Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

progressiveman1

Regulars
  • Posts

    239
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by progressiveman1

  1. I think it's a misinterpretation of Ron Paul then. I haven't seen him say anything about (wrongfully) punishing corporate businesses, even with oil companies. He just doesn't like corporatism- gov't subsidizing businesses. If someone doesn't mind(since I don't want to read through this whole thread), will you explain briefly why it would be a bad idea for an Objectivist(or anyone, I guess) to vote for Ron Paul, if he had a chance at being elected?
  2. We hate what they stand for, of course, but you gotta admit that they are good at persuading the gov't, businesses, and the public to adopt or support their ideas. Sometimes they initiate force on others, but I think the main reason they are so persuasive is because they target people's strongest feelings, mainly fear and empathy/compassion. Objectivists could take this route with their own activism. It wouldn't work to setup the foundation of the country this way, but as we wait for the right fundamental ideas to get accepted we can improve the country on a situational basis. For example, establishing that higher taxes on oil companies leads to higher prices at the pump, and show a convincing graph. Then try to hit a sensitive chord with the people and say this will lead to poor people not being able to afford to drive to work or a low income mother will have to buy less at the grocery store for her five kids (and show some sympathetic photo of a similar family in an undesirable living condition and with sad expressions on their faces) because she has to pay more at the pump and food prices will increase as well. This is not to convince them of your fundamentals. It's to preserve or improve the current state of the society. I hate to say it, but I think it's best to not mention principles or fundamentals to the main public these days when trying to convince them on a particular issue. That will only turn them off of what you're saying, since most people just won't change their fundamentals in a short timeframe. I say stick to the facts and aim for a sensitive and strong feeling of theirs. What do you guys think of that idea?
  3. What would we be able to accomplish in terms of economic production with 20 or so people?
  4. Should a state be able to make its own laws, or should the federal gov't be the sole creator of the laws?
  5. I introspected when I had feelings of envy, and the feeling arose only when the other person could have an impact on my life. For example, baseball players who are better than me, and girls I admire who gain more appeal from others. It seems logical to then conclude that I feel envy when feelings of worthiness decline relating to a specific desire or goal I want to attain. A better baseball player means my chances of increasing to a higher level league declines; a girl I admire who increases her appeal to others decreases my chances of securing a relationship with her. This explains why I have been shamefully preferring and rooting for failure of others; because those outcomes would benefit my worthiness in relation to my goal. Of course, I knew the right mental approach: to only be concerned about improving one’s own ability when trying to accomplish a goal, because I am the only person that I should try to control. I just don’t think I fully accepted this idea into my consciousness, and was left with a combination of trying to do my best and also hoping for other people’s failures. But elimination of the latter results in less undesirable pressure on oneself because you aren’t trying to do too much; you are just trying to live up to your own ability and not others.
  6. I have been very suspicious of the validity of questionnaire-type studies, and they are actually the norm for studies on UV radiation. But I realized that I could still get some value out of those studies if I narrow my criteria, and only take into account questions that are most likely to be answered accurately. With the latest study I posted involving DNA repair capacity (DRC), I focused my efforts on people's sun-sensitivity (how easily you tan or burn), which will usually be accurately reported by the person since it is a variable that is constant and easily noticeable. Studies 1, 2, 3, and 4, show an increased risk of melanoma-type cancers in sun-sensitive people compared to non-sun-sensitive people.
  7. There is a belief that UV induced DNA damage can cause types of cancer because some of the DNA isn't successfully repaired after the stressor. I found an interesting study that shows "no statistically significant association between melanoma risk and DRC by itself was found." However, "DRC strongly influenced CMM risk in individuals with a low tanning ability or dysplastic nevi."
  8. Thanks for pointing that out. I guess I can trust your judgment since you're a molecular biologist. And that is an influential stat considering they observed that "all but one mutation took place at dipyrimidine sites", and "four cases showed C to T transitions (including two CC-TT double base substitutions)." That's out of a total of 10 cases. Does a C to G transversion have anything to do with UV induced DNA damage?
