Jjeorge

It probably would be a deterrent. That's not the part I'm detesting, because it seems similar to the reasons for the death penalty. What I don't get is the way it sounds like youd take pleasure in the man's pain itself, instead of the effects of it... Maybe that's ot exactly what you're saying though. Maybe the point is that you can watch him suffer and understand the reasons for it, and take pleasure in the fact that it will deter others from committing similarly horrible crimes -- despite the toll it might take on your psyche like their kills do to soldiers'?

Spare me the question begging. Your assertion that it is a "pre-rational" response is your assertion. You have not proved that your conclusion is rational. http://hermiene.net/short-stories/i_have_no_mouth.html A... Spare ME your tautologies. Maybe pre-rational was the wrong word, but I was referring to what Michael said about your view of it (and I suppose his?) not being syllogistic. I'm not claiming my assertions are entirely rational, either. And if you really think the man's scream itself is specifically what I was talking about, then you have missed the point. Soldiers who have killed will tell you that even though they know the enemies deserved it, every one of their (the soldiers') kills takes a toll on them. I'd imagine the suffering of even a sociopath should have the same effect on a person, unless he himself is a sociopath. (I suppose I could be wrong, however, as it's not always the case that the person dies.)

I think this is closer to what I'm trying to say. I don't say all these things because I'm a softie who has some sort of sympathy for the guy -- because I absolutely don't. There are a lot of people who sound like they would honestly enjoy this guy's suffering, and that's what bothers me. I get that it's definitely a pre-rational response, but it seems like one should have a similarly pre-rational disgust if he were to actually witness a man screaming in agony from such things as, say, Adam suggests. I do understand the desire for backlash against evil, though, and I guess its kind of funny, because two or three years ago I'd have never imagined myself on this side of such an argument. I was squarely in the "make him suffer" camp.

"Better to off him on the first one and move on with our lives." Sounds like I agree that he should be gotten rid of. The sooner the better, because his continued existence should not be on the backs of the taxpayers at all. I just don't get the desire for it to be painful. Perhaps it's my Christian roots talking, but I don't jive with this desire for other people to suffer,even after my conversion to atheism. And yes -- he IS a human, in this sense of the word. And that's what makes the crime so terrible. An animal killing human beings is terrible, but the animal had no choice in the matter. Humans do. And ya know, supposing he's not "really" human. If a dog kills a child, do you wish for the dog to suffer as the child suffered? Or do you simply want to euthanize the animal and move on? If you don't think he's human, then treat him like the dog that he is.

Jesus. I'm not against the death penalty, nor do I have any sympathy for this man, but things like this have always rubbed me thw wrong way. No matter how you slice it, this is wanting another human to suffer. And I have just never been able to see the wisdom or morality in that. It's this veritable bloodlust that fuels the Left's ire against the death penalty, as well. Better to off him on the first one and move on with our lives if you ask me.

I tried to warn him... A... Pff, don't try play the disappointed would-be hero. You did no such thing. (Else I'm losing my mind... Was inevitable I suppose. The signs where there are all along -- I didn't used to be so forgetful.)

I think I meant and said high school students here who went to college, not any who found OL while in college. Spread the word! --Brant you're still here?--go away! Ah, so you did, my apologies. I suppose it doesn't count that I found O-ism in high school, and OL once I got to college, does it? I did meet a guy in an English course who was a huge fan of Rand -- but in an extremely unhealthy way... Absolutely consumed, and convinced that she was right to call her philosophy as she conceived of it as completely perfect in every possible way. I sometimes regret that I didn't try to show him to this place, as I myself started out as he was when I first found Rand. I did, however, call him out for plagiarizing massive sections of essays by Don Watkins and Yaron Brook (and actually the opening lines of the Money Speech) for his proselytizing endeavors. The professor (very liberal, very feminist) applauded me for it... Until I said I'm a huge fan of Objectivism, and simply didn't want this random student to take credit for these great ideas. (Not strictly true in the sense the professor took it, but the look on his face was priceless as he muttered under his breath that such infighting is bound to happen under such a "self-absorbed" worldview. The answer will always be the same: I produce more than I consume. It's called making money. All I'm doing is following Ayn Rand's advice in Franscisco's Money Speech. I believe that is the most effing awesome thing she ever wrote. Jeez... isn't there anyone here who has actually read it? If they have, is anyone here actually doing anything about it? I am. Greg Plenty of people produce more than they consume, yet still pay taxes, obey regulatory measures, and comply with myriad other mix economy absurdities. So you're still evading the real meat of the question, it seems. (But this is just whining from a looter who can't control his life, right?) -David absolutely will not go away

Now you're playing the same kind of words games as FF, Greg. It was clear to everyone, except you apparently (or maybe not), that this "rising above" you speak of is what he was asking about, and that he was asking just how exactly you managed to do that while still living and working and trading in this country. And you effectively answered him by saying "I just *did*." (Also, Brant, you mentioned something a few pages back about how college students here disappear [can't figure out how to quote stuff on the mobile version of the site]... From my own perspective, it's not disappearing, it's that we just don't post often... Which I grant you could be what you meant, but we're, at least, I'm, still here.)

