Eiuol

That's kind of what I'm asking about. A lot of government regulations are purely based on potential risk (say, meat must be of the FDA's standards because people might die). I'm not sure what level of safety should be required of people in risky businesses such as explosives production or in this case, meth production, or if safety is even a proper standard to use. You can never completely remove a risk, so should those industries be banned because they are a potential violation of rights? My thinking is that something can only be done after an action has occurred, or when a threat has been made. It would probably make me uncomfortable to know someone is making dangerous explosive substances next door and feel threatened because there is a 5% chance of an accident occurring. However, another person might feel completely unthreatened with the same 5% risk.

I don't think that helps much though. It's good advice if you are lacking self-confidence, but if you have the confidence, then what? What specific actions can be taken right now? You can be happy and still want to reach for more. That is always the most difficult. Achieving extraordinary success requires extraordinary action. I think surrounding yourself with people who have a common goal of yours and feel passionate about it in the same way as you. By talking about your passions with people, it's easier to focus your mind on goals/passions as well as letting those goals/passions sink into your subconscious. I'd say formulate a plan for yourself. Not quite short term, not quite long term. For instance, I want to make $100 on my writing by June, even though I've only been making an effort to become a writer for a month. Such a goal reminds me in explicit terms that *I* have to make it happen. *Any* writing I do will lead to my goal of $100. What about your life do you want to be extraordinary, though? What field/profession?

When could you demand him to follow safety procedures, though? When would demands of safety become a violation of rights?

I don't think it's proper to say there is anything sexually degrading about such advertisements. "Vulgar acts" is a fancy way of saying "sex makes me uncomfortable". Sex shouldn't make anyone uncomfortable. What is degrading, I think, is trying convince people to buy a product because it is the "trendy" thing to do, or because guys are "supposed" to be trying to attract hot women whenever possible.

I'm INTJ. I think INTJs and INTPs are well represented on most forums. Although that might relate to the types of forums I'm around in the first place. I think the people that post and take the test because they want to indicates an enjoyment of thinking (and other characteristics of NTs). I think an ESFJ is almost unheard of on internet forums. I can't imagine why an extroverted person would ever want to spend time writing posts. I would rather say the MB can be indicative of your values rather than predictive. Your values reflect your personality. If your values change, your personality changes. If I started to value social interaction more, I'd become more extroverted. I do not think the MB would help you identify what values you have, but it certainly can help with introspection. I have a very pronounced 'I' according to the test, so it makes me think about being more sociable. Would it actually help me to achieve my highest values? I don't think so. But it does help me realize that I *am* very introverted. I can use that information to evaluate how I'm living my life.

Can you elaborate on why you are unsure whether or not it should be permitted? It is clearly entirely voluntary. I would never want to participate in it, though.

As phibetakappa said: "stating "nature has primacy over reason" misuses the term "primacy." I don't know what context you think an invalid statement put "reason" in. Is there someone some where arguing that "reason has primacy over nature" and you don't like it so you're trying to argue the opposite? Because the statement "reason has primacy over nature" is just as absurd and invalid." I'm not saying you misunderstand because you disagree with Objectivism, it's just you don't demonstrate enough understanding of Objectivism or even the words you use to make any arguments.

I guess so. It doesn't seem too important, because you cannot live forever unless you preserve the things that allow you to live. Nothing can exist forever unless it is preserved. If one is capable of destruction, why would you even bother saying immortal? I mean, what would you say when something immortal died, even though it was capable of living for an indefinite length of time? Clearly if something immortal died, it wasn't even immortal to begin with. On your definitions - perpetual life after death; we know this to be impossible living for an infinite or inconceivable amount of time; Inconceivable to whom? You seem to use this definition, but it seems entirely incomplete because death still applies. This is the worst definition of the 3. not being suspectible to aging; Aren't all things susceptible to aging? Essentially they all imply an element of indestructibility. If you were not indestructible, you could die, and thus not immortal. The only way to be immortal is to also be indestructible. We cannot take these definitions as word of god, we can look at them and see what is important about all of them. They all refer to living literally forever, no matter what happens. Like a deity, like I said.

You've even misunderstood the things you did address. You seem to think nature = reality and reason = consciousness, thus you're trying to argue why primacy of consciousness is wrong (which it is, but you reveal a misunderstanding of many other things in your arguments). It's too much work to go through your many many subtle misunderstandings which end up as a tangled mess. There is no use arguing if you require a more solid foundation of thought in the first place. I don't intend to respond to you if you answer this, I just don't know why this thread won't die.

But if they stop taking the actions that preserve what allows them to live, they die. Do you see what I mean? The fact you need to act to preserve anything means immortality is impossible. You could stay alive indefinitely, but that alone doesn't make you immortal. Immortality is a mystical idea in my opinion, like omnipotence. Things like god are immortal. It can *never* die no matter what, not even with inaction. Please define immortality then. I know of no other sense of immortality other than "living thing that cannot die". If I read ITOE I probably could explain what I mean by "type of thing" better, but I think 'a unit' is the best I can do.

