Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Harrison Danneskjold

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Harrison Danneskjold

  1. That's awesome. I really don't know. What? Or you could take off on your own and become one of the forest people. It wouldn't be easy, but it wouldn't be impossible either; you could think of it like a camping trip that never ends. Plus you could ditch the institution of clothing and devise your own language, which is how I'd endure such a camping trip. Actually, I think I might rather die, but that's not the point; the point is that it is always an option if you ever get THAT sick of having to deal with other people. Nothing more than the fact that it is rig
  2. NO! I CALL DIBS ON THE MOON! I know there's an American flag there right now, and I know what that historically has always signified, but I swear it's just a placeholder until I get up there.
  3. No. It would if that were a valid analogy but it really is not, because ... HOW????? How could that ever happen??????? Antarctica, Alaska, the ocean floor (or surface!), the Sahara desert, vast swathes of (the admittedly uninhabitable) northern Minnesota, every single thing above the Earth's atmosphere and let's not forget the miles upon cubic miles of senseless dirt beneath our feet; in the name of Galt, how could any combination of people ever restrict you from accessing any of that? Unless they collectively owned every single centimeter that exists within this universe,
  4. You can only live on or through that specific patch of land with the owner's permission; yes. But that's no different from employment (which requires the employer's consent), trade (which requires everybody's consent) or any other form of human interaction. Comparing your relationship with your landlord to slavery while omitting the fact that you are free to pack up and do business with any landlord you like (or go find an empty patch of land to make your own) is like referring to employment as "wage slavery" because you have to obey whichever boss you've chosen to work for. Just as
  5. First of all I'd like to apologize for rambling on about aspects of my own work which, on further reflection, don't even connect to what Jordan Peterson said about "hierarchies". I might try taking a proper stab at it sometime soon. I don't currently think so. I would actually agree that there are certain scientific fields that Objectivists are irrationally dismissive of (Relativity and Quantum Mechanics both spring to mind) but I'd lay a large part of the blame for it on how the media tends to describe such fields. If I read a news story headlined "scientist PROVES the existenc
  6. I disagree. We do still have the mightiest military on Earth (at least for now); if we put our mind to it I seriously doubt any combination of nations could stand up to us. Furthermore, Kim Jong Un has showed us exactly what he'll do if he's left to his own devices - he'll keep trying to develop a nuclear ICBM with which to destroy America. He hasn't exactly been secretive about it. I would rather we didn't let him rule for however many more years he'll need to actually become a threat to us. That is quite possibly the single worst strategy we could pursue. Yet it seems like that's e
  7. Potentially, but IQ is also a double-edged sword in a certain way. There are three basic methods of mental functioning: rational, truth-oriented thinking, drifting (or "going with the grain") and evading. Both the rational and evasive forms of thought are "active" and their effectiveness is at least partially mediated by IQ. So although it's true that someone with a higher IQ could potentially be more effective at the proper cognitive method (like John Galt) they could also be more effective at evasion and self-delusion (like Robert Stadler). And I don't think IQ scores real
  8. But your own philosophy, which you live by every day, certainly is. And if one must arrive at precisely each conclusion Rand ever put into writing (including, as the OP'er pointed out, homosexuality) then there has only ever been one Objectivist and I doubt there will ever be another one. On a purely personal note I find the "student of Objectivism" or "admirer of Ayn Rand" terminology extremely self-deprecating and sad. It's one thing if you can't bring yourself to actually LIVE the philosophy, but if you're doing everything you can to live up to your own ideals then I think you
  9. Yeah; glorious: they've still got that subhuman thug on their Northern border but he pinky-promised not to blow anyone up yet. Which must've been a pretty easy promise for him to make since he's not actually capable of doing that ... YET! We seem to have circled back again to the value of having "peace in our time".
  10. It would be one thing if he had morally condemned him (like: "this is an evil monster but I have to try and deal with him") or if Kim Jong Un actually posed any real threat to the might of the combined American forces. It's neither of those things. And I am only sanctioning the deaths of Kim Jong Un and whatever unfortunate casualties may or may not ultimately be necessary to END him. I would personally prefer a simple drone strike to reduce his palace to ash. Do you doubt that our army could do that if they were ever given permission to? Whatever collateral damage may ultimately be n
  11. Well, the way you phrased it was an appeal to popularity. I'm sure it was just a poor choice of words (if you were going to try and seriously make that point I think it would've gotten more than one portion of one sentence) and the poorness of that choice is all I was trying to point out about it. Me either. I know you're not trying to cancel anyone and (although it is the right word for the broader phenomenon I had in mind) the word "hysteria" doesn't really apply to your earlier posts. The idea that Aunt Jemima is an example of the racist "mammy stereotype" (and general dis
  12. We could, but if we said it that way then we might as well be saying that fifty million Frenchmen can't be wrong. If we wanted to say anything at all about racism or slavery (and I don't think that's the prerogative of a freaking syrup company) we'd do much better to just dive into the ethics of racism and slavery, themselves, which don't take much time or effort to enumerate anyway.
