JeffS

You're absolutely right. I'll extend the care I take in posting a reply on the actual thread topic to quoting exactly what I intend on replying to.

Fountainhead777 did write "if you want to waste time," not "if you want to waste our, or my time." Speaking for myself, I know exactly who's responsible for my time. Even if I didn't know who was responsible for my own time, your little chastisement would still be psychologizing.

Uh, yes, it is. Let me put it to you in a different way: A is not A. Hear, hear!

No, it means you accept a contradiction: that your mind is not your mind. It also means you accept as fact that Man's reason is flawed. Agnosticism is anti-reason. If you're going to claim non-knowledge is knowledge, then you've abandoned any method of gaining any. If you're going to accept that not knowing deserves as much consideration as knowing, then there's nothing you can know. All of your knowledge must now be circumspect. You don't have a mind. You don't think. You can't know. If you're going to protest, I suggest you consider upon what basis you will protest. You can't provide any knowledge because the opposite is possible - you just don't know. In hopes of cutting to the chase, let me posit how the discussion would go between us: Me: Do you have a mind that can reason to knowledge? You: Of course I do. Me: No, you don't. What you believe is your mind is actually God telling you what to think and imparting knowledge to you as He deems fit. You: That's ridiculous. Me: Prove it to be false, then. You: Well, I can't prove it to be false. Me: Then it's possible I'm right? You: Well, I suppose it's possible. But I think it's false. Me: Only because God tells you to think it's false. So, either you disagree and know you do have a mind that can reason to knowledge, or you hold open the door to believing you may, or may not, have a mind that can reason to knowledge. In the former case, you affirm your ability to reason, accept reason as Man's method of attaining knowledge, and are an atheist. In the latter, you have no method of attaining knowledge since you're not even sure Man can attain knowledge - you can't even reason to the knowledge that you can reason. In such case, you are an agnostic and all your knowledge is in doubt.

... and to hopefully bring it all home for you, JUtley, since it would be wrong (using your logic) for you to assert there is NOT a race of undetectable Kaetok parasites sitting on your head causing your thoughts, it's entirely possible (using your logic) that your thoughts - your knowledge, your reason - to be not your own, but to be the result of Kaetok parasites. Your knowledge and reason would not be your knowledge or your reason; your thoughts would not be your thoughts; your mind would not be your mind. So, do you maintain the possibility that your mind is not your mind?

Is getting karma worthwhile?

Sounds like my kind of peeps. I suppose the alternative - ignoring reason for mysticism - would be better?

You're asking the wrong question, or at least beginning with the wrong premise. If you haven't already done so, I highly recommend you read through the entire thread; Kendall J, DavidOdden, and Jake Ellison in particular. The starting point is not: Why should I not believe in God. The question is: Why should I believe in God (or any god, for that matter)? What evidence do you have? As has been pointed out numerous times, most (all?) theologies define their particular god as unknowable and unobservable. They exist outside of knowledge, outside of reality, and outside reason. Gods are supernatural - they are outside nature. That is their defining characteristic, their prerequisite of "god-hood." By definition no evidence is possible for any god, therefore you have no reason to believe any of them exist. This is not a matter of, "Well, there might be some unknown dimension where all the gods live (Olympus?)." Let's hypothesize such a place actually exists. What happens when we gain knowledge of such a place? Will we find all the gods there? Of course not, because once found, once they are brought into the knowable, the observable; once they are brought into knowledge, reality, and reason they cease to be gods by definition. In fact, they could never have been gods because we did find them - they existed in reality to be found else we could not have found them. So, ask yourself the question: Why should I believe in God? Write down a list of reasons in one column of a piece of paper. Next to that, write down a list of reasons why you should not believe in unicorns, or any other arbitrary, fantastical being you wish to concoct. The sky, quite literally, is no limit.

Everyone who holds a sacrificial philosophy has an inferiority complex; liberals are just the most obvious who also happen to be members of the "pro-regulation crowd" Mister A referenced in the OP.

Bingo.

