Rudmer

**facepalm** Can't believe I missed that. Sometimes text is a really poor way to communicate.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who has thought of it. I've just never heard diplomacy mentioned as a proper role of government around here, so I was kinda worried that I had missed something significant. So the naval officers were the ones actually handling the diplomacy with Russia? That's new info for me. Why would they do that, and not use the diplomats from the State Department stationed at the embassy in Moscow? Would you mind citing a source? It perplexes me so much because, as a military brat, I think it's a pretty bad idea to let the military handle diplomacy. The military should have only one job -- waging war. It's their primary purpose, and training for it takes up 100% of their time, so to charge them with something else like diplomacy (or nation reconstruction, as is the case now) is counterproductive. Doing so makes them less effective at waging war, and they aren't naturally suited for it because they're warfighters, not diplomats. So to get to the point: making the big stick also do the soft speaking is a bad idea. A separate institution, devoted solely to diplomacy, would be a much better course of action, IMHO.

An ideal government would be limited to those functions which protect the individual rights of its citizens from violation. The typical line I've read around here is that means government should be limited to military, police, courts, prisons, and some way to make laws. And I think that covers it on the domestic front, but I'm not sure that is sufficient in the international arena. None of those institutions could adequately handle diplomacy, which has been essential to national security (think Cuban Missile Crisis). Rationally, a government must speak softly as well as carry a big stick if it is to do its job of protecting its citizen's rights from violation by foreign nations and individuals properly. With that in mind, would some sort of diplomatic corps like the State Department also be proper for a government to encompass, in order to do the soft speaking?

"No flying machine will ever fly from New York to Paris." -- Orville Wright "There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in his home." -- Ken Olsen, President, Digital Equipment, 1977 "There is not the slightest indication that [nuclear energy] will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will." -- Albert Einstein And the list goes on. I'm not saying that any of your reasons are invalid, they all seem pretty solid, but so did the reasons that the men listed above relied on in forming their conclusions. Never underestimate the power of human ingenuity.

Not really hacked, more like bombarded (DDoSed). Anonymous was not happy.

The "soft Objectivist" position is simply a case of trying to use good ends to justify evil means. It is no more acceptable to steal in order to save lives than it is to murder in order to gain/save wealth.

It is my understanding that Ayn Rand approved of the death penalty for capital crimes in principle, but thought that there was much too high a probability of mistaken witnesses, judicial misconduct, false confession, misleading or forged evidence, and general human error to ever implement it justly. I am of the persuasion that it is better to let any number of murderers live than to execute one innocent person, and since the United States alone has executed many innocent people, I think that the death penalty should be abolished.

The constitution says that treason consists of levying war, and I disagree that one man cannot do so. An assassination can be an act by perpetrated by only one man, and that most certainly could be an act of war. If Hassan's heinous acts were motivated by his religion or political leanings, I think that qualifies as levying war. As an American citizen, that qualifies him to be tried for treason. However, I don't think it will ever get there. The politically correct people calling the shots will cover up the facts as much as possible, and it will be claimed that he went temporarily insane and should not be held responsible for his actions.

Here's another (better, imo) story which details the killer's link to a radical imam: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/...terrorists.html The Obama administration and the press are very hesitant to say the word "terrorist" in relation to the Fort Hood killer, but I am beginning to believe that it was indeed a religiously motivated, somewhat planned terrorist attack and not simply a soldier gone off his rocker. Hopefully when/if the killer revives, we will find out more. How long has it been since an American was tried for treason?

Extraordinary. Absolutely extraordinary. Keep up the amazing work, and the thought that obviously went into this.

I agree. I think that the hostility may come from not understanding what a formal logic course is like -- it bears 100 times more similarity to a math course than any other philosophy course, in my opinion. When I took my university's formal logic course, I didn't actually learn anything until about halfway through (beginning with predicate logic) because I had already learned the material in a Discrete Mathematics course. Think of it this way: in math courses, sometimes the homework problems are ridiculous and have no relation to reality -- take the classic problem of Gabriel's horn, for instance, which has infinite surface area but a finite volume. The point of the problem is to teach/illustrate mathematical principles and techniques (solids-of-revolution, convergence, etc.) as a kind of thought experiment. That's what formal logic does. Where math says "pretend that this thing could actually exist, and tell me its volume," formal logic says "pretend that these premises are true, and determine if the conclusion necessarily follows." And I would argue that formal logic can be very useful in advancing arguments. One common counterargument tactic that I use is to derive the symbolic representation of my opponent's argument (mostly in my head), come up with a ridiculous argument of identical form, and through it show that the form it shares with my opponent's argument is invalid. In this way, I oftentimes invalidate my opponent's argument without ever having to get into drawn out debates about contested premises -- if the argument form is invalid, it doesn't matter what the particulars of the argument are, the argument is still invalid. EDIT: I just took a look at his profile, and saw that DavidOdden teaches at Ohio State, so I now assume that he is familiar with formal logic courses. The above was written without this knowledge.

