Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Nicky

Regulars
  • Posts

    3835
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    195

Everything posted by Nicky

  1. No, you should focus on making your interactions with others as fun and pleasant as possible. Especially for yourself. I don't think plain small talk (being banal and impersonal) is going to accomplish that though. You should instead test the limits of every interaction, both with humor that is near the edge of what is appropriate, and serious topics of conversation which are near the edge of what is natural (natural conversation, I mean). Just making an effort to be interesting is soooo much better than acting like you're too cool for a conversation with somebody. Silence, or conversation you're not putting any effort into, is a form of communication, and in most contexts it communicates a lack of interest in the other person. Anything is better than silence or banal, meaningless small talk. Even if you're pulling jokes or topics out of a hat, throwing them out for no apparent reason, or asking questions that have nothing to do with you or the situation because you can't think of anything that fits naturally into the conversation, it's way better than silence or banalities.
  2. Let's say the stock was at price X when the traders initially sold it, and they set their stop loss at price Y. Just to clarifiy, three questions (using X and Y): How much cheaper? How much was the price of the stock artificially raised? How much did that cost to do? Be more explicit about the logical relationship between pending sell orders and the future price of a stock, please.
  3. Well, if they're spending their clients' money to buy stocks above market value, that's theft. Their clients are being stolen from. And if they're using their own money, then them making money is a mathematical impossibility, isn't it?
  4. I'm with aequalsa. Nothing to defend, nothing to retract, no criticism worth addressing. I do regret not ignoring you from the get-go though, fella. Hope that helps.
  5. I don't know, because I don't know what immortality is. I don't know of anything or anyone with that attribute.
  6. I just gave you a reason. You dismissed it as absurd though. Not sure why you think it's absurd for an African warlord to retaliate if attacked by an American, but you do. I don't have any other reasons. In a magical world where American citizens can act with absolute impunity against foreign warlords, we should all just hire hitmen to pick off whoever is acting out around the world, until all dictators, warlords and terrorist leaders are dead. Problem solved. In this world though, we need a strong government to do that. In this world, African warlords are in fact much better equipped to kill me than I am to kill them.
  7. Ok, I get it now. If it can be done, that's a scam. But I have a question before I make up my mind: How does one artificially mark up the price of a stock?
  8. +1 on this, as long as by pursuit of immortality you mean something well defined: prolonging one's life indefinitely.
  9. When Ayn Rand was railing against the notion that love is unconditional, I believe she was railing against the position that love has no visible, knowable cause, and she pointed out what that cause is (shared values, etc.). In that sense, nothing is unconditional, because everything has a cause. You love someone for a reason, sure (this reason is probably explained on the Ayn Rand Lexicon website, so I won't go into it). If that reason disappears, then you will feel pain and, over time, your love (which is now very painful) will hopefully fade. But that is the only "condition" your love depends on. Aside from that, love is unconditional (I hate putting it this way, because it's about as elegant as an elephant in a dress, but it gets the point across).
  10. Not continually, just temporarily. And only in this case, when your emotions are running wild and you are trying to make sure that you are not acting on them, or even on intuition, instead of a carefully crafted, deliberate line of reasoning. I believe that in this case, when an extraordinary injustice was committed against an ordinary rational person (not a cop, soldier, judge or other professional trained to deal with these events), that person cannot possibly be emotionally prepared for the situation. How could he be, he never had to deal with anything like this before? The only way for him to make sure he will react appropriately (as opposed to displaying "bad behavior", which is everything except doing exactly what I described above), in this unusual situation, is by suppressing his emotions while making a decision.
  11. Mr. Kony is a thug. The one and only reason why we are a part of a civilized nation is so that we don't have to deal with thugs on a personal level. There is nothing I can do, on a personal level, to stop a thug with his power and willingness to brutalize people. The argument that individual citizens of a capitalist country should use force to achieve their goals internationally is a Libertarian argument, not an Objectivist one. Furthermore, we live in a world where the legitimate interests of people are inter-connected across borders. And you cannot logically separate the legitimate interests of Americans from those of non-Americans. If the rights of Americans are to be fully protected, the US government has to be the agent who uses force to protect those rights, across the globe. That means acting to protect freedom globally. Please note that I never used phrases like "Americanize", "spread freedom by force", etc. I'd appreciate it if you would limit your arguments to be against my exact words. I chose them carefully, to represent my point of view and differentiate it from that of neo-cons or liberals.
  12. Read the sentence you originally replied to carefully. There is a difference between it and your representation of it here: it read "to see liberty spread", and you switched it to "spreading liberty". My statement is obviously true. You changed it. Don't do that. If you want to challenge the part where I go further than that, and say that the US government should act to defend liberty abroad in certain situations, quote those parts of my post when replying, and I'd be happy to defend them against your arguments. I split the two different steps in my line of reasoning up into two separate points for a reason. The first step is obvious, and you should just accept it. Or challenge it if you really want to, but challenge IT, not your interpretation of my entire post, with my arguments all tangled up and compounded together. I'm not trying to be difficult, I just like clarity. Whenever someone changes the words around in another person's argument, that takes away from the clarity of the discussion for no good reason.
  13. Isn't it obviously true? That would be illegal, and rightfully so. But let's imagine it's not illegal, and someone living in the house next to me does it. Odds are Mr. Koney will send someone to our neighborhood, and blow the guy's house up in response. So now what? Should the US government continue to stay out of it?
