Jake_Ellison

You're not describing a new philosophy called Pragmatic Objectivism, you're just describing Pragmatism. You are not relying on principles and abstract though, you are dealing in concretes. For instance, you are affirming that Putin is good, not that his method of governing - authoritarianism- is good. Indeed, why would it be good? But you're not even admitting to the notion that authoritarianism (or dictatorship, tyranny, if you prefer those terms) is a valid concept that can be used to describe all societies in which men have undue power over other men. I submit to you that the only reason Putin seems good to you is because, so far, he doesn't have quite as much power as Stalin. But his methods (political assassinations, suppression of free speech, etc.) are similar to Stalin's, just used to a lesser extent, due to his lesser power. It's not that Putin is good, it's that he is "less bad" than Stalin (mainly because he can't afford to be as bad as Stalin). But the forces holding Putin back are not driven by Pragmatism. Pragmatists are the ones who support him, like you do. The forces holding him back are the silly idealists who are "sacrificing" their standing (and possibly their lives) in Putin's Russia, by speaking truth to power. Without that "sacrifice", Russia would just have another Stalin. So the idealists are not sacrificing themselves at all, they are just employing abstract principles and long term thinking to realize that someone has to fight Putin, here and now, otherwise Russia and everyone in it is doomed. In the end, it comes down to what exactly are you, as a man who is born and will eventually die, looking to turn your life into. Would you be satisfied with being a happy businessmen in Hitler's Reich or Putin's Russia, with your work and existence in the service of thugs, or can you see the beauty in Ayn Rand's view of man as a heroic being, and the "good" as that which furthers man's life not as a cog in Putin's machine, but as that heroic being she describes in her novels?

There has never been a war between two countries with the level of freedom that exists in western democracies. It's just not a problem in need of a solution. Germany and the Austro-Hungrian Empire. It's not clear at all. The United States intervened in a conflict between the Republic of Texas (a free, democratic Republic), and Mexico (a dictatorship seeking to invade and control Texas). And yes, Mexico lost the war, and with it, territory.

Body building, if done properly, while not a health necessity for most preteens and teens (unless they are overweight), is almost always a good idea. It adds confidence, improves abilities in various sports (including martial arts), and most importantly it starts off the child on the road to a healthy, disciplined lifestyle. And, contrary to popular belief, it has absolutely no drawbacks.

Actually, Karate was developed in the Ryūkyū Kingdom, not in China or Japan. The Ryūkyū Kingdom just happens to have been situated on a group of islands that today are part of Japan. (it was formally annexed by Japan in 1872, and its territory is now called Okinawa). Karate was adopted by the Japanese in the 1920s, and since then it has been regarded as a Japanese martial art. As such, it has spread to Korea (by Koreans who have visited Japan), to the US (by servicemen stationed in Okinawa), and a few other western countries. As for the movie, I haven't seen it, but according to this article Jackie Chan's character actually teaches the kid kung fu (which makes sense if they're in China), not karate. Kung fu, the martial art Chan does in all his movies, is a more spectacular but far less effective fighting style than the more economical karate. Here's a video of a karate vs. kung fu fight, to illustrate the difference: (Note how the karate fighters never leave the ground - the ground is where you want to be, if you plan on having any leverage behind your strikes. You should only learn how to jump around Jackie Chan style if your aim is to get your ass kicked in spectacular fashion )

Native Americans were declared irrational and killed because they were going around scalping Europeans. That is actually similar to why this island dweller would be declared irrational and killed, if he decided to start shooting some poor guy trying to swim to shore on "his" island.

