stuzal atla creala iuday
-
Posts
36 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by stuzal atla creala iuday
-
-
Stand-by Rascal Flatts:
You feel like a candle, in a hurricane,
just like a picture, with a broken frame,
alone and helpless, like you've lost your fight
but you'll be alright, you'll be alright
'Cause when push comes to shove,
you find what you're made of
you might think that you'll break
that it's all you can take
on your knees, you look up
decide you had enough,
you get mad, you get strong,
wipe your hands, shake it off
then you stand!
Life's like a novel, with the end ripped out,
the edge of a canyon, with only one way down,
take what you're given, before it's gone;
start holding on, keep holding on
'Cause when push comes to shove,
you find what you're made of
you might think that you'll break
that it's all you can take
on your knees, you look up
decide you had enough,
you get mad, you get strong,
wipe your hands, shake it off
then you stand!
Every time you get up
and get back in the race,
one more small piece of you
starts to fall into place
'Cause when push comes to shove,
you find what you're made of
you might think that you'll break
that it's all you can take
on your knees, you look up
decide you had enough,
you get mad, you get strong,
wipe your hands, shake it off
then you stand!
-
Thank you. I know the baseline is very repetitive. Frankly, it was just supposed to be a filler and the piano/guitar improve that goes on throughout the entire song can barely be heard. The problem was that the camera was standing on top of the bass-player's amp. I understand what you mean.
There is a chorus. The part "I'm selfish enough to settle for nothing less than you..." repeats twice, but I understand what you mean by the repetitiveness.
-
Here's the lyrics:
Don't tell me that I care too much about myself,
don't complain that I can't love you more than anyone else (including me).
Don't tell me that love is something you just feel;
that you can't understand it, it's just so surreal.
There's a reason for for why I disagree with these sayings you say,
when you don't even know what they really mean anyway.
I'm selfish enough to settle for nothing less than you,
you're the best for me, and I'm rational enough to know it's true
to know it's true,
there's a reason for why your love makes me sing
if I wasn't so selfish, it wouldn't mean anything
I'm selfish enough, to settle for nothing less.
-
It's not my best performance, but what do you guys think of the song?
-
-
Thanks for finding that. It confirmed my belief that the government absolutely did not say
you ... must realize that this cannot be done. There is no way that you didn't realize what this looks like... it's a moral obsenity and it sets a bad example for our children... you shouldn't be allowed to do this... you don't need this stuff. Drop it now. You seem like a creative guy. why don't you find something elseIt was a lawyer working for the government during an interview on fox news saying this directly to the producer. -
The government is right to outlaw this evil product. Everyone knows caffiene and sugar are gateway drugs. They always lead to harder substances like coke. I drank a Red Bull once...had a meth problem ever since...
I drink Red Bull before every single wrestling match, and I never have had any substance other than that. I have never drank alchohol, smoked anything, injected, snorted or anything; I just like having energy before I go on the mat. The government can't outlaw a substance simply because it could lead to people make bad decisions. According to what you are saying, we should outlaw knives because, even though they have practical applications, they can be a "gateway tool" towards assault and murder. I am certainly not saying that you advocate this, but that is the logical conclusion of your argument; that people aren't smart enough to avoid making stupid decisions when tempted by objects and, therefore, must be regulated by an all knowing, all powerful government. That producer spent his time, his effort, and the risk of maybe his livelihood to produce that powder and people are willing to pay for it; it is simply evil to force him to give it up because some people might get the "wrong idea". That is the same mentality that almost took Spongebob Squarepants off the air because some stupid kid drowned himself looking for a "pineapple under the sea" under the supervision of his/her irresponsible parent.
-
Yes: when you are able to quote a person verbatim, with the vague implication that it's a quote from a government person, then it ought to be possible to recall the company name and product, and otherwise provide links so we can verify the claim. You shouldn't believe everything you read on the interwebs. And never be shocked when some chatroom idiot say something totally stupid. That's why they invented anonymity.
I didn't remember the names involved because they are not important. The important part is that any one would condone and perpetrate such an immense violation of human rights.
What the hell? The FDA is claiming it is a drug? It is no more a drug than sugar and other energy boosting substances are as far as I can tell.They are not claiming its a drug, they are attacking it becuase it looks like a drug and it's, therefore, a "bad influence" that would have people clamoring for cocaine.
-
I agree with that aesthetic assessment, I think that is part of the reason I have moved towards more melodic vocals that are implicitly objectivist (ie, you have to listen and understand what philosophical principles are being referenced), as opposed to the explicitly objectivist hip-hop that I was doing prior to that. It was fun to cram all kinds of objectivist messages into clever rhymes, but there is nothing like creating something that expresses a love of life without having to put that message in the lyrics.
