AshRyan

I guess Frank O'Connor and Ayn Rand weren't rational in regard to their romantic relationship in your view, since their relationship completely went against everything you have said on this matter. After all, Ayn Rand made a ton more money than Frank O'Connor did, and Ms. Rand didn't have most of those allegedly feminine qualities for which you say a rational man should romantically love a woman.

Ditto. Have fun, Ashley!

Woah. Where on earth did you get that idea? I certainly haven't seen any signs of it. The best I've seen is a few vague statements by Bush cabinet members that they haven't yet ruled out taking action against Iran. On the other hand, many people (including Jack Wakeland here on this forum, which is why I can't figure out why he still supports Bush) have argued that there is not a chance in hell that Bush is going to take any significant action against Iran. Please, tell me, what has Bush already done to initiate the process of taking unilateral action against Iran? I would love nothing more than for it to be true.

Thanks for posting these, NS. The first three are particularly good. (I agree with the fourth in essence as well, I just thought you could have made stronger arguments.)

Yes, Betsy, we all acknowledge that for many decades there was a trend away from religion, so that the general legal atmosphere today is more secular than it was forty years ago. The question is whether that trend has reversed, and the pro-religion movement has gained more momentum now. There seems to be a lot of evidence that this is the case, regardless of your examples from your youth.

Has anyone here concluded that it's impossible? I think they've just said that the claim is arbitrary, since, as you say yourself, there is no solid evidence for it. (Although I would imagine that someone could conclude that it's impossible, if that were the case and they had the requisite scientific knowledge.)

I think you give Hofstadter too much credit. The book of his that lc is asking about here is one of the worst books I've ever read--not just in terms of bad ideas, but also the ridiculous writing style. The fact that his book garnered any critical praise is worthy of the "Horror File" in my opinion.

Welcome to the board! We seem to be getting a lot of great new younger members. I wish I had even heard of Ayn Rand in high school! You will love The Fountainhead and the rest of Rand's work.

Right...until they see a movie like that. That is the art that speaks to them. That is what is right and real to them. Well, Thales already answered this, but I can't believe you even had to ask. It's dangerous to everyone insofar as they use political power to force their irrational ideas on everyone else. I understand that you're trying to make the point that the evil is fundamentally impotent, but the key there is fundamentally. Just because that principle is true, doesn't mean that the evil is never under any circumstances any danger to the good. But since man has free will and men can attempt to initiate force against others, obviously the evil can be a threat to the good. All I am saying is that for the good to eradicate this threat, it must recognize and fight the evil (and that fight must be primarily a battle of ideas). If you disagree with that, please tell me why. If you agree, then I do not see what your point is. That's the whole point! The religious right, by offering a (mis-) integrated view of the world, potentially offers much more motivation for people to initiate force against others. The left is also dangerous and must be fought insofar as it has misintegrated ideologies, such as environmentalism--but since the fall of communism, the left is not nearly as much of a threat. Insofar as they are a disintegrated movement, they are that much more impotent. Fine. But that's not my point, nor is the opposite implied by my point. Why do you always act like I disagree with you on these sorts of things?

Nice job!

Welcome to the board.

Of course. I hope I didn't imply otherwise in my previous post, but I suppose it may have been a little unclear.

True, but how many compartmentalized, semi-rational Christians will have their worst views reinforced and strengthened by that movie? Believe me, I was a practicing Christian not so long ago myself, and these kinds of things are incredibly powerful to them. As art, it concretizes their view of the world and of life, makes it vividly real to them. It's like reading The Fountainhead for us. Don't underestimate how dangerous powerful Christian art like this can be. (That's another manifestation of Dr. Peikoff's point about the Ms being a more seroius long-term threat than the Ds--the latter have only their "modern art," which doesn't do anything for anybody except for maybe the most anti-integration mentalities, who by their nature are no threat to us.)

I should qualify what I said in my last post. If the Chechens aren't trying to establish a freer country (but just a different form of dictatorship), then it isn't a "moot point"--in that case, what they are doing is just plain murder. And given their methods, that would be my guess.

