Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Vox

Regulars
  • Posts

    7
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Vox

  1. Nope. I was SFC L_________. I sympathized with SPC P's plight, but giggled all the same.
  2. I'll simply refer to Francisco's monologue on sex in "Atlas Shrugged" as a philosophical basis. Personally, on introspection, I've found that I've always been attracted to women in the 23-26 year old age range, but that it is based on factors other than youth, physical attractiveness, and the like. It was more a matter of having reached mental maturity while not having been "weighed down" or "jaded" with the concerns of family, child-raising, career advancement, and the like. It would appear that the argument that is being advanced is that, since some people are attracted to 13 year old CHILDREN, that perhaps a sexual attraction to underage persons is not unnatural. In accordance with the rules of debate that are posted on this site, I'll avoid mention of how personally repugnant I feel this is. Just because a large number of people agree with a particular viewpoint makes it neither right, true, or rational. Lets not forget that 44% of Germany voted for the NSDAP in 1932. Just looking at it from a purely philosophical view, how can one be attracted to a person in their young teens? Granted, there are girls who have all the requisite curves and such and are physically attractive and if you look at sex as a purely physical transaction, who cares? If merely "getting off" is the only criteria, why restrict oneselves to teens, or even human beings? If one accepts sex as merely a matter of achieving an orgasm that will be forgotten the next day, it scarcely matters what the age, sex, or even species of the provider is. If one agrees with Ayn Rand's view on sex and the philosophical underpinnings of the sexual act, it matters a great deal.
  3. Forgive me if I misunderstood, but I believe your basic question was how we could depend on the senses as a source of knowledge when the senses can act improperly due to hallucinations, drug abuse, drunkeness, and the like. I believe the short answer is that 'normally functioning' senses are the basis of knowledge. You don't take how things smell or taste when you have a severe head cold as their actual taste or smell, but how they do so when you are breathing normally. Because a man happened to have just had an accident and had two broken legs when you met him doesn't mean he can't walk, nor does a car that just blew a rod demonstrate how automobiles normally function. The standard is how senses function in a normal, healthy person who is not impaired by injury, disease (mental or physical), or under the influence of drugs or alcohol. My question, in return, is that if sense perception is not the path to knowledge, what is? I can't imagine a sensible alternative.
  4. Thanks for all your kind words of welcome! To the question from BoldStandard on history: I love history in general and I have a decent general knowledge, but I'm a bit fickle insofar as that goes: what interests me changes as the winds blow, and today I might be fascinated by the Civil War, next month by the Revolution, and tomorrow by the War of the Roses. I used to find Nazi Germany fascinating and am still interested and reasonably well-read on the era, though I don't claim to be an expert. About 10 years ago I was a huge Civil War buff and spent a fortune buying the entire 127 volume "Official Records of the War of the Rebellion" as well as the entire bound reprint of "Confederate Veteran Magazine" from 1893 until its termination in 1933, as well as the other standard texts such as "Battles & Leaders", Douglas Freeman's "R.E. Lee", and dozens of other works. Then, I kind of lost interest and hardly read anything Civil War related anymore, although those long, uniform rows of bound volumes look impressive in my bookcase in the living room and impresses visitors with my scholarly refinement. Lately, my interests are European Imperialism in Africa in the 19th Century (Stanley, Gordon, and Kitchener are my favorite characters from that era) and World War I (though I'd like it a lot more if I could pronounce French properly and be able to say all the names of the battles). I also enjoy the history of the 20th Century from 1945 onwards. I'm generally ignorant on the Middle Ages, Renaissance, and Reformation, though I have a fair general knowledge of the high points and important personalities & events. In short: I know a good bit about a few things, a little bit about everything, and am an expert in nothing. To Mark and his thanks for my service: my thanks to you as well. I made a decent living for almost 24 years as a result of the taxes you and others paid and I currently enjoy a nice pension and benefits and will for the rest of my life. America is a great nation for many reasons, of which her superb military machine and awesome record of courage and skill on countless battlefields is merely one. Behind every soldier are 1000 civilians, making America a great and powerful nation in the factories, fields, assembly lines, boardrooms, and offices. Our military power is a combination of the courage and skill of our soldiers, and the incredible productivity of our civilian economy. Our troops hold the front lines so civilians in the rear can continue America's great work. The civilians in the rear produce the material wealth that give our soldiers the edge in their battles against our enemies. The relationship is symbiotic and the thanks should go both ways. To JMegan: The fact that "twentysomethings" abound doesn't bother me: I don't think 41 is old...I like to think that I'm merely in an advanced stage of youth and will remain so as long as I can pluck out my gray hairs faster than they can grow in. I still have most of my teeth and all of the ones in front. I knew everything too when I was 25 (hell, when I was 16, though my parents and teachers stubbornly failed to acknowledge it), and still do at the age of 41. I still think I know it all, but now I not only have infinite knowledge, but several years experience at it's application. Again, thanks for your warm welcome and I hope I can make a useful contribution to the discussions on the site.
