Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Hangnail

  • Rank

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Not Specified
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Real Name
    Albert Meggers
  • School or University
  • Occupation
  1. Here is an interesting story with more info about this group and what happened. Click here to read the article They are essentially Modern Nazi's… but a broader based version that promotes racial purity for all races as an ideal. They seemed to have stolen the word Libertarian in order to gain some credibility for themselves. There doesn’t seem to be any logical reason to call themselves Libertarians.
  2. Maybe I can contribute something to this conversation… I consider myself to be a mediocre mountaineer. It’s just a hobby, but I’ve managed to do some climbing in Antarctica, Kilimanjaro and some other miscellaneous mountains in the US. I’ve taken smaller risks in order to do this climbing… nothing on par with K2. There is nothing I can compare to the joy of looking down on the world after suffering for days to achieve that one splendid moment. Sometimes though, when I’m walking along a steep drop or standing on ice that could fall apart under my weight, the thought has occurred to
  3. At a Ford Hall Forum in 1973 Miss. Rand made some comments about our relationship to severely retarded people that might be helpful… I had to transcribe this quote from a recording, so the punctuation is my own.
  4. A girl in the UK was fed via a tube for 7 years because they believed she had a rare stomach condition called “Bulbar Palsy.” After a visit to California she was diagnosed with simple swollen tonsils and is eating regular food again. I’m sure there are isolated incidents like this in the US as well… but imagine how terrible it would be if the only alternative to state run healthcare is to raise funds to be seen in another country. Good data point to use an any future discussion on socialized medicine. Click here
  5. As I understand it, Kant was primarily intent on proving the existence of god with philosophy. Up until Kant’s time philosophy had been moving more and more into Atheism and thus Kant was embraced as a Hero who saved religion. Essentially he believed that our senses contributed as much to our understanding of reality as the objects themselves that we sense, therefore a true understanding of the nature of reality is unlikely via our senses. Additionally, he believes that we have access to a world of “a priori” knowledge, or Knowledge that we are born with. This knowledge consists o
  6. I have made several errors in the way I pursued this topic. 1. I misspelled Peikoff's name twice, which was a very unfortunate mistake. I know that all of you here don't take this lightly, so I apologize. 2. I began my argument with a statement "Peikoff hates pornography" which is indefensible. He clearly does not hate it, but probably more accurately dislikes or disapproves of it. This was clearly a failure on my part to articulate my premise in an accurate way. 3. I never supported my claims with facts, hoping that they would be accepted and discussed without consideration of
  7. I completely agree with your premise. People have various underlying reasons for their actions. And we can all agree that people do consume porn for self-distructive reasons. My question would be... why assert that all people consume it for these reasons? Perhaps in the lectures you suggested there is more detail than what I found in OPAR. Perhaps I should have asked this question as a hypothetical, as to avoid being the object of the discussion. I guess it's too late now... As a male, I have a set of instinctual desires which act as a force on my mind. Examples of these would
  8. I was hoping I could get away without a page number because others would already be familiar with the passage and we could go from there. Unfortunately I purchased the book as an audio book, which therefore makes it difficult, if not impossible to cite specific pages for reference. Even quoting is made extremely time consuming by the fact that I must fast-forward and rewind the material in order to get to the parts I need. If a page number and direct quote is required to continue the discussion, I will resurface my question when my printed copy of OPAR arrives. I would define porn
  9. This one has always confused me. But first let me confess my bias. I love porn. It's a wonderful thing. But what's strange is Pekov seems to really hate porn. In OPAR he implies that porn is something frustrated and desperate men turn to and that porn wouldn't exist if men lived forfilling lives. (This is not an exact quote, if my memory is misrepresenting the facts here, please correct me) Common' now. Porn? What could possibly be wrong with porn! I re-read the passage and I couldn't find any observations that supported his claim that porn was somehow unhealthy. He
  10. Actually, I was thinking the opposite. I was thinking that things which cannot be recreated and things that make our fragile existence possible shouldn't be "ownable" by anyone. Kind of like a "no-man's" land in the game of capitalism. Of course, this is easy to tear apart, because the earth is unqiue and incredibly important to our lives, but obviously we need to be able to divide it up and own it, otherwise property would be impossible. Still... there seems to be an unresolved ethical issue here. The question is, should someone be able to own Yosemite. Let's say the answer is yes,
  11. Help me understand... if it is proven by observation that private roads eventually make transportation between places infeasible or significantly less efficient... you would argue that transportation is therefore immoral and that we simply should give up on effective roads and learn to live with our less efficient private ones? Listen, I'm not saying that will happen... I'm a firm believer in the intelligence of individuals seeking their own self interest. But we haven't tested private roads, we have no idea what the outcome might look like. What if it's a disaster? Do we follow that co
  12. First, let me say that I think I'm convinced on the roads subject. Having carfully thought out the subject... I'm realizing that when I buy strawberrys at the store, 1000's of people have to coordinate themselves to show up for work, grow the food, deliver it, open the store, and have strawberries waiting for me at the precise time I walk into the store and pick them up. This is an amazing accomplishment if you think about it. Although you can argue that some people will always be irrational, it appears that they become much more rational as they persue their own self interests. There
  13. Thanks for the link to that old thread, I read it completely and I found the conversation to yield some interesting perspectives. However, it seemed to get derailed on the subject of what happens if someone buys land all around you and then denies you access to the outside world. This is a very valid point and I believe that irrational people will always exist in the real world, some of those irrational people will be trust fund babies and there will probably be at least one instance of this happening. And even if this only happens once, a valid system of ethics should prevent a stranded
  14. OMG... that was long. Sorry about that.
  15. Roads and National Parks seem to always be where my discussions with non-objectivists fall apart, I’m standing firm on the facts until I say something like “yes government’s should do nothing but enforce the law and protect it’s citizens. A government shouldn’t own anything, not even a road” and that’s were my argument starts to fall apart. Probably because I’m not convinced myself that this is true. It seems that translating this philosophy of a government not operating the roads or owning land into reality could lead to some disastrous results. And as we all agree... there is not such
  • Create New...