gags
-
Posts
1755 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by gags
-
-
That being said, I've been mentally prepared for Hillary to win in 2008 since about 2002. She's going to get it, unless something earth-shattering happens in the next couple years.
You're absolutely correct, IMO. Hillary is going to win because she understands that she has to moderate her views in order to capture votes. Deep down inside, Hillary is a Marxist pragmatist who will do and say nearly anything to get elected. Then, when she wins..... look out.
-
I would like. I don't like the generic-human or the wages-only POV (perhaps because I've selected more 'personal value' over 'cash value' in my life).
I'll see what I have in my files.
-
A number of studies have been done in an attempt to determine the economic value of a human life. This would be the economic value of a generic human life, not that of a specific person. I wrote a brief article on "Hedonic Damages" (the economic value of the lost enjoyment of life) in legal matters a number of years back and have more information on this topic at work. I can dig it up and post it on Monday if you'd like.
-
Hey Tikker, welcome. I grew up in GP too. Where did you live?
-
Those are good points Nerd. If God isn't some sort of active being who participates in our daily lives, why does it even matter whether or not He exists?
-
One can only hope that they are serious.
-
Part of the problem here might just be the nature of a forum devoted to discussing philosophy. Philosophy is difficult for me to comprehend. I may just be a bit slow, but I think most people have similar experiences with it. One of the things I like about Objectivism (as opposed to other philosophies) is that it is mostly written in a manner that is understandable for people of average intelligence - if they take the time to become familiar with the philosophy. You see, philosophical questions and their answers rest on a person's metaphysics, their epistemology and their ethics. If a person comes to the board and asks a question without any background in Objectivism, what good does it do that person to just give them an answer without telling them that they need some important background in order to fully understand what they are being told?The biggest problem I have with the forum atmosphere, as I stated before, is because the people here (to include BurgessLau on many occassions) have taken matters into their own hands and require the burden of proof stated above. When a new guy asks a question, typically, before any response is given, someone asks what all that new guy has read, how long they have been studying Objectivism, etc. If a new student to Objectivism reveals that they have read part of The Fountainhead, or otherwise just started, there have been several instances where the response they get is in effect "read more."The actual forum atmosphere of the board can be pretty much defined by looking at a history of BurgessLau's posts and responses. A new person can come in, do everything right by reading and understanding the forum rules, and post a question. When the best response a person gets is "read more" that doesn't help them much at all. I'm not saying that anybody has a duty to help any other person here, but I do think that it certainly detracts from the stated forum atmostphere of facilitating "trade among Objectivists and students of Objectivism."
I think this is particularly true for Objectivism because it goes against so much of what is pounded into our heads by religion and the popular culture. When you tell someone that selfishness is a virtue, most people turn 3 or 4 different shades of blue. However, when you explain the logical basis for such a statement, they often recognize merit in the idea. Unfortunately, on a board like this one can't always take the time to explain in detail all of the logic that underlies Objectivist conclusions. That may be why it's so common to see newer people being told to read and then come back with informed questions.
Often, a new student will ask a question about how they might have found a contradiction, and they want to see if one of their premises is flawed. Generally, the person's word choice in their original question in torn apart over the first 10 replies. Somebody down the line picks a possible interpretation from one of the first couple replies and runs with it. Then the rest of the thread is about somebody's suggested interpretation of the question, without waiting for clarification by the original author. I have read several threads on subjects that seemed like they might interest me according to the subject title, but then after 5 posts (of what I consider to be garbage, since the question is not answered) it veers off in some strange direction and it never recovers. There is so much emphasis put on the specific meaning of every word that a question is analyzed like a grad student would do to a poem.Again, the problem here may involve the nature of philosophical discussions. Words have very specific meanings in a given context and small changes in meaning can have profound philosophical implications. When people come here and start throwing ambigious terms around, it's difficult to even understand what they are saying without clarification. Personally, I like the fact that people here often ask a poster for their definition of a term. I like the clarity provided by these requests for definitions. Unfortunately, that process can be intimidating because many people never stop to think about what they really mean when they use certain words.
