Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Regis

  1. I agree with Kelly and Scott. The conversation would definitely be beneficial for her but might cause some problems with your brother and sister-in-law. Be careful about how you approach it. And start by asking if she's talked to her parents about it yet, so you know how to structure your conversation.
  2. ROFLMAO!! Back on topic... I don't drink much but Vodka is my drink of choice. From now on I'll make an effort to avoid drinking Absolut.
  3. Honesty. Without a doubt. I have little patience for anyone, male or female, who leads me around in circles refusing to tell me what they think openly and honestly. A close second would be rationality and third would be intelligence.
  4. Just because more of the characters Rand mentions in Galt's Gulch are male does not mean that there is not a significant (or even equal) number of women there. It just so happens that the people Dagny knows (and therefore the characters we have been introduced to) in the valley are male because she worked with them and at that time more men were industrialists than women.
  5. I spent about a year between finishing my undergraduate degree in 2004 (at age 22) and starting Law School. During that year I was introduced to Terry Goodkind's Sword of Truth series. After I had read all those books I went on to his website to see if he had written anything else. From his website I learned that he was an Objectivist, so I decided to read Atlas Shrugged. I finished it just a day before starting Law School and have since read nearly everything Miss Rand has published. I had previously considered myself a "Classical Liberal" so it wasn't much of a stretch for me to go from admiring Locke and the Founder's political philosophy and embracing Objectivism. I wish I had been introduced to her ideas much sooner, though. I could have used them back in High School and College.
  6. Am I correct in thinking that he implies that God must be either indifferent or malevolent? Benedict sharply criticizes Marx and the 19th and 20th century atheism spawned by his revolution, although he acknowledges that both were responding to the deep injustices of the time. "A world marked by so much injustice, innocent suffering and cynicism of power cannot be the work of a good God," he wrote. If a world marked by that much injustice cannot be the work of a good God, yet the world was marked by that much injustice, doesn't that logically mean that God is not good? It seems so, unless you consider the possibility that God does not exist. Or, if he exists, the world was not the work of God. But since he is the Pope and just blasted Atheism in the same document I think it is safe to say he is assuming that much. So...According to the pope, god is not good? *smirk*
  7. I'm pretty sure this map is only showing "conventional" oil. That means the liquid stuff. Canada's reserves are mostly "Oil Sands". The US has lots of Shale Oil also, mostly in Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah. We're just looking for a more economically viable method of extracting it. Thus the discrepancy between the map and the linked chart. If we can find a way to extract the oil from Shale (like Ellias Wyatt did in Atlas Shrugged, incidentally), then we'd have 5 times the reserves of Saudi Arabia.
  8. Then that might change my opinion. It depends on whether or not the procedure is performed before or after viability. I was under the impression that this procedure was only performed late term, if not very late then still third trimester.
  9. I'd just like to point out that: 1) This decision is entirely consistent with the court's decision in Roe v. Wade. (A point that Conservatives and Liberals alike seem to have evaded almost entirely.) The quoted part below is from that opinion. 2) Partial Birth Abortion happens after viability. In fact, as the name implies, the abortion happens moments before birth. The baby is fully capable of life outside the womb at the time the procedure is carried out without significant medical help (unlike as in the case of premature babies). Furthermore, most of the objections raised by the ban of abortion are no longer applicable at this point. I don't know about all of you, but while I have serious reservations about the banning of earlier term abortions, viability is a turning point of sorts for me. We've crossed the point of potentiality into actuality. Thus, I don't see much difference in aborting a fully viable fetus that is in the process of birthing and killing a baby once it has fully left the womb. That puts me in agreement with the court on this issue in both Roe v. Wade and Gonzales vs Carthart Comments? P.S. This post does not raise the commerce clause issues touched on by Justices Thomas and Scalia. A proper construction of that clause would almost certainly bar Federal legislation such as this, but allow similar legislation under the constitutional law jurisprudence if passed by individual states.
  10. Really? I've only just started to read things by him in the past year (linking from generally right-wing blogs). I had no idea he had made such a conversion in his thinking. Fascinating.
