Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 07/13/11 in all areas

  1. Jennifer


    Dmastt, I like your blog! The design is different and interesting. I will keep it in mind and check it for content in the future. Consider the fact that you have been proven wrong already in this thread. Consider, perhaps, that people that give respect get respect. You make a regular habit out of insulting the Objectivist philosophy and Objectivists. Cynicism, ridicule, and sarcasm seem to be a highlight of your activity here. When you post things like this on your profile, clearly suggesting that we make up excuses to justify whatever actions we feel like, "brb, gone to snort coke off an enslaved sexworkers ass. all within the proper context of course." that is not something that gives you positive attention, nor should you expect it. Consider, perhaps, that people are likely to react better and be more supportive of an Objectivist-centric blog that posts actual content, rather than simply posting pictures with little quotes under them, essentially making it a website full of nothing but motivational posters of which there are billions and contribute little to nothing to the advancement of Objectivism or the knowledge of it. Show us something praiseworthy and we will "praise it." Maybe the judgement goes one way in your mind because the negativity is directed at you because you deserve it for being such a tool.
    3 points
  2. Except that each person's highest value is his or her own life. Attempting to claim that the highest value is some abstract "life" and therefore homosexuality, because it does not result in children, 'does not value life' is rationalistic, and a confusion of what is meant by valuing life for the Objectivist. Objectivism as an ethical code is always a guide for the individual valuer, who should always be focusing on his particular life. Valuing one's own life and therefore being true to oneself could certainly result for some people in a homosexual lifestyle, and everyone engaging in homosexuality for these reasons is operating on the premise of life: their own individual life, not some nebulous, abstract, 'furtherance of the species' conception of life, which by design refers to no life in particular.
    1 point
  3. Mnrchst, I've already included in my argument a reason for why people are not property. Knowledge is contextual. "Property" is a concept that is meaningless without the concept "rights". Rights, if given to one person, have to be given to all people. So, if a person is property, nobody has rights. Any definition given of property must be interpreted with that in mind. Anyway, your history suggests that we'll be back to this in another four or five posts, so I'm going to spend my time reading A Dance With Dragons from now on.
    1 point
  4. mustang19

    More annoying questions

    Thanks for the responses guys. Although I'd like a better idea of what you think the results of the US not instating the draft in World War II would be like. Did it not matter at all whether the US got involved in World War II? Would it be fine if (for the sake of argument) Hitler won the war because the US couldn't conscript people? Here's question #6 for you. Are drivers licenses a moral evil? That is, is it wrong for the government to require you to get a driver's license before you can drive a car? Do two year olds have an inalienable natural right to operate a motor vehicle? Question #7. Should personal ownership of nuclear weapons be legal?
    1 point
  5. I'd say your eyes and hands are still working today.
    1 point
  6. Grames

    Alice in Wonderland

    Alice doubts what she sees and feels for most of her time in Underland. She repeatedly declaims that it is all a dream despite the fact that pinches and painful pinpricks do not wake her up, and that she cannot be hurt in dream but the bandersnatch draws blood. Denial of the independent existence of the world apart from the mind is what is what solipsism is. The blue caterpillar named Absalom is described as "Absalom is absolute", and eventually brings Alice around to accepting the reality of her surroundings and her own memories. The story shows Absalom is right, Alice has spent most of the story being wrong and even stupid. The Red Queen is a stand-in for the premise of the primary importance of emotions: she has usurped the crown from her sister the White Queen, has a heart for her symbol, often bursts into red-faced shouting and considers her dilemma to be whether to it is better to be loved or feared by her subjects. The White Queen is the legitimate ruler selected by her parents to inherit the crown, passing over her older sister the Red Queen. The White Queen is pale and colorless, always calm and constrains her behavior to conform with her (unspecified) vows. The story plainly casts the Red Queen as the villain and the White Queen as the victim. The Mad Hatter is mad it seems because he teeters between the two poles of emotional outbursts and reasonable discourse. The Mad Hatter's character supports the conclusion that reason and emotion are actually the sides of a dichotomy, as he is the only character who attempts to combine the two elements and is a failure (driven Mad) because of it. Alice is emphatic in insisting to the dog Bayard that she sets the course of her life (actually her "dream" at this point in the story) in deciding to rescue the Hatter from the Red Queen. When Alice feels pressured to take up the Vorpal Sword and slay the jabberwocky, the White Queen counsels her that she should not live by other's wishes but choose what she does freely, for she will be alone in her conflict. The dilemma in the "real world" framing story shown before Alice falls down the rabbit hole and after she comes back out is resolved with the exercise of a bit of willful courage on her part. Alice is a non-conformist and comes to a happy conclusion at the end of the story. These incidents approvingly show the role and importance in life of willful activity, of volition.
    1 point
  7. Yeah. Well that's what's so interesting about this forum. I have another question. What is the Objectivist take on government led disaster relief efforts? Say the response to Hurricane Katrina or the recent tornadoes in the south. Or even the cleanup and evacuation efforts of the Soviet government after Chernobyl. Would a proper Objectivist state have something along the lines of FEMA or would disaster victims pretty much be left to fend for themselves or rely on private charity? An additional question: Can you point out a historical example of a society that more or less followed Objectivist principles pretty closely? Finally: What do you think would happen if the world suddenly "turned Objectivist", that is if all the people in the world realized the Objectivist position was right? Sudden technological and industrial renaissance or something along those lines?
    -1 points
  8. WeDontNeedGod


    Good luck with your project, but don't expect any support from here. Judgement goes one way here. Its a tool used to condemn. When there is something to praise, there has consistently been silence. Elsewhere, I've heard the type called "Objectionists."
    -2 points
  • Create New...