Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by FaSheezy

  1. Ok. It seems as if some of you think the US should be promoting moral values actively -- and by that I mean in the sense that Jehovah's witnesses go around door to door giving away pamphlets and giving speeches. As far as the government is concerned, I whole-heartedly disagree with that idea, but if you want to act in that manner as an individual, then I don't have the right to stop you, just to walk away.

    You respect another nation's sovereignty because you understand that you must give respect to receive it. The US was formed by people running from persecution, and you site other people's persecution as a reason to intervene in their national affairs. I just disagree with you. Those people have the freedom to run from their situation, as hard as it might be to do so. I have sympathy for them, and would send monetary contributions if there was a private charity formed in an effort to help those people in those countries, I just can't properly advocate that my government make an action. If you use government you are using the money of all the people within your nation. You cannot assume that everyone in the country holds the same idea as you about taking action in other people's countries. You might view it as a moral position, but I do not think the government should be trying to push moral values either, even if those values its pushes may be my own. That is not the proper function of government.

    It's almost as if you are saying you don't want people to use government in a way you disagree with, but it's okay if government is used in a way you agree with. Well duh, everyone feels this way. The only way to properly control government is not to use it except for its sole purpose -- defense and the court system. We have a constitution as a final arbiter and we should adhere to it. Government is to be neutral on enforcing moral judgments -- you have the freedom to view things the way you do, you don't have to agree with the person next to you. All you have to do is refrain from impeding on the rights of others, and if you don't, the government has the right to stop you. But only in THIS country does the government have that right, because we all agreed a long time ago that it was a good idea and we wrote a document which delineates governmental intrusion. Problem is we don't stick to it because of vague abstract concepts that are malleable to changing situations -- "war on terror" "war on drugs". Clearly our government is deceiving us, and yet you still think it is okay to allow them power into other nations? I might agree with you in a different time, if maybe I felt I could trust our government, but our government is run by corrupt politicians with ulterior motives and secret agendas. If I can, I am going to restrict their power as much as possible.

    Perhaps I am viewing the situation more context based on where we are in this country right now, and you others may be viewing it in more of an ideal fashion. Please don't take that the wrong way -- we need both perceptions to make a unifying concept that actually works. I just don't think we have the money to continue on in the way we have been, and I don't think diminishing our presence will suddenly invoke a bunch of terrorist attacks. I don't believe the propaganda -- I don't think we are in such grave danger. I don't think Iran or North Korea or any other country will suddenly bomb us tomorrow. I don't think the terror alert color is blood red. I think we all need to just calm down, come home, and chill out for a while. Try to let people be the way they think is right (even if we disagree) because constantly pushing your views on others is destructive to communication and trade. Let people have the freedom to grow and change within their own environment. We have a lot of problems in this country right now and when we pretend like what we have here is so phenomenal other countries see us as a hypocrite, and in some cases I agree with them. I love freedom, and rational thought, and trade, and capitalism, and ooh wouldn't it be so great if everyone else in the world could see how great this all is --- but they don't right now. Given some time maybe they will see it (as all change starts with philosophy), but until they do, I'm fine not having anything to do with them until then. When you say my government should intervene you're using my money for your own ends, and I resent it.

  2. The US perspective of inalienable rights is a perspective, but by having it does not mean you need to or should force it on others. You are forcing it when you install military troops in other countries and "promote democracy".

    Ron Paul does not promote pacifism. His foreign policy is non-interventionism, which just means not intervening in the affairs of others. Insofar as they are concerned with us is insofar as we should be concerned with them. Dr. Paul voted to go after the terrorists, by Bush used that authority to invade Iraq as a country and take out Saddam. Dr. Paul wanted to go after the people who attacked us and voted in that manner, but that justification was used as a cover for other agendas. If we cannot agree on this understanding of our immediate history then all further conversation on this topic is worthless.

