orangesiscool
-
Posts
88 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by orangesiscool
-
-
Almost all of us here being athiests, the afterlife to us would be absolute oblivion; nothing, not even knowing of it (after death). In my opinion agonizing terror would be better than oblivion. When we die, ALL will be finished for us, Immortality (or no old age-death) would a no-brainer.....
Lifee would be what you made of it, but that's how it is already right?
death giving life value?! It might give it a little more value, in that you would only have a limited time to cherish it, but without death there is more time to cherish, and more security. Hell, death isn't a finish line, your goals are the finish lines, death is your disqualification from the "race."
(this analogy can go pretty damn far....)
-
The official site for now is here at Baldwin Entertainment. It seems fine except two mentions of Dagny having to battle international terrorism...... Hopefully they have the guts to keep Ragnar as he should be.
-
Be that as it may, the movie still essentially remained a vehicle for him to espouse his philosophy. Furthermore, the narrator never rejects many of the fundamentals of Tyler Durden's philosophy. Instead, he tries to stop Project Mayhem because he fears someone might get hurt (or so the movie suggested after the narrator reflected on the death of Robert Paulson). The narrator does not conclude that vehement anti-consummerism, anarchism or nihilism are evil.
This is true, and one's reaction to it seperates the objectivists that like movies such as Pulp Fiction/Fight Club and those who don't; I might have to start a thread in aesthetics to look into the reasons....
-
But Tyler Durden wasn't the hero. The narrator saw him as a god at times, but only because he had found someone so sure of themselves, almost like how suffering countries will follow a strong leader out of desperation, Tyler Durden was the villain.
-
SPOILERS!!!
I found this movie to be quite stimulating, both in the action sense and looking into unique people. I'm surprised there has been no topic on this movie yet, not even a excedingly negative one as I expected. Keep in mind Tyler Durden wasn't the hero and was killed in the movie's happy ending.
-
I'm sorry to see that Mr. Laughin has left, I wanted to ask him whether he wanted people to accept Chirstianity because _____ says it to be true.
If that blank spot is filled by "the Bible", does he care about the acts of the roman emperor Constantine, fusing pagan religions with the early christianity (including heavy edits to the Bible), changing what was there in order to bring his kingdom together?
I just now remembered that he is a Catholic, thus condeming children who love their muslim/buddhist parents and have faith in them, to an eternity in hell? That is one thing of a large list of abominations to god. Does anybody deserve that?
His utmost source of knowledge is a book that was (lets say god wrote it by taking over the minds of the writers) edited heavily after whoever wrote it?
------------------------------------
There are theorems that disprove an all-powerful god, but they only work when contradictions cannot exist; meaning if god can defy reason, he could exist. If reason could be broken, god could exist; and Mr. Laughin wants faith (in god and the bible) and reason (contradiction can't exist).
The biggest problem I have is what the bible advocates. I wouldn't want to worship such a violent and immature god.
So when the big angry man-god sends me to hell, I'll remember this little tidbit:
Apostle(I think it was Peter): "Jesus, (after he has visions of hell) why would a good god do such horrible things and especially for eternity!?
Jesus: Don't worry, they all get out eventually.
**of course I'm paraphrasing, and I will try to find the source of where I heard this**
-
To ilucidate on the third: It isn't about showing off (for what reason?), it is about enjoying what you have. Not to prove what you are, at most to prove what you have. Ayn rand never said you should strive to get pretty thing to show off, she said that people should be able to enjoy them. If you look at any of her characters, you see they doen't put much value on luxuries, but know when they can enjoy them.
Cheers.
-
By choosing to stay in the trench he has essentially chosen to sit and wait there through the shelling with absolutely no influence over whether or not the shelling kills him. At this point, further rational choices are minimal and have little or no effect on his survival.
? Why wouldn't he move as soon as he finds a break? Isn't the point to use foxholes as temporary waiting room? You say that once he decides to wait further rational is irrelevant, why? His priority is to wait attentivley for a change in circumstances or to think (and decide whether there is a better chance for survival there, back or the front).
-
The best example I can think of is of a soldier in a trench who is being shelled by the enemy. He can't run away, he can't stop the enemy from firing the shells. He has to crouch down in the trench, essentially motionless, and wait for either for some order to come from above or simply for a shell to hit close enough to injure or kill him.
He should then try to use the knowledge he has to wiegh the chances of death in all possibilities, fall back? Wait for a break and charge? I don't seem to understand you, are you saying that the best choice could be reached without reason? Everything has chances of incidence, he would choose the best.
-
Since it is going to be a trilogy (last I've heard), wouldn't a 15-20 minute Galt be speech be feasible if not preferable?
And if the first two parts become huge succeses, they could get away with even more.
