Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

L-C

Regulars
  • Content Count

    238
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by L-C

  1. IMO, better then to teach English. I went through TF and AS without any problems. I might've looked up a dozen words in total, probably less than I would need to for Swedish books written in '43 and '57.
  2. Because if Ayn Rand's ideas are right, then so much else is so very wrong. Maybe they can see that her ideas are unrefuted.
  3. L-C

    My art

    I like that one. The background feels very fitting for the woman's appearance and expression.
  4. Sometimes, yes. But there are ways to re-align the layout.
  5. It was meant as an addendum to your post, not an implication that you were rationalizing. That is, people should examine their attraction toward someone and the reasons thereof, as you said, but they should be careful not to rationalize. It would be a handy "defense mechanism" in such an unfortunate situation. One can learn from bad memories and bad experiences, and to refuse to might be a bad idea. But dwelling on them is a waste. I treat old, bad memories as tasks to be done and done away with (to the extent I'm able to do so). I keep my old, good memories closer than that.
  6. I root for the team whose play I respect the most, meaning individual skill, strategy, teamwork (another type of skill) and sportsmanship. I prefer sports where people compete as individuals though, but although I only watch world championship-type games (Olympics, World Cup etc) it's still offputting to me that athletes are must compete as part of a country in order to be eligible. An Olympic Games without flags, just individual names performing for themselves would be awesome.
  7. I'll only list one for now but I was able to think of it instantly: The right to life.
  8. That will always be possible, and disarming victims will only increase violence against innocents, and will make sure that "killing people at whim" is a privilege enjoyed exclusively by criminals who are then free to employ it much more effectively and safely against their victims. It is a fact that permitting CCW's decreases violent crime. But the moral argument for gun ownership is the right to life, which means the right to defend it by the means one judges to be the most effective. Anything less would be (and is in Europe) self-sacrifice for the sake of criminals. I will not use my fists to defend my life, health and property. I will not use a knife. I will use a Glock 20, a 12 gauge semi-auto shotgun and if I ever get to live on a large piece of land with a big house/mansion, a medium machine gun. I will not compromise on my life and safety. When it comes to those things, only the best is good enough. That is not their only function. Its basic property is as a firearm, and firearms can and are used for defense. People don't live by permission. It is an individual's right to judge a machine gun as being the best tool for his defense of life and property.
  9. The original post uses 8 paragraphs to say...absolutely nothing at all. I kept expecting some sort of explanation to begin but there never was one.
  10. I am very passionate about gun ownership, and it is one of the primary reasons for my moving to the US when it becomes possible for me to do so. You have to live in Sweden to truly appreciate how grotesque the sacrifice of innocent to the guilty is. The right to self defense is almost nonexistant here, with regular cases of charges being pressed against victims who used "excessive" force even if the prevention of murder, permanent injury or rape was a direct consequence of that force. It's god damn insane. A government that bans private ownership of firearms is an illegitimate one. Peikoff dealt with this issue in one of his podcasts but used fuzzy terminology when trying to distinguish between "reasonable" and "unreasonable" weapons, such as calling an Uzi a "heavy machine gun", when it is in fact a submachine gun. Big difference. I can't think of any justification for arbitrarily banning certain classes of firearms whether it's fully automatic ones, submachine guns, heavy machine guns etc. People do not live by permission. "I can't think of a legitimate use for heavy machine guns" is not a proper criterion for a legal ban of an item or class of items. I submit that the primary and only general-class weapon bans would be ABC weapons, that is atomic (i.e. fission/fusion bombs), biological (e.g. Anthrax or other bacteria/viruses) and chemical (e.g. dirty bombs or sarin gas), that is weapons of mass destruction that downright cannot be legitimately used by a private individual (something even a 20mm Gatling gun could if you're defending a ranch/mansion from invaders...) and that constitute a passive threat by their mere storage within the area of effect of other people. More specific rules might apply to storage of conventional explosives (or equivalent) that, while not banned as a substance, may endanger others by virtue of its sheer amount and/or proximity.
  11. Very well put, Mindy, especially the first paragraph. I could never proceed into a relationship after encountering such a dead-end. If there is even a hint of faith (but then, how could any presence of faith be just a "hint"?), how are things reasoned into? I don't mean to say that there are only religious morons on the one hand and Objectivists on the other; clearly there are people who are rational to a significant degree but continue to cling to faith. But as far as I'm concerned, such people are to be traded with as customers, business associates and possibly friends. Definately not as romantic life partners. The latter requires too much of a total devotion to the other person's character to permit such breaches of reason.
  12. No, I can't imagine ever falling in love with a religious woman.
  13. This is a good idea and will be of particular benefit to non-native speakers. It will also make searching for specific questions and answers much easier.
  14. Having good people like you for your virtues is a value. The relationship between Keating and another person isn't that of two rational people who share value and friendship - and thus tend to have relevant viewpoints and perhaps advice to share - but between a shell of a person who lives through, and by, others and likely (and ironically) another such specimen. As for comparing your work to that of another: professionally, if you have value to trade, it's valuable. A software developer doesn't need to be Bill Gates. An author doesn't need to be Ayn Rand. Striving to become better while being inspired and perhaps taught by others is a good thing, but net value is net value. As a person you are more than your rank-wise professional standing. A sense of life is like a fingerprint: there's one for every person. That's why a woman may not necessarily fall in love with "the guy who seemingly has everything you have but is a more accomplished *insert your line of work*". You're not a closed laundry list of brown hair, fit body, nice attitude and 1 to 10 points for where you stand among your peers in your profession, with the "winner" to be determined by the latter.
  15. Shouldn't have sold the rights to begin with.
  16. I find the Ayn Rand Lexicon useful: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/
  17. It doesn't stop there... You shall not kill, if you are not a murderer. You shall not steal, if you are not a thief. You shall not lie, if you are not a politician.
  18. Yes, but Roark exists in a novel (one which I happen like a lot), which means that his course of events are orchestrated. In real life, Roark's unwillingness to work just for money so he could then finance his real products might have prevented him from ever getting his break. That'd be a bummer.
  19. Furthermore, one could contest the rights of the good (good by the standard of human life) but then one would hopefully be fought by the same. Denial of rights as an intellectual matter is pointless, since no rights equal war.
  20. Typically they teleport those involved into some manufactured arena of trials straight out of a fantasy novel, without regard for the entire chain of events.
  21. It was an attempt to illustrate the view that a consciousness can be conscious of nothing but itself. I think we've shown that to be false.
  22. Indeed. I grant no more legitimacy to preposterous, religious ideas than I do preposterous ideas. Only in front of a gun would one be justified in (lying that one is) being religious.
  23. That doesn't explain it to me. Are you saying that my question was inherently a statement? I know that questions can contain statements in the form of premises, but as far as I can tell I didn't have any regarding dreams without prior sensory input.
×
×
  • Create New...