Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Chops

Regulars
  • Posts

    334
  • Joined

Everything posted by Chops

  1. What is being discussed here is the concept "prudent predator", which is a frequent topic of discussion. The prudent predator believes he can "get away with" violating rights and ultimately achieve happiness through that means. This thread is probably king of the prudent predator threads on this board, clocking in at 34 pages. The quick response, gotten from this post, is "It seems predation is prudent, so long as you're the only predator".
  2. Nope. The concepts "Red" and "Blue" are direct percepts. Without having EVER perceived those colors, there's no way to understand it. Can you describe the smell of fresh cookies to someone who doesn't have a sense of smell or taste? That, I have no idea.
  3. Liquid gasoline is quite stable, requiring heat to explode and put the vehicle under any pressure. Diesel is even more stable, which requires much more heat to ignite (you can't ignite diesel with a hand lighter, for example). For gasoline that to be a threat, you require oxygen, a flame or spark, and a ruptured tank, and even then, it'll mostly just burn, and not explode. Really, how often do you hear of cars actually exploding (not counting movies, obviously). Conversely, with the Air Car you have a 4500psi tank and if that ruptures at all, that pressure has to go somewhere, and four thousand pounds isn't something to sneeze at.
  4. I stand corrected, my apologies. While you've already let the cat out of the bag by demonstrating your affinity for Rand, I would try to refrain from "Randisms" though, because I'm sure they'll just be dismissed in the same "Rand isn't a philosopher" manner. Instead prove your points on their own merits, and in the process showing that Rand is in fact worthy of the title "Philosopher." The argument must be built from the fundamentals - Upton and I are in agreement there. I'm also quite a fan of Ifat's advice of pointing out the flaws. Find where a contradiction naturally follows from Christina's claims, and point it out.
  5. The legitimacy of compromise in certain situations is contextual, there isn't any evil when you and your wife compromise between colors when painting your living room. There is evil, however, in compromising one's happiness or life. Is it acceptable to compromise away the basic requirements of one's life? You wouldn't certainly say no, but what about Christina? If one's life is in jeopardy, is compromise still an acceptable route? I would also try to refrain from the "A is A", "Law of Identity", and other things that only really have meaning for Objectivists. Non-Objectivists and folks who aren't that familiar with Rand won't necessarily know what is implied when you say "A is A". The concept is a little too abstract* for them for it to have any meaning. * Not to say that they are incapable of grasping it, only consider what would happen if you told some random person "Don't lie to yourself. A is A". They'd have no idea what you are talking about.
  6. It's important to remember that "knowing" requires, at it's foundation, perception. No being can know of a supernova 1 million light years away until 1 million years after the fact because nothing travels faster than light, including "knowledge." An omniscient being would need to be able to perceive everything from all angles and perspectives simultaneously, as it happens. The act of being a "receptive" and simply harvesting whatever information arrives (following the laws of physics) would not be an attribute of a god, but of a being (or device) with perceptive capabilities. That something could conceivably "know" something without perception is the very definition of faith. It's not possible to know the state of every atom and subatomic particle in the universe at any one time. Which would be the fundamental requirement of omniscience.
  7. The client/contractor relationship is fundamentally the same regardless of the industry. Ultimately, to secure the contract, should you decide that this is a contract worth doing, your concern must be with the client's requirements. It is likely that your potential client wishes to build, in the end, to improve his bottom line. Which means that you will likely have to give consideration for the end-user as well as the client's requirements. As a professional, however, you're being consulted for your expertise, and as you said, sometimes the customer just doesn't know what he wants - this is why he's coming to you, and this is applicable in pretty much any industry. In my experience when I was a consultant programmer, customers love it when you understand their issue and can offer constructive recommendations to meet their requirements, rather than just taking their requests and merely meeting them exactly as requested (which is usually inefficient due to their lack of understanding). I can't imagine that architecture is different in that regard: Understand their requirements, get their ideas and preferences, and then apply your professional knowledge and knowhow to the situation. In the end, it's merely an agreement between two parties. If you are able to agree without sacrificing your integrity, then you sign the contract and build. If you cannot come to an agreement, then you have no obligation to do anything for anyone.
  8. I've gotta ask the obvious: have you read The Fountainhead?
  9. What exists that is not part of reality?
  10. I'm pretty sure Dent made a ninja-fast appearance in Batman Begins. It was something like an interview on a TV in the movie. It was super brief, but it was alluded to. I'm fairly certain, anyway. But yeah, it's looking pretty spectacular.
  11. Ignore that post. I read and reread your post a bunch of time, yet every time I read that, I managed to skip the first "not" in your reply. I'm retarded.
  12. I am nearly incapable of lying, and even feel guilty misrepresenting reality in the name of a "white lie". I would simply say "I'm looking, I just haven't found the right girl yet, but eventually, I will"
  13. Is this a typo? To what do concepts refer if they are detached from reality?
  14. Hawaiian shirts are about as Objectivist as clothing can be.
  15. I wold recommend contacting Expedia's Customer Service for clarification. Perhaps it was a bug or something like misentered data.
  16. trivas, might I recommend that since this appears merely to be a series of drive-by one-liners (which, as David Odden has observed, smell strongly of trollishness), that you instead propose this into the debate forums, set up the rules of your proposed debate, establish your claim, and go at this one-on-one with someone. Otherwise, you're going to be getting answers from 15 people for every one of your comments, and ultimately, you'll get swamped. This will allow you to make full arguments back and forth, and perhaps go somewhere. At current, there seems to be a distinct disagreement on definitions, and without an agreement on that, no ground can be made either way.
  17. This can be said of any role models. Think of the way people react when seeing the Pope, Brad Pitt, the President of the United States. Some people idolize someone so intensely that seeing that individual, or even speaking of that individual invokes some very deep emotions. If you knew me in person, you'd see that my appreciation of Beethoven becomes almost religious in it's emotional intensity. (indeed, this little bit gets me a little choked up every time I read it). Hero-worship is something encouraged in Objectivism. Not in the religious sense, but in an extreme form of admiration. Many Objectivists would count Rand as one of their heroes, and there's no doubt that many would get "starry eyed" when talking of Objectivism, just as, as a boy, I used to get starry eyed talking about Michael Jordan (I still hold a great deal of admiration for him).
  18. Slingshots and airsoft guns are very cheap, and as long as you're not too far, quite accurate.
  19. Chops

