Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

thenelli01

Regulars
  • Content Count

    729
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    11

thenelli01 last won the day on July 21

thenelli01 had the most liked content!

6 Followers

About thenelli01

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Not Specified
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Connecticut
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Sexual orientation
    No Answer
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted
  • Biography/Intro
    21 years old. I like to learn and think, work out (lift weights, run, etc), read, play sports.
  • Experience with Objectivism
    [7-3-13] I gained interest in philosophy during my first year at college. This motivated me to go to the library and I began reading the works of Plato, Socrates, Marx, Kant, Nietzsche, and C.S. Lewis to name a few and found myself at odds with all of them. Incidentally, I picked up The Virtue of Selfishness without knowing anything of Ayn Rand. This was back in February 2012. Since then I have read ITOE and Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal in addition to VOS. There is still much to learn, which is the primary reason I am on this forum. My other interests are economics, psychology, and physics.

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

7646 profile views
  1. Thanks for all the thoughtful responses and new insights. I appreciate them all as they gave me a strong conviction that it was necessary and important to do now, not *sometime* in the future. I took them out for dinner last night and told them. My mom started crying lol, which is actually I think part of what I was dreading (this is what I meant by dramatic, but it was kind of funny and endearing at the same time). I fought through all the discomfort and kept a clear head on the objective - I allowed them to say what they wanted without objection and thanked them for always supporting me and loving me. I feel pretty good as now I feel I can finally have a more authentic relationship with myself and the rest of the world. I think not telling my parents is what sort of kept me from really reaching my potential as I was always hesitant to be open about myself as it might get back to them. This was a weird psychological hurdle for me. Anyways, I feel more free and excited about what is to come. Thanks again. 😎
  2. No, I'm not worried about her disowning me. I already know she loves me, same with my dad. They also really liked my ex, he went on vacations with us, used to live at my house, etc. It was sort of obvious we were dating. I agree with most of what you wrote and I think you're right about her concerns. Thanks for the comment on the past, I agree. I hate holding people to their past as everyone deserves the chance to grow and change (and she has - and I think me telling her will help her and other people grow as I can be a role model to a certain extent). I think I just want to do it without having a dramatic talk or feeling like I'm "coming clean" if that makes sense. I was always against the idea of having to come out and I just want to do it in a way that is chill and subtle (i.e. according to my personality). I can do it with anyone else, but it feels weird having to do it with my parents. But not disclosing it to my parents, sort of limits how I can disclose it to other family members and makes me feel like I'm still not living up to my ideals: being my authentic true self. Any suggestions? Wait until it casually comes up in conversation? Or just have a "talk" with them?
  3. Hi, So I've really been bothered about something lately. I'm gay - It never bugged me in the sense that I didn't feel ashamed about being gay, I strive to live my life the way I want to. Growing up, my mom, dad and siblings (and the rest of my peers/society) used to say very disparaging things about gay people. How disgusting it was, how it was immoral, how they don't want to be around it, and use words like f*ggot and h*mo and queer. Every time I would respond how they are wrong, the response would be "what are you gay?" (as a way to try to intimidate me). I'm starting to realize that it had a major impact on my psychology growing up and even into adulthood - I went from a really outgoing, happy person to a closed off, more miserable person around high school because I was constantly in that environment. Imagine your family and peers constantly commenting how disgusting and immoral YOU are, simply because the nature of your being - I never bought it, but I felt resentful towards them and stopped opening up to people (to my own detriment). Now at 27, I was living in Los Angeles for a few years, was able to get away from my family and environment and although I entered an environment that was in some ways more toxic, I was able to see more clearly how irrational my family is and identify it better. I forgave my siblings and told them I was gay cause they wanted to know, but it wasn't in a "pushy" way so it was cool (if that makes sense). I blamed my parents more than anything because they were responsible for setting the tone at the top and my siblings, in my estimation, were as much influenced by them as I was. I just got out of a bad relationship and they knew the guy I was with (he was always around my fam). But my mom (especially) doesn't understand boundaries. She keeps pushing and asking me questions that I find too personal/outside the nature of our relationship about my sexuality and details around my relationship. I don't want to talk about my relationship to anyone in my family (for a few reasons) and I want to move on with my life, but she keeps pushing. I explained to her about boundaries, but she doesn't respect them. Last Friday, I was really stressed about my job and she started asking me about marriage (but that was her way of asking me if I'm gay - I knew from experience). I got annoyed and was correct because then she started claiming that I wasn't being honest. *This* is exactly what annoys me because I think she is conflating honesty with openness, as if I am dishonest because I don't feel like I want to disclose personal information about my life to her. It's this mindset and the way she talks about it that tells me that she really didn't change at all since I left. I really don't care if people know I'm gay. I'm just getting agitated because she keeps trying to control/force the issue rather than just letting me live my life and going with the flow. I am starting to feel agitated