Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Who_Is_GV?

  • Rank
    Junior Member

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Sexual orientation
    No Answer
  • Copyright

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Houston, Texas, U.S.A.
  • Interests
    Catholicism, Thomistic Philosophy, Medieval Scholasticism, Business, Writing
  1. For the record, I no longer agree with the sentiments I expressed above in 2004, but am prohibited by forum rules from giving a proper explanation.
  2. First time I heard that I glanced over at my bookshelf and my copy of AR's VOS. You're right, his opposition to individualism in this regard could not be more 'clear.'
  3. Who_Is_GV?

    Renee Olstead

    Thanks for posting. I like pop & jazz from the 20's through the early 50's. Got turned on to a lot of it by "Dismuke," who posts on this forum. GV
  4. Thanks, softwareNerd. I'd been to the site but had not noticed the audio. That's great!
  5. Thanks for posting, David. Private space flight is one of my interests, so I'm glad you found this. GV
  6. Taking inspiration from Diana Hsieh, I sent the following email to Google today, after viewing their "turn the lights out" campaign. Below my email is Google's page that was the impetus for my email. To whom it may concern: I propose you stop this foolishness immediately. The goal of supposed "environmentalists" is--and has always been--the destruction of Western ideas, values, and progress, and indeed the end of individual rights to life, liberty, private property, and the pursuit of happiness. Sacrifice is NOT a proper value. Free individuals and companies trading with other individuals and companies--for example, an electric company selling me the power to cool or light my house for my rationally-selfish desire for comfort and health--is not immoral. And if it is not immoral for 23 hours per day, I assure you logic dictates that it is not immoral for the 24th. I claim the right to complain about your participation in this movement against human life as a long-time customer of Google. I spend, via my company, over one-thousand dollars per month in pay-per-click advertising. I pay you because you are the best at what you do. You exist because of the industrial revolution--do not spend your social and financial capital assisting in its destruction. Best regards, George V. ======================================================================= Google users in the United States will notice today that we "turned the lights out" on the Google.com homepage as a gesture to raise awareness of a worldwide energy conservation effort called Earth Hour. As to why we don't do this permanently - it saves no energy; modern displays use the same amount of power regardless of what they display. However, you can do something to reduce the energy consumption of your home PC by joining the Climate Savers Computing Initiative. On Saturday, March 29, 2008, Earth Hour invites people around the world to turn off their lights for one hour – from 8:00pm to 9:00pm in their local time zone. On this day, cities around the world, including Copenhagen, Chicago, Melbourne, Dubai, and Tel Aviv, will hold events to acknowledge their commitment to energy conservation. Given our company's commitment to environmental awareness and energy efficiency, we strongly support the Earth Hour campaign, and have darkened our homepage today to help spread awareness of what we hope will be a highly successful global event. Why did Google choose this specific organization? We believe in doing our part to help combat climate change, and found the Earth Hour initiative to be a timely, important event. Further, we think the "lights out" idea's individual-centered nature is something that millions of people worldwide can participate in. In short, we really like it. So we did something about it. How can I get Google to do something similar for my organization or project? We welcome your ideas on how we can become more socially and environmentally responsible. Although we can't guarantee either a placement on the Google homepage or even a response to every query, we do read every email we receive and welcome your ideas of organizations that you believe we should feature. If you'd like to submit a proposal, please send it to us at [email protected]
  7. I've had this on my desktop for weeks, and can't get enough of looking at it. Everyone that walks in my office comments on it and stares for a while. The towers appear to rise endlessly into the sky. FYI- It's the Petronas Towers in Malaysia. http://www.thewallpapers.org/view.php?wallz=num6545
  8. Here's where I'm getting my information (my apologies for not including it in my earlier post): http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2005Mar22.html
  9. I have heard no one else in the country take my position. I am a bit disappointed that I did not see it here in an Objectivist thread. An individual's right to life is not a right to be provided life by one's brothers--it is the right to freely do the the things required to maintain one's own life. It IS possible to fail at living. In this case, everyone is looking at broad abstractions, when we can easily deal with a concrete. Neither Terri Schiavo, nor any of her relatives, can afford these medical services. Her feeding tube is being paid for by Medicaid (money taken from you and me by threat of force). As an Objectivist, I know that her need does not constitute a claim on my life. Rush Limbaugh, and others, keep stating that she has a right to life. Based on the facts I presented in the previous lines, my life--and the lives of all who are reading this post--are the lives (portions of lives) at stake here. Roark says in the courtroom, "I came here to say that I do not recognize anyone's right to one minute of my life." The situation for Ms. Schiavo is unfortunate, but when one runs out of the material resources required to sustain his own life, and none of his brothers volunteer to provide those resources, no government has the right to force his brothers to surrender their property. -- George
