"No creator was prompted by a desire to serve his brothers, for his brothers rejected the gift he offered and that gift destroyed the slothful routine of their lives. His truth was his only motive. His own truth, and his own work to achieve it in his own way. A symphony, a book, an engine, a philosophy, an airplane or a building—that was his goal and his life. Not those who heard, read, operated, believed, flew or inhabited the thing he had created. The creation, not its users. The creation, not the benefits others derived from it. The creation which gave form to his truth. He held his truth above all things and against all men.
His vision, his strength, his courage came from his own spirit. A man’s spirit, however, is his self. That entity which is his consciousness. To think, to feel, to judge, to act are functions of the ego.
The creators were not selfless. It is the whole secret of their power—that it was self-sufficient, self-motivated, self-generated. A first cause, a fount of energy, a life force, a Prime Mover. The creator served nothing and no one. He lived for himself.
And only by living for himself was he able to achieve the things which are the glory of mankind. Such is the nature of achievement." Ayn Rand

They have been 'downvoting' all of these posts on behalf of logic. The 'wound' is in their own minds; their shadowy opinions don't matter. To a rational observer they are 'downvoting' themselves in an undercurrent of invisible hysteria.

That is why we have freedom of religion and the attending tolerance. No one could prove that their religion was the Truth, so they all agreed to disagree. That's fine for religion. It does not work in science or philosophy. Even if two or more competing theories stand in ambivalent contradiction, the question is not settled with a fall back to the "right of opinion."

(I saw that you took a hit. I was going to plus it back to 1 but you have plenty of points. Consider it a battle wound.)

If you read the book, the author makes his own case, but I did summarize it correctly. dobrien has a political right to his opinion, of course, but not an epistemic right to just any belief.

There is an equally long and sordid history of those who try to undermine whatever they do not like with the claim that it is only "opinion" no better than anyone else's as they search for an exemption from having to contend with reasons. It's an intellectual egalitarian nihilism, dragging everything down to a lowest common denominator.

Not sure what you mean, but the book title gives a strong clue. He has a right, literally, to believe anything he wants, but no "right" in logic to contradict facts and logic, which is indeed a kind of epistemological "crime". There is a long history of equivocation by subjectivists who regard reason and logic as "shackling" them.

I learned at Ft Carson in 1972, but never flew after that...shame...just never got around to it. Music and auto racing took up most of my time, right up until I turned 30.

But you do not have a right to your opinion. See the review of Crimes Against Logic.

(thanks)

I learned to fly in the 1990s.

For stress relief, eye hand coordination skills and creating new connections in the brain; there is nothing like going as fast as you can skillfully. "The need for speed" has always been more than a pass time for mankind...spose we never would of gotten into space if it wasn't for that need to explore the boundaries of our existence and abilities...chalk one up for conscious man.

I have been bitten by that bug all my life...used to road race Datsun 240Z's against Paul Newman and even made a profit doing so.

Try driving 150 on the open road Mike, or better yet, on the back roads of New England...now that was a hoot!

More recently: Try riding a 12 foot wave, surfing a 37' sailing yacht at 18 knots, standing at the helm yelling: "I'm on top of the world!"
Not sure I ever came down from that high...

Take your dramatic histrionics somewhere else. You wrote that Mike "sounds like an anti-industrial socialist". There is no basis for that. Those are your own words, not "interpretation". Your baseless "opinion" --" not necessarily based on fact or knowledge" -- makes no sense and was rejected accordingly in a simple statement: "His preference for something more interesting does not make him 'sound like an anti-industrial socialist'". That was it. It's not "tainted from snide boorish zealotry". When you assert something anyone has a right to respond. Adhering to objectivity is not "slavery" "shackling" your mind. Rejecting bizarre accusations is not "authoritarian". Your assertion that "Apparently You are now my personal interpreter" is another baseless snide comment. "But I will trade no value to you for your undesired service" is more of the emotional theatrics with no meaning. None of it is rational discussion.

I am not your Slave . I have three choices offerered with a thumbs up or a thumbs down or nothing. I will use them as I please and when you call a comment of mine a snide remark ,it is only snide because it is tainted from your snide boorish zealotry. I ask for no reinterpretation of someone else's comments. My expiriences with you has been to defend my right to an opinion.
You can shackle my body but you can't shackle my mind!
When some one says something , a mind has an opinion on what is meant.
Opinion: a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
You have continually with self righteous judgement have told me that what was meant is different, than my opinion of what was meant. Your opinion of what is meant is just an opinion. Your AUTHORITARIAN actions telling me were I belong and where I don't will never stand with me. I am not your Slave!!

I'd be making a splash. (-:

The irrational 'downvoting' of clear facts, along with the juvenile snide comments, all out of personal feuding do not belong here. It's time for these clowns to go.

It would be hard to not have a smile on your face
Shooting out of the water.

I remember when a VCR, a PC and other toys started out costing a lot more when production initially started.
I wouldn't mind renting a ride in one of those things.

I have never had a boat or personal watercraft.
If I want to fish I will rent a boat.
With three young grandkids I prefer to help their parents out with extra cash.
But I still think they are cool fun products!!

Heard it? I'm just glad I got rid of my various holes in the water... I lived it for a while. Same with my 4 and 6 cylinder currency shredding fans (I never got into jet engines, thank God!!)...

You said that he "sounds like an anti-industrial socialist". Those are your own words, not interpretation. It isn't true. Snide comments don't change that.

Apparently You are now my personal interpreter. But I will trade no value to you for your undesired service.

Two producers developed this product to market to the wealthy. They have a long waiting list as they are having a hard time keeping up with the demand for the product. Maybe you've heard that Boat is an acronym for" break out another thousand".

His preference for something more interesting does not make him "sound like an anti-industrial socialist".

Looks like fun were I 20 years, no make that 30 years younger.Of course, it is nonsense, but then much of the things we consider fun, are. However, I'm all for having fun, but not so extreme.
WARNING! The rest of this post may be considered off-topic.
In my camera shop, when someone's color prints were not back from Kodak and we saw that the customer was irritated, I taught the staff to harmonize and sing "Some day my prints will come." Sung to the Snow White tune. If they didn't at least smile, I knew that something other than some color pictures were disturbing them.

Semi-submersible? Personally - it would be a VERY fun way to have a huge hole in the water to shovel your money into. Kind of like chasing the 39 meter racing yacht game, or almost worse, the Gulfstream Aviation customizing game (tho those are more like huge devices with thousands of spinning sharpened kerosene powered blades sucking money out of your account to shred...)

But I could see how one could get seriously hooked on that. What's their range and top speed? How far below surface can they go? Can they go slow as well as fast?

Better - what a way to commute from your island home to your office on the mainland...