Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

argive99

Regulars
  • Content Count

    388
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About argive99

  • Rank
    Member

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Not Specified
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted
  1. Synthlord: Wow, you gave a very intelligent and insightful analysis of the whole show. Well done. I agree with all of it. My own additions: * I agree that Adama is stoic, but I actually like that. He is a great tactition and is always trying to steer the right course. I love some of the statements he has made about the seperation of powers, specifically between the seperation of the military and civillian police forces. Also, his love of his son is shown so well; and not only love but admiration. He knows his son is special or has the potential to be. I too didn't like his using the legend of Earth, but that may have been out of necessity; to keep in line with the mythology established by the original series. * So far Apollo has been the most heroic of the show. He has been highly principled and very individualistic. I too hope they don't ruin him with altruism which is a danger because unless the writers have been influenced by Rand, that's the only moral base for heroism they will know. I loved how he dealt with the situation in the episode "Bastille Day". He was practical minded enough to realize that the prisoners needed a self interested motive to extract the ice from the planet, yet pricipled enough to realize that Zarick was right and that representative government was not something to be abandoned. That was one of his best moments along with blowing up the refinery. Also, I like the budding romance between him and Starbuck; a nice twist on the original show. * Great identification of Caprica Sharon's character development. Unless she has been programed to fall in love with Helo (which may have been suggested by Six knowing of her pregnancy), she is moving in the direction of independent judgement. She is actually moving in the direction of becoming truly human; humanity at its best. I hope Helo sees this and doesn't abandon her, which I don't think he will as he stopped Starbuck from shooting her. * Baltar even though he is morally weak is brilliantly written and brilliantly acted, and yet he seems at times to struggle for the morally right action. It will be interesting to see where he ends up. * Its actually amazing but its the Cylons, ie the machines, who seem to be the religious fanatics. Their motivation, at this point (and it is too early to be definitive), seems to be either discovering God or merging with their creators (humans) to create a soul or both. Either way, they are portrayed as the more mystical group, and of course their collectivism is apparent. The humans, much like the West is today, have more rational elements (as a good political outlook) but are hindered by their own mysticism, namely their devotion to the Gods of Kobol. * Love the expression "For Fraks sake". I can't stop saying it. People think I'm strange. I really like the show and hope that it doesn't cave in totaly to altruism or superstition. There has been references (made by Six and the priest) that the prophesy "everything that happens now has happened before" is true. I hope the show doesn't give credence to prophesies. I'm glad you liked it and appreciated your comments! Out of curiousity, do you watch the show "Lost"? I have been trying to engage in a good philosophical conversation about that show.
  2. The acting was atrocious. The plot was convoluted. The philosophy is hopelessly muddled, contradictory and at times non-sensical; not to mention thouroughly altruistic. (If the Jedi and the Sith were the only two options open to me, I'd join the Sith - I'd rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints.) The characters are as shallow as a puddle. Anakin's fall is completely unbelievable. The only thing the movie has to reccommend it is the FX which were great as expected. Other than that, the film has little to offer. I did not see Serendipity yet (the Firefly movie), but from what I've heard, that is a good Sci-fi flick.
  3. I just watched the full 13 episodes of the last season. Season 2 is slated to start in July. I found the show very enjoyable and very well made. The same company that did the effects for Firefly are doing the FX for Battlestar. There is a religious element to the show in that the cyclons are seamingly "searching for God". But despite this, the show has alot to offer. The characters are well developed, the plot progesses at a nice pace and includes a number of twists and turns which are well thought out, a few of the characters are likeable, and the acting is first rate especially James Almos. The season ended with a hell of a cliff hanger. I can't wait for the new episodes. Oh yeah, the asian actress Grace Park is super hot.
  4. IMO, my understanding of it far surpasses yours. And I don't have to role play as John Galt to get me through the day.
