Sir Andrew

If I don't pay for porn, why should my taxes?

I don't know how I missed this a month ago, but thanks!

Ask him if he thinks the government is made of unbending robots, and since this is false, how you can trust people who have the power to "screw you over" with force instead of money.

That's certainly true, but what I was getting at was that there would be no difference between my using a pdf found on the internet or hand-typing the entire speech to search through if I needed it. In both instances, I have the original text for my use.

Well, I bought a brand new copy of Atlas Shrugged. I could sit there and type the entirety of Galt's speech manually by hand to keep for my own reference, but it's easier to search in a PDF file that already exists. Is there a contradiction there?

If you do a simple google search for the titles plus "pdf", there are a few results. I use them in case I want to find a quote, so I can search through Galt's speech or whatever without having to read the skim the whole thing.

An artist's work is always the result of his worldview, even when he's using parody or satire (whose point is to reject an opponent's world view in a comedic fashion.)

How is stopping a nuclear bomb from blowing up in Los Angeles not mean anything? (Not to mention the other feats he's accomplished) According to whom? Again, how is stopping a nuclear bomb something that 'ultimately has little meaning'?

Snaps, I forgot about that. I think my mind was thinking Bush would still be President for a few more years with Obama as the President-elect

I predict the Cardinals will continue their win to the Super Bowl, but will be stopped by the unstoppable Pittsburgh Steelers.

It's possible, although the statement is as much an evasion as a statement of philosophy. I've never understood why someone who asserts that there is no such thing as certainty or knowledge would even bother debating (except to try and disarm the person who claims certainty). Is one floating abstraction supposed to trump the other, let alone someone who may base their arguments on certainty and reality?

I've done the same thing with downloaded music. I've deleted what I don't want and bought what I still listen to. (In a bizarre twist of irony, the bootleg version of a CD I have sounds better than the CD I bought, so I kept it)

Why so? What am I missing?

Set your DVRs, the Fountainhead will be playing on Turner Classic Movies at 7:30AM January 20th.

Alright, I understand the argument now.

Separate the two. I do see the point about the dog being property and how that gives him the right to do whatever he pleases with it, but what if the sight/sound of seeing the dog be beaten causes me pain? Question though: If a pet is property, then is the use of force moral in criminalizing bestiality?

Just because an animal does not have the capacity for rational thought (and therefore does not have 'rights' in the proper sense of the term) doesn't mean that an animal is incapable of feeling pain. Assuming you saw someone "torturing" an animal (and in your hypothetical, that you have some means of determining it to be "senseless", as opposed to defending himself from the dog's attacks), I would act to stop the person.

That's because prayer is the mystic's way of omnipotence without the risk of looking like a fool. If by chance or for an unknown reason, what they wanted does happen, it's because some divinity willed it from their prayer. If it doesn't happen, then their divinity merely "didn't will it to be done".

At that point I would ask "Then why does the worker need the capitalist? Why doesn't he take his productive self elsewhere and produce for himself?"

I'd picture a two-parter. Part 1 is an action thriller, Part 2 is Drama/Action. Part 1, which would be called "Atlas Shrugged", is Dagny searching for John Galt, "The Destroyer", and so it's a hero finding the villain. Then it ends with a cliffhanger of her chasing him in the plane and crashing, and it ends with him saying "Hello, Ms. Taggart, I'm John Galt." Part Two, called "The Strike", begins with her at Galt's Gulch, and the rest of the novel, with the capture and torture of Galt, their love, the end of society, and the new beginning. Dang, maybe I should write this.

According to sources on Wikipedia, Leonard Peikoff sold the rights (including full creative control, which was a drastic mistake) for $1 million in the early 90's to some Objectivist investor. They were supposed to have made progress on the script, turning it from a two-parter to a 127 minute movie, and then the Director left for some reason. (I've always toyed with the idea of writing the first 30 minutes/pages and sending it to them for kicks) Personally, I think a mini-series would be much better for the novel, in terms of depth, but we'll see.

Wow, those are amazing.

Since we're speaking of fitness, anyone have any suggestions on an easy way to drop some weight in my stomach and bulk up the abs? My stomach is the one thing about my body I don't like

Actually, with Texas, it doesn't surprise me. We already act like we're better than the rest of the country, lol.

I've read nothing about her family's religious background, merely that they were ethnically Jewish. I don't think I've ever seen her mention it either. Have you even read her books? I don't know what this point has to do with any of your other arguments, but nevertheless, the proper term is "romantic". "Idolatry" is a religious concept, which accepts the premise that there is one exclusive god. Grammar aside, it cannot have been "taken" from a mystical altruism because the foundational premises of the two are diametrically opposed (A is A versus A is-not A).