    Also, when it comes to how you treat your citizens and how you treat other countries is completely different. If you are born in this country or come to the country legally you are accepting the lifestyle you are born into, or travel to enjoy. If you are born in this country and do not agree with these values, America lets you leave. If you are not born here and do not agree with the values here, you do not have to come. These are both choices our government allows people.

    If you are in this country and break the laws of this country, the government has a right to go after you. If you are in another country and break another country's laws, that country has the right to penalize you or not, but we do not have the right to go into another people's country and penalize them for violating our, or their, values. We impede on those people's sovereignty when we assume we have the right to police other people's countries.

    I agree in that I don't want Ron Paul to overturn Roe vs. Wade because I believe in a woman's right to choose what to do with her own body. I don't know why, but he doesn't see how a woman alone holds reproduction within her solitary choice and owes no obligation to humanity to keep giving birth. I disagree with him on that one issue but I see our endeavors abroad and our monetary policy as far more damaging to our country as a whole than a woman's right to choose whether or not to have children. Women won't have that choice at all if this country dissolves.

    I don't think Dr. Paul is against immigration, rather he recognizes our hesitation in allowing immigrants lower paying jobs as a symptom of our failing economy in general. He sees that republicans have made immigrants the scapegoat for a larger problem that they started and have enhanced.

    Go to ronpaul2008.com and actually read what he promotes. He has a lot of his own papers he has written. Don't take what you get from the media, or even just the sound bites. Dr. Paul has a lot of thought behind his ideas and a lot of experience in government affairs. I don't see the thought behind McCain or Romney, only opportunistic choices or blind adherence to party platforms. But do steer me towards their open thought for in light of the fact that one of them may be my country's future president I would hope to find some truth within their writings.

  3. *** Mod's note: Moved from the Romney thread - sN ***

    As for Ron Paul, I love his fiscal policy but his foreign and social policies flat out suck.
    Why do you think this about Ron Paul? I love his foreign policy, especially in the context of where we are in history. It's something we've needed for so long, his thinking is like a breathe of fresh air. Don't police the world, let people have the freedom to make their own decisions, don't force your lifestyle or perspective on others -- sounds pretty good to me. What about his social policies? Other than -- don't have the government tell you what to do, solve your problems at the local level i.e. give more power to the states and keep government power decentralized. How does that suck?

    I don't want to start a Ron Paul debate --- just questions to maybe make you think of Dr. Paul in a different light. Check out the MTV/Myspace debates on youtube. Dr. Paul addresses his positions there pretty well.

    If any other Republican candidate gets the nomination besides Ron Paul, I'm voting Obama. Or moving to another country.

  4. I agree with you when you say you should try to stop someone from pulling a gun on you, that makes sense. The problem I find is in how leaders truly define "threat." I just don't trust our leaders to properly gauge a threat or communicate it objectively to the public. You just end up with people like Bush policing the world and pushing people around because they can. The problem I have is at what point, really, do you make that pre-emptive defensive strike?

    Have you ever seen a fight? Two guys posture and posture and posture, talk noise, throw up their hands but still -- it's all talk. You have to be very keen in knowing when that first punch is actually necessary and then after that first punch you need to know when to walk away to keep from escalating a situation. I don't think America can properly decipher either. I'd rather go with a more peaceful president who is committed to defending America than a president looking for someone to make a threat so they can throw the first punch.

  5. "So if your neighbor's hippie son converts to Islam and becomes interested in waging jihad against America, he would be "encouraged to visit other countries and interact with other peoples ", even if the "other countries" harbor terrorist training camps for useful idiots who would blend in well with American society, and their "other peoples" are in fact waging war against the United States."

    If he wants to go to other countries, let him. I'm sure once he gets there and sees what he's dealing with he will be sorry he went. You really think American teenage hippies are that dedicated to "destroying America"?

    Paul is saying that our actions around the world have consequences and we should be mindful of them. Cause and effect, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. You cannot make "pre-emptive" strikes against other countries. You cannot INITIATE force against another country. You can only work in self-defense. You can retaliate. You cannot be the one to pull the gun first.

