Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Moebius

  • Birthday 02/06/1982

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
  • Interests
    Basketball, Games, Film, Novels, Art, Philosophy, Psychology, Anthropology, Mythology, and Technology.

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
  • Chat Nick
  • Real Name
  • Copyright
    Public Domain
  • Biography/Intro
    Color: Blue Number: 7 Element: Air Season: Autumn Aspect: Truth Race: Terran Weapon: Blade Animal: Falcon/White Wolf Class: Ranger/Rogue Alignment: Neutral Food: Meat Drink: Green Tea/Sake
  • School or University
    University of Rochester
  • Occupation
    Stock Broker

Moebius's Achievements

Advanced Member

Advanced Member (5/7)



  1. I'm in the market right now, but kind of just playing at guerilla warfare with only 10% of my bankroll, and mostly just shorting.
  2. The idea of such campaigns is to spark conversations and discussions on the topic, much as we are doing now. Emotions is a powerful tool. Certainly you cannot deny that at least on campus, the bake sale in all likelihood generated far more attention and discussion on the topic than any essay would.
  3. Actually Asians would probably pay something closer to $2.50 for getting none of the benefits of affirmative action as far as jobs or college admissions goes (in fact held to a higher standard than whites in some cases due to a lopsided over-representation) yet still suffering from many of prejudices and discriminations that comes with being a racial minority.
  4. Would being taxed at gun point be considered a violation of rights? Whose freedom does polygamy deprive? The spouses'? Because then monogamy would just be "depriving freedom" from one person as supposed to multiple people. Either way it would be immoral. But then again if the marriage is voluntary then I could hardly see how any freedom is being deprived. From China's point of view the land is owned by the 1.6 billion people, not just the relatively small group of ethnic minority. Again if a group of Texans want to set up a small government that does not violate human rights, the United States is not obligated to simply provide them with a piece of land with which to do so.
  5. What further complicates the issue is that there are a large number of Han Chinese nationals living in the greater-Tibetan area, each presumably with their own property. I assume that if Tibet indeed secedes they would simply have to give up their land holdings for little or no compensation. ROC as in the government that currently resides in Taiwan? That would be an unlikely event to say the least. The difference in population is 23 million vs 1.6 billion. Taiwan can barely hang on to its own sovereignty without constantly being bullied by the PRC, let alone making a claim on Tibet, or any parts of China.
  6. Just about every country in the world invaded someone at one point or another to claim their current territory. You might as well argue that we have no right to occupy the United States because we slaughtered a bunch of indians to get it. Tibet wasn't exactly a free country before it was invaded -- it was a theocracy headed by a "reincarnating" Dalai Lamas. As a matter of two dictatorships attacking one another, legality is not really an issue.
  7. Yes I meant a hypothetical Texas. It could really be anything -- say a bunch of brilliant Objectivists got together and wanted to create a truly free country. I agree that Tibet could not realistically defeat the Chinese army. My question is more specifically about property rights -- what morally entitles you to simply claim a huge area of land as your own. Instead of Texas, if a said group of Objectivists wanted to start their own country, would it be moral for them to just walk into Texas and claim it as theirs?
  8. But doesn't that make your moral standards a relative one rather than an absolute one? Texas for instance could theoretically set up a freer and less oppressive regime than the United States, hence be better off and "a step in the right direction". How do you logically end up with the conclusion that working within America is better than to outright secede? And why should Tibet not work within China rather than to secede? After all China has been progressively freer over the last couple of decades.
  9. I was wondering what gives a group of people the right to form their own country - especially if the new country is supposed to be situated in lands currently owned by an existing country. In Tibet's case they would be seceding from an autocratic government, only to form a theocracy. Would that be morally justified? Would the same reasoning apply if Texas was to secede from the United States?
  10. In real life I'd imagine that people would fight much harder to either detonate the bomb or to prevent it from being detonated -- what with their lives being on the line and all. Personally I probably would have just jumped the ship. I doubt WB had much to do with the scene though. I mean the scene pretty much had to end that way or else the Joker wins.
  11. I live in Taiwan, so I certainly do not disagree. But this seems like a really random thing to tack on.
  12. The link pretty much mirrors your view. I completely agree though that the IOC is acting like China's bitch. What I would like to see is for this matter to be thoroughly investigated, and if found guilty, the Chinese gold medals stripped. But then I'd hope that this incident would stir up some more discussion on the whole age restriction thing and have it simply scrapped all together. To me there is no doubt that the best gymnasts won during the competition.
  13. They deleted it to quell the international controversy. Given the state of Chinese internet, they probably would have done it regardless of whether the documents were fake. I already stated why I think the case is inconclusive. It's obvious that you disagree. Without any further evidence I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I'm not sure where I misunderstood. Does the US athletes doping represent the American view on truth as a general proposition? Let me clarify. What I actually said was based on what the guy did, he does not qualify as a hacker. And then as an additional note, hackers in general are not a very credible source because they are essentially morally bankrupt thieves. I don't dispute that this IT guy accessed a search engine cache and found some documents. Let's put this physical appearance issue in context: here we are talking about telling the difference in appearance between a 14 year old (their alleged age) and a 16 year old (their official age). At least one of the Chinese gymnasts I recall was even 15 and some odd months on the official documents you keep mentioning. Are you honestly trying to say that you can reliably tell a 15 year old from a 16 year old just based on looks? Especially when these girls are already pre-selected for being small and youthful in appearance and in all likelihood have stunted growth from years of training beginning at a young age? At least with the official documentation there is a case to be made, with the only difference being you consider it conclusive and I don't. Physical appearance on the other hand shouldn't even be in the discussion. If China in fact cheated, they are guilty of breaking a rule. In this case what I consider a bad and hypocritical rule. It's supposed to protect kids from over-training at a young age, but it's pretty clear that both in China and in the US, nobody is backing off of those kids much, if at all. But alright, they should still have their medals stripped if the case is proven. The US gymnastic team on the other hand (well, the coach and the director anyhow) kept releasing statements that implied that the US would have won if the Chinese kids weren't underage. That is straight up a load of BS, as anyone who watched the actually event will be able to tell you. The US squad fucked up so many times that it wouldn't have mattered much how the Chinese did. Any mediocre performance would have won that pairing. To me that is either an attempt to deceive or straight up evasion of reality. At the end of the day though, if the current evidence satisfies you, then there really isn't much point to continue this discussion. If I had to bet, I'd probably bet that at least one of those girls was underage too. I just don't think that what we have amounts to a definitive case.
  14. Well what should their goal be, if not to win? This is sports. The other teams' goal should be to win every single game they can also, doing everything that they are able. Not to run away whenever someone is "too good". Again I think the decision to outright forfeit is teaching the wrong values to the kids. I don't play chess, so I would turn down the master chess player's challenge also. But I DO play basketball, and if Michael Jordan said that he wanted to play me 1 on 1, I'd say bring it on. If I lose, I lose. But I sure as hell would try my hardest to win. As a more realistic example, I am 6'2" and 190 lbs, and in my recreational basketball league I have often had to guard players that are 6'6" or 6'7" and 200+ lbs. Do I sit there and complain about how those players are too big for a rec league and should be banned? No. I go home, I lift weights, I practice, and the next time I meet them I go harder.
  • Create New...