kainscalia

They're coming, I think I should be able to append them to each post by tonight at latest.

Asi también se podría decir que los juegos de video lo son.

Y yo he argumentado que no lo son. Te pregunto: Cual es la meta de la lucha de toros?

En una dehesa de la extremadura? Teneis una casina blanquina y chicuna? Desgraciadamente el espectaculo taurino, amigo, no es un arte: es una funcion de distraccion, si, pero no es arte. De la misma manera en la que la distraccion proporcionada por Las Ketchup difiere de la distraccion proporcionada por el cantor flamenco apodado Tomate o la misma Montserrat Caballe-- hay dos niveles distintos en juego en donde, en un ambito, se tiene como proposito principal el proporcionar entretenimiento, mientras que en el otro se tiene como proposito principar el crear un mensaje coherente artistico que encierra una declaracion artistica de los valores metafisicos del artista. A veces el segundo puede encontrarse dentro del primer ambito, pero de manera accidental cuando la mayor prioridad es el entretenimiento o show. La lucha taurina esta al mismo nivel que el futbol o el futbol americano, el tenis y la natacion: son ejercicios primariamente fisicos con ciertos aspectos estrategicos intelectuales (de menor a mayor capacidad de acuerdo al deporte) pero en ningun momento entran dentro del ambito artistico. A veces un deporte puede ser usado de manera significante dentro del ambito de una obra de arte (Por ejemplo la susodicha lucha de toros en la opera "Carmen" de Bizet, donde el personaje de Escamillo encarna la mistica y estatus que los toreros adquirian en ese tiempo), pero no es de por si artistico. Espero que esto pueda esclarecer un poco las cosas. (English translation will be posted after I get out of my appointment)

I'm the one that created the original animation using "The Movies"

And the same goes for me- the reason I no longer post in this forum is precisely because of an action of this sort.

Seeing the level of poor moderation, I'll no longer partake of discussion on this forum, having time and time encountered questionable moderation. I'll not touch this board again, with the exception of the chat room on rate occasions.

The issue is age appropriateness, not objectionable material. This is not material that is suitable for the age bracket of most schools. The level of explicit content, including live video of an ejaculation, is less than suitable. Keep the context in mind, that this content in this level of explicitness is available to children in libraries. Contextually appropriate material, this is not.

Bravo! Encore!

You mean the phrase "Ganbatte kudasai"--- in Japanese you don't have a singular "m" sound, but there is a singular "n" appended to syllables-- and almost without exception all syllables end in a vowel, not a consonant (that's why the singular 'n' is appended)

I have a question for you, aequalsa: If it is tribalistic and collectivistic to make judgments on a person based on accidentals (the color of their skin) over which they have no direct control (DNA, inherited skin color, facial features) , versus judging them on their virtues and the contents of their minds in terms of jobs, justice, rights, etc ... Then why is it different when one makes a judgment of the same caliber in the realm of romantic attraction? Shouldn't rational values versus accidental values take even more precedent here?

Well, maybe Sean Penn is just getting ready to go into his new role:

I will have it stated for the record that he has consistently avoided answering the abortion question, and the implications of that.

I haven't read it but I might consider it. Looking through the index Chapter 7 is called "Kant, a philosophy professor limits reason to make room for faith" whilst the last chapter is called "Rand, A philosophical novelist defends reason-objectively speaking" The last paragraph of the book reads: "The future belongs to those who know their position fully, can articulate it exactly, and have the skills to spread their ideas into society. The power- the ability to change one's world despite opposition- is in the ideas, which are the cause of history. The glory- the state of mind that arises from taking a personal form of action for philosophical values-- is in the lives of the individuals who fight for the ideas."

Speaking of integrity, I think someone asked you about your stance on abortion as being contrary to Rand's. I think it would be very illuminating if you answered.

