Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Dorian

Regulars
  • Posts

    100
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Dorian

  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
  16. I had a similar problem at work once. I work in a very creative industry, video games. My team insisted in design by committee which I was completely against. I knew it was terrible, I knew the decisions being made were wrong, and I decided the best way to resolve this problem was to allow it to fail. We created a prototype and it was terrible. Afterwards I let everyone have it and explained why it was wrong and why they needed to let me make directing decisions. I explained how everyone has different opinions and that it is impossible to make everyone happy. I challenged them to let me fix it and in a few short weeks I had a prototype people enjoy. The issue I had with design by committee was that you can never make everyone happy. Anything creative that requires multiple people to create needs strong direction, otherwise you get this mis-mash which is gray, ugly, and contradictory. It is as simple as that. You may not have the luxury to allow something to fail but if your boss can't understand this then perhaps you're working for the wrong person. Also I think there is a huge difference between focus tests & design by committee. I think its a good thing to sample groups of people and see how well they like the product. That doesn't mean design by committee.
  17. Dorian

    Admirer or Stalker?

    In my opinion this guy is a stalker. This is creepy. I think you're right, he tried to pull a Howard Roark but it was a terrible call. He messed up and he needs to move on, instead he is being a creep and following you around. If he really wanted to apologize he could have left a note. I think the best way for you to solve this is to go the place you met him, with friends, a big male friend, and confront him. Tell him to cut it out, you've talked to police, and he needs to stop. Also get some mace and a taser.
  18. It's not a contradiction to have a single entity, the government, control military forces. Government contracts, who they pay to make weapons, is not a monopoly. Just the group making use of that force. In addition if the power belongs to the voters, people can always change who commands those forces.
  19. I know of women who are attracted to women in the true sense, women who look & act like women. I know of women who are attracted to women who look very much like men. Likewise with men. I have a gay male friend who only likes burly men, and has stated he is annoyed by feminine males! Haha. I know of all sorts of variations when it comes to bisexuals. So my hypothesis is that sexual preference is a result of both nature and nurture. I think, for example, if a woman is attracted to women who look like men than her orientation is more of a result of psychology. You can quickly see the opposite scenarios or even the scenarios in between. I think the primary reason I am straight is because of the physical side of it. I am only aroused by women. Perhaps because I am male this is true? Haha. I also enjoy the attention & personalities of women, but at the same time I often look for personality traits in women I see in myself. Maybe that's why I haven't had much luck in past relationships! People say opposites attract after all, maybe I should go after Christian communists and give up my hope of ever meeting a nice objectivist girl!
  20. So far my views conflict with Ron Paul's views on abortion, immigration, and church & state. However, he still has my vote. My reasoning being: -I have yet to find a better candidate. -I agree with him on free market capitalism, gold standard, civil rights & liberties, small government -I think primarily his views are a step in the right direction which will help America to think about things it needs to think about. -I consider democrats & their socialist/communist views much more of a threat to my freedom. I think universal health care is a real possibility and I absolutely don't want that to happen. -Despite the socialist democrats gaining more power in congress recently I think social security is very weak right now and someone like Ron Paul is just what we need to kill it. He is against social security and this is one of his primary issues. -I don't consider his views on abortion or church & state as a threat or that he will achieve any legislation based on his views. ----As for abortion he said he think its should be an issue decided on by the states. He has taken a relatively weak stance on this and doesn't discuss it often. I don't think he'll take much action on this and if so, I don't think he will be able to succeed in overriding a supreme court decision. ----I think the walls in our constitution protecting us from the religious are strong and, again, I think he hasn't made this his primary issue. Really what it comes down to is voting for the best of the bunch, he's not perfect, but he still has my vote.
  21. Also let me pose a question for those who said yes, how does interactivity make violent content any more unethical? I see no rational reason why anyone could make this claim. Am I an unethical person if I go and watch a thrasher horror movie? No. I am not mentally ill or sick because I like some horror movies and to make that claim is absurd. Likewise with violent video games.
  22. Specifically murder, not kill. More often than not killing in a game is often a justified action. Murdering occurs far less often in games. When I do it in a game it's usually to see what would happen, to see what interesting reaction I can get from the game, to see what was designed. Will I be punished? Do I get a reward? How does it affect the story? Sometimes games design interesting reactions to murdering a character in a game. Sometimes I'll murder a character for a far simpler reason, like I want his/her weapon and I don't care about the story. These can be fun and interesting aspects of a fictional game completely seperate from reality. Whether my actions in these games were ethical or not does not make it unethical in reality. I am not supporting murder or anything unethical in reality by doing so and I think any rational person can or should recognize that.
  23. Whether a child got his/her hands on a mature rated game and was effected by it or not does not make it unethical for an adult to play violent games Nor does it make it the governments right to prevent adults from buying it. I've enjoyed violent games not because I'm sick or nihilistic but because of good realistic visuals, story, and/or gameplay. That does not make me unethical. I would not murder someone in real life. Laws already exist to prevent children from buying violent games. It says right on the box the game is rated M for 17 and older. It is the parents responsibility to know what they're buying their children when it comes to any form of media.
  24. I really wanted my own John Galt hoodie with an art deco type font. Since it wasn't available I created it. I ended up going a little nuts on cafepress.com. Anyways, if anyone wants one enjoy! If you want anything custom let me know. I can make it available. I'm ordering the hoodie and brown shirt now so I'll let you all know how it turns out. The image uploaded is 300dpi so it should be good. http://www.cafepress.com/johngaltstore
  25. Amazing. Although I don't agree that all of photography is disqualified as art, but I'm not sure if that is what he meant. I've seen some really amazing photos that I know were extremely difficult to shoot and/or process (film & digital). Some photographers shoot the world as they see it and focus on that, some modify real photos to adjust what they see or feel, whether subtle or major I think it still think these kind of photos qualify as art.
×
×
  • Create New...