Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Dorian

Regulars
  • Posts

    100
  • Joined

  • Last visited

3 Followers

About Dorian

  • Birthday 02/25/1983

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    dd083
  • MSN
  • Website URL
    http://www.myspace.com/thedd
  • ICQ
    0
  • Yahoo
    dd083

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Dallas
  • Interests
    Books, Video Games, Movies, Basketball (Mavericks), Arts, Philosophy, Rational People

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Texas
  • Chat Nick
    Dorian
  • Real Name
    Dorian
  • Copyright
    Public Domain
  • Biography/Intro
    I'm an objectivist working full time in video games and going to school part time.
  • School or University
    UTD
  • Occupation
    Game Designer

Dorian's Achievements

Member

Member (4/7)

1

Reputation

  1. I personally enjoyed the movie very much. I thought the art, color, animation, direction was beautiful. The story was cute and enjoyable. I thought there were some points that conflicted with objectivism, but I don't think it was much of a attack on capitalism but more on being content with a small existence & being materialistic. I'm definitely bourgeois but I agree its better to go out and enjoy life experiences, travel, explore, including enjoy nature rather than sitting behind my computer all the time. I think the points definitely were not worth throwing this movie under the bus.
  2. Also Dominique wasn't waiting to be swept off her feet if I remember right. She wanted to avoid perfection for fears of it being destroyed. She actually tried hard to avoid falling in love with anything, that's why she destroyed beautiful art, thats why she tried to destroy Roark.
  3. I prefer equal relationship as well but generally if a woman is really aggressive I am turned off. I prefer to be the one in pursuit for various reasons. I think there are natural biological reasons for this, but I also look for stability. I guess that makes me a "prime mover" but I don't think that makes us unequal, there's lots of variables in dating & relationships. A woman may be waiting to meet the right guy, but that doesn't mean she is desperate.
  4. Dorian

    Abortion

    I think rights can & should exist without needing others/a society to guarantee them, but I think the right to life for a human that cannot reason can only be guaranteed by other humans who can reason. I guess calling it the right to not be killed would be fitting, and I agree we should all have this right but it still has some issues. If two parents choose to not care for a baby it will most likely die unless someone volunteers to care for it. This is basically killing it, whether the parents physically kill the baby or let it starve to death I see no difference except killing it seems more humane. The baby cannot reason enough to survive. If a baby has the right to life, which means the parents can't kill it, but it can wander off and starve I really don't see much point giving a baby this right. I think its make sense to say all humans are guaranteed a right to life because determining if someone is capable of reason may be difficult. Also thinking of the right to life as the right to not be killed does help me come to some resolution but I still have some conflict with this, but these conflicts are primarily only in unreal situations. The most realistic scenario I have in mind is where the parents think it would be best to kill their child or a senile parent.
  5. Dorian

    Abortion

    Also some clarification.... by rationality I meant the ability to reason. The reasoning may not be good, sound, but just the ability to reason. I think I may have misused the term. For example I don't think a marxist loses the right to life for having bad dishonest reasoning (although maybe thats not a bad idea! haha) But a baby or senile human who cannot reason, who cannot live on its own perhaps does lose the right to life. Again, I'm still trying to figure this out.
  6. Dorian

    Abortion

    I think the ability to reason is definitely a factor, because then there is no difference between an animal and a human baby. Both are alive, both lack rationality, except generally an animal can care for itself. David, I think you have a good point about senile parents though. Personally, I think it would be wrong if children just decided to kill their parents, but is it their right? Like a baby, if the children of senile parents decide not to care for the parents who will? Is it a murderous act to not support them? Will the Government support them if the Government protects them? It definitely sounds barbarousness to me, which is why I"m confused, but I think if a human exist and relies on another human to live, in a way that human is losing some rights. I think there's definitely a good point to saying being a person guarantees a right to life, human rights, but who will guarantee it? I read a lot of the previous posts in the thread and there seems to be a lot of disagreement on when a fetus gains the status of a person, personally I still feel confused about that as well.
  7. Dorian

