Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Mammon

Regulars
  • Content count

    1190
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Mammon

  1. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...8033102779.html They can buy cellphones and T.V.s now? And stay in there own hotels? Hell must be freezing over!
  2. Mammon

    The Alligator River Story.

    This is an ethics assignment I did in class today. It produced some pretty interesting results and debates, so I thought I'd post it and see if my choices alligned with other Objectivists. THE ALLIGATOR RIVER STORY Instructions: Please read the following story. After reading the story, rank the five characters in the story in the space provided below it, beginning with the one you consider as most offensive, and ending with the one you consider as least objectionable. Also, briefly note your reasons as to why you ranked them in that order. There lived a woman named Abigail who was in love with a man named Gregory. Gregory lived on the shore of a river. Abigail lived on the opposite shore of the same river. The river that separated the two lovers was teeming with dangerous alligators. Abigail wanted to cross the river to be with Gregory. Unfortunately, the bridge had been washed out by a heavy flood the previous week. So she went to ask Sinbad, a riverboat captain, to take her across. He said he would be glad to if she would consent to go to bed with him prior to the voyage. She promptly refused and went to a friend named Ivan to explain her plight. Ivan did not want to get involved at all in the situation. Abigail felt her only alternative was to accept Sinbad’s terms. Sinbad fulfilled his promise to Abigail and delivered her into the arms of Gregory. When Abigail told Gregory about her amorous escapade in order to cross the river, Gregory cast her aside with disdain. Heartsick and rejected, Abigail turned to Slug with her tale of woe. Slug, feeling compassion for Abigail, sought out Gregory and beat him brutally. Abigail was overjoyed at the sight of Gregory getting his due. As the sun set on the horizon, people heard Abigail laughing at Gregory. I ranked them as (most morally repulsive first) Abigail Slug Sinbad Gregory Ivan
  3. Mammon

    Flobots

    I first heard the Flobots song "Handlebars" and thought it was pretty awesome... Lyrics beings... It seemed pretty postive and about pursuing values and living and what not. So I got the CD and found that there is some good stuff on it, but it's bogged down with alot of pseudo-Marxist stuff and they also have this webcomic, which had this page... And this page... It's all package deals. Freedoming fighting and smooth poetic lyrics, tobbled with psuedo-Leftist stuff. *sigh* I'm really disappointed.
  4. *** Mod's note: Merged thread. - sN *** I figured you'd have fun with these, if not for an exercise. I've seen all these reasons proposed by Christians before as well, chances are you will encounter them.
  5. Mammon

    Avoiding Aging

    http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/aubrey_...void_aging.html Another good TED lecture that brings up interesting points as always about avoiding aging. I seriously hope this type of research gets funded and developed, I'd like to live for a few hundred years!
  6. Mammon

    Food: Is It Art?

    Does food count as art? From the "model-building" discussion in the OPAR one can say that food is recreated and representing of part of the world, you present the good tastes as opposed to the bad. There is also the issue of the senses, sculptors, books, paintings and music all apply to sight and sound, but what about taste and smell? Art should be enjoyable from those senses right? I think food can be appreciated for more then just sustenance. A lot of science and culture goes into preparing food now that it definitely transcends just pure sustenance. The abundance we have at out fingertip right now is a tribute to capitalism; one that is made even more prominent this time of year during the holidays. So guys, what are your Objectivist thoughts on food? Edit: 1000th post!
  7. Mammon

    AIG Bonuses

    I made a poll just to keep track of things, and I'm curious. I personally think that they should receive the $170 million in bonuses because they are contractually obligated to receive those and although they played a part in this crises, it's not entirely their fault and they sill earned the money. Not only that, but it will give incentive to keep workers there who not only work at a place a lot of people hate, but also keeping them away from a hostile job market. It's better for everyone to pay the bonuses. So, I disagree with the administration's officially stated outrage on the issue.
  8. Yeah, this was pretty recently after I read the book and I discovered the historical facts a couple years later.
  9. http://www.whitehouse.gov/openforquestions/ Google's front page was plugging this. Figured there would be some questions we can all think of.
  10. HOLY SHIT I meet Jimmy Fallon a couple years ago, I was working with him. He was a really cool, down-to-earth guy. I was in a crowd on set and everyone was talking about their favorite authors and I said my was Ayn Rand and he said never heard of her, and I suggested he look her up. I also gave the run down on the meaning of dollar sign to another person, and Fallon was in earshot. I wonder if...
  11. Well, I forget people would rather sit on their ass and bitch and complain then do anything. You're missing out, looks like he is hard at work thinking of answers to these questions...
  12. Mammon

    Geaux Gators...

    So, I've been thinking about going to the University of Florida for my MBA, then I saw this... Ehhhhh... maybe not?
  13. Mammon

    "Dear A.I.G., I Quit!"

    http://www.businessweek.com/careers/manage...ws+%2B+analysis This is a article criticizing the letter. I'd post my thoughts, but I'm out the door and I'm shutting this thing down. I'll get back to it in a couple hours.
  14. Mammon

    "Dear A.I.G., I Quit!"

