Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

progressiveman1

Regulars
  • Posts

    239
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by progressiveman1

  1. Why should humans choose to live? How do you know life should be the standard of morality and not death?
  2. Just to clarify, I'm bringing this up in reference to ethics. Hypothetically, if man should act according to reality and reproduction is the main goal that nature sets for each species, then morality should be based around this idea. That's what I'm trying to get at.
  3. I know that. But why does nature make such a big deal out of sex/reproduction? By nature I mean the creation of instincts, physical mechanisms encouraging sex, and such universal importance throughout all species. There must be some importance with reproduction of a species if nature creates these things in all species.
  4. Don't most species have instincts regarding reproduction or at least hold it as one of their most important priorities? It can be seen in humans too, with our natural mechanisms influencing us to have sex. If nature creates these things then why shouldn't reproduction be regarded as a priority for all humans?
  5. No, I wouldn't find it annoying actually. I've accepted what my potential abilities are, which is why I don't think this emotion arises from this. I think it has to do with fortunate advantages on things that are out of each person's control. Like if someone becomes really great at something mostly due to his parents getting him involved with it early on and getting great teachers, while I am here at the low end of the spectrum because I didn't have that fortunate advantage. Instead I have to start late and figure it all out on my own, but I know that I could be where the other person is at now if I had his advantages because I know I have great potential with it. That's when this feeling of anger or frustration arises, and I probably subconsciously want them to fail because of this. And the typical advice for this, which makes sense is: just be concerned with your own progress and don't worry about the others. However, it doesn't seem to fix the problem.
  6. But if someone feels envy towards people when they have accomplished something he wishes he had, then I would also think he would feel envy towards his romantic partner in the same circumstances. Like if his romantic partner becomes one of the best in her profession, while he is struggling to make even minor improvements at a much lower level in his profession. I could see envy working as a motivator here as well, but couldn't it create some strain on the relationship? I think it would prevent him from fully supporting his partner or making him feel unworthy as her partner.
  7. Rand summed up the meaning of 'envy' by saying it is the hatred of the good for being good. The only type of situation where envy arises with me is when I haven't accomplished a certain goal but I see another person accomplish that same goal so I feel envy towards him. Or when someone is better than me at something that I care about. However, I would never act to infringe on their rights because of these feelings; it just seems like a troublesome emotion. I don't understand the causes of this emotion though. Is it because I'm unknowingly comparing other people's abilities to mine and using that as my standard of success? I say unknowingly because my main focus is always on what I can improve on, regardless as to what others are doing. Could it be because I understand you need a lot of fortunate things to go your way in order to accomplish a hardly attainable goal, and it causes me to dislike those people while I may not have gotten those fortunate things in my life? I'm just wondering if anyone knows what causes envy and how to work on getting rid of the feeling.
  8. I'd be willing to try shooting them with an airsoft/bb gun, but if my neighbors see me and my apartment office finds out, then I might get evicted or fined. Otherwise, I would thoroughly enjoy giving the birds that inconvenience of have to dodge pellets. It's probably because there's a lot of large trees and bushes right here. I put the owl out by the trees and have switched its location a couple times. I don't think its made a difference yet, but I'll give it a few days. That's the exact one I got at Walmart. It actually looks real. I wear them when I'm sleeping, which I don't mind doing, but I'm not going to wear them when I'm awake too. They make noise 24/7. It's going on right now.
  9. So is high school though, at least where I went.
  10. Have you actually tried the owl thing? I'd be willing to give that a shot.
  11. For the past couple of months the birds(robins are one type, for sure) outside my apartment are constantly(literally 24/7)chirping or making those damn noises that they make. They keep me up when I'm trying to sleep and the noise is aggravating me to an extreme during the day as well. I can't read without it distracting me, watch tv without blasting the sound, or even have one moment of silence. I've been pushed over my threshold and it's driving me crazy now. I've tried throwing a baseball at them, but they just fly to another tree and the noise returns in a little while. I have no idea how to get rid of them. I wish I had a bb gun but I don't. I wish I had a shotgun; I'd blow those POS up. Putting poison out there is a bit risky since all the other people and their pets are nearby; don't want to get charged with anything. Does anyone know of a way to fix this problem?
  12. Aren't all the Framingham studies just a collection of general statistics, which, at best, can only produce correlation results? From what I remember when I looked through them, the studies typically consisted of long term analysis(10-40 years) of the people taking part in it, check ups every several months, and questionnares as the way to determine what the patient is doing. If the study you're referring to is like that, then I don't see how you can regard it as influential in determining a causal relationship. The method of analysis they use seems too vague to me(variables uncontrolled), but maybe you're referring to a different type of their study.
  13. Two suggestions: 1)Look through websites of Journals like JAMA or Archives of Internal Medicine(there's a bunch more). They provide studies on this topic. 2)Lyle Mcdonald has published books that are related to this topic, where he dissects several studies. I haven't read his books, but I've seen many recommendations for them.
