themadkat

Although I have some general sympathy for some of your positions stated above, I have to take issue with this. If war is never justified, ever, what is the proper response to a premeditated act of aggression against you? Is evil to be condoned and allowed to traipse about unopposed? Let's say someone walks up and punches me in the face. I grimace, rub my face a bit, and then just walk away. What message do you think I've sent, what behavior encouraged? Alternately, let's say after he punches me, I collect myself and knock him on his ass. Do you think he will be more, or less inclined to hit me again, and why?

You've missed the point. My quality of life is the principle. I cannot satisfy the principle by violating it. In the instance of Galt striking, it was not a sacrifice. It was the best option open to him. We do not live in a world as bad as Galt's. I can still exist freely enough to make it in this world. That is MY CHOICE to make. Don't you see? THAT is the principle.

I think you're missing something key here...it would be terribly immoral NOT to lie and deceive the kidnapper! This is the difference between Objectivists and, say, Kantians. I want to get back to something here, this idea of principle. You seem to view principle as something detached from reality, floating alongside of it but not really relevant or meaningful in a deep sense. I have something to say about that. I want to note that the following argument, as far as I can see, is entirely my own and should not necessarily be taken as the Objectivist position. In fact, I'm not sure if I can in fairness be called an Objectivist. But I can be called a biologist, so here goes... You say you don't believe in God. That's good. I don't either. However, you seem to have taken what would be the opposite extreme, pure subjectivism. The wonderful thing about not believing in God is you have freed yourself from the vagaries of an absolute but arbitrary master whose whims you can never fully understand but you hope to, on some level, sway with your personal feelings, as if some kind of almighty deity would care what a funny-looking monkey like one of us would think. But, while the fallacy of God is escapable, the fact of living in this reality, this world, is not. Reality may be a far harsher mistress than a totally arbitrary God, because the principles (there's that word again) or, if you prefer, natural laws of reality never take a day off. They never cease to be, even for a second. Reality cannot be cajoled or bargained with. It is what it is. A is A. Perhaps this is why some who turn their backs on belief in God or Gods or whatever flee to subjectivism, because they cannot bear the thought of ANYTHING being a final judge and jury of their actions which they cannot escape, and so must believe their actions are somehow totally indeterminate, and hence call this "freedom". This is not so. Let me explain why. You mentioned that which is not adapting is dying. I agree. The essence of life is moving, doing...the stagnant and the paralyzed are the walking dead. But is adaptation causeless, random, responding to nothing? Is any adaptation as good as any other, and do these changes follow no pattern whatsoever? No. I will use an example from nature that I consider to be fairly simple. Let's talk about wolves. Now, I am going to talk about wolves making choices and having options open to them, but I am not attempting to anthropomorphize the wolves nor imply that they are involved in some kind of conscious decision-making process. I am merely asserting that they are phenotypically plastic, which is an observable fact, and it is the only thing necessary to my argument. Let us proceed, then, from there. A wolf is a wolf. It cannot be a cow, a rabbit, a tree, or a rock. A wolf, to survive, must eat meat. If it does not eat meat it will die. If a wolf attempts to eat grass, dirt, or poison, it will die. Simple as that. A wolf is free to try to eat anything but meat, but it is not free of the consequences. In order to get meat a wolf has to hunt. Not only that, but it has to hunt in a certain way, and hunt certain kinds of foods. These form the basis of the principles by which wolves exist. On any given day, it may be true that a lazy wolf, who stays behind at the camp, has a sick rabbit walk in front of him, stumble, and die so that he may have a meal, whereas his bretheren wolves come back from their hunt empty-handed. Should we then conclude that it is better to lay around and wait for food, than to go out and hunt at regular intervals? Of course not. If followed consistently, the lazy wolf's practices will lead him to starvation, whereas the wolves that hunt, though they have no guarantee of success on any given outing, will live on. Certainly an adaptation may arise that causes a wolf not to hunt, or to hunt in a markedly novel fashion from his bretheren, but will that adaptation last? Absolutely not. Mutation is random, but selection is not. It is directional, causal, and most importantly, can be described and understood. Things act according to their natures. A is A. Like a wolf, a human is a human. We have a nature, and from that nature arises inescapable conditions of existence. It is not an injustice, a tyranny, or a wrong. It simply IS. A human is a human, not something else. The requirements of a human's existence do not change. A human that is, for example, immortal, is not human. He is something else. And by those requirements of being human, we derive principles by which people must live. This is the specific way in which principles are connected to reality. You say that things must be decided on a "case-by-case" basis. But how are we to decide? By what standard? How do you justify changing the standard "case-by-case", if that is what you would advocate? How can you then argue that standard is in any way connected to reality? I thought pragmatism was about "what works". How can anything disconnected from reality be said to work? You say that you object to "principle over people". What do you mean by people? How can you make any judgment about what is good or bad for a person? If each "case" is independent from any other "case", how is any one decision connected to any other, and how can any decision be better than another? I want you to be able to explain to me what harm is done to "people" and why, and how we know it's bad. It seems to me the kind of freedom you want is the freedom not to experience the consequences of actions. This is not a freedom which is in the power of any person or thing to grant. You can have every person in the world swear up and down, verify and affirm, and believe wholeheartedly that you can be shot with a gun pressed point blank to your naked flesh and it will not put a hole in you, but they can't make it so. Reality is final, ultimate, and inescapable. And that is NOT A BAD THING, unless you believe no achievement is possible to you in the world such as it is. If that is the case, you have a bigger problem than any of us can help you with. You obviously want to claim that some things, some states, are preferable to other things and states. How do you propose to identify which alternatives are more desirable than others? Or are you willing to dispense with this notion? And if so, how can you have qualms with any choices I make or states of the world I choose to bring about?

