Devils_Advocate
-
Posts
241 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
5
Posts posted by Devils_Advocate
-
-
I'm an advocate of Total War. Some might call me a heartless prick for that...
I've been called much worse (some false*, some true**) names for advocating that. But I definitely agree with you on that, and I think a good supporting example is what's going on in Gaza. If Israel were to make a half-hearted attempt with negotiations every three days, it's not going to solve anything, is it?
*fascist, nazi, criminally insane
**selfish bastard
-
WASHINGTON – The government is starting a different kind of most-wanted list — for environmental fugitives accused of assaulting nature.
I want on! I want on! What can I do? Spray a can of Deodorant in the open?
So, do they actually have the authority to arrest you and put you in jail, or is it just some list of people they came up with? Cause if they can arrest me, when I spray that deodorant, I want an immediate flight to Hong Kong.
-
John Galt with rap music?...Really?
I don't know - I could see Galt in his slacks and dress shirt (rolled up sleeves, of course), with a backwards baseball cap rapping.
Personally, I thought it was pretty good. I think the rap song was a good choice, although I would have chosen another. The only other suggestion I have is to shorten what Thompson was saying.
BTW - Merry Commercialist Christmas!
-
I'm skeptical; the french version of "We the Living" was off, and from what I know about Japanese, it'll be hard to express Rand quite as well as in English. I have a mild understanding of some eastern languages, and I speak Chinese quite well, and it seems as though Rand was right when she implied that it wasn't as easy to express her philosophy in non-Western languages. However, I can't speak a word of Japanese, and so I really can't tell what on earth she's even talking about, much less weather or not it's true to the source.
-
I absolutely loved the movie. The plot was spectacular, an excellent representation of evens in a personal and societal context which lead to a brilliant, dramatic, and triumphant ending. The characters were excellent. V as more of a symbol of the revolution than a real person, per se, was a brilliant artistic piece. Added a whole layer of political philosophy and pshycology to it. I loved it.
It was not, however, perfect. (spoiler warning) V was a symbol of revolution, so his death at the end is justified. However, he is also symbol of freedom. So...how does his death correspond to the birth of freedom in England at the end? Additionally, his and Eve's own mental difficulties kind of diminish the hero effect. Not signifigantly, however.
I'd recommend it, absolutely.
-
I don't think this has been brought up yet, so I thought I would mention it. I read an article from the Mises institute which explained how this would be solved in a SEC-less society.
Has anyone heard of a due-diligence firm? These are firms which analyze things like Madoff's Ponzi scheme and report their findings. They're apparently much more efficient and accurate than the SEC. An example? How about the fact that they've reported Madoff to the SEC, and their warnings were ignored.
Due-diligence firms use the fees collected from their clients to hire professionals to meticulously review hedge firms for signs of deceit. One such firm is Aksia LLC. After painstakingly investigating the operations of Madoff's operation, they found several red flags. A brief summary of some of the red flags uncovered by Aksia can be found here. Shockingly, Aksia even uncovered a letter to the SEC dating from 2005 which claimed that Madoff was running a Ponzi scheme. As a result of its investigation, Aksia advised all of its clients not to invest their money in Madoff's hedge fund."Madoff and the Failure of the SEC", Briggs Armstrong.
-
I had some thoughts after reading this:
Then I remembered that for quite a while I have been wanting to change my name. Not only are "Ben" and "Skipper" by themselves extremely common names, but there are many men existing today with the same exact combination! Far too horribly common for me.
It will probably be awhile before I can get the funds to change my name (even if the actual process is cheap, there are other things to consider such as license's and my SS card), but I would at least like to start right now entertaining alternatives. My main focus is to actually invent a name, but lacking knowledge in linguistics I am not sure where to start in my thinking or researching. But, of course, this thread is not limited only to my changing my name.
The things I would like to discuss are 1.) what are your views on someone changing their name, 2.) in the process of changing a name (whether it be inventing or selecting it), what criterion should one focus on; and 3.) should names mean something etymologically, or should they just be pronounceable?
Thank you for your time.
1. I believe it is fully moral to change one's name. You are who you wish to be, and if changing your name promotes your individual identity, then you have the full right to.
2. I would focus on three factors: Pronounceability, Etymology, and Personal Appeal. I wouldn't suggest naming one's self Frizgtztnei, as it's unpronounceable, Atilla, for hopefully obvious reasons, or Peter (it just doesn't have personal appeal to me).
On the subject of being named after one's parents, a quotation you had put in the OP, I just wanted to mention something. I'm a junior - my dad has the same name, letter for letter, and my middle name is my grandfather's name. But I will keep it for my life, because I really think it's an awesome name - Thadius Bruce Main. It's powerful, unique, and classy. It's kind of hard to pronounce, though. Substitute teachers have called me everything from "Thad-I-Us" to "Thay-dee-oos". I'm the only person I've ever heard of who has their first name spelled like that, incidentally. It's a really cool name.
