Inspector

You're seriously mistaken if you thought I was using quote marks to indicate a direct quote in that case it was a paraphasing and a rather accurate one at that. I thought that, since your words were RIGHT THERE that nobody would be foolish enough to think it was a direct quote. As for the rest: did you stop to think that I would easily see through your attempt to "be nice" and that you couldn't conceal the insulting implications of your conclusion about me? At least now you're being honest. As I said, it was a curious notion and it is not meant to represent a consolidated theory. I made the grievous mistake of posting an unfinished thought and actually trying to work it out in a intellectual forum. That is indeed my idea of fun, but if you are not interested in being "in" on the ground floor, then that's your choice. It doesn't make me an idiot. I will edit my original post to clarify. Edit: For some reason I cannot edit it. I assure you that it was meant as a paraphrase and not a direct quote.

Okay. *cracks knuckles* I learned Objectivism two years ago, but I had been exposed to it briefly in high school. However, I had long before that held many of the right ideas. Since I was a small child, I held deeply the conviction that *ideas matter.* I would get into very long and drawn out arguments with many teachers, students, and relatives because I simply would not sit down and accept a half-answer or a non-answer. I could never motivate myself to participate or learn something unless I could understand it on a fundamental, conceptual level, which is exactly the opposite of how most things were taught. When I finally grasped Objectivism, it was a breath of fresh air like nothing else. I cleaned my intellectual closets out of all the contradictory ideas that I weakly held for lack of better substitutes. If I was good before, then this was a metamorphosis into something truly great. Every aspect of my life imporved from the added clarity. I felt like Neo at the end of the matrix when he began to "see" the code behind everything (shame those movies turned out to be crap). Fast forward to now, where I work in a menial help desk position for a fortune 500 company to save money while I study for applying to law school in persuit of my ultimate career goal of becoming a judge. I live in the west suburbs of Chicago with my lovely wife, who is applying to medical school. My hobbies include bodybuilding, cars, and ceaseless rational discussion of ideas. My methods/venues are, respectively, Mike Mentzer's HIT, my '99 Firebird Formula, and Objectivist forums. And I bloody hate environmentalists and "ethical" vegetarians.

Perhaps you two could clarify: You seem to accept that Aesthetic skills are used in the construction of fashion items, cars, etc. But being "utilitarian" in nature, they are not Art proper. I will clarify myself as perhaps I was improper with my terms. Artistry is used in those fields and I didn't want to let that artistry go uncredited. I remember the article you refer to in TRM (though that is one of the few books I don't own). So while it is not "art" by that (proper) definition, it is most certainly artistic. Well, unless it's total junk.

I have some 800 or so posts on that forum, so it would've helped if you had been more specific. But I've cleared that up for now. It looks like this board has a wiki, which should be a much better resource to link to, so I will do that from now on. There is nothing wrong with the specific articles that I posted and now with the disclaimers I added, it should be fine. As Invictus said, the author links both ARI and TOC and does not take a side. That's cowardly as far as I am concerned, but I didn't think he was actually in the Kelly camp. As I said, I will be wary of that author's material.

Well, you said, "I can't make sense of what you said and I don't care to." Unless you had some reason to claim that the deficiency is mine and that I am some kind of babbling idiot, then yes, you are being apathetic. Unless you can present a third alternative...

He is exactly that wildly putrufying ComradeRed.

How very odd... I can't fathom why you would be so apathetic, but I'm not interested in forcing you to care, so I guess we will leave it at that.

I don't know who Greg Swann is, but your warning is duly noted. I will keep an eye out.

Really? What? Sorry if this is a bit off topic, but I seriously would not want to be giving out distorted material. Edit: Actually I find it highly amusing that I would be mistaken for a Kelly-ite, as I am in fact quite the opposite. I'm about the least tolerant person I've ever seen. Of course, Ursus and I compete for the title quite a bit.

Definitely not. Well, the owner can speak for himself, but I have never seen him do such. I certainly am not. I am an advocate of the idea, "judge... and prepare to be judged."

Hello all. I don't know why I never noticed this site before. I'm a regular at CapMag's forum and I administrate here: http://s7.invisionfree.com/capitalistparadise/ You know, swatting trolls, correcting contradictions, and all that. I'm an objectivist, of course. (Though looking around, I see that's not as much of an "of course" as one might think...) I've read and own just about everything that Ayn Rand wrote and I am an advocate of full Laissez-Faire Capitalism and unwavering reason. Of course, my ideas are my own, but I do not differ from Rand on any point that I can think of. Is there anything special I should be aware of... rules or anything?

