Cherring109

In traditional Spanish bull fighting after the bull is dead they always have a butcher on hand to carve up the bull and they sell it to the people who take it home to cook it up the same day. So the bull doe s get ate after the event.

Thanks everyone for their comments so far. It's been very enlightening! It's seems apparent to me that i am just ignorant of physics. Thanks for every-bodies help.

Modern physics holds that light is both a particle and a wave. This contradicts the Law of Identity. How does one (qua the Objectivist metaphysics) resolve this conundrum?

Too bad it's not Thomas Sowell? (Please mind the question mark, it's there for a reason )

Unfortunately they stopped updating this website a few years ago. I was the one who suggested the Nintendo entry and it was one of their last posts. I think they stopped because at the time the owners where college students and they where going on to their careers. I am most likely weong about that though. I really wish they would have continued because that site was such a cool idea with a lot of great potential. I bet they could have got it to a piont where they could have a online store and sell merchandise all that. Really great site. Thank you "James Bond" for sharing it with the rest of the forum members. Perhaps somebody here will do something about getting it going again???? Cool!!!

I am taking a risk with giving away the detail publicly because this is not copyrighted material.

Here is the field layout diagram i threw together in a jiffy with MS Paint. it's the attached document.

I linked the MC Hawkins video (whose virtue was humor) just as example of what I was "getting at". Let me enumerate a point here that I think that if there where some video's like these then they should have a completely different tone. The point would be to be humorous at the same time educational (which the MC Hawkins where not, I know). I guess as this thread grows people will start copy and pasting Ayn's quotes on self deprecating humor- I suppose that is a good argument not to do this. I just think it would be fun if they are done in a way that was respectful to Rand and O'ism. Check!

OK, so I had an idea! As a "third side of the coin" alternative to the Voluntary Funding of Government ideal. I propose that there could be public casinos set up that generated revenue for the proper functions of government (police, military, law courts) and would exist right along side of private casinos (that would be completely unregulated, of course). This would be the most fun way side by side with the other ways to voluntarily fund government (lottos???, donations, etc) What do you think?

I have invented a new sport called "Round-field" and if anybody was interested in joining me and helping me get this off the ground then email me at [email protected] for details. Thanks.

I was wondering if anybody had some ideas for a set of YouTube video's that where an "album" of Objectivist themed "rap" songs like the ones they did for Stephen Hawking (the MC Hawkins videos). This is the link to the MC Hawkin stuff. So would it not be cool to have a MC Rand nerd-core?

*** Mod's note: Merged topics. sN *** Theres nothing wrong with masturbating. Is there anything wrong with watching porn to "get a boner" (i.e. as a tool to masturbate with.) I am not trying to be "gross" but we are all human and your a GD liar if you say don't play with yourself. (Unless you have a regular lover who you frequently have sex with then I guess I could see that you could hold back for the pleasure with the other person, but most people who do have sex even three times a day probably find the time to go "solo").

Why is it that most of the "popular" atheists are left leaning politically. Bill Maher, Hitchens, Dawkins, etc all seem to be leftists. The good and refreshing exception to this is Pen Gillette (who is a right-moderate I believe) who is so much cooler then these guys anyway. Why?