But yeah, if I was named "John Smith" or something, I'd change my name pretty quickly.
-
-
I was a die hard, gun loaded, bible thumping Republican. Socially, I was less controlling than others (my 'soft' stance on immigration and marajuana) who called themselves Republican, but I was mostly on board with the rest (the whole 'abortion is murder', 'marrige is man-woman only'). Economically, I was almost laissez-faire. I did, however, support minimal welfare, taxation, and public services such as roads. I didn't support private currencies either. I was sort of a mixture between William Buckly Jr. and a softer Milton Freidman.
Thinking back on it, if I ever met myself exactly 1.5 years ago today, I'd probably slap him (me) and tell him (myself) to get a brain.
A much better thread would be: Before you discovered Objectivism, where were you on the intellectual spectrum?This is interesting for me; until I read Rand, I never quite grasped the idea of a "contradiction in terms". I lived and spouted die hard logic and reason, and used that for my explanation for almost everything. But when it came to religion - I was a self-blinded, mystical, "god is independent from logic", intense bible-waving Christian. Thank God I had the logic behind me - I might never have become an objectivist. The only reason I found Rand was because I heard AS had some pro-capitalist views.
-
So I was wondering how Objectivism deals with children. How does Objectivism allow that parents are able to use force in order to force their children to do things But at the same time say that those children still have rights that the parents can not violate such as killing them or neglect if at all. Also how does it force the parents to take care of the child or at the vary least ensure that it is taken care of e.g. orphanages, adoption if it does at all require those things.
Personally, I think parent's would be allowed to use force against their children in two situations: When they are very young, and their rational faculty is not fully developed, yet it must be shown to them that an action they've taken is wrong. Secondly, so long as the parent's house, feed, and clothe the children, they are allowed (to a certain extent) to use minimal amounts of force.
The second part deals with responsibility - parent's have taken up the responsibility of caring for a child, and must fulfill on their end of the contract. Contracts are sacred, and a parent giving birth to a child is just as much a contract as any. This obligates parents to take care of them. If a parent does not want to, is incapable of, or won't take care of their child, they can have them adopted. Private adoption firms, who will probably work largely the same as modern ones (I have no idea how that is), probably charging fees for the service. Children who are neglected can be seized by the Government, as the parent's have either broken their end of the contract or are inflicting physical force on them. The government will pay the fees for the adoption service.
On a side note, I think a lot of people reach maturity a few years before 18. I personally think that 18 is later to be designated as mature than necessary. 16 or 17 would probably be a better age. People who are not mature by then, won't be at 18. Not that there would be much dictation on when and when you are an adult in our LFS (Laissez-Faire State), just my personal psychological views.
-
Google and Yahoo had planned an advertising agreement. Then the DOJ told Google they would file an antitrust charge against them. Three hours before the complaint would have been filed, Google called off the agreement.
There's a lot of discussion on the tech website Slashdot about this. It's sickening to read the anti-free market responses. (e.g. the thread here). I'd encourage people here to leave replies. You don't have to register - you can post anonymously.
This is sick, disgusting, primitive cowardice at it's lowest, most despicable form. Whoever's alive who does this sort of sh*t needs to be hauled into a hearing, just like the innocent businessmen they've hauled into hearings time and time again. First it was the tabaco companies, then the oil companies, now the internet companies? Where does it end? Ben Bernake needs to be hauled into court, tried on violations of human rights, convicted, and sent to work in some prison labor camp. B*stard.
-
Do it off school property before school?
Thought about it - may even go ahead with that - but the only problem is, you can go to the store and get it for cheaper, especially before school. That was basically my slogan - "You're stuck here for 6 hours. Drink up." We'll see, though. There may be a way to work it.
-
I've been reading Rand for many years, and I thought of two things the other day that did not seem to be consistent with her philosophy.
1) The first inconsistency I thought of was when she wrote her essay on the Apollo mission and how it exemplified some of man's ideals. The essay I thought was brilliant, but she never addressed the fact that it was a NASA program, which was subsidized completely by the government and therefore by taxpayers. I was surprised she did not go into how this is not the proper function of government, and that science should definitely not be funded by the government. To me it seemed as if she really chose the good parts of the Apollo mission while leaving out the negative issues, especially since by principle this was wrong.
True - it was supported by stolen money and made achievable by what was - at that point - a government bordering on dictatorship. However, it was still an amazing accomplishment. Regardless of who did it, the fact that men used their rational minds to send us off of the earth and onto a whole other celestial body is just about incomparable. It shows us what man can do when we put our minds to it.