Here is a good example of that, a song called "Oxygen" that I recently finished. I've been getting some great feedback on Myspace for this song, but only a few people who really seem to get it.
On an interesting side note, the more I feel that I am able to integrate the melody, phrasing, etc. with the message in the lyrics, the less I want to post lyrics. I can't stand to see or present the words I wrote to be sung appear in print.
I like this one better. The melody still seems to be too broken though.
-
Excellent lyrics yourself, but I think that the melodies are too overly distorted in the music, as if there is none. It seems like the song is just trying to get the message out, like a lecture. Even Rand stated that "it must also be enjoyable just to experience" which, in my opinion, it is not. If you could get lyrics like that into a better melody, I would buy the album in an instant.
-
Recently a company (the names of both the company and the product excape me) came out with a new energy drink that can be carried around in little tubes in a powdered form and, therefore, is much more convenience and accessible than conventional canned energy drinks. The government is now cracking down on this company because the powder has an extremely remarkable resemblence to cocaine powder. I quote from one of the proponents of shutting this product down, "...you [the manufacturer] must realize that this cannot be done. There is no way that you didn't realize what this looks like... it's a moral obsenity and it sets a bad example for our children... you shouldn't be allowed to do this...[here's the part that really gets me angry] you don't need this stuff. Drop it now. You seem like a creative guy. why don't you find something else! [italics mine].
How could people be so morally crippled as to advocate this? The man is trying to support himself and just because of an apparent similarity to some drug he must be stripped of his discovery? I've drank many drinks with powders that looked that (although I've never taken his drink) but because his company has made an explosion in sales, he gets his creation stolen from him? The government hasn't taken his idea from him yet, but just the fact that this man has to deal with this is horrifying.
Any comments?
-
I thought this forum page was dead... obviously, I'm wrong.
-
I think the greatest anthem of self-respect out there right now is "Love Song" by Sara Bareilis. Not only is it amazing lyrically, it is also so profoundly different from most modern music melodically as well. If objectivism is to formulate a standard for music, it should start there.
Also, I have some song lyrics that I think would also fit the standard. It was obviously written in reaction to outcries of multiculturalist-pacifism toward to the terrorists of the Middle East.
Out in the desert
with brute jelousy
they stare at what we've done
with our right to be free.
Down with those structures
should've crashed our divides
but still hatred between us
and towards us resides.
I don't care what they say
we should do when
they slaughtered our brethren
and they'll do it again
and how can one say
it's only our problem to rid
when the very same people
put a bomb in madrid.
So remember, as we quarrell among ourselves
they are stacking crude weapons upon storage shelves
so please heed my warning, before this great nation falls
please heed my warning, if you care about it at all.
We're repeating roman history
and most don't realize
we might kill the last free-loving land
before our own eyes.
They dismantle us with caution
so we'll let them remain
in the hopes
that we won't sustain.
So remember, as we quarrell among ourselves
they are stacking crude weapons upon storage shelves
so please heed my warning, before this great nation falls
please heed my warning, if you care about it at all.
They don't believe in our system
they believe we should die.
Well I don't want to, again,
see the great eagle cry.
The minds of our fellow men
believe it's not fair
that we should be able to solve this
without even a care.
Well, that's just our problem
our own just don't care
they just think what they're told
by the ones on the air.
So remember, as we quarrell among ourselves
they are stacking crude weapons upon storage shelves
so please heed my warning, before this great nation falls
please heed my warning, if you care about it at all.
-
Superman supposedly stands for "Truth, Justice, and the American Way", but every action he does contradicts that. However, Batman stands for those things much more explicitly, but he is a vigilante who takes self-defense into his own hands (anyone who's read "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal" should know the problems associated with this). Between the two of them, Batman is definitely the better, but I would also submit a greater superhero embodiment of the Objectivist Ideal; Captain America.
Even better than Captain America (because he was the product of someone else's genious). Iron Man would be the best example I could think of. He is extremely intelligent, he is tough, he works for his own sake (Stark Enterprises), and he protects the rights of men.
-
There is no carness in cars. There are also no "universal characteristics", but each entity has an identity (which can be known).
The "carness" is the sum of the characteristics that classify it as a car; that's it.
-
No. An entity is what it is, including everything that it is, and none of an entity is universal. Entities are only particular; it is man's means of grasping entities conceptually that leads to what has been called the universal. Actually, it is the grasp of similarities (of two or more existents) united together into a concept by measurement omission. The measurement omission "makes a universal", only that is not quite the way to put it, since a concept is a specific existent. So, taken literally, there are no universals.
Essence, as used by Objectivists, is objective because it is a specific relationship between that which exists and man's mind; but there are no essences in existence aside from this relationship.
What I meant by universal characteristics are the intrinsic characteristics that make the particular pertain to the universal, the "carness" in the car.