I agree with you here. It seems to me that some people have been banned a little too quickly.The other huge turnoff to me, as a semi-student of Objectivism, is that when there is a post on something that is controversial. The best example I can think of off the top of my head is the abortion thread. (I know there are probably several, but one in particular.) This thread turned into a debate about abortion. One side was in favor of it, as ARI reports that Ayn Rand was in favor of it, while one guy, in particular (Sherlock), was opposed to it. He kept offering refutations to what people were saying, and eventually he was banned. Maybe it's because I haven't studied as deep as some of the moderators, but I saw value in every one of his posts to the end, and then he was banned. There have been a few other posts with similar results where the guy who came out on the wrong side of the argument was banned. I think, for someone like me who reads about 50x more than I post, that is a huge discouragement, especially to a student.As a student, you are almost destined (don't shoot me for that word choice) to make mistakes and learn from them. I'm an mechanical engineering student, and just this morning on doing one structual analysis problem I settled on 3 different answers, all wrong, before I figured out the correct one. It is in the nature of students to make mistakes, and when they arrive to a conclusion, try to back it up. Students here, who come to a conclusion that is a mistake in the eyes of Objectivism, and try to back it up, are banned. True students are in search of the truth, and they are open minded. They understand that they can be wrong, as long as you show them how they are wrong, then they can get back to fixing the problem.
I too learn a lot more by reading than by posting. Frankly, there are times when I'm amazed at how intelligent some people are on this forum. That's one of the main reasons why I keep coming back.Regardless of the atmosphere of posting, I still learn a lot from reading here. I just don't think I will gain anywhere near as much by posting, because of the atmosphere.Phil
By the way Sturm, I love the name. I had and still have a major obsession with WWII German AFVs.
-
We know that this kind of corruption is standard operating procedure in a mixed economy. In fact, it happens so frequently that we hardly notice it any more. Under LFC, these types of crimes would be much more difficult to commit. How does the government grant special economic rights when it is excluded from involvement with the economy?My example was that a rich fellow buys one or more government officials to be granted special rights. They then change the legal system so that LFC is dead. The government official does this because he gets money. The rich fellow because he wants to protect his profits with non-market ways. (For example a railway company in the face of emerging airway travel) -
I was completely unaware of the scope of this kind of legal videography work. While it may be uninteresting, it certainly sounds like something that may provide some steady work--that is if there is a law requiring and outside, unbiasted party to perform the recording. What's to stop lawyers from using their own home video camera at a deposition?
The lawyers are there in the deposition asking questions so they don't have the time to screw around with video equipment. On top of that, the transcript or video of the deposition is the official record of that legal proceeding. It is always (in Michigan at least) prepared by an independent stenographer who is usually paid by both sides in the case. I wonder if a way to get into the business might be to ask someone at a stenography service if they do video deps. If you could work for them and get the hang of it, then you could go off on your own. As far as the "victim videos" (for lack of a better name) are concerned, those would just be advertised directly to attorneys through legal publications.
-
The whole point is that man cannot exist without thinking. Here where I live (in Michigan), a man might be able to exist until about November. At that time, if he didn't have the ability to conceive of and make clothing, he would die of exposure. If he simply went around and ate odd plants and small animals, he would very quickly eat something poisonous and die. In this context, man is different from other animals in that he must use tools (which are the products of reason) in order to survive.To a point. Animals, by standards here, are not able to think, yet they manage to "discover a source of food" that is not existing off of others. And if a non-thinking, non-conscious animal can do it, why can't a human?
The human mind does not separate us from "the rest of the laws of the world". We are still subject to the laws of nature. I see no evidence that consciousness is a "supernatural occurance", do you? Man's nature is only predetermined in the sense that he is what he is. The law of identity applies to man the same way it applies to everything else.My real question, is about that determinism idea. This is a very interesting thread. What is it about the human mind that separates us from the rest of the laws of the world? Is conscious a natural or supernatural occurance? I just think that Felix brings up some interesting points, worthy of discussion. Since people talking about "Man's Nature." I was just curious as to what defined "Man's Nature." If Man's nature is predetermined, why wouldn't anything else about him be. If it's not, than each "Man" has a different nature, and must act according to his own individual nature, just as some animals in the world are producers and some are "moochers."Edit: Sorry, AisA and I posted at the same time.
-
Don't the facts of reality determine man's nature? For example, man cannot survive without using reason. That being the case, he is a rational being. Man cannot survive without an ego (a sense of self), therefore, he must live as a selfish being.
-
The depositions themselves can last anywhere from about an hour to several 8 hour days. It all depends on the complexity of the case and the issues on which the deponent is being questioned. My friend markets his services to attorneys through state and local legal publications. Most states have a "Bar Journal" or a "Legal News" or some similar type of magazine/paper for attorneys. Essentially what you are doing is creating an audio/video record of the deposition. This is still largely done by stenographers, but some attorneys prefer video recording of depositions.Legal depositions sound completely foreign to me. What does it entail?My friend also makes short videos that show a day in the life of an injured plaintiff. These are people who have suffered some sort of (usually catastrophic) injury and are suing for medical expenses and/or damages. He is hired by the plaintiff's attorney to follow the injured person around during a typical day. He adds some narration of the injured person's daily life and the video is eventually shown to a jury.