2) The second point I thought was odd was her interview in playboy. Playboy is run by someone who is not monogamous, and I remember in one of Rand's essays she had talked disdainfully about men who were not monogamous or who were womanizers, almost as if it were a cover for being a type of collectivist. (I'll have to find the specific one). My question is why interview for a magazine that is against your ethics? Isn't this a type of compromise, wanting to spread your ideas but then doing it through sources that are not in line with your ethics?She was anti non-monogamous men? Weird, as she had 2 lovers at one point. Hmm... Anyways, Playboy is not just a dirty magazine, especially not during the earlier years. It was a relatively high scale magazine that represented the sort of good life, rat pack kind of relaxation, elegance, and high living standard. The women it portrayed were very upper class - example, first person in it was Marylin Monroe. After Monroe died, Rand wrote her own eulogy that is comparable to Chris Crocker's "Leave Britney Alone!!" episode. It seems like something that Rand, while she probably wouldn't get a subscription, wouldn't have much against. And, as Jackethan said, it was the head of the "Sex is Good" belief, something that Rand makes VERY, VERY clear in AS.
-
Love interest (Psshaw, don't we all wish)
I hear you on that one! Love interest/boyfriend/husband tops the list.
If I had to make it a blood relation, then mom. Like Zip said,
To be raised as an Oist and not have to fumble around for 40 years to figure it out... -
Great. Parents expect their kids can buy this stuff from a store. They do not expect it to be sold in the school.
That point I can see you on.
I don't know about America, but kids aren't forced to go to a specific school here. They have to go to a school, but which school they go to is a matter of choice amongst the parents. And, there is a contract signed, laying down the ground rules of what to expect at the school, and vice versa, what the school expects of the student.Regardless, this is private property and you don't have a right to just do what you want on it, regardless of the law.
In America, it's different. You forced to go to the Public school system you're closest too, unless you go to private school (i.e., have big $$$$$) or are home schooled. There's been a big push for vouchers (which give the parents certificates to let their child attend the school of their choice) by the Republicans and Libertarians, but it's not too popular. And here, a school is considered public property, not private.
Yes, the law does not apply if you don't want to.What I meant by that was, I see no point in following the rules of an organization I don't agree with if the punishment (either implicit or explicit, i.e., either by disrupting the environment or my personal future, or a punishment issued by the Administration) is very small (the absolute worst thing they would do is a short suspension).
-
You should stop. Selling anything to kids without their parents' permission is wrong, you are not within your rights to do it. (especially since the parents have no way of stopping you)
If their parents wanted kids to drink huge amounts of caffeine, they'd buy it for them, so that's the end of the story. (I'm assuming these kids are actually underage)
Well, they can always go to the store and get it themselves. Most of the kids can already drive (you get your permit at 15 up here, and I don't sell to kids under 14).
This is quite true. If you register what you're doing with the school, and make it explicitly clear to parents what is going on, then it might be alright. However, you're just setting this up, when people have already started sending their child to this school under a pre-agreed contract in which their children aren't sold things they aren't aware of (so basically, anything outside the cafeteria). I don't think you have any right to start changing the contract in the middle of the game.Well, it is a public school. Kids are forced here. We weren't asked to sign any contract.
Sorry. It does sound like you had a lot of fun and good on you for a forming a successful business, but it seems pretty illegal to me, I'm afraid.Well, legality was never a big concern of mine. But thanks.
Regardless, I decided to shut down.
-
No, that's not what "lifeboat situation" refers to.
It's a joke - Sweden is one of the most socialist nations in Europe.
-
About using tax payer money: My grand parents were successful and payed large sums of money for decades in a perverted Swedish socialist system. My parents has payed taxes to. None has used as much as they ever paid in taxes. I consider, in my mind, that the government owes my family a lot of buck, much more than the cost of the welfare program. This premise may be correct or corrupt, please feel free to argue about it.
You live in Sweden? Dear God! Do you need help? A plane ticket? A care package? I might be able to wire some US dollars.
Oh, and your justification doesn't completely work. It may be your parents and grand parent's money taken that you're using, but it's still other people's money. When it's your money, then maybe. But you've been through public schools right? Or are you forced to spend all 12 years there? I don't know, I'm just mentioning that it might affect your government spending account.
Plus, regardless of how the government gets the money, it still isn't right for it to do those things. Of course, you are in Sweden. That might be a lifeboat situation.
Just my point - like you said, feel free to argue about it.
-
I have seen what caffeine can do to the people stupid enough to ingest too much of it. One of my friends is addicted to Monster, he's had heart palpitations and has had to take numerous trips to the hospital. He knows all the risks but continues to drink at least five cans a day.
