Devils_Advocate
-
Posts
241 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
5
Posts posted by Devils_Advocate
-
-
I, along with most people here, disagree with her position on a woman president.
I've heard "the homosexual issue" mentioned a few times. Sorry to say, but I can't recall what that was. Can someone remind me?
-
He was obviously high or drunk. That's the only reasonable explanation for his comments. They make no sense, they're contradictory, it says he was speaking fast and his voice was rising, and some of the statements seem garbled and unlinked. How could anyone possibly go to a conference on "Tapping into... Creative Potential" and advocate control, while being sober?
-
"Tell that bastard to look at me, then look in the mirror, and ask if himself weather I would ever consider my moral stature at the mercy of his actions."
Powerful, forceful, and very true.
-
Fantastic! It's great to see some people there apparently knew who Ayn Rand was.
I made my own speech at my local tea party. There was this huge rock, so whoever wanted to could come and make a speech. I got up and gave a speech mom's rags-to-riches-without-a-bailout-or-welfare story as an inspiring example of why we don't need 900+ government enterprises to help us succeed, unlike what they tell me in school. The 3-400 people there really liked it.
I like it, but according to the Department of Homeland Security, those in attendance may be "right wing extremists". Is the DHS taking the first step toward attempting to outlaw certain kinds of political thought?I've been called a right-wing extremist all my life, but when the Department of Homeland Security is saying it, it takes on a whole new level. I almost thought they were going to outlaw the tea parties on "National Security Grounds". Thank God I was wrong, but I still think the report might have put a crack in the Hoover Dam of the 1st amendment.
-
This can't be real. I mean, this has got to be some parody or some sort of twisted, late April fools joke. NO ONE can seriously be that out of their minds, and still be out of an insane asylum.
-
I went to one yesterday, and it was a great experience. I'll post some pictures if I can get my hands on any.
I met another person who liked Atlas Shrugged, so it was definitely worth it. Closest I've come to meeting an Objectivist in real life.
I'm surprised to see that Obama hasn't come out and addressed it yet.
-
I came close to what might have been one - the other day, I was behind a guy who's license plate was "JHN GALT", and who had posted "Taxationland" over "Vacationland" (We live in Maine). But that's the closest I've ever been to another Objectivist. It's quite depressing - on some levels, I'm the only person who understands me. Some day, though, I'll meet another.
PS: ATTN ALL MAINERS: I'm going to a tea party on August 15th in Augusta. If any Maine Objectivists will be there, please let me know! I'd give anything to meet another!
-
I think they look pretty awesome and very classy. It's like the hat version of the Windsor Tie Knot - powerful, upscale, and classic.
I don't wear hats myself - I put too much effort into my hair (so I'm a guy who wants to look good - sue me!) to let a hat touch it unless there's a blizzard outside. But if I were to wear a hat regularly, it would definitely be the classic Fedora.
-
...so I'm supposed to turn off all my lights, return to a pre-industrial standard of living, trade in my house for a straw hut, my lights for candles, my car for a buggy, and encourage others to trade in cities for villages, leaders for shamans, and civilization for the environment?
Hmm......right...
How about, instead, I make myself popcorn with my 1100 Watt Microwave, get a cold drink from my fridge, relax in my house, turn on lights so I can see, and watch a blu-ray movie on my super-hi-def TV and stereo sound system?!
-
I heard this recently: How can we justify having a government which defends all land in a certain area, without either government ownership of the land or privately contracted and paid for defense?
Basically, say in Objectania, we've fully implemented our political philosophy. A voluntarily funded government provides defense and justice. However, in order to claim to be able to defend all of the Island we've established Objectania on, wouldn't that mean the government has a right to that land in the first place? Otherwise, how could it claim to be able to defend it?
-
But, really, I was expecting *something* like this to happen. The government *always* muscles in and starts dictating to people who take gov't money--it's one of the most effective means of expanding gov't power, after all, and BOTH parties DEFINITELY want to do that.
I was way too innocent. I've always had a healthy mistrust in politicians, I saw Mr. Smith goes to Washington and wasn't surprised, I know there's a lot of morally awful back-room deals and in the open things the the government does which deserve outrage and disgust over. But I never, ever would have expected that our own United States government would do what it did on the day of the hearing. I feel like the kid who's just been told Santa doesn't exist. My Latin teacher, who I'm good friends with, is a very liberal person, and even he called it a lynching. I just never thought they would stoop to the level where they're holding a show trial I could have sworn was organized by Stalin.
