Jake_Ellison

Not an argument. I'm not. I've addressed the essential difference between bullfighting and performance art. While performance art is essentially about the art (the artistic recreation of reality), the essence of bullfighting is the killing of the animals. The fact that it is done in fancy outfits and with people dancing around is incidental, not what defines it. If it was about the art, the recent Catalan ban on bullfights wouldn't even put a dent in the "art form", they would just simulate the bull's slaughter.

Bullfighting isn't even extremely bad art for the same reason some guy painting the Mona Lisa over and over again (well or poorly, doesn't matter) wouldn't be making art: it's not an act of creation, it's pointless repetition for cheap thrills. Sure, the first guy to come up with the concept might have been an artist (depending on what he was going for, my guess is it had nothing to do with art but who knows). But everyone else who then proceeded to slaughter animals for spectacle, over and over again, is at best doing it for sport. A really stupid, aimless sport.

That sound like a comment on definitions. Evolution is the field which concerns itself with genetic mutation (the change in the inherited traits of life forms over generations, be it natural selection or random genetic drift), as opposed to the full origin of life, from simple chemical reactions into complex biochemistry. So, while life is obviously a more complex phenomena than what it originated in (so yes, it can be said that life is inherently an increase in complexity, it's just unclear what caused it), evolution does not refer to that (unknown) process. Evolution is something more familiar to science, which has nothing to do with complexity. The direction of the evolution of life forms over generations is a function of the environment (as well as random mutation), not anything inherent in the concept "evolution". One thing that did cause that direction to often point towards the more complex is the increase in the diversity of environments, as life spread across the Planet. At this point, I don't think that's still a factor. There are examples of intelligent species going extinct (nonexistence is about as unintelligent and non-complex as a thing can get). There are too few intelligent species on Earth (at the moment, only one) to conclude that they do or do not evolve in the opposite direction from how humans have been evolving thus far (meaning away from intelligence). As far as the Theory of Evolution (which is a law of nature) is concerned, there is no reason why an intelligent species couldn't evolve in that direction.

Good job calling her on her bullshit.

It just occurred to me, environmentalist terror just found the one network which airs "Whale Wars". I think some Japanese fishermen might be pretty amused by that one.

Which presents us with a conundrum. Are we going to demand that the very same environmentalist Discovery Network which is the victim of this attack be removed from the sacred site of this attack, out of respect for the victims of the attack motivated by the very ideology they themselves are spreading?

What does that mean? Induction is the process of forming concepts from observing reality. How do pseudo-concepts make for broader inductive reasoning? Pseudo-concepts are the result of the opposite of induction (arbitrary acceptance of other people's fabrications/generalizations), not broader induction. God is not a concept that comes from any type of inductive thinking, neither is Glenn Beck's version of "rights". "God" comes from reading it in the Bible, "rights" come from reading it in the DOI. He justifies both exactly the same way, which is why leftists (and pretty much everyone except his few, temporary followers) are comfortable ignoring it. Sure we can. People give up God all the time.

No. He stated that he believed in God numerous times, and he seemed to draw his moral values from that belief. (http://www.time.com/time/nation/printout/0,8816,109478,00.html and American Terrorist (Lou, Herbeck). p. 142–143) He also supposedly wrote a letter to a British paper, claiming to be an agnostic (without elaborating), but in light of the above, he clearly had no idea what that word means. It doesn't just mean you don't have a specific church to go to. Go to one, look around.

I think it is unfounded, based on the hubris that people working in developing countries are supporting most of the US consumption. All one has to do is look at whether that assumption is true or not, to make up their mind on the rest.

I don't know Tim McGraw, but from the more general stuff you wrote I'll assume you appreciate music for the right reasons. With that assumption in mind, I would like to point out that there is in fact a huge amount of good music out there (both new and old), it's just that most of the new stuff is only moderately popular. I think you should put more energy into finding whatever it is that you consider good music, instead of settling for what you consider mediocre. And give those random indie bands (or famous composers, wherever your search takes you) more than one chance. If one composition contains anything even remotely interesting, search out a few more, you might stumble upon a gold mine. I do sometimes (less and less, though) watch an average movie (even though I know it's not that good ahead of time), simply because there are so few good new movies, and I've seen the old ones. But that's not the case with music at all. I of course try to listen to all sorts of stuff once, but would never settle into listening to a musician I'm not impressed with. There's just too much great stuff out there, to do that.

