Inspector

Basically. Like I can't get passionate for the fact that the rights of crack-heads and whores are being violated. The only thing that got my goat was that people were passionate that Vick was being prosecuted. All the "tHe bAD mAn HuRtz pUppIes lEtz gEt a rOpE!!!!!!!11!" stuff out there actually did manage to piss me off.

No, the fact that we don't like what Vick does is called civilization. The fact that the law is stepping in to force someone to stop something which violates nobody's rights is the opposite of civilization. That much is true.

One thing I'd like to point out - it's quite true that younger people prefer sweeter foods, biologically. Generally, as you age your palette tends to shift away from this. Interestingly, some older people have been known to shift back toward sweetness as they become more senior. The confusion sets in because some people simply have a stronger built-in preference for sweeter foods (or aversion to bitter ones, which isn't quite the same thing). The mistake is to think that because young people go for the sweets, that this means that adults with a sweet tooth have "immature" tastes. This is entirely false - their tastes are as mature as they are going to get... and likely they preferred even sweeter things in their youth. Personally, I don't have a particularly sweet tooth, but I do have a strong aversion to bitter tastes because I am a supertaster. (this fades with age, too, by the way) Wine and beer are completely horrible to me. I can't even drink water most of the time because I can taste it and it is bitter. Whiskey is completely unthinkable. Vodka, on the other hand, doesn't trouble me very much at all. At least in its flavor. But it does trouble me otherwise, because I have a rather nasty condition which basically means that I will never enjoy drinking. It took me about a decade to discover it, however, because I drink so little and so seldom. It just never appealed to me in any sense, even before being an Objectivist. That and I am cheap so I only drank when someone else was buying. I've never sought to become actually drunk, and I actually doubt that I physically could, even if I wanted to, given my condition. I think people who specifically set out to become drunk "for fun" are sick, sad creatures who need to re-evaluate their lives. Note that this is categorically different from enjoying a drink or two with a meal or at a party or on a friday or similar. Kendall pretty much covered the bases on that one. So if you think there are Objectivist drunks, I'd say check one of those premises.

FYI: There is already another thread on this board that deals specifically with that question.

Then I will excuse your rudeness, since it is likely inadvertent. Let me explain: it's not good form to just come here, brand new, and start simply asserting your ultra-leftist views as the uncontested and obvious truth - especially when you know (as you said) that you will be disagreed with. Next time, instead of hijacking someone else's thread and making a series of unsupported assertions based on your obviously controversial ideas about war and oil, what would be much more polite would be to actually do a search and find out the numerous threads on this board about "peak oil" and the wars of the 21st century. If you have questions to ask or opinions to present, it would be polite to present them in the context of places where they are actually open for discussion. A lot of people put a lot of effort into explaining those issues in those other threads, specifically so that people would not continue to spout them off randomly all across the board. Now, that said, all of the above is presented as a matter of etiquette. The trouble I'm highlighting here is not your disagreement as such, but the way that you chose to express it. As for your views themselves, as Softwarenerd and David Odden have explained they are badly mistaken. I've already posted extensively on the subject, however, so if you want my opinion do please avail yourself of the search button. If you have any questions or remain unconvinced I'm generally glad to respond to direct replies to my posts - provided that the poster has done me the courtesy of having read the whole discussion so I don't have to repeat ad nauseam what has already been said.

What do you mean by this?

Why not? What were you expecting?

Too easy. Ain't touching it.

Yes, that's the one. Ah, I didn't see that "while he was President" part.

Exactly. He objected to the fact that they omitted him saying he still thought it was a problem. He doesn't dispute the facts he said that they left in - and he doesn't claim that they distorted those facts - only that he didn't want to be presented as anti-AGW. It's nothing to indict the film over. Meanwhile, BP - which endorsed Kyoto - spends hundreds of millions running Green propaganda ads and investing in "alternatives." Really, I wish it were true that oil companies were opposing the environmentalists' propaganda, but unfortunately it isn't.

Only if she were a moron - it had been one week. Talk about giving up easily!

Not having to ride an [expletive deleted] bike that I have to [expletive deleted] pedal. I get being able to get to destinations which are more than 1 mile from my house. I get to smoke my tires at will and shake the ground with a V8 rumble. I get more things than I can list here. Give it a rest, Bob. And I don't know what you're talking about - gas is cheap. The dollar is inflated. But hey if you just want to keep looking at everything from a purely pragmatic perspective and playing right into their hands, then go ahead. It's not like you have a problem with playing into their hands, since obviously you would do so of your own free will anyhow. I guess anything is "expensive" when you don't like it in the first place.

