Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

themadkat

Regulars
  • Content Count

    713
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by themadkat

  1. Token straight butch happy to oblige LMAO Yes, I love throwing guys around, including and most especially my own, although I admit that with him being not so young anymore I am a little more careful with him now haha. And when I say I love throwing guys around I mean real guys with some meat on them. I have always been drawn to athletic guys, probably because I myself am athletic but also just because competent body movements are a beautiful thing to behold. I don't accept it's a given that it's going to do them any good against me though
  2. I didn't think you were trying to intimidate me. I feel like I have a decent enough feel for the tone of your posts and I do not see you coming from anything more than a position of honest curiosity. Honestly, yes, I do disagree with Rand on this issue, and I think she does border on gender essentialism, although not to the degree that I have seen expressed on this board by other posters (not picking on you btw, there are many and one in particular has been prolific in this thread's history). There is much about Rand's theories of sex that I wholeheartedly agree with, such as that sex is
  3. Prepare to be surprised. I am a female who likes men, currently in a longstanding relationship, and I find your description of female sexual psychology fits me not at all. Nor is it my experience of love. If anything, I could be construed to be the dominant one in the relationship, at least in terms of defining its direction. Lest you seek to place me in the "fetishist" category, I think my sexual interests are more or less typical, if a bit excessive on the appetite side of things. There is not "man" and "woman". There are only men and women. Until we get this ridiculous Platonic ess
  4. Well, the President's here speaking about service at my school today. It's actually consistent with the mission of A&M that he do so as one of our core values is "selfless service". I trust that all parties will behave themselves thoroughly badly today.
  5. Absolutely not. You are never obligated to tell the Nazis where your Jews are hiding. When telling the truth will enable someone else to commit a rights violation they have not earned the truth from you.
  6. I am also leaving B of A for these reasons. Not because I have been unfairly charged (I have not, I don't bounce checks and I don't use a debit card which sets you up for weird timing problems), but because I am aware that their business practices widely approach fraud and I don't want to deal with that. I only have a few bucks with them now and have moved all my stuff over to a local credit union. This credit union offers excellent customer service and their branch agents are friendly, helpful, and knowledgeable. They treat me with respect even though I don't have much money. Is a cust
  7. I don't know. I see a lot of reason for people to personally choose not to celebrate Columbus Day. I really don't anymore, not that it was a huge celebration or anything for me in the first place. My favorite holiday is just in a few days, a profoundly selfish one...my birthday.
  8. Man, this is the topic that just will not die.
  9. This is not true, and this is perhaps where you might be missing something here. Discussing philosophy necessarily DOES depend on building a model of the world and how it is and what exists in it, even if implicitly, because your every assumption and assertion depends on it. Disconnecting philosophy from the real world is rationalism and the major problem with the practice of analytic philosophy today. Rand was ultimately concerned with building a philosophy for living on this earth, as it is now, taking the facts of reality into account. So "debating" with nothing but conjecture and unsub
  10. Here's your problem. You're trying to subsume Objectivism under social contract theory. There is no social contract in Objectivism. You need to discard this idea. Yes, she does. This is the key insight you're missing. The reason why this is true has something to do with the fundamental nature of what a human IS.
  11. I would not say this is the case. Depending on the type of dishonesty, either civil or criminal penalties may be called for. I'm not sure if you've run across the "looter" terminology yet in your readings of Rand but understanding the Objectivist concept of "looter" might put your mind at ease about the attitude towards some of these businessmen. To give a more relevant and timely example, just about everyone here is against "healthcare reform" and the public option as Obama is currently presenting it. Does this mean we love the insurance industry and think they're saints? Of course not
  12. Hi Doug! With regard to the dictators, the answer is a most emphatic 'no'. By Objectivist morality, dictators and absolute rulers are the worst kind of altruists (yes, really) and true happiness is not ever going to be found by having power over others as this is a second-handed lifestyle. To understand what is meant by 'second-handed' and why a dictator is 'altruist' does require a more in-depth explanation of the Objectivist POV but I think you are beginning to see how the layers interact now and that there's a lot going on here. Remember when discussing higher-level 'outcomes'
  13. You should provide housing for the poor and pay for others' health care. You have just given the appropriate rationale for charity. The key is that you should not be FORCED to do so, and you should not do so if it will come before other values that are more pressing. If you see that your neighborhood is crumbling and falling apart and your neighbors are in dire straits, and you happen to be a billionaire, the benevolent thing to do would be to help them (but again no one can FORCE you). On the other hand, if you are a starving artist and you have your last fifty dollars to spend on essenti