But this is good in once sense - no one can ever, ever complain about McCarthyism. Any time anyone ever mentions this again, say "Well, how can you justify Pelosiism?" Or should we call it Frankism, after Barney Frank? Obamunism describes a political regime, so that wouldn't work... Submit your ideas!
-
We had a debate at an Objectivist meetup yesterday about a scenario in which you have the opportunity to save a certain notable Speaker of the House from drowning. If you do not, nobody will know. If you do, maybe they will, depending on your ability to convince them of your actions. In any case, people argued for and against, for various reasons, ranging from degrees of evil (e.g. "I would help this person, but not Hitler"), whether or not their evil is excusable if it is not as obvious to them as murder, etc. I'd like to see articulated the proper way to examine this situation, if such a thing exists.
Assuming it isn't the present speaker I would, AMRTM (assuming minimal risk to myself), just because they are still humans who should live. As terrible as some of them may be, I don't like the thought of anyone dying, especially not if I could save them.
If it were the present speaker - I'd save them, merely because that gives me a window of opportunity to box her up and deport her to North Korea, where she belongs (j/k, j/k).
-
Well, how does he know it is really yellow if he sees it as blue? The problem is that he is not starting at the perceptually self-evident. Blue means the way you see it, and if it is similar to the standard blue, then it is blue. The problem with all rationalists, and most Kantians wind up being rationalists to some degree, is that they think there is something superior to perception -- or rather that the human mind is superior to perception and is not based upon perception. You know, it's like saying how do you know this glass in front of me is a solid when I know that it is just a swirly mass of sub-atomic particles? Well, if it is solid to the touch then it is a solid, even though on a technical scientific level, glass is a slow moving semi-solid (which is why window pains start to sag over time).
But one must start somewhere and be certain of something on which to build the rest of one's knowledge and if you fall for the Kantian premises that what you perceive is not really real, then you have no intellectual foundation and therefore no real knowledge. This is one of the evils that comes from becoming a Kantian -- what is right in front of their face is not taken as a fact and can be dismissed. And it is true that once that is removed from the intellectual base, then going by the majority becomes a substitute for individual knowledge. His mind is cut off from reality, and so he cannot be certain of anything, though he will claim that he is absolutely certain of that, because it is his conscious state of consciousness.
I think the only cure is to get him to start with acknowledging that the facts right in front of his face are real and that he sees them as they really are. Short of that, I see no solution to his dilemma. In college, I knew a Kantian from Germany that was absolutely horrified when I told him that knowledge is built from the perceptually self-evident. To him, all of the reality that we see around us every day is really a facade brought about by the sensory manifold, and he really believed that. So, past a certain point, I couldn't get him to check his premises, since he refused to believe that knowledge is built up from the perceptually self-evident. It's a difficult problem if you are friends with him, but I see no other solution.
It's amazing that there are people who believe that...
During the debate, the topic of color-blindness came up. He stated that color blindness, where someone sees a color differently from the rest of us, is a form of proof that we can't be sure of anything we see - we may be (at one extreme) insane, and see things that aren't there, or we could simply be color blind and not realize it. Seeing as how we can't even be sure the colors we see are really the colors we think they are, how can we be sure of anything we see? I've never come up with this argument before, or anything like it, and epistemology isn't my strong point. Any suggestions on how to respond?
-
What does it mean to be "100% certain", according to him? And does he just offer this as a possibility that might be wrong, or is he 100% certain that this is true?
100% certain means being able to claim full knowledge over the issue. For example, being able to claim a color is blue and not considering it might be yellow. And yes, he accepts that he might be wrong.
Start with the epistemological fundamentals: is he being a nihilist? He may deny it, but I'd ask him to prove that he is not.He'd say "I don't know. Reality may exist or it may not. I don't claim to be sure."
-
Star Trek TNG and DS9 (even Voyager and Enterprise managed a few good eps),
What about the original series? I've always thought that was a great allegory for man's drive to understand the universe. Not to mention Spock being the epitome of logic (remember, the seires; not the movie where he suddenly goes nuts just before he "dies").
-
I was having a debate with a friend of mine, whose a semi-kantian subjectivist. He proposed that we cannot be 100% sure that we are sane, or that we're interpreting reality correctly. Thus, if we can't be sure that we're sane, we can't be 100% sure of any facts of reality. Thus, the only way to have a common standard is to look toward the majority's view of what is "sane" or "real".
