Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Nicky

  1. I'm gonna stop you right there. There's no "we". You and I are not a team. As for how I know things, I don't think you'd understand if I tried to explain it.
  2. The logical consequences of an obligation to passing down the family's genes are pretty striking. It means for instance that an adopted child can not be part of the family. It also means that people unfit to have children should bring them into the world, and raise them in misery and abuse, rather than just "break the link". It also means that family supersedes justice, and powerful families have a duty to protect a criminal son or daughter from the consequences of their actions, lest that breaks the genetic link. Conversely, it means that children born into dysfunctional or criminal families
  3. Of course we know...because we know that the claim that blacks have an inferior intellect due to genetic differences, is arbitrary. It has no basis in reality. That's what "not true" means. That's how we know there's no God, that's how we know there's not a porcelain elephant on the dark side of the Moon, etc., etc. ... when faced with an arbitrary claim, the rational response is to dismiss it, not to reserve judgement until we can go and check.
  4. Wow. You went from this: to only being interested in who's "losing the argument". So which is it? Are you here for help with your "struggles with fundamental problems", and to have your misunderstandings corrected? Or are you here to win arguments? They're not even debates anymore, now they're full blown arguments...give it two more pages, and you're at war.
  5. If anyone's interested in shifting gears just a bit (because, honestly, enough already with this duty nonsense), here's a take on the disintegration of the concept of family that I stumbled upon by accident, and found interesting. I'll admit, I was looking for all the sex talk in the first 13 minutes of the clip...the relevant conversation, starting at the 13:00 minute mark, which connects the breakdown of family life back in the 60's, 70's and 80's to the current cultural crisis going on in the United Sates, I stumbled upon by accident...and I found it very compelling, figured I'd share:
  6. Really? Who's in this "movement" that you know for a fact exists? Please note that the only way to back up the claim that an organization's existence is an "objective fact" is to provide a list of members, and verifiable proof that they are in fact members. Which of course shouldn't be too difficult with modern technology. If you're in possession of information that proves an objective fact, it should take a few seconds to copy/paste that information into the same box you just typed your claim into.
  7. Objectivism is a philosophy, not a movement. There is no reason for Objectivism to be a movement. It's perfectly fine the way it is, with people knowing exactly what it is, and free to subscribe to the philosophy, in whole or in part, and free to choose whether to work together for some common goal, or not. If it ever becomes a single, "open" movement, that movement will end up with leaders, and the leaders will want to add their own ideas to the tenets of the movement, and, since Ayn Rand was a genius, them and their ideas will end up not living up to her intellect...and then that will b
  8. Precisely because Objectivism is one of the few ideologies rational enough that there's no one at the door checking for emotional investment. All you need to be accepted by its proponents is Reason. Not devotion, not being a disciple, not emotional attachment. I can just live my life, and pop in once in a while, see if there's something interesting being discussed. Starting to feel like I'm out of luck today...but maybe not, I still haven't checked Gus van Horn's blog feed.
  9. Everyone gets to decide it, obviously. And we have: everyone who favors closed Objectivism already decided. I don't. Never met her, she was never even alive while I was alive. She's just a historical figure to me. If you wanted to speak for other dead philosophers, I would've told you the same exact thing: don't. Speak for yourself. That goes for what you said about me, too. I'm not Ayn Rand's disciple, I'm an independent thinker. I have drawn a very clear line of separation between my ideas and Objectivism. I suggest you do the same, because you can't be a confident, self respec
  10. That is in no way, shape or form true. Ayn Rand is not Jesus Christ the Savior, she was just a person, like the rest of us. Also, she's been dead for 37 years now. Stone cold dead. Not resurrected, not sitting on the right hand side of God, but buried in some dirt, and well on her way to decomposing. There's no Objectivist, in any faction, who would think that we all got done coming up with useful philosophy 37 years ago. Ayn Rand herself wouldn't have thought that humanity is all done coming up with useful philosophy, after she died. That's not what closed Objectivism means. Closed
  11. Does it? You've been debating away for a week or so now, and you're yet to learn a single thing. How could you? You refuse to pay attention to what anyone says, you're too wrapped up in your "debate".