First off- On bestiality Animals by nature do not really, even in the natural world, consent to sex-even with the members of their own species. Man by nature has to choose his highest values and should pursue the best values. At the very least if you are that far gone you should masturbate, use a sex doll or buy the services of a prostitute. Why? Because when you masturbate it is a personal choice, when you us a sex doll it is a inanimate object that can feel no pain and the prostitute can consent to the terms you offer or not. With the exception of sex toys the object you choose to "get off" with must be able to consent (choose!). Animals can not choose to have sex with you and not animal engages another species for sex. You don not see chimps even do bestiality, that means here you are lower that a chimp. It takes two to have sex (masturbation and sex toys is NOT sex but masturbation all the same) and morality does not apply to the non chosen. Therefore to have sex means that the object if it is a biological entity then it is only moral to have sex with it if it consents- which since we are human (I presume! I know i am) we must either masturbate or have sex with a consenting adult. Also- I can not conceive of doing this without hurting the animal and unless you have a proper use for bringing pain to animal- (for science research, food, clothing, medicine) In all the cases I just mentioned there are primary human human values that are served. Sex is a result of the values you hold. Animals have proper uses as property and sex is not one of them! on incest I think it would be improper for very close family members- mother, father, uncles. Cousins I don't see anything wrong with it because the genetic distance from you (i don't know the appropriate technical term) In fact I will admit that I have a cousin that f she where not married I would go for without any shame at all. This is about the only area the Bible qua sex ethics got right in the old testament I think... lets look at it step by step by family member- mother and father and uncles- the psychological connections you have made with your parents and the genetic closeness should tell you that this is not a appropriate thing. Somebody here please back me up....I really can't explain this..This something that I think that I FEEL is wrong but emotions are not tools of cognition. I think it would not be wrong to be with you aunts- they have none of your genes as long as they are not still married to your uncles. And your cousins- with the advanced screening techs for birth defects and the stance of o'ism on abortion I don't really know if this is appropriate to pro- create with your cousins but i don't see anything wrong if ya'll choose not to have offspring. I hope somebody will agree with how I arranged this and back me up with reason on this. or if I am wrong then of course tear me a new intellectual one then.

Let me rephrase my entire first post. I would support a voluntary nation wide boycott on all business by Muslims. Islam-ism is Islam is Muslims. I know this for a fact, I was a Bahai for several months and called the Quran holy scripture. Every is implies a ought. Is they dangerous? Is they wanna put me in dimutude? Is they wanna kill me? Then I ought not support my own destroyers. End of story. I believe that their rights ought to be protected, and so should mine. Last time I checked one of my rights was to do business with who I damn well please and that will not be Muslims. Thank you! End of story. Period.

Yes I do. I do not care how nice acting some one i disagree with is. If you are wrong and you breed, you fill the world with wrong people who breed. I have been trying real hard lately on thinking up ways to quarantine people from me. If only I could find a Objectivist green mountain moonshiner....I think i could go all Calipto (from Pirates of the Carribean) and live on a swamp. I don't care but really I think that if one was to really not sanction evil one would have to live on a cave and mow lawns for a living. Maybe I will.

Here is the issue the way I see it: Peikoff and his side is wrong for advocating that the power of the state be used in any inappropriate way. The problem is the fact that any Muslims could live in this country in the first place. They should have a right to citizenship and a right to all there rights to be respected by our gov. Heres the problem: If American people really owned their property they could run these people out of the country if everybody had the right convictions then this would not be a problem. People would just not do business with any Muslim- they would not sell them anything and they would be sent packing back to the shithole "nations" from which they came because they would starve. If the majority of Americans and Westerners knew what was best for them they simply would not do business with them. They could not live here because every business would reject their patronage. They couldnt get a job-nobody would hire them. they coudn't build a mosque nobody would sell them the building materials. They couldn't live on the dole-there would be no dole to live on. They couldn't buy groceies-nobody would sell them groceries. We need good old fashioned discrimination without the excesses of good old fashion discrimination (such as lynchings, etc.) What we need is a new nation with a proper constitution where the majority is rational people and these people would own everything and refuse to give any traction to any immorality whatsoever. if we could form new nation with only die hard objectivists as the founders and only objectivists as the first generation of that nation then no other element could really do anything because they would starve (for lack of a job, lack of business, lack of groceries but NOT A LACK OF LIBERTY) then the argument would be over for at least that nation. Who has the courage to join me?

If you could lead Cuba to freedom as some sort of contra hero would you stick out your neck and risk your life in a counter-revolution considering the good chance you have of getting killed? Could a "new intellectual" be a "founding father" of a republic? Why or why not?