Thoyd Loki

Wow, that is great policy for an Objectivist forum. Excellent answer, that clears the whole issue up. Thanks for revealing yourself.

What evidence do you have that that is "almost" word for word what he said? Are we to take you on faith?

With the evidence destroyed, I don't think it would be very judicial to refer to the content of the evidence by mere hearsay. That is the whole point of the "big deal".

Your "lastly" here is invalid. The second clause was conditional upon the first. Since A, then B. Since this forum has done this, now it means this to me. Maybe you should read the posts more carefully before you decide that they are: 1) worthless 2) they mean what you think they mean since you have just demonstrated a lack of reading comprehension. I offer into evidence your misunderstanding of my simple conditional sentence that you quoted in your post #46.

That is good. Since this board has let an irresponsible 19year old kid cause the departure of this board's most esteemed member, I don't find much reason myself to come here other than to pick spurious arguments for no reason. But, that can be done on any run of the mill forum.

Nobody is paying attention to our side skirmish here. So, I don't know who you are addressing other than me. I don't, and made no attempt to distance myself from the word. I merely had to explain it to you, and my proper use of quotes.

Sure seems that way. It is also used for ironic or obvious exaggeration which is the obvious use here. "Words used in an ironic sense may be enclosed in quotation mark: Five villages were subjected to "pacification." The "debate" resulted in three cracked heads." Distinctive Treatment of Words: The Chicago Manual of Style 14th Edition: Irony 6.78, Page 214

Sherlock, Everybody has a warning icon, and you can't see anybody else's. In case you did not know this.

Funny, no posts since April 30th. Why now, and why this topic? How did you happen to peak back so soon after your "nemesis" left? What timing! The Fox Mulder in me is stirring...

What the heck with the quotes?

Yes, I heard about this on NPR the $499 Apples. I almost peed, I've always wanted an Apple, but couldn't justify the price. It has changed in the last couple of years. Of course it still tries to give you the kitchen sink. But, its installation tool Yast is much easier to use and you can cut it up as you please. I started with Windows, so I can't (won't) go over to having to do everything myself. Suse is the distro that most resembles MS (as much as a Linux system can). Just go to the two companies websites to see where the two companies have gone. Of course Suse now has the advantage of being owned by Novell. Edited for extra quote screw up, thanks Mr. Speicher!

The "crap" that MS is putting out now? Or, as you say, MS has put out? What is it? Those innovations were in the products that they offered the public and the public gobbled up. The public continues to buy MS products overwhelmingly in many PC areas. Why? Like I said before, in a post you probably didn't read, there are alternatives. Why not OpenOffice.org (which I use)? It is freaking free compared to $300 or so for MS's. Why hasn't that wiped out MS's office line? OOo isn't the only free office suite either. How about Atlantis Ocean Mind word processor for people that want to write, but not script and have 250MB suites? And the other two alternatives for operating systems (Linux and Apple) aren't really the only choices either. How about FreeBSD! Ha! I'd love to see my parents trying to send me their holiday pictures with that thing. I'd have them buried before they finished.

Why would we put up with MS's stupidity? We don't put up with any other product's stupidity, so why the special case here? There have always been alternatives. The two best alternatives out there are SuSe Linux and Apple. Why don't we go with these products? Why is the whole history of the market (of people choosing the best product) turned upsidedown here? The best Linux (SuSe) still cannot play games that come anywhere near MS systems. Updating and installing software is still a nightmare in some cases if it doesn't already come with the distro. Some of the programs that come with distros don't even work, and there is no across the board standards for libraries (which is why software upgrading can be such a pain). Also, new programs are still installed using the command line. Security is the only real plus that Linux has, and price. That, and I think it looks a lot better than Windows, and it is more flexible as far as user control goes, that comes in a price of a lot of learning though. Apple is expensive, proprietary, and the hardware (especially for the price) is not quite up to PC levels. Although it to has the above advantage of security, or so I've read. It also has the advantage of great sound, and video software. I don't want to come down too hard on the competition. I prefer Suse Linux myself, and when I am online on Windows, I never use a MS product. For people that want to get on the computer to get work done, and not work on the computer itself, Microsoft has been the one that has delivered. That has been the bottom line.

Well, the point that you don't know how to use the quote function is quite clear. However, could you please articulate your point more clearly (without reference to your earlier post which I have already had the unfortunate experience of reading)? Do you have something against proper respect towards someone such as Ayn Rand? How is this cult behaviour? I need a detailed account of this, because I am really baffled as to your reasoning here. Actually, I lied, I'm not baffled at all, but thought you'd want to support your charge.

1969. Sure. Black Sabbath, Cream, King Crimson, Led Zepplin (and yes, they were all considered metal at one point). The Doors and The Stones (whom I love) though not metal often fell into that description of jungle beats. And, speaking of jungle beats, let's not forget Carlos Santana.

I read it. Although it was 12 years ago or so. Even though the theme is entirely pro-Christian, it is irrelevant to how good the book is. It excels in all the main parts that a work of fiction can: theme, plot, characterization, style. My favorite three are AR, VH, and Dostoyevsky, and this book is in my top 10 of all time best books. Loved it.

