RadCap

"One could simply not assume anything, or not assume anything having to do with actual truth. "Necessary in order to make sense or do anything useful"" This is impossible. A - Necessary - what is that? B - Something. A - Ah - so it has identity. How do you know it has identity? B - Because I am aware of it. A - Ah - so it exists. And you are conscious of it. No escaping this. The moment you open your mouth and make ANY statement, you AUTOMATICALLY identify and accept as VALID the three axioms of objectivism. You do not assume them. You do not guess at them. You do not prove them. You perceive? Yes. Then they are. Period.

"I'm afraid you can't consider illogical methods logical no matter how you phrase it. If your starting point is illogical, e.g. unexamined acceptance, that's fine -- I have no reason to fault that, just so long as it's acknowledged as illogical." This statement seems to be your fundamental premise in this discussion. It is false. And the error comes from not identifying the concept 'logic'. Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification. The axioms of objectivism are identified, and are not contradictory. Thus they ARE logical. To claim that they are ILLOGICAL you would have to show how they are either contradictory or non-existent (thus unidentifiable). You have done neither. As such, you have no basis to claim they are illogical. Now - as you acknowledge - the objectivist axioms cannot be PROVED via reason and logic (because they are the FOUNDATION for them). But they CAN be VALIDATED. They CAN be said to accurately identify facts of reality. And this is done via direct reference to the senses. When you sense something - ANYTHING - that sensation is your validation: If there is something that you sense, then there IS some thing you sense. (axiom - existence) If there is something that you sense, then there is SOME thing you sense. (axiom - identity) If there is something that you sense, then there is something YOU sense. (axiom - consciousnes) Existence is a valid axiomatic concept because there IS something you sense. Identity is a valid axiomatic concept because there is SOMETHING you sense. Consciousness is a valid axiomatic concept because there is something YOU sense. This is not 'mere' "common sense" as OPPOSED to logic. This IS logic. It is non-contradictory identification of three FUNDAMENTAL facts of reality - THE three fundamental facts of reality. In other words, they are LOGICAL *and* EXAMINED, which makes your premise, and all the arguments which rest upon it, fallacious. -- "I'm not at all intending to question whether objective reality exists, just how it can be known and with what degree of certainty." How can existence be known to exist? By reference to the fact that you PERCEIVE it. With what degree of certainty can existence be known to exist? Complete certainty, BECAUSE you perceive it.

They do not struggle through life with doubt. This is merely a trick to allow them to accept their whims as validly as they accept a logical argument (more so in fact, because logic cannot be truested). As such, it is merely a means for allowing them to be certain they do NOT have to listen to anything but their feelings. It is simply a massive blanking out. But there is no doubt associated with it whatsoever. B's behavior - and absolute statements - are evidence enough of that.

" I apologize for accusing you of an attack, and I retract the statement. " Thank you. That was ALL you ever needed to say the whole time. "im done with this. its obvious that you like arguing" It is a shame that is all you have drawn from this discussion. It suggests the logical fallacies of which I spoke will remain uncorrected. Regardless, I hope that what I have said does eventually sink in and you apply it to further conversations. I wish you good luck with your future postings.