  13. I do agree on that point, except that "Asian people who are good at math were probably raised by Tiger moms" is a sentence I could only see using in conversation with an actual racist (although I don't really make a habit out of saying that "Asians are good at math" without any qualifications either). I guess the primary point I'd like to make (having now read the rest of the thread) is simply about what actually constitutes racism and what the appropriate response to it is. Racism is specifically the attribution of someone's mental content to their ancestry. It's not just an
  14. It CAN be, depending on why you think they're good at math. If you think it's genetic then you believe that your genes and chemicals dictate the functioning of your own mind and you are a racist. What if you think it's cultural and that any baby, from any race, would also be good at math if raised in the parenting style that many asian parents share? The slang term Tiger Mother refers primarily to just such a parenting style (the kind of mom who's disappointed if her children aren't virtuosos by six years old) and I believe it does encourage a wide variety of skills, and also the possib
  15. Please forgive me if you've since changed your mind about this (I haven't finished reading the entire thread yet and it was originally posted almost a year ago) but there are a few things I'd like to point out. First of all, what's the relevance of "black culture" to Aunt Jemima? The people who portrayed her, and the company that paid them to do so and continues to pay to slap those pictures on bottles of syrup; I don't think the subject of "black culture" ever came up in their attempts to sell syrup. Aunt Jemima's picture is not for or against anybody's culture, really; her only
  16. Exactly! However, as an ancestral Scot I'd like to see Lucky the Leprechaun (of Lucky Charms) being given the same scrutiny and treatment we afforded to Aunt Jemima. Whenever I see that symbol of prejudice grinning (probably drunkenly) at me from the other side of my cereal bowl I can feel my own sense of self-respect being slowly dispersed by those diabolical cardboard eyes! ... Actually (in case anyone missed the sarcasm above) that's not how I feel about racial stereotypes, whether real or alleged. And in Aunt Jemima's case there simply is no way to interpret her image as an
  17. WhyNot, both North Korea and Iran are actually worse than the Soviet Union ever was. Would you also like a president who was capable of telling such regimes where they could stuff precisely all of their theories and books, until they'd freed their respective peoples? Because I would. I'm sorry; if you disagree with that sentiment then I'll have to come back and digest any reasons why another day (just finished another 12 hour shift & etc). But I'd really like to think that there's no room for disagreement about any of that.
  18. And this is not to say that Joe Biden will do any better than Trump in that regard; I think we'll both be right in predicting that he won't even reach the depth of the bar that Trump left in his wake! But you DO NOT SANCTION a man who has INDUSTRIALIZED DEATH CAMPS CURRENTLY RUNNING IN HIS OWN COUNTRY!!! Jesus, fuck, do I actually have to explain why? I actually think this one issue should serve as a pretty effective tribalism detector, depending on how everyone else reacts to it.
  20. Oh, absolutely. I'd like to see nothing more than the ass-face dictators of both North Korea and Iran converted into glass ASAP. And I'll join you in denouncing Obama for the once-in-a-lifetime sort of deal he just gave to the Iranians - and I hope you'll join me in denouncing Donald Trump for doing precisely the same thing for Kim Jong Un.
  21. Well, a separate thread about "narcissism" as such would probably be in order at this point.
  22. Oh, boy. Did you know that when Kim Jong Un first rose to power he called all his top aides to a meeting in which he disassembled a machine gun and force-fed the pieces of it to several dogs (who presumably had a very rough time of passing said machinery through their digestive tracts) to convey what he intended to do to anyone who wasn't 100% loyal? Also he has no butthole; he doesn't need one (since he DOES NOT excrete that way) so he was simply born without one. That story I'm slightly more skeptical of but anyone in North Korea who's caught contradicting it is simply exec
  23. You could be reminded of the fact that rational selfishness is not an ethics for others' sake. It is for oneself and one's own life. Here is an ethics not for presentation to or approval from others, primarily (with all the caveats of others' value to one and the respect and good will paid to others). That's a person in reality and I don't know how you view a hint of narcissism in there. To be narcissistic negates the rationality of selfishness. There could be the solipsistic primacy of consciousness within narcissism, straight off, a self-contradiction. But no matter. It would be a
  • Create New...