That's why I put "immortal" in quotes there. The idea immortal only applies to living things, as you're suggesting. It can't "die" but it can be destroyed. So it may be better to say immortal is "a living thing that cannot die." By "same type of thing" I mean exactly that, snow being snow rather than rain, a tree being a tree rather than paper. To be alive you need to remain a rational being, and it requires action to remain a so. No matter what sci-fi or modern scenario you come up with, you need to act to continue your existence. The things that make you up - or more specifically, crucial things like your brain - are always capable of destruction. The things that make you up are what make living possible. Thus you cannot become immortal.

I already told you. Don't focus on the decay so much. The important point is things cannot remain unchanged forever without being maintained. By unchanged, I mean still the same type of thing. A rock still being a rock rather than a lava flow. Nothing can remain unaffected by the things around it.

It could live indefinitely (and theoretically even forever), sure, but would "immortal" be applicable if it *can* die?

Can you elaborate? Nothing can remain in a condition that makes it a particular thing forever without one acting to keep it so. A rock can't remain a rock forever, unless you put it somewhere to prevent erosion. The only way a thing can remain essentially unchanged is if it is unaffected by other objects. That would mean to be unaffected by causality. But all things in reality are affected by causality. I'm not sure if I used causality correctly here, but I'm sure you understand what I mean.

My point was that the parts that allow you to act must be functional. They must be maintained. The fact that those things must be maintained means one isn't immortal. Those parts can cease to function. "Same" have may been a poor word choice. The point is your brain would stop working if you didn't consume any nutrients. If you were a robot, you would need to take care of your internal wiring. If you did not do these things, at some point, decay would occur, no matter what you are "made" out of. It may take hundreds of years, it may take a millenium, but *all* things will decay over time (or change into energy if my understanding of physics is correct) without maintenance. It is simply impossible to be immortal. I define being immortal as being incapable of dying. I imagine you define it the same way. To clarify, it would be impossible to value if you were immortal, yes, but my point is that being immortal isn't even possible.

Generally I think in terms of entire albums (lately it's been The Fame Monster by Lady Gaga), but there are a few songs in particular that I've been in love with recently. All by Semi Precious Weapons: Semi Precious Weapons (Yes, the song name is the band's name) Magnetic Baby Her Hair Is On Fire Them Crooked Vultures, after seeing them posted in here, will probably be a new favorite (and a new album I'll be all over for the next few weeks)

It would actually be impossible to be truly immortal in the first place. Just as it would be impossible to be omniscient. The only "immortal" things are inanimate objects, and obviously they aren't alive. Anything that acts is dependent upon certain physical attributes in order to continue acting. Reason in humans requires a brain; if a robot with reason were created, it would require something like special circuits. Those physical attributes must be taken care of. No physical instance of thing can remain the same *forever* without one acting to preserve it. You are always mortal if you are capable of acting (if you don't act, well, you die). The only way to be "immortal" is if you are incapable of acting on your own, like a rock. So no one, not even with science, can become immortal.

All I could say or all anyone should say is that you should read some more. I see a lot of misconceptions that I see no use in addressing. It'd be better for you to just read Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal or Virtue of Selfishness and then ask more specific questions. I will address one point though. "you are regulating at least the performance under contract or the noninterference of third parties in a contract between two people." Well, yes it is regulation to the extent that all contracts must be enforced. To not honor your end of contract is force. In the "sex slave" example you gave, that very much sounds like the father is initiating force against his children. The government getting involved in that situation would be because of violation of rights (more specifically, individual rights).

What exactly was it that you saw differently? If you were to say that you saw different colors and shapes, could you even say you're looking at a Monet painting? If you you can only focus on one thing, how could you focus on a painting in a meaningful way? If anything I'd imagine looking at art requires focusing on more things on an abstract level than driving a Formula 1 racecar. There *may* be an argument in using psychotics in producing visual art or music, since much of what art is is a result of the subconscious. But in enjoying art, I know of no advantage other than "it feels good". "Feeling good" is certainly a good aspect, but what else do you get out that altered state? Certainly, nothing as a result of reason.

I attached a PDF called Object-Oriented Programming and Objectivist Epistemology: Parallels and Implications. I don't know of a link to it. I haven't read it actually, I forgot I even saved it on my computer until I saw this topic. ReedOOP.pdf

I liked reading it. I was interested enough to read all the entries. Occasional humor too, which I like. One small design critique though. The white text on black background is hard on most eyes.

If they answered her "beck and call" (in my mind that means always obeying), would they be a person to admire anyway? A hierarchy does not mean less individuality, nor does it mean admiration can only go upwards. A president could literally look anywhere for admiration. That someone reaches the "top" doesn't mean much, it only matters what they do.

I'm not sure if it's accurate to say all of that, but it is clear there is *some* element of environmentalism based on how the Na'vi are described. But what stood out most in my mind was "initiation of force". The Na'vi didn't have to move if they didn't want to, it was their tree. Destroying the tree wasn't bad because it was a tree. Many of the characters were cliche to me, so it is hard to actually delve deep into any themes.

Welcome. Or really just anyone who really is passionate for writing! Personally I'd like to see what you've written if you care to share.

Doesn't mean Disney Corporation can, it only means government says they can. But of course, just because someone says an idea is valid doesn't make it so. It is at best an example of why the existing patent system is bad and arbitrary. The intellectual heir part I always assumed to be some informal remark, as in after Rand died, he was the "go to" guy regarding Objectivism. Not that he owned any of Rand's IP. Rand did support having the property be permitted to be taken care of by a sort of steward until the patent or whatever is in question wore out.