Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Sarrisan

Regulars
  • Posts

    84
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Sarrisan

  1. in best of q & a, ayn rand says that all laws on homosexuality should be repealed (agreed), but she says, "i don't necessarily regard the pratice as moral." why?

    You would have to ask Ayn Rand (Something we unfortunately cannot do). Ayn Rand never gave her reasons, as far as I know, for her opinions on homosexuality. All we have is an off-handed comment from an informal Q & A session -- hardly anything at all.

    You could perhaps ask "As an Objectivist, what is your opinion on Homosexuality? And if it is a negative one, why?" No one can presume to know what Ayn Rand thought, except perhaps her closest friends, and I am not aware of any of them extrapolating upon her thoughts in this area.

  2. I disagree, many people especially conservatives love to look down at transgenders as a whingeing minority, the word minority because they don't idefinity as the majority so to speak.

    However, many conservatives fail to realize that opinions may not be in their favor, polls are showing that the majority of america while not homosexuals are now supportive of same-sex marriage, that may leave conservatives in a "whengeing" minority? Everybody is not the same, so "a minority" may be the person who thinks they are the "majority".

    Disabled americans, people in wheelchairs, blacks and hispanics, or rather let's say seniors, those with high blood pressure, or heart disease, they may be a "minority" , if most of the population in a given country is not senior or disabled.

    However, the "majority" have an opinion giving them rights, which means that this leaves opinion of people towards transgenders, homosexuals,etc in doubt when they talk about special rights given to a whinegering minority, or "rights"

    of conservatives, many americans could care less but often have knee-jerk reactions when conservatives use propaganda about how allong transgenders to use the restroom in peace is a license for predators , when it does not give

    somebody a right to commit a crime such as in the case or rape, assualt,or vouyerism.

    People are entitled to their own religious beliefts and opinions, but does that may also make them a minority, that a majority may respect most of the time.

    Objectivism surely at its best :D

    I'm not sure what your point is. Are you implying that transgendered people do have special rights? In that case, what special rights? And why are those rights more important than my rights? What gives them the right to enslave me with government force?

  3. I think you'll find that most people here will not mention race at all. Skin color, ethnicity, etc, are irrelevant in judging a person. The fact that you placed undue importance on the matter is probably what rubbed people here the wrong way.

    "Obama is black" is not an Objectivist criticism of the man. "Obama is evil" would probably be more accurate.

  4. As I understand it, voting for a candidate is not giving him your sanction or your moral support, as long as you continue advocate against his ideas afterward. The President of the United States is an important role, and though we should do whatever we can to fill it with good candidates, we have to pick the least-worse one when given the chance. Simply revoking your vote entirely, while poetic, is irresponsible because then you have no say in you becomes your ruler. Voting Libertarian is basically the same thing (Unless, by some miracle, a Libertarian candidate gains a snowball's chance in hell of winning).

    Therefore, since they have no real political power, and their ideas are similarly bankrupt, they have absolutely nothing to offer Objectivism.

  5. If your story must have a perfectly rational hero with few or little internal conflicts, then look for other ways to make him interesting. Simple things like eccentricities, hobbies, or or a way of speaking can add flavor to a boring character. Being rational does not mean you abandon personality. Everyone has their own sense-of-life, their own interests, and their own little qwerks. Find a few that make your character interesting to read about.

    Also, if your main character is somewhat boring, try adding lots of other characters that are not perfectly rational, and who have their own conflicts, many of which perhaps with your main character.

  6. I've been wanting to get a good RTS game, but have yet to find anything that seems interesting enough. I might have to give this one a try.

    It's more of a grand-strategy game than an RTS. The RTS element only comes in when you fight in battles, the rest of it is done in turn-based format on a large map of the world.

    Having said that, if Empire is anything like Rome, than the battles will be the high-point of the game.

  7. Interesting -- it seems economical concerns are more important in this iteration of the series. In Rome, the economy consisted of;

    1: conquer province.

    2: use government funds to build bath houses and stadiums and temples to keep the people from revolting.

    3: tax the the living hell out of inhabitants ( secondary: Build another statue to keep them happy)

    4: use taxes to raise more troops to conquer another province.

    5: repeat...

    If Empire has a system that is more engrossing than this, then I will be quite happy.

    EDIT: Also, could you expand upon the "taxes limiting growth" bit you mentioned? It always bothers me in empire-type games that you can tax the pants off of your inhabitants, and as long as they are pacified with various social projects, trade and overall economic growth would not be effected at all. Typical economic fallacy, I suppose, but it would be nice to see a game where the economy was shrunk in the long-term if you pursued byzantine tax policies.

  8. I've sadly yet to play Empire, but I am a long-time fan of Rome: Total War. I am curious, what are the changes that Empire embodies that make it seem an embodiment of Capitalism? I sure didn't see anything like that in Rome, so it must be a new feature.