  5. From my experience, this is wrong. Quiet men rarely get women. If by that we mean "pick up chicks." It is the bold, cocky, alpha males that score. In fact, one of the major issues I have with today's "dating culture" is that women are so damn superficial and non-intellectual in their choice of men, and this applies even to Zeus's vaunted phds. In fact, the more educated the woman, the higher the probability that she has been brainwashed by the academic Left in which case even if she is beautiful (and from my observation, in today's culture it is not the beautiful women that get graduate degrees, sadly) she will almost certainly be annoying (and probably intellectually corrupt). This non-intellectuality amongst women goes even further. Most girls today, from my experience, do not reward moral behavior. In fact, they penalize it. So, if you want to be a pick up artist, all you have to do is be artistically insulting, cocky, arrogant, indifferent and in short: a bastard. Your phone will be ringing off the hook. If you are nice and decent and moral and you pick the wrong woman, to use an experession, may God have mercy on your soul. Now I admit that there are better women out there. But they are the exception, not the rule. Especially in the US. I haven't had experience with Objectivist women largely because there aren't that many of them. But from what I read on these forums, they look like they're potential headaches too. And to the moderators: what's with all the damn warnings? You've got to be joking. I'm the only one on the damn board making sense.
  6. This is a false alternative. As I have said, they can be used together. In fact, with some of my early girlfriends, I used porn to free them of their sexual inhibitions, specifically those revolving around guilt. They all thanked me. And let me say this to all those that bash porn: I know what Ayn Rand said about it, and it is the only thing she ever said that I disagreed with and for this reason. Before I was an Objectivist, I used to have terrible guilt assoiciated with sex and masturbation; the product of a religious upbringing. But it was through exposure to porn videos that I saw people having guiltless, non-procreative sex. Through porn, I saw sex as and end in itself. In one way, porn helped break religion's hold on me even before I was exposed to Objectivism. Porn showed me people having fun and enjoying their bodies and their sexuality. For that, I will always be grateful to the porn industry; as corny as that sounds. So with all due reverence to Ayn Rand (and I do revere her), if she were in my shoes growing up and experienced the full force of religion the way I did, I think she would reach the same conclusion. IMO
  7. JMeganSnow: Just answer me this: do you believe that prostitution should be legal? Let me get straight on your answer to that. If you don't, then how do you reconsile that with other Objectivist concepts, such as individual rights, non-initiation of force, etc? I want to see if you are seperating the moral from the legal/political. Despite your disgust with prostitution, do you recognize the fact that there would be a large industry developed around it if it were legalized. [in fact, there already is an entire industry "underground" in the form of a vast network of message parlors, sex spas, and escort serives which are under the control of organized crime and of course which bribe the police to look the other way.] Shouldn't such an industry receive the protection of the courts? How can you possibly say no if you agree with the rule of law? Prostitution is a voluntary agreement in which sex is offered for pay. If you are opposed to it, then you are using force to prevent people from entering into arrangements of their own choosing. What's the difference in priciple between you and any other statist? You stand side by side with any Bible thumping religionist. Personally, I think in a fully rational culture, the need for prostitution (and probably even pornography) would be far, far less than it is today (allthough I don't think they would disappear completely). But in today's anti-sex, anti-pleasure world, prostitution and porn offer people (mostly men) a glimmer of hope and joy that they wouldn't receive otherwise. I consider them a giant pressure valve which releases the pent up frustrations and misery which the code of altruism creates. So I am far more lenient towards them (porn and prostitution) in my moral evaluation than you.