    As for our government not letting us go to other countries -- Paul is moreso saying that he doesn't want to restrict trade by government sanctions. It is each individual's responsibility to know about the areas he plans to travel to and the kind of people he should expect to encounter there. Do some research of your own. The government can warn you not to travel to places, but it shouldn't restrict you from leaving the country. We could not accept foreigners from known aggressive countries, but we don't have to stop trading with them. He's trying to take government regulation out of international economy.

    I think you are slightly misunderstanding and therefore misrepresenting Ron Paul's views.

  6. I think Ron Paul hasn't specifically mentioned engaging radical Muslims because he views their radical behavior in the present as a symptom of blowback from our occupation of their countries for so long. Personally, I agree with him. His views are that we should get our noses out of other people's business (i.e. bring our troops home from around the world where they are truly unnecessary and where we are trying to police other nations and build up other nations) and focus on our own country, our own debt, our own security, our own economy. We are so busy in the world trying to "bring democracy" to the people and be the government for everyone else while our situation at home truly deserves that level of attention and indeed, far more. He sees it as absolutely ridiculous that the American people are footing the bill for other nations' security while millions of people are entering this country illegally everyday. Our welfare state expands while our government slowly erodes our liberties for the sake of "national security". If he were elected I could see him reeling in the American presence from around the world and lying low for a moment to keep from inciting any more radical responses to our irrational behavior. I don't see him not retaliating against a nation that would attack us -- he has stated several times that he fervently believes in self-defense, just not pre-emptive action. He advocates a more diplomatic solution to threats of aggression from abroad. He actually wants to communicate with people and come to non-violent resolutions to problems instead of being the big American bully.

    Here are a few links that more fully articulate his views:




  7. Ok, I see why some people are getting aggravated and it's almost amusing....

    BaseballGenius, the reason why DavidOdden said he might tip me from my post is because he perceives me to be a nice person who realizes that tips are very much appreciated niceties, not something I neccessarily deserve from doing my job, whereas you project that tips are something you are entitled to, just as he has been saying. You tell me I am too compassionate with people who do not tip? Who are you to tell me how I should treat other people? Excuse me for being nice and realizing that these are all people who I may, and probably very soon, meet again -- perhaps in a different social setting -- and I do not want anyone remembering me as some ornery delivery girl walking around with some air of entitlement about how much of other people's money belongs to her. Do you not understand the value of kindness? If not then suddenly, I understand why you have been getting stiffed.

    That's the point of this thread -- to help you understand that you deserve $0 every single time you deliver a pizza. Nothing. Nada. Zilch. You deserve nothing. You did your job, you are making an hourly wage for that. Now, social customs in America tell people that you should tip those in service jobs because it provides an incentive to be friendly while you perform that job -- not for doing that job, but for doing it with a smile on your face, for doing it and for making it seem like you are happy to be doing it for whoever. That is the point of the tip. That is why I'm nice. (Also because it just makes my day more fun.) Now, you say some people are faster than others -- true. I'm probably the second fastest driver at my job, if not the first, and that means generally by the end of the night I have made more delivaries than any other driver working my shift, which means I get more compensation for the night and it also means I had more opportunities to be out there earning tips. Because I am good at my job I will probably make more money due to the frequency of my delivaries. Still, no where in there am I owed any customer's money except the price of the food I am delivering. You say we drivers deliver to the bad parts of town -- true enough. While I have worked here 2 guys have gotten mugged, one of which was beaten, and a third had his car stolen. That's what happens sometimes when you cross the wrong side of the tracks. Does that mean I won't deliver to someone who orders? No. Does that mean the manager puts on ban on those places which physically assalted our drivers? Yes. It's part of your job -- deal with it. A lot of people have jobs where they are exposed to dangerous situations. You don't like it? Get another job. Yes, your car is racking up mileage and you have to pay from your own pocket to maintain the upkeep of your car. That's a part of being a delivary driver. You think I like the scratches I get on the roof of my car because of that topper? No, but hey, the hours are flexible, the people are nice and my tips are pretty good, so it's a little give and take.

