georgedonnelly

You clearly misunderstood me as I demonstrated that I know what 'empathy' is. And I did NOT request that anyone do my thinking for me. You border on the insulting to suggest otherwise. I am simply suggesting that those who demand empathy provide a similar situation in which the recipient of the 'kindness' is a person who does not suffer from a learning disability.

What's a snooper? More O-ists need to show more empathy... Empathy = identification and understanding. I doubt I can understand Shaya's situation but maybe I can identify with being left out and excluded. I've had that happen. Living in Japan for four years was one big exclusionary experience. But I'm struggling to find some situation that could be equated to that of Shaya and the baseball game. Help me empathize, Joel and Michael. What's a comparable situation for a person that doesn't suffer from a learning disability? How about if my wife walks into an MLB practice game, asks the players if I can play, and they play the same way the kids played with Shaya (because relative to them I'm about at Shaya's level). Ridiculous. And I would be insulted by it. I would walk away from that in shame. What's the point? A story that hits me right in the tear gland is The Shawshank Redemption. The part where the main character crawls through a sewage pipe to freedom .... that is inspiring.

Is it really an act of kindness to fake reality for someone else? An act of kindness is something benevolent you do for someone else, right? Is faking reality benevolent, under any circumstances? Brant: Nice! I was surprised that the father asked for him. I don't think that is wise and strikes me as coddling.

That's interesting. I played baseball in a public league during grade school and for my (public) high school team. On multiple occasions I was on both sides of blowouts (we were getting crushed or were crushing) and in almost all cases the winning coach held back his team from achieving a maximum score once the blowout was apparent. I think they did this because the general attitude among kids was that things were "too hard" and when you're down, it's hopeless, so you might as well give up. This was nearly the 100% prevalent attitude amongst people my age in those days. This was in Philadelphia in the 80's. Compare this to a private baseball camp in NJ I went to one summer where their attitude was similar to the words of Maureen Connolly.

I'm not impressed by it. Anybody you can find on the street, so to speak, would say aww, that's nice. I would say that, getting to the essentials, they faked reality for this boy Shaya, in order to make him feel bigger or better than he really is. Through their intentional mistakes on the field they allowed him to gain a victory. This strikes me as evil. What's the purpose? To boost his self-confidence? Wouldn't practicing a sport he likes be a better and more honest way to do that? Does the father think so poorly of his son that he doesn't encourage him to practice athletics? My reaction probably comes off as cold-hearted but, if it were my son who had a learning disability, I don't think I would want to provide him with fake highs, or allow other people to do it.

Yes, I agree on Obama and McCain. This continuing campaign for RP - even after McC has officially clinched the nomination - is irrational and futile. RP's candidacy and this continuing waste of time are diverting resources from the only party dedicated to liberty, the Libertarian Party. My advice is to support the LP and its candidate Bob Barr. Support for RP = Support for GOP = Support for Bush = Support for torture, initiation of war, suspension of civil liberties.

In comparison to writers who are verbose and almost incomprehensibly indirect, Hemingway and Rand's writing styles are similar in that they communicate clearly and without unnecessary words, but I wouldn't say she cuts out words. Put another way, they both have a healthy respect for plot.

There is a story of his called "Big Two-Hearted River" that will always stand out in my mind for the vividness both of the natural setting and the emotions that it evoked in my mind. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Two-Hearted_River I think you're right, his lines don't seem to stay with one, but I find the emotions evoked by the stories do. "The Snows of Kilimanjaro" is another unforgettable one for me. I find his writing to be largely about pain, misery, sadness, destruction of the good and the innocent and heroic but hopeless resistance against those. I read about everything of his when I was in college - and since then nothing.

Hemingway wrote in a condensed way, not condensed as in Reader's Digest but as in dense. It's possible to roll right through his works - and gain nothing from it. But if you give it time you see that it requires a lot of brain work. It's like a puzzle. You have to infer a lot. You have to read it a few times, or, at least, you gain something new from it each time you read it. Hemingway wrote clearly in order to communicate effectively. You don't need to use passive voice and big words to do that. If you want to compare writing and architecture, you'll find Hemingway closer to steel and glass minimalist towers, and the passive voice big-worders closer to ornate, stumpy blobs of mixed-up styles. ;) So I don't think it's right to blame Hemingway. Blame teacher's unions and the Dept of Education (easy targets). ;)

Sure but if what it was like 20 years ago is any measure of what it's like today, OP is right, it's dumbed down. For example, overly-dumbed down tests always put my reading level 3-4 years ahead of my actual grade in the middle school years. And I was bored by the reading assignments in school. One data point but I think OP is on-target.

Good point on the readers but I think the abbreviations in some cases require some extra mental agility to use. So I don't think they're as negative an indicator as you make them out to be. The dumbing down of the schools is one reason I'm considering homeschooling my boy (now 2 yo).

