gadfly

It must be hard to get things done in business over there. We have a hard enough time getting things done at my job over Christmas, because in general nobody wants to (or can) start anything significant the week before they are off, and it takes another week to get back on track after the holiday. Although I don't like the idea of "forced" government holidays (where businesses must be closed), I can always find great things to do in my time off, and would love to have more of it. The problem is that there is a trade-off between that and personal wealth, because the economy will not produce as much, and businesses will not be able to pay as much to employees. I wouldn't want to take so many days off that I did not have enough money to do something fun, such as travel.

On second thought, BurgessLau, I'll retract my statement anyway. If I can't spell out the exact posters and facts in advance, I just won't say it. I should know that by now.

I too was among the "Others" but did not think he was speaking to me, because I did not fit the accusation. If you do not either, then his statement does not apply to you. If that does not suffice, then I'll withdraw the statement.

Who knew flies contained so much energy? And to think I've been throwing them away. Life is self-sustaining and so is EcoBot II, but it is not self-replicating. So, it does not meet that criterion for being a living thing. Also, although I know what you meant, "inorganic" would be a better term than "non-biological". Inorganic refers to things that do not contain hydrocarbons, which would apply to something made mostly of silicon chips and wires.

Glad to hear that. It's always a bit of a drag to hear some nice new structure or facility is funded by taxation. I bet people will travel there just to see and cross that bridge...

Admittedly, this is conjecture, but the right to property would be pretty meaningless if you could not get to it, and the right to access it might stem from this fact. People in prison suffer a loss of rights in general, so it would not apply to them. The right of the airline to require you to meet the terms of its "contract" for providing transport services overrides your right to always carry your rifle.

Just because a Christian (or anyone) "says" their values are rational does not suffice. They need to rationally verify that they are, and so do we (in other words, I would not blindly take their word for everything they say). This does not mean you have to demand a reason for everything someone does, only that you remain aware of whether or not what they are doing is rational, since this will be part of your evaluation of this person. I don't know if giving to the ASPCA is the right thing for my friend to do, but unless I have reason to doubt it, I will assume that it is so. So, assuming the values are rational for both people, then I would agree with your statement. Who holds the value is not important. A Christian and an Objectivist can do something for the same reason and both be right. Now, if the Christian were to say that they donate because God asked them to, that would not be rational and would not be morally equivalent to someone doing the same thing for rational reasons. Instead of value vs. duty I would say it's self-interest vs. duty. Both self-interest and duty are based on values, it's just that duty is based on the wrong ones.

You're right; some people want to change that. Personally, I don't see a reason why we shouldn't. It's not like someone from the British royal family is going to get elected and have us re-colonized... While no politician is ever going to be perfect, the bottom line is, I admire Arnold as a person. He is the epitome of the American Dream. He's smart, confident, seems to have integrity, and he's obviously extremely hard working and determined. I have not looked into his politics yet, so I can't comment about that.

D-oh! Did I say "peanut brittle"? I meant "toffee".

I agree; sometimes I cringe when I see the "greeting" that some newcomers get when they say something wrong. But I can't change that, so I just try to be as constructive as possible, within the context of their views.

The post by "source" says the vultures killed the sheep, but I don't know about the original story. Who knew? Maybe they should think about shampooing the sheep, or making them exercise and being more active, if they are being mistaken for carcasses . One story I found (which about Macedonia) mentioned that shepherds had poisoned carcasses to kill large carnivores such as wolves, which kill sheep. The vultures in that story were simply feeding off the poisoned carcass.

I think the only other area of agreement is that they both enjoy peanut brittle.

As I remember, Branden's article objects to the idea that simply because I as an individual hold an opinion or value and pursue it (regardless of whether or not is rationally defensible), it makes me an individualist. However, I am not saying that my emotions make it right. It all depends on what you give primacy. If emotion is your only standard of value, then you are doing it for subjective reasons. If emotion is simply a by-product (which in fact it always is), and you pursue an activity because it supports your rational values, it's fine. Once I have established that something is right, however, there is nothing wrong with doing it for the enjoyment, provided my actions are consistent with my rational values.

You don't agree with what? If you are suggesting I said that I simply "feel" like donating to charity, then read my post again. That's not what I said. (Edited - yes, I "enjoy" it; what I am pointing out is that I do it because I value it).

I gave you the reason. I am doing it because it upholds my values, not out of duty. For example, I may give to the Red Cross because I value life -> I value saving particular lives -> I give money to help them save particular lives. And just because a Christian says it, is not a reason to object to it.

I think you're taking "self-interest" in too concrete a sense, i.e. as requiring a direct physical payoff of some kind. The reward for me is more moral, i.e. for my character, and in suport of my values. That's maybe not the most articulate description, but it gets the essence of my motivation. I support certain charities because I enjoy it, and because I value helping others. What makes it selfish is that I value being kind, as opposed to doing it because it is my alleged duty.

I have to say that Dr. Robertson's "Top Ten" is as twisted and immoral a group of statements as I have ever read in one place. Wow. Who is Dr. Robertson? (Edited after first post) Never mind, I see it was a debate, and I assume Robertson must have been the opponent. I would like to have heard that...