-
In a surprise move, the libertarians (best choice/not saying much) realize the people's dislike of the election stagnation: bush family vs. clinton family; and Libertarian presidential candidate Colin Powell wins in a landslide! He did abjure on account of W.'s actions...
It would be the first step of a thousand mile journey.
Anybody have contacts to the required people for this plan?
-
nope
Sure, they have the name ragnar, then the crazy o with dots, is that enough? Which reminds me:
Nathaniel Branden changed his name to branden (ben+rand = hebrew for son of rand)
Ayn Rands first books published by RANDom house?
CONSPIRACIES!
-
A reflex can be controled, hot stoves can be held on too, as many others, but automatic things are even less than reflexes if they can't be controled, breathing isn't a reflex. Babies find that out at birth, the less inquisitive ones have to be made to cry by a doctor's spanking.
Does anybody have evidence that eye-closing isn't more that a muscle contraction maybe evolved at random but ending up to be evolutionarily effective?
Are you (konerko) saying that we know af germs? It doesn't say that, only that the people without that might not have survived the germs.
-
Thang is, when Constantine the great wanted to unify the two opposing parties, (pagans and early christians) he knew the pagans weren't going to follow some prophet (thats all jesus was at the time) so what he did was make jesus a deity and add in many pagan stories and elements. Such as resurection and the halos around anybody holy, which is a sun-god thing.
The davinci code's saying that it is based on 100% facts is surprisingly close (almost everything but the priarie of scion which was a spectaclular hoax) 70% is a better estimate.
-
Look at their eyes/face/mannerism(s).
I highly doubt I'm unique in this ability.
Or am I? I have magic powers!
-
What about their sense of life? That could be rationaly sexy.
Just look your strippers in the eyes to decide who looks more indepentent/mentaly active/etc.
-
I was under the understanding that the real problem with DDT, is that it kill almost all the mosquitoes, an unnatural selection which breeds SUPERMOSQUITOES!!!
By the way:
Is DDT the best solution?
SUPERMOSQUITOES!!!
-
Hi - I am a new user, just registered, so please forgive if I am not getting the point here. However, I think I understand what you are getting at.
Physicists have tried to mechanically separate subatomic particles, to blow apart the identity of quarks, so to speak. What they have managed to observe is that when quarks are forcibly separated, the tiny meson particle is revealed, which is either a smaller component of a quark, or a factor in what holds quarks together. However, the meson only lasts for a trillionth of a trillionth of a second and then disappears. If such a meson is incapable of existing in this physical world of ours after being forcibly brought into existence by man-made mechanical means (I think this was done at Fermilab), then perhaps we cannot consider this as part of our physical reality, it is not meant to be, and we must look to other non-physical disciplines to explain what this sub-atomic exercise reveals to us. Am I on the right track here? Need some help here, people.
They did not create the meson, they created A meson, what they are doing is looking at what the state of things might have been at the big bang time. (other reasons to, but that's the usual one)
And when some physisists say that a quantum scale particle violates the law of identity, they're talking of when a (lets say proton) changes into either one or more different particle(s) then changes back VERY quickly, (also the particles that it changes into could also do the same type of switch-switchback). The cool thing is that sometimes this "virtual" particle(s) might have more mass/energy than the origional. The greater the discrepency, the faster the whole reaction.
-
God IS defiance of logic; that is, the believer chooses to defy logic, and calls it God.
That was clearly sarcasm.
Dismuke- That is a large part of quantum physics i'nt it? It doesn't matter if it is true, but if it can be used practicly to get real results.
Also many "savages" were pretty good, specificly many native american beliefs, such as humans and mice being yin and yang and the world getting angry when the balance is broken by to much proximity of the two then sending disease.
-
I was wondering how other people reacted to the Old Bailey explosion, as for me I burst out laughing (triumph like, not mocking or of belittling). Of course I was smiling as soon as he said for the music his speciality was percussion but that he would use the whole orchestra.
I actually have yet to finish the 2nd half of the movie. -
When the writings of Aristoltle were being collected a few decades after his death, the stuff he wrote on being etc. wasn't titled. It was simply put after his writings on physics. Meta(after)physics.
-
Many people in the world aren't completly followers of reason, why should that be the reason to have rights?\
Wouldn't it make more sense to give rights for being sentient?
-
If by universe you mean all that is, if all that is isn't existent, there is nothing for it to be created in.
Most of these question we all can easily solve ourselves with spare thought, let us only ask what comes from answers of the obvious questions.
aight?
something just hit me.... God created all that exists, so he doesn't exist. Creating himself would defy logic, he wouldn't do that would he? -
I change my answer to old enough followed by winks and nudges. But rational winks and nudges.
Profanity-laced GQ article on Rand
in Intellectuals and the Media
Posted
I lol'ed at his load noises