DancingBear

Jake_Ellison: "so don't even drink if you were adopted" HaHa. Mmmcanniballism: "the gene that makes you crave something that makes you happy...has an evolutionary advantage." Isn't happiness a result of value judgements, not genetics? Assuming a gene for addiction is possible, it would survive evolution very long, considering all addicts I've seen are completely dependent on others and often detrimental to those same people. I use the term addicts because that is the generally accepted term for people who abuse drugs, not because I believe addiction exists. Finally, as far as addiction-recovery programs are concerned, isn't it in their best interest to convince someone that they are addicted, have no control, and therefore require the assistance of professionals. I relate this to the medical and specifically the pharmaceutical industry, where nearly every medicine it seems has a risk of suicide as a withdrawal symptom. So don't stop taking the medicine, because you might kill yourself!

If someone has a drinking problem, should they label themselves and allow others to label them as an alcoholic? On the one hand, I think it's important for people to confront reality. If someone gets drunk, especially often, then they are being harmful to themselves and others in all likelihood. On the other hand, experts in substance abuse issues and psychology claim that there is a genetic basis for substance abuse. This gene is supposed to be the reason someone isn't just getting drunk but has a physical problem with staying sober. In other words, getting drunk is not a choice. This second conclusion bothers me more than the first. If someone gets drunk, fine. They can stop getting drunk. If someone is alcoholic, not fine. They will never stop getting drunk. The will forever be temporarily sober until they start drinking again. Beyond the philosophical implications of both conclusions, consider the political and societal implications. For instance, being labeled an alcoholic may have legal or medical ramifications. Which conclusion is right? Are neither right? Is this a non-issue? Is this the right forum? Has this question been answered in another thread?

While that does seem fun, unfortunately our OP is dealing with the government, not an elementary school teacher. What lies he tells the court or agency will be interpreted as truth, and could have consequences concerning his current and/or future punishments (considering the possibility of a future offense). They may think, "this guy is worse than we thought." Furthermore, if he were to come clean and confess that he was simply completing the program and none of his stories were true, this may also be seen in a negative light with the law. They may think, "now we are dealing with an alcoholic and a liar." On another note, I think it is extremely wise to avoid having oneself labeled as an alcoholic. I think I'll start another thread on this idea.

Greetings Peter, I'm sorry you share your name with an antagonist of "The Fountainhead." Ha ha. I'm probably not alone when I say this but I was also profoundly changed upon reading Ayn Rand's writings for the first. Wouldn't it be unusual and interesting if somewhere weren't awe-inspired by them? I hope your conversion to Objectivism is proceeding smoothly. As for me, it has taken some time. I'm terrible with quotes but I'm pretty sure Ayn Rand wrote about the corpse of a poor philosophy leaving the mind. If I had enough time I would find the exact quote. For me, this has meant understanding that a lot of my thoughts and emotions were basically remnants of a poor philosophy which would take time to correct. Currently, I feel quite sure I know what constitutes an invalid philosophy such as altruism although I have more trouble deciding what the correct course of action is. Thanks for sharing and welcome to an informative and supportive community.

In America, some people are absolutely fanatical about the teams they support. That someone could watch men running around and have their mood and self-esteem so directly affected by actions that have so little affect on the actual world is strange. I am impressed with feats of athletic prowess, however. I also believe that being a fan (watching games, purchasing tickets and merchandise) supports the financial aspect of a team, and therefore does make one part of that team. It's like being an extreme minority owner. Also, it's important to support hometown teams, otherwise they will lose money and move away. When they move away or go bankrupt, one will no longer have a local sporting event to go see.

No I haven't run away. I just jogged around the block (I didn't wave to anyone). I did kind of get dizzy reading the replies but thanks anyway. I like a good buzz.

I (try to) operate and act only when I have rational reasons to do so. Perhaps you can enlighten me, but in the suburbs of America I find no reason to greet most of my neighbors, especially considering these are often the only encounters between neighbors. Besides, I believe most of my neighbors are altruists and therefore I would rather deliver a hostile stare than a friendly wave.

Hello all. I'm glad to finally interact with other objectivists. Personal experience has revealed the pervasiveness of the morality of death surrounding me. Maybe I should start from the beginning. I haven't always been objectivist. I have always been thoughtful and questioning though, for which I was often reprimanded. As I matured I struggled to ignore reason and the truth in order to fit in. And then I read Atlas Shrugged. And then I read the Fountainhead. And I have continued reading objectivist literature. Now I seem to be becoming more ostracized for my morality. Ostracized because a large number of societal norms are irrational (i.e. waving to unknown neighbors, apologizing for others faults, believing in a god...). However I am happier knowing that I'm right and reality will ultimately prove others wrong. So I'm glad that I'm not completely alone among six-billion others.

Good values further an organisms life, evil values threaten it. On earth, humans are the only organisms with the ability to decide whether or not to further their lives. All other organisms automatically pursue good values and the furtherance of their life. Therefore when a human chooses to use drugs or support socialism, they are pursuing evil values and ultimately their own destruction. The use of drugs or socialism is still a value to them which they have a right and ability to choose for themselves, despite its evil consequences. These people value death rather than life, by their own choice.