Agreed. Being direct is always better. If what you are saying is persuasive and true, eventually the individuals who have the potential to be swayed, will be. If not, too bad for them. To answer your original question: how do you argue against such people?, in terms of method, I would say: 1) keep to the original points 2) know when to stop For example, the poster that started you off, "dan", is just a twit. No prettier way to put it. With someone like that, I would not worry about speaking to them but would simply attempt to set the record straight, which is what you did. It is very helpful to present the alternative viewpoint, and how Objectivism helped you personally. You never know who may be affected also as a result of your support. "dan" will never going to come around to your viewpoint, so you should consider your job done once you have spoken your mind, and you realize you are not making any logical headway. The poster "Jean" seems like a world-weary pragmatist. They are familiar with Rand but still don't get it. What can you say to someone like that? Again, just set the record straight and when you've done that, you've done all you can.

While it's true that you can make logical arguments for the existence of God, the problem is that while the arguments may be valid, the premises on which such arguments are based are not verifiable, or or just plain false, so the conclusions are also false. Consider this argument: 1) all men are oranges, 2) all oranges are citrus fruits, 3) therefore, men are citrus fruits. The logic of this argument is valid, but the conclusion is false because premise #1 is false. Logical method is good, but you also need verifiable facts to base it on. You do not need to disprove God, because you don't need to disprove a "nothing". It is the responsibility of theists to verify the existence of their deity, not our responsibility to disprove it. It is unreasonable to expect someone to indefinitely leave their minds open in the absence of rational justification. If no proof has been presented, there is no reason to believe it. If you are interested in what the rational arguments against God might be, I recommend the book "Atheism: The Case Against God". It discusses many, many arguments presented through history in defense of God, and dismantles them.

Actually, nicotine is a stimulant, so it's hard to say how it would calm nerves. I have heard smokers say this, and what I suspect is really being "calmed" is the body's craving for more nicotine. Although, admittedly, since I've only smoked 2 cigarettes in my life (both of which made me nauseous) I can't speak from experience.

Noted. Thanks for the clarification. But I disagree that no causal link has been found; I think that's just buying into cigarette company propaganda. It is not necessary to know every single biological link between chemicals to accept that one thing causes another. I don't know the exact sequence down to the molecular level in which a body shuts down after someone is shot in the head with a gun, but I am confident that this causes death. There is enough evidence at this point in history to say that there is a causal relation. It's important to point out that the entire discussion of this topic in our society - in my opinion - has been skewed by the way it's handled in our courts. Personally, I think it's everyone's choice to smoke, and if it kills them, that's their decision. However, in typical fashion, today's legal proceedings ignore this personal responsibility and try to push the blame onto somone else, namely, the cigarette companies. Since they have been robbed of their only out, they must fall back on trying to deny the ligitimate scientific evidence, and trying to distort the issue by holding it to unreasonable standards of proof. The presence of so many smokers with lung cancer alone is sufficient evidence for me, let alone the supporting scientfic findings, such as the existence of known carcinogens in cigarette smoke. I would categorize their claims as being similiar to those who attempt to discount objectivity by means of unreasonable standards of perfection, i.e. the claim that we cannot know everything, or cannot have "perfect" knowledge, or "absolute" knowledge, and therefore we cannot know anything at all. The problem is their unreasonable standard for what constitutes "proof", not the proof itself.

Huh???. I think those dying/dead from lung cancer as well as the scientists who have isolated carcinogens in cigarette smoke and shown its link to lung and heart disease would beg to differ. Plus, if it were not harmful, then we would not need this discussion because without harm, there could be no violation of rights. I agree that property rights is an important factor in this discussion. Basically if you harm me, or damage my property, you are violating my rights. Granting this, I see two other issues: 1) Does cigarette smoke constitute an instument of harm? Since I accept the evidence that smoking in general is harmful to the smoker's body, I am thinking more of degree and of impact on others: is it necessary to be smoking the cigarette yourself, or does second hand smoke suffice? Because if you must be smoking yourself to cause harm, again, there is no issue because nobody else's rights are being violated. 2) If smoke is harmful, then how do you handle it if it is "inflicted" on someone? Do you ban the smoke to begin with (the way we ban physical violence), or do you require an individual to go to court and sue the same way we handle property damages and personal injury? Is it analogous to physical assault, or is it like an accidental injury?

Japan will not bomb us as long as we keep buying their Hello Kitty crap.

It seems to me that the hawks in these discussions see the Americans - all Americans - as different from, and morally right compared to any particular Iraqi. The doves regard individuals from the two countries as being on par; that is, innocent as individuals until proven guilty. According to this assessment, the hawks view the doves as weak on the enemy, ineffective and perhaps cowardly. The doves view the hawks as rash and callous towards innocent life. So, what exactly accounts for this difference? i.e. why should non-combatant Iraqi lives be regarded as worthless? Is it the fact that we are at war, and war automatically converts anyone in the enemy country into an enemy? What if Islamic militants were running around Des Moines, Iowa, and we needed to bomb them. Would the nearby Americans become worthless? Is it only when people are organized under the umbrella of an enemy nation that they become dispensable? What is the principle here?

LSD was first synthesized - and used - totally by accident in 1938 by a Swiss chemist doing pharmaceutical research. He thinks he may have absorbed some through his skin in the laboratory. Related compounds also occur naturally in morning glory seeds and in ergot fungus, which attacks grains such as rye and barley. It has been suggested that these compounds may have precipitated the Salem witch trials, when citizens ingested infected grains and then had hallucinations, which they interpreted as the influence of witches.