I'm right here, you know. I personally read all of those quotes, and none of them depart from Ayn Rand's Objectivism in any way that I can discern. It's not my website, no.

Nah, this is fun. The basic idea is that the loop would occur when the contradiction is pointed out and a rational suggestion is being integrated. Basically the mind of the fool would be going: "but communism causes slavery... but I have to help the poor... but slavery is bad... but I can't just ignore the poor... but slavery..." and the result is that they just "reset" at some point and yell out something to the effect of "well, it's not that simple." If it seems like integration, that's because it is... but it's a failed attempt at integration.

The analogy is very loose at the moment. The resemblance is only inasmuch as they are both logical structures that follow algorithms and can only "focus" on one thing at a time. You shouldn't read into that to mean that I am implying some sort of determinism. And a contradiction would cause a loop-shaped structure of thoughts: it would be infinite in this case because most people will not check their premises, so they just keep going in circles until they "overload" and "reset." But it isn't meant to be any deeper than that.

I wasn't aware of any such link... I take the peikoff side of that argument, myself. Edit: Wait, I think I see what you mean. I will have to edit those posts to show that I do not endorse the Kelly side. Thanks for catching that. Edit edit: I think that got it. If I missed any, let me know.

http://s7.invisionfree.com/capitalistparadise/ Come have a look if you like.

Kill Bill was NOT a good movie. It was a brutal, shocking-for-the-sake-of-shocking style tantrum. It was Tarantino smearing his metaphorical feces on the wall and quivering with glee as he gets people to like it. Everything that could be construed as "good" about it is simple rip-offs from older, better films. Do not sanction that lunatic.

I.Kant is a troll, who is trying to criticize objectivism. See this thread: http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showtopic=1419 And look at his highly irrational blog for a good laugh.

AMERICONORMAN, Clothing is most certainly art. Anything that can be judged on an aesthetic level is art. Buildings are art. Cars are art. Just because something can be used or worn out does not make it non-art. Going by what you've said already, I'd say you're pretty close to this conclusion, yourself. Ursus, Excellant thoughts on the matter. Clothes are all about context and functionality. I wonder if the baggy/whore division falls along the lines of any other known dicotomy...

In case anyone was still wondering, I can say with certainty that Rand HATED mind-altering drugs and was very strong in her opinion that they do NOT improve art or artistry. The last chapter in The Anti-Industrial Revolution is a good example; there are plenty of others.

That would be me. I have a bit of a computer science background. For those who don't, a runtime error is a safety mechanism built into programs to prevent an infinite loop: once a sequence has been running too long, it shuts down. If it didn't have this mechanism, the loop would just keep running forever. I have seen a decent enough amount of anecdotal evidence that the human mind works on a logical structure not unlike C++ and that contradictions would have to cause an infinite loop. I recall an episode of the original Star Trek where they defeated some robots with a logical contradiction. In order for that not to work on humans, we would have to have a "reset." (assuming that the person did not reject one of the premises, which sadly most people do not)

He has made claims on capitalistparadise that "He didn't actually know what Objectivism was but it didn't stop him from inventing an ideology called "ex contrari Objectivism". After plagiarising a few articles by a 60 year old Marxist, he now thinks he is an expert on the subject. Even more odd was that, about a week after professing to be totally ignorant of Objectivism, he claimed to have read both the Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged (in addition to all of Aristotle's books and the Wealth of Nations). " Those words are from Invictus, who is the main admin at capitalistparadise. The point is, ComradeRed is an open liar on many levels.

They are the same person. ComradeRed is Norri and Norri was asking for copies of the new intellecual's table of contents so that he could create this travesty: http://www.capitalistparadise.uni.cc/ If I.Kant is asking the same questions, I would conclude that he is the same person or at least a close associate. On a side note, does anyone else find it hilarious that Immanuel Kant's name, when his first name is initialized, bears a striking resemblance to "I cannot?"

I am the "objectivist admin" responsible for his consternation, and he is posting here with the handle of Kant, I or something like that. How does everyone like "the brick of reality?"