Productiveness is whatever gets you closer to a rational goal. So, unless you consider the goal of having your child clothed and clean irrational, clothing and cleaning him is definitely productive. Not to say seeking productiveness is the primary motivation for parenting (or any other activity). Just as productiveness in one's career is a virtue aimed at enhancing one's life, productiveness in raising a child is a virtue enhancing the child's life. That of course doesn't answer why one would have a child in the first place, but Bluecherry's post does. So read that for the answer to the OP, I'm just addressing your specific point. (P.S. I'm not sure if there's a meaningful distinction between productivity and productiveness, so I'm just going with the term Ayn Rand used, for the sake of consistency - not trying to correct anyone)

I presumed knowledge, not omniscience. Your error lies in using the two interchangeably.

A good reason to refuse to be an organ donor would be the possibility of forcing the hand of the government to afford donors the freedom to choose a recipient other than the bureaucracy which currently assumes ownership of all donated organs. But I don't see that happening these days (since not enough people would take part in such a boycott), so the answer is no, there is no reason not to be an organ donor.

That's only true the way it is true that one can come up with the Theory of Relativity from old Physics books. Sure, one can, in fact Einstein did, and he relied on nothing more than information about reality that was available for everyone to see and read about, to do it. But no one else did. Not Relativity, and not Objectivism. Before Ayn Rand, no one even came close to the philosophical system she published in her books. The benefit comes from being honest with yourself and others. Is Ayn Rand the source of your philosophy, or not? If she is, hiding that because it's convenient is the immoral, pragmatist approach. One specific disadvantage is that the people you talk to won't have the chance to benefit from the books you read, and unless you can sit down with them and explain the philosophy from start to finish, will not have the chance to understand what you're talking about. And, of course, anyone even remotely familiar with philosophy will recognize what you are talking about as Rand's work. No one will think that you perused old philosophy books and came up with the same exact philosophical system Rand did, they'll instead wonder why you're hiding the source of your "tenets".

If it is clear that it's not gonna be released in the US, nor is it available in any other way, then it's not immoral. You're not depriving anyone of anything. Intellectual property rights are not a primary, they are the tool which allows people who created the TV shows to reap the fruits of their work. If such benefiting is (absolutely) not an issue, then talk of intellectual property rights is meaningless.

The officer who is accused of giving the orders is also a faithful defender of the US Constitution in combat. If I applied your principle I would have to accept that neither side can err or lie. We all know contradictions like that can easily make someone's head explode. I've seen it happen in several cartoons.

That is the most basic question for anyone who first encounters philosophy. You are asking "What use is philosophy?". My (short) answer is this: The world is an interconnected whole, and so should be our knowledge of it. Attempting to validate pieces of information about reality outside the context of a fully integrated philosophical system, which forms the basis of one's knowledge about everything, is a futile effort. It will either paralyze you, or lead you to accept someone else's conclusions without validating them. If you're looking for a better answer than that, you're in luck, since Ayn Rand published a whole book on the subject, title Philosophy: Who Needs It? Here's a quote from the first chapter: As for whether you (or anyone else asking) should be an Objectivist, the answer is no. Objectivism is a philosophy, not a club. It is not a matter of membership, it is a matter of agreement with a set of ideas. So, "Should I be an Objectivist?" is equivalent to "Should I agree with Objectivism?". If you have to ask, obviously no. You should understand it, and then you'll either agree (and act on what you agree with) or not.

I've read pretty much the same report on Fox. I'm not quite ready to trust the soldiers doing the complaining, but an investigation is definitely in order.

The purpose of the IDF is to defend Israel, and the lives of the Jews (and probably most others) living there. There is nothing retarded about that, it is a perfectly worthy cause. Just because we don't think you should be forced to join it, don't assume anyone here agrees with your views. And from everything I read, you can opt out of military service in Israel. Pacifists do it all the time. Why don't you?

