always_learning
-
Posts
138 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by always_learning
-
-
Peikoff’s new book highlights what is, for me, a profound and glaring difference between him and Ayn Rand: fundamental benevolence (AR) vs. fundamental malevolence (LP) in their perspectives on the universe.
I just began reading the Kindle sample of DIM and I had a very similar thought, at least to what I think you mean. I do believe that Peikoff intends for the book to bring about some change or progress or at least recognition but I also sense a tone of pessimism in his writing. I recall having this same thought when I saw Peikoff share his personal thoughts on why he would
in the 1992 election. His purpose was to improve the political landscape but he was doing so in a negative fashion - passionately, in my view, calling for the president's removal. With that said, I'd like to save my judgement until I read the entirety of the book. This is just an early observation.His ideas and observations are intriguing to say the least, even if they don't offer a great deal of hope. (Perhaps he does - I'm very early into the book.)
You're implying that Peikoff's goal is to help totalitarianism triumph with this book?I do think "malevolence" is the wrong word to use. Malevolence does imply a wishing of harm.
-
This version of King Kong is excellent. The beginning, though a bit long, sets up bulk of the film beautifully giving profound insight to the character of its main players and the time period in which they live. Kong himself is fantastically astounding, from his mind blowing CG, movements, and facial expressions to his intimate portrayal of his love for beauty.
The CG is excellent, the acting is good, the action is riveting, the thrills are frequent, and Kong is both terrifyingly violent and heartwarmingly sweet. King Kong is a superb romantic action movie about a beast’s extraneous affection for beauty.
-
I have never heard of this being true. Would you care to provide us with a link to prove this claim, or for starters tell us who in the real (ARI) Objectivist community believes this? Because this:There are also a large number of Objectivists who do not want to permit homosexual marriages.
does not make sense to me. Maybe you are simply not getting the point across that you are intending but this sounds like the exact same thing as a heterosexual marriage. What is the difference?Instead they offer a separate legal agreement to acknowledge some of the legal issues which are legally acknowledged by marriage.
Then what is the source of their disagreement?I personally know many of the Objectivists on both sides of this debate, and most are "straight shooting Objectivists." None of the issues on either side are religious in nature.What do you think I have been doing in all of my preceding posts, if not providing evidence?Evidence for what? You have not said. You said that there was confusion and that Richard and I were wrong about the source, would you mind telling us what you think the confusion is really about?
I think that if there was a direct distinction between legal marriage and religious marriage, like if the state only referred to it as a civil union or something of the like, that it would help people recognize that a marriage in the eyes of the state has nothing to do with any religious beliefs or practices. Once people realize it is only a legal matter they would not care to ban it, at least not in as many numbers nor as avidly. If you believe me to be wrong, please show why and do not just say that that is what you have been attempting to prove the whole time, because for a major chunk of this conversation I thought it pretty apparent that you were not even aware of what was being discussed (the use of the term marriage).
Also this:
I consider a bit rude and too.If I have been talking to myself, then this is a waste of time. -
The allowance of gay sex is not in the constitution. Why are they not trying to ban that? You are right, however, that once it is perceived as a legal issue people back off. This is what I think would be helpful.There is nothing about marriage protected in the constitutionPrejudice is often masked by other issues.If 55% of America was that prejudice they would not have to mask it.
-
I hated Troy. They really turned it into a movie about how bad war is. The movie brings you close to both sides of the war, they only bad guy was the Greek king who wants to viciously, for no real reason, destroy Troy, and they do of course. The love story was pathetic mostly because Paris, prince of Troy, is a wimp and a coward but Helen loves him anyway. I would have got up and walked out but Achilles was a bad ass. Brad Pitt, and whoever choreographed his moves, saved the movie. If they wanted to make a good movie they should have made it only about Achilles and left out the end. I had way too many ticks with this movie to be able to look past them all and enjoy the film.
-
I just started lifting again. I going to use BlackSabbath's work out outlined on the first page (HD). We will see how it goes, it looks like a good routine.
-
Then why are they willing to ban gay marriage and not other gay activities?No, what's obvious is the prejudice against gay people and gay activity. They're not confused, they are bigoted.prejudice against gay people and gay activity in general, in that most denominations view homosexuality as "not compatible with the scripture".True, but why is only marriage ban worthy? I think it is because people do not view marriage as only a legal issue. They see all other gay activities as freedom of speech or something else that is legally protected by the state.
-
Then do you care to say why?I would say that a similar number of Objectivists think the same, and it is not because of religious issuesGay marriage remains a contentious issue among Objectivists, as does homosexuality itself.I don’t see how a straight shooting Objectivist would find anything wrong with gay marriage. Anyone who wants to be legally acknowledged as someone else’s wife/husband or whatever should be allowed that. Marriage should, in the eyes of the state, be only a legal matter. What many Objectivists don’t agree with is homosexuality in general, morally. But if marriage is indeed only viewed as legal documentation then what is the problem?
Yes, there is confusion, but not the one that you and Richard thinkAgain, care to say why you think we are wrong? What is the confusion?
If anyone who thinks that the confusion is not due to religious influence I would be interested to hear what your take on it is. But I am not interested in only hearing that you think I am wrong with no evidence to back your opinion. I find that very rude.
