Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Nicky

Regulars
  • Content Count

    3834
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    194

Everything posted by Nicky

  1. Well then the problem is your method for choosing and defining goals. A rational man's goals are part of a hierarchy, with the ultimate value, one's own life, at the top. This goal has no discernible connection to that hierarchy, you just randomly picked a pointless goal. There are a few ways in which you can identify whether a goal is connected to your hierarchy of values, or not: 1. Is it challenging? Going sight seeing in a helicopter is not an achievement. At least not unless it's your first time in a helicopter. Then that's a new experience worth having, because you are leaving
  2. My end goal is to have the greatest life I possibly can. Taking a helicopter ride does little to help with that. Climbing a big ass mountain all by myself, on the other hand, just might... So we're in agreement, it's not about getting to the top, it's about personal achievement.
  3. Nicky

    Health & Evasion.

    Okay, but let's note that even this highly unusual fairy tale isn't about two beasts being drawn to each other's inner beauty. It's about a physically beautiful woman being drawn to a behaviorally beautiful man...which is very different from the notion that "inner beauty is all that matters".
  4. Nicky

    Health & Evasion.

    There's no mention of baseball either. Doesn't mean they don't care about it, it just means it's not relevant, beyond the painfully obvious: a rationally selfish person should take care of their health. Rand smoked, and her body type didn't really allow her to appear thin, but she was not obese either. Clearly she paid attention to her diet. I would write off the smoking to the Oist tendency to be skeptical of popular and government advice...because such advice is usually wrong. So it took her longer to buy into it than most. And her husband was thin through his life. So are all t
  5. Well, even if we fully buy into the "good provider" theory, that is an evolutionary theory. In other words, it deals in men as they lived before specialization (as hunter gatherers, where you proved you are a good provider and protector through behavior, rather than any achievement or possession. And it was a very specific set of behaviors, because there was only one way to be a good provider and protector: be strong, fit, assertive, but also loving, open and honest. Specifically, EMOTIONALLY honest. This is what the "Red Pill" crowd fails to understand: being honest, being willing to put
  6. This is a lie. My actual position is that war is necessary when faced with an existential threat (by an enemy country or organization). And, in war, it is justified to attack not just the organization itself, but its entire economic and material support network. Obviously, that has nothing to do with how government powers should be limited in peace time, in a capitalist country, or with how innocent economic migrants should be treated. You would have to be quite daft to not understand the difference between an enemy in war and Mexican farm workers.
  7. I guess that question has been answered. Welcome to the trade war: General Motors, after repeated warnings, and lower 2018 profits due to the rising cost of steel and aluminum, closes five plants and fires 15% of its workforce, in the US and Canada. The American plants are located in Ohio and Michigan, two states that voted for Trump's protectionist platform in 2016. Trump doesn't understand how this could've happened, throws a fit and issues threats. Hopefully, the voters in Ohio and Michigan are a little smarter, and able to figure it out.
  8. I'm reading a good book that deconstructs all this anti-woman/ PUA mentality, and offers an alternative approach. One that is respectful of women without putting them on a pedestal, and congruent with Objectivism. In fact a lot of it seems to be written from a partially Oist perspective (the author fleetingly mentions that reading Atlas Shrugged in college changed his life, in the book, as well). It's from Mark Manson (who's known for "The Subtle Art of Not Giving a Fuck", which is the second best "life advice" type book I have ever read in my life), and it's titled "Models: Attract Women
  9. I'm not really interested in debating the specifics. Just conveying the point that definitions are contextual.
  10. Definitions are made in context. Terrorism is a tactic, and its moral quality depends on the moral quality of the terrorist's ultimate goal. There's no absolute law that states that "terrorism is evil". A 21st century terrorist fighting for militant Islam, targeting peaceful, rights respecting societies, is very different from a 19th century terrorist fighting for civilization, targeting tribal, abusive societies...even if their methods are similar.
  11. Oh boy. You seriously expect me to explain what civilization is good for?