  8. I work delivery for a chicken place so I have a little sympathy for BaseballGenius but I think you're getting a little bent out of shape for no reason. Tips are by no means obligatory, but it is something of a common practice (in America). After hearing (someone's, I forget whose) comments on Australia, I want to move there! You have to realize that your job, really, isn't that difficult and anyone who can drive could accomplish it. Any tip is appreciated. People tend to tip better in the winter when it's crazy cold out, or when it's raining, or when it's late at night simply because they realize how much it must suck at that moment to be driving around. Other than that, your gripes would be replaced by something else if you worked a different job, dealing with idiots and cheapskates are a part of the job, and life. The reason why delivery drivers look so bad has to do with the fact that we do work in the food industry which means things are spilt all the time and we are continually cleaning. At my job, drivers are in charge of delivery, getting food for the cooks, washing the dishes and basically keeping the place clean and running as smooth as possible. It's not a hard job and when it's slow we get to kick back and crack jokes all day.

    When I deliver I usually try to make jokes and create a good dialogue with the customer -- we get a lot of regulars and a lot of the time when they open the door the first thing they say is, "I was hoping it was you!" When they see me, now-a-days, they'll pull out that extra dollar because I put in that extra effort just to create something nice for the both of us. There are also many regulars that I know will not tip, but I still try to make them laugh somehow and sometimes they apologize for not having any extra cash which really, is a tip on its own.

  9. Inspector: I hear you.

    As a junior in college, having switched majors and still not really loving my work, I'm a little scared. I'm sick of the stupid requirements in college, I just want to do what I love. My pleasure reading is the only thing that carries me through school. I feel so late in the game; I know I won't graduate by next spring but I'm ok with it. I want to just get a real job and make money for a while and just LIVE without feeling obligated to get my BS as soon as possible. I'm only 20, and I really don't know what I want to do with my life. I know I want to pursue research in neuroscience, but where could I get a job doing that? I feel as though if I just got a decent job and took classes at my own pace that Grad schools wouldn't glimpse at me. BLAH. Finals tomorrow, I'll pursue this train of thought later.

    As far as the laziness claim, I'd say that I have witnessed it, and I think the whole "well-rounded" nonsense of college adds fuel to the fire. For kids who come to school not embedded with the love of a good day's work, this easy-peasy busywork is heaven. They get to do basically nothing for at least 4 years and leave with a piece of paper that claims they know something when they don't. Depending on your major (if it's the humantities, wow you get off scott-free!) you might not be required to actually THINK the entire time you're in college. While you're there you'll meet so many people hating big-business and anything that smacks of success the mentality will rub off (especially to those who don't think for themselves). THAT is the laziness I have seen, and I know that the huge chunk the government takes out of my check pays for THEIR pointless education. If I think about it too much, I get angry.

    At least I don't have to report my tips.

  10. I'm sorry for sounding overly hostile. The people I spoke with were from the chat room. I do not remember their names. I didn't want to point them out specifically, but I did want to put something out for them to read. I've given my two cents now and will quit badgering everybody.

  11. Tupac was talking about what it was like to be black and how it feels to receive such rampant racism from everyone around you. Some of it is going a bit too far, but he was rapping about things that did exist in his world.

  12. I don't think you can really tell people, particularly Objectivists, how to judge things for themselves. The question an Objectivist would ask about the value of "hip-hop" is - "of what value and to whom?"

    The answer to that question for many of the Objectivists of which you speak is probably - of NO value TO me. Whether or not there is a business for it is not a valid criteria for it's value to any given person. There's a market for cocaine, but cocaine as a recreational drug is still BAD for ME.

    I was not saying that just because there is a business for it that gives it value. My point was that as a business it will meet demands set for it by the public, and since some people want to hear crap hip hop it will exist, but that doesn't mean you should hate HIP HOP. It means you should hate the people who make BAD hip hop.

    I'm not trying to tell you HOW to judge it, I'm trying to get some of you to open your friggin ears and listen to something that MIGHT have value to you and not disregard something when you've never given it a chance. That is not rational.

