gadfly

Samoht, I would move (if you can, and if you have not already). I agree with your assessment. The principle I use to judge this topic is simply that drugs are bad to the extent that they impair rationality. This principle is also evident in differing degrees, however. Some of the discussion has already touched on this. For example, drinking coffee to stay awake on a long drive is not the same as using a large dose of methamphetamine which makes you so out of it that you stab someone, and should not be appraised the same way morally. For this reason, I am not willing to categorically say that using a mind-altering drug is morally wrong in all degrees and under all circumstances. Something I have often wondered is whether using drugs can negate a person's free will (by significantly impairing their rationality), and if this should impact a person's legal right to use the drug. For example, in my opinion there is no question that people should be allowed to drink in private, and in reasonable quantity in public. Banning alcohol was a fiasco during Prohibition because it undermined the principle that people should be able to engage in free trade and the (fully consensual) activity of drinking alcohol, which in itself does not represent a violation of anyone's rights. However, if rationality is removed, by using drugs of a type, or in an amount, that always makes the user temporarily irrational, does that mean they should not have a right to use those drugs? Or should we still always wait until they violate someone's rights?

UPDATE - I found the original link in Yes's quote: http://tiadaily.blogspot.com/2004/11/empir...-happiness.htm. It seems to me that this article by Jack Wakeland simply points out the positive influence that American culture has had around the globe. I still don't see the collectivism.

Yes, the evidence for your claims may indeed be there, but I don't see how your post (in response to BurgessLau's query for evidence) supports them. This is not a presentation of evidence. How does this quote indicate trivializing of goals? The evidence may be there, but you did not present it. The link also does not work. How does this quote indicate altruism?

I've noticed that missing definition too. Frankly, I don't think they have much of a vested interest in defining it, basically allowing them to install themselves as the defenders of "the family". Keeping it vague allows the idea to sound good without requiring rational discussion.

tommyedison did not say that. The argument was: since families are divisible, they cannot be a basic unit. Since individuals are not divisible, they can. Indivisibility was applied to family vs. individual, not society.

So do I. I'll take her in a size medium, thanks.

Bill Maher gets a "Get out of jail free" card for making me laugh. This time.

I thought Guliani was just clueless when it came to political principles. Spitzer, on the other hand... that guy is just tripping over himself to put business people in jail. He's bad. I know his job is to enforce the laws, but does he have to enforce bad laws with so much enthusiasm? Yikes.

Telluride, CO is most beautiful small town I've seen in the U.S. (the photo in the link is actually not even that great). If you haven't been there, go! It would actually make an excellent Galt's Gulch... it's remote enough. There's even ore in the adjacent mountains. Since there is a lot of money flowing in from tourism year-round, there is a fair amount of commerce/culture for a small town. I would have voted for "Medium Metropolitan City" but the site wouldn't let me. Must be because I viewed results before voting. Some sort of copy protection? Large cities are great to visit. I have lived in Brooklyn, but eventually I disliked the anonymity of the large city. Also, to me, an apartment in a big beehive of other apartments, or in a row with other row houses is not a home. You gotta have a yard, and trees, and be able to enjoy the outdoors. I may yet live in Chicago since my brother lives there. Great city, plus you can fly anywhere easily. However, ultimately, I may be destined to live in Colorado, which probably means Denver area ("Medium Metropolitan City"), or Boulder. I love the mountains, skiing, climbing, etc. Plus half my family will soon live there, and we have fun. Just need to shift my career out there.

The only thing she wants to "affect" is the vote. She'll say anything. When she suddenly decided to run as Senator for New York State, overnight she knew about all of New York State's hopes and dreams. Mindless drivel.

There's no conflict (even with "unicorns" as you mention later), because they do have referents. They refer to imaginary things. Mental things exist, and can be referents, just like physical objects. It's not clearly a metaphysical question. Objectivism's solution is that universals are actually concepts. They do pertain to what exists, however, because concepts are a grasp of what exists. It's only because most epistemologies are so contrary to realism that this seems so improbable. Rand does give answers, but this confirms the prevailing opinion in this thread that you haven't fully grapsed the content presented in ITOE. I recommend re-reading the part on concept-formation in particular, because your questions are in fact answered there. Leonard Peikoff's discussion of this in "Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand" is good too.

Small world. I took classes from the profs listed on this dissertation. Karen Hanson was modern philosophy overview, I think (i.e. Hume through... Sartre?) and I think Paul Spade was my logic prof. I'd hate to think of defending an Objectivist thesis in that department... The short answer to your question is that you probably will not find such a thing as an Objectivist philosophy of language. Objectivism does not ascribe the same power to language per se (as opposed to conceptual thought) that contemporary philosophy does. It holds that language does not have any epistemological relevance, i.e. language does not determine how or what we know; it is a set of symbols for conveying conceptual information, after those concepts have been formed. I don't own a copy of ITOE right now, so I can't give you the exact page, but it does refer to Wittgenstein, and I believe the Objectivist opinion of philosophy of language since Wittgenstein would be exactly the same. Not favorable. I'm sure that eventually there will be more discussion of language from an Objectivist standpoint, once more academics become acquainted with Objectivism, but I think it will always take a back seat to epistemology. Since Objectivism regards concepts as universals, you will find its answer to this problem in the parts of the book devoted to concept-formation.

