Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About RI1138

  • Birthday 02/02/1986

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Previous Fields

  • Country
  • State (US/Canadian)
  • Copyright
    Must Attribute
  • School or University
    Carleton University

RI1138's Achievements

Junior Member

Junior Member (3/7)



  1. I'm no theif, but I've broken into three houses that I've lived in after finding that I've been locked out. Basically all you have to do is take off the screen and open the window (sometimes you don't even need anything to pry it with). If the screen is on the inside, the flimsy metal tabs that hold the screen don't help, they bend under slight pressure. If a theif wants to get in, he will, unless you go to exhausting lengths to stop them.
  2. reminds me about an ad I saw on a bus: "If both of these people smoked a pack a day eventually one of them will die from it" (emphasis mine)
  3. because many global warming activists support using the state to handicap industry.
  4. This is the point where you steal everything they own (and give it to the poor) and denounce them for being selfish when the try to stop you.
  5. also note that these third world countries are hardly in a free market situation. It is in fact the governments (the third world and first world ones) that are causing the problems. Although, I do think you can agree with the Marxists in that the situation is not ideal.
  6. even if you hear on this forum and others that it does in fact end up philosophically sound?
  7. I don't think this is anything suprising. It's well known that animals can conduct learned behavior, but can they actually think? The results are certainly impressive, but they don't mention how many repititions it took to get them to "learn" something. Animals have memory, but they do not have the capacity for rationality.
  8. happy belated birthday nofearnolimits! About people not listening to your arguments/opinions when you are young. It happens to everybody. I hope you are not trying to debate anything with your parents, as they will always see you as their child, and probably wont take you too seriously until you're changing THEIR dipers . It is definately possible to be smarter and more rational than people who are older than you, the age of a brain means nothing if it's empty. A better approach to talking about serious issues with 'older' people might be to take the Socratic approach rather than trying to come up with proof as to why they are wrong. Question their beliefs, why do they think this? how did they come at that conclusion? This type of approach might make those who would normally dismiss you because of your age engage in serious discussion with you because they will think they are teaching you something, and maybe you'll learn something too. Most of the people you hear those Ad Hominem arguments from are probably people who don't understand logic in the first place. Ask them what a syllogism is and they'll probably think it's some kind of raunchy sex act. I think its a good thing to get into these ideas when you're young because then you will be able to see though all of the false people in the world and ultimately not lose sight of your dreams. Recently, I've been listening to a lot of Freedomain radio podcasts by Stefan Molyneux (Anarchocapitalist, but still heavily influenced by Rand) and he argues that its not even worth it to debate with these people. You should spend your time looking for people with open minds who are genuinely interested in seeking the truth, because in the end you will have much better conversations with these people, rather than getting into confrontational arguments with close minded individuals (remember that you gain nothing by engaging in a poor conversation). But if you want to be taken seriously, you have to prove that you're capable of something. Once you start doing things that people think you are too young to do, they'll start to listen. edit: I'm 20 if anyone's interested.
  9. upon the first reading of Atlas Shrugged, I did find Galt seemed rather one dimensional, however, when I went back months later and re-read just the third part, Galt seemed like an amazingly deep character (since he was the personification of Rand's philosophy), while Rearden was just "some guy" . What one has to remember about Galt is that he is a person with no contradictions in his thinking, and therefore does not have to struggle like other characters. Perhaps its a fault of Rand's writing that she attached Galt too closely to her philosophy, so for someone reading AS without knowing much of her philosophy he seems rather flat, although I don't see how it could be any other way.
  10. what brower are you using? (anyone who has gotten this message) I use firefox, and have not gotten the message yet.
  11. One problem with turning AS into a movie, and it has something to do with a 60 page monologue But really, that thing was described as going on for at least two hours. How could such an important part of the book be translated onto screen? (without boring much of the audience) Although I do think a movie such as this would make a good response to "an inconvient truth"
  12. Hah I also put my currency as the Roark, I guess great minds really do think alike sometimes
  13. That's a good point. Did Rand state how long she thinks it should be? 70 years seems like a decent amount of time, but is apparently arbitrary.
  14. Okay, I can agree to the points in the last two posts. I suppose that it then follows that intellectual property should be able to be exchanged indefinately?
  • Create New...