-
I don't believe their prejudice is really rooted in the word marriage, it's rooted in the affront that gay sexual activity represents to their values and religious system.
It is defiantly not rooted in the word. The word is just a holder for the concept. I am saying that their confusion lies in the real concept behind the words. I believe that most of those who appose gay marriage do so because they think marriage is a religious concept, it is not. Do you think that 55% of Americans would be for a ban on all homosexual behavior? I don't. If what you are saying is true I would think that about the same amount of people who are against gay marriage would be against gay everything; gatherings, parades, bars, national coming out day (yes they have one), etc. Why are they only willing to ban gay marriage? People understand the right to free speech, they are often confused about the reason behind marriage.
-
Not that this has anything to do with the issue, but what I think Richard was referring to when he compared the Greek concept of marriage to slavery was that women were often, depending upon what time period we are talking about, bought from there fathers/families by there soon to be husbands. During a different time women were betrothed by force before they were old enough to walk. They were considered property like a slave. They were not, however, usually forced to do labor. A marriage is, according to the Merriam online dictionary: “1-the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law”. If you were being bought by your husband or subject to arranged marriage, this is not what we today would call a marriage.
-
I know the difference, and so do millions of Americans.
Then why are 55% of Americans against gay marriage? Its a religious thing. There is obvious confusion.
-
I think those same people would be against gay marriage regardless of a change in verbage.
Even if the gay couple was only engaging in a civil union? If the state stopped using the religious tainted term “marriage” don’t you think the religious types would not get as involved? This is not something that needs to happen, it is just merely a suggestion, one that makes sense to me and that I think would work. We all know that the purpose of a documented marriage is for legal purposes, but nearly everyone who is against gays getting married, 55% of America (according to USA Today), think that its purpose is mainly religious in nature. Find someone who is against gay marriage and ask them what they think marriage is, you might here them mention that it is also a legal matter but don’t hold your breath.
-
From Richard's post
I agree here. I simply see no reason to call that legal document a "marriage" certificate rather than a "certificate of unionship" or something of the like.
From Stephen's post
I am at a complete loss to understand your concern for "religious marriage."Stephen,
Why do you keep thinking that Richard is concerned with religious marriage? It is very clear to me that his concern lies solely in the confusion in the use of the term, which I think has become very relevant within this discussion. As it is used today, marriage is often used interchangeably as both a religious and legal ceremony. As you said yourself there is a difference between the two, don’t you think that there should be a distinction between the two?
And Ash,
I don’t really think the ancient Greek/Roman’s view or concepts of marriage, if they can really compare to today’s conception of marriage, is relevant to this issue. Richard’s point was that in today’s culture the term marriage was taken from the churches use of it, which is true, and that all this contributes to the confusion about what the real purpose of a marriage is.
-
I took a look at that forum…….surprise, surprise. It is funny how down right insane some of the people are.
-
and you'll be able to make a substantial contribution to the world if you want to.
What? How about, you’ll be able to make a “contribution” to yourself.
-
I saw Van Helsing today, it was great. It was a fun, exciting, and full of thrills movie about the classic duel of good vs. evil. I highly recommend it.
-
There are studies showing that weightlifting is more aerobic than aerobics but I would need time to look them up
I know when I lift my heart gets going pretty good and from reading what little I have read about Mentzer’s program, I’d think I’d be sweating pretty good by the end.
-
A fetus could be destroyed by the human it is a part of too. As Betsy stated, there many times when one does not choose to become pregnant. If you don’t choose to sign the contract, the contract is not valid. What if you did chose to have a child (choose to sign the contract) and at some point you realize that the other half of the contract was not going held up? Maybe the child will be born with some disease, mental or physical, or maybe you find out that the pregnancy will be a threat to your life, or maybe something happened in your life, loss of income, loss of significant other, etc. My point here is if you choose to sign a contract you can choose the circumstances of that contract before you sign it.
-
Do you honestly believe anything that man says? He changes what he says daily.
-
Welcome!
-
-
Nice to have you here.
-
“We already know she (Rand) wouldn't vote for Bush since she didn't vote for Reagan who had views similar to Bush's on abortion.”
You KNOW this? Are you arguing that Rand would not have voted for Bush because his stance on abortion is similar to Reagans? I would be indifferent in this election if was not for the fact that Kerry will do nothing to prevent bombs from falling on my head. This is a very poor reason to not vote.
Also, I find Richard's portrayal of your position is quite accurate based on what you have posted in this forum
-
I agree the site looks good. It is laid out well, fairly easy to navigate, and shows all recent new/updates right on the front page. However, the fact that it does not work on other browsers is a major problem. I took a look at the source code, and it’s a mess. A lot of their problems are completely unnecessary. I also agree it loads a little slow, based on its content it should be able load fairly fast, another large mistake. Until I noticed these problems I thought ARI’s site was a lot better. I use IE so I never saw the page errors, and I’m on a T1 connection so I don’t notice the loading speed. The integration problem is very common among sites as large as theirs. It would take some time to fix but it would improve the site greatly, but I think that is the least of their site worries right now.
Why don’t you guys use IE? I think it’s the best browser out there.
The DIM Hypothesis - by Leonard Peikoff
in Nonfiction
Posted
That is what I assumed. Pessimism is the great term for what I sense when I listen to and read his work, though I hate to focus on it. His work is amazing.