    The value of good music is the fact that it is good music, and it would be a value to those of you who like to enjoy good things. Broadening your horizons is always a good thing. Learn, grow.

    On second thought, Eric Benet is actually Rythmn and Blues. But the point stands that it is good. Just hoped to change a few misconceptions on music some of you have probably never heard and already judged as bad for reasons which are untrue.

  13. It has been my experience that most Objectivists I have spoken with hold a severe distaste for the genre of music called Hip Hop. Now, I understand your reservations if the only thing you have ever encountered from Hip Hop is, "You's a big fine mutha, won't you back that a$$ up." But come on people, music is just as much a business as anything else. If there is a demand for it, then you will see supply. You cannot judge a category as "good" or "bad"; you have to judge the individuals.

    To support my case I submit the lyrics to Eric Benet's "I Know" from his album "Hurricane." I find it particularly beautiful, and the music is a classic example of Hip Hop. I figure maybe I can lure you into actually listening to it if I can get you to appreciate the beauty of its lyrics.

    Some say that change won't come

    We'll never live as one

    They say it can't be done

    But I know better

    They say there'll be more rain

    They say there'll be more pain

    But the sun's gonna shine again

    And I know for sho'

    If you really, really wanna you could touch the sky

    Don't let them tell you you can't fly that high

    Anything you want you just go out and try

    'Cause I know, I know, I know

    They say the end is near

    And they say it's almost here

    But I say to have no fear

    I know, it's not so

    Some say that love's just a myth

    It's a wonderful dream but it doesn't exist

    But to look at you you're such a precious gift

    That I know, I know

    If you really, really wanna you could touch the sky

    Don't let them tell you you can't fly that high

    Anything you want you just go out and try

    'Cause I know, I know, I know

    And if you really, really want it, it could be that way

    Don't get caught up in what them people say

    All your little dreams turn into bigger things

    I know, I know

    I know, I just know

    That I know


    The seeds you sowed determine what you grow

    The road you take determines where you're gonna go

    And when you feel it deep inside your soul

    You'll know, you'll know

    If you really, really wanna you could touch the sky

    Don't let them tell you you can't fly that high

    Anything you want you just go out and try

    'Cause I know, I know, I know

    That if you really, really want it, it could be that way

    Don't get caught up in what them people say

    All your little dreams turn into bigger things

    I know, I know

    (Before I hear anyone say, "What's all this, "I just know stuff? Is this primacy of consciousness?" No! Preceding this song on the album are a bunch of "I've made my mistakes, now I can see my errors, I have to care about myself first" kind of songs. So there. :thumbsup: )

  14. I have also noticed that once you get to know someone really well, assuming they have a good mind, they become attractive to you. (Has anyone else noticed this?)

    Yes, I have noticed this. I have also experienced the reverse effect -- once I get to know someone I thought was attractive and they end up being idiotic they are so very unattractive afterwards.

    Proves that attraction is predominantly mental.

  15. What do you mean? My question now indeed is "how do you tell when you love someone enough...enough to get sexually involved with them?" This is what I'm not sure about.
    That is more of a specifically personal question. You have to decide that for yourself. When you love someone you will naturally want to express that love physically. Depending on how much you love them will determine in what ways you choose to physically represent this.

    I know that's bad. My question was how to conduct an in-depth romantic relationship with someone without becoming dependent or reliant on the other person for various things. Many people lose self-control and independence when they're heavily involved in a relationship, and I have done this in the past, and I'm trying to figure out how to avoid that.

    The only way not to lose self-control is to control yourself. I don't really understand your question. If you mean dependant like, I depend on my boyfriend to take out the trash on Friday, that doesn't make me co-dependent. If I depend on my boyfriend to pay my bills and give me inspiration for my work, then I am. Don't drop context.

