Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About argive99

  • Rank

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Not Specified
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Copyright

Recent Profile Visitors

1148 profile views
  1. Synthlord: Wow, you gave a very intelligent and insightful analysis of the whole show. Well done. I agree with all of it. My own additions: * I agree that Adama is stoic, but I actually like that. He is a great tactition and is always trying to steer the right course. I love some of the statements he has made about the seperation of powers, specifically between the seperation of the military and civillian police forces. Also, his love of his son is shown so well; and not only love but admiration. He knows his son is special or has the potential to be. I too didn't like his using the lege
  2. The acting was atrocious. The plot was convoluted. The philosophy is hopelessly muddled, contradictory and at times non-sensical; not to mention thouroughly altruistic. (If the Jedi and the Sith were the only two options open to me, I'd join the Sith - I'd rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints.) The characters are as shallow as a puddle. Anakin's fall is completely unbelievable. The only thing the movie has to reccommend it is the FX which were great as expected. Other than that, the film has little to offer. I did not see Serendipity yet (the Firefly movie), but from w
  3. I just watched the full 13 episodes of the last season. Season 2 is slated to start in July. I found the show very enjoyable and very well made. The same company that did the effects for Firefly are doing the FX for Battlestar. There is a religious element to the show in that the cyclons are seamingly "searching for God". But despite this, the show has alot to offer. The characters are well developed, the plot progesses at a nice pace and includes a number of twists and turns which are well thought out, a few of the characters are likeable, and the acting is first rate especially James Almos.
  4. IMO, my understanding of it far surpasses yours. And I don't have to role play as John Galt to get me through the day.
  5. From my experience, this is wrong. Quiet men rarely get women. If by that we mean "pick up chicks." It is the bold, cocky, alpha males that score. In fact, one of the major issues I have with today's "dating culture" is that women are so damn superficial and non-intellectual in their choice of men, and this applies even to Zeus's vaunted phds. In fact, the more educated the woman, the higher the probability that she has been brainwashed by the academic Left in which case even if she is beautiful (and from my observation, in today's culture it is not the beautiful women that get graduate degree
  6. This is a false alternative. As I have said, they can be used together. In fact, with some of my early girlfriends, I used porn to free them of their sexual inhibitions, specifically those revolving around guilt. They all thanked me. And let me say this to all those that bash porn: I know what Ayn Rand said about it, and it is the only thing she ever said that I disagreed with and for this reason. Before I was an Objectivist, I used to have terrible guilt assoiciated with sex and masturbation; the product of a religious upbringing. But it was through exposure to porn videos that I saw peopl
  7. JMeganSnow: Just answer me this: do you believe that prostitution should be legal? Let me get straight on your answer to that. If you don't, then how do you reconsile that with other Objectivist concepts, such as individual rights, non-initiation of force, etc? I want to see if you are seperating the moral from the legal/political. Despite your disgust with prostitution, do you recognize the fact that there would be a large industry developed around it if it were legalized. [in fact, there already is an entire industry "underground" in the form of a vast network of message parlors, sex s
  8. No, I am a dyed in the wool Objectivist. My sexual escapades do not negate that. If being an Objectivist meant having boring missionary position sex with only one partner for the rest of your life, than I wouldn't be one. But it doesn't, despite some of the nonsense you read on internet forums. As for sundering the practical from the moral, I haven't done that. I fully believe in the Objectivist view on romance and expect at some point in my life to put it into action. The fact that I have chosen to spend my youth being sexually verile and active was made in accordance with my nature; an e
  9. And the funny thing is that I don't like SoloHQ. I think that on average their understanding of Objectivism is far outstripped by the average ARI defender. But they raise questions that should be raised, the same questions that someone on this board will simply say are "illigitimate". So I frequently ask those questions or raise those points as with Barbara Branden and her mother or Chriss Scaibarra and his political essays. I know they are wrong but I want to hear good arguments against them so as to make my own understanding that much stronger. There's an old experession, "keep your enemies
  10. This is probably something we shouldn't talk about on this forum, but unless you are a porno star yourself, I'd say the best you could hope for is a tie. I'm 30 and despite being an Objectivist for a decade, I have never pursued a true long term relationship for my own reasons. I have lived in Japan and the Phillipines for two years. If you know anything about those countries then you'll know that having sex with two or three girls every night is relatively easy and inexpensive (especially if you're a decent looking American with money not to mention good looking). Not only that, I have lived
  11. This is an overly kind description. There may be many fine young Objectivists, but there are just as many role playing punks as well. Deny it if you wish. Also nice attempt at intimidation to suggest that I am attacking the good for the being the good. Am I not also good? Am I not also worthy of the title "idealistic" supporter? I've defended Ayn Rand in countless more forums than these young Objectivists you're defending. So I may chose a different social life than you. I could argue that I am the far more integrated Objectivist. But this is pointless. You're Zeus almighty! And one with s
  12. Yes but a girl who required me to stop watching porn would make me suspicious. Personally, I have had some great memories of sharing porn with my ex-girlfriends. It facilitated some great "fantasy sex." So again, what's wrong with porn if used like that? Also, a girl that would require me to abandon porn would be very naive about male sexuality. Men are far more visual than women (for refferrences for this all I will say is that I have read it countless times from many different scientific sources, you can believe or disbelieve it if you want). I know I am. Visual imagery is important and porn
  13. What on earth does that mean? Not legally recognized? So if a chain of prostitution houses exists (like some in Nevada, or the more developed prostitution business in Japan where it is quasi legal and there are litterally thousands of "Pink Salons"; ie oral sex bars - what a great idea) and a customer receives "service" and refuses to pay, are you saying that there should be no recourse to law courts for compensation? And you call yourself a capitalist? This is what I mean by syllogistic reasoning divorced from experience and context. If prostitution were legal, it would by definition be
  14. Or perhaps instead of dismissing them with the word "scum", I'd like arguments against their assertions. But you Mr. Zeus are so high and mighty living on Mt. Olympus and all that you can just fling a lightning bolt and lie back with a bear. It must be good to be you. And, oh by the way, its been a while since I heard it, but Peikoff's story either came from his radio show (which would be my first guess - during a segment called the "philosopher's couch") or from a Q and A of one of his lectures (I believe the Memories of Ayn Rand one).
  15. Sparked by other threads, I want to ask in all seriousness: who is an Objectivist and who is not? I know that Objectivism is the philosophy of Ayn Rand and that it is a subset of rational philosophy (the state-of-the-art for this historical era). But what qualifies as an Objectivist? Here's what bothers me, is a Christian woman who has an abortion still considered Christian even if she goes to Church three times a week? Is a Marxist business man still considered Marxist if he does not give his wealth to the working class? They would probably be considered (even by their own) as bad examples
  • Create New...