  12. My mistake. I didn't realize we were having a debate. I'm not looking for a debate. I thought you were here to learn about Objectivism, and trying to clear up a perceived inconsistency. I would never participate in a debate against an anti-Objectivist. It's a silly exercise, and a total waste of time. By the way, please go back and re-read your very first paragraph in this thread...because, if your true purpose here is to debate Objectivists, that paragraph is a total lie.
  13. My definition was in English. You asked a question, I answered. Now your role isn't to "translate" my answer, it's to understand it. Feel free to ask for clarifications, if what I wrote isn't clear enough. Since you raised the issue of the parent-child relationship, I'm gonna assume you are interested in what I think about it. I think it's a unique relationship, substantively different from other family bonds. The difference is that there's a biological (metaphysical) bond that doesn't exist in adult relationships. But there still isn't any duty involved. It's still a commitment base
  14. The real twist would be if Banksy managed to draw something that's above the skill level of an eight year old...or, even better, said something more sophisticated than an eight year old.
  15. While it is true that Objectivism is a rational belief system, and therefor doesn't assign any magical qualities to "blood", that doesn't mean Objectivists (and secular people in general, this isn't really an Objectivist position) don't differentiate between friendship and family. Secular people do form bonds that they expect to last for a lifetime...which is what the essence of "family" is, and what differentiates it from a mere friendship. That is how families start: two non blood relatives become friends and lovers, and then, eventually, their friendship and love deepens into a bo
  16. Objectivism only rejects the "traditional" definition of family values to the extent that they impose rights violating and/or self interest violating obligations on individuals. A good example of a family value Oism rejects, and the most common family value in human history, in my evaluation at least, is the moral obligation of a girl to wed according to her father's wishes, and then serve and obey her husband faithfully for the rest of her life. Objectivism rejects this value both in cases when the girl is physically forced into such a marriage, as well as when she is merely psychologica
  17. I don't have a complete answer, but I think preference for a genre should just be taken out of this equation completely. The genre is a non-essential, sometimes even arbitrary, attribute of any given piece of music, and picking favorites just means you're closing yourself off to music you might like, that happens to be classified in a genre you don't favor. Also, most modern "music" (including progressive rock, if by that you mean bands like Pink Floyd or Jethro Tull, possibly even Zeppelin) is a combination of music, poetry, visual art and performance art...not necessarily in that order.
  18. It's a mixed bag. Might actually be a net improvement over NAFTA.
  19. Can't address the contents, because I stopped reading. That's a personal policy of mine: as soon as someone starts re-stating what I said, I'm out...because people who honestly attempt to understand you would never do that. And you can't have a meaningful conversation without understanding the other person.
  20. A competition implies that the side with the lesser performance loses. The US Postal Service is not a competitor for private companies, it is an obstacle. The goal of private companies isn't to beat it in competition, it's to treat it like any other obstacle that can't be removed: work around it. Just like you would go around a mountain that's in your way.
  21. And that's better? My post is right there. Why would I need help finding out what's in it?
  22. Just so you know: the worst word you could possibly start your first thread with, on an Objectivist forum, is "need". You'd be better off going with "f#4k Ayn Rand". So change your pitch. Explain why this is a win-win proposal, instead of why you need things.
  23. Stopped reading, sorry. As fascinating as it would be to find out what I believe from a stranger who seems to be upset with me for some reason, I have a very important youtube video to watch. It has guinea pigs in it.
  24. In my experience (as an observer...I'm a man), a woman living up to the expectations of even just her middle class social circle, using cosmetics, beauty products, bathing products, various services she pays for, and clothing and jewelry she has to pick out and pay for, takes massive amounts of resources and know how, that is developed through painstaking practice (and learning from the time she is a young girl, from other women). And, on top of that, routine work...an average of 20-25 hours/month, easy, once you add it all up. And once it's upper class expectations, we're talking at leas
  25. I'm sorry, but I'm a little confused. So, the only question originally posed in this thread has been answered: no one here has heard about this Korzybski fella' before. Asked and answered. So that should've been the end of the thread. But fine, I guess it's not. We had a change of subject. I'm flexible, I'm fine with a change of subject...as long as someone points out what the new subject is. So what's the new subject?
  • Create New...