The way to beat this argument is, obviously, to prove that I am sane. But how can you prove that you are sane, if there is a possibility you aren't? If anyone's seen "A Beautiful Mind", you know it's possible to go years upon years seeing things that aren't there and never realizing it. Thus, if there is a possibility we're insane, doesn't it stand that we may be wrong about everything else - politics, for example? If we are, in fact, insane, we can't fully utilize reason or logic, and thus, our entire political position may be just as insane and irrational as us.
To put it in a nutshell, can someone please prove their/my sanity?
Thanks.
-
Now imagine him on steroids - now you know what I looked like when the hearing finished. I swear to god, I'm ready to make a few citizens arrests. Chris Dodd, Nancy Pelosi, Obama - anyone else with me? We'll try them in a citizen's court. A real court sure as hell isn't going to find them guilty.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcg5t0mT8V4
This is the preview for the new Terminator movie. Not only is it exceptionally bad-ass, but hearing Christian Bale on the radio saying "This is John Connor" makes me think hearing him on the radio saying "This is John Galt" would be pretty bad-ass as well.
Christian Bale plays a lot of rich, wealthy people with shady second lives (Patrick Bateman, Bruce Wayne), and he certainly looks the part, so I'd support him as John Galt.
-
After seeing what these AIG execs are going through - the lynching they called a "hearing", death threats, 1000% taxation threats - I say they should take that money and run to a small foreign country quickly. Glenn Beck said that the only think the politicians haven't screamed is "bring out the monster!" Frankly, I think he's right. This mob rule, this "outrage", is politicians pandering to the lowest common denominator in such a sickening way, they shrug their shoulders when Mr. Liddy talked about someone threatening to hang executives and their families with Piano Wire. I'm disgusted. If these executives are forced to give up their money in any way (operative word being forced), I'll start mailing money to them to compensate.
Few of the AIG executives played a large part in the company's tanking. If one who received a lot of money did, then I think that person should probably give back some of the money, but they should be paid first. Contract is only second to property in terms of sacredness. But even if these men did run the company in the ground, hundreds of executives have done this before. It's nothing new. Bad business decisions are being made. It's nothing to tell someone to commit suicide over. (One of the politicians said that AIG executives should jump out windows. It's a sad world where a politician can get away with basically telling someone "STFU and kill yourself" without being tarred and feathered.)
Oh, and did I mention how the government is now an extortionist (not that this should come to news as anyone)? Neil Cavuto was talking to a senator on his show today, and mentioned the death threats. The senator said that all the executives had to do was give back the money and they would go away. If I understand this right, we're saying, give back your contractually earned money or we'll set the lynch mob on you and your family?
I say all white collar guys, and all white collar supporters, should march on washington and send these SOBs to North Korea, where they belong.
-
The response he got is I guess expected. People call his defense of a principled stand as unrealistic - his view - a function of his youth. Ideals and principles are really only guides they say.
God, I know how that feels. Every teacher I've had that wasn't a conservative...wait...okay, every teacher that I've had has told me some form of "You'll change when you get older".
It's been true to an extent, but not in the way they expected. I moved towards Objectivism, which I don't think they were expecting.
-
-
She is 'kinda cute, though.
On a more serious note, I have to say, I'm a little skeptical. How many of these people actually would leave their jobs for a philosophical strike? Even if this did happen, it would be a normal strike, just on the white collar side. This country isn't philosophical enough for anything like AS to happen. When people see that Obama isn't working, they'll elect a "capitalist" for the same reason they elected Obama - range of the moment panic.
-
I'd like Paul - Schiff. Or Schiff - Paul. Assuming Schiff runs in '10, then wins.
If there isn't a good libertarian candidate and we get another Barr, I'll vote Republican (holding my nose). Romney-Jindal sounds good, but I think Romney - McConell would be better. 2 powerful, famous Republicans who could really rally the base and opposition. Romney - Gulliani might be good, too. Get the base Republicans with Romney, and the dissatisfied indies/moderates/dems with Gulliani. Romney's deffinitley the best choice for President, though. Him or McConell. Steele might be good, but only if he can prove he won't keep splitting the party.
-
I thought this was amazing.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1039849853
If you liked it, email [email protected] or go here: http://www.cnbc.com/id/22898571/, and let them know.
David Kellerman (FreddieMac CEO) Dead
in Domestic United States Politics
Posted
http://www.news8.net/news/stories/0409/615570.html
This is awful. I didn't like the man, but I don't think he deserved death.
How many of you think this is one of those early-30's Germany "Suicides"? I sure wouldn't wouldn't put it too far past them.