I don't know whether any of this is something you'd enjoy doing. You obviously have some unique skills and I was just trying to think of new areas where you could utilize those skills and get paid for your efforts.
-
So who are the actual officers of the club? Is there a written mission statement that we can access somewhere?
-
Please be sure to let us know what grade you receive.
-
Mark, I completely agree that you're being screwed by the state. This is an insane system that drives people from their homes using confiscatory property taxes. However, I would hate to see you sacrifice yourself to make a point to a government full of bureaucrats who couldn't care less. Perhaps you should take a realistic look at selling your house and moving to a lower tax state. I know that will be difficult and expensive, but it may be your only alternative unless you can increase your earnings.
By the way, I was looking at the links in your sig and I noticed you do video work. To whom do you market your services? The reason I ask is that a friend of mine here in Michigan has a fairly successful business making videos for attorneys. He videotapes depositions and also does a lot of work for personal injury attorneys. Perhaps this would be a niche market for you?
-
Aquila, welcome to the forum. I think you might find "The Virtue of Selfishness" to be a worthwhile read.
As you may already be aware, in some cases depression is caused by chemical imbalances in the brain. Those problems can often be corrected with psychiatric medications. Have you sought the advice of a qualified professional yet?
-
Mark, how does the tax appeal process work in your state? Have you tried that avenue yet? Here in Michigan, people often get relief through an appeal, but it can be a long and difficult road. I too think it's an absolute disgrace that we don't own our homes in this country, we just rent them from the taxman.....I say that the only thing left is to do an act of terrorism to get the media to focus on the issue. Until property owners take up arms and defend their rights with force, until we are willing to kill those who would force us off our land, what good are so-called "property rights"? We have none if we are not willing to defend them with as much force as the government would use to violate them.And why is it that no one is paying attention to this very dire issue, despite the thousands of homes that are stolen from their owners due to 'back taxes unpaid'?
Pardon me if I seem a bit steamed. I feel as if I've been dealt a death sentence by this notice..
-
Cheers Scott. That cake is incredible!
-
Hal makes some very good recommendations.
When it comes to economic education, the situation in US schools is equally appalling. Students are not given even a basic understanding of Capitalism and myths are often passed off as truth. It's both a sad and disturbing situation.
-
What kind of real man doesn't own a decent table saw (or at least have dreams of owning one)?
I'll second that motion.... although your signature is quite disconcerting. GO BLUE, we'll see you next year
. -
The difference between a voluntary insurance program and a "constitutionally imposed and effective welfare system" is the element of force. Under the former, individuals would voluntarily fund the system, while under the latter the government would fund it at the point of a gun. There is an extensive and well-financed network of private charities and religious institutions in this country. They do an excellent job of helping people in need and they tend to be very good at determining who really deserves help and who doesn't. If the government got out of the business of redistributing income and reduced our tax burden, perhaps more people would be willing to voluntarily support worthy charities.I will submit that perhaps insurance would be an effective substitute, but my point here is that I see really no difference between that and a constitutionally imposed and effective welfare system that had serious requirements in order to qualify- that you had to be debilitated through no fault of your own, and that a facts and circumstances analysis by competent qualified professionals would be conducted to determine this. In addition, the administration would require serious and qualified proof of sincere effort in become self sufficient once more.
(emphasis added) How could a welfare system possibly protect every man's "independence and rights"? You need to re-examine your definitions of both terms.If this kind of welfare system were actually written into the constitution, with definitive statements setting out the limitations of the system so as to most enhance and protect the independence and rights of every man..... -
I enjoy driving my Suburban.
-
and now I am arbitrarily declaring that I am now an agent of the government and will act as such
I think a crime was just commited in the Questions About Objectivism forum.
-
The entire post was this simple idea..."What if?" and MY conclusion was that the "What if" of God hasn’t yet been answered to MY satisfaction, either way.
And I occasionally wonder, what if there were a Giant Purple Space Goat? That question hasn't yet been answered conclusively either way -- even though I don't see any evidence one exists and I certainly can't prove that one doesn't exist. So where does that leave this discussion?
Who do you want (realistically) in 2008 for prez?
in Current Events
Posted
The media are in love with Hillary. They can't say anything bad about her. She's the smartest woman in America, didn't you know?
I thought for sure that the people in this country were smart enough to see through her husband's line of B.S., but I was wrong....... twice.