Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

FeatherFall

Moderators
  • Posts

    1633
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    23

Everything posted by FeatherFall

  1. Actually, while it is no long term intellectual threat, it is psychologically and financially damaging to the people who get reeled in. My older sisters know some people who have relatives that sunk a great deal of their time and money into the cult before getting out. While I have absolutely no first hand knowledge about it, here is a humorous take. The link is to a video that has some graphic content (no nudity). You can skip the add at the end to get to the relevant links. Otherwise, you can go straight to the Time article.
  2. Here's a quick shot at the question posed in the first post: Rational Environmentalism: Reshaping the environment to conform to man's values, and maintaining ecological systems that promote man's wellbeing.
  3. But it would still be an attempt to contradict reality. Clairvoyance is self-contradictory: One cannot sense something by means of non-sense. The point of my first post in this thread was: accepting the validity of ideas like clairvoyance is phsychologically damaging. People who claim to have had out of body experiences are evading reality at best, suffering from pschological illness at worst.
  4. Thanks for the intro, Liriodendron Tulipifera. When I was in High school we had a discussion regarding the definition of "Nature." Because I thought that man-made changes were, in a sense, natural, I would have agreed with your definition of environmentalism. However, when I think of mainstream "environmentalist issues" I recognize they are mostly anti-man. I think that we need more people (like you) using "environmentalism" in a pro-man sense.
  5. I may need to read some of the ways this would apply to a game before making a judgement. I think Objectivist ethics don't mesh well with the Law vs Chaos/Good vs Evil system. It looks to me as if combining the two blurs the distinction between the two axes. The new definition of Law vs Chaos seems to be a function of Wisdom and Intelligence. What about Good vs Evil as you've defined it and Self-Interested vs Altruistic?
  6. That's true. Do you think anyone can claim clairvoyance without contradiction? I don't.
  7. Develop a new alignment system. This was discussed on a previous thread (I don't recall which one). Current systems for conflict resolution allow for everything the PCs might encounter in such a game. The real "meat" would be in flavor text, setting and storyline. I would suggest adding small elements of science fiction. Put the setting 50 years in the future. This allows for interesting twists on the current political climate while keeping it limited to non-mystic action. Plus, the science elements wouldn't get out of hand while also allowing for some new Kewl Powerz - like "Juicers" (drug enhanced supersoldiers), bionic implants and private space vehicles. What would the role of the UN be? China? Is the war on Islamism still creeping along? Does man have moon colonies? Has man landed on Mars? These are all important questions to answer if you choose that near future setting, especially if the game is to be geared toward epic level conflict. I like D10 and percentile systems the best - Like White Wolf and The 1st edition Legend of the Five Rings. "Leveling Up" seems absurd to me. But I do understand that D20 is more marketable. Plus, if I can suspend disbelief enough to pretend that I am a Werewolf or a Shugenja, I suppose I can overcome leveling up in a D20 system. Hmm... I just noticed the reference to dragons after writing the previous paragraphs. What is the setting you have planned?
  8. Here's a thought: When I was in high school I had a friend named Ryan who joined the rugby team at a different school. We razzed him because we didn't think he was cut out for rugby. We all thought he was going to get injured or something. So, one day I was attending my school and I heard some of our rugby players talking about a kid who broke his femur. I thought to myself, "Wouldn't it be funny if that was Ryan?" I asked what school they were playing and they said it was Bayport -- the school that Ryan attended. Later that day I got a call from another friend who told me that Ryan had indeed broken his femur. Coincidental, but not funny. I could have claimed to have clairvoyant powers and some people might have believed me. If I were deluded enough, I might have even believed myself. However, I have random predictions all the time that do not turn out to be true. So, being of sound mind, I chalk it up to terrible coincidence. The point is this: Some people have neglected their psycho-epistemology to the point where they delude themselves into believing in paranormal nonsense. That way, every simple coincidence is "evidence" of the supernatural. This is psychologically unhealthy and, if reinforced over time, might lead to something more severe - like hallucinations or "illusory experiences." That's my take.
  9. Here is a great version of the rotating head/hollow face" illusion.
  10. Wow, now we're branching out to comedians? Well, Eddie Izzard is quite funny. He describes himself as an "executive transvestite." Please don't mistake him as one of those weirdo transvestites. Other good ones include Augie Smith, Lewis Black and, of course, Robin Williams. That man has energy. Dave Attel is good if he isn't drunk and you like toilet humor. And I can't believe I forgot The Kids in the Hall and The Upright Citizens Brigade. Sketch comedy at its best.