as I did when I was younger because I'm getting the whole feeling "what are you gay, stop lying" type vibe from her and she is constantly crossing boundaries. And now I'm starting to feel resentful towards them about the past because she is still acting in a similar way. In one sense I want to just say it so it's out there so I can be myself completely, but in the other sense I don't care to tell her and I don't want to appease her desires as she is, in my estimation, crossing boundaries. She is really set on finding out (or more accurately me telling her as she thinks she deserves to be told and she probably has expectations of what our relationship should look like in this context if she did a good job as a mom - in her mind). I'm not even focused on it or relationships at the moment as I am working on my career goals, but now it keeps coming up and I'm feeling a bit stressed about it. I live at home right now in the interim until I finish a few license tests I am taking so it's hard to get away from it. Any advice on how to handle this in a dignified way? I want to do so without: 1) violating my personality - I'm super chill, I don't want a big deal about it. The idea of coming out bugs me. 2) feeling like I'm appeasing her boundary crossing. 3) making her feel bad. She is still my mom and I respect and love her, but I still don't agree how she parented in that aspect. She was really cruel about it as it stemmed from religious morals. I don't know if it is even worth saying explicitly though, because I think it would hurt her, but that is probably why we don't have a relationship in which I tell her personal details about my life. Do you think it is worth stating explicitly? I'm thinking about just saying, "alright, what do you want to know" and allow her to ask questions (NOT around my relationship though). But I want to remember to answer the question instead of criticizing her having the audacity to ask the question (which is sometimes where my head goes). Or do you think I should just take space and time away from my parents and overtime they'll realize through my actions/subtilely in the future? I don't like living with resentment or the feeling of stress so I need to resolve this somehow and fast, but I don't like letting people control my life either - in the opposite sense, maybe I am letting her control my life by not just stating it. It's just that I want to do it my way and on my own terms. Feel free to point out where I'm looking at this wrong. I should have been more chill when she asked me about marriage, but I was already stressed and kind of fell into the trap. I can't control her actions if she wants to cross boundaries, so I need to respond to it better.
  4. edited - will respond later.
  5. I think UBI is worse than the welfare programs. It introduces a new moral principle/norm into government policy and expands the welfare state in a fundamental way. Welfare programs were introduced and still are accepted as temporary safety net programs to provide assistance when you are in need. Although that is not how it works in practice (with the bureaucracy and misuse), that is a fundamentally different principle than saying it is every American's right by virtue of living in a wealthy country. That you deserve a share of the profits of tech companies and deserve the money by right. It is a more expansive, inclusive addition to the temporary, constrained principle that the welfare state is based. I think it is very dangerous to concede that principle to any party and introduce it into government policy in hopes that it will lead to a better poison than the current welfare system. It might prove more efficient in the short term (though I'm not too sure that is the case), but long term it is detrimental to the cause of liberty.
  6. As for the OP - I haven't really been paying attention too much just yet, but I liked some of what Tulsi Gabbard said on foreign policy. I agree with your assessment on Pete Buttigieg also. Marianne Williamson was a bit funny to listen to haha. Not a fan of Yang, or the other candidates really, but I have to listen more when it gets closer.
  7. Actually, this isn't really accurate. Without going deep into detail, his argument is essentially that advances in AI technology will wipe out industries such as trucker, retail, accounting, etc. and it will happen so fast that there won't be enough time to retrain people. Therefore, ubi will be needed to help people pay for their basics (rent, food, etc.). He thinks that people are gonna end up on welfare anyways from this so he wants to give an option to people: stay on welfare programs or get $1k a month no questions asked. He thinks this will allow people to focus more on creative work, as well as eliminate some of the bureaucracy that comes with retraining and welfare programs. He also argued that the people own the tech and other major corporations so this is really just a dividend, not a tax. We deserve our share, according to him. I watched this a bit ago, but if I remember correctly, that was his argument.
  8. I also finished the book, as well as Nathaniel's book, this past weekend. I was surprised how cultish their circle was. There were a few parts where I had to laugh out loud as it seemed ridiculous, from Ayn writing papers on other's psychology to the account given that she was "clapping" in amusement and laughing when Nathaniel used eloquent phrasing when providing his perspective on others' "psycho-epistemology" (essentially clapping at others' misery). Nathaniel's book seemed pretty self serving and arrogant, but also reflective and interesting at times. All of them acted immorally and reality won out; I felt worse for Barbara and especially Frank. Ayn, from Barbara's account, seemed unfulfilled in her marriage, especially indicated by the fact that other young men before Nathaniel noted that there was that similar type of flirting going on. It seemed like she was seeking out an affair all along, but didn't want to let go of Frank. Nathaniel, though he was very young at the start and under the influence of Ayn, kept up lies and deception all the way to age 38. He was, essentially, using Ayn and not treating her as a human by lying to her and lying to everyone else. The whole thing was a major rationalization. Frank and Barbara's error was agreeing to it and staying with them, though I understand why they did. Poor Frank seemed to have a miserable life towards the end, and Ayn did as well. He had a lifetime of suppressed emotions and it was especially sad to read about his last years. It was interesting to read about Ayn's character - she seemed to have a lot of flaws, and virtues, I would not have been able to guess by listening to her interviews, etc. It was also interesting to read how Peikoff came to the forefront of Objectivism and how he became the "intellectual heir" that ARI makes him out to be (and by his own statement) - it was almost by default, everyone else in Ayn Rand's life left her. It would have been interesting to hear Ayn's take on the whole thing as I bet it would give a more complete picture, especially with her dealings on Nathaniel. I was really disgusted, enchanted, and saddened at different times reading the book. It was a rollercoaster of emotions - not because I was particularly invested, but all the triumph in her life as well as all the tragedy (including for the people around her) was sometimes hard to read.
