dream_weaver

To the extent we live in a society of "live and let live", this would be the equivalent of "Yes, you do have the right to be mistaken." and I would agree. Speaking of "out of curiosity", can there be a trial of ideas without considering the motivations? Isn't asking a question like: "What is the source of this kind of curiosity?" an inquiry to the motivating power that underlies curiosity?

It addresses the issue of what constitutes itself as evidence, and thus serves as the basis of proof.

No, I stated it quite succinctly. Although, I did inadvertently use a period rather than a question mark at the end of the query.

The old "Can there be evidence for something if that something, in fact, does not exist." song and dance.

I'm seeing an interesting point here that I'm not sure if I can clarify. A mystic believes in god and has, in many cases, a simplistic view that the atheist position is essentially of a non-belief in god. While this is superficially true, assigning non-belief in this context is about as hollow as the mystics belief. But replacing a belief in god with an foundational understanding of what one can actually believe in, is not a rejection of theism on the basis of one illogical definition. It is a rejection on the basis of an ongoing, continual integration of knowledge while discovering how to identify contradictions and root them out. It goes deeper than that, as the mystic/theist tries to rationalize away that foundational understanding as simply another form of faith - evading the necessity of examining ones own beliefs by trying to place the onus on the atheist to 'justify his position', without identifying the standards of justification, or being unable or just downright unwilling to grasp the contradictions involved.

I was wondering the same thing.

Are you suggesting they are all valid means of acquiring knowledge to provide this "application of wisdom"?

Devil's Advocate, it comes across to me that you are using faith, belief and non-belief almost interchangeably.

Knowledge, too, is a relative term. Knowledge presupposes freewill, which presupposes causality which presupposes consciousness, which presupposes existence. The need shared by all individual to believe in something leaves open the question: Are your beliefs organized or disorganized, consistent or inconstant, integrated or disintegrated, based on reality having a definite and knowable nature or based on a some mystical realm that is indefinite and unknowable?; and underscores the fact that "[p]hilosophy is a human need as real as the need for food" (OPAR, pg. 2)

I wouldn't say that the constitution is so loosely written, rather it is the view that language is considered an ambiguous means of communicated that facilitates undermining the brilliance that made it possible in the first place.

That's funny. A benefit I received from engaging with you in these threads was more like a re-examination of the Objectivist foundations, discovering just how much more structurally sound it is than I initially realized. If anything, Objectivism bolsters the intellectual immune system against the various irrationalities that infect much of the so called "thinking" that is prevalent today. I left the rubble of theism (some call those ruins a castle) as I began to understand what made the skyscrapers, automobiles and the introduction to the conquest of space possible. What seems almost miraculous today is that mysticism is still considered plausible by so many - but even this fact is simply more testimony to the power philosophy wields, be it acknowledged, or even more so, unacknowledged.

Outrage over mob attack in Michigan 'Officers made choice to allow Muslims to silence Christian speakers' WND later learned that the Christian crowd had been carrying a pole with a pig’s head attached to the top, further angering the Muslim crowd. At the beginning of the video, Christian street preachers shout, “God is good, and God is not Allah!” While they acknowledge this detail, the article, by and large, is more Christian apologist, not surprising, considering the source. Another line that stands out particularly is "Muise said in America, speech serves “its ‘high purposes’ when it stirs people to anger.”" I don't know about 'high purposes', but it certainly illustrates how well critical thinking skills are valued.

The primacy of existence acknowledges the relationship between consciousness and existence with no stand as to its 'natural state'. Motion (action) requires that which moves (matter). Does it make any difference if matter has been moving all along, or if there are periods of time where some or any matter is inert? Even motion/inertness (both concepts of relationship) requires a point of reference to establish if it is moving or not. If everything is moving at different rates of speed relative to everything else, can it be determined what, if anything is actually inert, or vice versa?

Here's a thread that inquired about "reality" without delineating it according to Objectivism.

Very good. You need to apply that scrutiny to developing your grasp of evil/wrong, infliction of force against others/infliction of harm to self, determining when restoration is merited (in the case of others) and not (when self-inflicted), instead of trying to sweep it aside within sloppy linguistic games.

Because sometimes the self-induced hurt is not commensurate to the damages inflicted the victim.

The judge's statement is regarding a man who desired to hand out free Bibles to people attending a Gay Pride festival in Twin Cities, not the rabble rousers that chose to attend the International Arab festival in Dearborn. The solution the Twin Cities verdict offered was to provide a booth that was "contiguous" with the booths that were part of the Gay Pride festival near one of the entrances. The solution seems sound enough, but the reasoning that led up to it is suspect.

Judge says man can't hand out Bibles at Twin Cities Pride fest While the order seems reasonable and has parallels that could apply to the Dearborn festival, the following lines stood out: In denying Johnson's motion for a restraining order, Davis noted that "free expression in a public forum is a core liberty that must be guarded with vigilance." But he said it must be balanced with the rights of others and with legitimate government concerns. Balanced with the rights of others? If all individuals possess the same rights, are they not already balanced? Secondly, the idea of "legitimate government concerns" comes across as too ambiguous and subject to serving as an umbrella to shield any government action. Again, if I pay to attend a public presentation by Peter Schwartz, for instance, I am paying to hear what Peter Schwartz has to say, not what a "questioner" afterward may want to turn into a soapbox in the guise of asking a question of clarification about what Peter may have had to say during his talk.

Several years ago, I was looking up various English words to their Japanese counterparts, then looking up the English means of the Japanese word to try and select the nuance that most closely matched what I was seeking. Then I would acquire the Japanese Kanji and use the Microsoft character map to locate the specific Kanji I was seeking for making some placards to frame. While looking through the Kanji, I did get a strong sense of pattern within, but have never really the strong desire to investigate it. As with words, the specific sound used to represent/symbolize the concept is the choice of the one who discovers/integrates it originally, The specific symbols we use today have evolved over many centuries, not only within English, but other languages as well. Looking at the U.S. adoption and embracing of metric measurement system should give you an inkling of the likelihood of adopting a new set of symbols to replace the alpha/numeric ones with which most are familiar.

You might be interested in "Empires of the Word: A Language History of the World" by Nicholas Ostler. It looks at cultural and economic influences that helped shape language up to now. Personally, only having to memorize 26 symbols and the principles that govern shaping them into words is a good example of unit economy versus the memorization intensive Chinese and Japanese Kanji - to identify the extremes.

Is guarding individual liberty jealously considered reverent?

Now that's one graphic relationship.

Clearly, the offending group of Christians featured at WND had apparently applied for, and were not awarded a "free speech zone". I recall that from an exchange between one of the police officers and Israel. In that regard, the people coming to attend the festival were paying for (not necessarily with money, but by investing their time in the event) the festival, and not to listen to this group of attention seekers. In regard to upholding laws designed to protect everyones' rights, the officers were shown to be discussing what should be done with a legal adviser. My guess would be a lack of clarity with regard to the principles involved led to the advice of how the situation should be pragmatically diffused.

Hurting others is evil. Indoctrinating a child with regards to how to practice altruism is hurting the child. Because they are a child, the parent is allowed to hurt them in this manner and it is not evil. I think you've appropriately titled your thread.

If you indoctrinate a child to believe in altruism (presumably to accept, live by or practice - since I believe in altruism, I know it's out there and that I would rather not practice it), are you helping or hurting that child?