Okay. So if you can show that the Chechens wish to establish their own government with the consent of the governed, who wouldn't lose any further rights, then I'll believe that their cause is legitimate. Otherwise, it's a moot point whether they are ruled by Russians or by other Chechens.

So did you all see the sales figures for The Passion of the Christ on its first day on DVD? Over four million copies in one day... So much for the theory that most of the people who saw that film in the theaters were just curious non- (or non-fundamentalist) Christians who were unsympathetic or didn't take it seriously. Just wait for the special edition that will be out just in time for Christmas or Easter!

Bush has said a lot of nice things about foreign policy in the past. He has even named some important principles. Too bad he has failed to follow through on any of those things and abandoned all of those principles.

If you ask me, the Book of Job must be a metaphor for how a just God would hate those who renounce their reason and follow Him in blind, abject faith, and punish them accordingly.

"Grokked?" I'm afraid that one's not in my dictionary...

I think you need to read, or re-read, Ayn Rand's discussion of this issue. She discussed it at length, in an essay entitled "The 'Conflicts' of Men's Interests," in The Virtue of Selfishness. In that essay, she explicitly took up one of the exact examples you give (the second), and the rest by implication. If she didn't convince you, we probably won't be able to either--unless there are more specific objections you have to the answers she has already given. If so, then present them, and perhaps we can address them here. One problem I think you might be having is the assumption that the examples you cite as well as many other such interactions among men are so-called "zero-sum games." But morality and human life are not zero-sum games, even in cases such as these. Tara Smith fleshes the point out much more in depth in her book, Viable Values. If I recall correctly she also uses some of these exact examples in her discussion of that point. I recommend that you check out that book, as you might find it extremely helpful in further clarifying this question.

I did a short paper a couple of years ago on a newspaper article about the awful angst people supposedly experience when confronted with the choice of all the different kinds of band-aids to buy, as a kind of reductio ad absurdum on existentialism. One of the basic premises of existentialism is that we are beings of self-made soul, that we have free will, but that this places a terrible burden on us which causes us to suffer as a fundamental part of our existence. This idea is in these kinds of cases just a popular variant of that philosophy.

I assumed both of these things from the beginning of the movie, and it did not negatively impact my enjoyment of it. But perhaps you're right that there is some reason to think that these were meant to be twists. If so, then they were very poorly handled. But in any case, they were not the focus of the film and I still liked it.

Look back at some of your own remarks and then talk to me about my "real underlying attitude." There is no chip on my shoulder. I have nothing personal against most of the posters here. I simply pointed out some fallacious reasoning on the part of some of them, and was met by some of those with personal attacks. (Others responded much more reasonably.) It is true that after many many pages of this, I allowed my frustration to get the better of me and made a few inappropriate comments. But I have already apologized for those, so I don't know what more you want from me. I am not sure what your problem is with me, or why you have decided to base your judgment of me and my "attitude" on a minor disagreement in this one thread (while telling me that I'm too quick to judge). But frankly, I don't give a damn what you think of me. Not only will I not discuss the topic of this thread with you any further, I will also no longer publicly respond to personal attacks here. But I will start giving warnings for them. That is all.

Fair enough. (Although it is still questionable whether Bush will do enough to protect American interests in that regard to make him worth re-electing on those grounds.) I suppose it's easier to say something like this than actually address my points. This has already been addressed, and if you'd seen fit to read my last post there would have been no need for you to sneak in this little jab.

You are right that this thread has been helpful, and many responses have contained good points--at least when people are offering their own, positive position. It is when they are responding to others' positions that I think the quality of reasoning has degenerated into embarrassing fallacies. But since much of the discussion is good, I retract my statement about having this thread closed. I was considering that out of frustration, as I was getting angry again as I wrote my last post, and I apologize for that. I can see now how petulant that made me sound (thanks Janet ). But I still intend to drop out of this thread to avoid future frustration about it. As I've stated elsewhere, I am simply astonished that several people are not content just to blast Kerry and the left, but also try to whitewash Bush and the religious conservatives in the process. In all reason and justice, both deserve our contempt. And that is the last I have to say on the matter for the time being.