Felix Quill

There are three laws which have already been identified by Isaac Asimov of which I only have to replace the words to transform them into a corrupt ethical basis. The sacrificed may not injure an object of sacrifice or, through inaction, allow an object of sacrifice to come to harm. The sacrificed must obey orders given to it by the objects of sacrifice , except where such orders would conflict with the First Law. The sacrificed must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law. Objectivists of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains!

Indeed, I just find it easier to think about something once I have reduced an issue it to its conceptual common denominator. The realisation that any further deduction is irrational (that's when you get to what do you feel that a chair is mumbo jumbo) really lifted a weight of my shoulders.

I think that being active in non Objectivist forums can be of major value. I recently began posting more actively in the political discussions of a forum I frequent. Before and after my lengthy remarks made on the extreme I could see a notable shift in the discussion, the people who felt moderately about freedom became more vocal. And this happens in a Democracy VS Capitalism thread, of all places! Now that the thread is falling down (with me as the last post) the percentages were 77.17% for democracy and 22.83% for capitalism. Of course those don't all agree with our definition of it (some even said they only chose capitalism for the living standard), but I think I did get it trough that any amount of capitalism always means that there is a certain amount of respect for individual rights.

And not even in a good way mind you, people actually spend time doing things they actively think are against their better judgment!

Maybe that can work too. I just like to be as thorough as I can in my fundamental definitions.

Isn't mental passivity a consequence of either thinking or evading? I'm just a student but when I see someone who doesn't try to learn I often find that it comes from the conclusion that they somehow cant. Its too difficult! I don't understand it at all! Of course sometimes things really don't make sense in today's schools. Mental passivity destroys (or as others would proudly proclaim kill) time, the most precious resource to any finite being.

The only way jokes can be made at expense of the good is to misrepresent it and therefore lose contact with reality. Is this the reason that jokes at expense of the good are bad? And does it follow, that this does not apply to parodying a parody to deny the metaphysical significance of that witch tries to parody the good?

Ask not what you can do for reality, ask what reality can do for you.

Okay, this is not a video but a site, (although there are video's on it) It has a lot of little interesting projects on it to do. http://www.instructables.com/

When did the name change from late term abortion to ''partial birth''? It makes it sound like if the baby is killed while it is given birth to, wich is certainly not the case.

Fascinating, I'm baffled by things like this. As I understand it there is no ''complete'' vacuum of space witch contains nothing. Is it the case that, the vacuum/space witch we know, is ''bended'' because ''the something it is'' is affected by gravity? I also misread the tittle as: Farthest known Objectivist discovered.

Very interesting. Rearden silk?

Very apt.

Does it mean to say that the facts leading to someone's opinion cant be used to proof that someone holds that opinion?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion I thought it just meant a conclusion reached by an individual. And that people meant ''that is only the conclusion you reached'' when said ''that's just your opinion''. Do they by that word actually mean ''that's just the 'inherently subjective' conclusion you reached''?