Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Zoso

  1. I saw this on Fox News so I don't have a link but, in the wake of Prince Harry's idiocy, the EU is considering banning Nazi symbols in its 25 member countries. Someone explain to me the logic behind denouncing fascism by stifling freedom of expression.

  2. I will explain that mommy and I don't see things the same way. But I don't see that as "undercutting" mommy. No set of parents ever agrees on everything. I haven't specifically told her that I will tell our kids my real opinion, but I don't think I have to b/c I'm pretty sure that's what she expects me to do...she knows I won't lie about my beliefs to anyone.

  3. So, it really doesn't have anything to do with reason, but with feelings and upbringing. Personally, I wouldn't touch Protestantism with a ten-foot pole (having been one), as its inherent relativism is destructive to reason. Nor have I found much in Catholic history that hasn't been done in Protestant history, though Protestants have only been around for 500 years and so have some catching up to do. 

    Personally, I think you've got bigger problems than an irrational girlfriend. How old are you, by the way?

    I'm 22...and I find nothing about Catholicism to make me think that it's more rational than Protestantism.

  4. Szheesh, why would you prefer her to be a Protestant?! At least Thomistic Catholicism believes in the compatibility of faith and reason, and believes that the existence of God can be ascertained by reason alone. (The originator of the Big Bang theory was a Catholic priest, by the way)  I'd rather someone be a follower and admirerer of the logic of Aquinas than swim in Protestantism, which is the home of relativism---30,000 + versions of "truth" and still counting.

    Partly because I despise the Catholic church far worse than I despise any of the Protestant churches, because of its history...but mainly b/c my parents are Protestant and my father despises the Catholic church worse than I do. They know she's Catholic and they haven't said anything bad about her, but they'd be more comfortable if she were Protestant.

  5. If she believed that UFOs had impregnated her, I never would have given her the time of day required to fall in love with her. If she suddenly became delusional, I would try to get her some psychiatric help and hope that she gets better, because I am already in love with her. As for her faith...she believes in Christianity; she just isn't sure that she believes in Catholocism. Personally, if she sticks with Christianity, I would prefer her to be a Protestant, but I suppose it's up to her. As for kids...that's something we'll have to work out at a later time. My stance right now is that I will not prevent her from raising them as Christians, so long as we stress to them the importance of making up their own minds, regarding what they believe.

  6. Well, it doesn't really "upset" her, so I leave it up. She wishes I didn't have it, but she wouldn't ever tell me to take it down. Even so, it's not like I'm cutting all ties with my friend. I just need some time to make my g/f feel a little more comfortable with the idea. I'm in a groomsman at a wedding this summer, where I will most likely have to walk down the aisle with this girl, so I need to make her more comfortable. I realize that I cannot make her jealousy go away, but I was thinking I might be able to help her overcome it, herself.

  7. Well, in all honesty, choosing to not hang out with her is not a big deal. I hardly ever talk to her anyway. I'm not looking for advice on what to do about my friend...I just want to find ways to make my gf less jealous. She does stuff like this frequently. For instance, she doesn't like the fact that I have Pink Floyd's Back Catalogue hanging on my wall.

  8. I didn't invite her, b/c she lives in Ohio and I live in Texas. And I'm not worried about her trying to control me. She would never forbid me to see her or anything. But I made my own decision to not hang out with her, because I don't like seeing my girlfriend upset. I can understand why the situation bothers her, but I do think she takes it a bit far. She's on her period, so that certainly doesn't help. But she still has a major jealousy problem, no matter what time of the month it is. She trusts me, so I know it isn't that...she was in a really bad and controlling relationship for a while, that ended about a year ago, so I think she's still got some leftover issues. I just want to know if there's any good way to reduce jealousy.

  9. I know what I read, and I assume that you have also read it. But I'm not going to the library to check the book back out so that I can look for the quote.