Yes, I get it Bob - it's not "bending" if you actually wish on yourself - of your own free will - what the environmentalists would impose (as a first step) on the rest of us by force: a cheap econobox which you use as little as possible while using manual-labor-based forms of movement as much as possible. But I'm not talking about your private life. I'm talking about how you choose to frame your statements of the matter and what options you choose to offer - and omit - from your advice. As I said, simply trying to dodge the problem with technology is futile, when the real problem is the two groups out there trying to destroy civilization. Short-range, pragmatic, caving-in-to-them "solutions" to an artificially created problem which shouldn't exist are not something to get enthusiastic about - unless you have a stake in them for personal reasons (i.e. you already hate the car and want to minimize its place in your life, as you do). But even there you're mucking it up - because advocating these things exclusively puts the wrong frame on things - it ignores by omission the real problem and thus fails to present the only real solution. Regardless of your personal feelings on the matter, you have to consider the wider fight - and the wisdom of throwing good money out the window with bad solutions that don't really help. Try to see past your personal distaste of the car to the wider issue here. Oh, by the way - gas isn't actually expensive! It's all a trick of inflated currency. Gas is actually quite cheap.

I didn't call you a liar - I said liar *or* fool. And I didn't read them in order - so there goes your theory. (Not that I would be a supreme liar if I was slightly imprecise about whether I had gotten halfway down or 1/8 of the way - something easy to miss at a glance) And you haven't meaningfully replied to what I've said on smoking. I'm referring to the study that has been referenced multiple times in this thread, including links to it - if you'd bothered to read the thread. They are wacky environmentalists so you know what their agenda is. It does lend a certain credibility when they say something is not harmful to animals. It isn't having it both ways - I'm saying even the wackos admitted it was harmless. So far, I don't see that. You don't seem honestly interested in reading the arguments presented and linked to here, just in hurling insults and acting as a mouthpiece for environmentalism. If you'd bother at all to read what we have presented and linked to, there is a very potent - and NON-scientific - reason for that. The governments' involvement in the issue (see the blog Mike's Eyes and read the Ayn Rand articles he references), and the way that a philosophic ideology poisons the well are very powerful factors. For instance, you lament a lack of peer review - yet I have cited repeatedly the fact that the peers openly refuse to review anything that is against the AGW theory - automatically rejecting any such claim before even reading it to determine its scientific validity. Yet you haven't addressed this point in the least. It makes me think you have not in fact read the people you are arguing against before commencing your attacks. If you're sincere about that, then I encourage you to actually follow all of the links and references given to you (including especially the blogs) so that you can have an informed discussion instead of simply blindly berating us.

Yes, I believe I could get behind that. It's the taking pleasure in it that pushes her over the top into psychopathic, and not merely a gigantic idiot. (As Sophia points out, it was only a few days! I'm not entirely sure what you're asking, but what I was referring to was the fact that she loved Gregory and her goal was an exclusive relationship with him. You don't buy an exclusive relationship at the price of sacrificing exclusivity. Imagine if you really wanted to wash your car, but the bridge was out to get to the car wash. Would you drive your car over the bridge into the lake in hopes of reaching the car wash? Even if you did reach it, your car would be totalled from the water damage. You'd be completely undercutting and destroying the whole point of the endeavor. Only, we're dealing with things far more valuable and irreplaceable than a mere car. And that's coming from me, a certified car nut.

I think Saddam tried to assassinate him.

What?!? Are you deliberately trolling here, Kendall? No, no no. Abbigail sold her highest value waaaay too easily and as Mammon said, completely undercut the entire point of what she was doing. It's like if she had been in an egg race and had used a syringe to suck out the yolk of the egg in order to buy some running shoes that let her win the race with the "intact" egg. She's entirely missing the point. The example didn't say that she tried for years and years to find other ways across the river and finally in total desperation decided to do what was necessary. It just said that he "felt" that her only alternative was to accept Sinbad's terms. Not to walk downriver to the next bridge. Not to walk to where the river ends. Not to ask more than two neighbors. She felt that it was her only alternative. Well, la dee da. We're dealing with a woman who is an idiotic, psychopathic whore here. She sold herself cheaply, expected an upstanding gentleman to love her for it, and then laughed at him being unjustly beaten - the man she supposedly loved. To judge Gregory negatively for rejecting such a woman is completely incorrect. If you want my take on this, here it is: Slug Abigail Sinbad Ivan Gregory Slug is at the top, for the beating - but he would switch places with Abigail if she had in fact put him up to it. The narrative is unclear on that point, but assuming she didn't she is still a very, very close second. She just does horrible things all around. Sinbad is a nihilistic whoremongering sleazebag - I'm as nonplussed as Kendall on peoples' use of the libertarian ethics here. Ivan, as themadkat pointed out, was Abbigail's friend, so he wasn't just some stranger who refused a beggar, which would be perfectly okay. (I missed that the first reading) Why did he refuse to be involved with helping a friend? We don't know. Maybe it's because Abbigail is a psycho and he knows it; but then why is he a friend? Maybe, on the other hand, he's leaving right away to go see his lover, and needs to actually walk around the long way instead of being a whore. His reason for not helping would determine how far from Gregory he is - he could be a far second or a close second, depending. Gregory might have earned some blame for not crossing the river himself, but we don't have any information about what he was doing. Was he rebuilding the bridge? Was he packing up his belongings to hike downriver to where another bridge was? Was he willing to wait more than ten minutes to come up with a better solution before whoring himself out? We don't know. And besides, it's not like in the end Abbigail was worth the effort, it seems. Yeah, okay, maybe he didn't have any way of knowing that. If he had no excuse and Ivan had a good one, it's possible they might switch places.

