Benpercent

Hopefully I put this in the right section, as this is unrelated to Objectivism and is not a request to purchase something from someone on the board. Anyhow, as some of you may have deduced from my avatar, I like the Little Nemo in Slumberland comics. My collection is completed as far from the years 1905-1915, which is the first two runs of it. I even have a book (So Many Splendid Sundays!) that has some of the best comics reprinted in their original size and quality. But one thing does evade me: the 1920's comics. Nemo was canceled in 1915 because the artist's employer wanted him to focus on drawing political cartoons. It was revived up in the 20's (1926 I think) and ran for two years, but it was too unpopular to keep going and was canceled for a final time. I did manage to find, after over a year, an Amazon page for one of the out-of-print books collecting the two year's worth of comics, but the problem is that it is so slightly out of my price range. So, would anyone happen to have any ideas as to where I can get my hands on these comics?

It's things like these that make me wonder how many people even have intellectual ambitions (enough so to listen to logic), and how many of them have anti-conceptual mentalities (and thus are self-rendered unable to learn). I was speaking with my grandmother, when she mentioned how it's "not right!" for oil companies to raise their prices this high, why it is that they *have* to raise their prices this high. At the end of my speaking turn she said "but it's not right!" I'll pay you Tuesday for a tank today. Do you think lawmakers will ever be so bold as to place a bar on how high oil companies can raise their prices? When lawmakers did this with health insurance companies, many left the markets with such laws.

But, in America, who would take them seriously? Most would just giggle, as I almost have, at the way they are now (PLEASE have less sex!) and they would get a huge amount of negative attention if they start advocating forced genocide.

As CF said, we do have a responsibility, but it is only to our own currently existing generations and it is in the form of respecting rights. But in this case, you cannot respect the rights of someone that has no rights, i.e., someone who doesn't exist. So responsibility, in this little saying, isn't the appropriate word. My edited version is what it really means:

This is a straw man argument. I've bolded the flaws in your professor's argument. Obviously he/she misunderstands what the law of identity is. For one, the law of identity focuses on individual entities and their attributes/characteristics. The law of identity states that a single entity cannot possess contradicting traits (in this case, the vat of paint cannot both be red and not-red at the same time, but it can change to different colors) at any single time. It is completely besides the point, and irrelevant to a discussion about the law of identity, as to whether or not certain traits in one entity match up/compare to another's. All we need to worry about is only one of those vats of paint. Also, it seems to me that from there they might bring up the old argument that the law of identity is invalid because things change (in this case, again, the vat of red paint can go from red to not-so-red). If that is brought up, then keep these two things in mind: Time: Contradictory traits cannot exist at the exact same time, but they can exist if separated across a time line, by which then they will no longer be contradictory. For example, ice cannot be steam, but ice can turn into steam if heated long and hot enough. Changes: In this context, identity means the sum of an entity's attributes and characteristics. In order for something to change, there must be characteristics and attributes that can be changed. Something must have an identity if they are to change. That was a terrible example, so please tell him/her to do tell.

These have been around for a few months and I'm surprised I've only stumbled upon them a few weeks ago. A few actors reenact various Garfield strips, and then after the reenactment it turns into a short music video. Here's one of my favorite ones, though the Youtube channel contains dozens of these videos, all at the same level of quality: Jon finds Garfield doing a funky dance, and then asks him to show him how he does it. Another one of my favorites is when Jon forces Garfield to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UdvyPPvDwQ.

Flowing from the pen of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and out of the mouth of Sherlock Holmes: "An exception to the rule disproves the rule." In that case, it is not always the case that kittens instinctually avoid walking off cliffs, because I remember watching a comedy show a few weeks ago where they show a few kitties ignorantly falling into a hole, that had formed in someone's lawn, by walking into it.

The bits I've read are pretty darn good, though I felt a little uncomfortable every time the author of the article used the word "Randian". Are these comics available anywhere, or are they still in syndication? And man, one of those ads on that page has really stirred up a desire in me to watch Duck Tales.

Same here. If the movie is as true to the cartoon as Gabo says it is, then I'm certain I'll dislike it. What I remember about the cartoon is how extremely cheaply it was made. I remember one time they used only two or four frames of animation to depict a guy dancing for five seconds (or was that Dexter's Lab?). Either way.

That's actually the article I mention in my previous post. The title recommends using the program, but the article itself focuses almost entirely on the person who came up with the program, while paying a little homage to those who came up with the technique in first place. With the way they cited certain studies, I am uncertain as to whether or not the studies are valid or not.

I just wanted to tell you that I have downloaded the program and am currently trying to learn how to use it (e.g. paste articles, set up questions and answers, etc.), but I can't seem to find anything other than opinion-related articles about this technique/program. Would you happen to have any? Also, I think the card game I came up with would at least be good for strengthening concentration.

After some reading, I see that this situation isn't truly an emergency and thus emergency ethics don't apply, but here's the lexicon link anyhow. Also note that is isn't a certainty that this guy will be the only super-duper-special-rare medicine supplier. You can only put a copyright/patent on your style of implementation, not on a metaphysical truth such as a combination of chemicals to produce a certain drug. Come to think of it, I just noticed a little gap of information in the situation. The rare disease is painful, but you never said how painful, which gives us an opening to fill something in. In my situation the woman's disease is so painful she commits suicide by jumping off a cliff, so therefore no action is needed as she's already dead. A terrible result.

If anything, I believe the ethics of emergencies would apply here. But I do have big problems with this scenario: If your friend just put in "impossible" by itself I would understand, but what in the world does he mean by "physically impossible"? Also, this medicine supplier apparently has the medical knowledge to create this medicine, but none of the wisdom of economics. He will probably be the first and last supplier of this medicine. He will most likely be his own destroyer because he's charging an extremely high price for an extremely rare disease, which will make his profits extra extremely rare, if he makes any profit at all. He would absolutely have to lower his prices, after seeing how surprisingly rare rich people with rare diseases are. I say this scenario is invalid as it is almost impossible. Arbitrary metaphysics.

