Illuminaughty
-
Posts
61 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Illuminaughty
-
-
What does one do, when there appears to be a dichotomy between ones rational values and one's sexual desires? Is it possible that one can genuinely feel sexually attracted to women he finds morally repulsive? What should one do if this appears to be the case? How does one handle feelings of fear that he will treat women worthy of his respect with no honor, because he desires them sexually as well, and does not wish them to be "just another girl"?
Any thoughts would be appreciated.
Remember. Contradictions do not exist. Check your premises and you'll find one of them to be false.
Perhaps your notion of a "good girl" isn't what you REALLY want. Look at what you DO find yourself attrcted to and understand it... question it...
-
In which case, he sure doesn't have an internet connection or a computer, or electricity. I'm not totaly unfamiliar with Ugandan washermen: they are a very honorable bunch, who do not steal or proudly advocate stealing.
You know. You're quick to call me immoral, but most of the music I download is from artists who're fine with it. Artists that make a big stink of it I don't so much as listen to or download, because I don't want to have anything to do with them. You won't find any metallica on my computer for this reason.
-
No, but its similar. Warpathing is driving around in a van with a wifi laptop using others' bandwidth to connect online. It also makes tracing dirty impossible. Thus, the advantage to doing so for hackers and ne'er do wells.
-
Wait a minute! Are you extrapolating from something you've read? If so, you should read "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal". That essay-compilation is mainly about the "Politics" branch of philosophy.
For the record, Objectivism holds that government is essential, not an "unnecessary middle man".
As for letting city governments own property, but disallowing the Feds from owning it -- that's a question of implementation. There's no reason to assume it should be so. The Federal government, regional government, State government, and so on should be able to do whatever is practical in the pursuit of their proper role. There may be some restraints, which would guard against government corruption, undue use of power, etc. However, within those limits, government may own property that is required for its function.
Clapton doesn't play here!That's why I'm not an objectivist. Because I'm an anarchist. Most all of my other beliefs go along with objectivism, however. Most, not all. In fact its on the border for me to say some, but not enough to change what I said.
-
What would this have to do with the question at hand? Are you trying to imply that since you perceive writing malicious code is harder than writing productive code, that it is better since it can dominate the other?
Hardly. Reread my original post if you don't understand what I said. I stated it clearly.
And someone who breaks into a bank has to exceed the skill of the people who designed the security system. I've no doubt that some crackers are extremely skilled (I believe that many computer security experts are ex-crackers), but so what?Anyway, its just wrong to say that all crackers are skillful. Some of them are, definitely. But a lot will just be script kiddies who use whatever program theyve managed to find on the internet, without having any real idea what theyre doing or why it works.
Indeed. It takes nothing to use a script. And script kiddies do abound. I meant creating a crack, hack or backdoor, on the ground level.
-
You're going to have to clarify what your saying here, because it makes no sense. And yes, if forced to do something against your will, it is not immoral to comply. You have no choice in the matter. That is addressed in many of Rand's works and you would have a fun time trying to refute the logic and reasoning behind them.
Every radio station, every internet radio station, to be in compliance with the law, must pay the music publishing companies to be able to play those songs for the public. It is not free music. The radio stations earn back that money by selling ad time. It is a business transaction, and the radio stations offer the songs for you to listen to for your time, to listen to their ads. They are not stealing the songs from the artists. it does not matter if you redistribute the songs or not for profit or for free, you were wrong when you downloaded it without paying.
Ah, so if someone threatens to kill your family, such as a mob unless you do hits for him (kill other people), there's nothing wrong with that situation? You must do your duty?
like I said... what about indie stations?
No, I wasn't.
-
It's not humility either.
While not being arrogant (overestimating/overstating yourself) is a virtue, being humble (underestimating/understating yourself) certainly is not.
mrocktor
Yes it is. Humility is the restraint of being arrogant.
-
I pay taxes because I am forced to, there is nothing hypocritical about that. You are not stealing because you are forced to. Did you ever to stop to think that part of the prices of the songs and albums is due to the cost of trying to find new ways to stop pirating? Are you advocating that we should regulate how much profit is allowed for a company to make? What are you trying to say? That the prices are unfair? Boohoo.
Ah, I see. And because you're forced to you're no longer to do what's good and right, yes?
I did. Its not. Its just inflated so all the middle man can mooch off the original, simple skill.
No, I'm advocating something that's not worth that much not being paid for for exorbitant rates.
