dondigitalia

[And to HaloNoble6] That's why I specifically said, "As long as software is availabe for both platforms..." I was addressing the common misconception that people have about there being no compatibility at all.

I just want to say that I agree with this completely, and I never intended to imply that the fallacy of the stolen concepts depended on any aspect of Ayn Rand's theory of concepts than hierarchy. I don't think it was implied in what i said, but since HaloNoble6 summarized my position in such a broad manner, I wanted to add further clarification.

By coincidence, I stumbled upon the discussion you were having on OO.net right after I made my initial post in this thread. I wouldn't waste too much time arguing with that guy. Past experience has shown me that he is attempting to reconcile parts of Objectivism with his own philosophy. I have seen him try to explicitly rewrite the Law of Identity to suit his purposes on a couple of occasions. I don't want to argue against him on THE FORUM, since he isn't here to defend his position, though, so I'll leave it at that.

This is an interesting question. I'm going to draw particular attention to the way you phrased it; it's pretty near being an instance of the stolen concept, at least implicitly. I say it's "pretty near" only because I don't think an honest question can ever really be called fallacious. It's probably more correct to say that the phrasing of your question stems from the same fundamental error as the stolen concept. The fallacy of the stolen concept relies on the idea that all concepts are abstractions, most of which are abstractions from abstractions. It relies on the notion that concepts (except those on the first level) are integrations of other concepts (and ultimately of existents). The fallacy of the stolen concept begins, fundamentally, with an attempt at reversing or ignoring the order of abstraction, i.e. hierarchy. How does this relate to the phrasing of your question? Objectivism's validity doesn't rely on the stolen concept fallacy, but the validity (or invalidity, as the case may be) of the stolen concept definitely relies on the validity of Objectivism, particularly the theory of concepts and the recognition of hierarchal, contextual knowledge. I do regard the fallacy of the stolen concept as part of Objectivism, since it is Ayn Rand's discovery and is a direct consequence of her epistemology. Let's see if others agree. What is your friend's knowledge of Objectivist epistemology? Does he understand Ayn Rand's theory of concepts? What view of concepts does he accept? The fallacy of the stolen concept is far from self-evident, and accepting it really relies on first having accepted the Objectivist theory of concepts. If your friend holds to a different view, then he's probably not going to agree that it's a valid fallacy. (Gotta love oxymorons!)

Well, duh. PM me or e-mail me or something with the info.

Man, everybody's club is getting up and running before mine. It's the last week of the semester, and my school is just now getting around to processing my paperwork! At any rate, Katie, stick around here a while. A few of our OAC classmates participate here. It's always nice to have more! And HaloNoble6, why have you been holding out on me with this website stuff?!?! Did you not know I was President of the SFSU club (or will be whenever the damn paperwork gets finished)?

I think you start sporting the unibrow in public and change your name to Bert. j/k man, I couldn't resist.

Thanks again, Dr. RJM, for an extremely interesting post. It's really facinating to learn about all of the little things that go on in our bodies that we are unaware of. It's even more amazing that our scientists have been able to discover that it's happening!

Thank you, Dr. RJM, for your extremely informative response! I'm greatly looking forward to your more next message. I had no idea that a combination of C vitamins and iron caused an increase in free radicals. I'll have to check my own supplement when I get home tonight. Is that combination conducive to free radicals only in a vitamin supplement, or can food sources have the same effects? I'm a big fan of both citrus and beef, so maybe I'm doomed no matter what!

See it and you'll understand. Even those who didn't watch the series will enjoy it; they did a fantastic job of making it self-contained. I have to admit that I was extremely skeptical going into the movie and was very, very surprised at how much I enjoyed it. I thought it was going to be a "play to the fans" kind of thing, where they try to artificially, but unsuccessfully, recreate the charm of the show. They were able to recreate the charm, but in a new, non-artificial way.

Oh yeah, I gave it a 6 for artistic merit, and a 10 for its sense of life.

I thought this movie was very charming. It wasn't flawless, but definitely has a lot to offer Objectivists. In particular, I've always considered myself "a Samantha," but after seeing the way she was portrayed in this movie, it's inconceivable to me that any Objectivist wouldn't identify with her. I don't want to give away too much, but her egoism is really emphasized in this movie and all she lacks for an explicit declaration of it is the right wording. I definitely recommend it.