  8. No, I am a dyed in the wool Objectivist. My sexual escapades do not negate that. If being an Objectivist meant having boring missionary position sex with only one partner for the rest of your life, than I wouldn't be one. But it doesn't, despite some of the nonsense you read on internet forums. As for sundering the practical from the moral, I haven't done that. I fully believe in the Objectivist view on romance and expect at some point in my life to put it into action. The fact that I have chosen to spend my youth being sexually verile and active was made in accordance with my nature; an extremely testosterone filled alpha male with an overactive sex drive coupled with my awareness of the legal corruption of the institution of marriage which in my opinion has become a welfare system which siphons off the wealth of the male to his wife. And unfortunately, I have never really met a woman I have fully trusted. Maybe I'm too bitter and I am sure there are better women out there (allthough I doubt they are North American, I *am* American and I will go on record as saying that on average, North American women are the most spoiled, insensitive, narcissistic women on the planet; and if you check the written record, Ayn Rand herself made that same observation about 30 years ago; she said it somewhere, look it up), but those are my observations. As for promiscuity, I don't think its immoral. It could be, but it doesn't have to be. Casual sex can be a rational value depending on the circumstances. I have had some amazing one or two week relationships (to use the term) that were incredibly romantic, sexual, erotic, exciting and tender. They just didn't last. But both parties knew it was temporary and both parties enjoyed it to the max while it lasted. Both parties received a short term benefit to their lives. It may have been a largely physical one, but we are creatures of the flesh as well as the spirit. If that makes me not an Objectivist, then so be it. But no one has convinced me that that is the case. If fact, I think that my attitude is better. It takes real life experience into account and recognizes that there is a context to a person's life. There are things a man is capable of doing at 20 and there are things he is not ready for until 30, 40 or later. A long term relationship is one of them. And Zeus, as for not equating yourself with me or putting me on your level. Drop it. Intellectually, I fear no one on this earth, and from what I've read of your posts, that includes you. And for the record, I've heard crazy stories about sex and Africa, so I admit you may have quite a track record. But still, I'd put my Brazillian goratas and little Pinay girls up against anything you could muster. I still think the best you could hope for is a tie. My apologies if I offended the delicate sensitivities of those too noble to have a good time.
  9. And the funny thing is that I don't like SoloHQ. I think that on average their understanding of Objectivism is far outstripped by the average ARI defender. But they raise questions that should be raised, the same questions that someone on this board will simply say are "illigitimate". So I frequently ask those questions or raise those points as with Barbara Branden and her mother or Chriss Scaibarra and his political essays. I know they are wrong but I want to hear good arguments against them so as to make my own understanding that much stronger. There's an old experession, "keep your enemies close and your friends even closer." I think you get the point. Or maybe you don't, I dont know.
  10. This is probably something we shouldn't talk about on this forum, but unless you are a porno star yourself, I'd say the best you could hope for is a tie. I'm 30 and despite being an Objectivist for a decade, I have never pursued a true long term relationship for my own reasons. I have lived in Japan and the Phillipines for two years. If you know anything about those countries then you'll know that having sex with two or three girls every night is relatively easy and inexpensive (especially if you're a decent looking American with money not to mention good looking). Not only that, I have lived in Brazil for eight months and vacation there frequently. Brazilian women are sexually insane. If you're not in shape, having sex with a Brazilian woman could be dangerous. Anyway the point in all this is that I am not only experienced, but that experience is geocentric. One day I may chose to write a book on the subject, because I actually think that there are important lessons that I could share, even to those who would find my lifestyle abhorrent. But despite my sexual activity, I consider myself as Objectivist as any of these fine upstanding young Objectivists we're talking about. Non injurious, consensual sexual pleasure is a value of mine and I pursue it, knowing very well that some day I will want a sexually exclusive romantic relationship. But not today. This puritanical element to certain Objectivists view of sex bothers me. And I find that most ironically, it comes from the young. Older Objectivists that I have met at conferrences and seminars usually don't have any "hang-ups" with sex. And I'd remind everyone that Dagny Taggert herself had sex with three men in Atlas Shrugged. And that was the 50's. Imagine how scandelous that must have been. My point, Ayn Rand herself was not a prude. I don't think she would be so quick to dismiss someone based soley on their social life.
  11. This is an overly kind description. There may be many fine young Objectivists, but there are just as many role playing punks as well. Deny it if you wish. Also nice attempt at intimidation to suggest that I am attacking the good for the being the good. Am I not also good? Am I not also worthy of the title "idealistic" supporter? I've defended Ayn Rand in countless more forums than these young Objectivists you're defending. So I may chose a different social life than you. I could argue that I am the far more integrated Objectivist. But this is pointless. You're Zeus almighty! And one with such high standards of scholarship. Right, another role playing young Objectivist with a John Galt complex.
