SapereAude
-
Posts
1734 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
13
Posts posted by SapereAude
-
-
I'm with Eioul on this one.
The point was that Gatsby, with his intelligence, talents and charm and everything that made him capable of being so successful kept looking for happiness outside himself.
His values were screwed up and irrational and that is what led him to ruin.
I see nothing nihilistic in a work of literature that points that out. -
I agree with Kevin.
The owner/manager clearly sees it as being in his best interest to have you as a tenant.
Take it. -
Yes, but I hate the word hara-kiri, so I skipped it. The orginal title is 一命 (read ichimei).
Whoever came up with the English title misrepresented the movie. It's not an action movie, and it's not about ritual suicide.
I agree that this is a great movie.
It is perhaps the most perfect movie I have seen.
I would disagree with you somewhat though, Nicky, on your aversion to the English title.
If you'd care to know my take on it let me know and I'll PM you- I don't want to put spoilers on the page.
While the movie is very sad in places I don't see it as overall negative. Most of the point here is that death is not the worst thing that can happen.
When the worst things happen and you maintain your integrity through it, you win, no matter what.
-
If she was a loving understanding person who shared his ideals he wouldn't have wanted to leave her.
-
Nicky, I agree that the way you describe is ideal and is how it should be.
However, that way is currently illegal and these two men are not hypotheticals.
Under the current flaws and immoral laws that we have I would be willing to donate to someone because I would want the same available should a loved one of mine require it.
And I would understand why someone would choose otherwise. We all react as rationally as we can within our characters to this unjust situation (government controlled bodyparts)
I agree the current state of the laws forces us into impossible and immoral situations. -
Your emphasis is pretty selective though.
Looking at the entire quote: (I have underlined what I consider to be the most important parts)
Lyle of Plaistow, N.H., said he had been told there was a one in five million chance for a non-family match.
"It was kind of a no-brainer for a decent human," Lyle said. "I couldn't imagine just waiting. He could have been waiting for years for a match. I'd hope that someone would donate to me if I needed it."
I see no problem with his choice. His use of "I" statements are correct.
He wouldn't want to wait, knowing he would die for lack of a donor. Because he would not want that to happen to him it is rational self interest to go through with the donation.
And lets really look at it... it isn't as though he is giving up a career. Unless something went terribly wrong he will get back to normal and could eventually compete again.
Perhaps he would give more pause if he were staring down the barrel of losing a multi-million dollar football position.
I don't consider myself an altruist and I would likely make the same choice, under the same conditions. -
Breaking reports say the second suspect has been shot.
-
BTW, no one is more "kind of smart, but not really" than Bill Maher! He's talented, funny, and even fairly great
Can you explain the talented, funny and great parts?
Because I really don't see them.
I suppose there is a certain talent to making the sheep follow you, to convincing them they should listen to you and getting rich off that.
But I don't see how anyone who isn't a glib, poorly informed and ethically challenged progressivist would find him amusing.
He is full of willful untruth and wanton malice.
-
I will not comment about the mental disability aspect, only the others.
There are many reasons why a rational person would choose to "loss lead", so no... it is not unethical (all other things being equal) to purchase for less than a thing is worth.
Think about bars and "Happy Hour"
Happy hour is in many places a "loss lead"- that means you lead people in that wouldn't otherwise come in with a small loss to yourself. There are many reasons to do this. -
In agreement with Nicky on this. While I am happy the judge blocked it for now it wasn't blocked out of principle pertaining to rights and they have been given the info they need to reword it and pass by city council.
-
He was convicted.
The evidence that led to his conviction was concrete evidence that he went beyond fantasy into real actions of planning:
These included: illegally using the police database to access information about women he was writing about planning to kill including one women he accpeted an offer of $5000 to carry out the kidnapping. After finding her whereabouts he started surveilling her home.
-
The speech at the end of Sen. Paul's filibuster:
"I sit at Henry Clay’s desk, and they call Henry Clay the 'Great Compromiser.' When I came to Washington, one of my fellow Senators said to me: Oh, I guess you will be the great compromiser. I kind of smiled at him and laughed. I learned a little bit about Henry Clay and his career.