I think the answer to this is pretty simple, I am surprised anyone has to think about it that long: Objectivism supports the freedom of usage for your own body, to prevent substance use legally is immoral- people have the freedom to nurture or destroy their bodies. However, drug usage is unequivocally a hedonistic action-- those who experiment with recreational drugs are doing so merely to chase the particular sensation that they achieve- a hedonistic pursuit through, essentially, shorting out the brain. Recreational drug usage is an immoral endeavor since it is pursuit of sensation for the sensation itself. Minor drugs that do not have mind-warping effects (in normal doses) such as caffeine don't enter into that consideration as much, though it like alcohol (a more potentially severe drug when not used in moderation) can cause disastrous effects when abused.

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?app=forums&module=post&section=post&do=reply_post&f=58&t=18177 Study: Same-Sex Parents Raise Well-Adjusted Kids Researchers Say Children Who Grow Up in Households With Gay Parents Have Normal Self-Esteem

Well, let us address your objection by asking you to define exactly what things does a male role-model teach children. I think that if we can isolate those particular things, we can determine whether or not it is impossible for anyone else to impart those things upon the child in question.

You're also conveniently forgetting Cameron's inconsistent writing which focus solely on what is convenient for his plot, not on an actual real and possible scenario: The floating islands? *ripe* with Unobtainium. That's how they stay afloat. Mine the islands. Problem solved. However, Cameron wishes to show us the EVIL of capitalism by ignoring facts of the own world he created, to serve his purpose. It should say something that he can't even close his own loopholes.

Neither can a bad male role model.

I do not understand how a sexual preference carries the inherent value of good or bad role models. There is an astonishingly large (nay, enormous) number of heterosexual couples whose parents are incredibly bad role models. It seems to me that sexuality has nothing to do with it, each case should be evaluated on the individual level. Whether Daddy likes men isn't as important as whether daddy is a man of principle and moral rectitude or not.

Ctrl y, obviously the book went over your head. Seeing your puerile post makes me draw the conclusion that it took the path of least resistance.

Is the feeling of companionship worth enough to blind you to the fact that your companions are thieves? Which of the two is more important?

Well, firstly man is a rational being. The only happiness that is possible to him is that of the realization of his rational self-interest goals. To go against his nature is to essentially deny himself the only possibility at achieving the level of happiness which is that of a non-contradictory joy. In other words? Precisely the kinds of lives that Hitler and Stalin, Chavez and Correa and Peron live and lived. I think the example illustrates the principle at work beautifully.

I think you need to look up the definition of rational self-interest. Also, even just a glance at John Galt's speech would have answered the question: "“Whatever may be open to disagreement, there is one act of evil that may not, the act that no man may commit against others and no man may sanction or forgive. So long as men desire to live together, no man may initiate-do you hear me? no man may start-the use of physical force against others. “To interpose the threat of physical destruction between a man and his perception of reality, is to negate and paralyze his means of survival; to force-him to act against his own judgment, is like forcing him to act against his own sight. Whoever, to whatever purpose or extent, initiates the use of force, is a killer acting on the premise of death in a manner wider than murder: the premise of destroying man’s capacity to live. “Do not open your mouth to tell me that your mind has convinced you of your right to force my mind. Force and mind are opposites; morality ends where a gun begins. When you declare that men are irrational animals and propose to treat them as such, you define thereby your own character and can no longer claim the sanction of reason-as no advocate of contradictions can claim it. There can be no ‘right’ to destroy the source of rights, the only means of judging right and wrong: the mind. “To force a man to drop his own mind and to accept your will as a substitute, with a gun in place of a syllogism, with terror in place of proof, and death as the final argument-is to attempt to exist in defiance of reality. Reality demands of man that he act for his own rational interest; your gun demands of him that he act against it. Reality threatens man with death if he does not act on his rational judgment: you threaten him with death if he does. You place him into a world where the price of his life is the surrender of all the virtues required by life-and death by a process of gradual destruction is all that you and your system will achieve, when death is made to be the ruling power, the winning argument in a society of men. “Be it a highwayman who confronts a traveler with the ultimatum: ‘Your money or your life,’ or a politician who confronts a country with the ultimatum: ‘Your children’s education or your life,’ the meaning of that ultimatum is: ‘Your mind or your life’-and neither is possible to man without the other."