  14. Because they have not surrendered their reason in EVERY facet of their lives, or they would be starving on the street covered in sores. Even the most irrational of people behaves rationally given certain everyday situations. And that is the way in which you can deal with them. You participate in trade with them to the extent they are rational. You shouldn't sell a junkie some heroin, but that doesn't mean it is also wrong to sell him a sandwich.
  15. I have to laugh at this because traditionally "chalking", as it's called, has been a tool of the activist left. Glad to see it turned to better purposes.
  16. I think many musicians would argue that weed has been a great boon to their careers. In all seriousness though, there is some limited evidence that weed can improve creativity in some regards and give you a particular kind of focus over the short term. But my intent here is not to hijack the thread, and as I'm sure David would be happy to remind me there are already tons of threads that address this very topic that you can look up yourself. I guess I just wanted to show there is not consensus on this issue. And in case anyone asks, no I don't use weed and have no interest in doing so.
  17. Seconded that. She ought to go where she needs to go in order to feel safe, provided that there are people there willing to take her in. She doesn't come off as very rational, but the need to preserve one's life is central and acting to achieve that is a reasonable aim even if done wrongheadedly. If she does discover some day that her parents are not the monsters she thinks they are, she will owe them a very big apology and then it is up to them if they want to have anything more to do with her.
  18. Scientists are just as capable of asking the wrong questions as anyone, and they frequently do ask the wrong questions as you can see. Also, most scientists are not good philosophers. Because time is a feature of existence, it makes no sense to ask about a time when there wasn't anything. So existence has always "been". If you find the idea of an eternal God more plausible than an idea of an eternal existence (i.e. universe, when universe is taken to mean everything that exists), you are probably operating from a primacy of consciousness viewpoint. But don't forget, consciousness can't ex
  19. No one should sacrifice themselves. But dying for your ultimate value, in an attempt to preserve or protect it, is not a sacrifice. In fact, it is a very loud proclamation of a love of life in the face of anti-life. Remember, in Objectivist parlance a sacrifice is the destruction of a greater value for a lesser one. That is not what those men and women did on Sept. 11. They were fighting to preserve the one value, life, which makes all other values possible. I'd say that's worth dying for.
  20. Having just watched a show on the Brown Pride in Nashville, it struck me that the truth of the matter was they were mostly killing people with tiny little handguns that can be stashed in one's pants or sweatshirt pocket. By and large gang violence does not occur with large assault rifles or even rifles at all. Now, granted, in incidents where policemen are killed it is more likely that the criminals involved had some heavier firepower, which I can understand then why the police would be concerned. But I guess what I'm saying is that if one is concerned with random violence from criminals, s
  21. My understanding is that the state should only be involved in marriage insofar as it is involved in the enforcement of any contract. The current structure of marriage mostly hearkens back to when it constituted an economic alliance between two families with property and the need to designate legitimate heirs.
  22. Great, so now we're getting somewhere. I know there is a lot of garbage out there about the world's resources being "our common heritage" or something like that, and of course that's nonsense. But what do we do with the tricky situations where either a) something is completely unowned (patches of distant forest, highly mobile wild animals, air, etc.) or "public" property (national parks, other government-owned materials). These are the tough cases, in my mind. Obviously in an Objectivist or rational society there wouldn't BE public property, but as it stands now there is, and lots of it.
  23. OK. Let's try this, at the risk of confusing the issue further. Do ya'll think that inherent in the idea of sustainable development is the supposition that the resources you are either consuming or depleting are not yours or not entirely yours? I think this is an important key that both sides here are missing. To concretize, if I object to slash-and-burn agriculture of the rainforest am I not saying, at least implicitly, that I have a stake in that resource? Leave aside for the moment the question of whether I truly am a stakeholder or no. I'm trying to keep this simple.
  24. OK, that works for me. The problems then, it seems, come down to the more practical matters of determining harm and when it has occurred, which is a scientific/fact-gathering enterprise moreso than a philosophical one. There would also have to be a better legal foundation for pursuing those sorts of damages. I grew up in an area where if your land, water, or air got polluted and you tried to say something about it the response was basically "oh well, tough luck". From a purely practical standpoint, I still think establishing rights and ownership over natural resources, most particularly
×
×
  • Create New...