I want to clarify my earlier point about the coaching. I don't necessarily think Tomlin should go just yet. I want Arians gone. Stability at the head coaching position is important and I think Tomlin can learn and grow. My better half confirms that Arians was awful when he was at Bama and they dumped him. I don't have a good opinion of Arians at all. I want a coordinator who can run a simple, balanced offense based off of the run, that's not afraid to go play action or roll out the QB.

I wouldn't write the Steelers off just yet. I, as well as the Pittsburgh media (best source at www.post-gazette.com/steelers) largely blame poor coaching, especially Tomlin and Arians, rather than the players. The offense looked confused. They're the two that need to shape up. I think they can, in time for Baltimore tonight. Here we go Stillers, here we go!

I hear you, Dr. Hsieh, point well taken. I want to remind people that this can be done as simply as just talking to people you see every day. I know this can seem difficult because, speaking for myself at least, I'm an introvert, and I know many other of us are as well. It's also tough not to make people feel like you are trying to sell them something or proselytize them. I like to do little things here and there like just saying, "I don't agree, and here's why" or, "Did you ever think maybe it seems like a contradiction because one of the premises is wrong?" or just encouraging people to think things through logically, all the way through. Just talking to people on a casual basis day-to-day can plant seeds like you wouldn't believe. It's not going to make people Objectivists, necessarily, but it can certainly remind them that their reason is there to be used. Even if they fire back at you, the honest ones will be using their reason to do so and may go, "Hey, you know what, I hadn't thought of it that way" in mid-challenge.

You have completely misunderstood me and are coming close to misrepresenting my position. Individualists are convinced to become so by intellectual activism, not by popping out kids! It's true that parents may be the first, best intellectual advocates, but they are hardly the only ones nor need they be the definitive ones. Some remarkable individuals may arrive at a philosophy of reason almost entirely on their own! My parents are great and they did a good job with me, for the most part, but I did not derive my ideas from them, and my philosophy, as well as my life path, is quite different from either of theirs. Moreover I have seen many kids of ostensibly loving, rational parents crash and burn while kids from terrible situations that would seem to be toxic to the formation of a rational individual nevertheless turn out very well, and do well for themselves. It comes down to CHOICE. The choice to be rational, or not. The choice to have mental discipline, or not. The choice to integrate, or to evade. That is IT.

Yes, government in this country is an exemplar of the bromide "it is better to beg forgiveness than to ask permission". And sad to say, I've found this to be a practically helpful rule of thumb for the most part, especially when dealing with bureaucracies or administrations of any kind.

You've got to be kidding me. Do you mean to imply that individualism, that the very choice of manner in which one lives one's life, is hereditary? The absolute MOST I would grant you is that individualist parents may be more likely to raise an individualist child, but we are not dealing in imprecise likelihoods here. Only the individual herself can choose whether she will accept reason and live accordingly. It has nothing to do with whose genes went into the kid!

I'm disappointed to say that Ms. Ingraham is an alumna of my college. Her idiocy is legendary at my institution. Definitely not one of our shining stars...