-
Essences are ontological/metaphysical in the sense that the characteristics that comprise an object's identity do, in fact, exist, however, they are epistemological in formation and are, thus, objective. I liken the idea with a Honda and a Buick crashing into eachother and asking "where's the crash?" It is not solely in the Honda, nor in the Buick; it exists in the interaction, but that does not change the fact that both cars exist and does not change the fact that they can only interact according to their individual natures, which comprise of both unique and universal characteristics.
-
Two Questions:
First, has anyone ever read the 2001 climate change report put out by the IPCC? Is there an newer version where they did an about face?
I was reading near the end of the 2001 report where they write, and I quote:
In sum, a strategy must recognize what is possible. In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. The most we can expect to achieve is the prediction of the probability distribution of the system's future possible states by the generation ensembles of model solutions.
[bold emphasis by me]
...seems to me this should have put an end to alarmists taking over the business world with their global warming nonsense...and
2) I had read somewhere (and I cannot recall where and it's bugging me) that the Earth flushes about 150 to 200 billion tones of carbon into the atmosphere every year while humans contribute about 8 or 9 billion tones. Obviously that's small in comparison, but I need some help if anyone knows or has read this also....what is the source of this information?
Thank you,
David
There are only fifty two scientists on that pannel, the rest are all politicians (which may give you a good hint at their real intentions when writing that thing). Ten of those scientists refused to sign that document and another twenty are currently demanding that their names be removed (not the media would ever say any of this). We contribute a combined total effect of .4% of earth's climate change. In order to make that lessen by even .1 of a percent, we'd have to submit ourselves to economic oblivion and settle for near stone-age lifestyles. Global warming is just an altruist conspiracy to trick mankind into following its ideals.
-
I don't get how a genius like Einstein could've had such bad metaphysics and philosophical views when his physics, for the most part, completely affirm objectivist thought.
-
It should have rights because the basis of man's rights is A=A. What is man? It is a being possessing a rational conciousness and the ability to focus its mind. If the machine can do this, it should have rights, regardless of any difficulties with locomotion. One of the previous posters on this topic said that if it cannot pursue values because it it can't move, then it is not human; how is this different from a person with muscular attrophy or congenital amputation of his/her limbs? If it has the mental processes, it is human; locomotion does not grant anything the title of "human".
-
According to the hypothetical, the human mental processes are fully reproduced, this thing has Free Will and conciousness, it has sensory apperati and all the things that make a human a human except the fact that it is mechanical; does this thing warrant the title "Human"?
-
I was given a hypothetical situation by one of my friends. One of the world's leading computer scientists (I don't know his name) said that, in order to replicate the cognitive abilities of the human mind, he would have to erect a structure forty miles by fourty miles by fourty miles of entirely interconnected Cray Super Computers. The hypothetical is, if someone actually built this thing, would it have rights? Should it be considered human?
-
I doubt the student had any idea of what the postulate actually means.
It's like detailing how the theology of the Church leads to all sorts of practical results, such as loving one's neighbor and giving charity - and then throwing in as a comment that Ayn Rand thought charity was evil.
No. First of all, you would have to go through the same motions with Objectivism, detailing how it goes from its metaphysics and epistemology all the way down to its practical results. Second, that Ayn Rand thought charity was evil is true - in a specific context: charity as a categorical moral imperative, as a moral duty to sacrifice for the sake of others, is evil; but charity can also result from egoism, and in that context it is not a moral duty nor is it a sacrifice, and in this case Ayn Rand would not think it evil.
It appears to be a very similar situation with your classmate's quote from theoretical physics dumbed down to out-of-context nonsense.
You've got a good point; neither he, the teacher, nor I know the entire context of the statement and, therefore, we are all really arguing from ignorance.
-
I'd rather not get any prize Al Gore has received!
I second that motion. Especially because Global warming is a hoax; altruist lies designed to get men to unknowingly act as their own destroyers.
PlaNYC
in Political Philosophy
Posted
Check out this site...
www.planyc.org
I was assigned to write a paper supporting this horrific, obviously statist plan and, after reading articles in it, primarily http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=...74902&rfi=6 and http://www.planyc.org/project-92-Lower-East-Side-Rezoning , I began to actually cry, not much, but still. It was so blatant, so bluntly a plan to expand on eminent domain, to regulate the the already over-regulated economy of the great city, and to punish the good for being good that it simply horrified me. The worst part to have to read, for me, was the long list of height restrictions; symbolically that was crushing. When the towers of our souls are shortened by the blades of swords, when our saviors, because they're strong, are damned for their rewards, when the mob can justify itself by words that aren't it's own and it complains that things are just too hard; it must be saved from it all.
I refuse to write this paper in support of this disgusting piece of legislation! I'd rather fail the class than support this. I was hoping to have some further discussion on this plan.