    Despite the reasons he said he was giving, I think there is also more two. It's like saying "If this is going to cause so many problems, I'll give it away, but the government sure as hell isn't going to get it's hands on it" I think that's admirable and within his self-interest, but as Zip pointed out -- not the only option. As sNerd and Jake Ellison pointed out, he was and feels threatned. It's a self-defensive measure too, so the mob and their pitchforks don't come banging on your door... but the mob still doesn't get the money, they just don't have any reason to bother this man and his family anymore. I think this is an incredibly well-written letter and I'm very proud of this man for taking the time to write it and the New York Times for being objective just enough to run this and get the truth out on the situation. If anyone is in New York, see if you can catch this guy leaving work and slip him a copy of Atlas Shrugged.
  15. Simple question. I'll start with this -- Who is better than Barack Obama? I'm going to be purely Socratic in this thread. I'm usually always Socratic but, no one's caught on to that so I'm going to come out and say it this time.
  16. Edward Cline is an embarrassment to Objectivism.
  17. Mammon

    Malcom Gladwell's Outliers

    I've been wanting to read it Gladwell's work. When I get a chance too, I'll post a mini-review here.
  18. So, the criteria for running with the GOP is to be outwardly religious? Why is that? Would anyone here say that Giuliani is more well-reasoned and rational than the people he ran against in his own party? (That's supposed to be "aren't" or better yet, "are not the". Late night typos.)
  19. Mammon

    Rush Limbaugh

    I can shot the following holes in that. A.) Edited or not, it doesn't change the fact that he said it. So why should I just ignore it because it appeared on a certain network? B.) Having millions of fans does not make you right. See: Hitler, Chavez, (Bin Laden?) C.) You act like this is the only exposure I've ever had to Limbaugh. I just showed this as one of many examples of this man being despicable. I guess it all depends on where you set you standards then. Which is an interesting point of discussion for all Objectivists on this board. This could be true. But I think the Republicans have a history of distorting facts themselves. So what do you get when you have people distorting people who distort, exactly? I don't believe in the existence of "the MSM", but you're right, there are distortions all around. However, people who criticize Rush seem to hit the right nails sometimes. I can't help but agree. Again, Rush had the backing of the government thugs for years so I don't think it's that impressive. That's nice to know.
  20. Mammon

    Rush Limbaugh

    You're dropping the context. I never said they were "pro-capitalism" or at least what we considered "pro-capitalism", I was illustrating that Obama has not satisfied the criteria for being a blatant socialist although there is a lot of dialogue that suggests he is a socialist. I like defined terms and objective measures. When judging something, you need to look at the facts, not subjective interpretation. In the context of this thread and what was said... it does actually raise some issues. Obama had moments of showing support for "free-markets" and this is enough for socialists to crictize him and yet not enough to convince others that he is not a socialist. With Objectivists, they show support for conservative commentators and politicians who say they are for "free-markets", but not for the President when he says the same after being accused of being the opposite. There is a double standard. Again, for the record. That post in that other thread that you insisted on bringing up was to provide clarification on what Obama is not. Off-topic.
  21. Mammon

    Rush Limbaugh

    I'd say he appears anti-intellectual because of his choice of words and methods of argument. He resorts to name calling and childish antics. Like with Fox, he didn't bother checking the facts before he said "he must of been off his meds" ... He doesn't appear to think about things before he just says them. Also, I agree with what themadkat was saying. She's listened to him for years and doesn't hold in high esteem so I don't think insisting that listening to him more makes everything magically better. Let's see him write a doctoral thesis if he's so much more intellectual than all those college folks. I've said it before, that the fact he promotes Rand is such a disappointing thing because he doesn't seem to have a grasp of what Rand actually tried to get people to understand in her works. I remember someone on this board saying something along the lines of "if they advocate Rand or her philosophy, what principles of that philosophy do they specifically advocate" Maybe it was about someone else, I couldn't find it. But, the point stands with Rush. It would be nice if he grasped some principles and talked about those to show it, other then misrepresenting Rand by blatantly advocating things she spoke passionately against. It doesn't do her justice. It might not be a big deal for other people here, but it is for me because I take her ideas and ideals seriously. I do think you're giving him a free pass. But I'll coincide that you know more about him than I do. I know what I've seen and what I've heard, and I have not liked either, ever. I don't much like the idea of digging through cow manure looking for a gold ring I heard a rumor about it. But again, other people have listened to him a lot and despise him too. So, you're obviously seeing something there other people aren't, or vice versa. Maybe it's something we see and you don't? I have to take issue with this because just a few years ago, Rush was pretty much an apologist for the government and their actions.
  22. Mammon

    Rush Limbaugh

    If MSNBC said gravity existed would you stop thinking gravity existed? That's the typical conservative response to any and all criticisms, "bias!" "agenda!" "the MSM" "intellectuals!" Does he have have the actual transcript from the actual show in question on there? Please link that instead. I don't have time to sip through his backpedaling revisions of what he actually said. Yeah, people who think and vote in the exact way he does. I've never seen him care to much about anyone else. No matter how long you listened to him, that doesn't change the what he said in those clips. He still said what said. And what are we to think of his movements when he was saying Fox was "acting"? I guess that was Rush doing a little dance to work out during the show and he just happened to do it at the same time and the big, mean, evil, MSM is spinning it into something it's not? Why do you like him if he is fundamentally wrong on something that's so important? For the record I don't think he has ideas.
  23. More like this is what's needed. More evidence from our Intelligience Agencies.
  24. "Stuck between a rock and Iraq" is a play off "a rock and a hard place" seeing as how there is a rather messed up place next door to Iran. A place we attacked and insisted they had WMDs when they didn't. Should we make the same mistake choice, or have solid evidence before we go in this time? Solid evidence that they are creating nuclear power plants for the sole purpose of creating nuclear bombs.
  25. Yeah, it's not really wrong for them to have a nuclear power plant. They have a right to build it, and as we do to question their motives. And I seriously question their motives. But we can't just barge in their and blow the plant up without solid evidence that they have malevolent intentions. Stuck between a rock and Iraq.
×