Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

HaloNoble6

Regulars
  • Content Count

    1097
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by HaloNoble6

  1. You don't grant sufferage to animals. Israel would have to return to the day when citizenship meant something, when it was earned. Take over the territories and enforce the rule of law and make them earn voting rights. What criteria should there be for earning citizenship? Well, for starters, you can't be an enemy of the state (which would disqualify most, if not all, Palestinians).
  2. Contrast this movie's treatment of the Depression with Seabiscuit's. Talk about glorification of the welfare state...
  3. I saw it a few weeks back so my thoughts on it are based on somewhat distant memories. I remember being touched by Crowe's relationship with his family. He came off as a strong valuer and a very principled man. I was once again impressed with Crowe's diversity of acting skill: old-school L.A. detective, Roman general, English seaman, and now early-American boxer. The overall theme seems to be a man's relentless fight to keep his values (his family) in an extremely principled manner. For example, I was also moved by the fact that he refused to take federal aid as a hand-out: he treat
  4. I tend to agree with this view. I think it's something of a disgrace that Lincoln is so glorified in this country as our savior.
  5. It's going to be a great time to be an Aerospace Engineer! Article here.
  6. This reminded me of a thought I had recently. On my plane ride down here to Nicaragua from Miami, my mind started to wander and I tried to think about what I would do in the following situation. The plane was flying down the Florida coastline and I thought, "What if we found a nuclear weapon on board?" Supposing the timer was setup that given the time of discovery, the choice was to either drop it on land-dwelling civilians and save the passangers and crew, or take the plane away from the coast as far as possible and drop it in the ocean, but then killing yourself since no escape from the
  7. I believe the key word here is "accusation." The other admins and mods can correct me if I'm wrong, but an accusation is a kind of assertion; that is, it is a leveling of a charge absent evidence. However, anybody who has followed this spectacle or the blogs associated with it, particularly if they caught the thread (now gone) that accused this forum of stealing and a blog post about sex crossposted to the Egosphere a few months back, it is not difficult to see that this is not an accusation: it is an identification of fact. I don't think there's anything wrong with calling a spade a spade,
  8. Does anyone now about the rule of law there, the kind of economy they have, government, etc.?
  9. The rule you brought to the debate didn't seem to be a condition on existents, it seemed like a rule about concepts as such, since you made a statement about "phenomena" and "anti-concepts." For example, take the concept "differentiability" in mathematics. There is nothing directly measurable about this concept. Building the conceptual chain from the concept "identity" to "unit" to "variable" to "change" to "differentiability" one sees that, yes, this concept inevitably begins at sense-perception and satisfies measurability. I agree that all existents are measurable, but your rule didn't s
  10. No, capitalism is a social system, which encompasses both politics and economics. If it were as you say, it'd make no sense to talk about rights and war and other such political issues as seen by capitalism, the political-economic system. Social encompasses both political and economic issues.
  11. Such optimism! How did it ever happen in Rome and in America at the time of its founding? Sheesh, I don't know, but it sure as hell won't happen again? This is what I mean by ignorance of history. Moral societies have existed in the past, there's no reason to believe they can't rise again.
  12. No, you haven't. You make it seem like a society that establishes laissez-faire can, on a whim, be susceptible to a few mega-rich immoral men (completely blanking out exactly what kind of culture is required for establishing such a system). Societies don't rise and fall in a vacuum, erected and destroyed by the money of a few rich men. Think about it, do you think, that if you transported the Founders and all their money (they were rich men, mostly) to Iran of today, that they'd be able to errect a republic? Similarly, do you think that if you transported Saddam and all his money, the Saud
  13. Your post is premised on the notion that a government-economic system can protect a society from its own moral deterioration. The truth is that neither constitution nor government can save a society that has relinquished the use of reason in the realm of ethics and politics. Consider this. Do you think that if, in the time of this nation's founding, there had existed the kind of intellectuals that preserve a society's moral character, and that if they in turn had left the moral defense of a culture to other competent hands to preserve the tradition of reason and the lessons of history (a
  14. I agree that there should be some standard beyond what we have now for determining what sorts of debates are allowable, and I agree with Mr. Laughlin's two suggested criteria. Perhaps later I will have more thoughts on what else, if anything, should be required. I also think that the proposed debate on free-will is sensless and a waste.
  15. I am very tired, indescribably tired, of the senselessness occurring in this thread. The utter madness of demanding that free-will be "proved," that there is little evidence to back it up, blanking out the nature of proof altogether. Please read below (note: I'm not sure what the limits are for quoting texts, so if I've gone over them please someone delete my post). I post this directly rather than my own words because I think he makes the point very clear. I pray that the relationship betwen proof and axiomatic concepts is clear now. So, please no more demands for "proof" of free-wi
  16. You forgot: 9. May 17, 2004: David Odden joins OO.net forum.
  17. Actively shaping one's surroundings in the image of one's values and sense of life is very healthy and very worthwhile. For me, sometimes I do it to such an extent that I lose sight of the ugliness of "the outside world," only to be slammed down when I read some stupid article or listen to some stupid politician. Little things like what you did here add up to a nice sum at the end of the day, so keep it up! Just because the majority of the population doesn't value the things you might or as passionately as you might, doesn't mean you should subject your daily life to their point of view. S
  18. Yes, that debate will not proceed with such a 'rule.' Perhaps the debate should be about the notion of "self-evidency" as such rather than volition, since volition is one form of a self-evident fact. That is, perhaps it should be on the validity of axiomatic concepts and the nature of knowledge. Donnywithana appears to be trying to rewrite reality by demanding that "all concepts be based on phenomena that are measurable," whatever that means. There are plenty of higher-level concepts that aren't "measurable phenomena," though inevidably they lead via a conceptual chain to sense-perception
  19. Definable events have roots in "gradual periods of time." That is, everything is contextual. Just because certain gradual periods led up to specific, unique climaxes occurring at singular points in time, doesn't erase this fact. That is, events don't occur in a vacuum. Why not have all of America's greatest achievements, whether they are remembered as singular moments, or gradual periods? 1.) The coalescing of the Founders into a force for freedom.
  20. This is senseless--not only is this forum not a medium for airing out dirty laundry, but by the nature of the claim at hand there isn't any evidence that can be provided with confidence for anyone to judge accurately who is what and why. Andrew has handled the situation appropriately, but the matter ends now.
×
×
  • Create New...