Formal Logic classes aren't chiefly concerned with determining the truth value of a statement (as the given example demonstrates), but rather in determining the validity of the argument itself -- that is, if the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises. For this purpose, the premises are assumed to be true. For instance, a very basic valid argument form is: A, B, therefore A and B -- substitute any sentence you want for A or B, and the validity of the argument still remains, even if A or B are false in actuality.

I agree. As Dan pointed out, there are very good reasons why the bank works this way, and if you kept better track of your money -- meaning simply don't spend money that you don't have -- you'd never have to worry about it. However, I would also suggest abandoning your outrage in favor of calmly and politely explaining your situation to the bank's representative, and asking him/her to remove all but the $35 fee. I've heard that a lot of times banks will be very forgiving, as long as you don't come off as an angry asshat. (I've never had to find out for myself, though, so take it with a grain of salt.)

I just got my Google Wave invite a few hours ago, and have been playing around with Wave almost ever since then. Barring any bugs (I've run into a few) my reaction has been "Wow, this is incredible. This could really change/improve the way people communicate over the internet, if only more people would use it." And I think that's what will make or break Wave. It is really good, but only if the people you communicate with use it. I know that it is in a limited preview right now, but even once it goes public I'm not too sure if it will really take hold with the masses. It will need to overcome two things in peoples' minds, namely the thoughts that it is too complicated or confusing (it's really not, you just have to get over the learning curve) and that it's just another tool to do what you can already do with the tools at hand -- email, IM, wiki's, Google Docs, etc. So, do you think Wave will gain the popularity needed to make it a truly effective communication tool? If so, Wave is obviously in it's infancy, so what do you see it evolving into? (If you have a Wave account and want to chat, send me a PM with your google username.)

Easy: I don't give gifts to those who I do not value, and I demand gifts from no one. I place great value in my parents, my brother, my niece, and my girlfriend, so seeing them light up when they get a thoughtful or expensive gift is pleasurable for me and in my self-interest, regardless of whether or not they've "earned" or "deserve" them (there's a good article floating around here somewhere about the topic of earning/deserving that may help to clear this up even more). On the other hand, my deadbeat, batshit crazy half-sister is of less than zero value to me because of the type of person she is and what she has done, so she won't even be getting a phone call from me...probably ever. There is nothing wrong with giving gifts to people you value, and nothing wrong with not giving gifts to people who you don't value. Just do what is in your rational self interest, and you'll be fine.

No offense taken. I had, in fact, waded through several threads on the subject (one of them 55 pages long!) to no avail. Perhaps I should have mentioned that in my initial post... Anyways, I think I am now beginning to understand why birth, and not conception or a certain stage of biological development, is the catalyst. An unborn human, no matter how well-developed, cannot be a rational being because they have always been in a "sensory deprivation tank." Merely the potential for rationality does not confer rights. Am I on the right track?