Steve Kubby at the LP debate just said something relevant to the overfishing issue. Consumer action. You inform the consumer, mount a campaign saying that the consumer will not accept a product that is produced through overfishing.

the death penalty is where a majority decide that under certain conditions it is ok to initiate deadly force against a person. As the site says, capitalism is all about individual rights, so since when do you have the right to initiate force against someone else? It's a basic issue. What, then, is retaliatory force? If there is no such thing, we have a basic problem. When you jail someone for murder, you are using retaliatory force (I guess). It seems more like defensive force, but that's my own spur-of-the-moment term. The term 'retaliatory force' sounds like someone hit you, so you hit them back, tit for tat. Maybe that concept includes both the tit for tat and also restraining someone else from initiating force. Anyway, my point is that imprisonment is sufficient retaliatory force and I think the death penalty edges over into initiation of force, since it's not strictly required in order to achieve of the ostensible goal of keeping the criminal from initiating force again.

the death penalty is where a majority decide that under certain conditions it is ok to initiate deadly force against a person. As the site says, capitalism is all about individual rights, so since when do you have the right to initiate force against someone else? It's a basic issue.

In a free market economy, perhaps someone would own that stretch of the ocean, and would sell the rights to fish there with certain limits that he would enforce. Over-use of a resources seems to happen when there is no owner of the resources, or the owner is a government that is the equivalent of an absentee landlord.

I read that too, and had a similar reaction. Given that McCain is simply a liar (e.g. ) and a lot of people seem to think we all need to pull together to make a plan work (see Road to Serfdom), we will probably get Obama, even if he does keep talking so openly.Obama ignores the fact that the emissions from these energy uses constitute people dumping their trash on other people's property. It's a property-rights issue. People think the USA is so much better than the rest of the world, an example, so he is appealing to that false pride that people like to prop themselves up on as a way to get people to reduce their energy use. I don't think he is worried about other countries liking us as much as he sees this as a collective property rights issue. In other words, the collective emissions of the USA will pollute the collective lands of other countries. We can drive our SUVs, eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times no matter what other persons say, as long as we do not dump the resulting waste materials into shared resources like the atmosphere or private property, or demand other persons help us pay for these luxuries.

When government itself has become a fraud, the kind of fraud you point out is so small as to escape notice or significance. Sad but true.

They do. I have purchased and read all of her books. I have purchased multiple copies of a lot of them. But I'm not paying $100+ for a lecture. That is crazy. If they priced the stuff reasonably and in modern formats, this is one objectivist that would be buying, who is not currently.

... I never said AR literally said that. You are totally dropping context. Here is your context: http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/in...amp;#entry46333 You're mistaken. To be an Objectivist is to substitute Ayn Rand's thinking for your own. It's a religion. That's how she defined it, see what she wrote at the beginning of "The Objectivist Forum". Shayne

You mix unsupported assertions with overly aggressive challenges. Your argument is a moving target full of question marks. I reply simply to say that silence does not mean consent. This thread got tiresome a long time ago and you are taking it to its logical conclusion.

sjw you passed something off as a quote from me. It is not. That is plain, factual dishonesty. I'm using your term. This reminds me of the time you claimed Ayn Rand said Objectivism was a religion. That's two times now where I have witnessed you presenting factually false statements, without being able to issue a correction.

How do you define "impaired" and "being preyed upon"? impaired: functioning poorly or inadequately If I'm drunk and, at my request, someone sells me more alcohol, I see no rights violations. Just because the 7-11 sells vodka and I'm an addict does not mean the clerk is coercing me into buying it. I, addict or not, have the ability to choose between continuing my addiction or seeking treatment to end it. Too vague for me to comment on much. There is no "right to profit" from anything. There is a right to produce and trade voluntarily. You're baiting me. That's rather juvenile.

You're being intellectually dishonest in a variety of ways. I substantiated my claim. It is plainly visible to any reader. You have not. These facts alone speak for themselves.

sjw: I did not use the word steal, nor did I imply thievery in any way. Clearly you did not take the time to read what I actually wrote before jumping to extreme conclusions. "Pull out carrots" does NOT equal "stealing carrots", not even remotely. Furthermore, you put the phrase stealing carrots in quotes, suggesting it as a direct quotation from me, which it is not. Who is being dishonest now? My definition of civility comes from the dictionary. Yours comes from your imagination, which you attempt to pass off as reality. Which of those may be deemed "woozy" you are able to decide for yourself. Bob_Mac: I am under no obligations to answer your questions. You claimed you had a strong argument. I am still waiting to hear it. Once I hear your alleged argument, I will be able to respond to it. You say addictions to powerful drugs constitute an impairment. Well what do you call alcohol, nicotine and caffeine? And what does an addiction cause but a powerful urge? wooz·y 1. Dazed or confused. 2. Dizzy or queasy.

argument: a process of reasoning; series of reasons. You claim a strong argument but all you have is questions and some assertions without supporting reasons. How is the drug dealer "exploiting" you if you, an adult, approach him offering to buy what he sells? That's like saying the corner grocer exploits you because you just must have the coffee or beer or wine or grain alcohol or cigarettes he sells. Or maybe the prostitute exploits you because you just gotta have what she is offering for sale. It's a natural urge after all. You can hardly be blamed. Right?