"I cannot retract the statement it was already said." This is the logical fallacy of Equivocation. Now, I am giving you a VERY BROAD benefit of the doubt here. I am going to ASSUME you are ignorant of the fact that there are TWO meanings of the word, and that ONLY one can logically apply to the situation. But based on that asssumtion, I am now required to EXPLAIN that difference to you. The meaning of your use of the word "retract" means to take back in the metaphysical sense. It means to remove from wherever a thing was used or placed or given etc. It is OBVIOUS that a past utterance cannot be taken back, because such things are epistemological, not metaphysical in nature. Thus any such request is a logical fallacy - as you imply. HOWEVER, there IS an epistemological meaning to the word retract as well. In the context of this discussion it means to reject - to declare as invald - an intellectual position you once held as valid. In your case: You made an assertion which you believed to be true - specifically that I was acting improperly. To RETRACT that claim - that unsupported asssertion - that personal attack - requires you to REJECT its validity. It requires you to now admit the assertion was FALSE. So far you have NOT done that. As such, any "APOLOGY" you provide is meaningless, because it is NOT related to the ERROR you have made (which it what you are SUPPOSED to apologize for in such an instance). -- "Would it make you FEEL better if i said that I retract the statement?" This has nothing to do with feelings. This has everything to do with others understanding that you are or are not a rational person - and thus indicating to such others whether further conversation with you should be attempted. A *rational* person admits when they have been wrong. And if the wrong was directed at an individual, they APOLOGIZE for the accusation - for the impuning of that individual. Other rational people recognize these acknowledgements, and thus recognize a person with whom they can reason - even if they disagree on different subjects. On the other hand, if a person refuses to admit they are wrong, in spite of evidence to the contrary, then other people are made aware of THAT part of their character instead. They recognize a person with whom they CANNOT reason, because that individual refuses to acknowledge facts or reality. So you see, the issue is NOT as you would like to characterize it. The issue is NOT insiginificant. It is a VERY important philosophic point, in that it reveals both the philosophy of a person and tells others if they can deal with that individual using logic. It reveals much about that person's character as a reasoning individual. And THAT is the reason I have gone on and explained all this about what was seemingly a small offense. Not because I am mortally wounded by the attack, but because it is a blatant rejection of reality which places YOU in the position of someone with whome others cannot reason. And since we assume you are here to engage in rational conversations, then it is important you realize what such rationality entails - so that you can continue posting here in the future. So you see - this is not about indignation. It is not my emotions. It is not about ME at all. It is about YOU - and whether you can demonstrate you carry yourself rationally on this forum or not. Put simply - this has been an attempt to HELP you - whether you realize that fact or not. -- " If so, then I will, "I retract the statement." But as you were arguing earlier about facts of reality, here is one: I said it and it cannot be unsaid." This is not a retraction, because you claim retractions are impossible. As such, you are commiting a contradiction. And you state as much. That nullifies your act - meaning no retraction has occured. -- "I can apologize which I did. And I will apologize again: sorry." As I asked before and you did not answer - WHERE did you apologize in the first place (and I am NOT referencing the very last post, since you said you made an apology BEFORE then). And more importantly WHAT THE HECK are you apologizing for? You have NOT provided ANY explicit apology at all. Sorry by itself is NOT an apology. The concept Sorry needs a referent - and you have provided NONE. The ONLY implicit and vague indication of WHAT you MIGHT be apologizing for is given in your second sentence. You reference my "feelings". With your statements, you suggest you are 'sorry' for hurting my feelings. The problem with that is - my feelings have not been hurt. More importantly however, my feelings are IRRELEVANT to the issue - the issue of whether you were RIGHT or WRONG. And it is for being WRONG that you need to apologize (I have already explained WHY such an explanation is required). Given all of the above, you have NOT provided a retraction. Given all of the above, you have NOT provided an apology. -- "This is a joke so DONT BE OFFENDED: maybe you were too busy being indignant to see my apology. " Your GALL is amazing. In the above you have just said: I am going to slap you, but hey - DONT BE OFFENDED. That is morally reprehensible. There is NO basis on which to claim such an attack can be justified. Saying "Oh - its a joke" does NOT justify personal attacks. NOTHING justifies them in the context of a rational discussion. It is EXACTLY such statements which violate identity. As I said, with them, you want to have your cake (insult a person), and eat it to (have it disregarded as an insult and logical fallacy). Sorry - but I refuse to sanction such nonsense. No rational person allows an individual to get away with such improper behavior.

I dont know if your post was aimed at me or not. Just for clarification purposes, I never addressed his 'argument' about god. I originally addressed the underlying and flawed basis of his 'god' assertion. At first I took his intent to be earnest inquiry. Of course it soon became apparent he rejected as invalid the means to have such an inquiry. Then he finally revealed himself to be nothing more than a troll. As such he is now persona non grata.

Retraction of the accusation and apology for a false accusation? Where?

Note that B continues to ignore his primary contradiction and rest his entire position upon it without eliminating that contradiction. As such he continues to behave irrationally. In addition he explicitly rejects the basis of ANY rational conversation whatsoever - or of the MEANS for having any rational conversation. As such, besides invalidating EVERY word he utters, he also rejects the foundation of this forum. Therefore he has no place here and needs to leave. Continued permission granted to him for posting is sanction of his ANTI man ANTI mind philosophy. -- M - thanks for the compliment and good luck with your pursuits.

