fifi

"Les ..." has a great description of the Battle of Waterloo. Also, a very nice piece on the gamins, or street urchins, of Paris.

Hangnail, Have you read Ayn Rand's main essay in "The New Intellectual" where she speaks of "Atilla" and the "witch doctor". Let me attempt the briefest of summaries, but as always only the original can tell you what Ms. Rand really said: Given that the mind-body is accepted by most, the people of religion are happy to control the mind and leave the body (economics included) alone. On the other hand, left-wingers wants the mind to roam free while theyb tightly control its product.

There is so much choice in the marketplace that one can easily set one's own standards by selection rather than by cutting and sewing.

When your child asks, do you plan to explain that mommy and you differ on the issue, or do you plan to support mommy? If you will support mom -- "Yes, honey, God is looking at us right now, just like mommy told you" --- I advise introspection. It is not so easy to lie to your own child. If you are going to undercut mom -- "Well, some people think that honey; but I don't think so" --- does your girlfriend know you plan to undercut her?

According to a BBC report the Indian government was ferrying some of these folk to the main city on the island and also to the Indian mainland. Then, some NGOs objected, saying that they should be helkped in their aboriginal conditions, without moving them. I am waiting for the multiculturalist professor who will say that even giving them aid in the jungle is a violation of their aboriginal "purity".

For a similar thread, see: http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showtopic=1075

Sure we read your posts, but it does make a difference when a leading objectivist like Mr. Binswanger says it. Maybe you'll earn that reputation too, some day.

>>If it is true then you are admitting that your entire life is a result of random chance. As objectivists how can you handle this? << If X implies Y. And X is true, then Y is true. How do I handle it? What alternateive is there but to "handle" the truth? Would you rather I denied it?

I empathize with the central thrust of CarlVJack's post: people who say they support a particular war ought to be ready -- and happy -- to enlist. I also agree that a draft is wrong because it forces those who disagree with the war to go and fight. Somtimes I fantasize that for a "non-emergency" war like Iraq the US should go only if a referendum of able-bodied adults says "yes". And having said so, all those who say "yes" should be obligated to obey a call to arms. That ought to send people running from their ivory towers.

My experience with the few objectivists clubs I've been to has been mixed. There are a few people whom I have "hit it off" with. Then, there are many who are walking around with "philosophical radars". They hang about quietly until they hear something evil. The only way I have maintained the freindships that were started in such clubs was to grow those friendships outside the club.

From what I have heard, many billions of tax dollars are spent on university research that helps drug companies. If drug companies are to have the right to price their product at any price, shouldn't we first stop tax money from subsidizing them?

Sounds very Christian to me. By "giving life" I assume you mean literally: having children. Ayn Rand had none. So, I would conclude that according to Objectivisim, "giving life" is an optional value.

The FDA recently disallowed (yet again) the legal importatiopn of drug s from Canada, saying that their safety could not be guaranteed. Ridiculous argument. I have a question about this. If private drug companies have the right to specify terms under which their drugs can be bought and sold, should the government be proactive in banning them? Should such importation be a crime or is it a case for a civil suit? Long aside: Like many other legal issues, I guess I really do not grasp the KEY distinction between a civil case and a criminal case. Trespass is criminal (right?)... it is a violation of property rights. Theft is criminal too? However, if someone reneges on a deal, why is that a civil case? Isn't that similar to fraud? Is *intent* the key? If they always intended to renege, would that make it criminal?

There has been a fair amount of debate aboout Bush and Kerry here, particularly in light of Dr. Peikoff's recording. I do not mean to rehash that discussion, it belongs in a different thread. Since we are talking about voting, it would be interesting to take a vote here to see which candidate wins favor here and also to see how many people have been convinced by Dr. Peikoff's arguments.

A bigger point Mr. Peikoff makes is that Christianity is winning. (Sorry Betsy.)

Which God are we talking about here? Bin Laden's God? Bush's God? Kerry's God? The pope's God?

Particularly the ladies

A radio program today said that men over 25 hardly read fiction. Started to think about this. What do objectivists read? All sorts of stuff? Is there some common favorites? Does other fiction seem tame after Rand's masterpieces?

How would Bin Laden vote? Do the opposite.

Beside this question, I'd recap the original question as two questions. Is "political prisoner" one concept or two? Either way, it is a valid concept/preconcept/mental integration. How to decide?

I started this topic in this forum, but it would be better in the Epistemology forum. There appears to be disagreement about what a concept is. I better read Ayn Rand this weekend and see what she meant. Meanwhile I have question about the water lily example. Does this mean that if it water lilies were lilies, then "water lily" would not be a concept but two concepts?

When a lot of people do not care about the result of the election, the outcome is determined by a minority of "die hard" politically active people. This happens in school board elections and the such. For the presidential election, I have heard two theories: Theory 1: The staunch Republicans and Democrats will always vote for "their" candidate, so the presidential candidate should sell to the independent voter. Theory 2: The independent voter does not turn up in suffcient numbers, but the party's "base" may stay at home too, if they feel the candidate is too centrist, and not worth the fight. So, the candidates have to focus on "turning out the base".

I realize this is slightly off topic, but does that mean that something with two WORDs has two CONCEPTs. Must every concept be represented by a single word? Strictly speaking, people are usually not sent to jail purely for their orientation. That orientation has to manifest itself in some way. And it is this manifestation -- criticising the government, selling a banned book, having sex with a person of the same sex, etc. -- that is deemed criminal. That's why the third essential I listed for the notion of a "political prisoner" was "Reason for imprisonment is for questioning the legitimacy of government".

I think I have read a mention of "political prisoners' in Ayn Rand's writing, but I am not sure where. I'd appreciate a reference. I'm wondering if "political prisoner" is a valid concept. I started with a rough definition of: "prisoners who are in jail not because they violated anyone's rights, but for 'political' reasons". Communist and totalitarian countries are notorious for keeping jails full of politcial prisoners. The part of my rough definition that I find a bit vague is "political reasons". What are "political reasons"? In some countries, people who help others commit suicide may be put in jail. This is not legitimate, but these are not "political prisoners". In some countries homosexuals may be jailed. They are not "political prisoners" either. So, I tried another definition: "prisoners who are in jail not because they violated anyone's rights, but because they questioned the legitimacy of an illegitimate government". So, the three essentials are: 1) Illegitimate imprisonment 2) Illegitimate government 3) Reason for imprisonment is for questioning the legitimacy of government I like this definition, because it clarifies that no prisoners in places like the US are "political prisoners", even though their imprisonment may be illegitimate. If anyone can offer me a better definition, I'd be happy to hear it.

Whether through jury nullification or through forcing a hung jury... when one does not cooperate with the law, one places one's judgement above that of the collective (as manifested in the law). The only difference is how one *acts*. Jury nullification results in "justice now", for the specific case at hand. It may result in a furor in the press and populace and may ultimately result in a change of law. A hung jury nullification may delay injustice for the specific case at hand. It may result in a furor in the press and populace and may ultimately result in a change of law. It may or may not result in justice for the specific case at hand.