    Horrid Case

    True, my screenshots are recent, though, as I said, I've been an adwords user for years and there's never been anything I found confusing, or poorly spelled out. Granted, that's my experience, which obviously doesn't necessarily apply to the plaintiff's case. That said, when I started using Adwords in May '06, I specifically chose to ignore the "Content Network" and focus purely on Google Search results, and I had no trouble deciphering the options.
  20. Chops

    Horrid Case

    As far as I can tell, the allegation is completely baseless. I've been an Adwords customer for 2 years now, and never have I been confused about anything. Google is notorious for having easy-to-use software, and this includes Adwords. I'm not sure what they mean by "left blank", exactly. What was left blank, however, I can only assume they mean the CPC field (cost Per Click). In any case, the text is very clear: Moreover, the cost you're paying for things is also clearly set on the summary page: Finally, he's alleging that people don't know that their ads are showing on other sites, but this is also made clear in the Campaign settings: Google has done nothing wrong and everything is clearly defined on each page. Beyond that, there's an extensive knowledge base. They (should) have no case.
  21. As much as I'd like it to be true, this is debatable. From the Book "The Life and Works of Beethoven" (pgs 280-281) about the symphony: Whether or not it was intentional, my point stands. The first movement is the same few chords chasing each other around the score with very little harmonic variance. When compared with some of Bach's incredible use of counterpoint, it is indeed simple in comparison, yet I prefer Beethoven's 5th over any Bach Fugue. Inspector's argument applies here: even if the 4 note theme is intentional throughout the Symphony, Inspector's point applies. For most situations, it takes a musician to recognize and appreciate form. Just as it takes a programmer to recognize just how amazing Google Maps was when it first launched (to the normal person, it's just a nice map, to a web-programmer, it's practically a revolution). Then comparing Classics like Beethoven and Bach to modern atonal music, with it's crazy harmonics and irregular rhythms, it's much more complex than some other forms of music, yet (I think) it's mostly terrible. What quality is a requirement for music to be "good"? To get fundamental, that implies "good for whom"? There's a significant difference between enjoying something because others do, and enjoying it because you actually enjoy it.
  22. Aristotle. Victor Hugo. Rachmaninoff. There's three. "New" does not equal "better", nor is it a necessary requirement. Roark's stuff wasn't better because it was new (The Gallant Gallstone was also new - and terrible), but because it addressed the problems properly. He identified the requirements and filled them. The others copied old architecture for the sake of copying. Being new and original for the sake of originality is fashionable non-conformity.
×
×
  • Create New...