Quitter You need to go to another forum where people acctually accept your perverions of concepts like inherent and reason and logic and human nature. Your continued rejection of a valid iddentification of those concepts and your continued shifting and refusal to admit your position WHEN identified is a CLEAR and UNACCEPTABLE rejection of identification and of reality. Explaining your ideas DIFFERENTLY every time you are caught in a fallacy is NOT rational. Goodbye. -- MS Sorry but that tactic is not going to work on Quitter. It will only work on someone who accepts that contradictions do not exist. And his 'arguements' have demonstrated he has NO respect for identity, and thus no qualms in violating the law of contradiction at all. His entire premise is: "As a matter of principle, I feel that limiting the possibility for existence to only that which the...human body or productions thereof can sense is, well, very unreasonable." I have asked him numerous times to correct this contradiction. He ignores it and instead makes SPECIOUS and SHIFTING claimes about what his actual position might be onn the related topics. But he has not ONCE actually rejected this principle - even after the contradiction was made explicit: "Since reason is the process of applying logic to the evidence of the senses, your claim that limiting one's self to what one can determine (via logic) from the senses is UNreasonable is a BLATANT contradiction." Since it has been pointed out to him that this foundation is a contradiction - and he still rests his ENTIRE POSITION upon it, PURPOSEFULLY IGNORING that contradiction, he has demonstrated himself to be INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST. He has demonstrated himself to be PURPOSEFULLY irrational. Your tactic can ONLY work on those who have at least a VESTIGE of rationality. Quitter does NOT possess even that vestige. He is an IRRATIONAL troll - nothing more.

"But if you’re going to endeavour to find the first cause, you will have to first discover such facts first." And of course such an endeavor is doomed from the start, since there is no "first cause" for existence.

Quitter Your conception of "perfect capacity for rational thought" is flawed, making the rest of your argument completely flawed. You take the existence of disagreement to mean no one can think rationally - no one can correctly identify the facts of reality and act in accordance with them. This is a completely false premise. Disagreement can indicate one group may have the facts or reality wrong. It does not indicate at ALL that EACH party is wrong. Example - many people have disagreed with me on numerous topics. The fact that they have disagreed with me in NO way proves that I am wrong. It simply shows that a contradiction exists, and so at least ONE of us must be wrong. The only way to determine WHICH one - and to determine if either of us is right - is via reason - ie logic and the senses (something you EXPLICITY reject as flawed). Also, rational thought is a process, not an attribute of the human body - which is what you treat it as. And because man is fallible - because he is CAPABLE of making mistakes in that process (ie he is NOT omnicient nor infallible), you claim man is inherently "flawed". If only man had NO CHOICE but to come to the right conclusions, then he would be perfect. But because he is volitional - because he can choose - and thus can choose incorrectly - he is flawed. This is a VERY old fallacy - and by your arguments, it is a premise I KNEW you held. I simply wanted you to state it explicitly. The omniscient and infallible is not and cannot be used as a standard for anything. It is a fantasy. It does not and cannot exist. It is the UNREAL. And the UNREAL cannot be used PERIOD - let alone as a standard to CONDEMN the real. As such, your basis of your argument upon it, destroys that entire argument. -- "people should continue to live as they have been living (making assumptions they believe are true, and acting upon them as such), keeping in mind that the possibility for being "wrong" is a very real one." This is ANTIRATIONAL. This is ANTILOGICAL. It is the claim that - WITHOUT evidence to support the assertion, one should consider one's knowledge suspect. That VIOLATES the laws of logic. As such, you CANNOT claim that it is a logical or rational position. It is the OPPOSITE. In fact, you CANNOT get any more irrational than this statement. It is the acceptance of ARBITRARY ASSERTION as FACT. It is the acceptance of NONreality *as* REAL. -- RC "You are saying that knowledge should not be limited by what you have means of establishing by your senses and proving by logic." Q " There you go telling me what I believe again (and again, you are very, very wrong)." That is an UTTERLY FALSE denial. With it you contradict the ENTIRE previous part of the same post. For you, perfection is omniscience and infallability (because without either one of them, people could disagree - and your definition of perfection is NO disagreement). But BOTH those conditions VIOLATE the law of identity. Both require NO means of obtaining knowledge (because a means does not give you information 'directly'. You don't "know" reality this way. As such - I was right. Apparently you simply do not grasp the meaning of your OWN words. "I am not saying that knowledge should not be limited by humans." Straw man. Was not my claim. "I am saying that humans are limited in terms of knowledge." This is true. But again, means nothing. The fact man is not omniscient, nor infallable has absolutely NO bearing upon what he CAN claim AS knowledge - AS CERTAIN. It means nothing - except that he CAN be wrong. But that knowledge does not mean he IS wrong in any given instance. THAT claim - YOUR claim - must be proved. And you have not done so. You CERTAINLY cannot do so in this instance. In other words, simply BECAUSE man is fallible and limited in knowledge, you CANNOT toss out the rules by which he VALIDATES that knowledge and ELIMINATES error. Yet by claiming man cannot toss out the unsupported assertion of a god - one which has NO evidence to support it and which CONTRADICTS what man DOES know - you are claiming just that - you are claiming that man must NOT abide by the rules of logic. That is simply bizarre. It is obvious you have no understanding of the objectivist concepts of metaphysics and certainly its epistemology. However it is even MORE obvious you do not grasp the concepts of identity and logic - which are even broader than this particular philosophy. And it is PAINFULLY clear you do not grasp the concept of the logical concept "Onus of Proof". You reject all these things on the basis of a flawed metaphysics, which has led you to a flawed epistemology. I suggest you come back here after you have read ALOT more about Objectivism specifically, but logic in general. Because right now, by rejecting those standards (as you do by creating a fantasy standard), you INVALIDATE EVERY WORD you post. If logic is "imperfect" then EVERY statement you have made here is imperfect. It is NOT knowledge. And if it ISNT knowledge, then it is just HOT AIR. Come back when you have more than that - because, until then, we LITERALLY have no means of communicating with you. ------ "Really brought along "rational" discussion. Your accusing me of acting on emotion instead of logic definitely proves (ad hominem aside) that you are the superior debater here." Since logic is, according to you, an imperfect standard, you must rely upon something else in order to make a claim to knowledge (as does ANY philosophy which claims logic and reason cannot 'truly' grasp reality). I simply pointed out the fact that your use of the term FEEL instead of THINK (which is "inherently flawed") is QUITE appropriate given your EXPLICIT philosophy. In other words, I identified this as something consistent with your fallacious philosophy. Identifying facts and stating them are not ad homs. For instance, calling you an arse is not an ad hom IF I can prove you are one by reference to the statements you utter - like in the one above. Oh - and since adherence to the laws of logic is one of the things which makes a good debater - and since you violate those laws as a matter of philosophic PRINCIPLE, then yes I am a superior debater here (in comparison to you). However, demonstrating that fact was not the purpose of my post (as you well know, which is why you ARE an arse for asserting the contrary), but is simply an EFFECT of my position. ------------------------------------------ One last thing - don't think that your long smoke and mirrors post served to make everyone forget the contradiction of your initial position - which you do not address ""As a matter of principle, I feel that limiting the possibility for existence to only that which the...human body or productions thereof can sense is, well, very unreasonable." Since reason is the process of applying logic to the evidence of the senses, your claim that limiting one's self to what one can determine (via logic) from the senses is UNreasonable is a BLATANT contradiction. IF you want to respond to ANYTHING that has been written so far, THAT is where you need to START. If you do NOT, then NOTHING else you say will mean anything, because it PROCEEDS from a contradiction - which is the UNREAL - and thus makes everything BASED upon it UNREAL - and therefore UNADDRESSABLE rationally. Since this is a site DEVOTED to reason, any attempt to AVOID correcting that contradiction will be viewed as a rejection of reason - and therefore of the standards of this site.

