Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About bobsponge

  • Birthday 01/01/1975

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Chat Nick
  • Copyright
  • Biography/Intro
    I draw smutty cartoons for a living.
  • Occupation

bobsponge's Achievements


Member (4/7)



  1. Yes, but when you take rational examination of static things like visual art, in order to disqualify one type and qualify another, you have to add metaphysical/mystical attribute to one and not the other, which in essence would be irrational, and then thereby making her definitions self-contradictory? It seems like if one follows Ayn's rules on what constitutes art, one must abandon much of the foundation which she laid down beneath said art theories. I agree with a lot of O'ist stuff, but not all, and one thing makes me wonder-- if it is such a perfect closed system, why is it such a debated philosophy?
  2. There's no other way to fight taxes than to not pay them. Unless you have logical alternatives, in which case I am all ears.
  3. What are you insinuating? How many great numbers are insulted? Let's have a census of insulted people, please.
  4. I think Ayn had a special bitter place in her heart for modern artists. I don't blame her. However-- how is it rational to officially exclude one form of visual input while including another? Wouldn't that be irrational? Is this another case of people following blindly word-for-word saying that 'because Ayn said so, them's the rules'?
  5. Just got Sid Meier's Railroads. Much fun. For those of you who dream of dabbling in Taggart Transcontinental's sandbox. Kiss a few good solid evenings goodbye when you first get it Just getting the hang of it now, plan to test out the online multiplayer tonight. If anyone else has this game, maybe we can run an O'ist competition.
  6. Being an artist, and having sold 7 years of my soul to the video games industry in the past, I think I'm fairly well qualified to post this: Art's purpose, at least to me, seems to be to (1) to put the artist's emotional or physical expression into a medium in which he can share that sensation, and (2) to accomplish, as best he can, pushing that sensation into the viewer/listener/reader etc. Some would argue that my smutty pinups are not art, however they incite lust in their viewers, which pretty much directly proves point 1 and 2. If you reject the adult material on 'societal value' premises, then you're clearly failing your Objectivist principles. When you look at a painting, you feel something. Most of the time (I do think that Campbells Soup paintings are a joke, but some folks live them). When you read a book, you feel something. When you listen to music, you feel something. When you see a show, or a movie... on and on. Video games are simply another medium in which artists, storytellers, and musicians can immerse their audience in something in order to share an experience. Just because it is a large collaborative effort, nor a commercial effort, does not disqualify it as an artistic medium. I make my art for money too-- it is what brings home the bacon. Because one profits from art does not disqualify ones effectiveness. To apply a double standard for labor vs art is to, once again, forget your Objectivist principles. Labor is labor, be it forging steel or painting a canvas. Steel workers are in the business of making raw material for modern culture and their technique could be likened to an art; artists are in the business of making things visually interesting; video game producers are in the business of making entertaining experiences. What we do is what we do-- specialization in any industry can be called 'the art of...' I detest the double-standard that art is some voodoo metaphysical holier-than-thou 'lucky' endowment we somehow absorb. It is not. Artistic talent is something that one works hard for their entire life, always improving but rarely perfecting, at least in their own eyes. Same goes for any other field.
  7. Shazam! Right from the random quote on the front page: The citizen who thinks he sees that the commonwealth's political clothes are worn out, and yet holds his peace and does not agitate for a new suit, is disloyal; he is a traitor.--Mark Twain
  8. Let's examine something... What if, suppose, there came about a federal law which made it illegal to love your children?
  9. "There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt." ~Ayn Rand
  10. One scary thing, though, is that he cried out for the US to 'lead the fight against global warming' makes me gag. doh, I now see thats already been covered.
  11. Prove that one, please. That's got to be one of the funniest things I have ever heard.
  12. Gruss Gott! What a can of worms this has become. Let me clarify some things. I do not oppose fair taxation. I oppose income taxation, its roots, and its current use. The US government needs to learn that it should not (A) shoot itself in the foot by taking an interest loan out for its own bloody currency, and ( should not bite the hand that feeds it. Income taxation is immoral on all counts, no matter how you chop it up or break it down, and none of you can argue against that fact. Turning-in of such a protestor would be immoral as well-- you'd be aiding in the removal of the rights of someone else by proxy-- someone who is protesting the immoral suppression of his rights in the first place. Support of income taxation is also immoral for the same reasons. Opposition or protesting of an immoral law by noncompliance is not immoral. It's called civil disobedience, and it happens all the time. It's how Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on the bus, and how the patriots dumped tea into Boston Harbor. It's how Ghandi sat down in nonviolent protest. Just because a law is on paper does not make it right. The acts of the Nazis were legal in Germany, yet they denied people their basic human rights. Did that make it ok? In closing, I'd like to add something, oddly enough from Malcolm X: "You're not to be so blind with patriotism that you can't face reality. Wrong is wrong, no matter who does it or says it."
  13. I know they'll figure it out eventually-- their computers will probably start squawking sometime soon. I don't really care, though. There's really nothing they'll be able to do to me unless they go and violate all sorts of international laws (wouldn't be a first! ) It has to be worth their time to follow up on the myriad crap they would have to follow up on, and in the end they'll be running into a long list of dead ends.
  14. Through all the massacre details, I kept thinking "man, if just one of those students or faculty had a gun for their own protection, they could have probably taken the madman down." It is also worth mentioning that the campus had specifically banned weapon-carrying. Perfect grounds for rapists, muggers, and other assaults.
  15. Have you read any of Thoreau's treatise on civil disobedience? It's a good read.
  • Create New...