I disagree. My friend is selfish. The ex-POW in the video in Post #1 is selfish. Mother Teresa was selfish. Everyone acts to enhance enhance personal satisfaction and thus self-fulfillment. Can an outside observer know that one person's selfishness runs to the core, while another's is only skin-deep? How? What instrument is used to take that measure? Now you say that my accountant friend Bill could increase his selfishness factor by "starting another venture in an interesting field - or returning to university to study astronomy, or something." Perhaps he could also marry a better wife, read better books, eat better food. But if any of those changes resulted in a lower level of satisfaction, he would hardly be acting selfishly, would he? I think he has atrocious taste in music (Richard Clayderman, for example). By the same token he cannot understand why I like the Goldberg Variations. Why should he make himself unhappy by listening to what others say is "better" music? So if studying astronomy would make Bill happier than working as an accountant, why hasn't he taken up astronomy? Obviously, it is because he prefers what he is doing now to any alternative. A person who acts to realize his preferences is acting selfishly. Am I ignoring cause and effect? I think not. Despite his complaints, doing other people's quarterly reports and income tax forms fulfills a need in Bill at some fundamental level. He crunches numbers, he complains, and he crunches numbers again. If he derived greater satisfaction from not doing it or doing something else, there is nothing that would prevent him from quitting. You write, "A man 'selfishly devoting himself to others' represents a contradiction in terms." Really? Then surely Rand made a serious philosophical error in having John Galt tell Dagny that he would kill himself if she is tortured to make him talk. (Atlas, Chapter 28) Wouldn't a truly selfish may say, "Go ahead and kill her. I'm looking out for number one"? As was discussed in the first few posts at the top of this thread, there need not be a contradiction between serving others and self-fulfillment. Here's what Galt said, "By the grace of reality and the nature of life, man—every man—is an end in himself, he exists for his own sake, and the achievement of his own happiness is his highest moral purpose." If it make you happy to serve others, then you are serving yourself. I think you've made a mistake here in assuming that what people do is automatically in pursuit of the life they would prefer. You say there is nothing stopping people from changing what their lives are like. And in a real sense, you're very right -- we are perfectly free to change things. Nothing is forcing us to remain in the state we are in. But fear of the unknown, laziness, a lack of confidence in one's abilities -- these are all impediments toward achieving the life you desire. An analogy of activation energy comes to mind, if you have a rudimentary understanding of chemistry. (Which is all I have till school starts up again, anyways.) Specifically for endothermic reactions, which makes sense if you think of the internal energy of the system being analogous to one's joy (internal psychological energy, if that doesn't sound too mystical [ba'al may yell at me for this -- suit yourself, man.]) The graphs of these things look like little hills. You end up at a higher place than you start off (that's what makes it endothermic), but you have to go even higher before you get there. The top of that little hill is the activation energy. It's analogous to one's motivation to succeed -- or, perhaps, anti-analogous (is that a word?) to one's fears and anxieties. The more anxious you are to get there, the stranger that end state is, the less self-esteem you have, the harder it is to motivate yourself to work. The point is, we don't automatically act to make ourselves happier. So you can't assume that wherever a person is in life is where they really wish to be.

Question: If the difference between the 'feminized' individuals and the Americans is a matter of failure to mature, then why in the hell do you call them feminized, instead of, say, immature, or underdeveloped? And if male and female captures the difference between 'Conservative Americans' and the rest, why say they're feminized, too? Are there unfeminized males and females? (Would these be actual children, perhaps?)

I wouldn't be so sure on the "without therapy" thing, Michael. I'd say reading the stuff here on OL was very good for me in that context. Saved me from the cesspool that is the Ortho mindset, and that's of great psychological value. Certainly not on the level of any (good, professional) therapist, but therapeutic in its own right nonetheless.

Derek, I believe you're conflating metaphysical free will with political freedom, there. That we have option to leave the country doesn't mean its laws constitute a rights-respecting government.

That doesn't mean they weren't fascists. Just that there wasn't a label for it yet.

...They didn't want Bibi to show up...Because it would insult Muslims? Sweet jesus, these things are emotionally exhausting. The only Muslims that should insult are the ones who are the problem anyways, so whoever 'advised' that can go to hell. Also, if we should separate state from religion, why then is it ok to wed the state to "culture"? So long as the specific individuals involved harbor no desire to see Japan under the boot of Sharia law, they should be allowed to move there. My step-mother and step-sister are both Muslim. I'd argue that their lack of such totalitarian desires is actually inconsistent with Islam, but the fact remains that their inconsistency makes them generally decent people. They are effectively no different than the millions (?) of Americans who call themselves Christian by default, but who simply try to be nice people, instead of all that other nonsense. There is zero reason that such people as they should not be allowed to live here. They are no threat to anyone--aside, perhaps, from the "threat" my step-mother poses to the apathetic teenagers with whom she works.

