sbeaulieu

According to ARI, more than 25 million copies of Atlas Shrugged have sold, with 1 million sold each year. Given the popularity and influence of Ayn's book, a rapt audience should not be hard to find for this movie. If people can sit and read her 1096-page novel, a 3-hr or longer movie will be a non-issue. And really, what's more important? The message/idea, or the bottom line? I believe both will pay dividends in the long run. ~ Shane

Granted that times have changed, I would still like to see Atlas Shrugged be true to the book, and in the past setting. It would be a snapshot of that period and what those people had to deal with - a great historical epic. We might learn more from it than a present day setting. ~ Shane

In today's theories, has Mars been used as a possible benchmark? Earlier in our solar system's life, I imagine that it could have supported life during its cooling period. But then as the millennia passed, it cooled beyond the point of sustaining life. Just a thought. ~ Shane

It's times like these where I'm alt-tabbing like a madman to hit dictionary.com :frantics: As a previous military instructor, it was my job to assess my audience before introducing them to the theories and mechanics. It was my job to make sure they understood the terms. It was my job to ensure the material was of a language they were familiar with. It was my job to use analogies (as many times as necessary) that clicked via associations. In order for us to understand Paul's perspective, a common denominator between him and the participants has to be found (language, examples, analogies, etc). I may be oversimplifying, but I won't attempt to throw words that I don't understand the full meaning of. It's just a basic approach I've learned over 4 years of teaching that has proven successful to me when teaching high-level communications (IT). ~ Shane

If things were that bad, you should have pawned the guitar and the Chivas. = Mindy Not if the Chivas is the Century blend! I can't play the guitar, but I can sure enjoy the scotch! :drool: ~ Shane

That's coming from a rational perspective that anyone would take. To kill them because of their association to Satan...laughable. They never once mention the mice eating their wheat (solid food and soup not included). ~ Shane

For those that are visually inclined... ~ Shane

I'd agree with statement wholeheartedly. That's been my intro to Objectivism through Terry Goodkind's fiction which is loaded with various fundamentals and intricacies. His themes carry the fundamentals, and the way the stories unfold deliver the intricacies through characters and plot. This forum has shed light on more than I could possibly fathom, so I'm sort of a loiterer myself. But my intent is to absorb and act through discussion. Another work of fiction, Old Nick's Guide to Happiness (plug-in for Nicholas Dykes ;)), cuts to the chase by defining the philosophy outright, with examples, and uses it to compare and contrast among world philosophies. I'm ecstatic as I'm finally able to understand and apply it to my life today and see what I've done right and wrong. In all, fiction makes Objectivism digestible for me as a great introduction to this most rational of philosophies. ~ Shane

Now you're stereotyping. May as well call of us in uniform killers. ~ Shane I'm talking about police in a position to do you harm. After you talk to them a little you'll find out if they are decent people or not, but be careful what you say; they may write it down. --Brant I fully agree. ~ Shane

Now that's a place worth visiting! Nice to know we have some well-traveled members here ;) Welcome! ~ Shane

Consider it a whisper, then, in the confines of this forum. ~ Shane

Now you're stereotyping. May as well call of us in uniform killers. ~ Shane

He makes a great point at the end about how the reporters aren't airing their families publicly before going public to slander Sarah Palin's. "Obama's Mama!" Love it. Iron Legs Obama - should be a Kung Fu Theater flick.

Thanks to this attitude, they will come. Sanction a little, give a lot. --Brant My view, currently, isn't to interpret this as a national crackdown or martial law. I won't subscribe to the scare some seem to think of it as. Now, should we see this on every major highway in every state (and at the same time), I'll change that attitude. I'm just saying that at the discomfort of a checkpoint to check for dangers against the populace, is it really that big a deal? ~ Shane

And the frog continues to be slowly boiled. First it was DUI checkpoints, then checkpoints for illegal drugs. Who knows what's next? Checkpoints to check for legal immigration status? Checkpoints to check for unpaid child support? Or unpaid back taxes? Or child pornography stored on people's laptop computers? The possibilities are endless! Meanwhile, we have self-identified objectivists telling us how wonderful the police are, how they are ready to risk their lives to protect us, how they are our benefactors, just like the heroes of Atlas Shrugged, how anger and resentment at this cadre of brownshirts must be motivated by envy for our betters. And, of course, we are nasty, evil people if we use any unkind language to describe our friends in blue who, after all, are only protecting us by pulling us over without cause and searching our cars. Oh well, not to worry. According to the fine folks in our government, the terrorists hate us for our freedom. So it's only logical that, by having the police systematically destroy our freedom, the terrorists will no longer have any reason to hate us. We'll be safe forever from the threat of terrorism, at the mere cost of living in a police state. I guess we should be greatful for a deal like that. Martin Nothing to hide, nothing to worry about. It goes without saying that instances like this one can be alarming. But, take the population of the entire US (estimated 300+ million), and how do you go about keeping us safe? I'd rather see occasional checkpoints like this then have them come kicking our doors in systematcially across the US. ~ Shane