The Castle Doctrine is a soundly constructed principle, based on the notion that once someone is backed into their own home by a criminal, the worst is assumed and and the homicide is excusable on self defense grounds. The OP didn't say anything about the absence of government. If there is no government, the principles guiding the use of deadly force aren't the only ones getting thrown out. In anarchy political principles in general are pretty pointless (including property rights), the guy on shore and the swimmer both need to make a decision based on their own self interest. If the swimmer is just a peaceful guy, it would be pretty ridiculous for the guy on the island to kill him (if for no other reason, then because you're not gonna get to live very long if you go along killing everybody-eventually, people will organize and end the threat by killing you)

Excellent. They'll wrap it in an American flag, and burn them together, while chanting that the troops are fags. And while the Taliban are scratching their heads in dazed confusion over what that means, the US military can sneak up on them and draw a funny mustache on their face. (I was gonna suggest slitting their throats, but that would upset "the world")

It's not even in his right to shoot him if he was taking a stroll there, for no reason except to see if the air is fresher on someone else's property. There is no right to shoot someone except in three cases: in war, in direct defense of someone's life or limb (or to prevent sexual assault), and in carrying out a death sentence issued by an objective legal system.

You shouldn't. Plenty of American soldiers fought in far harsher conditions to defend exactly that principle.

I disagree. All you have to do is look at the millions of Muslims who do not obey the Koran literally and unquestioningly, to realize that you're wrong. That is not the essence of Islam, in fact it is only the characteristic of a minority of Muslims: the fundamentalists.

It is not about Terry Jones or his message, it is about the reaction to it. When religious leaders in another country threaten violent protests to suppress the rights of an American, they are attacking the political body all Americans are already a part of. In that sense, everyone's already aligned with Terry Jones, and denying him support against outside violence just because he is Christian negates the whole purpose of having a country. In my view, American leaders (including the general in charge of the Afghan war) have done exactly that, and everyone should protest their decision. Do you really think that it's gonna be any different when someone makes the best possible argument against Islam and gets threatened the same exact way?

It only took repeated visits from the FBI, outraged comments from pretty much every American leader, promises to not cover it from news groups who in the past aired American secrets obtained illegally without blinking, and denunciations from the Vatican and the UK. (oh yeah, and violent protests and death threats from Muslims ) Then again, the freedom of expression which allowed Americans to commit similar gestures in the past without fear of violence (aimed at the Bible, most often), cost millions of American soldiers their lives. So, even in light of all that talk and outrage, our current leaders invested relatively little effort into just giving it away. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100909/ap_on_re_us/quran_burning

No. (because religions don't have intentions, only people do)

I don't. SO you're wrong.

My main criticism of all this would be that you don't even attempt to provide a reason as to why anything you suggest and have to offer (besides the obvious: quit smoking) is a good idea. You just list a series of things "one could do", and products "that are powerful and non-nicotine based", as if that's a description of what they are. For what it's worth, quitting cigarettes cold turkey, nicotine gum/patches for a few months and replacing the habit of smoking with something else, in my case soft drinks and coffee (which I then had to replace with tea so I would recommend going straight for tea), worked like a charm. And I can explain exactly how and why that works.

Well that settles it then. A fancy butcher's shop is definitely not art.

The style of his papers criticizing quantum physicists reminds me of reading articles on infowars.com. No content, all insults and conjecture about their psychology.

Jenny and Johnny - Animal: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoCjKBPEkno

That is a false alternative. There is more than one way to have a border. You can for instance have one without putting the government in charge of socially engineering "assimilation", and instead have it control the border only to fulfill its proper role: protection of rights from initiation of force (in this case by foreign enemies). Objectivism holds, unequivocally, that protection of rights, from initiation of force, is the sole role of the government, restricting immigration to alleviate someone's fears of non-assimilated newcomers is most certainly the sign of government run amok. In the view of many of us, illegal immigrants are the victims of an abusive government, not criminals. Others, for reasons I do not understand, think that immigrants should respect the abusive immigration laws (even though all Objectivists admit the laws are abusive).