I agree, and I think people need to take that into account when they're in situations like that. If you have an affair you have do it being completely willing to lose that tenured relationship, with all its attendant security, completely and without any input from you. Considerations like that take a lot of the shiny off of that hot guy you always game with and see at the cons, or whatever temptation happens to fall your way (yes, I understand that mad geek fantasies will not do it for everyone here).

I echo what others have said. First of all, she must not evade the reality of what she did. She must tell her husband and leave it up to him whether HE wants the marriage to continue based on that. Secondly, why does she not leave to be with the other man? I think she should have left her husband first, before she ever got into any situations with that other man. The chance that she will end up losing both is a risk she must assume. She is disrespecting her husband by denying him his right to choose based on the facts.

That's not true. A kid with Down Syndrome can be rational, even though they may not be as cognitively sharp as a kid without Down Syndrome. For cryin' out loud, it's Down Syndrome, not missing half your cerebrum or something. My little sister has autism. She can (and certainly does) behave irrationally sometimes, she can think irrationally, but there is nothing inherently about her that prevents her from being rational. The only thing stopping her is mental discipline, the same thing that stops most everyone else. Some disabilities can be very severe, but I think it is a grave mistake to assume disabled automatically equals lacking the capacity to be rational.

It's a trade. People get somewhere to stay and you get to interact with those people in ways that you value. As long as everyone is participating voluntarily, what's the problem? I suppose someone could host even though they derive no value or benefit from it, but that would be their own stupidity, not a problem with the idea itself.

It matters quite a bit. For example, many of these GM seeds have a "termination" sequence, which means that seeds for the next generation will not be fertile. This is done for a very practical reason, to ensure that farmers need to buy seeds year after year instead of saving them as one would do with normal crops. Now, imagine what would happen if the GM crops cross-pollinated with a neighbor's plot...If the "terminator" sequence got into the other farmer's fields, he could suddenly be faced with no seed bank for next year. This is just one example. I'm not sure where I fall on the whole GMO debate. On the one hand, I'm glad the technology exists and there should be some legitimate applications from it. On the other hand, many of the concerns regarding the safety and efficacy of GMOs seem legitimate.

Yes, as far as I know Jefferson was pressured to change it, part of it had something to do with slavery and other people who, although clearly people, were not permitted to own property. It was another one of those compromises that find their way into things.

I agree...to me this seems pretty clear-cut. Why wouldn't you value innocent life and do anything you can to undermine an anti-life power structure?

Despite my company's generous matching plan, I too declined to get a 401 (k) plan just yet because I preferred to keep my money directly under my control, in case I need it right now, but still in an interest-bearing account (with a respectable 3.5% interest mind you). That way I keep my money free and clear at the moment.

Go Stillers! I know that they've had some issues, but some prognosticators are saying 8-8? That's total lunacy. They'll at least go to the playoffs, if not get too far into them. That said, I do think the team has some problems. I would like to see us shore up both lines, as football games are won and lost at the line of scrimmage.

Yes, but that was a movie reference. It refers to BRAWNDO, from the movie Idiocracy.

But, it's got what plants crave! It's got electrolytes!

What difference does GDP make to me? Can you explain to me why I, as an individual, should go along with your glorious plan? What if I decline to participate in your plan, what will you do to me? And how will you justify that action? Is your system prepared to lose in total the value I can offer it should I withdraw my productive capacity?

I think you are equivocating on the concept of "everyone". Please recognize that this supposed benefit to the aggregate population ("everyone") is not the same as a benefit which accrues to each individual member of the population without exception ("every one"), even though you speak as though it is. And if, for example, I were to be someone who would not individually benefit from your utility-maximizing scheme, as your aggregate "benefit" makes no guarantee to me personally, why should I consent to such a system? Before you proceed in your argument please clarify in what sense you are using the term "everyone."

If you are looking to get a broad liberal arts education, nothing beats a smaller school and the caliber of students that go there. The teachers will probably be only a little better at a small private school, but the quality of students can shift dramatically. On the other hand, if you just want a narrow, focused education, there may be nothing wrong with a state school. And if money is a concern you should definitely consider a state school unless, of course, you want to compete for scholarships at the private schools, of which there are many offered. I will note that although you know you want to pursue as CS career, good writing and communication skills are valuable in all fields, so you may not want to be so quick to dismiss the humanities.

America's team my @$$! Go Stillers! We paid for most of the sports stuff in Pittsburgh, which was annoying. I like the Broncs OK. My favorite of theirs is that amazing strong safety, John Lynch. He's a brilliant player but he also has that "I want to KILL" look in his eyes that you just can't teach.