Jake_Ellison

He should be judged according to his crime...oh wait, there is no crime. I challenge everyone who wants him to get a "fair" sentence (that by the way means at least a year in prison in NY) to name his victim, and the nature of that victim's loss or damage. Keep in mind, that mandatory one year comes not over endangering anyone, which might be a legitimate reason to prosecute him (it would result in a slap on the wrist), it comes from carrying an unlicensed firearm. If you want him to spend a year in prison because its "fair", you are automatically sanctioning all the abuses the government commits. You could say you don't care if he goes to prison or not, he shouldn't be so stupid and arrogant, but that's different from actually rooting for the gov. to abuse him.

You should stop. Selling anything to kids without their parents' permission is wrong, you are not within your rights to do it. (especially since the parents have no way of stopping you) If their parents wanted kids to drink huge amounts of caffeine, they'd buy it for them, so that's the end of the story. (I'm assuming these kids are actually underage)

There's nothing wrong with asking for advice, but I think you're playing a dangerous game: Objectivism, in my view, requires you to have a well defined hierarchy of values, and think for yourself both while deciding your values and while making your choices. Sure, it's OK to ask for advice, but the ultimate choice has to be yours, and you have to have a very good reason for making that choice. And with the asking for advice thing, the person advising you should know you a little better than we do. It sounds like you have a lot of good people in your family for instance, I assume they are advising you to finish what you've started. (first the welfare program, then the college) They don't have to be Objectivists to know what's right for you (better even than any Objectivist who doesn't know you), and as long as their advice doesn't violently conflict with your Objectivist values (they're not asking you to become a missionary or an IRS agent:), you should take it. In this case, you seem to have made your choice: you want to finish the 13 week thing and get back to college. You are asking for advice because you want this confirmed, it seems to me, so I'm happy to confirm it for you: there's nothing wrong with accepting this type of welfare in Sweden, because the system is designed to force young people into these programs: there is no way someone would hire you for anything, unless you have some gov. accredited qualification. (from what I've heard, this is how things work in most of Europe)

You are distancing yourself from "shoot them?" in one sentence, and in the next one you are calling Muslims the enemy. Well what are we supposed to do with "the enemy"? Especially since you make no distinction between that "enemy" and the terrorists, in fact you make it a point to say they are the same. Of course you are advocating violence against them based on what they believe in.

Oh for God's sake, please realize that House is not a human being, he's just the tool of the show's creators to deliver a message: since many of you are buying into this super rational House, how do you reconcile that with the fact that he is so miserable, so unhappy? How does this supposed perfectly rational attitude result in him relying only on one, completely psychologically flawed friend and the occasional hooker for his human interaction? How come there is a point made at the end of every episode to show how lonely and unhappy he is? Check out the article Kendall linked to, it addresses the character from the creator's point of view, providing quotes that make their intentions clear: http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues...ll-dr-house.asp By the way, I watch House all the time, but only for entertainment. The character is still rational enough (one of the most rational and intelligent ones on TV) to be interesting and unpredictable to me. However, he's no randian hero, far from it. Damn it, I had another point, and I forgot while re-reading the article.

I wish they'd accept comments. I would just answer: "By using the word prove in the title, you are declaring that you like logic, and you are willing to rely on it: so stop making up stuff, rely on logic when you decide whether there's a God too. Logic tells you that you first need proof to accept something and build on it, because you cannot prove a negative, just by the absence of evidence. There is no evidence of absence, since absence(nothingness) does not leave traces and fingerprints. So if you choose to reject logic's rule that you need evidence before you assume something to be true, I can't help you any more than I have by telling you about your error. I can't use logical thinking to prove you wrong: The absence of God hasn't left any traces for me to look up and deliver to you."

That's actually how I would regard someone who acted like House in real life. However, that's not the intention behind the character, and you get small clues to that, if you watch regularly: I think the main reason why he's a dick is supposed to be the fact that he rationalizes his drug habit, by claiming he's in constant physical pain: after all, how could someone in constant pain relate to people? I'm not saying it is realistic, but it is the intent of the show's creators, in my opinion, to show how while it's OK to be super rational as a doctor, when it comes to a personal life built on nothing but "reason" it makes you miserable.