If your standard is something other than pure economy, then they do - because by definition a vehicle focused more purely on that will have to sacrifice efficacy in other areas. First, this bill will kill sports cars just as much as it will SUV's. If you think SUV's are pointless, then I take it you've never lived in the snow belt and owned one. They make a huge difference in the winter. Second, I do have to wonder if you've driven one in traffic, as the raised driving position offers a superior view and thus allows you to plan your movements strategically - a great advantage. Third, if I had to be in a crash between your CRX and an Escalade... I'd rather be in the Escalade.

It is in your power to tell the full truth of the matter, and not to simply bend to the wishes of the greens - or advocate doing so. It has been cheap several times in history, despite taxes. It could be cheap again - so long as surrender-nicks don't simply give in. Yeah, or you know what else would help? The meddling statists who created this artificial and totally unreal problem to shut up and back off - that way we won't need any alternatives or cars that don't use as much. No, the real solution is to throw all the environmentalists out on the street and to make actual war on our enemies. To have a real solution, you must confront the real problem. Or do you think if we invent new energy that suddenly both of those problems will go away and never bother us again? No, of course not! Both of those will find other ways to attack us, so trying to avoid the problem with your kind of "solution" is a fool's errand.

Another myth. Gasoline is not becoming more scarce, although cowards who surrender to looting thugs do put a lot of the supply out of Western control, thus driving prices higher than they ought to be. That, and the environmental mythmongers put a lot of our supply off limits with their crippling laws and regulations. Prices may rise, and things may be pushed out, but it will not be the market at work. A problem easily solved, by actually fighting the former enemy and not letting the latter one hobble us. No need to resort to - or be forced into - the dreadful "econo-boxes," as they are so aptly named.

That's not true. Uh... no, I think not. Especially not the catastrophic scenarios that they have to outright lie and cheat with their computer models to make happen. And even then, the system is far more complex than "CO2 BAAAAD;" in fact methane and water vapor have much higher influences and if there existed a problem to solve it would be more practical to solve it by other means - probably by altering natural sources - which emit many, many times more CO2 than man. Furthermore, our self-sacrifice would be pointless unless we were prepared to go to war with other countries to force them to play ball. It would be a futile, impractical, and useless approach. But as I said, there is no problem... other than a hysterical media and a ideologically compromised scientific orthodoxy which is in bed with governments and regulators everywhere who crave power. (bold added) I wouldn't, even if their vicious lie somehow magically came true. The answer isn't government regulation and the trampling of property rights as a "preemptive" measure.

If it were popular enough to have money involved, you can bet there would be.

No doubt, caving to Western outrage. The Saudi family are media-spinners, certainly.

Perhaps his question is a bit simpler than what has so far been addressed. Objectivism is the philosophy of Ayn Rand. Statements made by people other than Ayn Rand, which are not quotations, are not Objectivism but an application or restatement thereof. Furthermore, Objectivism is the philosophy of Ayn Rand, so other topics are either not Objectivism or are an application thereof. Here's where the confusion sets in: if you have someone spouting nonsense on Iraq or Global Warming, it's not so much that they are necessarily contradicting Objectivism simply by the bare fact that they are wrong in those applications. But what it does mean is that they are "doing it wrong," especially given the direct involvement of philosophy in why so many people are wrong on those particular topics. Given that last point, it is usually some misunderstanding of the philosophy which causes people to mis-apply it - especially if they are mis-applying it in a consistent fashion across several topics.

And, to add to that, if everyone is doing that then how does it not once again come down to athletic skill? ----- The way I see this, factoring out the fact that steroids are currently medically debilitating, I don't see anything about them as such that is different from nutrition or training. There is nothing inherently unsporting about them. It's just one more thing for people to compete on - just like in auto racing. I understand the desire to eliminate such factors so that the competition can be more about other factors that an individual may prefer or be more interested in. Like having racing car bodies be made the same so that the competition can be more about engine design rather than aerodynamics (or vice versa). Or eliminating them both so that it's just about the drivers. But the way I see it, this is purely a matter of personal taste. That's how I see the steroid issue (if you eliminate the medical factor for the sake of argument. As I said, however, I do agree that anything which harms the body like that should be against the rules on the grounds that it contradicts the whole point of sport. So as they stand today I do agree that steroids should be against the rules. I'm also not a fan of nitrous oxide in drag racing, for similar reasons. But all that said, I am still left with the fact that this "natural" business is an anti-concept.