WilliamB, Please DO NOT put my name in a post like that.

I have always interpreted her argument as saying that an organism's own life is its ultimate value. Is that not the meaning of the following? "A plant must feed itself in order to live; the sunlight, the water, the chemicals it needs are the values its nature has set it to pursue; its life is the standard of value directing its actions. But a plant has no choice of action; there are alternatives in the conditions it encounters, but there is no alternative in its function; it acts automatically to further its life, it cannot act for its own destruction." Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand page 1013 Now in the next paragraph where animals are brought in. " An animal is equipped for sustaining its life; its senses provide it with an automatic code of action, an automatic knowledge of what is good for it or evil. It has no power to extend its knowledge or to evade it. In conditions where its knowledge proves inadequate, it dies. But so long as it lives, it acts on its knowledge, with automatic safety and no power of choice, it is unable to ignore its own good, unable to decide to choose the evil and act as its own destroyer." Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand page 1013 Is it not the same thing for life to be the standard of value and the ultimate value?

Thank you! This is what I was struggling to get at last night when I posted this: But, the coffee was no longer kicking.

Yes, in number three again. You can't call it a sacrifice because: 1) it is not a choice 2) the mother does not know that it will die, and, it may not 3) it is still valid that nature has "tied" the mother's life to that of its young. The last point has a counterpart in the human realm as well, but it is a choice. If my wife were attacked, I'd defend her no matter what; if I had children, I'd do the same. My life would not be worth living without it. Nature takes care of this in the animal kingdom through instinct. That is why a mother can mourn the loss of her young. It is the result of the value that nature has programmed into her for her young. Note also that unlike humans, an animal parent isn't going to help the young of another mother (although, I am not sure how this works in some pack animals) let alone one from a different species. You can't seperate the things that nature makes a requirement of an organism's survival from the organism's survival. Much like there is nothing outside of a plant's actions that is seperate from its pursuit of lits life? Does it pursue its life as an ultimate value? Yes, but that is a fact that is not seperable metaphysically from its pursuit of water, the blooming of its flowers, or seeking the sun. And, now, I am going to pursue the goal of sleep. Which I am doing because I need it to remain healthy, for the ultimate goal of remaining alive. BTW, nothing I do is for propagation of my genes, however, I love to practice.

How do you know its existence is going to cease? Are you saying that a mother has never successfully protected her offspring? Are you saying that the parent goes in knowing of a sacrifice?

Was that supposed to be a proof? How would you suggest that I present the facts that run counter to your claim? We are talking about the same facts here. This is a matter of interpretation of data. I say that ALL the data is against you, you likewise are going to have to say the same because we have already picked the ultimate aims. How many animals face this "alternative", really? And, why do you assume that they know what they are doing? There is no choice here. But, I'll repeat something that I posted a little bit ago.

No, the individual cells are not fighting for their own life. Each of them continues as long as it is able to perform the functions that nature has given for the end of preserving that organism's life. Stick your head under water until you pass out, your heart will beat with all its might to get done what it does. On the maimed animal example. I was talking about after it is maimed and the healing processes that start to happen for the goal of preserving its life. As to the goal of its action-protecting its young, it is an automatic action that nature has set it to perform, and it does. This merely means that nature has tied its continued existence to that of its offspring; it still does not mean that its life is not the goal of the organism. It is the same fact as nature making the sunlight a requirement of the plant's survival. And for the last time. We are arguing Ayn Rand's point, not Peikoff's. And being that it is a fundamental point of the entire ethics, you have to disagree with entirety of it. Anything other than the organism's own life has to result in some form of altruism (and, by extension collectivism in politics). I think some form of Eugenics would be in order.

This is a false alternative between two organisms that never were. What creature are you thinking of that aimed all of their goals at reproduction? Why is a requirement that nature has set to an organism (reproduction) given top billing over the organism itself?

First off, that is not Peikoff's formulation, it is Ayn Rand's from Atlas Shrugged. Second, it does not require volition. A turtle has no volition as well, are you going to claim that it also does not apply to him? You would have to say that that statement can only apply to man. "A plant must feed itself in order to live; the sunlight, the water, the chemicals it needs are the values its nature has set it to pursue; its life is the standard of value directing its actions. But a plant has no choice of action; there are alternatives in the conditions it encounters, but there is no alternative in its function; it acts automatically to further its life, it cannot act for its own destruction." Atlas Shrgged, Ayn Rand page 1013 So, when we say that life is the standard of value directing an organisms actions we are talking about what nature has programmed it to do. It is the identity of the organism that determines the values it has to pursue to remain alive-and that is the standard of value-life. The same is true of man, but he must choose this volitionally, which is the whole point. Although if you want to reformulate your ethics, passing one's genes has to be the ultimate goal. It is also a truism that reproduction is necessary for there to be life. It does not make it the goal of life. It makes it a goal of life (and one that plants and animals have no power to avoid), like sunlight for plants, or shelter for animals. Like I said before, there is a legion of facts that run counter to your claim (all of them actually). Yes, a single cell way back when had to be able to split in two for us to be able to discuss this, but it is merely one feat among billions in the world of living organisms; all serving the ultimate goal-which is life. Life, the object, the actual organism, not an action.