"Its only been a month. I am assuming he is young, because of the swear word in his name, and I am assuming he is new to Objectivism." I make no such assumptions. I treat people at their face value. In his case, I treated him like a grown up, who understands or is interested in understanding the concepts he is talking about. If he needs to be treated like an easily hurt child, as you are implying, he needs to post elsewhere. "You accuse him of being a collectivist. This is to me the worst thing you can say to another Objectivist." I didn't "accuse" him of anything. I *identified* the nature of his philosophy. There is NOTHING in his posts which you can point to which contradicts that identification. But MUCH that confirms it. Now, again, if he is too fragile to stand up under this identification, he needs to go elsewhere. Of course, there has been no EVIDENCE of this frailty on his part. There has only been your supposition - one which, besides being irrelevant, doesnt have support. And speaking of support, there is no indication that he is, as you suggest, an objectivist. interest in objectivism, or even just speaking to objectivists, does not make one an objectivist. Oh - and even if one claims to be an objectivist - if the premises of the posts by such an individual indicate that his actions are all flowing from a primary contradiction TO objectivism - specifically collectivism - then it is quite appropriate to say so. And that is what I did. Sorry - I am not going to fake reality in order to 'spare' someone their feelings. Those feelings are NOT primary. -- "Also, I thought it was supposed to be a joke" You were wrong. Though if you considered it a joke, that does not explain your serious response to it. -- "Don't you think you got a little defensive? This is an online forum. You most-likely will never meet any of these people in your life. Don't take it too seriously" Contrary to your assertion, the discussion of ideas is a SERIOUS endeavor - because ideas are serious - they are man's MEANS of understanding and dealing with reality. That makes them of EXTREME import. Where the discussion occurs does not matter. It is COMPLETELY irrelevant. If they took place in a men's room, it would make them no less serious. Now, if YOU don't seek to take ideas serious, you are QUITE free to do so. But it is MORE than improper to condemn someone else for taking them seriously - ESPECIALLY on a site DEVOTED to the serious deiscussion of ideas. So - when someone comes to this forum - attacks me for identifying facts of reality - and then tells me to not be defensive about such attacks, I have to tell them they are COMPELETELY WRONG in doing so. "I am assuming you do this for recreation. So it should be fun, not something you take personally and let hurt you. " Every ASSUMPTION you made was wrong there. I enjoy ideas, but they are NOT pursued recreationally - ie as if they were simply an amuusement park ride with no connection to reality or life. I DO take ideas personally. And I was NOT hurt by your comments. You need to grasp that people who contradict you may do so because you are actually WRONG instead of because of whatever psychological motives you may attempt to attribute to them. And that is the case here. -- "As you get older, you will realize that there are important things, which are worth fighting about, and there are little stupid things like "me making a joking comment on an ONLINE FORUM" which arent worth fighting over." Accusing someone of inappropriate behavior is NO joke. I could say "Perhaps as you get WISER you will realize this." However I dont want to engage in the same stupid fallacy you have engaged in. When I am accused of wrong doing, I do not consider it UNIMPORTANT. I am sorry you consider such attacks upon other people to be of no import. Of course, since that was what you were supposedly attacking me FOR, your statement to the contrary is QUITE BIZAARE (and most DEFINITELY contradictory). --- Now - I asked you to either support your assertion or to retract it. You attempted to support it, but on the basis of logical fallacies. You have provided no evidence to show that my assessment of his philosophic perspective is wrong. Since that is the ONLY thing that could make my comments "inappropriate" here, and you failed to even TRY to challenge them, then your claim that they were inappropriate remains UNSUPPORTED. Instead of challenging the TRUTH of my statement, you made an appeal to the emotions of FC. That is a logical fallacy. Instead of challenging the TRUTH of my statement, you claim that the identification of a particular reality is the worst thing you can do. This is a MONSTEROUS fallacy - one which, if you actually accept it, contradicts Objectivism completely at its metaphysical source. Instead of challenging the TRUTH of my statement, you try to say that ideas are not to be taken too seriously, especially on a forum which is DEVOTED to the discussion of ideas. This is both fallacious reasoning and simply bizarre thinking. And finally, instead of challenging the TRUTH of my statement, you claim you were just joking - but still meant it. In other words, you want to have your cake (you want the attack to stand), and eat it too (you do not want to have to defend it). That is another form of that same MONSTEROUS fallacy - the one which rejects the nature of identity. And you wonder why your 'little' comment was taken so seriously? Well the above should demonstrate why. Your 'joke' was an attack based on fundamentally flawed metaphysical premises. To let you get away with it would have been to sanction those premises. I will not do that. So - since you have provided NO support for your assertions, I await their retraction and an apology for the attack. Since it was "only" a joke - one "NOT worth fighting over" - this SHOULD be no problem. (Note: A backhanded apology will NOT suffice. Any apology which is couched in other than sincere terms is only more evidence of the acceptance of the same flawed premises.)