  9. Somehow Elizabeth Warren nat ...”Ural hair color” shows up and "native american" doesn't.
  10. It's not true that thoughts do not have influence over matter, they can in certain contexts. The mind and body are an integrated whole: thoughts influence the body and vice versa. That is part of the nature of being a human - part of it's identity. The task of science is to study to explain how this occurs. A tree is a separate entity by which our consciousness (according to its identity) has no control over. Your ability to move it using your thoughts, for example, will not work, simply because reality is what it is. It's not within our ability to do so - it's one of the limitations of consciousness. Studying the former (how thoughts allow you to move your hand) will help you to understand how it doesn't apply to moving a tree. Existence is independent of consciousness means: A is A, Consciousness is consciousness - it has a certain nature that cannot be changed, a nature that is independent to our thoughts or wishes. If consciousness has the ability to affect the body, then that is part of its identity. If it does not have the ability to move a tree by its nature, then wishing that the tree moves is going to be futile.
  11. I don't think that is the relevant question if the issue is properly understood. The issue isn't about Maza or Crowder, the issue is about speech that violates or attacks a person's dignity qua speech.
  12. I don’t know if calling someone a “Lispy sprite” and a “little queer” is by itself bullying, but it certainly is cruel and has the potential to encourage the behavior to be continued, especially when done by someone of Crowder’s popularity. As someone who is gay, growing up I had to listen to my parents, brothers, classmates, society in general, insult, dismiss people for being gay - calling them f*ggots, queers, homos - people would say how disgusting it is and how sick those people make them. It probably had an enormous effect on my sense of worth as a person growing up and certainly led me to want to stay guarded and not open up about who I was because of it. Even the other week when I heard a relative say the word “f*ggot”, it made me cringe, except now I feel comfortable calling him out on it because I’m aware of my value as a person independent of other people’s opinion of me. However, children/teens, by their nature, are dependent on their parents and to some extent their environment to understand their inherent value as a person. Psychologically speaking, at this stage of development and less so as they get older, they need to rely on external stimuli to understand that they matter. If you have society telling you are disgusting, worthless and less than just because you are you, it can be very damaging to your sense of dignity. Many have committed suicide because of it, and it’s absolutely tragic. Any cruel speech directed at someone for an aspect of themselves that they cannot control doesn’t deserve a platform and giving it a platform has the ability to encourage the bullying behavior and damage people psychologically (those who see it or are victimized by other people who are encouraged by the content). In this respect, I would be okay with YouTube taking down any content of this type on moral grounds. It’s below the standard that should be set for public dialog. I don’t think they have to set the standard, but if that is the standard they want to set, I think that is appropriate. With that said, I agree it’s a slippery slope, not well defined and they open themselves up to having to navigate through ALL of the content to monitor for expression of that nature if they want to be consistent. It’s actually a fairly tricky topic, as I see both sides. Sorry for any typos - on my phone.
  13. Not sure why you are quoting "hate speech" and "marginalized groups" - are you implying that calling someone a "lispy queer" is not hate speech and that gays aren't a marginalized group?
  14. I answered that in the preceding sentences: "I don't think there is a fundamental distinction (only a distinction in form) between the physical dependence via the womb and physical dependence via mother's care for a newborn. Therefore, I think your red line of obtaining rights when it gains "independence" is arbitrary. A baby's nature a week before birth and after birth didn't change significantly (I.e. in kind) and neither did it's dependence. Yes, it's separated by the mother's physical body, but it still depends on the mother's physical body to care for it's basic survival needs. It's the entity's nature that determines it's worthiness of rights, not the arbitrary distinction between womb and non-womb." Basically I was saying that independence didn't change from womb to non-womb. But now I think I may have been using independence in two different senses: a metaphysical sense (i.e. literally still being connected to the mother) and ethical sense (i.e. it is still dependent on the mother physically but only in an ethical context). I was saying because the dependence was still there, the distinction between womb and non-womb is arbitrary (before I realized the mix up). But the real question is whether metaphysical independence (i.e. being a separate entity) is an essential characteristic of the nature of man and the context of rights (as I think you were alluding to/arguing). And then I see how that connects to the potential vs. actual.
  15. I wonder if the issue here is that I’m mixing up two senses of the word dependence... a metaphysical dependence (fetus dependent on mother for life) ... and ethical dependence (baby is morally dependent on the mother for life).
×
×
  • Create New...