I have a theory about this. I think liberals look at professional entertainers and athletes and think, "Heck, I could do that!" They sing in the shower, repeat lines from movies, and tell funny jokes. When they see Hugh Jackman rake in millions they think, "He deserves it because one day I'll do that and I'll deserve it." In contrast when a liberal sees a successful business person they think, "He must have stolen that from someone, or he oppressed someone, or otherwise took advantage of someone in order to create that wealth. No one is that smart, or that capable." In short, they look at someone like Bill Gates and think, "I'm not that smart. I'm not that capable. Therefore, Bill Gates isn't and he doesn't deserve that wealth."

Why would they be on a lower moral plane? As a trader, I would really like to know.

They would certainly exist, but they wouldn't be alternative government; at least not in an objective society. Imagine a society where your "cops" and my "cops" have different laws to uphold. That's called "anarchy" and not conducive for rational, productive individuals.

Of course they can. There's nothing in an objective system of rights to preclude me from giving you the right to use my property while simultaneously giving another the same rights. They may not be all inclusive rights, but I could certainly grant you the right to use (for example) my road while allowing many others the same rights; unless you're arguing privately owned toll roads are objectively impossible? It's not a contradiction in terms. The first is an adverb and the second is a verb. I can casually circumvent him, I can quickly circumvent him, I can happily circumvent him, and I can aggressively circumvent him. The word "right" does have other meanings. One of those is "suitable, appropriate." This is the sense in which "right" was used in the quoted sentence. What about performers? A singer sings a song, can they not charge others to listen? Of course, they could control who gets to hear them by controlling the venue (sing in a theater, not your backyard), but it's completely possible for someone to record their singing from outside the paid venue with high tech audio equipment, clean it up, and burn it to a CD. An actor relies upon his/her image for their livelihood. It's completely possible to take a picture of someone and have it appear to be moving and talking. Either an impersonator or audio manipulation could be used to make it appear the actor is endorsing something - the actor's image can be used without compensation to the actor. Are either of these actions moral? If not, how are they different from recording, or taking pictures of, ordinary individuals? If they are, what options does that leave the singer and the actor? Are not their images and voices their property? Since there's no way to secure their voices or their images, should they expect to simply not be secure in being able to continue to produce?

Presumably the heat emanating from my body is also not my property? In which case, it would be entirely moral for someone to siphon that heat from me, as long as they didn't actually kill me, violate my other property, or take my liberty? They can make me uncomfortable, but as long as these three inviolates are secured, more power to 'em? Why would I not? Once it dies, or departs my body, it's no longer mine? It would be perfectly moral for anyone to take a part of your body which you willingly had removed? Pointed, succinct, yet wholly unsatisfying. Why not? Do I not have a right to hide things from you? Do I not have a right to pursue my happiness in not letting you see all my secrets? When you act with the purpose of seeing my secrets have you not initiated force against me? Recognize I'm not talking about incidental observation - I'm talking about you taking action to circumvent my happiness.

Note that in the first sentence you quoted the word "right" does not occur. Note that in neither the second nor third sentences does the word "privacy" occur. Note that in none of the sentences I wrote does the claim, "a right to privacy exists" occur. Really, Jake. That's not much different from what I wrote. Is my body not my property? When you observe it without my permission, are you not violating my right to do with my property what I wish, including hiding it from you? Is a secret not property? If someone hurts me psychologically, have they violated my rights? Should they be punished? As long as I don't infringe upon your liberty while doing so, do I have a right to pursue my own happiness? And if they both have the right to be in that space? The question is not so much about who has a right to be there as it is about whether the actions of one can be considered aggression or not. The question asks whether aggression to circumvent is aggression. If someone broke into my house, I would certainly meet them with aggression. The trespasser has chosen a path, I will aggressively circumvent that path. Is this not aggression? Whether my aggression is moral or not is not in question.

