Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Ragnar69

Regulars
  • Content Count

    94
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Ragnar69

  • Rank
    Junior Member

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
    NewYork
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted
  • Occupation
    Archivist
  1. All good points, but I am not in support of this because I am in debt. In fact, I am not in debt and don't like credit cards. I have one card attached to my debit card simply to allow me to make online bill payments. I am in support of this because many people who are a part of the so-called 1% are actually immoral - even by Objectivist standards, and in some cases they are actually criminals. This movement is seeking to rectify that in some way. To be honest, if some innocent rich people get forced to pay more through no fault of their own, I'm not exactly going to feel sorry for them. Better for innocent rich people to pay for other rich people's mistakes than for innocent poor people to pay for the criminal behavior of rich people. This is Rand's version of Robin Hood - it's not stealing from the rich and giving to the poor, it's taking back money that the criminal rich stole to begin with.
  2. They are in Washington, and 140-something other cities. "Get in on the corruption to protect themselves?" This is blatantly anti-Objectivist and I don't even know how to respond to such nonsense. OWS is not seeking more government, it is seeking less. It is seeking a separation between private enterprise and government. Objectivists should be all for this. "Take away that power, and all business can do is try and convince you of the benefits of their products and services. Banks would be far more conservative and make fewer risky loans and investments. No business would be able to legislate against other market actors." This confuses me a little. Isn't this a good thing? I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.
  3. Communist or socialist? There is a difference. Neither is workable in reality, but I think Communism is far worse, as it is state sponsored socialism.
  4. It is not a protest against capitalism, it is a protest against legalized corporate corruption. The US isn't even capitalist anymore, it's a corporate welfare state. Bailouts and corporate tax cuts are not capitalism. Allowing corporations to buy politicians is not capitalism. Rand would not support the current economic system in the US. To answer the charge of the protestors being violent: In NY they are actually quite civilized and accomodating. A guy who works on Wall Street came down one night and got up to speak with no problem. When someone wants to address the crowd, the crowd repeats every sentence so everyone can hear since mics and megaphones are not allowed. Everyone shouted out this guy's concerns the same as everyone else's. They are willing to listen to anyone who has an opinion. Everyone is so nice when I walk through the park. When someone bumps into you they say sorry and excuse me; what you usually get in NY is people telling you to get the fuck out of their way. Objectivists, you should be in agreement with these protestors. Rand said, "The precondition of a civilized society is the barring of physical force from social relationships—thus establishing the principle that if men wish to deal with one another, they may do so only by means of reason: by discussion, persuasion and voluntary, uncoerced agreement." The middle class in the US is being forced by the government to bear the bulk of the tax burden. This is violence being perpetrated on its citizens. The protestors are peaceful and doing exactly what Rand urged: using reason to discuss issues and persuade people that the system is corrupt and something needs to be done.
  5. "Your mind and your experience call to me You have lived and your intelligence is sexy" Morphine, baby: 2-string bass, sax, drums plus the silkiest smooth voice on the planet.
  6. Intelligence is a matter of degree, so I don't think you can really say there is only one intelligent species on the planet. I think you are confusing intelligence with sentience. Humans are the only sentient species on the planet, but other animals do have varying degrees of intelligence. For example, we know that after humans, chimps are likely the most intelligent species. Dolphins are more intelligent than fish. Cats are likely more intelligent than dogs. And so on. I used intelligence just as an example, but the case of a fish losing its eyes through evolution is a good example of an animal getting less complex. Losing vestigial organs in general is getting less complex. I thought of this after my post, so yes, I see how it can go both ways. My problem was with people saying evolution ONLY involves species getting less complex, and that is clearly not the case.
  7. This post was referred to in a more recent, so I wanted to chime in. When I was a kid my mom spanked me and my sister all the time, my dad never did. We definitely respected my dad far more. My mom would spank us or discipline us for stupid stuff. As has been said in this thread it was done more out of anger and frustration than trying to teach a lesson. It also became very ineffective when at about the age of 12 I could outrun, outsmart, and simply physically block any attempt at force from my mother since she is not very strong. However, my dad is 5'11" about 200 lbs, used to play football, still worked out with weights when we were very young. The violence from my mom led my sister and to a lesser extent myself to be violent with each other. We would get into some serious fights when we were kids. When we fought my sister liked to scratch me. I would say, scratch me and I'm going to hit you. She would scratch, I would hit. She never really learned. One time I smacked her so hard I drew blood (her scratches always drew blood). My dad saw it, grabbed me by the arm, and asked me how I would like to get in a fight with him. Just the THREAT of violence from my dad was enough for me to see the point that I shouldn't use force against my younger, weaker sister. After that I tried to defuse potentially violent fights with my sister, or at the least I stopped trying to tear her head off.
  8. I've read about how evoultion is not increasing complexity, but I admit I still don't understand that. If a less intelligent animal evolves into a more intelligent animal, isn't that increasing complexity?
  9. Whoah, you've resurrected quite the old thread here. I'd like to just give my view on human evoultion. I don't think you need a scientist's understanding of the subject to come to a conclusion. All you really need is a couple of facts and simple reason. One fact is that the fossil record indicates humans as we know them today existed back to a certain point in time. Also according to the fossil record, apes existed before the time that humans seem to have appeared. Based on these two facts, there are only two possible conclusions. Either humans were created as they are now at the point in time when they first appeared, or they evolved from the apes that came before. The actual biological processes involved don't need to ever enter the picture. I don't need to understand gravity to know it exists, and I don't need to sail around the world to know the planet is a sphere (or close to it). You have to choose one or the other, or you admit to a kind of agnosticism, which no Objectivist would ever do. Being Objectivist does not mean being a Skeptic.
  10. It's not really about someone else asking me to give up certain values, it's more about what I am finding myself attracted to vs. what my ideal mate should be if I followed Objectivism exclusively. Personally, Objectivism just doesn't work for me when it comes to love. I don't really feel like talking about it further, and I don't think I'll respond to this thread again. I'm starting down the road to happiness and leaving Objectivism behind to do it. Disagree with that all you want, I've already figured it out for myself and I'm done here.
  11. I'd still rather give up a little bit of the "I" if it means keeping the love, rather than lose the love entirely. This is provided you think the love is worth it, of course, and sometimes it is. Sometimes you lose it anyway despite being willing to give up something of lesser value.
  12. Shared interests outside of work, intelligence, exchange of ideas, physical connection, and sense of humor are all good places to start.
  13. I would definitely contact ARI to find out what the copyright issues are. I'm sure they could find out the best way for you to get them out to the public.
  14. Because being in love makes me happy, and isn't that really what it's all about? My point is that despite your best efforts, you can end up going through life without ever really finding that career you are passionate about. Why wait to fall in love just because you are not thrilled with your career? I would rather focus on finding a great love than a great career. I don't think you need one to have the other.
  15. Yes exactly, that's why Rand had an affair with Branden. I think it's a possibility that she was disillusioned with her own love life, and that's why she thought it was so unimportant. If you look at her life, she never really did find the type of partner she wrote about. That's why I think love should be more important than work. I couldn't be really happy in life without a long term romantic partner, a career would never be enough. I could be happy with a profound love, even if my career never went the way I wanted. Rand wrote about not sacrificing your career to loved ones, but I would argue that it is more important to not sacrifice a loved one (a chosen loved one, mind you) to your career.
×
×
  • Create New...