  12. Yes but a girl who required me to stop watching porn would make me suspicious. Personally, I have had some great memories of sharing porn with my ex-girlfriends. It facilitated some great "fantasy sex." So again, what's wrong with porn if used like that? Also, a girl that would require me to abandon porn would be very naive about male sexuality. Men are far more visual than women (for refferrences for this all I will say is that I have read it countless times from many different scientific sources, you can believe or disbelieve it if you want). I know I am. Visual imagery is important and porn provides great visual imagery. For example, I might tell a girlfriend, I want you to wear this type of high-heeled shoe, or wear this type of garter belt or this type of neglige or this nurses outfit or this cheerleader suit, etc. And then I might say I want to do it in this position or swing from that chandelier, or use this gynecological chair, etc.. You get the point. Well porn has given me these ideas. So to me it has contributed greatly to my sexuality and thus my enjoyment on this earth. If a girl wanted me to abandon that, I would resent her (and at this point in my life, I'd tell her to take a hike). This is my fear with Objectivist women and why I have not dated one. That I will suggest that she wear such and such an outfit and have sex with me in such and such position just like I saw in a porno film and then have her lecture me that I am "an immoral value betraying pervert" and not a true Objectivist. Honestly, who needs the headaches?
  13. What on earth does that mean? Not legally recognized? So if a chain of prostitution houses exists (like some in Nevada, or the more developed prostitution business in Japan where it is quasi legal and there are litterally thousands of "Pink Salons"; ie oral sex bars - what a great idea) and a customer receives "service" and refuses to pay, are you saying that there should be no recourse to law courts for compensation? And you call yourself a capitalist? This is what I mean by syllogistic reasoning divorced from experience and context. If prostitution were legal, it would by definition become an industry! And an industry that would quickly grow to one of the biggest in the country. Japan's sex industry is gigantic and they are not a Christian nation. If prostitution were legalized tommorrow in this country, there would be franchised brothels of every type you could imagine (and some Ms. MeganSnow that would probably make you blush). As with every other industry, I would hope they would be legally recognized.
  14. Or perhaps instead of dismissing them with the word "scum", I'd like arguments against their assertions. But you Mr. Zeus are so high and mighty living on Mt. Olympus and all that you can just fling a lightning bolt and lie back with a bear. It must be good to be you. And, oh by the way, its been a while since I heard it, but Peikoff's story either came from his radio show (which would be my first guess - during a segment called the "philosopher's couch") or from a Q and A of one of his lectures (I believe the Memories of Ayn Rand one).
  15. Sparked by other threads, I want to ask in all seriousness: who is an Objectivist and who is not? I know that Objectivism is the philosophy of Ayn Rand and that it is a subset of rational philosophy (the state-of-the-art for this historical era). But what qualifies as an Objectivist? Here's what bothers me, is a Christian woman who has an abortion still considered Christian even if she goes to Church three times a week? Is a Marxist business man still considered Marxist if he does not give his wealth to the working class? They would probably be considered (even by their own) as bad examples or "failed" Christians and Marxists. But they would still be considered Christian and Marxist. If not, what would they be? Would they be in limbo with no classification? So, if an Objectivist or someone who agrees with Ayn Rand's philosophy acts irrationally, is he no longer an Objectivist? Is he a failed Objectivist the way Lucifer was a failed angel? If a person really loves Ayn Rand and Objectivism but has a drug addiction that he can't break (not me - allthough I still stand by my fanatasy with the four porn stars), does his addiction bar him from being a "true" Objectivist? I guess my question amounts to one of classification. To use an expression, do you have to live by what you preach or by the implications of what you preach to be an Objectivst? And if you fall short of that standard, what are you? Should there be a term for people like this? Something for our drug addicted Ayn Rand fan. I mean this poor guy, what the hell should he call himself? Is he just plain "irrational"? Should "irrational" be the default category for everyone who is not 100% rational all the time? Then I guess that, in essense, there would only be two classifications of people in the world; the Objectivists and the Irrationals. Anyway, being that there was almost three full pages dedicated to the task of defining 'porn', this should prove interesting.
×
×
  • Create New...