They're not unfair to some, they're bogus to me though. Before I pirated I just listened to radio. It'd still be the same if the technology had not changed. If anything, I've actually bought a good deal legitimate cds since I downloaded some and got the desire to listen to specific music. Had I bought everything legit I probobly would have next to no cds and still be listening to solely the radio..
On this topic... I specifically DO NOT redistribute to make money. I think that's wrong if that makes any difference.
Also, what about internet radio stations? Independant ones? Aren't they using the songs again without permission buying the cd grants? I could be wrong at this one, I'm just curious as the thought came to mind.
-
Easy there, fella ... I wasn't trying to aggravate you; if my language was inapproriate, I'll endeavor to take more care in the future.
As inspired by AmbivalentEye's post, my assertion is that there may be a semantic difference between "humility" and "showing respect", along the same lines as the difference between altruism and kindness. I think that, given the nature of the dictionary definition of humility, one can gleen an altruistic philosophical meaning of the word. Consequently, it would be proper to investigate a selfish motivation for humility, which should begin (I think) with making such a distinction.
If we define the terms, we can identify the concepts. Perhaps there's not a specific word for the distinction I'm asserting. Perhaps I'm incorrect in thinking that humility is a consequence of altruism, and such a word is unnecessary.
I thought like you did before I saw some very noble people being humble in certian aspects. Humility IS MOST OFTEN done for the wrong reasons, but it isn't corrupt by nature, more by use.
-
I agree. Personally, I consider myself to have an ok vocabulary. But when I don't know the meaning of a word in conversation, I simply ask for it. It takes no time at all, and I have never met anyone who was annoyed as a result. I agree, too, that organizing conversation is more important than the actual words implemented in the conversation. You might consider that, Illuminaughty.
Also, it does no good to get irritated at people for not knowing words, in general. I know several people whose vocabularies are significantly lacking, but who have no problem understanding concepts when they are explained differently. I guess if it bothers you that much, just stop talking to the person. If you think their intellectual capacity isn't worth anything to you, also just stop talking to the person.
Also Illuminaughty, there are a lot of irritating people in their late teens and early twenties in Ohio. Well, at least Northeastern Ohio. As you can tell by this forum, it isn't like that everywhere. Until you get out of Ohio, you may just have to surrender to the notion that you will have very few in-person relationships, or maybe just conversations, for which you hold value.
I don't get irritated at people individually unless its really bad and there's no reason for it. It just irritates me from time to time upon reflection that I can't talk the way I enjoy.
Heh. I'm in sandusky. There's precious little worthwhile people here.
I think it would depend on the word in question. If it was something like 'obscure' (or perhaps 'irony') where I wouldnt have the faintest idea how to explain it in more basic words, then I'd probably just say "forget it" or something. If the word was fairly easy to replace with a smaller one, I'd probably give a synonym.There are different reasons for using big words(/technical terms) - one would be for literary effect (it makes your sentences sound more interesting than talking monosyllabically), while another would be conceptual (there just isnt a smaller word, or group of words, which means quite the same thing). Its obviously easier to translate one of the former than one of the latter.
Well, its possible to make mistakes. I've liked the word "vapid" for quite some time, and I use it a fair bit. However, today I found out that it meant something completely different from what I thought it did (I was under the impression it meant 'shallow').
Mostly its for the latter reason that I have trouble, but I do like talking for the former reason, but that's a luxury I can't even imagine having such problems with the latter reason.
-
Warpathing returned no results for anything like what you are talking about. There isn't even a wiki entry for it. I ran networks for 4 years and had enough contacts in the industry to know that 'most' companies don't 'consciouslly' allow unkown people to roam their networks and eat up their bandwidth.
Most corporate networks are closed. I'm talking about the free hot spot networks that allow you to use them freely.
-
I'm not the one making assumptions here - I do programming for a living...
Have you ever created a hack or virus of any kind, compared to your normal programming?
-
That's a blatant contradiction. Piracy is theft -- it's unusual to see an advocate of theft actually call their stealing "piracy". Most of the time, thieves rationalise their rights-violations by some sort of "what's the harm when you're dealing with an evil profit-making organisation" excuse. How come you can't go that last step and realise that piracy is immoral?
You miss the discrimination. I will never steal from a store. Did you not understand that part of it? I will not take stock out of a store I enter. I steal virtual copies. Xeroxes. You know, what libraries illegally allow you to do to books?
Music is being sold, you are obtaining the music without permission or recompensation, you are stealing. Plain and simple. Just because you can't afford something does not entitle you to have what others can afford. If you want to buy more music, then earn some more money, get a second job. You are worse than a thief who merely steals because he wants something, you steal because you feel it is your right to steal. You are no better than someone who refuses to work and leeches off the welfare system. There is never any justification for a little immorality.Okay. And this is unacceptable? My transgression is worse than the prices in that industry? Fine.