I haven't argued privacy is a right. Of course I should expect my walls to protect my right to do what I want to do in my own home without being observed. Doing so makes me happy, and I have a right to pursue my own happiness. Most people aren't born with satellites or thermal imaging equipment. In order to circumvent my walls you would have to buy, or produce these things - in short, you would have to act with the intent of getting around my very reasonable attempts to hide what I'm doing from your innate ability to perceive it. You seem to be arguing it's perfectly moral for anyone to take whatever measures are necessary to obtain whatever information they want from whomever they want - that no one has any right to keep any secrets. Taking this argument to its logical conclusion, that would mean government would be perfectly moral in doing so as well. Is that what you're arguing? If not, then what limits the government from doing so? Hurt me how? Does psychological pain count? How would such pain be objectively measured? Why should I expect to not be seen in this situation? What's to stop someone from using x-ray technology, or sonar to spy on me? Jake, I think you need to read my post again.

I don't see how aggression to circumvent is not aggression. If you're walking down the street and someone steps in your way, and continues to impede your progress even though you attempt a different route, is this not aggression?

I'm wondering why you have the job. It doesn't sound like you feel productive at all. How can that bring you any sense of happiness?

I think the issue here is that people are taking reasonable measures to protect their privacy. The question is then, "What happens when someone takes measures to circumvent those protections?" Yes, a fence doesn't provide 100% privacy. As I pointed out earlier, my neighbors can still see into my backyard - I realize that, and if they take pictures of me in my backyard they have not violated my privacy. However, my fence does protect my privacy from the casual passers-by. In order to take pictures of me in my backyard they would need to enter my property and peer over the fence, OR have a camera mounted high enough so that they could see over my fence from public property. I understand my privacy is not protected 100% in my backyard, that's why I don't do anything out there that I wouldn't want seen in pictures. However, my property should be protected - no one should be allowed to trespass. My fence serves its function: protect my privacy enough. Now, if I build a fence high enough so that my neighbors can't see into it, and they then take some action to circumvent that, then they have violated my right to pursue happiness. They have acted to deny me the protection I erected the fence for. Your hypothetical woman dresses with the expectation that her clothing protects her privacy enough. It protects her against the casual passers-by. If the wind blows her skirt up, she shouldn't complain her privacy has been violated. That's unreasonable. If she walks over a grate, or glass floor, with others below, she shouldn't complain her privacy has been violated. That's unreasonable. If she sits down in such a way that she exposes herself, she shouldn't complain her privacy has been violated. That's unreasonable. In all these cases, she should understand her chosen style of dress isn't 100% effective. Her own actions can reduce the level of privacy she has. However, if someone goes to pains to circumvent her reasonable attempts at safeguarding her privacy, then she would be right in complaining. In acting (getting down underneath her) you have violated her right to the pursuit of happiness - her right to live without someone circumventing her preferred style of dress. The same argument can be made, I believe, for using special hardware to circumvent the privacy provided by walls (e.g. infrared). People take reasonable measures to protect their right to pursue happiness by doing things they don't want others to see - they build walls, they install window covers, they have doors. None of these measures provide 100% effective protection. For example, if I choose to walk around nude in my house, I shouldn't complain that my house guests have violated my privacy because they see me. That's unreasonable. However, I can expect to be protected from others who act to circumvent my reasonable attempts at protecting that privacy. I can expect my walls, window coverings, and doors to protect me enough.

Google caught me mowing my lawn. Now, I'm a celebrity. I've no right to be free of anyone taking my picture when I'm out in public. My neighbors can see into my fenced-in backyard from their upper stories. If they choose to take pictures of me, I have no right to prevent them from doing so. Google has done nothing immoral.

I'm with ya', but I didn't express myself correctly. I wasn't looking for long fight scenes, because, as I noted, the whole movie was pretty much one big long fight scene. What I meant to say was that the fight scenes didn't have a lot of depth. I don't want to give anything away, but the fight scenes were sort of like: Bad guy; good guy confronts bad guy; good guy wins. I would rather something like: Bad guy; good guy confronts bad guy's henchmen while bad guy does something truly dreadful; good guy beats bad guy's henchmen, but get terribly injured, making their likely success questionable; good guys move on to bad guy, but bad guy has done something good guys might not prevent; good guys fight bad guys; good guys beat bad guys; good guys still have to contend with what bad guy has done - odds of success slim. The fight scenes seemed simply too one-dimensional and predictable. I wanted to add one other thing about the movie, and really the reason I was so excited about the movie coming out. This is the first Star Trek, and the first Fantasy Sci-Fi movie I've seen, to bring the future to reality. The scene of building a starship (presumably The Enterprise) on Earth is simply awe-inspiring. It really brings the idea of building such a ship into the realm of possibility. In addition, I particularly enjoyed the scenes of the "guts" of a starship - the warehouse feel to the structure and mechanics of what it would probably take to create such a machine - were particularly cool.

