Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Evangelical Capitalist

Regulars
  • Content Count

    175
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Evangelical Capitalist

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday 08/07/1976

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Indiana
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted
  • School or University
    Purdue University
  • Occupation
    Programmer

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Location
    Indiana
  1. I'm somewhat familiar with Dawkins: I read The Blind Watchmaker about a year ago when Intelligent Design was in the news. (It was enlighting insofar as it bore little to no resemblence to the manner in which I learned evolution in high school biology.) I've also seen his "Root of All Evil" documentary from the BBC, which I believe is based on The God Delusion. It's available on YouTube here: Root of All Evil: Part 1 and here: Root of All Evil: Part 2. My impression of him is somewhat like Sam Harris (without the Eastern mysticism, of course.) What he has to say about religion is absolut
  2. I haven't actually been confronted with this question, as I don't generally go around advertising my personal beliefs. That said, I have considered how I would answer the question if I were so confronted. "Selfishness", to my way of thinking, means two things: 1) that the values I pursue must necessarily be my own values, not anyone else's, and 2) that it is my life and happiness that determines what those values are. I would also add that what most people cite as being problems with "selfishness" are problems with what people regard as in their interest, not that they choose to act in th
  3. I haven't seen this posted anywhere: The Fountainhead is scheduled for release on DVD the first week of November. The Fountainhead @ Warner Home Video (I hope this isn't considered unwelcome advertising.) I know that opinions of this have been mixed, to say the least, but I'll be picking this up, as I've never had the chance to see it for myself.
  4. I have a "Taggart Transcontinental" t-shirt and "Who is John Galt?" lapel pin. I've never actually had anyone ask about John Galt, but I favor the respone: "If I told you, then what would be the purpose of asking the question?" khaight: "Irredentism" means not going back to the dentist, right? jk.
  5. I think the problem then is moved to the first part of the sentence: "The only thing I know is that I don't know everything." In order to know that he doesn't know everything, Socrates would first have to know that there is an "everything" out there to be known, i.e. that existence exists, not to mention having a notion of what knowledge is, etc. This, clearly, is knowledge of something other than the finiteness of his own knowledge. I suppose one could argue, at this point, that all those other things are implied by "I don't know everything," and that his statement "The only thing I know
  6. Personally, I'm a big fan of unit-economy: if I can say what I want, and say it precisely, with one word as opposed to a half-dozen, so much the better. I can't say that I've ever run into problems with making myself understood due to vocabulary issues. (It's usually organizing my thoughts into a linear discourse that presents problems.) Generally, people can figure out one's meaning from the context, or if they don't understand, then one can make the effort to explain more simply. While I recognize the importance of considereing the cognitive context of one's audience, I don't know the
  7. I know there's another thread discussion the French action against Apple, so I'll confine my comments here to Dr. Brook's appearance. I must say I was unimpressed. I've missed most of Dr. Brook's other appearances on CNBC or other media outlets, generally because I read the notification from ARI after the fact. This appearence was later in the evening, so I was able to see it. Granted, the entire segment with Dr. Brook was only about 2 or 3 minutes, but he was the only interviewee, unlike most other segments where there might be 2 or even 3 guest commentators. One point I thought he s
  8. But you repeat yourself. Sorry, coudn't resist.
  9. Your concept of "altruism" is clearly vastly different from that of the members of this board. (Perhaps you could provide a definition?) Those who own and operate this message board value it more than the alternative uses of their time and resources. It is a non-sacrifcial act. That others happen to benefit from their efforts does not make their activity "altruistic." Likewise with those who donate their financial support to ARI: they value the mission of ARI more highly than alternative uses for their money. The Objectivist morality is primarily about an individual's values, not those
  10. There are two things I find disturbing about the "Cartoon Affair." First is the obvious: the rioting muslims, and even those "peacefully" protesting, are making clear their view of what the world ought to be: We ought all to be bowing before Allahs commands, whether we believe in him (and his prophet) or not. This is not exactly news. That such a demonstration of intentions should be met with relatively little outrage and even appeasment on the part of Western political leaders is disgraceful, but not exactly a surprise. The second thing I find disturbing, and I haven't decided whether
  11. Hal: If this was simple protest over offensive material, you'd be right. But it's not. Criminal prosecution for "blasphemy" is precisely what is being demanded. There people want blood. Cox and Forkum: A Right to Blasphemy
  12. This is something that honestly hadn't occurred to me before, not explicitly anyway. It's not just taxes for directed toward education that would be at parents' disposal, but other money, currently spent on welfare programs or pork-barrel projects or whatever, that they could direct toward their child's education.
  13. I thought the same thing. And that might be one of C&F's best cartoons ever.
  14. The only cause I can see to vote for Hillary would be as a means of inducing gridlock. I think we've seen rather convincingly what happens to the federal budget when the same party controls both Congress and the White House. A Democrat in power in either of those places forces the Republicans back into their "small-government" stance. When the Republicans are in power, they become as statist as anyone else. The question is whether they will have any credibility as proponents of small government anymore.
  15. More spoilers ahead... Paul (Hanks' character) suspects John's inncocence relatively early on in the movie, long before he actually takes him out. First, he goes to see John's lawyer to ask about his history. Also, when he proposes the plan to take John out of the prison to his fellow guards he says something like, "I do not see God putting a power like that in the hands of a murderer." I think this was necessary to make taking John out of the prison seem believeable. An audience ought to have a difficult time accepting that a guard would take a chance like that with a prisoner he belie
×
×
  • Create New...