  14. Deception is lying to someone. Where is the deception in that? Who's being lied to, by whom, and by what specific means?
  15. I don't know if that's the basis of Paul's beliefs, but if it is, then we just found the reason why they are antithetical to Objectivism. Objectivism advocates for a government that upholds individual rights on principle. That is the epistemological opposite of your requirement that every concrete case must be "directly related" to the protection of the person who's money is being spent. The Objectivist view is principled and abstract, this idea is pragmatic and concrete bound. The analysis on what is and what isn't in the interest of the United States should be done on a much more abstract level than just looking at the interests of individuals. The government should: 1. Establish that it is indeed in the best interest of every American to see liberty spread across as much of the planet as possible. 2. Look for the greatest threats to liberty, across the globe, and defeat them whenever doing so is worth it. As for the implication that Ron Paul is a principled egoist (which he would necessarily have to be, even to just fully agree with your, I believe mistaken, suggestion above), I've seen no proof of that either.
  16. That's a correct statement, as long as you understand the meaning of the word sacrifice. It does not exclude the possibility of using a country's military and budget to save outsiders, it just restricts it to such cases where doing so is not a sacrifice. But if you're suggesting that it is always a sacrifice to save an outsider, that is a simplistic statement that does not accurately represent the Objectivist position.
  17. You're wrong. I'm an Objectivist, and I fully support the efforts of the Obama administration (moral condemnation, placing them on a terrorist list, and supporting international efforts to go after them) in addressing this. I wouldn't go any further than that though. This gang isn't the fundamental cause of Africa's problems, they're just a symptom. The cause is the state of civilization on that continent, and I don't think any kind of localized military intervention in that region would facilitate improvement in that area. Africa can only be civilized by urging them to adopt western values, and nudging them along in that direction through non-military means. Unlike in the Middle East (where Muslim fundamentalists are organized against westernization, and determined to prevent it through violence), there is no coordinated military opposition to the spreading of western values on that continent. Now all that would have to happen is for people who claim to want to help to actually start spreading awareness of western values in Africa, instead of awareness of Africa's problems in the West. I hate to tell the people who engage in campaigns like the one this video is associated with, but we are about as aware of Africa being a hellhole as we are of breast cancer. Mission accomplished fellas, awareness levels are at maximum. For the love of God, stop with the pink ribbons and graphic videos (haven't watched the thing, but I bet it's graphic), and start working on the actual problem. Lack of awareness in the West is not it. As for Objectivist agreement with Ron Paul, that is absurd. Objectivism and Paul's stance on foreign policy couldn't be more antithetical.
  18. I define revenge as acting on one's emotions (as opposed to justice, which is rational) when faced with injustice or perceived injustice. With that in mind, yes, revenge is bad, one should never allow emotions to dictate another man's punishment. Whether it's societal justice, or a person acting as a so called "vigilante" because society failed them, the same rational methods of determining the appropriate punishment should be used. Emotions, however strong and however justified, should be actively suppressed. This is especially important because injustice tends to stir up very strong emotions that will distort even a rational person's decision making.
  19. My question was: "What do you think privilege means?". How does it come about, without anyone buying into it? Before, you used the word "powerful". Do you consider the terms "to have power over" and "affect" synonymous? I don't. Power means the ability to force someone to do something, not the ability to affect them in general.
  20. Private racism, when not coupled with force, has no power whatsoever. None. All you have to do to not have it affect you is ignore it. Government racism cannot be ignored because the government uses force to back it up.
  21. Sorry to hear that. You should stop doing that. Whenever you fall short of omniscience, try figuring out an alternate but still rational method for deciding what is and what isn't true, both in science and other areas. For instance, try figuring out when it's rational to trust what another person tells you, and when it isn't. If you did that, I bet you'd also change your mind about the stuff you post in the Politics forum.
  22. Well, you just used them so I assume you agree with me, but I'll make the point anyway: They can and should be used if the discussion is about hatred (a Mark Twain novel), or some other subject connected to the words (like this discussion, where we are talking about standards) etc. Then they should be used. Including in comedy about said hatred, or in satire about political correctness or censorship (i.e. Lenny Bruce's act). Also, while it is true that it's inappropriate to allude to the word chink in a sports headline, we shouldn't react as if the guy declared that Hitler had the right idea. He didn't actually say anything damning or racist, he just made an error of etiquette. And still, he was punished as if he committed a cardinal sin. That's more troubling to me than his alleged "racism".
  23. Are you sure you're accurately conveying their argument? If you are, then they would be implying that it's not OK to break any law, ever. It's not OK to break laws in the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Iran, etc. I really doubt any Objectivist would argue for that. The argument I heard is that in the context of a relatively free country like the United States, one should follow all laws on principle. I disagree with that too (because the US has lots and lots of laws that aren't just wrong by honest error, but are in fact purposefully abusive of my rights - and following them would add only to those fascist tendencies, not to a free republic), but it's not as absurd an argument as what you are talking about. What I would argue for is the notion that in a capitalist country (which will inevitably also have errors in its legislation and certainly in the implementation of the legislation) one should indeed follow the law on principle. And in general (even in other contexts, not just in politics and law), honest errors should be met with positive attention (helpful suggestions, attempts to fix them, etc), not resistance and rejection.
×
×
  • Create New...