  11. Thank you for reminding me. John Candy was excelent in Who is Harry Crumb? I liked The Tick the animated series. My favorite episode was when The Tick battled Barry for the right to use the name, "The Tick." I didn't see much of the live action version, but Batmanuel is my favorite joke superhero. You gotta love the guy who's only true weakness is the Soccer Mom. ---(as Batmanuel prepares to give a speech)---- General: Make it fast. Batmanuel: Batmanuel never makes it fast. Unless the husband is...you know. ---Also---- Captain Liberty: Do you always have to hide behind sex? Batmanuel: I can't help it. It's so big.
  12. I am relatively new here and I like the atmosphere. I would be severely disappointed if the moderaters allowed outright challenges to Ayn Rand's philosophy outside of the debate forum. I have witnessed some members forget tact and then write hasty personal attacks. Usually they opologize or the moderators close the thread. I applaud the alacrity with which moderators throw completely obscene posts in the trash.
  13. Office Space, for sure. For anyone who has ever worked in a cubicle, this is a must see. Some close runners up include Spaceballs, History of the World Part 1, Trading Places and Coming to America. Recent funny movies include The 40 Year Old Virgin and Wedding Crashers. The Family Guy tops my list of television shows. I don't particularily like a similar show called All American Dad. It's humor is ruined by its advertizements for the liberal bandwagon. Other shows include The Daily Show and The Cobair Report. The liberal bandwagon advertisments on these shows don't seem to destroy the humor for me. I love Cobairs "The Word" segment. I also liked the Daily Show's old "Even Steven" segment, even though it was extremely Juvinile.
  14. I liked a lot of the other scenes that were mentioned. Thinking about this thread has made me realise how many terrible movies I have put myself through. Here are some of my favorite scenes: Batman Begins Bad guy: "... I swear to God!" Batman: "Swear to Me!" I also like the scene when Batman turns the fear gas on Scarecrow. This is Batman at his most terrifying. The Boondock Saints: Finale. The Shawshank Redemption Finale. What Dreams May Come Finale. Lots of emotion in this movie. Equilibrium Two Grammaton Clerics fighting with hand-to-hand gun katas. Reign of Fire Try not to laugh at this one. The movie was bad, but the two coolest death leaps ever occur in this movie. One is during the skydiving hunting scene, the other is at the end with the axe leap to the dragon's mouth... Don't let me get your hopes up on that second death leap, though.
  15. I don't live in Europe, and don't know much about the structure of the EU. But I simply don't think a bunch of bureaucrats from countries who themselves don't have the individual rights thing figured out can arrive at something better by accident.
  16. Sorry. To clarify what I meant: Some of the examples given seemed to focus on degree rather than principle. When I gave my examples I attempted to use extremes of degree to showcase the principle involved.
  17. Many of the recent examples have strayed from the principles involved. Though recently, AisA asked a question that challenged the principle of the "no right to childcare" stance: I am interested to hear JMeganSnow's reply. DavidOdden most recently added a compelling arguement regarding forced acceptance of chosen actions. As I indicated earlier, I agree with the "right to childcare" stance, but I do have to admit that I'm pretty close to the fence on this issue. I am currently grappling with a question of principle that would arise in an extreme case of the "right to childcare" stance. If a child has a right to food and shelter, does it also have a right to guidance? By this I mean, does it have a right to be taught how to live rationally? (to live in a human sense means to live rationally) If the child does have a right to guidance, does someone who can prove that he is capable of and willing to offer superior guidance to that child have a right to commandeer the responsibilities of its parents who are otherwise capable of providing for their child's survival? My knee-jerk reaction is to say that the child has a right to food and shelter but no right to guidance. This sounds "cold hearted." However, if I say that a child has a right to guidance, then it follows that it has a right to the best guidance. And this could lead the sort of "parental raiding" that I alluded to in the previous paragraph. Perhaps they wouldn't have to participate in raiding, but they could obtain a court order to allow the child to go to the school (if it chooses) even if its parents protest. Thoughts?
  18. Volition does not happen independently. It is as dependant on reality as all the rest. Volitional consciousness is simply a distinct part of reality. The distinguishing characteristic of volition being that it facilitates choice between the alternatives presented to its governing consciousness. We have yet to identify exactly how it works. By focusing simply on brain chemistry, we dabble in a thing very few of us are experts on -- which is pointless. It is better to focus on how knowledge is integrated. The best way to go about this task on this forum is to find the relevant quote in ITOE that explains how volition and concept formation are interdependent and then point out where you disagree.
  19. I think there is something you should read that may help clarify some things. It can be found at Capitalism Magazine. Look for Villainy: An Analysis of the Nature of Evil. It is split into five parts and, as of this post, only three are available. You will have to click on "view previous articles" at the bottom of the page to find the first one. Dr. Bernstein will explain "the primacy of conciousness" in the third article. This is a metaphysical (not ethical) view that I think you will agree with, as you seem to apply it to your morality. Dr. Bernstein he will arrive at the primacy of consciousness by working backwards from three examples of it in morality - personal, religious and social. I believe your morality fits with the personal version. Please, correct me if I am wrong. Objectivist morality follows from the primacy of existence standpoint, not of consciousness. Also, when reading these articles, do not take offense. I do not presume that you are a criminal, a drug addict, a fascist or anything else. I think this is a good way to find some material online that will spark purposeful discussion.