The concept of initiation of force, in this case, depends on the concept of rights. The only reason why Tomer is saying the shipwrecked swimmer is "initiating force" by landing on some guy's property is because he believes the guy has the right to prevent him from landing there, even though he is in an emergency situation. And WhyNot is saying he does not, so he is the one initiating the force. Either way, it is the more fundamental issue that needs to be addressed, talk of "initiation of force" is a giant dropping of context. So we should discuss rights, in the context of Ethics in emergency situations ("An emergency is an unchosen, unexpected event, limited in time, that creates conditions under which human survival is impossible" - Ayn Rand). According to Ayn Rand, it is moral to help a man who's life is in danger, in an emergency situation. In such a situation, the basic principles of Objectivist Ethics still apply, but they apply differently than in normal situations. Indeed, none of the arguments Ayn Rand presents for her Politics (based on individual rights, and a government there to enforce them), apply to emergency situations. In an emergency situation, the moral actions are those which end the emergency. The bottom line is this: there is nothing in Objectivism to suggest that the island owner has the right to prevent the drowning man from landing, or to throw him back into the sea, nor is there anything to suggest that the drowning man has to respect the will of the island's owner during the emergency. So, according to Objectivism, the initiation of force is being done by the owner, not the shipwreck victim.

Criminals and fraud are not conditions. Criminals are people, and fraud is a crime. The conditions which necessitate a state are the existence of multiple entities called men with a given nature (of rational, volitional animals). A state of evil would be a political system brought about by humans, which is harmful to the humans living in it. Examples of such a state include a dictatorship and anarchy (if it is chosen by men - the state of anarchy which existed prior to the invention of civilization was not evil, because it wasn't chosen).

The simple way to put it is that light is a wave and a particle the way a man is blond and tall. Properly defined, wave and particle aren't contradictory characteristics. Exactly. Just to expand on this point, for instance the wave theory of light came about when scientists found similarities between light and sound, that supported a wave model to represent light (an analogy to sound). That analogy is great when it helps people easily understand and communicate the properties which are common to light and sound, but stopped being useful when it was over extended, to cover properties of sound waves which were not in fact observed characteristics of light (like a medium for the waves to propagate in - scientists who over extended the analogy came up with the notion of "ether", and spent time looking for it, even though there is no evidence, only the logical error of over extending an analogy, to suggest "ether" exists). So, if we define a wave as something that has the properties of sound (including the property that it propagates in a medium), it is not correct to say light "is a" wave. It "is like a" wave, in some useful respects. Or, we can define "wave" to refer to only those properties which light and sound have in common, in which case it is correct to say light is a wave. This second definition is in fact the definition of "wave" in Physics: "Electromagnetic radiation (often abbreviated E-M radiation or EMR) is a phenomenon that takes the form of self-propagating waves in a vacuum or in matter. Light is EMR" (Wikipedia) The only reason why anyone would talk about contradictions, or a paradox, in Physics is because they are confusing the proper role of concepts, and using them as primaries instead of what they are: tools to aid our representation of reality. Einstein had no such misconceptions, his wave-particle theory of light is perfectly logical and contains no contradictions. Light (and everything else) can be described both by particles and waves. Neither describes things fully, and the two descriptions don't contradict, they complement each other.

The problems with torturing animals or men for pleasure (be it Christians vs. lions "fights", bull "fights", dog fights, cock fights, or plain blonde girls in red jumpsuits versus a litter of puppies thrown in the river "fights") has been covered extensively on this site. My position is that pleasure from torture is the essence of a bullfight (and all the other activities I listed), I see no reason why the torturing of animals would otherwise be necessary. It is not necessary in any other performance art, and you have not explained why it is necessary here. (you did repeat your opening post at least three times, and in a couple of languages though)

There aren't any art forms that necessitate killing, because conveying the death of a fictional character in a performance (be it man or animal) can be done without actually ending a life just fine. I wish you had answered the question (instead of replying to it with another question): why is actually killing the bull necessary, for a bullfight to accomplish its artistic goals? I've seen great plays that involve death, and they all did a wonderful job of selectively representing reality without hurting a fly. What is different about the "art" of bullfighting, that necessitates the killing, to supposedly accomplish the same thing Shakespearean actors accomplish with stage props?

Why is bullfighting the only art form in which killing is necessary?