Suggested for rating.

Well, I'd much rather have some instruction than get an easy A, but it's a required course, so I might as well make the best of it.

Why wait until I write the paper? I'm probably the most active participant in the discussions we have in class, and never miss an opportunity to communicate my position. During one of our discussions on juvenile justice, I pulled out the immortal quote, "Pity for the guilty is treason to the innocent;" even the leftist, mercy-driven professor was struck by the power of that one sentence. In the next couple of days, a number of students approached me about the quote, wanting to know more. That, in itself, is a very great value to be gained from the class. While I am upset with the lack of instruction in the class, I must say I rather enjoy it. It's an easy A, and at least I'm entertained. When I was talking to my roommate about the class (he's a writing major), he gave me a little more insight to this. Apparently, there was a period of about 5 years where California public schools (or at least some districts) did some experimental teaching where grammar and writing are concerned. In his elementary school years, he was required to write strings of letters on the paper. He didn't see the purposes of this and started looking around the room for whole words to write down, and was actually given detention for forming whole words! His mother began home-schooling him shortly after. It is his opinion that, because so many people starting college in California today have never received any real training in grammar, that their skills are so deteriorated that any real instruction would be pointless. In reading some of my classmates writing during peer review, I'm inclined to agree. I really feel bad for these kids; they've been failed by their educators in the past, are being failed by their educators now, and few of them are going to make it out unscathed.

That's where he lives.

She is one of the main people I watched to learn about a proper orientation toward values.

No contradiction. Value is objective. What "objective" means, though, is one of the more difficult ideas in Objectivism to understand. The best way I can think of to sum up what is meant by "objective" is: based on facts integrated by choice, for a purpose. That is a gross oversimplification, though. Dr. Peikoff's course Understanding Objectivism, gives the fullest coverage I know of.

Yeah, I agree. I don't think sexuality is a binary, either-or thing. Rather, I think it's a continuum. There are plenty of women who I still find attractive, although I much prefer men. That's where the element of choice comes in.

No. I recognize the difference. I don't view a healthy submissive psychology as weak, depraved, what-have-you; it's just not what I want in a partner. I can see how others would, though. My own psychology would prevent me from fully respecting such a person as a lover. By the same token, though, my own psychology prevents me from taking a submissive role all the time either. But there are times when I want my (hypothetical) partner to make the final decisions and act as a leader, just as there are times when I really have to be in control.

That's just silly. The only areas I think gays would have any reason to be activists are in regard to gay marriage and gay men being able to give blood. Both are extremely low on my list of priorities.

It is. BTW, did you know that you are one of my top matches in "Likeness?" P.S. Completely unrelated: is Bumble & Bumble's clay-type product good for texture? I know B&B is ossum, but I'd love to hear if you have another recommendation.

I like it because it allows me to have a one-stop place to keep up on all the people I've known over the years, whether through school, work, or just being friends. It sorting of streamlines the whole ordeal of keeping in touch, which I'm not very good at. Plus, I'm a big fan of Facebook stalking. (Not as creepy as it sounds, lol).

Just to give some insight as to how widely gay relationships can vary, I know more than a few couples were both partners are exclusive "tops" or both are exclusive "bottoms." In such relationships, the psychological aspects vary just as much as the others.

Although I think that is the case in many cases, I don't think it is enough to be considered a norm of any sort. There is an extremely wide variance in the way homosexual relationship work. Sexuality is a complex issue to begin with. Toss in all the other complexities involved in homosexuality (not that heterosexual relationships aren't complex; they are, but in a vastly different way that doesn't have as direct a relationship to sexuality) and it complicates the issue even more. It's something that would require an extremely skilled psychologist to study. And I think such a psychologist would have to be gay himself to interpret his findings correctly. In addition, I don't think psychology is advanced enough yet to engage in a study rigorous enough to yield anything worthwhile on this issue either, but you would probably know better than I do on that last point, as I'm just beginning to explore psychology enough to identify problems in philosophy of psychology, much less draw any conclusions about what a proper methodology would entail.