Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About hunterrose

  • Birthday 11/02/1979

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Location
  • Interests
    monomania, video games, searching for Dominique Francon, working to be Francisco d'Anconia

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Not Specified
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Chat Nick
    Genji's Tail
  • Real Name
  • Copyright

hunterrose's Achievements

Senior Member

Senior Member (6/7)



  1. Disclaimer: I haven't seen the movie yet; I'm planning to this weekend Wow, I thought you guys were exaggerating about Ebert's review, but after reading it, I'd have to agree. Either the movie does a really crappy job of laying out its theme, or Ebert just missed it. The review doesn't even tell what the movie is about, at least from the perspective of someone who's read the book. He makes it sound like the movie is about railroad entrepreneurs and the government that hates them. I know that flippancy sells, but in my opinion he did a horrible job as a reviewer.
  2. Side note: politically, this is exactly the kind of issue that Obama loves - his opposition reacts on emotion and he strides in as the cool, thoughtful leader espousing freedom of speech. It's a pity to see him getting easy points.
  3. My situation is somewhat similar to yours, CastleBravo. I was a university for 3 years before I was kicked out for bad grades. Last fall (8 years later ) I enrolled in a community college and I'll be graduating with an IT degree in the fall if I can get the classes I need in the summer. Then it's on to a four-year Personally, and this is just my 2 cents, I would focus on the unemployment first. I ended up with a crapload of debt my first time in college, and I'm never going back to that again. Even if you're not as debtphobic as I am, you still don't want to depend on the grant money not running out in order to graduate. That said, working full-time and schooling full-time is *not* easy! While the military isn't for everybody, it is an option that would take care of both problems.
  4. I don't think Ving was anti-technology so much as anti-surrogates. Maybe it's because I didn't get an anti-technology feeling from the movie, but I liked Surrogates. I think people can become overreliant on certain technologies, specifically when it comes to the irrational point that you can't even go outside or be seen by your spouse without it.
  5. I'm late to the game, but I finally saw District 9 last night. Wow. I thought it was really good! I'd heard a lot of people detracting from the movie because of its anti-whatever messages, but I didn't see any theme that I found detrimental to my appreciation of the movie. I don't think it portrayed aliens as the moral ones, or humans/corporations as inevitably evil. If anything, District 9 simply says that there are good individuals and bad individuals in groups, and judging the whole by a subset usually leads to erroneous conclusions. I'm hoping for a sequel.
  6. The demo is supposed to be coming out on PSN tomorrow How you come to different endings is going to be really interesting. Hopefully the decision-making process and the paths it leads to won’t feel like it’s on rails. I remember playing Indigo Prophecy on PS2, and Heavy Rain is going to be much better. I’m anticipating that’s it’s going to sell better than expected, though certainly not in Modern Warfare 2 numbers. We can always use something new over a Madden 20xx!
  7. No, but I'd rephrase the question. The dying woman's husband tries all possible legal means, but can only obtain $2000, which he offers to the druggist. The druggist refuses and says it must be $4000 up front or no deal. Yes or no, should he allow his wife to die if he finds no legal way to save her? There ya go.
  8. Hello izopyn, I'm hunterrose. Welcome One problem is that informing oneself of an idea and integrating an idea are philosophically the same thing. If I think the sun revolved around the earth, there would be no epistemological difference between me informing myself of that half truth and integrating that half truth. The essence of objectivity, according to your argument, is rejecting objectivity. Implications don’t work with half-truths. In this case, your argument is incorrect because (qua half-truth) sometimes we can know what is right or true, even if it’s half true that our perceptions are flawed.
  9. I wouldn't say it like that. It can be worthwhile to challenge your friend's premises, assuming you have the patience and free time Ask your friend if a minimum donation law is just as needed as a minimum wage law – government intervention is needed to FORCE charitable people to not exploit charity cases and to FORCE charitable people to donate more money when the minimum donation is increased. If forcing charitable people to be more charitable is ludicrous, but forcing employers to be more charitable is not… the question for your friend is “Why?”
  10. I agree with that. If a Roark had blown up a building for similar reasons in Atlas Shrugged or We the Living, I wouldn’t object nearly so much - I feel like she did establish societies that did not respect rights in those novels. The case for The Fountainhead is not so clear to me. That IS interesting!
  11. Hmm, I did not realize that. Time for that yearly reread If the legal system would not have delivered justice before blowing up Cortlandt, did the justice system deliver justice after blowing up Cortlandt?
  12. One initiator, granted. I should have said that better. Assuming the Cortlandt builders illegally used Roark's property, under what conditions was he justified in dynamiting the builders' property? Shouldn't he have gone through the legal system before blowing up Cortlandt??
  13. (Something in) the Cortlandt project is not owned by Roark, so the fundamental, as I see it, is that Roark destroys something that does not belong to him. Assuming Roark's rights were violated by the Cortlandt builders, does their initiation of force against Roark justify Roark initiating force against them?
  14. When the Cortlandt builders made the contract, they were led to believe that these were Keating’s designs, and that Keating (and only Keating) therefore had full rights to negotiate a contract as he saw fit. Regardless, would you agree that blowing up the property of another party before seeking legal remedies is wrong within (and assuming) a lawful society? Really? From what I saw in the novel, it was no less lawful or rights-protecting than our own society. I don't have to tell you that “actually owns Cortlandt” and “actually has the right to use Keating’s Roark’s designs” are two different things. Perhaps I haven’t read enough of this 8 page thread, but I don’t recall anything in the novel saying that the ownership of the Cortlandt real estate and building materials was obtained through fraud or otherwise in question. You’re saying that it is?
  15. I agree that it makes for good drama, and actually don't have an extreme problem here with jury members making the choice they did. But from an objective legal standpoint, I don't think he had the right to take the law into his own hands (whether or not he had a valid grievance against the Cortlandt builders.) Morally justified vs. legally justified is a distinction that I'm not sure I've made, I'll have to think about that. I suspect Rand wouldn't have had a problem with jury nullification, depending on the particulars of a case.
  • Create New...