  9. I'm looking through the abstract of this study that I got from DO's provided review, but I can't figure out how the researchers can conclude that "these findings provide the first objective evidence for the central role of UV radiation in the development of AFX(atypical fibroxanthoma)." Granted, I only have the abstract to work with. However, the only thing I can see them prove is that there were certain types of mutations in certain genes in atypical fibroxanthoma victims. Do you guys see them prove anything otherwise?
  10. But what is a 'man' in that sense? A being that is born out of a human?
  11. But isn't the ability to be rational required to be 'man'? Why is she considered to be 'man'?
  12. The process needed to be able to rightfully claim ownership has been discussed here, but can someone explain why there isn't (or is) a process to maintain ownership of that property? Can a person lose ownership to his property other than by voluntarily trading it away or dying? Why is Locke's "spoilage" theory incorrect (or correct)? I have some ideas on these issues but I can't quite put the pieces together.
  13. Since skin cancer generally develops much later on in life, it is tough to run any studies on this other than questionnaires. The questions of course are asking the person to recall things that happened several years prior, which concerns me about its validity. One study asked the people to recall how many sunburns they have had in their life (including childhood): they grouped the answers into 0, 1-2, 3-4, 5+. It did show that the higher groups had more than the lower, but each category differs by only a couple and I can't see how the people would be able to be very accurate with the numbers. I'm young and I don't even know my number; it would just be a guess. Anyways, the point of the thread is to gather up some ideas on how to go about researching the effects of the sun (UV radiation) and skin cancer. What type of studies would be the most valid? Are there any indications that may suggest skin cancer is developing, or does skin cancer just form suddenly? At least when I was studying the effects of fat on atheroscelorsis I could look at body cholesterol, which gave validity to short-term studies.
  14. Is extremely difficult oil to obtain or not very cost-efficient oil to obtain included in this estimate? Can you show me the source of this estimate?
  15. How do you know we are not near the 'peak oil' phase? I don't think it would be very accurate to look at the price at the pump and try to determine supply of oil from that. I do know that the value of the dollar plays a large part in that price, along with other factors that other people on here could probably point out.
  16. These are all the negatives of McCain I've gathered from this thread: he's a pragmatist, wants to restrict free speech, create gov't controls to suppress GW, ban abortions, allow ID to be taught in public schools. These are the positives: he probably won't raise taxes as much as Hilary or Obama, doesn't advocate socialized healthcare, and is stronger on defense. What am I missing?
  17. What would you say to someone who claims the lack of alternative energy innovations in the past 30 years is a fault and negative effect of the free market? Would your argument consist solely of establishing the importance of acting on principle?
  18. I meant just for a very short period of time. Like if the gov't heavily subsidized companies to innovate alternative energy right now. Although I do understand that a society won't sustain ideal productive growth long-term when the gov't initiates force against the people. Thanks for the nice explanation though.
  19. Innovation would probably happen quicker if the gov't stole (I mean taxed) us higher and subsidized certain groups, since more funds will be raised that way. Of course, it violates our right to our money.
  20. When I said:"How big of a role has the gov't played in slowing down new energy innovations?" I meant with regards to regulations on innovations and high taxes (in general).
  21. What about the negatives? Being dependent on foreign countries and OPEC (which has caused several oil shortages in the past), and uncertainty of oil supply in the Earth. The gov't doesn't necessarily have to change any of their current policies regarding those issues (or they could change them again and again), so why would potential inventors/investors wait around for those decisions?
  22. What are some of the main reasons why the US is still so highly dependent on oil? How big of a role has the gov't played in slowing down new energy innovations? Does the private sector have a hard time developing new energy innovations because of the large sum of money needed for this process along with the reluctancy to make a high-risk investment? And can nuclear energy replace oil altogether?
  23. I know you have chosen to exist, but I'm asking why you think that is the right decision. Why life over death? Just because you want to, or is there some fact of reality saying a living thing should act to exist?
  24. If you can't justify that a human should live (based on objective facts), then how can you proceed past that question? You're assuming it's true based on your desires.
  25. A code of values to guide mans' choices and actions.
×
×
  • Create New...