nimble

the best reference is at contradictions of anarchism then there are two rebuttal arguments at rebuttal and at rebuttal 2

Okay, I'll grant that you the term aggression as I used it was vague. When I started my argument, I went on the presumption that wolves have rights (something reserved only for humans and other potential rational beings). From there I "humanized" the wolf, and used the term "aggression" in the human sense (unwarranted action to destroy) and showed how the wolf cannot rationally comprehend or respect rights. This is showing that granting a wolf rights is IMPOSSIBLE. As for the positive argument for restraining the term rights to only involve rational beings, that I think is very clear to most of us at least. Sorry for the confusion, does that help, or do you still disagree with me?

If you had read my post you will see that I gave the wolf "humanistic" abilities to show how silly that is. And to demonstrate that because it is not a rational being and cannot realize its actions are aggressive, and that in fact its nature requires aggression, therefore it does not have rights.

All but the lexicon of Rand, all of Rothbard, most of Adam Smith's works, im just starting the a book that has a collection of aristotle's works, i have read hemingway, morrison, kerouac, ginsberg, king, bill o'reilly things, bill clintons memoirs, and i think that about covers it.

rights are rationally derived by the demand of a creature's nature and requirements to live. Humans, in order to survive, must respect each other when interacting. A policy of non-aggression is the the best fitted for this interaction. Thus humans have rights that are derived from the principle that no man may initiate the use of force on another, and it is also derived from the principle that each man OWNS his own body (in a sense all rights are derived from property). Animals do not have rights because their nature requires them to live off of aggressive actions, such as when a wolf attacks and eats a rabbit. Not only is that action required for the wolf's survival but the wolf doesn't have the rational capacity to recognize principles such as non-aggression. Since the wolf lives off of "murder" (although i wouldnt call it that), it cannot claim the right to life, since it, by nature, must take others lives. Rights do not extend to creatures without rational capacity (thats rule #1). If you pass rule number 1, then you must pass the second rule. It only applies to creatures who may interact with each other and survive without aggression. For example, lets say a new alien species comes to earth, and they ARE RATIONAL, but they have some trait by nature that requires them to feed off of humans. Can they possibly interact with humans without violating our rights? NO! So they are not included by our human sphere of rights, and we must treat each one of them as an enemy. Does that help any?

Is there any limitations to free speech under Objectivism? I tried going through the books that I have, and I couldn't find any text of it. Maybe its time to pay the 25 bucks to buy the lexicon, but I think this may be cheaper.

Umm I dont think man B killing man C is immoral, if so then there are alot of Vietnam vets that are more immoral than I thought. Whenever threatens you to do something, you comply simply because no other choices exist.

If the use of retaliatory force is reserved for only government, why do we have a 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms for protection?

I thank you for such a polite and revealing reply. I will read the materials that I need to, to sort this out. Thank you again. As for you, this is the reason most people don't like Objectivism. You couldn't just reply your point without some insulting or cynical remark. You are condescending and unjustly so. Truthfully, if i could swear without getting booted from this forum I have a very good name for people like you. I am sorry you can't engage in an online conversation without losing your cool and becoming no better than the politicians we witnessed during the Vice Presidential Debate. They resorted to personal attacks, false assumptions, and snide remarks. It was disgusting to see men of such stature drop to that level, and I must say that it is no better when you do it. Thank you (others) for the help. Chris

What do you mean? Mathematical logic is deductive, and I agree that deductive logic is valid. It's inductive logic that is invalid, but let me read your blog. And I'll post again after my class today. (oh and definition of valid="if the premises are true, then it is logically impossible for the conclusion to be false." Definition of invalid="if the premises are true, then it may still be possible for the argument to yeild a false conclusion."

Perhaps the government exists in a vacuum and is not subject to the laws of reality and private property? Just kidding, I think your problem arises because of overly strict definitions. If you allow for the people to donate property to the government, then I think your contradiction will disappear.