    My next question would be, what if my partner's flaws affect me too much? Or, how should I decide whether or not it's worth it to suck it up and deal with flaws or just break up with them?
    This is also a specifically personal question. First you must define the thing which bothers you and then tell if it is something they do because of a moral breach, or just an idiosyncrasy. People are different, and you need to know what you will put up with. Usually, if something about a person bothers you to such an extent that you can't enjoy their virtues, I would say that's grounds for a break-up, but you better be sure why something bothers you if it does.

    I'm not sure I understand. What sort of flaw do you mean?

    A flaw that would lead to a moral compromise.... hmmm.....

    Say you are in a relationship with a guy who is very defensive. He listens to your constructive criticisms but often he becomes too guarded and chooses to rationalize away your opinion. It goes to such a point where whenever you disagree with any action he takes it begins a huge fight, and the only way to stop it is to withhold your moral judgement and say you agree. --Moral compromise--

  16. tnunamak, I am so sorry you are in this situation. First let me say that, because I know what it is like and it is pretty hard to navigate through at times. My mother and father split when I was 12 and both sides told my sister and I untrue things about the other. We are still sorting through the lies.

    In any case, everything I tell you will just be advice, so please take it with a grain of salt.

    It seems like your stepmom is a control freak. That is not your problem. Don't let her (I don't know how to phrase it) "weirdness" rub off on you and give you stress. If a problem comes up talk to her rationally, if she won't listen to reason then tell her calmly that you would rather discuss the matter with your father. Never let her get between you and your sister or you and your mother. They were there long before she was and they will always be your family. Don't let a wedge be driven between the ones you love by an idiot. Don't be afraid or ashamed to talk about both sides of your family with both sides of your family. I'm not saying you should bring it up to irk anyone, just that you should not feel bad about speaking of your mother with your father or vice versa. You may want to discuss this with your father, that you feel your stepmom is being irrational and is becoming hard to deal with, so that he will understand where you are coming from if a problem does arise. As long as you use reason you will be able to come out of this unscathed. People like to create unnecessary drama in their lives, don't help them.

    Hope that helped.

    --edited to add a few extra sentences--

  17. On the War of the Worlds thread Felipe had said that it's okay for a group of people to come into a new territory and take the land if it is not owned or if no value had been created upon it. Essentially, it was implied that owning the land and creating value on it were synonymous. I know people who own acres and acres of land but do nothing with it, just as, perhaps, tribesmen or Native Americans may have owned land that they did nothing with. Would it be okay for someone to come in a take that land? Correct me if I misinterpreted what he said.

  18. I really enjoyed War of the Worlds. I read the book when I was in 4th grade, and the movie stayed very close to the book. The ending did come from the book, I didn't think it was a bad ending, but actually pretty clever.


    As for not being able to say "Oh the humanity!" I do not understand that. The scenes where the aliens basically vaporized everyone in sight as they ran away and then to see their clothes floating from the sky was terrifying! The fact that we never got an explanation for their arrival intensifies the terror. It all just seems like cruel, inexplicable destruction, it scares you to your toes where you're so scared you can barely think to run. Even the noise they made before they started killing was horrible. It's just a total nightmare. And at the end when man has tried everything they can think of, guns, missles, bombs, everything, it's our immune system that saves us. It's something minor I would never have thought of, and because something small like that defeats the aliens I thought it provided a powerful punch to the end of the movie. (I liked it when I read the book, I knew what the end would be in the movie so it kind of took away the surprise.) I had my hands to my mouth the entire movie.... it was definitely scary.

    I hated the son and the daughter in the beginning, but they were supposed to be portrayed that way. I thought Tom Cruise did an excellent job acting, especially towards the end when he hugs his children after the aliens died, you can see in his face how much he realizes he loves them and values them. You can tell from that moment on he will actually be a father.

    ***end spoilers***

  19. I didn't notice Batman's lisp either. I also thought the fight scenes were hard to follow. I couldn't figure out why Rachel Dawes wouldn't like Bruce Wayne after figuring out he was Batman.

    I also liked the quote "I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you." I thought it sounded like something John Galt would say.

    In total, I really enjoyed this movie, and look forward to the next one!

  • Create New...