white portrayal," says Showtime entertainment president Robert Greenblatt" Read the rest here, if you must: http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/31356.htm It is EXACTLY because of this 'humanizing' of evil people that I cannot watch shows like "The Sopranos."

Hi felipe, Actually, you will note that the concept is called a waveRIDER, which might explain the difficulties you had in tracking it down on google. A quick search revealed this link to be likely the most helpful in explaining the concept, at least as I used it: http://www.brainyencyclopedia.com/encyclop.../waverider.html My research involved less of the current focus on hypersonic flight shapes and more on its "classic" origins as a spacecraft. As such, I studied many of the RAS and Glasgow published documents and journals in order to design the original concept ships you see depicted in some of my works. Hope this helps. I am glad you liked the work. RadCap

Tommy is correct here. Your life is your STANDARD of values. It is the standard by which you determine your heirarchy of values. And there may be some values you are simply not willing to live without. Take, for instance, an extreme example - the film "Whose Life Is It Anyway?". In it, a brilliant sculptor becomes a parapalegic. He lives a tortured existence because he can neither produce nor love anymore. His life is not a value to him without these things any longer. And so he seeks to end his life. As is made clear in the film, there are many values which he still has. But the ones that are most important to him - the one's that make his life WORTH living - are gone forever. The same can be true of a wife or husband. They can be of such a high value - of such an irreplacable value - that one would not want to live without that value. That is why one would throw one's self on a grenade - because one is faced with two value choices: - loss of irreplacable value and with it, one's desire to exist (leading to the loss of that existence) - preservation of an irreplacable value, even though one loses one's existence In the first example, one loses BOTH of one's values. In the second, one is able to achieve at least ONE of one's value. When faced with such a choice, which do you think is preferable?

Due to popular demand, through Betsy Speicher I am now offering Limited Edition RM print sets directly to the public. She made this announcement in her latest Cybernet (Oct Edition): While the offer is for Cybernet subscribers, Betsy says mention you saw the offer on OO.net and she will give you the special CyberNet deal. Get them while you can.

As noted in Betsy Speicher's October Cybernet, the Quent Cordair Gallery launched its newest artist (me) at the first X-Prize event in Mojave CA on Sept 29th. More information, as well as examples of the art being offered by the gallery may be found on their web site here: http://www.cordair.com/smith/index.aspx (Clicking on any of the images there will provide larger displays as well as details about the individual piece.) Here is an example of one of the works: "The New Knight" by Brian Smith

Check your premises. If you jump on a grenade in order to protect something you value greatly (your wife, your children, your president, etc), does that mean you do not value your own life? Does it mean you have acted 'amorally'? Remember - in the example of the robot, it can neither gain nor lose any values. Is that the case of a 'suicide bomber' or someone who throws themselves on a grenade? As I indicated, I think the reason you make the error that you do is attributable to a conceptual misunderstanding when it comes to the term 'suicide bomber'. I believe the word 'suicide' in the term is confusing your understanding of the nature of the act of such a person. Try this exercise in order to see exactly why your analogy is flawed: Identify the nature of suicide. Identify the nature of 'suicide bombers' (aka kamakazis, splodedopes, etc). Then identify the DIFFERENCE between them. -- As to your request for a path trackback from a recreational activity to the fact that you are mortal (ie back to the ultimate choice of live or death), that has already been done with your own example. However, you left out some questions which would have made the connection much more clear to you otherwise: In control of what - your LIFE perhaps? Your ability to survive and thrive in the reality around you (which is what makes you feel "on top of the world"? An indestructable robot has no control over his life - by the very fact that he CANNOT lose it. Nothing he does or fails to do will change the fact that he exists and will continue to exist. You have that power. It does not. Every action you take has an effect upon your continued survival. Every action you make involves a risk. And with kayaking, that risk is fairly immediate. You risk limb. You risk life. And your ability to survive that risk is an affirmation of your ability to survive reality itself. It is a reinforcement of the efficacy of your mind - the efficacy that it has to grasp reality correctly, which in turn allows you to act and survive. So WHY do you feel on top of the world? Why do you get an emotional rush of enjoyment? Could it be because you are taking a risk of your life and safety - and have succeeded? In control of what? Helpless against what? If you cannot lose your existence, then what are you controlling and why would you feel helpless if you could not control it? As I indicate in the previous answer, I believe you proceeding from certain premises in making these claims. But, by not identifying those premises, you more easily contradict them (because the contradiction is not explicit, though is implicit in the statements). What do you "accomplish" except an understanding of reality? And what end does that understanding serve? Your ability to exist and thrive in that reality. If you couldnt succeed at that, you would indeed feel miserable. But again, the immortal and indestructable robot cannot lose its life nor act to keep it. As such, it has nothing to motivate it to action at all. Why should it raise its arm? Why should it open its eyes? Why should it sense ANYTHING about reality at all, since NOTHING in reality can affect it at all? Life REQUIRES action. If something cannot lose its life, then there is absolutely NO impetus to action whatsoever. And of course there is Betsy's question - which you have ignored and thus refused to answer - about the fact that you keep talking about emotions - about an elaborate pain/pleasure mechanism - but you never address its PURPOSE. You never state WHY you have it. You simply take it as a given and proceed from there. That is the same mistake of collectivists - they proceed from the fact that men produce, and proceed from there. They are not interested in why men produce. You need to really check all these premises you are implicitly (and explicitly) accepting. And to do so will require that you engage in some DETAILED introspection, as opposed to the more superficial version you provided with your Q/A post.

This is a fallacous analogy based on a failure to grasp the concept 'suicide bomber'. Also, how do you do you go from an example that concludes X is amoral to an example that concludes Y is moral - and then conclude that they are analogous in the first place? Amoral and moral are opposites. As such, they cannot be considered analogous at all.