"As a matter of principle, I feel that limiting the possibility for existence to only that which the (inherently imperfect) human body or productions thereof can sense is, well, very unreasonable." You have a problem with standards for your assertions. By WHAT STANDARD is the human body "inherently imperfect"? And, according to such a standard, what is an inherently PERFECT body, to which you compare the human body and judge it inherently lacking? As to your general assertion, it is a contradiction. You are saying that knowledge should not be limited by what you have means of establishing by your senses and proving by logic. Yet that is the nature of rationality. So your utterance is that you *feel* it is unreasonable to be reasonable. Quite a contradiction. It is therefore also quite appropriate that you use the term "feel" instead of *think* in that assertion.

"the employer who pays people less than their work is worth" The "worth" of work is established by one method and one method only - voluntary agreement between the person DOING the work and the person buying the work. ANYTHING else is simply the attempt to DICTATE one's OWN concept of worth TO others. It is the attempt to DENY others the freedom to decide for THEMSELVES and then to act upon those decisions. If you feel yourself not welcome with the capitalists - THAT would be a big reason for it. Such COLLECTIVIST ideas and behaviors are IMMORAL.

"Perhaps my wording could have been better, for the sake of not offending the (obviously) easily offended. " Nice ad hom you have there. NOT a good way to start a supposedly rational response. "Said corporations are those that would actually compromise the quality and/or safety of a product for the sake of increasing profits." I adddress this - you then change your statement to a different meaning: "What I meant to say was not exactly that "explotation" was rampant, as much as the fair (I say fair in the strictest, 3-year old "that's not fair" sense of the word) treatment of workers was almost non-existent." In other words, you simply reasert your position, except use a different word, which you perport to define but in fact do NOT ("the strictest, 3-year old "that's not fair" sense of the word" is not even CLOSE to a definition. As such this entire paragraph does not change a thing, nor contradict my original statement. -- "Safe working conditions were not mandated by any larger body (nor do they "necessarily" need to be) while, at the same time, were not enforced by the businesses themselves." Safe working conditions. BY WHOSE STANDARDS???? You are making wild assumptions on what should and should not be a standard of anything to even UTTER such a statement. -- "(realize, machinery during the industrial revolution was only geared toward efficiency, not safety... the same is no longer true) " False statement. In comparison to today, there are now more saftey features, that is NOT the same as sayying there were NO safety features back then - ie that the machines were geared only towards efficiency. -- "If a worker happened to be injured on one of the machines...one of two situations could arise: The worker is temporarily incapacitated, and is therefore fired or sent home until better (no pay) The worker is permanently incapacitated (e.g. Loses a hand), and is fired" Merely ASSERTING this does not actual prove the point you want to make. This may indeed have been done. You have not explained how this is 'exploitation' - or 3rd grade unfair. (I personally tend to view concepts at a higher level than that anyway - third graders are notoriously illogical, so their idea of 'unfair' is likely flawed. Another reason for you to actually DEFINE your terms.) Given these points, your first half of your post does not present a challenge to my statements. ----- "This is an agreement, as you mentioned before.Do I disagree with it? I don't honestly give a crap." Strange, because that sort of agreement is INCLUDED in your HASTY GENERALIZATION: "Said corporations are those that would actually compromise the quality and/or safety of a product for the sake of increasing profits. " Which means you yourself just invalidated your position. Thanks "However, when the Fast Food/Snack industry chose to switch to partially hydrogenated oils and fats because they have a longer shelf-life, said industries were informed about the possible risks associated with using said product. The chose to go ahead and use them because, in the end, it was cheaper. Basically, this boils down to not only the degradation of a product's quality, but of the misinformation of the consumer." This is an amazing set of fallacies on your part. First, it is IDENTICAL to the previous example in which you said you didng "give a crap". Second, you are complaining about MISINFORMATION - yet apparently YOU have that info. Guess everyone else is just stupider than you. Third, since 'degredation of product quality' (again WHOSE STANDARD?) has been declared a non issue "you dont honestly give a crap" this means you ahve now SWITCHED the entire context of your argument - from one of quality to one of 'the right of the consumer to know'. NONE of those positions of YOURS is logical. -- ""THAT is an invalid position as well." It most obviously would be. Thank