Danneskjold

That wasn't his friend.

Jack finally shot somebody.

I haven't bought the "Burning Crusade" expansion, but I've been playing WOW for a few months now, and it is really cool, and can be quite "addictive". RCR Buy the new expansion, VERY MUCH WORTH THE EXTRA MONEY. Two whole new characters and everything. The two new characters serve to even the groups out a bit. The Draenai (Alliance) can be Shamans (previously exclusive to Horde), and look like a nicer Horde character (big and bulky, but with an intelligent spin). The Blood Elfs (Horde) aren't as bad as they sound, their name is commemorative of their dead brethren. They have a more intelligent and less bulky figure unlike the majority of the Horde. They can also be Paladins (previously exclusive to Alliance). Other than that, what server? Name? Horde or Alliance? Why is the game so over-concentrated on preserving the environment, amongst other things, against industrialization? I noticed that when I was about to make a Tauren Druid.

As far as the question goes on where we limit arms, I'd say that you draw the line where people can defend themselves with the weapon. A nuke can't be used for self defense, nor can chemical weaponry, nor can a ballistic missile or warhead. Anything bigger/more explosive than a grenade really can't be used for self defense.

This is about what I'm trying to get to be right here.

Thats one of the sports I most like watching.

Mine is baseball for sure. Baseball is pretty much my obsession. It's a complex game that uses a lot of different skills (running, throwing, eye hand coordination), and it takes a long time to learn. Plus, once you get to the higher levels, it's a game for complete hardasses, sliding into each other, collisions at the plate. It's great. America's past time'll do just fine for me.

World of [Freaking] Warcraft. I got it yesterday with the new expansion, most amazing thing ever. EVER. I'm freaking addicted though, which sucks.

Yes and no.

Painting and art, as I understand it, separate themselves once there is the introduction of a concept (human being, building, etc.) that is capable of showing (not making someone feel) a statement/metaphysical value judgment. That is my current (and not well rooted) definition. For the reason I draw the line there, look here on the Art and Subobjectivity thread.

I second.

All in favor of taking whatever discussion on this over to the Art and Subobjectivity thread and discussing early Objectivism on here. That part is really what piqued my interest and we have PLENTY of threads about art right now.

This just in, 6-7 kids have signed up and are going to be reading We the Living in lit circles. It is the most chosen of any book (although I have no clue why seeing as none of them have any clue as to the content). In other news, this gives me an excuse to buy it.

Brant, when are things not absolute?

Ya, sports forum is a great idea though.

Ya, sorry about that really. That was my about being dismissive. How fashionable. Hey, maybe it’s not the “some Objectivists” that do it, maybe it’s just me. That was intentionally dismissive. Ok, I really do get what you’re saying here. An actual eye, as seen on a human face, is of similar shape to a walnut/the CBS television logo. Anyone, Picasso as you mentioned, can also distort the eye for whatever reason they please. I neither dispute Picasso’s status as an artist, nor his chosen style as art. It is the pure abstraction with a lack of conceptual basis that I dispute. I’m at a loss for words to refute much of this because to me, and I do admit that I am an unskilled observer, it seems like you make a great number of unsubstantiated claims throughout. In order for something to show a concept it has to contain a concept. By this I mean that something that is purely perceptual cannot show us a concept, although it can provoke a feeling, which is a concept, in us. Pollock’s painting “Lavender Mist” is sensory or perceptual depending on how you look at it. I have a hard time seeing how it can show much of anything. This paragraph is applicable to almost anything that doesn't have form. By saying this about anything that doesn't have an explicit form you can consider absolutely anything art. No, Jeff. Read it again. I'm talking about aesthetics. No one gets mad at a mere random pile of undifferentiated matter. A photo, say, of your "explosion in a yarn factory" would make no one want to lash out ('cept maybe the factory owner). It's only something another man calls "art" that elicits such a response from the man who doesn't understand it. In fact, this layman's ultimate put-down "I could do better" is not reserved for Abstract Art alone, but foisted on examples from all arts in all genres, and it is almost always an empty, extravagantly ignorant boast. -Kevin The difference is that nobody calls a “mere pile of undifferentiated matter” art. The frustration is not caused from a lack of understanding of something being shown, it is caused by the application of a concept that didn’t fit it, and a lack of a good explanation as to why. For instance, I say that this font is orange and you tell me it’s not, but I insist it is. Orange is a concept and if you tell me that the color of my font is orange because that is how it is defined and I say that the color orange is whatever I define it to be, you may get frustrated as a result of my obvious evasion. Now, obviously what orange is defined as is a ridiculous argument and I do not mean that the question of what art is defined as is anywhere near that in absurdity. My point is more that you have people lashing out because they are coping with a concept that they can’t define, not because of frustration that they cannot see meaning in the painting.

Well, Jack still didn't kill anybody, but he did torture his brother again which was fun. Also, there was a large reduction in the number of stupid sideplots, or at least the degree to which they presented themselves. Overall I would say that last episode was a success, especially when Jack was about to kill his brother and held a gun to his partner's head. Graem (Graham) was scared. Jack's dad is actually turning out to be a pretty decent villain. Morris got captured, no worries though, I'm sure he'll thwart the terrorists' plots with his never ending sarcasm.

The setup is this: A cat is in a box with some sort of thing that has an exactly 50% chance of killing it or leaving it completely unharmed. The basic claim, as I understand it, is that a cat exists in multiple states, that being both dead and alive, at once as long as nobody has observed it. Once it is observed, its state is decided. I'm trying to figure out what water this holds if any. Any ideas?

Look at all industrialized nations. If you look at the environmental standards of cleanliness etc. you'll notice that it's the industrialized nations that are far cleaner than the non-industrialized nations. This is because industry and other such things gives us a better route with which to dispose of sewage and other such problems. As technology advances so does human's ability to protect the environment. I don't have any problem at all with the little woodland critters until the owls keep someone in my state from using their land for something that is actually useful. As far as property rights goes, they really don't conflict with the environment at all. Especially as long as environmental groups exist they can buy forest land and other such areas and preserve it themselves, even opening it to tourism if it so fits them. No reason why not. The only thing right now is that the government does it, therefore it's not a profitable business to do it without the government. There is no reason why a private charity could not protect the environment, you look at some of those organizations and realize just how easy it would be for them to protect the environment without government help by investing money in new products that would give incentives and open their own private parks.

Too funny, I found out fourth period today that not only did I get it on the reading list, but a bunch of the girls in my class thought it sounded like an easy read and signed up for it as their number one option.

Ha, can that one be my room? Just kidding.

So we're doing reading about the WWI-WWII time period in History class and we're doing lit groups with people in our class. So, because the time period roughly fit, I suggested that We the Living be included in the options for books to be allowed to be read in the lit groups. Then I got my entire table group to put it down as their number one option. I was pretty happy about that one.

:fear: :hyper:

Naw, not a chance. My sister used to have some classes with him, she pretty much described him as an airhead that has his moments. She did say that some of his moments could be very profound.

Eh, I'm fine. Not a horrible thing, besides I had pretty good company for the game .