Capitalism Forever

Don't be such a species chauvinist. What we should be concerned about are the POLAR BEARS!

Well, to his credit, he didn't kill any rational animal...

If he is an American or allied serviceman, yes. Otherwise, no. We are at war with Afghanistan, not with "enemy combatants."

Wow, Mr. Matthews, you sound so incredible in that video! You know, I almost forgot you were a retard for about a second.

Anyway, the problems are caused by various forms of mysticism. I agree it's great that you can still make millions by being an honest businessman, although I wouldn't be sure about the billions part. It's a lot more difficult than it ought to be, anyway.

Yup, that would be like expelling someone from the Pythagorean Theorem. Objectivism is a philosophy, not a club or a party or a movement or a church.

Yup--and some people take it even further, equating self-interest with hurting others. I guess in the case of the truly malevolent, this is a confession of their own desires: "I want to see other people suffer, so self-interest means doing bad things to others."

Disagreeing with some ideas is not what constitutes irrationality; irrationality means things like accepting a contradiction, evading an obvious truth, relying on emotions rather than reason as your tool of cognition, etc. So whether or not disagreeing with an Objectivist argument is irrational depends on what the reason for the disagreement is: if it's an irrational thinking process that leads to the disagreement, then the person is being irrational, but if not (e.g. if the reason for the disagreement is that the Objectivist position seems to contradict a premise that the person has been brought up with and unwittingly accepted as the truth), then the person is not necessarily irrational. Some of the ideas of Objectivism are so undeniably true that disagreeing with them is prima facie evidence of irrationality; e.g. the Axiom of Existence. If somebody says he is not convinced that anything exists, he is clearly just being stupid on purpose. Since the root virtue of Objectivist ethics is rationality, the concept "immoral" has, in the context of Objectivist ethics, the same set of people as its referents as "irrational." So, again, if the disagreement is caused by a refusal to think rationally, then the person is being immoral, but if there is a different reason, then that is not necessarily the case. It is not always easy to tell why a person disagrees with an idea, so it is advisable to give him the benefit of the doubt first. If he consistently displays an unwillingness to hear reason, then sure, he should be put in his place. In light of the above, let me rephrase the question: "Does irrationality mean it's not worth working with such people even for shared goals?" It is impossible to be consistently irrational in all areas of life (doing so would mean a quick death), so it may well be possible to find areas where the person tends to act rationally, and then you can work together in those areas. For example, a person may have faith in God just because he feels better this way (clearly an example of irrational emotionalism), but may still be able to drive a vehicle safely, so there is no reason why you shouldn't let him give you a ride.

I wonder what would happen if some of the states passed laws to override the Federal ban within their jurisdiction, citing the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The War of Independence broke out over tea--could light bulbs become the spark for the next revolution?

(...gasp...) Give me a break, man, we're talking about the man Ayn Rand called the most evil figure in history, the intellectual father of the Holocaust, the GULAGs, and 9/11--and you're asking if I know of any breach of ethics in his case?

Well, think about it. Was it ethical for Immanuel Kant to make a living by giving the kind of lectures and writing the kind of books he did?

Do you consider this compatible with Objectivist ethics?

Where is that quote from?

I guess the rhetorical question asked by libertarians can be summed up as follows: "Is it OK to impose a rights-respecting form of society onto others?" My answer to that is a definite and emphatic "YES!"

I didn't assume he was a troll, and I don't think Jake did, either. We just identified the irrational elements in his postings. Also, deciding not to take moderator action is not the same thing as supporting someone's behavior. If I deleted every post I didn't like, there'd be very few of your posts left, buddy! Oh, and BTW: You joined in September 2005. I've been a moderator here since April 2004. If there's been a change, don't ascribe it to me.

How is she supposed to let you know she likes you other than by making it obvious to you?

BTW, you guys ought to watch the video in the link and then read how threesixty describes it. It is basically a 100% pure misrepresentation of what Dr. Brook says.

Yes, and that is the sort of response that was given to threesixty in the first few comments of the thread. His reaction?

No, that is not how I meant the question. You are saying that someone is expecting someone to have bulging muscles, and I am trying to fill in the someones. I guess your answer is "society in general," but that's vague at best, and on this forum, we will only process precisely formulated input. You have stated that you aren't expected to have bulging muscles--but if guys in general are expected to have them, why would you be an exception? Clearly, you can get by in this society without being overly muscular, and so can anyone else. It is true that some people do place a whole lot of emphasis on body-building, and there are some people who tend to admire them for it. Is the reason for this admiration that you are wondering about?

Maybe they aren't advertised as much, but they are there on the shelves, and anyone wishing to buy a deodorant can test them and compare the scents. I've never bought Axe myself because 1) I think it smells so-so at best, and 2) it's quite obviously the Ford T-Model of the deodorant market, and it's always been clear to me that that wouldn't send the right message about who I am. I think if anything, the reason Axe dominates the market is that the average guy simply doesn't invest enough time into shopping for deodorants, because they aren't aware of the importance of scents in being attractive to women. (So one might say that the ads actually do a "service" to the "community" by "raising awareness" of this "important issue." ) Even the hottest chicks need maintenance; I don't think there is any implication that the buyer is ugly. Think of it as you would of a home cleaning product--would you blame the advertisers of those for first showing a dirty floor, then demonstrating how nicely the product can clean it up?

Perhaps I am overestimating the intelligence of the typical college kid but I think a normal person would know that ALL fragrances are meant to be attractive to the opposite sex, and Axe is just one company's attempt at achieving an attractive fragrance. Their own advertisement obviously says that they did a great job, but it remains up to the buyers to judge the merit of each competing product. At least that is how I always interpreted these ads myself...

Not to take away from your greatness, but I'd say as long as mankind exists, great minds are here to stay! (BTW, what I think Miss Rand meant was that Einstein was the last great mind of the Enlightenment era.)

Well, then let me modify my question slightly: Who is expecting whom to have bulging muscles?

Krattle, who is it exactly that you think expects you to have bulging muscles? Your girlfriend isn't it, as you said, so who else?