    I am honestly not trying to debate anyone. I'm asking questions and, if something doesn't make sense to me, I say so and ask for further explanation. In other words, I'm wanting you to show me where I'm wrong.

    But I'll try to do better.

  10. This is a problem I am personally having here, and it seems Zoso may be as well. I find it condesending to say that certain member's here need to study Objectivism first, and then ask questions. I have read Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead, OPAR, and I have TVOS, the Ayn Rand Lexicon, and the lecture on Melody in Music on order. I am, in a sense, taking in as much as this philosophy as I can within my spare time. I find myself confused on many matters, as I am learning I have to revise large portions of my methodology that has been a product of 22 years of living on false premises. The biggest problem I encounter, is that barely any of the terminology used in Objectivism fits the "classic definations" that have developed in my mind through the course of my life. I think the biggest problem is confusion that is created from lack of understanding, and that is why we are all here, to clear up any confusion that has been generated along the way. Sometimes it seems as if the Objectivist here who have spent years intensely studying the philosophy seem to assume that just because some of us students may not understand the philosophy thoroughly, means that we haven't studied it at all. Objectivism covers so much that it is impossible to generate a total understanding in any short period of time. If one asks questions when the question arises (as Zoso was doing) then it clears up the confusion before it does damage on the students whole outlook of the philosophy.

    I couldn't have put it better myself. And, on that note, I'd like to add that I, too, have done some reading on the subject. I've read AS, WTL, Anthem, PWNI, VOS, and I'm working on the Ominous Parallels, although I'm taking a break from it right now, due to school.

  11. I have considered it. In order to decide that your own view is true, it seems as though you must consider the alternative and decide it to be false. I considered it, but I never seriously entertained the notion that I would change my mind and start believing that it was true. I debated it with some people and realized that it was an indefensible position. But that doesn't mean I didn't consider it.

  12. I've never heard that definition of open-minded before. To me, open-minded means you're willing to listen to opposing viewpoints and consider them...that doesn't mean you will automatically accept them. It means you are open to the possibility of accepting them if, after you consider them, you find them to be valid. To me, closed-minded is a negative term that means you bury your head in the sand and refuse to even consider opposing viewpoints.

  13. I don't understand how you could "glean" the conclusion, that we should never talk to people who have opposing views, from the premise that Dr. Peikoff "has cut off all contact with David Kelly." Could you explain what thought process led you from your premise to your conclusion?

    Well, he seemed hostile towards the idea that we should be "open-minded in conversation with others." That coupled with the fact that he cut off contacts with Kelly made me wonder...but, hey, that's why I started this thread. I figured I had something wrong and I was just asking.

  14. Pentagon reveals rejected chemical weapons

    15 January 2005

    From New Scientist Print Edition. Subscribe and get 4 free issues.

    THE Pentagon considered developing a host of non-lethal chemical weapons that would disrupt discipline and morale among enemy troops, newly declassified documents reveal.

    Most bizarre among the plans was one for the development of an "aphrodisiac" chemical weapon that would make enemy soldiers sexually irresistible to each other. Provoking widespread homosexual behaviour among troops would cause a "distasteful but completely non-lethal" blow to morale, the proposal says.

    Other ideas included chemical weapons that attract swarms of enraged wasps or angry rats to troop positions, making them uninhabitable. Another was to develop a chemical that caused "severe and lasting halitosis", making it easy to identify guerrillas trying to blend in with civilians. There was also the idea of making troops' skin unbearably sensitive to sunlight.

    The proposals, from the US Air Force Wright Laboratory in Dayton, Ohio, date from 1994. The lab sought Pentagon funding for research into what it called "harassing, annoying and 'bad guy'-identifying chemicals". The plans have been posted online by the Sunshine Project, an organisation that exposes research into chemical and biological weapons.

    Spokesman Edward Hammond says it was not known if the proposed $7.5 million, six-year research plan was ever pursued.

  • Create New...