There were some weak plot points, and some bad dialog in parts, but overall an enjoyable escape. I saw it in IMAX - my first MMP in IMAX - and I would not recommend it. We had pretty good seats, but "pretty good" doesn't seem to cut it. You really need to be nearly even with the top of the screen and dead center. There was just far too much going on to catch it all on a screen that big. Karl Urban was simply fantastic, and I'm glad the Spock guy (don't know his name) didn't overact the part - I could see Leonard Nimoy's Spock in him. I could not see Shatner's Kirk in the Kirk actor. He wasn't necessarily bad, but he didn't capture me the way Shatner does. Abrams seems to have traded quality for quantity. The movie is simply non-stop action, but the fight scenes are truncated and not very deep. You never really feel any tension during the battles because they're over before you have time to. I understand he's setting up the characters, but we already know the characters. We don't know how they develop their relationships, but they don't need to develop them all in one movie. I'm willing (and I think everyone else would be, too) to watch their relationships develop over several movies. But, again, an enjoyable escape.

I agree, or perhaps "Teaching Trees." I've never read the book, so it's impossible for me to comment on the nuances. However, to your point, I think the lesson would then be: how to pick your friends. If the fish's motivation is simply to be liked, and the lesson is: The only way to be liked is by sacrificing, then I of course disagree with the lesson. But if the lesson is: Understand what you really value; does the fish really value his scales, or does he value having friends, then I think this is a valuable, objective lesson. Unless the book is clear about the fish's motivations and values, I don't think we can objectively claim he is making a sacrifice. For example: If your neighbor doesn't like you because you have a rusty car in your driveway that you're trying to sell, but you value your neighbor's friendship, wouldn't you get rid of the rusty car? Now, if your neighbor is so petty as to allow such a small thing get in the way of your friendship, perhaps you should re-examine why you value his friendship, but weighing your neighbor's friendship against a rusty car with presumably lesser value to you seems like an important lesson. I simply think it's interesting how completely opposite interpretations can be taken from the same text.

It's interesting to see how differently people interpret this book, as well as The Rainbow Fish. I've read The Giving Tree to my children a couple times, and it never fails to make me cry. Of course, this was before I really understood Objectivism, but I think it would still make me cry. Why? I think it's the sadness of the tree at the end and the distance between her (?) and the man at the end. I can understand the predominant interpretation that these books are about altruism and sacrifice. However, I can also see them as cautionary tales about living as a looter and a moocher - at least The Giving Tree. The man never learns how to be productive himself, he depends upon the tree to be productive. In the end, the tree has nothing left to give and the man is SOL. The man clearly doesn't understand his own self-interest, else he would find some way to perpetuate this resource - he would plant a forest of giving trees. He's shown as a moocher and a looter and the consequences are unavoidable. That's an important lesson. Perhaps one of the reasons the book makes me cry is because I too see it from a parent/child relationship. I'm sure none of us here would consider giving what we can to our children to be sacrifices. My children are necessary for me to live a happy life - I would do all I can for them. They are a very high value to me, on par with my own life. It makes me sad to think of the time when I won't be able to give them what I can to make them happy. These don't have to be material things as portrayed in the book, but whatever I give them won't be a sacrifice - everything I give them is necessarily of a lesser value than their lives and happiness. No sacrifice. As to The Rainbow Fish, I've never read the book, but judging from the synopsis given by Maximus couldn't it also be interpreted as non-sacrificial? Since the fish wanted others to like him, and that's why he went to the octopus, couldn't it be said that he valued friendship with others higher than he valued his scales?