I didn't want to open a new topic for this one link, so I'll just post it here. Jeremy Clarkson, the host of "Top Gear"(a British TV show), was told that GW is melting the ice caps, so it's becoming impossible to travel to the North Pole because of the thinning ice. His answer? He drove a 3 ton pickup truck to the North Pole: Top Gear: Polar Special I found the show very entertaining. ( Apparently you are still allowed to drink and drive for instance, if you're off-road, heading for the Pole. It's the greatest visual ever-someone with a gin and tonic in hand, while driving to a place that was impossible to reach a few centuries ago)

It's a well written show, there's a lot of depth to it, but lately it stopped being funny. I got into it a few years ago because of the really funny lines that you don't usually hear on network TV. I do think House is am interesting character though. Of course I never watched it for the message, which is actually quite annoying, lots of pragmatism vs. religion.

I think Thomas made an excellent point, far better than I could've made it, especially since I'm pretty pissed off at you. I'll just add this: I think that you are far closer to becoming my enemy than the average American Muslim ever was or will be, especially since you don't even have the excuse of being a confused teenager. I'm just hoping you don't go around misrepresenting Objectivism, causing people to think we are out to "convert or kill" the same way Osama is.

By agreeing to coexist in a free American society without the use or threat of force. You don't have to be an objectivist to support a capitalist society, and you don't have to be against religion to agree to "live and let live". How could you justify using force against someone who agrees to that?

I haven't read the book either, but I talked to God, and he said it's shit. How's that for a great argument?

Ok, that guy's guilty, and he should be killed as soon as possible. Let's get back to the people who were exonerated while on death row. These are people who were convicted and sentenced to death, and the it took an extraordinary event, or find, for them to be exonerated. Is such an event reasonably certain to happen, for every innocent man sitting on death row? I think it's pretty obvious that that's not the case, and the existence of these cases means that there are also people wrongly convicted, who end up executed. I'm not saying abolish the death penalty, but there should be even more care when a parson is sentenced to death. There are two possibilities: 1. A different, higher set of standards, when establishing guilt. This would mean that prosecutors would likely only go for the death penalty when they have a slam dunk case. Otherwise they'll just ask for life in prison, in order to not risk letting killers go. (or lose the case) 2. A new trial, with higher standards, after someone was already sentenced to death, just to make sure.

If you ask me what the probability of God's existence is, I would have to ask you: What evidence, or reasons to believe he exists, do you have? Since the answer is none, the probability of God(PG) is zero. So no matter how high a happiness-coefficient (HHC) this product of fantasy called eternal soul in heaven would have, the net after death benefit(NADB), measured in degrees of happiness, of you pretending that there's a God would be: NADB=PG*HHC= 0*HHC=0. Of course if you decide that the HHC=infinite, then the whole story starts over again: what evidence do you have that there is something called infinite happiness, which multiplied by zero would produce something other than zero? None, so the probability of its existence is zero, therefor it is pointless to discuss the possibility. Our only option is to assume that HHC is a very high number. Try OPAR (the first part). Objectivist metaphysics states that reality is independent of consciousness. The fact that something is conceivable does not have any bearing on whether it is possible, or on how probable it is. So to talk any further about the mathematical relationship between what is conceived and what is possible is completely pointless. (though I'm sure people nevertheless do all the time) Mathematics is a product of reason. You cannot apply it to fantasy, or any form mystical revelation (such as the idea of God).

Any action against the army or police during a time of war means aiding the enemy, and should be considered treason. Whatever the mexicans were protesting, right or wrong, they should not have commited acts of civil disobedience during wartime.

Well, yeah, but writers and media people ( I almost said journalists:) mostly come from universities, and the philosophy they read definitely comes from universities.

I believe the option of forming a new country is a perfectly viable one if the conditions in the United States and Europe become oppressive enough to motivate creative independent people to leave. The proof that such a plan is viable is of course the state of Israel, which was formed out of very little, and has constantly been under attack, yet it manages to be both prosperous and relatively free. Of course, the fact is that Israel is nowhere near a pure capitalist society, and there's a huge religious influence in government there, but that isn't really relevant to the way it was formed: on the principles of individual freedom, with individuals who chose to move there and build their own lives, because they were rejected in their countries of origin. The fact that they have no natural resources to speak of, and yet they thrive, speaks volumes about the possibility of a new, capitalist state being extremely successful.

