Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

prosperity

Regulars
  • Posts

    305
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by prosperity

  1. This is the most succinct explanation I've seen so far of why the system is so screwed up today: This also addresses some pretty good myths that are often regurgitated by lefties: http://liberty.pacificresearch.org/docLib/...p_Ten_Myths.pdf
  2. prosperity

    Abortion

    When you are able to choose your values, morality applies to you. So the question is: can the fetus choose to live or die - i.e. to be born? That will answer the question as to whether a fetus has any rights.
  3. I would add that real altruism is the sacrificing of a value for a lesser or non value. The task then is just to consider a hierarchy of values. For example, let's say that you go to the store and buy a loaf of bread. You are not "sacrificing" your hard-earned money for that bread, you are trading for it. The bread is more valuable than the money in your pocket. On the flip side, let's say that you give your money to a stranger who is a crackhead on the street so that they can go get wasted and meanwhile your child goes without a new pair of shoes because of it. That's a sacrifice.
  4. That's pretty close. The way Miss Rand put it (and I am paraphrasing, I think): The concept of life necessitates the concept of value(s). As such, only living entities can possess values. The fact that man chooses his values - the fact that man possesses volition or free will - necessitates the concept of morality, and thus "rights".
  5. I believe the old Ultimate Fighter used to do this also. When I was in highschool (over 10 years ago), a few of my friends used to beg their parents to buy the pay-per view events. You would see some of these guys 5' 120lbs taking on 500lb+ sumo wrestlers. They did it for money, but geez, there has to be an easier way to make a living
  6. The problem with the academic version of the EMH is what they think an efficient market means. They want the market to be efficient without any real reason. But since nothing happens instantaneously, there is not going to be a situation where all information is reflected in a stock's price at any given moment. There is a lag, however long or short, before information affects stock prices...and new information is constantly coming to the market. I would say that efficiency would show the best possible information that is available at any given time perhaps, but not all information.
  7. As is, I can count on 1 finger the times where a 401(k) makes sense to invest in for the long-term. The problem is that you can't invest in them for the short-term effectively either. If you take away the tax break on the front end, it becomes a total piece of crap. I know this shouldn't come as a surprise to those on this board, but treat Government sponsored anything with an extremely high dose of skepticism as to whether it will do what it is allegedly supposed to do.
  8. In regards to Downs Syndrome and it is likely the same with cancer (or similar), there are probably environmental factors that set these things in motion. I was thinking that the extra chromosome 21 would be more of a cause and effect thing. Especially when I read some of the causes:
  9. Recently, I had someone tell me that there was no proof that the Government intervention caused the problem, or had anything to do with it. I chock it up to lack of knowledge, but they went on to say that there is no way to "prove" the Government is distorting anything. That's a lot of blanking out.
  10. Well, his comment was a bit off topic as we had been there 3 days and I just wanted it to be over. Actually, the whole situation was quite hostile. Every other juror was yelling at me because I wouldn't find the man guilty. Under the circumstances, there was no evidence of his guilt. It was one person's word against the other. The judge wanted us to rule based on character because there were not enough facts to analyze and that the facts surrounding the incident could not prove anything. The jurors were also arguing about what the term "reasonable doubt" meant. It was ridiculous. So there was more than just the "you can't be certain of anything" comment. Since the man had been arrested for drug possession a year or two ago, this was apparently all that was necessary for most people to find him guilty of an unrelated crime he was accused of. In the end, it was a hung jury, and I let each and every one of those jurors know that there were holes in the prosecution's case and that without a motive or any rational reason why this individual would commit this particular crime, I was not going to convict. What really bothered me was one of the female jurors saying that "the defense hasn't proven himself innocent" - which I DID NOT stay silent for. I still cannot believe that EVERY other juror agreed with her. I let her know that THAT was a perversion of justice and that HE didn't have to prove his innocence. That in this country we are innocent until proven guilty. The only response I got was, and I am paraphrasing, "well, it's a nice thought but when my kids do something wrong, they never fess up...I know you are supposed to assume they didn't do it, but the reality of the situation is they are guilty. So sometimes you have to assume they are guilty and punish them until they do fess up". I told her I felt sorry for her children. I was called every name in the book, and nearly everyone told me I was "too idealistic". I didn't budge. I didn't have to. They were, well, irritated to say the least. I thought it was a victory for O'ism. I hope I left an impression on them. The real problem, I discovered, is that in a court of law you are not asked to analyze whether the situation makes sense or whether the law makes sense. In short, you told not to think. The law is the law, and you are supposed to just make a determination as to whether the individual broke the law or not.
  11. I would really like some clarification on your use of "determinism". Because, if you are saying that Determinism is a valid concept, then we have a problem. If there are "cancer causing genes", is calling this "Determinism" mislabeling? The reason I ask is because the theory of Determinism, as I know it, is a contradiction in terms.