Even though I come from a strong Christian background, I've found my relatively rapid "conversion" to Objectivism to be remarkably smooth. Any time that an ingrained, irrational premise or belief was challenged by the tenets Objectivism, I've never had to spend more than a little while puzzling things over before coming to a fully integrated conclusion -- always deciding in Objectivism's favor. However, I seem to have hit a snag. The issue with which I am having so much trouble could be resolved if only I could justifiably answer the following question: at what point along the gradient from two-celled organism (immediately after conception) to fully-grown does a biological human being become a person? In other words, at what point does a human being acquire rights, specifically the right to life? As you have probably guessed, I am struggling with deciding my position on abortion. An embryo is obviously not a rights-bearing person. An embryo cannot perceive its environment, and thus has no consciousness nor a conceptual faculty. Similarly, a newborn baby is obviously a rights-bearing person. But what separates a newborn baby from one who is still inside his mother late in the third trimester? Does the unborn, but comparably developed, baby possess the same rights as the newborn? If so, at what point during developing in the womb does a fetus become a person? If not, why? (Is it simply the fact that he has not yet been born? If so, why does an event that can happen in a fairly wide range of time -- my niece was 3 weeks premature, my nephew a week late -- determine whether a human being has rights?) If man's rights have their origin in his nature as a rational being, as Objectivism says they do, when is human being rational enough to have those rights, to be man? Please understand that I am not approaching this from an anti-rights, anti-life position as so many "pro-lifers" do. I am very much pro-life in the Randian sense. As I said, an embryo obviously doesn't have rights, while a baby does. My concern actually comes from my great esteem for the rights of man: I am troubled that I cannot tell with finality when a human being is a right-bearing person and when they are just a bundle of cells, because that leaves open the possibility that I might condone the destruction of a right-bearer.

Thanks for letting me know! I don't have a Kindle -- speaking as a computer science student, dedicated eReaders are probably just a passing tech fad -- but I do have an iPhone with a Kindle app. Its small, bright screen is not very good for sustained reading, but perhaps I'll purchase some of her non-fiction for quick referencing.

After more thinking, I've come to a realization. It all comes down to the question: is a person defined by what collective(s) he is a part of? Obviously, the answer is a resounding "no!" The individual is sovereign, and membership in a group does not define that individual's identity. I think that the many good parts of Tau Beta Pi far outweigh the one bad part, and as long as I make it clear that I do not sanction that bad part, I now see nothing wrong with joining. I am still interested in everyone's thoughts on the issue, though. Is my thinking, as I've expressed it, rational? Do you see this as a form of moral compromise or pragmatism?

I am an undergraduate computer science student and have been invited to apply for membership in the country's oldest engineering honors society, Tau Beta Pi. I think that joining could be beneficial for me, because such a membership adds considerable weight to a resume and significant networking possibilities. However, Tau Beta Pi holds "unselfish activity" as a desired character trait of its members -- something to which I am obviously opposed. Would it be a breach of moral integrity to pursue becoming a member? In all other areas that I can find, the ideals of Tau Beta Pi are admirable -- productivity, excellence, etc. -- with only the one exception. By joining, am I sanctioning the one immoral "ideal?" (I've made it blatantly obvious in my life that I hold selfishness as a virtue.)

Do you want an objective answer? The statement "there is no objective reality" is self-defeating. The short answer is that existence exists, and logically must exist apart from how we perceive and interpret it. Existence is independent of consciousness. For further explanation, I recommend reading Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand by Dr. Leonard Peikoff.

Exhibit A in the case for why dividing by zero is not okay.

What I think this all comes down to is the old adage that I can *still* hear my father preaching at me in my head: "What matters is not just what you say, but also how you say it." Communication via writing removes a LOT of subtle signals -- tone of voice, inflection, non-obvious sarcasm, body language, etc. -- that can make or break a conversation, and it's worse on the internet because people tend not to take their time writing and/or reading. With that in mind, I think that it is doubly necessary to avoid coming across as arrogant or condescending when discussing any serious topic over the internet, for those are two attitudes which will either immediately end a conversation or devolve it into useless flaming. Personally, I am having great success with a calm, gentle-yet-firm, patient-to-a-fault approach. One of my good friends considers himself a die-hard conservative, but from talking with him I've realized that most of his views are in line with those of Objectivism, and all that he needs is someone to help him check his premises and resolve a few contradictions in his beliefs. He holds these beliefs strongly, and reacts very negatively when he perceives that someone is attacking him because of them. So I take great care to ensure that he does not perceive my arguments as a personal attack, that he knows that I respect him because he is in an honest, rational search for the truth -- yet I still point out every logical fallacy, false premise, or bullshit argument that he puts forth and present my own case very strongly. This seems to be working well; one minor issue that he's changed his mind on is the draft, and I see much more revolutionary changes in his thinking on the horizon. Edited for typos.

Yes, they do, though it is of course limited in scope. I've seen soldiers missing most of both hands still in uniform, but the Army draws the line if the soldier can no longer perform any duty (such as if he were paralyzed). On the other hand, if he wants to leave the Army for whatever reason it will not be difficult.

There was no ire present, whYNOT, simply an explanation. I apologize for misunderstanding to whom your comment was directed.