He's clearly familiar with not only Ayn Rand's fiction, but probably OPAR as well (I even heard him talk about DIM theory), and I never once heard him explicitly contradict any of Rand's basic principles. He also speaks out against skepticism, even though he has a lot of skeptic friends apparently. I do check out Penn Says, and he just recently mentioned Objectivist epistemology as the only valid answer against mysticism ("Atheist Quakers" video). That's of course how any rational human being would feel, if they were familiar with Ayn Rand, but still, I think that makes Penn an Objectivist, for all intents and purposes. I also heard him say that Teller is even more outspoken (hehe) against religion and weird belief systems than he is. In Bullshit however he never takes an explicit Objectivist position, but that might have to do more with Showtime. Quite frankly I wouldn't want someone explaining philosophy too much either on my network, in a comedy show designed to produce ratings. I watch it because it's funny.

I agree completely with you Thomas. However, I think there are two issues raised in Wotan's post: one is the irrationality of the muslim religion, and the other is the irrationality of Wotan, who is suggesting we declare war to (and thus physically attack) huge numbers of people, not for their actions or hostile intentions, but merely their religious beliefs. I think we should address the latter attitude first, since it actually proposes the initiation of force. (No question because of some type of collectivist ideology Wotan holds) Then we can discuss what moderate Muslims should do to oppose militant Muslims, and more generally what we should do to limit or destroy religion. [edit] It's possible that by saying normal Islam Wotan is just trying to express the idea that the militant side is dominating the religion, which is a valid point, although I don't think it is factual, at least not precentage-wise. But that possibility aside, I stand by my opinion of him, based on what he actually wrote.

Perhaps some evidence, or at least some argumentation beyond the larger letters, is in order, oh Mighty One. Here's for instance a way to prove your theory: Can you prove that the Muslim family living down the street from you, in NY City (all perfectly average, normal Muslims), need their belief system destroyed before there can be peace? How is their mere belief in God (irrational as it is), different from your Christian neighbor's belief in God? Keep in mind that they are both religious, and also very much supportive of the American way of life.

Would such a decision constitute justice? (as defined by Ayn Rand: judging a man's character and/or actions exclusively on the basis of factual evidence available)

I think that the "Is capital punishment moral?" and "Should we use the death penalty?" questions can both be answered with yes or no, followed by argumentation. Loveslife: My interpretation of your answer is "No" on the first question (you wrote: , but then, strangely, you answered the second question with "yes", on practical grounds, and because you don't seem to believe in prisons. (you said: - That sounds like a pro death penalty stance to me)

Ayn Rand defined justice in "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology" : In Galt's Speech, she also said: Keeping that (and Objectivist philosophy in general) in mind, my first question is: Is capital punishment moral? I have other questions, that we should only answer after we establish the morality of capital punishment: Should we use the death penalty? If so, in which cases? (I think it's safe to assume the two possibly relevant criteria are the nature of the crime and the evidence that proves guilt. So please try and keep answers in this frame, or if not, mention the additional criteria.)

I want to preface this by saying that I don't consider myself well informed on the Kashmir issue. I think India absolutely has a decision to make both on dealing with Pakistan (although I'm not sure what the right course of action would be here- I don't have enough information), and more importantly on turning toward individualism, toward a change in the culture that would allow their own citizens to live and let live, in their respective faiths. Until that happens, the modest economic advances will not turn India into a peaceful nation, even if they somehow(can't imagine how) manage to resolve this one issue, Kashmir, which is currently causing most of the headaches. Until individuals can exist as independent entities, free to pursue their own life and happiness, there will always be something to cause civil unrest and terrorism, history proves that much. P.S. By India I mean not only its government, but also its intellectual leadership and in general the people who have access to enough information from the West that they can come across the right ideas. What I am rejecting is the idea that these acts of terror are committed by extremists that spring up naturally(therefor it cannot be helped) or independently of the culture around them. Since you mentioned Tim McVeigh, I'll say about him that he is an American problem, not an inevitable accident, or a freak of nature, just as these extremists are India's problem. Of course McVeigh is a much smaller problem, isolated to a tiny part of American culture, where he came from. India on the other hand has a huge problem on its hands, and solving it will require decades of radical cultural and social change. [edit] Wanted to mention that my opinion on India isn't at all based on today's attacks. (which seem to be aimed against westerners, probably sponsored by al Qaeda) These attacks are more of a global problem we are supposed to solve, so I don't want anyone to interpret my post as "blaming the victim for these deaths".

What are you basing this statement on? Are you then also against abortion, and even birth control, definitely embrionic stem-cell research?