goodness it isn't my position." It was as you stated it. If you meant something else (which given your subsequent arguments, is NOT the case), then you should use DIFFERENT words. As it stands though, that IS your position and it IS invalid. -- "n a side note, I think it is "wrong" of you to make a summary judgement about my "beliefs". You laid down an example of consumer/producer agreement, labeled it in such a way that you were suggesting that my definition of such warranted condemnation and then presumed to tell me what I believed." LOL - so you are saying explotation - oh, Im sorry, not being fair - is something you actually condone and NOT condemn!!! FUNNY! If you didnt mean to condemn the practice, you should not have used terms which are moral in nature. In other words, there was NO 'presumption' on either MY part nor Fred's part. It is your OWN words which placed you in the position of condemnation. So be careful in the future with your choice of words - and you might avoid such supposed misunderstandings (which I still say is not being misunderstood at all - at least bu US). --- "My point was only that the rate of improvement/advancement was not properly dealt with by the only people who were in a position to deal with it. " By WHAT standard? Your argument appears to be that there is a proper standard and a proper speed of acceptance for such standards which, if people do not adhere to them, they are not behaving morally (certainly not PROPERLY- as you EXPLICITLY state). Yet to make such a claim, you must posit an INTRINSIC saftey standard. And THAT is a fallacy as well. -- FW "Now you want to complain about hydrogenated oils???!!!" B "Who's complaining? " YOU ARE! "However, when the Fast Food/Snack industry chose to switch to partially hydrogenated oils and fats because they have a longer shelf-life, said industries were informed about the possible risks associated with using said product. The chose to go ahead and use them because, in the end, it was cheaper. Basically, this boils down to not only the degradation of a product's quality, but of the misinformation of the consumer." Since you apparently CANNOT TELL, THAT is a COMPLAINT - a BIG one. -- "You can take what I said out of context, possibly even push me off as some "liberal" for saying it, or you can read it, comprehend what it says, and then post a response to it." No one has taken ANYTHING you have said "out of context". You simply aren't making any sense - at least your 'correcctions' and reasssertions are not - because they contradict previous or subsequent statements you make. -- " I was merely stating that corporations (as an entity) have been known to disregard certain evidence about the harmful nature of products in order to gain more of a profit margin. " Your argument was that corporations are a new and unique entity. Yet disregarding evidence about things in order to make a profit is QUITE old - and CERTAINLY *not* unique to corporations - or ANY group or particular individual. As such, this statement is IRRELEVANT. -- " And my motivation behind saying that is to illustrate the possibility that, given the current state of things, any single corporation can be put in a position to have the more power than any other entity has ever had before," More falsehoods on numerous levels. Governments have had MUCH more power than a corporation will every have. Also - you engage in a MASSIVE equivocation with the use of the term 'power'. Corporations ONLY have ONE power - a power OPPOSITE of govt (which is the power of FORCE). Corporations have the 'power' to trade. And since you ahve already indicated you do not have a problem with this 'power', that renders any complaint about their 'power' (which is in the rest of your sentence below) completely moot. -- "and whereas a person might do the responsible thing (meaning that he would do what is, in the long run, the most profitable for himself, which usually encompasses being honest with consumers), a modern corporation might not have the same "feeling", assuming a certain degree of humanity is lost." So - your point is - when trading, a group of individuals might not have the same "feeling" that an individual does, because in a group some "humanity" is lost. And so he might not be honest with his trading partner. Are you capable of actually sticking with ONE premise - stating clearly - and then defending it? I ask because NOW you are saying corporations are a problem because they might not be honest with their customers. That is not even close to the original assertions you previously made. Stop swerving all over the place. (Oh - and just so you know - your assertion about corporate honesty vs profits is yet *another* COMPLAINT. I figured I would point that out since you seem not to understand when you are actually making them). -- Oh - and just so you know - your statement: " human nature has proven to be one of the most destructive and creative forces in existence." means "Reason has proven to be one of the most destructive and creative forces in existence." While it is true that it is the most creative force in existence, it is not even close to being the most destructive. And your examples certainly do not come close to even the lower forms of destructive forces in nature.