  10. I was listening to Neal Boortz today (nationally-syndicated Libertarian radio talk show host). He took a call. Aparently, Neal had suggested that one of his callers read the ingenious book, Atlas Shrugged. The caller indicated that he loved the book, and that it has really changed his outlook. While he was previously a solid Republican, now he's much more open to the Libertarian philosophy. He also said he'd love to see a movie of Atlas made. He and Neal joked that Hollywood would certainly destroy the message of the book by making a movie. The caller then offered up a "perfect" director: Mel Gibson! Neal Boortz was in complete agreement. I had to wonder which copy of Atlas Shrugged these guys picked up. Mel Gibson's dramatic portrayal of the most famous sacrificial animal, Jesus, would make him the "perfect" artist to project John Galt (?!), the first man to explicitly define (and live) a profound love and reverence for one's own life. I was so excited to hear Ayn Rand's name and her book come out over the air. It was such a brief instant, then I was let down. The Libertarian thing didn't bother me too much. Most people don't become Objectivists in one reading of one AR book. There's a transition for most people if they continue reading. I cannot fathom the Mel Gibson part, however. Cliche as it may be, reading Galt's famous radio speech changed my life...immediately. My philosophical convictions were always his (actually, AR's, of course), but my life was changed by knowing others existed who understood the importance of life. I'm sorry this guy just took it as an interesting point of view compatible with The Passion. Unbelievable. -- George
  11. C.O.D.- I don't know where you stand in your study of Objectivism. What the posters here are attempting to do is change your focus. After reading Ayn Rand's fiction, and then her non-fiction, your entire focus, or paradigm, will change--if you are honest. Objectivism is A PHILOSOPHY FOR LIVING ON EARTH. Each INDIVIDUAL MAN must CHOOSE to exist or to perish. As "A is A," man can either decide to be man or to be nothing. There is no other choice. If he decides to be man, his ONLY tool of survival, happiness, and fulfillment, qua man, is his MIND. I have neither the disire nor time to argue the technical aspects of evolution with you here, but what you, C.O.D., are attempting to do is DESTROY THE INDIVIDUAL, namely yourself. You inherit NOTHING. The men of 2,000 years ago have absolutely nothing to do with you. The origin of the universe--other than as a philosophical premise--has absolutely nothing to do with you. Objectivists are not sitting around waiting for the species to evolve. That would be an animalistic form of collectivism. Each of us knows that he exists--as an absolute--and that is ALL that matters. I exist, I can perceive reality, and I choose to exist as a man (as an end in himself), for the purpose of MY own happiness and fulfillment. You will spend your entire life on some sort of mission to determine its origin, and then you will die. What you will miss by your choice of non-existence is life, and all of its benefits. The answer to the question, "does God exist?" is: IT DOES NOT MATTER. To your life, it does NOT matter. Religion cannot, by force and history and seniority, preempt all of metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics/ morality. It cannot assert itself as the starting point. That for their entire history, men have forced others to answer the "God question," does not make the question important. The only question that matters is: "does life exist/ do I exist?" (please note that Objectivists are not agnostic--I'm only giving you the non-technical/ "sense of life" starting point to leave this forum and read Ayn Rand) You are young, and some day you you will--you should hope--see this clearly. Trust me, you will regret every minute you spent apologizing for living; every minute you spent arguing the historical accuracy of a man named Jesus or Job or Saul; every minute you chose to non-exist instead of using your mind in productive undertakings. You will know that the sum of all virtues is not humility, with rewards for that humble, sad non-life obtained from that wonderful time when your lifeless body enters the grave, but rather pride, and a radiant reverence for your own life. You still have a chance. Don't let it go. - George
  12. I was going to respond as follows (see below), but David's post is much more on point and gets to the sinister nature of these political games. Great call, David! I'd love to see the IRS eliminated, but I am not very optimistic of it getting through the Congress. To be cynical, it's probably a tool of the Republicans to fire up the base before November, knowing full well that it won't happen. There are plenty of precedents. The 1994 plan to eliminate the federal Department of Education is a good example. Not only has it not been eliminated, the budget for that department (under Republicans) has more than doubled! --George
  13. conan: Most of us here have read all of Ayn Rand's novels, and a great deal of her non-fiction articles and essays. There is no way I can see to casually consider some of Ayn Rand's ideas and discuss them in this particular forum. Her philosophy is complete and comprehensive, and she herself described many times just what is involved in adopting an entirely new philosophy. If you're like I was, a taste of Ayn Rand's philosophy makes you want to get to the end immediately, but, like so many things, there's no shortcut. George
  14. Elle: Did you hear this past weekend that Kerry now says life begins at conception? I don't have a source, but it was all over the radio earlier this week.
  • Create New...