  11. I have to say that I like YouTube a lot. Though I don't know how it works out as a business. Do they have any other income except through banners and such? *shrug* I think it has potential and Google has always stayed ahead of the curve on new things and built on its previous success. Even so, 1.65 Billion? Wow.
  12. <Mod's note: Link to YouTube-hosted video removed due to copyright concerns. - sN> For those of you who haven't seen it. Hilarious. Its always the first thing I think of when North Korea does its semi-annual media attention grab.
  13. I posted this link at another Objectivism forum. Everyone should see this. http://www.newsoftheday.com/ Israel deserves the full support of every friend of Western Civilization.
  14. Don't get me wrong, I completely agree with that. I just don't think the current administration understands the reality of the situation yet. Even if they do they will continue acting with restraint for political reasons.
  15. I think this latest crisis has shown the truth of these words. There has been much less backlash against Israel from the usual suspects than in the past. It wasn't the palestineans, but Hizbullah (sp?) and Southern Lebanon where Israel pulled its troops out six years ago. Israel has repeatedly told the Lebanese government to move its military down into the south and solve the terrorist problem or it would be held responsible. After the attack into Israel and the kidnapping of its soldiers Israel is keeping its word. While I wouldn't mind seeing the bombing of Syrian infrastructure I don't see that (much less an invasion) happening as of now. That might trigger a much wider conflict and I suspect the US government will pressure Israel to hold off for now, despite the press release from the State department blaming Syria and Iran.
  16. While I won't disagree that success influences a language I would say that the ideas that produce success must first be identified and communicated in some manner. This communication need not be in the form of language (The article itself references the first hand experiences of immigrants that did not know English) but it usually is. Especially in the modern world. Thus, lacking the concepts that produce sucess in a language can be a serious detriment to a society.
  17. http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1170 I had always made the connection between the British tradition (Smith and Locke etc) being the major factor behind the general level of prosperity in the Anglo-phone world in whatever region it might sprout. After all, these are the major thinkers that have influenced Anglo-American countries for centuries. I had not, however, considered the lack of corresponding concepts in other languages as such a serious impediment to making use of good ideas. I also find it intruiging that the French and English methods parallel the languages themselves. English is wholly unregulated which makes it eminently usable and adaptable to new ideas and changing circumstances whereas French is bound to the approval of a small group of Intellectuals. P.S. I didn't know what forum to put this in, so here it is. [Edit: Entire article was quoted. I removed most of it but kept the link up.--Matt]
  18. This was on one of the links (3rd I believe) WWJGD What Would John Galt Do? (neo-objectivist slogan) Neo-Objectivist? Did I miss something?
  19. Here's an article that's both a bit of good news and speculation on the question in this thread. http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=042406D
  20. "People are stupid; given proper motivation, almost anyone will believe almost anything. Because people are stupid, they will believe a lie because they want to believe it’s true, or because they are afraid it might be true." --Terry Goodkind, Wizard's First Rule The choice in Foreign Policy is an easy one. Do we take Iran's government at its word that they want to kill us, or do we evade that fact out of fear and believe what we want so desperately to be true? The great curse of the 20th century was the inability of decent people to realize that what was unthinkable to them was both thinkable and doable by others -- like Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot. Are we to wait until Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction and we wake up some morning to find a couple of American cities obliterated?-- Thomas Sowell The same can be said for Iran. Only it will be Tel-Aviv, Haifa, and Be'er Sheeva first. Then after the Israelis are gone we'll be next on the list. I don't know about you, but if a man threatens to kill me and others like him have shown they are willing to die to make it happen I take it seriously. As for your last comment Clawg: I fail to see what, if any, effects switching from the dollar to the Euro would have. Yes, I've read conspiracy theory nutjobs twisting themselves into gordian knots trying to come up with something reasonable. I don't buy it.