" If one looks at the industrial revolution, exploitation of workers was rampant... Though the "responsibility" for said exploitation was in the hands of a group of people. However, with all of the government controls that exist today, a new entity has emerged, the "soulless" corporation." Plese identify what is "exploitation of workers" in this context. As it stands, you are identifying voluntary agreement between two parties as 'exploitation'. That is a fallacious position. "Said corporations are those that would actually compromise the quality and/or safety of a product for the sake of increasing profits." Volvo makes 'really safe' cars. It decides, because it can make more money (ie MORE PEOPLE WANT) cars without all the safety features etc, it will not include those features in its products any more. This is something you condemn. You condemn them making value choices with which you do not agree. THAT is an invalid position as well.

You accuse me of inappropriate behavior and then tell me not to take the accusation too seriously or personally? Im sorry but that is not rational behavior. If you accuse me of something, then you either need to stand behind the accusation or RETRACT the accusation. Here you want to have your cake and eat it too. You want to get away with the accusation unchallenged and unsupported. Since the accusation is aimed specifically at me, I will not allow that. I DO challenge it. And I expect either support for or retraction of it from you. "it was just a low blow." You have not EXPLAINED anything with this statement. You have merely REPEATED your attack. You have provided NO support for it, AS I ASKED. So please - explain how identifying the fact that a persons nickname is in direct contradiction to their expressed premises is a "low blow"? Explain how it is INAPPROPRIATE behavior. The identification of reality can only be considered a "low blow" and "a little out of place" ONLY if reality and identification are NOT your standard. Since those ARE my standards, the identification was neither a "low blow" (which means inappropriate/against the rules - ie not proper behavior) nor out of place. It was both valid AND appropriate. If you believe my statement WAS inappropriate, then you need to BACK UP that claim - you need to SUPPORT your attack on me. If you now realize that it was NOT inappropriate, then you need to RETRACT your claim (and the insult which it embodies - 'you are behaving outside the bounds of logical/rational behavior'). "You dont have to be so defensive." You attack me - say I am engaged in low blows and Jerry Springer-like behavior (ie that my behavior is WRONG) - and then tell me I don't have to be so defensive?!? Sorry. Turning the other cheek is not my philosophy. I await either support for your claim, or its retraction and an apology.