Of course. Alas, I am dead broke, so I'll hope he takes payment in the form of attempted sarcasm and bad humor, else I'm doomed to humiliation.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/obama-to-call-for-two-years-of-free-community-college-for-all-students-1420760026 Looks like the President wants to take steps towards the socialists' dream of "free" college tuition for everyone. But... 1.) Isn't "free if you work for it" a contradiction in terms? 2.) Isn't working for tuition the idea behind Work Study programs anyways? 3.) Is this just some other subsidization scheme? Because we all know that will just drive up the cost even more, which means people just above whatever arbitrary income level is set will be screwed over. I expect I'll hear all kinds of praise heaped on him when I go back for the Spring semester, followed by jealous whining about the fact that it's only two years, and only for community college, and then some ridicule of TU's expensive tuition/fees, and maybe even some good old fashioned capitalism bashing. EDIT: Sigh, I would misspell the thread title. Any way to fix that embarrassment?

This is potentially awesome. The Left wing MSM will undoubtedly want to cry and whine about this, too, which just means more Rand in the news. If they really wanted to fight Rand's ideas, they would be wise to take a page out of Toohey's book, and not breathe a single word about them.

Questions like this torment me. Most everything regarding man-made life, and things relating to genetic engineering. For us to truly answer the question of whether we can create consciousness in inanimate objects, I think we need to understand how consciousness actually works a bit better. How would you imbue free will into a circuit? I think the answer is either you can't, or something regarding of quantum-weirdness. (Which I know is somewhat controversial around these parts--I don't pretend to know half what I should to be able to comment on that debate, though... If there's something to it, perhaps it resolves the seeming contradiction in having a deterministic universe, and humans with free will.... Which I guess is another controversy, eh? :/ )

I laughed, and then I got kinda mad. I mean, that gun obviously wasn't that little girl's. And seriously, killing the boy because he asked is 100% stupid, and I'm certain Rand would have agreed with that. That being said.. Unnecessarily long gave me a chuckle. I love it when people say that, because all I can think is "My, aren't you a lazy one?" The shifty-eyed rant at the end was pretty funny too.

I've noticed a particular viciousness from the Left when you try to say that cigarette taxes where the cause of this, too. It's like they love to look at the direct, immediate cause--and then stop there, never to look farther. Obviously the most immediate cause is the officer's actions, but they never stop to think that the situation wouldn't have even happened if it weren't for those taxes. It reminds me of people who understand the stupid things the banks and such did leading up to 2007/2008, and just stop there, saying the solution is to regulate them, because obviously those actions were motivated by capitalistic greed, and there could be no other reasons behind them.

The sarcastic side of me must point out that some of these are not, in fact, sayings, but questions instead. Also, am I the only one annoyed by this speed of dark question? Darkness isn't a substantive thing, it's a (relatively low) quantity of one—light. So isn't it nonsense to consider it having a speed? Can quantities of things have attributes in themselves? I think not. If you really wanted to place a number on it though, wouldn't it just be the same as that of light? JJ Noticing I have a huge habit of just asking a ton of questions... Curious...

Maybe of the Fundamentalist branch. JJ Is that an appropriate term for it? I grew up in a religious household, but my parents are (mostly) pretty lax about it—the F-word there was perhaps the worst thing you could say about a fellow Christian, and the mindset seems the same to me... Plus, random non-Oists probably would understand it better. "ARI is like the WBC of Objectivism!"

JJ, Boggle? We certainly can't have that, now can we? Let's unboggle you. Nathaniel Branden was extremely important to the life and work of Ayn Rand. Since he recently died, one would imagine the institution carrying the name of Ayn Rand would mention his passing in some form. It's not a matter of sanction or approval, but relevance. As to the press, when Barbara passed away, there were notices all over the mainstream. (Google this if you don't believe me. Google is your friend.) Other than an article in The Huffington Post by Jim Peron, Nathaniel's passing has received no notices so far that I'm aware of. Many people on OL participated in months and years of bickering with some real boneheaded people like James Valliant and his defenders. These boneheads could get quite petty. I don't feel like going into all that irrationality anymore, so you're on your own with this one. But Google it if you are interested. There's plenty to read. Google is your friend. The comments on this thread reflect judgments made over time of extended interaction with representatives of ARI insiders and sometimes the insiders themselves. I hope that helps unboggle some of the confusion. Michael Thank, Michael! I trust you on the boneheads bashing Branden here on OL—I've seen enough of it other places. It's honestly childish. If they so believe their view of this philosophy is the correct one, and reason is on their side, they should welcome other viewpoints, as a chance to clarify what's what. That they don't perhaps foreshadows (there's a better word that goes there... can't think of it right now... grr) their insecurity.

*boggle* ... What am I missing, here? I don't get it. O.o

I have no idea why I'm continuing this random tangent, but: I cannot do things like this. Or at least, I currently can't, and have never been able to before. I can't get my hands to do those beats independently. They always end up synced to whichever one I started first. Luckily, I have never had a desire to be a drummer, else I'd have a sad time with it.