Alexandros

Depends. Are we still a democracy (representative or direct, doesn't matter)? If so, then without a rational majority, the irrational choices of the majority will eventually lead to a corrupt government.

Almost seems like it was left there on purpose, doesn't it? No better way to demonize anyone than to label them baby killers. And if they happen to be incredibly wealthy?

Doesn't look like that's the case. From Wikipedia: He went into the project with the purpose of creating a 3D experience.

Ha. Interesting. I actually think this is the worst movie I've paid to see in at least a year. The storyline was completely ordinary, which, considering the source material, is a total travesty. Absolutely everything about the story was predictable from start to finish. Nothing close to the humor and cleverness of the novels is preserved for this film, as Tim Burton opted instead for silly one liners. And possibly the worst part of all, the movie included nothing discrete or thought-provoking, which is possibly the best characteristic of the novels and even the original animated Disney film. Also, I think Tim Burton got confused and thought he was still in the 80s, when he was a hit machine, because his usage of RealD (the best and most advance 3D experience there is) is closer to the 3D of of terrible 1980s horror flicks than it is to modern films, like Avatar. C+

This video put a big smile on my face: The author has written a program that treats clocks like organisms and simulates their evolution. When it's run, very very interesting things happen. (On a side note: The simulator was programmed in MATLAB, which is really exciting for me as I've just begun programming in MATLAB this semester. I knew this program was awesome, but this is the coolest thing I've seen so far.)

Here is a short clip from an interview with Jimmy Wales on what the misinformed or confused might see as a contradiction between his Objectivist beliefs and his life's work:

FYI, the founder of Wikipedia is an Objectivist.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12...-organised.html Headline: Sorry for only posting a link and a headline, but I'm a little busy right now and just wanted to post the article here if it hadn't been already.

How would he have shown it?

Then you better sit down, because there seems to be no end in sight for her reign of terror.

As an example of what DavidOdden put so well, consider laws that ban things (guns, smoking, etc). Are cigarettes and guns at fault for being... cigarettes and guns, and therefore their very existence is illegal? No, that's ridiculous. With laws such as these, what is actually being made illegal is some choice involving the things. If guns were to be banned, it isn't that guns are illegal, it's that the choice to own a gun is illegal, leaving you only with the choice not to own a gun (which means there is no choice at all).

Someone needs to give them a quick physics lesson, mainly Newton's third law and the centripetal and centrifugal forces. I'm sure that will settle the issue.

If you're interested, this was my reply in a discussion that was going on at another discussion board I frequent. I posted it after reading pages and pages of misinformed/brainwashed children condemning the United States for using the bomb in WWII:

So you mean I can't run for office because my mother is a cyborg? Curse my father and his robot lust!

Are you saying that making use of reason and logic isn't a good way of obtaining beliefs, and that people who have come to their beliefs this way are disingenuous? If beliefs are those things that we think are true about reality/existence, what other way is there to come to them except by reason and logic? Do you think your friends somehow arrived at their beliefs without using reason and logic? In doing so they would have to contradict every bit of their very nature, as reason and logic, combined with experimentation, is how we come to know anything. In other words, the very fact that your friends hold any beliefs at all is proof that reason and logic is the only way to obtain any beliefs. Otherwise, you would have to concede the position that they obtained their beliefs by revelation. And what is the source of the revelation? God? Vishnu? Spaghetti Monster? Gaia? When you meet a true Objectivist, you are meeting someone who has obtained their beliefs in the same way your friends have, except the Objectivist is much more noble and thorough in his pursuit.

It seems like you're thinking begins with the notion that "sexually attractive" refers solely to "looks", which is false. I'm sure now that this has been pointed out, you can understand why what you're implying doesn't make any sense. Edit: Maybe I should elaborate. Personality traits can also be sexually attractive. If I meet a man who introduces me to his wife, whom he says he loves more than almost anything else in life (and I assume he is being honest), there are all kinds of things that I can tell about him based on what I learn about her. If, by my standards, she is extraordinarily beautiful, the only thing I can conclude is that he has very great taste in women, but only insofar as looks are concerned. However, if in conversation I learn that she is a strong-spirited, rational, and intelligent woman, I've found something out about her, but, by extrapolation (maybe this isn't the right word), I've found something out about him as well. At the very least, I've learned that a few of his values are intelligence, rationality, and a strong spirit. So the more I learn of her, the more I learn of him.

Oh. Now I get it! Flying luge riders! Hardy-har. Man, I need some sleep.

You write like you were there... are you?

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...rate+personhood

In my experiences, economics enthusiasts who spout Keynesian economic theory like it were the gospel truth do so because it's all they were taught in school. When they got old enough to understand how important economics really is and decided to expand their knowledge of the topic, they defaulted to expanding on what they were taught, instead of altogether questioning what knowledge they already had. Throw him some links to some Mises articles, tell him about Hayek's "Road to Serfdom", and tell him about von Mises "Human Action", which can be read for free here: http://mises.org/resources/3250 . If he balks at the opportunity to learn something from these two economists, then you know you're dealing with a jackass and that you're wasting your time.

I think you should re-read what I posted. In your post that I originally replied to, you argued that: And my reply amounted to "that has nothing to do with anything we are talking about." A computer doesn't need to interpret. If I am a composer, I only have to program my interpretation of the music that is to be played back by the computer.

I'm actually very curious as to how you've gotten that look. It's incredibly natural, like it'd be possible to break open a geode and find your artwork inside.

Catherine is a beautiful piece of artwork. She looks like rising smoke, very fragile but very beautiful. And, I'm a sucker for long, flowing hair, especially when it's blowing in the wind. I also like Purpleish Bunch for purely sexual reasons.

Stealing from a thief the things he has stolen with any other purpose in mind but returning them to their rightful owners or turning them over to the authorities is tantamount to buying things that you know to be 'hot' out the back of a van. However, if your aim is true (that is to say that you plan to do what is right once you 'steal' that which has already been stolen) then the only thing to consider is whether it is in your rational self-interest to take the risks. If your lover (possibly your highest value) will die, and this cure is the only thing that can save her, it's possible that it would be worth the risks. But if you succeed, you aren't suddenly authorized to use the cure. You must hand the cure over to its rightful owner with the hope that they are willing to give it up at a price you can afford. If not, tough. At the very least you know you did everything within ethical limitations that you could.