"People think some of us won’t compromise, but there are many compromises. There are many things on which I am willing to split the difference. If the Democrats will ever come to us and say: We will fix and we will save Social Security, what age we change it to, how fast we do it–there are a lot of things on which we can split the difference. But the issue we have had today is one on which we don’t split the difference. I think you don’t get half of the fifth amendment. I don’t think you acknowledge that the President can obey the fifth amendment when he chooses. I don’t think y...ou acknowledge that the fifth amendment, due process, can somehow occur behind closed doors."
-
For those who don't have the time right now togo over all of Rand Paul's points this is a good condensed article explaining his purpose in this:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/03/cliffs-notes-for-the-filibuster-rand-paul-in-his-own-words/273787/ -
-
So.. the actual charge against him is in fact "conspiracy to commit kidnapping"
If they can prove any actual seeking out/surveillance/stalking of the women that charge should stick. -
Wish I could watch it all but have to go back to making people cooked food dammit.
-
This is exactly what we've been needing.
Senator Paul is not perfect, but I think those are errors in his reasoning.
Overall I find him to be the most principled in politics today.
Good on him. -
Right, and thank you for your contributions auctions to this thread. There is Mich I don't know about in this area.
For me, even just fantasizing about tying someone up, or being tied up, (seemingly anything SMBD) suggests to me something might not be right with them, like psychologically and so forth, and I was wondering if objective law would warrant any investigating, or psychological evaluations into such "lifestyles" just based on fantasizes alone, or even engaging in SMBD shit in relationships period.
Michigan's Involuntary MHH policies are amongst the most pro-involuntary commital.
that is, the burden of proof for the government to commit someone who has not yet commited a crime is lower than in the majority of other states.
-
Actually, with reference to the original post, moralist has not responded at all to the question posed there. He started by talking about people who prey on others becoming victims themselves and otherwise harming themselves.
There are two problems with this response. Firstly, it begs the question. By speaking of "preying" he simply assumes the acts mentioned are immoral -- he never gives any reason for saying why this would qualify as "preying" (i.e. immoral) in the first place. Second, as a lesser issue, having assumed the answer, he speaks about the consequences of immorality: negative consequences to the immoral person -- but, here too does not attempt to prove anything...it is simply an assertion.
"The math" matters a whole lot on a forum. What would be the point of a forum where everyone simply asserted something, with few reasons given? Presumably few members would be here is they were the type who soaked in assertions not backed by reasons.
However, as I said, that's secondary. In the context of this thread, moralist has simply begged the question. I consider his posts to be non-responsive.
While understanding your reasoning SWN I disagree that "preying" is automatically assuming immorality.
I see predation as value neutral with only context imbuing it with morality.
"preying on small children" will generally be charged with an immmoral vibe while "preying on the stupid" could go either way and you have people who prey on predators...
I also totally get why "doing the math" is important in the context of the forum, and agree.
I just think that someone who reaches the right conclusion by the wrong math should be treated helpfully since they at least partially "get it". <<< this statement not meant to accuse anyone of being unhelpful!
-
I don't think it is necessarily a paranoid thought.
He wouldn't be th efirst power hungry man to do something just as you describe.
I think what you should focus on is where you are in relation to this.
What you can do to protect you and yours if anything gets out of hand- not just Obama. -
Intellectual Ammo: you may also want to read up on the laws regarding criminal conspiracy as they would be relevent as well.
-
What does that have to do with mental health?
If you scroll back to where I entered the conversation you will see that I am responding to direct questions posed by Intellectual Ammo (who started the thread) that pertain to his original intent in the post: at what point can things you talk about/write about get one locked up? He asked how it would work under Objective law and since posters were obviously confused about where the law currently stands I posted it.
As to what it has to do with mental health: it is the law pertaining to mental health involuntary holds. That is what a person would be held under in a circumstance like this if they had not yet committed the crime but it was demonstrable that they were well on their way toward it.
-
So your disapproval is in the "doing the math" part?
How he came to the conclusion, not the conclusion itself? -
Once again, totally contradictory to the Objectivist view of morality.
With the exception of his last statement he made I would disagree with you Nicky.
There is a fair amount of what he stated that falls within an Objective view of morality.
Having made the claim would you mind going over it by point?
Is psychology helpful?
in Psychology and Self Improvement
Posted
My wife is in the field.
For Objectivist leaning people in search of therapy she recommends finding someone who does cognitive-behavioral therapy, and if possible find someone who specifically does rational-emotive cognitive behavioral therapy.