    Abortion

    Sorry if I derail the direction of the discussion here but I want to ask what you all think of my own problems I'm struggling with in regards to abortion. I believe women should have the right to abortion... all the way up to birth and even beyond. I'm having trouble defining where beyond stops, and I think if I can't come up with a clear definition perhaps my original reasoning is bad. I think a woman has the right to abortion because she is caring for a irrational human being who cannot care for itself, whether inside her or not. Because she has the right to decide whether to care for and birth a human or not, its emotional & physical stress. I think once born both parents must agree to killing the child if they believe it is best. So does a child at 3 suddenly become legally protected? Or is it 2? 4? Where is the limit, when does killing a child someone does not want to support become murder? And if protected who will care for it if the parents decide not to? It's not the governments responsibility to care for children so why should the government have the right to protect this child? If protected is a government run child protection agency no longer immoral? Is it in our best interest to protect these children? I know I would not be happy sleeping at night if something was not done to protect a healthy normal 2-4 year old child from an irresponsible parent. (COMPLEXITY!) It also seems reasonable for a parent(s) to attempt to find a foster parent(s) or home before killing a child already born, but if this attempt is not made is it then murder? Again, who will care for the child at this point if protected? I believe someone would volunteer but until that volunteer is found someone must care for a protected child. I know there are a lot of questions here but these are the thoughts I'm struggling with, hopefully someone can help!
  8. Don't mean to troll but an abortion thread is going on here: Abortion Issue
  9. I think voluntary programs to help the poor to become educated are beneficial to me, however, the minute they become mandatory it is unethical. I'm all for any voluntary programs, even if it was Government organized. If people don't trust in others to help voluntarily then too bad, they have no right to demand others to help if they choose not to.
  10. If there is a noise or traffic problem that is a seperate issue which could resolve the problem without a new law to ban group sex in a PRIVATE home. Also if they succeed this is a violation of the right to privacy in the constitution. The issue is that they are not attacking the noise problem or traffic problem, they are attacking the morality of it. It's slippery slope. They can ban gay sex next or pre-martial sex based on this logic.
  11. Are there any better candidates? I can continue to sit on my hands and do nothing, not vote, and let this country destroy itself with bad ideals and poor philosophies OR I could try in any way to push it in the right direction. Ron Paul is that. He holds MANY of the same ideas that objectivist do, but he is not completely aligned. Just read his website. He is not John Galt, he is not pefect, I don't see the point in arguing over it anymore. The only thing I see worth debating is whether or not he is the best candidate, and if not, who would be better. This may sound absurd but the only other solution I can think of is revolution, and I don't think things are bad enough to succeed at that. I think this country can be fixed.
  12. Thus is the way of the hypochristian. I don't understand how a private sex club interferes with the ability of others to have fun. Are they angry that they are not being invited? Or perhaps angry that their religion doesn't allow this kind of open sexual activity? I would never get involved in something like this but I think if my neighbors ran a sex club I think it would be funny and always be a good laugh, so long as they didn't disturb me with loud noise late into the night!
  13. First of all, I am supporting Ron Paul much for the same reasons Clawg stated. I view him as not perfect, but will encourage Americans to think about things like individualism and capitalism again. Maybe he will help bring us out of this intellectual dark age. However he has views inconsistent with objectivism such as: anti-immigration, he is religious, he believes states should decide abortion laws (in other words he is against abortion). Although he is religious he is against mixing state & church. He believes in individual rights for women, homosexuals, and all races. He is against social security. He is not perfect but certainly the best of the candidates IMO.
  14. I agree with David on this one. If writers want raises or more compensation then they should do it as individuals, quit if they need to and find another job, not use unions to artificially inflate their value. Try to imagine the absurdity of unions with your own job. Imagine you're unhappy with your pay, you discuss it with the people you work for (assuming you work for someone) and they decline because they can, you're only worth so much. So instead of quiting if you disagree, you hide under the wing of a union and demand it by force. If there's any Government protection for this Union its even worse. The Government should be hands off on this, and if anything, protecting business from any unfair actions by unions.
  15. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_rand#Decl...ealth_and_death
×
×
  • Create New...