  5. I don't wish to give the impression of hair-splitting, but I think before you can give an answer to the question, you have to define what makes a military leader "the greatest" or "great". There are several different criteria you could use. For instance, if you were to just look at the size of the result, an argument could be made for several battles and commanders. As an example, Manstein & Guderian's plan for the Battle of France in 1940 enabled Germany to defeat utterly France and throw the UK off the continent in a few weeks, even though the Germans actually were outnumbered by the Allies. If you looked at out thinking one's opponent and defeating him with an audacious plan, Robert E. Lee is the man. The Battle of Chancellorsville is one of MANY examples. Defeating multiple enemies who outnumber you, by quick movement and decisive action: I don't think anything beats Stonewall Jackson's Valley Campaign of 1862. Success in organizing an enormous campaign with unparalleled logistics requirements and competing/quarreling subordinates, branches, governments, and allies: Eisenhower and the Normandy invasion come to mind. Again, just examples of what I'm talking about. As a Southern Civil War buff, I'm somewhat partial to General Lee, but that's more emotional than purely reasonable, since in the final analysis, what's important is winning, and in the end, he lost, although he achieved some remarkable feats during his Confederate career. I just think that being a military leader requires skill and success in several different aspects: technical ability, leadership, managerial skills, imagination and intelligence, etc, and which you think are most important will influence who you'd choose as the "greatest".
  6. Not exactly heroism in the classic sense, but it shows some good ole fashioned grit. I was in Afghanistan with my engineer battalion from April 2004 through April 2005. One of the many little odd jobs we had was "Hadji Guard", Hadji being a slang term for the locals. About 20 of our troops were detailed to escort locals who were driving dump trucks and cement trucks for our various projects on post. It was one of the most boring jobs imaginable and involved a lot of waiting around doing nothing. Because of this, our "best and brightest" weren't assigned to this. And, sitting around bored, soldiers will fidget. People fidgeting with loaded weapons is a recipe for disaster. So it was with Specialist P____. Standing there, his M16 muzzle on the top of his boot, smoking a cigarette, he accidentally touched the trigger on the rifle in which he had accidentally put a round in the chamber. In the loud noise of the cement plant where this was occuring, no one noticed the sharp report of the M16 firing a single round into his foot. His eyes briefly widened and in a calm voice he said: "Could one of you guys give me a ride to sick call"? When asked why, he said "I just shot myself in the foot". When a couple of guys grabbed him to help him towards the HMMWV a few yards off, he pulled away and said "Hold on, let me finish my cigarette", calmly and slowly finished as the ground under him turned red. Then, having finished, he stamped out the burning butt with his good foot and said "ok, let's go". P____ showed not the slightest hint of pain nor cried out at all, even when the battalion surgeon was probing the wound for broken bones (fortunately, it missed them all and made a clean hole). He also manfully endured the absolute storm of abuse, jokes, bathroom graffiti and the like that followed from everyone, the Colonel on down, for his perceived intellectual deficiencies. Because of his courage under fire, both self-inflicted from his rifle, and verbal from everyone else, I think Specialist P___ is a true American hero!
  7. Hi! I was googling for some Objectivist texts and stumbled onto this forum and I hope that I'll be happy to have done so. Although I've met a few people online who are admirers of Ayn Rand, I've never participated in a forum specifically dedicated to Objectivism. I hope I can contribute profitably to the discussions here. As for me personally: I'm Michael, a 41 (42 next month) year old from VERY rural northern Louisiana. I retired as a Sergeant First Class/E-7 from the military back in September after returning from a year in Afghanistan and after almost 24 years of service (I joined at 17). Currently, I'm not doing anything yet, having promised myself a year off after I retired, which I'm thoroughly enjoying. I am a history nut and was a history major in college. I'm an avid reader, mostly history, although I occasionally read the classics just because you are "supposed" to, and the occasional work of philosophy, Ayn Rand especially. I'm reasonably well-read and bright enough for a poor dumb redneck from Louisiana I was introduced to Ayn Rand by pure chance, about 20 years ago. I was attending college and majoring in history, minoring in philosophy, and my sister and I, as usual, gave each other books for Christmas, both of us being heavy readers. She went to a book store and just grabbed several at random from the philosophy section, one of which was "The Virtue of Selfishness". I loved it and read it cover to cover several times. Hooked, I bought "Philosophy: Who Needs it?", then "Capitalism, the Unknown Ideal", then "Atlas Shrugged". Before it was over, I'd bought everything she'd published (except the Night of January 16th) in book form, as well as the big, bound collection from "The Objectivist Newsletter". They say (and I saw the comment on this forum too while browsing earlier) that you "outgrow Ayn Rand". I think not. I'm pushing 42 and have been an admirer for 20 years and don't see that changing in the future. Perhaps it's easier to concentrate on ideas when you are young and single, and some people allow themselves to be worn down by the chores of career, marriage, kids, etc, as they grow older. But, if you enjoy great ideas, are committed to principles, and believe your mind is both your best tool and best source of amusement, you never will. Anyway, enough babbling. Glad to be here and hope for the chance to get to know you all and have some enjoyable, informative, and mentally-challenging conversation.
×
×
  • Create New...