  21. The episode as a whole isn't "blasphemy" to them. One cartoon of their pedophile prophet is.
  22. http://media.nationalreview.com/094921.asp Media Blog Stephen Spruiell Reporting The Markup Comedy Central Censored Mohammed I'm not sure if it's been reported yet, but for what it's worth, I just got off the phone with a Comedy Central spokesman. I asked him about last night's episode of South Park in which, at a moment right before the prophet Mohammed was supposed to make a cameo, the words, "Comedy Central has refused to broadcast an image of Mohammed on their network" appeared on the screen. I asked him whether this truly was Comedy Central's decision or whether this was just another gag (with South Park, you never know). He said: They reflected it accurately. That was a Comedy Central decision. Just in case there was any confusion, that settles it. Comedy Central censored the image. The Volokh Conspiracy and Captain's Quarters have more. And needless to say, I thought the episode was brilliant. UPDATE: Michelle Malkin has lots of commentary, plus the video. [ 04/13/2006 12:15 PM ] Here's an AP story about it: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6041301002.html `South Park' Creators Skewer Own Network By DAVID BAUDER The Associated Press Thursday, April 13, 2006; 2:29 PM NEW YORK -- Banned by Comedy Central from showing an image of the Islamic prophet Muhammad, the creators of "South Park" skewered their own network for hypocrisy in the cartoon's most recent episode. The comedy _ in an episode aired during Holy Week for Christians _ instead featured an image of Jesus Christ defecating on President Bush and the American flag. In an elaborately constructed two-part episode of their Peabody Award-winning cartoon, "South Park" creators Matt Stone and Trey Parker intended to comment on the controversy created by a Danish newspaper's publishing of caricatures of Muhammad. Muslims consider any physical representation of their prophet to be blasphemous. When the cartoons were reprinted in newspapers worldwide in January and February, it sparked a wave of protests primarily in Islamic countries. Parker and Stone were angered when told by Comedy Central several weeks ago that they could not run an image of Muhammad, according to a person close to the show who didn't want to be identified because of the issue's sensitivity. The network's decision was made over concerns for public safety, the person said. Comedy Central said in a statement issued Thursday: "In light of recent world events, we feel we made the right decision." Its executives would not comment further. As is often the case with Parker and Stone, they built "South Park" around the incident. In Wednesday's episode, the character Kyle is shown trying to persuade a Fox network executive to air an uncensored "Family Guy" even though it had an image of Muhammad. "Either it's all OK, or none of it is," Kyle said. "Do the right thing." The executive decides to strike a blow for free speech and agrees to show it. But at the point where Muhammad is to be seen, the screen is filled with the message: "Comedy Central has refused to broadcast an image of Muhammad on their network." It is followed shortly by the images of Christ, Bush and the flag. A frequent "South Park" critic, William Donohue of the anti-defamation group Catholic League, called on Parker and Stone to resign out of principle for being censored. "The ultimate hypocrite is not Comedy Central _ that's their decision not to show the image of Muhammad or not _ it's Parker and Stone," he said. "Like little whores, they'll sit there and grab the bucks. They'll sit there and they'll whine and they'll take their shot at Jesus. That's their stock in trade." Parker and Stone did not immediately respond to a request through a spokesman for comment. It's the second run-in over religion in a few months for the satirists. Comedy Central refused to rerun a "South Park" episode that mocked Scientologists. Isaac Hayes, a Scientologist who voiced the Chef character on the show, resigned in protest over the episode. "South Park" again got the last word last month with an episode where Chef was seemingly killed and mourned as a jolly guy whose brains were scrambled by the "Super Adventure Club," which turns its members into pedophiles. Only last week, "South Park" won broadcasting's prestigious Peabody. Awards director Horace Newcomb said at the time that by its offensiveness, the show "reminds us of the need for being tolerant."
  23. Synthlord...About half the people I've talked to say that. As I've told them: I hope you're right.
  24. I respect their right as an individual business to choose what to show on their network but I was very dissapointed. I e-mailed them about it too. Censoring yourself because you are afraid of offending Muslims and the violence they threaten is cowardice. Free speech needs defenders, not cowards. What good is the right if you are too afraid to use it? I won't be watching Comedy Central for a good long time. I know that for sure. With the only possible exception being South Park (and I watched quite a few shows until now).
  25. Sorry SN, I meant to post the link in my first message. Just forgot to. http://www.dansimmons.com/news/message.htm
  • Create New...