Great essay. The kind I like to reread. A quick question: how does one resolve contradictions that are entirely abstract? I mean, take for example (your example), a guy who hates his mother that physically abused him as a child and then takes those feelings and blankets them over all women. In this case, what should he do to fix the contradiction in his subconscious? Should he introspect and, when such emotions come up, tell himself that his reaction to meeting a new woman is unwarranted and he should judge her as an individual?

I imagine the government in Zimbabwe will end under a knife and fork, and perhaps this one too.

You have no obligation. This holiday can only be made altruistic if you don't like like your mother (to the point you'd prefer her out of your life) and the only reason you honor Mother's day is because you think it is your "duty" as the child to do so. Yes, popular culture does go about this way of thinking because it is a commonly mistaken notion (which leads to MUCH frustration) that the relationship between a mother and child is sacred *regardless* of the context, meaning regardless of the actual substance of the relationship, and that the love between them is automatic and does not have to be earned. If you choose not to honor Mother's day and if you have people close enough personally to discuss such personal affairs with, you will most likely get a guilt trip with the very old "but it's your mother!" argument. In this case, ONLY try to defend your decision if the person you're dealing is not a person with an anti-conceptual mentality (lexicon link), because those kind of people have the nerve to accept your premises but deny your conclusion for literally no good reason other than emotion. Discussion will not persuade either one of you from your position. But, of course, it may be difficult to try and avoid certain discussions with them because they will not understand why discussion is futile. If you do choose to honor Mother's day, then make sure it is on the notion that you love your Mother and that her happiness/comfort helps you with your happiness/comfort. Edit: Adrock brought up a point I neglected, and is essential. If you celebrate Mother's day, then it is necessary that your Mother be of value to you. The reason I noted this is because (an error on my part for typing it alone in the first place) happiness and comfort alone isn't sufficient, and is far too whim-based.

I'm soon going to engage in taking care of my own education, so the point of my wanting to improve my memory is so that my studying is more effective and less time-consuming. I'm running out of time, so I'll probably check into this later today or tonight. It really doesn't have anything to do with college, as I'm a first-year student who is going to drop out (in favor of studying on my own). But for curiosity's satisfaction, I am a English Writing/Philosophy major with a Linguistics minor.

Just to add on a bit more: Unless I'm mistaken, this is a Rothbardian way of thinking where the direct cause is held accountable for what happened (you killing the baby), but, as everyone else has been saying, it is really the terrorist that is to be held accountable for creating the situation to begin with.

I agree. It's alright to avoid certain terms if you're not in the mind to go through a lengthy discussion, but the situation is not worthy enough to lie in.

Actually, there was one passing reference. I just realized it this morning right when I woke up. The implication is very easy to miss. When the head terrorist (the bald guy) speaks to the American industrialist, he makes mention of, or calls the industrialist, "kaffir", which means infidel. Ah yes. I admit I noticed that too, but I must've put it out of mind since I was overwhelmed with what I did like about the movie. Here are some of the bad points of the movie, philosophically: In the beginning Tony Stark is portrayed as a snottily over-arrogant businessman. Being boastful with your earned self-esteem is alright in the right context, but Stark takes it so far as to mistreat every acquaintance of his, giving off that typical image of a suited man walking on the backs of people facedown in the mud. Stark has irrational sex with someone who holds opposing values to his. It's somewhat altruistic, but I think it's debatable. One of the most important things of all the bad things about this movie to note would be the notion of unearned guilt. But the movie is still worth watching in my opinion. What memorized me about it was the fight of good versus evil (natch) and the display of technology/intelligence. This movie induced the same effects in me as when I was reading and watching about a new military transport vehicle that can balance itself in dynamic conditions. Amazing.

Not really. If you look at his past statements, he called this man his spiritual mentor. But, of course, people found out he was anti-America and racist, so suddenly Obama disagreed with what Wright said and tried to distance himself thusly. The fact still remains that Obama's going to that one church for over twenty years means only one of two things: 1) Obama shares Wright's views (and is thus being a hypocrite and a liar). or 2) Obama doesn't have a moral spine, shown by him not explicitly disagreeing with Wright aloud. I think this controversy has just invoked an "oh snap" moment for Obama and he's just trying to change his image, not his substance.

Why contradict yourself? Can't you just say your political beliefs are in line with Objectivism, or that you're an "Objective-Capitalist"?

I know, but it would eventually lead to that because of all the technology they had, since it is at least known the setting was in the middle east. Imagine a scenario where American weapons industries supported Iran by shipping atomic bombs to them. Sure, before such an event they would be harmless, but afterwards they would have the triggers to pull and the hate to motivate. This is where I deduced the whole "American businessmen destroying America" ordeal. Destroyers were being supported in the movie, after all. On another note: this movie was so good I think I'll go see it again tomorrow. What impressed me the most was the display of technology, and I feel inspired to do more studying of computer science. What this movie means to me philosophically is how high man can raise when he's free to let his intelligence flourish.

Also, what kind of corn was he eating? Eating unpopped popping corn, I think, would be a little rough on your teeth while at the same time counting as corn.

Just coming back from the movie due to Mammon's recommendation and my boredom, and I have to say I agree with what Mammon says. It's a GREAT movie and most of it agrees philosophically with Objectivism, such as how Islamic states need to be taken down by force and how some of our present businessmen are working towards the destruction of America ( ). This movie is ridiculously worth the watch.