  12. I wanted to know, from those who may be more familiar with the hard science of biology, whether or not a "genetic" predisposition is more or less a form of biological determinism. For example, I keep hearing on the news and reading in newspapers - in regards to "medical discoveries" - that _________ (you fill in the blank, there are so many "diseases" and "disorders" that go in there) is genetic. Example: "Cancer is genetic", or "alcoholism is genetic", "there is a gene that controls ________ (any disorder, disease, or undesirable trait)? I was wondering if this wasn't just Determinism in disguise? Yes? No? Maybe in certain circumstances? How would one go about discerning truth from falsehood in this area?
  13. The good news is that it already is being funded, in part by the life extension foundation. Dr. Michael West of Advance Cell Technology (who also heads up Geron), and had done extensive work with BioTime Inc. (a company specifically geared towards regenerative medicine) has been instrumental in helping to develop non-cancerous immortal cells in a lab setting. The work he's done with the "telomere clock" theory is pretty amazing. By continuing to "reset" our cell's inner "clock", theoretically, we should be able to regenerate any specific body part or group of parts we choose. In the interview I read, Dr. West specifically mentions that President Bush's anti-stem cell attitude and initiatives have delayed progress in development of this type of regenerative medicine. The good news is that Dr. West believes that within ONE year, the scientific community will have documentation of the first reversal of aging of a human cell. That, to me, is incredible. He goes on to say that commercialization (of certain disease-specific medicine) of stem cell therapy is, barring any government intervention, just around the corner (i.e. viable within most people's lifetime). I have actually seen a skin cream that uses stem-cell therapy to reduce the signs of aging...so perhaps this is already in use in some limited fashion.
  14. Maybe not the common house spider. The venom from a sydney funnel web spider can kill you in about 15 minutes. In the U.S., while not many die from black widows or brown recluses, it does happen.
  15. First, I want to say that I haven't quite made up my mind on the "homo vs. hetero debate" - or rather whether or not homosexuality is immoral. I will say this, this poster (above in quotes - original post on the 5th page) did bring up a good point and something that a few posters had brought up initially I'd like to continue to discuss. I have bold and underlined what I think is a key statement that is reoccurring with homosexuals. I have often found that in defense of homosexuality, the homosexual often says "I don't know why I'm this way" (that or it is reduced to some type of biological deterministic argument i.e. "I was born this way, I can't help it")...underlying the entire defense is a complete lack of understanding of why they are the way they are. I would guess that most heterosexuals don't know why they are the way they are either...but it might be meaningful to "chew" on the "why" (something brought up in post #1219 of this thread). Because as far as emotions go, there is nothing one can do about them except inquire as to why one is feeling them. Introspection would provide an answer and help to determine what, in reality, is causing those feelings. Then, I think, you could judge whether those homosexual actions were moral or immoral or a rational or irrational basis. Yes? No?
  16. AIGs life insurance, annuity, and P&C business was actually stable. It was their non-insurance business that was causing problems. AIG made the same mistake that GM did. They moved away from their core competency. I suspect that their insurance business would have continued or would have been sold off quickly - being that it is in good shape. In any case, it is likely they will have to sell off a lot of their insurance business anyway to raise money.
  17. That reminds me of the time that I was serving on a jury. One of the jurors had said to me, in reference to my demanding the truth of the case, that "heck nothing is truly knowable - it's impossible to be certain of anything". Of course, I just smiled. I wanted to say, "...I guess that would include you not being certain of your position that nothing can be certain". ...but I'm not sure he really even understood what he said, so that is a battle I didn't get into.
  18. I love that an Objectivist bought the rights to that domain name. That has to be a huge piece of salt in the wound for those new-age hippies.
  19. Perhaps you could expand on that a bit?
  20. If I had a nickel for every time someone told me "yeah, I read such and such by Ayn Rand, and she's wrong and here's why..." I'd be....well...you know. ...and then of course, they go on to either misquote Rand, or they embarrass themselves by exposing their poor comprehension skills.
  21. I was actually wondering if there was a syllogism that would prove the first proposition made in the professor's "god proof". The problem is that his first proposition does not use universals. For example, if I said "All men are mortal". We can prove that that statement is true. However, we will get into a discussion of universals (which is a good reason to understand ITOE). The first proposition that the professor made is an arbitrary statement. Also, I'm not sure that starting your proposition with "If" is a proper format. I'm not a professional in this area, so I don't know for certain. I was under the assumption that you started these things with "All" or "No", "Some", or some kind of definitive statement.
  22. Demonstrate that the axioms are self-evident. This is where many critics of Objectivism "trap" well meaning Objectivists by demanding proof of the axioms. The axioms cannot be proven, so the critic believes they have won. They assert that everything must be proven or taken on faith. And you don't want to fall into the latter. It's a choice of false alternatives - another clever fallacy. The axioms are self-evident. By trying to deny them, you must accept them. You can evade them, but you cannot avoid them.
  23. Here is where you run into the problem of not being able to reason with matters of faith. This is why Objectivism holds that reason and faith are incompatible. You apply one by sacrificing the other.
  24. I was just going to "say", yeah...poker is more or less a game of skill over the long-term. I think it's the fact that you can bluff in that game that erases the luck factor if you play long enough.
×
×
  • Create New...