Jesus... that's why I don't drink the stuff myself, I'm too worried about something like that happening (plus I drink plenty of coffee). Sorry about your friend.
However, cosnidering how much money you made selling this stuff, I would take into account what kind of learning environment you'd be helping to create. If your learning experience is harmed somehow because everyone is hyped up on the drinks you've been selling them, it would be within your best interest to stop selling those products.That's a very good point. I've never seen anyone get too hyped up on caffeine, but I have no reason to believe the Vice Principle is a liar. Whatever his flaws may be, he seems like a nice guy - certainly not someone who would lie to his students.
-
I think they are Gabriel's Horns calling us to The Lord's glory.
It's a Capitalist symbol, though it's predominantly used by Anarcho-Capitalists. It's pronounced Ama-gi, and it's sumerian cuneiform. It's the first time the word "Freedom" was used, the first time the concept was set down in writing.
From wikipedia:
Ama-giThe ama-gi is an ancient Sumerian cuneiform word meaning "freedom" or "liberty," the first known usage of the concept in writing. The Ama-gi, while sometimes used as a symbol by anarcho-capitalists, is also used by those who favor more moderate ideologies.[16] Ama-gi literally means "return to the mother," i.e. freed.[17]
-
I loved it!
Unfortunatley, I know people who would read this and shout "The man's a hero!" That's kind of scary.
Nonetheless, great job! I love the end, "I look forward to a day when all citizens will pay a tax on all of their income".
-
Just a quick story and following questions:
For the last few months I have been running a small retail business at my school. I sold primarily Monsters, Mountain Dew, Gum, and Pepsi. It's been an amazing experience - a real hands on business class. I very much enjoyed it - the business and financial aspects of it, the sales, etc. It was a lot of fun. Not to mention the money - about $100 dollars a month, which means nearly $400 dollars over the last few months (most of it's gone now, but on paper, I had earned about $400).
Unfortunately, the administration found out about it. I fully understood the legal risks involved going in, but there was no explicit rule I had ever heard banning it. So I went ahead. This morning, after weeks of searching for me, the Vice-Principal approached me and asked if I was doing it. I had a grocery store bag with a box of monsters in it, so I couldn't well say no. I told the truth. He was obviously impressed with me, and was pretty nice through the conversation, but was quite firm that I had to stop.
I have been considering, however, forming a small "corporation" of sorts. I get supplies, the market, everything needed, and have other people sell them for me. We'd divide up the profits, and keep the business alive. And it wouldn't technically be me selling them. But I'm also wondering if I should even keep doing it - according to the Vice Principle, some kids were getting way over caffeinated. Apparently, this one kid had had 2 cups of coffee and a monster, and was getting all shaky and sick. Knowing what some people do with it, should I even continue? I just have a hard time letting go of some stuff, especially something like this. What do you think? Should I restart the business in the model I described? Should I just let it go? Any other advice?
-
Quoted by Jake_Ellison
I might be missing something. How is a Muslim or a Christian very much supportive of the American way of life? It just seems that there are supportive of the parts that don't conflict with their religion.
Or supportive of the parts of their religion which don't conflict with their American way of life. One of my friends is Muslim, but I really, really doubt he prays 5 times a day. He plays too many video games to have that kind of time.
-
Cool, I'll probably make another plug soon, so don't worry if it slips your mind
BTW where are you in Maine? I was in the Damariscotta area over the summer. Nice place.
I'm in Falmouth. It's about 10 miles north of Portland, just off exit 52 or exit 53. Maine is a very nice place. I've been here about a year and a half, and I really like it. Nice country. I prefer crowded cities and imposing skyscrapers, but scenic country isn't bad.
Not to get too off topic, I love the theme from the Firefly show. It's not what I would call my personal anthem (well, maybe, I still haven't decided), but it's fantastic. It's called "Ballad of Serenity":
"Ayn Rand and trading..."
in Intellectuals and the Media
Posted
I've found the best responses to that are to attack the person's conception of an extreme. Usually, they've decided extremes are bad because all the extremes throughout history (communism, fascism, nazism,) resulted in millions dead. So you ask them - "Nazism was bad because it was an extreme?"
If they're consistent or understand their convictions at all, they'll say "Yes." or "Yes, in part."
Then you: "So it wasn't evil because it killed millons of people? It was evil because it was an extreme?" "But it was the extreme nature that killed millions!" "And it had nothing to do with the fact that it was an extremist pro-death philosophy? Even though a philosophy can be pro-peace, it's bad because it was an extreme?"
You get what I'm getting at here, right?
Quick question I have relating to this. Does anyone think that a person should be able to find a hero in someone for their career, without taking into the equation their philosophy, and/or politics/economics?