Do you pay taxes? Let's see if you're a hypocrite.
-
Only if you don't sell what you made out of the cd for money. That's not the kind of liscense a cd grants you.
-
Giving life is good… but quality of life counts too. It’s true that if there’s the more quantity there is potential for more quality, but that doesn’t mean there is more quality… then again quality of life includes being allowed one’s own lifestyle, and polygamy is a lifestyle…
Discuss.
If its consensual, no.
Most people hate the idea because they feel like they've been cheated marrying just one women.
I mean. Because its not fair to the women he married.
-
I disagree, Illuminaughty. There is a difference between showing someone the respect they properly deserve and humility. Just look at the language used to describe this word:If you are a professional, and I am an intern training to work with you, I will show you proper respect, as I would any boss. This would entail a certain set of manners, unless you waived them. I am not inferior in any way but as your employed subordinate, which carries with it a rational context. Within that context it's not humble for me to be quiet and listen when you're speaking to a colleague, call you "sir", or do what you tell me to do. For me to do these things is a selfish act, since I stand to gain from your experience and guidance; by interrupting you, irritating you by treating you like a college pal, of giving lip when asked to do something, I alienate you and limit what I can learn.
Someone who's humble would be an intern with the following behaviors: total deference to his trainer, silence born of the fear of saying the wrong thing or looking foolish, never meeting the eyes of his trainer, scurrying off to complete any assigned task as if it's a gift, inability to respond (or being afraid) of good-natured ribbing from office veterans (a light, innocent for of hazing, of course - not harrassment), etc.
The person exhibiting humility is doing so altruistically, completly convinced of their inferiority and lower station in life. It's no wonder these people don't get promotions.
As far as bowing is concerned, it depends on the context. Certainly the courtship example mentioned above is valid, although I can't imagine that kind of thing happens outside formal balls. With the Japanese, though, there are certain levels and contexts and types of bows. According to http://www.japan-guide.com/e/e2000.html:The head nod, the slight bow - I could see this as a contextually rational gesture, a way of appreciating hospitality, for instance. Since social status in Japan is now much like it is here - ie, wealth as a consequence of success, not birthright - it's reasonable (I think) to show such a sign of respect. Under no circumstance, though, will I do the 90-degree tilt, or get on my knees. If a situation called for that kind of thing, I'd pull a Gomer and feign ignorance.
But, I prefer a good handshake. Eye to eye. Firm grip. A nod of agreement. It is a proud mutual gesture of partners and traders. (You can get a lot of information about a person just from their handshake; probably a strong reason why it's done so much in America.)
You are wrong to think being proud and humble are mutually exclusive.
Altruism isn't the only motivation for humility. I never said humility was good always, just in some situations. If you've already humiliated someone multiple times while trying to teach them something, perhaps laying off a bit and trying a new approach may work better.
Don't jump on my ass for defending humility just because you've heard strong arguments against it before. I'm not debating those arguments, just adding in a little-paid-attention to use of humility that often goes unnoticed.
By hiding the reality that I am superior (per hypothesis)? Their suffering is not due to the fact that I am superior, as I don't suffer but rather am inspired by people superior to myself. Faking reality for others is evasion coupled with altruism and is completely irrational.mrocktor
Being humble isn't synonymous with faking reality always. This is my point. A lot of people are humble to that end, but that isn't the only way one can be humble. This is all I'm saying. I've seen some VERY talented people be humble with their skill only because they accept that they can easily slip up. Recognizing the extent of you abilities and acknowledging them isn't any more irrational than not acknowledging them and pretending to be the biggest and bestest in the world!
-
I disagree. It's much easier to destroy, than to create. The original programmer has to build an entire application, with security being only a small part of his problem - while the hacker can dedicate 100% of his time to finding a single flaw.
Disagree all you want. You're wrong. You have to put more effort into the coding to find the exploit than the original creator did. I'm sure this won't change your opinion, but I've done some hacking in my day. Feel free to make all the asinine assumptions about programming you want, I suppose.
-
Yes, well, there are better ways of showing you disagree with a price; don't buy the product. It doesn't give you the right to start violating property rights all of a sudden.
No. Because I don't accept the terms of "like it or don't be involved". I dislike a few things about america. I would not die for my country. I would also not move out.
I like music. However I don't think only the rich should be allowed to have more than a few albums without devoting their entire paycheck to cds.