Barbara, Do you mean to ask who in the end should decide what is "extra objective, and deeply factually neutral" and what "subjectivity and personal opinions" need to be "stripped away" in the judges? Why, Kyrel, of course. He has made that clear in many posts. Michael We could vote on it! Wait, never mind... ~ Shane

Mindy, I was referring to studiodekadent when I wrote this. I need to make it a habit of quoting or being more specific, so I changed my original post to reflect what my response was to. ~ Shane

I can see if you're going for aesthetics, but there is still a problem in the long run because that weight loss won't last. The human body is very, very efficient. For instance, the more water you drink, the less water your body will have to store (because it's getting a reliable external source). That's why you see fitness-minded folks drinking tons of it. As well as water, the body will keep stored calories (fat) to a minimum if it's getting a reliable external source. Small meals (6 is the trend) throughout the day help stabilize your body's metabolism. Because of the low caloric intake, the body will not need to store excesses. The key here is to exercise to reduce the current fat stores of your body along with the daily food intake. The aesthetics approach you're taking might be well and good on the short term, but it's likely that your muscle composition is taking the brunt of the punishment vs. your fat stores (the fat is the energy reserve, so used as last resort). What does that all mean? Well, the one-a-day meals are likely getting stored as body fat (since it's not getting a reliable external source). Your metabolism is in the valley vs. the peak. If you do this over an extended period of time, your body won't adapt quickly when going to a regular diet again. It will still be thinking "I need to keep these calories because I'm not getting enough." This contributes to the quick weight gain crash dieters experience. ~ Shane

Curious how they plan to enforce that? Sanctions? ~ Shane

Atheist - a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings. I think that sums Objectivists up. Granted, it's general in nature, but it does belong. There are atheists that don't fall under Objectivist tenets, so you calling O'ists passionate reasonists is what would segregate us from mainstream atheists. ~ Shane

Sorry, but I don't think anybody's seen your movie. I'd love to hear how you guys would state the theme of Rain. = Mindy Might I suggest starting a new thread with a "spoiler" subtitle. This way, those that have watched it can discuss it without giving it away to those of us that haven't. It's the primary reason I haven't gone into it here with The Man from Earth. Great movie with lots of topics that could be dissected. ~ Shane

Indeed there is! But I'm sure you knew that. :hyper:

By "it", I meant to refer to organized religion, not the individual. Thanks for pointing that out, Rich. ~ Shane

Aside from reading fiction which started me down the path of reason, I read a book that this passage reminded me of - The Jesus Conspiracy. In it, there are two scientists who go to great lenghts to shed light on the Shroud of Turin, believed to have held the phyisical body of Christ. The visage that remains on the cloth bear hallmarks of the written account of the abuse that Jesus suffered at the hands of the Romans - bleeding wrists and feet from the nails, bleeding head from the crown of thorns, and bloodied back from the countless floggings. The face, surprisingly, is serene and peaceful. The two scientists (I'm doing this from recollection of 10 years past...bear with me) basically challenged the tenet of the Christian religion that Christ had risen from the dead, by concluding this - Christ did not die on the cross. To my understanding, they had a LOT of empirical data to back this up. What does this all mean? That if true, it would topple Christianity at its core since Christ had not died on the cross for our sins, but survived instead of rose. The Vatican went to great lengths to screw up the testing process so that the carbon-dating tests would come back proving that the Shroud of Turin was a fake painting dating to the 1200-1400s. The scientists had an answer for that too. My point is that not only does religion and faith swallow man's ability to think, but it will go to drastic lenghts and fight tooth and nail to persevere against reason. It is fundementally evil. It doesn't sit back in the shadows to wait for the mentally irrational, it actively seeks victims that have almost no chance to resist - children, prisoners (that's a whole issue in and of itself), the destitute, and millions of others who reach for hope because the other millions pointed them in the direction of God. I could go into more detail, but I'm inclined to start a new topic rather than throw this thread off-course. ~ Shane

I would say that morality is a tool in finding common ground amongst individuals, not so much a control mechanism (in the basic sense). If I were the only man living, would I need a moral code? The conflict arises when people are saturated with a morality that differs - whether through parenting, social majority, or personal choice - and cannot establish that middle ground. Reasonable people, regardless of background, will come together ammicably and co-exist. Friends and strangers alike do it all the time (part of group dynamics). Until they breach sensitive subjects like politics and religion, the sticks and stone will not break bones. ~ Shane