  20. Ditto. I want to know enough to live my life, and I don't know when I'll feel satisfied with my knowledge. I certainly am not satisfied at the moment.
  21. Just wanted to apologize to Rational Cop... I attributed something of his to someone else. I was mystified by the avatar.
  22. Yeah, Tommy J, all the way! I'd rather have the original GW leading from the front. Let the General do what he does best - call down the fire of Lady Liberty.
  23. Madtown, huh? Have fun on Halloween. I like Sublime, too. Was it put first on the list for a reason? Also, have you watched and did you like any other Kevin Smith films? Mallrats is one of my favorites, so if you say "No" I will use the power of the Continuum Transfunctioner to banish you to Hoboken, New Jersey.
  24. These questions can be redirected to the bureaucrats that dream up environmental regulation also. So what is the point? We already know human beings are volitional and fallible. What is the guarantee that an eco-statist isn't going to remain uncorrupted? There is no guarantee for the eco-statist, and there is no guarantee for the capitalist judge. But there are safeguards. The best safeguard is a body of law that protects individual rights. By setting up regulatory laws that damage the protection of rights -- and when we talk about polution, we are talking about property rights -- we are acting contrary to our goals. AisA already responded to this. But I think it is worth responding to again, so: No, I don't. I have to look at it from a principled standpoint. There is no practical benifit of trying to protect property rights by denying property rights. If I pollute on my property, and everyone else pollutes on their own property, and we all take precautions to ensure that the pollution does not damage any one else's property, then nobody is being harmed. An extreme example: We pollute the moon. Who is harmed? (nobody) A more realistic example: We transport nuclear fuel to Yucca mountain, which is surrounded by military bases and in the center of a spot where nobody is allowed to live anyway. Who is harmed? (nobody) To follow up the last example: The truck driver from one of the nuclear plants falls asleep at the wheel, crashes his car and spills nuclear waste all over the center of a major metropolitan area. Who is harmed? (get your calculator) What happens then? The insurance company compensates the victims, and raises the freight company's rates. A truck driver loses his job. The freight company changes its hiring practices. A repeat of the incident is less likely to occur. In otherwords, the same thing that happens when any other accident occurs that harms someone. -- This is "the penalty system" at work. Only now it isn't violating anyone's rights. For anyone who is interested in this topic, I suggest the book The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World by Bjorn Lomborg. It doesn't cover the legal/political side of environmentalism, but it is a refreshing and informative perspective on countless doomsday scenarios. NewYorkRoark, Speaking of doomsday scenarios, what makes you think we are going to overpopulate? Have you been channeling Thomas Malthus? (I'm joking). Seriously, though, there is one resource that only grows with the population: the human resource. It is what has shattered every overpopulation theory ever dreamt up, and it will continue to do so. Every time humans are deprived of something (food, space, etc) somebody puts their mind to solving the problem. There was a great link on one of these threads, I don't remember where. It concerned the problem of horseshit in the 1900's and what on earth people would do about it in the year 2000. That doesn't seem to be an issue anymore. Why? The human resource. Again on the topic of overpopulation, the birth rates are lowest in the more developed and capitalistic countries. In these countries, children become more expensive because they cannot be used as farm hands. they have to be educated to be productive, and by that time they are out on their own anyway.
  25. Absent from this discussion was an explicit definition of "environment." Immediately, I don't have one to offer. But its important to point out that the concept "environment" depends on another concept; whoever or whatever lives in said environment. To make any statement involving an environment one begs, "who's environment." I haven't witnessed anyone here state the opinion that nature has some sort of intrinsic value that needs to be protected from man's actions. If this were the case (I'm glad it isn't) it would only be proper for everyone to starve themselves. The general consensus in this thread seems to be, "man's environment." So, the only way to have progress in this discussion is to transfer it to morality and the nature of rights and the nature of government. This has already been done. Regarding property disputes: What fundamental difference is involved in lakes and air and ozone as opposed to other property? I propose that there isn't one, but someone else has proposed the fundamental difference is time. I am not convinced that this is fundamental. The brand of environmentalism, or ecothiesm, that is pervasive today has no regard for the rights of individuals. This how many justify passing Kyoto protocols (legislation) to prevent anthropomorphic global warming (a baseless doomsday scenario). They are simply protecting the environment (who's?).
×
×
  • Create New...