Actually it sounds like it should be a preamble to a Taliban constitution. And what if the rights and interest of the people of Afghanistan conflict with the "provisions of the sacred religion of Islam"... I wonder who will win?

I wish they'd quit wasting my money on it. The Taliban gravitates towards drug sales for the same reason that this happens everywhere; local gangsters/outlaws naturally get involved in lucrative illegal activites. If they'd stop persucuting the farmers and let them grow whatever they wish, we won't have to worry about them getting mixed up with the Taliban. Obviously, we learned absolutely zip from Prohibition in our own country. The problem with bringing democracy to these nations is that it's merely the means of filling the chairs in your government. It says little or nothing about the government's content or guiding principles. However, I did see a show on the Afghan constitutional meetings recently, and saw an interesting confrontation between and educated Afghan and some guy from a remote tribal region. The tribal guy said (roughly) "There are women here, you must throw them out!" and the educated guy said something like "Brother, individual rights mean we can't do that". I was surprised to hear the principle even mentioned. That's a start.

Yeah. Internally, compaines probably already call it "Make Your Numbers for the Year Day". The name could even change based on the name of the current retail sponsor, which would rotate each year. By the way, I was wrong, "Returnmas" would occur on the first shopping day after "the holiday".

You have obviously thought about this topic in more depth than I have, so I'm afraid I can't offer you much insight regarding methods, but this sentence you wrote is something I had not heard before. What type of thing might Kant hide from censors?

I don't know about that, but Choco Leibniz is the best of all possible cookies. (I realize the name is spelled differently, but I still chuckle when I see them in the grocery store)

My faves so far: Giftmas (honesty is a plus) Mas (Spanish for "more" - appropriate) OK, I'll give it a try: Purchasemas Wrapmas SaveTheGiftReceiptmas NewGlovesmas HighElectricBillmas (also known as OutdoYourNeighborsmas) SummerSausagemas Tryptophanmas and finally, Returnmas.

Merry December25thmas!!

That is just amazing. What are they teaching in history over there? I'll bet they know the terms "V1", "V2" and/or "buzz bomb" just fine. I'll have to keep an eye out for the TV series over here. Since I recognize the name "Auschwitz" I won't think it's a Polish cooking show.

Nutrition is a huge subject, but I think most experts would recommend a balanced diet low in saturated fats and sugar. Salads/veggies, whole grains, some meat, other proteins, some dairy. The weight issue is simple in principle: burn as much or more energy than you consume. Implementing it is the tricky - and difficult - part. Try to find a method to be objective about what you are eating, such as the Weight Watchers point system. They have a way of quantifying foods you eat in terms of points, in such a way that encourages a good diet. Simply counting total calories per day is another. Nutrition labels on foods have values expressed as a percentage of 2,000 and 2,500 calorie-per-day diets. Personally, I like to run. Other than the shoes and some clothes, it's cheap, you can do it almost anywhere, and it gets you outside. You can run solo, or with friends. Most cities have bike paths or areas where you can run, walk or bike off the street. If you're worried about injury (knees, whatever) you can learn to run in a way that's efficient and easy on the body. Swimming is an excellent full-body exercise that's low-impact. You use a huge amount of energy swimming, and it's great if you have back trouble. At my pool, there's even a regular group that walks in the pool instead of swimming. Biking is great for the scenery and exercise. You will appreciate the Tour de France once you've tried to ride a few miles at any significant speed. Lastly, the venue: health clubs are too pricey for me but are definitely nice and good if you want guidance from a trainer. I found that a local university offers recreation passes for around $170 a year, so that's what I got. Indoor running track, exercise equipment, Olympic-size pool, racquetball, etc. Maybe you can find a deal like that, too.

Gee, I could post one word at a time if you want. After a couple of weeks I would leave the Speichers in the dust! That is, unless they started posting in single words, too...

Very funny. Actually, lately James Bond has been somewhat of a slacker. I hear he prefers doing donuts in ice castles in $300,000 Aston Martins rather than fighting crime, as in his early novels - er - missions.

You are right, I should have said "the agency which succeeded the KGB in Ukraine". My point was more that Eastern Bloc security services have poisoned people before, and this service - or somebody - seems to be following the tradition. The reports so far are not conclusive, but so far seem to suggest that he was poisoned during dinner at the general's house: the fact that he fell ill after dinner, the odor on his breath, the fact that the medical exam indicated his poisoning was consistent with ingestion of the poison. Whether his host had something to do with it, or whether he was an unwitting accomplice, hopefully we'll find out for sure soon. The real question is: did the butler work for the opposition?

I guess the KGB may be up to its old tricks regarding Viktor Yushchenko: Truly scary.