What? This is what I am talking about. I am trying to sort out some misunderstanding between what every college professor and intro to logic book I've found says about induction, and what you are telling me. And all you guys give is smart ass remarks and 'I am right because I am right. Now you go find out why I am right' type of arguments. Please help me, I'm trying to understand why there is such a big gap between your beliefs and everyone elses. If you could cite philosophical text where induction is defined...i think bacon invented it, so I would assume that my sources are correct, which quote bacon, but if not let me know.

Thats not a bad definition...but does anyone have a definite theoretical definition instead of a lexical one?

http://seamonkey.ed.asu.edu/~alex/teaching.../abduction5.pdf this is the Arizona State University that has this in its website. http://www.hcc.hawaii.edu/~pine/Book2/chap3EL.htm This is a hawaiian college that provided this (it cited the university of indiana press, sorry for the confusion) I see where you are coming from but at the same time I think you ignore a few things. This is an example of an inductive argument. EXAMPLE 3-5 Most presidents of the United States did not die in office. Therefore, it is doubtful that the twelfth president of the United States died in office. Notice that it goes from general to particular, this is the only reason I don't like your definition because your definition can be wrong if the argument is as it is above. (this is from the second site i cited)

And again you side stepped my question? WHO OR FROM WHERE DID YOU GET YOUR DEFINITION OF INDUCTION? What piece of philosophic work is it from?

I have an article by the Indiana University Press. I have an Irving M Copi and Carl Cohen Twelfth Edition "Introduction to Logic." And 4 Professors that Ive emailed about this that all say the same thing about Induction.

I wouldnt mind it if you guys weren't so condecending. If my university sources are misleading or false please explain why, instead of indulging in sarcasm to degrade me. That is rhetoric when you attack the speaker or ANYTHING besides the argument. What source or person created your definition of induction, which philosophical work? I'll read it and determine it for myself.

My word induction has to deal with the structure of the argument. If its form is valid (it is logically impossible for the conclusion to be false if the premises are true) then it is deductive, if its form is invalid then it is inductive.

I accept this challenge

ohm's law is a science endeavor, not mathematic. But I think our distinction between what I view as inductive and what others view as inductive is different, so we are talking about different concepts yet using the same word. Sorry about the confusion.

Nice parallel, but did you notice the rhetoric you just produce, no argument was put forth. Way to make an assertion without providing evidence for your theory. And also, nice ad hominem. Keep running with that straw man. Is that so? I am absolutely confident that all of my views are tied to reality, and that my being is capable of interpreting that reality. How is my source any different than yours?

The stuff I quoted above is from "An Introduction to Logic" produced at Indiana University. We obviously have different sources.

I think you are generalizing too much, and coming to poor conclusions. Definitions are not arbitrary, they help to link a term to its referent concept or object. However, when a difference in defintion arises, it means that we are referring to different concepts or objects. However, the subjective part is which one is to be used? If you call a banana a jookie, and I call it a banana. We are referring to the same physical object, but whose term is better? Truthfully it doesn't matter, as long as we both understand the referent that the terms refer to. In the opposite example, when you call something a banana, and so do I, yet we have different definitions, then one of us is referring to a different thing in reality. Which term is better suited for which concept is really irrelevant. As long as we recognize we are differing in defintion, then we can sort it out and just rename one of the two concepts that we used the same word for. So, either you need to label your concept of induction differently or I do. It really doesn't matter who concedes to the change in label. The only reason I believe mine is better is because your definition of inductive was derived from a false translation of greek to english. The only reason you think your definition is better is because it is lexical, and that is not a valid reason for usage. If being lexical is all that mattered, then there would be no problem with conceding that America is a democracy, when it is really a constitutional republic. Its only because people no longer see the difference, that people have been able to make the two terms one and the same. But I think giving something credit simply because people commonly use it that way today is a poor policy. *lexical definition=what a word means today, by general consenus (BAD WAY TO DEFINE THINGS)

I guess we are disagreeing on a definition. If that's the case, then I suppose we have no argument here.

PS- Example 3-2 is an inductive argument (not necessarily strong or weak). And example 3-3 is an invalid deductive argument (fallacy of affirming the consequent).