  12. It's a tough situation, where walking a tight rope is important for rational actors, but I think the West, overall, is doing a good job. Since the Russia-Ukraine conflict started, Russia's GDP compacted by about 30%...all because of sanctions. In fact, it's at -50% from where it should be, with natural growth through the economic boom since the last global financial crisis. Lately, their economy picked up some steam, because they've been behaving, and significant new sanctions weren't needed. But that probably ends now. Another round of sanctions, as a result of this idiocy, should nullif
  13. I've actually became curious about PUAs, after a few threads on this board. So I read up on both sides (PUAs, and people critical of them). Here's what I came away with: PUAs do two things: 1. set out to mask certain character flaws (especially low confidence, and an overwhelming need for validation from others) through scripted, usually overly aggressive behavior. 2. do it over and over again, to hundreds or thousands of women. That's all it is. There's nothing else to it. And I think point no. 2 is actually a good idea: fixing flaws is done through practice. So that part
  14. That doesn't seem to leave much room for "individual liberty". Only option the individual seems to have is to obey the tribe they were born into, speak the official language, and believe in the national religion. Makes no sense. The Roman Empire, and then later the British Empire (just to name the two most notable ones) weren't trying to put an end to war or disease, they were trying to spread civilization (replace tribalism with civilization). Nationalism, by the very definition above, means reverting to tribalism.
  15. International treaties presume states ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_(polity) ) to exist. And yes, they're called inter"national", but they're actually between states, not nations. It's just a poor choice of words (chosen poorly by nationalists who confuse the two terms). The essential difference is that a state is a governing body over a geographic area, while a nation is a governing body over a group of people. Clearly, Objectivism advocates for the former, not the latter (because, in the former, people at least have the freedom to choose their government by moving).
  16. Ayn Rand's lesson isn't that "collectivism is bad", or that "collectives are bad". In fact, I'm not gonna try and describe her lesson, I'm just gonna quote it: "The basic political principle of the Objectivist ethics is: no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. No man—or group or society or government—has the right to assume the role of a criminal and initiate the use of physical compulsion against any man. Men have the right to use physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use. " By the way, based on the lack of response, am I sa
  17. In unrelated news, I'm releasing a new book. It's about cakes, and if you follow along, you will benefit for a variety of reasons, including these: 1. eating your cake is maximized 2. having your cake is maximized
  18. Is there a definition of what nationalism is? And a list of guiding principles?
  19. For the most part, yes. You're still conscious of some things, but certainly not of the immediate reality around you.
  20. Oh, I got the point. Just didn't wanna open with a "THAT'S A FALLACY!" type post. Wanted to be extra scrupulous, and see if you will spell it out, before the inevitable: "The “stolen concept” fallacy, first identified by Ayn Rand, is the fallacy of using a concept while denying the validity of its genetic roots, i.e., of an earlier concept(s) on which it logically depends. " That is what psychologists (who embrace the doctrine of the primacy of emotions) are doing, when they put the "psychological" adjective in front of various concepts (like loss), in an effort to detach them from t
  21. Two points: 1. In general, men are sexually attracted to women, and women are sexually attracted to men. You don't have to do anything to turn that switch, it's on by default. You just have to avoid doing things that turn it off. The most common way I see even rich, good looking men turn that switch off is by making women uncomfortable (or by projecting a sense that they won't be able to maintain a comfortable relationship, in a more intimate setting...by avoiding one on one interaction, or failing to respond comfortably to small gestures of intimacy, like a hug or a touch, for instance).
  22. Allowing yourself to be crucified to redeem the sins of man does, though. Jesus was more of a lead by example than a preachin' kinda fictional character.
  23. Sure. Like the one you describe next: it entails the loss of parental support, and the gain of independence (or the shedding of dependence, whichever you want to go with). It does not entail the "loss of dependence", however. That's a misnomer. You lose things of value. Parental support is valuable (because it allows a person of any age to focus on personal development, they don't need to worry about earning a living right away), dependence is not. Mystical beliefs are not valuable either, and saying you "lost" them is just as much a misnomer as saying you lost dependence. So is th
  24. Change and loss are not synonyms. In fact, what you are describing is improvement, which is the antonym of loss. So no, there's no grief involved when you improve.
×
×
  • Create New...