What the heII are you talking about? Please be specific and please identify the nature of the 'attack' and how it is inappropriate. Otherwise, retract the statement.

In other words, FC's position is: I would 'allow' people to be free (to act according to their OWN judgement without having to ask permission to do so) as long as they would behave the way *I* want them to behave. But since I don't trust that they will behave *my* way, I will not 'permit' them to be free. The blatant contradiction is obvious. Note to FC - I would suggest changing your nick, because you aint rejecting collectivism at all.

Sorry about the spelling stephens.

Speaking of Hawkings, in the latest Harry Potter movie, did anyone notice that one of the wizards in the Inn near the beginning was reading "A Brief History of Time"?

It has been quite a long time since I used the irc. However, if I recall correctly, the k-lining is done by the server, not any individual channel (that is why he is getting disconnected from the server itself. Being banned from one particular chat channel will not prevent you from accessing a server). As such, I do not think the problem being referenced is due to any policies on the part of #aynrand. Since it says your NickName has been banned from the server you are trying to access (an EU server), I suggest changing your irc nick information (both the primary and secondary) and see if you can access after that. Also, if you reside outside the EU (especially if you are in the US), I suggest you use a US server. It may not have the same k-lining. And even if it does, changing the nick should hopefully resolve the issue (so long as it is just the nick they are banning and not the individual ip addresss - or the entire domain). Again, this is recollection from a few years back. If things have changed or I am wrong, please let me know.

Too soon - at the moment. As such, better to be flying a bit under the radar at the moment.

IC - sorry, but I do not remember you. Concerning your points and suggestions: 1. Rational Man will have an assortment of weapons - and defenses. Whether he carries all of them at all times is not likely. What he will carry at any given moment has yet to be determined. Since this is the future, there is no reason for weapons to be limited to simple metal slugs though. Hand held weapons can include heat seeking and dna seeking micro-rockets, as well as odd-tipped weapons. While weapons will be useful, since the primary focus of the series is fallacies, physical combat will be secondary - and in some cases unnecessary. 2. - With all his other defenses (including his laurels), he has no need for cumbersome headgear. As to needing to hide is identity "Second, a rational man *does* often have things to hide from his enemies." Not in a rational society - like AisA City. Reason only needs to hide when the law is against it. And that is not the case in AisA City. "Would you publicly announce that you had evaded your taxes, or that you were an under-cover cop while you were investigating murderous criminals?" Taxes? In AisA City? LOL! Oh - and Rational Man engages the irrational directly and publicly. It is the irrational man who must hide, not the rational. As such, he does not do 'under-cover' work at all. "The "mild-mannered professor by day" schtick will not fly if every two-bit hood that he crosses can know exactly who he is and where to find him (and his friends and family), unless he just never leaves an enemy alive (this *is* geared towards children, right?). And *then* he should have trouble with the authorities..." Every two-bit hood is easily taken care of by AisA City's capable Police Force. It is the extraordinary irrationals who Rational Man must face - along with those who fall prey to their illogic. As to finding him and his family, Identity has always been a target of the irrational. By being plainly visible, he draws some of that danger away from her. Put simply, he does not hide his rationality. He uses it properly and proudly. THAT is what you teach children - to stand UP to the irrational, not hide from it. 3. There will definitely be a good supporting cast - of friends and businessmen and scientists and teachers, etc. Who knows - amongst them, we may even see some of the origins for the Virtues. As to how Rational Man affords all this science, I have already decided on an alternative - though I do not wish to elaborate upon it now. 4. Seen MacGuyver. Again, since the focus is logical fallacies, gimmicks etc will be secondary to showing what is wrong with the fallacy and why.

Even though their lighting was not the same, I thought I had to put Rational Man and Identity together. Not a bad looking couple, eh?