  14. I hope you mean the later studies I provided(posts #69 and #70) and not the intitial ones.
  15. What do you mean by that? From what I understand of ownership, it just means a person has to use a piece of property in order to own it. So if someone sets up a tent to live in on an unowned piece of land then that person now owns that piece of land, right?
  16. That's what I was thinking, but I heard Rand say in her Donahue interview about the US extracting oil from other countries: "They(the foreign country) have no right to their soil if they do nothing with it. Well, rights are not involved in those primitive societies." So Shell has no obligation to clean up oil spills or be concerned about destruction of land in Nigeria? Only if the Nigerian gov't tells them they have to, not because of the principle of not violating other's property rights since none of the property is privately owned? Is that what you're saying? Edit: I just saw that you implicitly answered why Rand said that statement.
  17. Are any rights involved in primitive societies? For example, Shell oil company going over to Nigeria to extract oil from that land. Morally, can they completely disregard the Nigerian citizen's rights because of the type of society they live in? Like setting up property on the citizen's land, not being concerned about destroying other's land from oil spills or gas flaring, or even murdering the citizens who are, for whatever reason, in the way of their oil production. Provide a link if this topic has been covered here. My search function hasn't been working.
  18. That's before legal fees and other fees as well. I think legal fees amount to several hundred thousand dollars. That's how much the "poor, sick" woman had to pay for her legal fees in her prior lawsuit. That's what I figure.
  19. I agree that Walmart shouldn't sacrifice their contractual rights in any case, but I don't understand why they act on a certain clause just because they have it. Why not just act on it when they have something to gain? Or did they gain something in this case? And also: "Who needs the money more? A disabled lady in a wheelchair with no future, whatsoever, or does Wal-Mart need $90 billion, plus $200,000?" the husband asked.
  20. Link to news story. Obviously Walmart has the right to sue for the money. I don't question that. I'm wondering what they gained from it. After the legal fees, I bet they only ended up getting back a very tiny amount of money. And bad press along with it.
  21. *** Mod's note: Merged with an existing thread. - sN *** With the several pages of discussion(or argument) in this forum that has taken place on the topic of 'prudent predator', it is very hard and time-consuming for an outsider to sort through all the ideas presented. So instead of having to do this boring task, I would prefer to have a thread consisting only of quality arguments on the topic. No questions and no replies to anyone- use the other existing threads for that. Only yours or another poster's quality argument, either for or against it. The first line of your post should read either: "For prudent predator" or "Against prudent predator." This will allow everyone to be able to sort through the arguments better. Next, should follow the argument. This can be your original argument or another poster's. Don't violate intellectual property rights though; read the forum rules. I see no problem with just providing a link to their argument instead of copy and pasting. You can link to another site if you are aware of a good argument there. Basically, this thread is for quality, thought out arguments on the topic of 'prudent predator' so people can decide for themselves without sorting through all the fluff.
  22. Yeah, you may be right that a person can't be completely ignorant on the topic to determine who is a legit expert. But let me clarify how the "Objectivist position" can be useful to a layman just looking for a general answer, and let me know if you see a problem with this method. And when I say the "Objectivist position" I am referring to the top Objectivists(at the ARI) because the ARI wouldn't allow an unskilled Objectivist to go on record for them. When an Objectivist tries to figure out the truth, he understands that evidence is the necessary componet of an argument. And since I understand that Objectivists at the ARI approach arguments in this way, I figure they will do as good of a job as me on topics that they cover. So when it's an accepted position at the ARI that humans don't contribute significantly to global warming then I take that to mean they extensively researched the topic and applied their skilled ability to logic to their conclusion. And this is why I think the "Objectivist position" can be a very useful tool to a layman; because their job and developed skill deals with reason and logic. But, of course, the ARI doesn't investigate every topic, so the method you describe above would be useful at that point. Yes, that was a very important lesson you taught me.
  23. How do I determine if the expert is objectively integrating all of the relevant facts with his conclusion? Doesn't that require a substantial amount of knowledge from me on the topic?
  24. First, I want to point out that I don't want to be intellectually lazy, but I also acknowledge that I can't be an expert in a lot of fields. I spend almost all my energy focusing on my CPL, which leaves very minimal energy to advance my knowledge in other subjects. The main question of this thread is: Without knowledge on a topic, is it sometimes useful to accept experts on faith? When I say "experts" I mean personally known people that have proven in the past that they are rational. For an example, I will use Objectivists as the "experts" and global warming as the topic. Personally, I have very mininal knowledge on the topic of global warming, but I know from several previous topics that Objectivists are consistently rational with their conclusions. I know that the Objectivist position on global warming is that humans don't significantly contribute to this event. I don't know the details on why they have come to this conclusion though. Is it dangerous to oneself if he accepts conclusions from experts in this fashion? Is there a better way to figure out the truth that doesn't involve a highly developed amount of knowledge on a topic?
  25. progressiveman1

    Traffic Laws

    Thanks. I found it.
×
×
  • Create New...