Well, if there's anyone to contact, it's Carson Entertainment Group. They own the licensing rights for all the Carson Tonight Shows. The above is a link to a standard form request for a licensing agreement. Without it, anything you do with those clips will earn you a lawsuit (if it involves selling them. You could try writing an informal email to see what they say about posting some of the audio on youtube, but your chances for a positive answer are slim to none. As for obtaining a license, it would probably have to be for a fully produced Ayn Rand documentary in which you're using the footage. Can't imagine they'd just sell you a license for the three clips. By the way, it is my understanding that anyone can apply for the license, they have the clips archived and are willing to provide them. I guess asking ARI if they're willing to help with such an endeavor would also be worth shot. P.S. According to IMDB, recordings of Ayn Rand on the Tonight Show were destroyed in a fire. If that's true, having them might earn you a deal, in which they let you use them in exchange for adding them to their collection.

It is my understanding that you could go to college before you serve in the Army, in Israel. That would buy you a couple of years, to find a way to leave Israel or become independent enough to be able to ignore your family's plans for you (and contest the conscription on ideological grounds, like the pacifists). Did you talk to your parents about helping you go to college in Israel, instead of joining the Army?

What are your options? Can't you go to college or university?

I do. Sex involves two people, not one. There is a woman involved, who does not sexually desire your prisoner. I do not believe having sex with a woman who does not enjoy (and in fact dreads) the act can be an overall positive experience, for a moral man. I know it wouldn't be, for me. I'd rather masturbate than have sex with someone who's not into it.

Well, using an imaginary robot to prove that would be a fallacy in itself, no need to go as far as analyzing the "argument" in any more depth. But I agree with Mindy, the example isn't intended to prove anything. That leaves us to decide whether it is a good example or not, after we accept the premise of the chapter. As for that premise, it is explained before the robot is introduced. You have to understand how Ayn Rand defines the concept of value (“Value” is that which one acts to gain and/or keep. The concept “value” is not a primary; it presupposes an answer to the question: of value to whom and for what? It presupposes an entity capable of acting to achieve a goal in the face of an alternative. Where no alternative exists, no goals and no values are possible.), and accept (or contest, if you see fit) that "There is only one fundamental alternative in the universe: existence or nonexistence—and it pertains to a single class of entities: to living organisms.". (both quotes are from Rand's The Virtue of Selfishness, because I don't have access to Peikoff's book right now) From there, it follows that only living, mortal beings can hold values. In the case of an immortal robot, the concept (as it is objectively-meaning "built on reality"- defined by Rand) would be a floating abstraction (Since there is no fundamental alternative upon which he could construct additional alternatives for himself. So any alternative he may think of can be defeated simply by asking him Why? over and over again ("Why do you need a Rolex?", "Because it tells time and makes me look good.", Why do you need that?", etc.), until he runs out of a meaningful answer. And he does run out, unless you can identify a fundamental alternative that he faces, that is a part of reality rather than his subjective imagination. Obviously, the robot (just like men, but unlike other animals and plants) can have randomly chosen, subjective goals, and attach "values" to those goals, but those values would not be built on reality, but rather on consciousness as an entity separate from reality. Of course, the imaginary robot is separate from reality to begin with, so at this point the metaphor does indeed reach its limitations. But it served its purpose.

Isn't the object of prostitution sex? It is sex you are having, not a substitute to it. It just happens to be the wrong kind of sex. That's true, there's nothing wrong with fast food. That's why eating fast food isn't analogous to prostitution. The satisfaction of eating something tasty, be it a gourmet meal or fast food, is purely a physical reaction to the taste of an inanimate object: the food. Sex is not, it is an emotional and physical interaction between two people. Prostitution, unlike fast food, isn't essentially the same thing as its "gourmet" version. One of the parties isn't enjoying it, physically or emotionally (in fact she is usually dreading it). If someone wanted to merely enjoy the physical part of sex, they could, by masturbating. The reason they need a woman there is because they seek more than that physical sensation, and they're not going to get it from a prostitute.