I am and will be a pirate until the day I die. I will never shoplift or steal from somebody. If you can't see the differentiaion that's your own indequacy. Pirating music is simply not wrong. With today's technicological advancement it simply deflates a big part of what the music and entertainment (movie) industry produces since we can do it ourselves for relatively cheap. Because the comman man can reproduce certian things for cheaply means they should mold their industry to compensate for this.
Not that every joe who downloads music or movies is immoral.
-
Well, in the example I used my friend was talking about a cop hiding that gave him a ticket and he said "he was sitting way back i this obscene place". I kind of smirked and said "you mean obscure". We then had a good 15 minute argument about it which ended in me taking this huge dictionary out of my trunk and proving him wrong. Even then he still said there was a more modern definition that sides with his definition, and that my dictionary was too old. However, I'm not an idiot. But the reason I originally made this thread wasn't about that. Its just that I constantly have to dumb down my speech past what I consider easy to understand by most everyone because it just seems everyone around me is a dullard. I love using big words and wish I could implement new words more often, but it always seems I'm converting diesel engines to coal by having to make my speech more and more simple minded. It drives me mad but I seem like an arrogant asshole constantly trying to force my more complex speech into a conversation.
I guess what it really comes down to is I need to get the hell out of where I'm living and do something with my life. All in time.
-
If I make an out there suggestion, if you haven't seen it, go rent the movie fight club. If anything will put a good solid alternative to what's going to happen if you don't follow your dreams, that movie will smack you back into reality.
If you realized the full impact of that last sentence, I daresay you'd head for your dreams, as its the only alternative that'll really bring your life the sense of purpose and fufillment that's worth living for.
Existance should never be centered around getting by, existing, or making it through the day. Existance is something to grasp by the reigns with both hands and ride through it as hard and fast as you possibly can.
(Removed quote of entire body of immediately preceding post - sNerd)
-
No, since sentience is basic consciousness and many animals have that.
I was always under the impression sentience indicated self-awareness and thus the capability of abstract theorization, a trait no animal possesses to a signifigant extent (tool usage).
-
I just find a lot of people disturbingly don't know some very basic "big words" and it seems I'm always finding simpler and simpler ways of saying things because people don't know some basic words like obscure or obscene. Nothing even rocket science, just what seems to be as very basic vocabulary.
-
I was not sure if this belonged in "questions about objectivism" or "The Morality of Alcohol" thread, but eventually decided it merited its own thread. Please feel free to move it if I was mistaken.
A coworker of mine told me today that she planned to go out to a bar tonight, get drunk past consciousness and hopefully not remember what she did next so she wouldnt have to tell her husband (who is in Iraq). I pointed out that her desire to drink might be rooted in a desire to evade reality. Surprisingly her response of very pointed and aggressive in the affirmative. She agreed that her only desire was to be absolutely unaware of anything and forget for a short evening, everything that was wrong with her life. Completely taken aback, I had no response. What could I say to this woman that would convince her that this was wrong, and would not make her happier, or serve any purpose whatsoever? I could not think of any argument to suggest that could possibly convince her to stay conscious. I want to hear your thoughts on the matter. I do not want this to turn into a discussion of alcohol, but of a desire to be unconcious, or evade reality, so please keep that in mind in your replies.
Thank You.
Point out to her what a pathetic level of existance to she's subjected upon herself.
The only way to win this argument is to show how much she's losing by doing this. Show her how she used to enjoy things and she's compromised and lived a life she doesn't enjoy now.
That is NOT intrisic with becoming an adult, only with her.
-
Also, its true: I would never even think of sacrificing myself for anyone, but where the loop comes in is that honestly, I have no problem in dying to defend on of my principles -the role of the selfish martyr.
And: Humility is not a diplomatic tool. It is a weakness. Diplomats should always deal with each other on objective terms, and solely in that matter.
Being humble doesn't necessitate bowing down to people. Only choosing not to make them suffer for you being superior. Being humble has its place and time like any tool.
Humility is not a weakness. That's like saying not acting like a thug shows people how weak you are, so you should be an assholish brute all the time to defend yourself this sacrifice only you seem to be aware of.
RIAA Pushes Through Internet Radio Royalty Rates Designed To Kill Webc
in Intellectuals and the Media
Posted · Edited by Groovenstein
Saw this happening and wondering what you guys (objectivists) think of it. I consider myself most closely aligned with objectivism, but not to a "T". Here's the link:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070304/223155.shtml
Here's the story:
[Edit: This is where the poster quoted the entire article. Yikes.]