  9. There have been numerous threads on this issue already -- perhaps a mod would like to merge this with those?

    As for me, I am not an expert on this subject, but here is my take on it.

    Man, alone, is not able to create nearly as many values as a group. He can do a fine job at it, and for some people perhaps even find contentment, but in the end mere survival is probably all that he'll attain. On the other hand, if he moves to a city of individuals, he has access to hundreds, thousands, even millions of other individuals who themselves create values. Now, to take advantage of these other values, he has, basically, two venues open to him -- he can use force to get them, or he can use reason.

    Now, if he uses force (And assuming he has the power to do what he wants without reprisal), then he can find himself inundated with riches. But after a little while, it will all be gone -- spent, or used up. The people who created those values are now either dead, have fled, or refuse to be used as slaves. So, now the looter is left with nothing -- and, never having learned to use his mind in the first place, he will probably die because he no longer has anyone else to mooch off of.

    On the other hand, if he uses reason -- i.e., he took the values he created himself, and traded them for the values of others, he will not immediately find himself flowing in riches. But he will find that the people around him will continue to trade their values for his, and if he finds some values that are worth enough to many other people, he will find himself with far more riches, both physical and intellectual, than he could ever steal. And, through mere association with so many minds, he will find himself enriched by their values by proxy.

    And that's not even accounting the profound psychological effects of achieving your values through the simple sweat of your mind and brow.

    EDIT: Man, that sounds rationalistic... Grames answer above is far better, I think, though perhaps could be expounded upon a bit.

  10. Hiding a crime is itself a vice, which is to say that it is harmful to one's own interests. Even if he is never caught or even suspected by other men, a man who hides his crime persists in living in opposition to his own nature. He can never fully face reality because he must always act as if part of it weren't so. His dishonesty enslaves him to a fiction instead of allowing him to address reality head-on.

    For a man's soul to be whole, he must not be at war with any part of reality. Although joy is possible to men who commit hidden crimes, happiness, which a joy that does not clash with his other values, is not.

    The problem is, what if it is a crime that you believe shouldn't exist? A crime which you believe violates your rights? In that case you may do the crime, hide it, and still be psychologically healthy because you are convinced of your righteousness. Perhaps you could make the argument that all lies are essentially a rejection of reality, but I don't believe that either. Context is extremely important in these kinds of questions.

  11. That link is broken... you forgot to add the (dot) suffix.

    Also, It is exactly for your experiences that I think it's best to never try to "teach" kids Objectivism. Some may understand more than others, but for the most part it's always better the wait until they've grown and had some life experience.

  12. I do acknowledge that Richard is not fully integrated in the beginning of the series, and sometimes makes irrational statements or does irrational things out of ignorance. Many characters in Atlas Shrugged do this too, until they learn better.

    I think this may be one of the bigger problems here, and it comes form the fact that The Sword of Truth is such a long series. In Atlas Shrugged, you know that any mistakes that the characters make will be resolved by the end of the book, so you are free to withhold judgment until you have read the whole thing. But Richard's story goes on through 11 very long books, during the writing of which, Goodkind himself is likely to have gone through personal changes himself, which makes it difficult to know whether what your reading is a simple irrationality that the writer intends to one day have Richard fix, or an error that the writer made when formulating the character.

  13. Excellent; I love Shamus' blog, and it's great to see that he's given us some good publicity. I'm going to read the comments now (Though it seems I've come far to late to have any meaningful contribution).

    EDIT: Wow, that was some good stuff! You did a great job of representing O'ism there, as did The Inspector.

  14. At first, I thought it was nice, but a bit chaotic and disorderly for my tastes... and then I realized that the music was playing in both the Youtube video, and on the Myspace page at the same time, out of sync.

    Listened to it a second time, and thought it was lovely. I'll have to check out more of his work. Thanks.

  15. Hmm, I'm not sure if this has been mentioned before, (Sorry, don't have time to read the whole thread), but I just got done listening to an interview with Ayn Rand (Titled on ARI's website as "Politics in a Free Society") where the issue of taxation came up. She mentioned (Albeit very tentatively) a sort of "insurance tax," where, if you wanted to use a service of the government, you would first pay a sort of insurance premium in the possible event that you would need to use government services.

    She was talking specifically about courts upholding the fidelity of contracts, where you could choose to opt out of paying the tax, but then you would not be able to take your partner to court were he to violate the contract. I could see a few situations where this might cause problems -- for instance, criminal justice. But perhaps, along with voluntary contributions, it could work.

    What do you guys think?

    Oh, and if you want to listen to what she said yourself, just register at ARI's website, go to the "Ayn Rand Multimedia Directory," and choose the interview mentioned above. It's the last question she answers in the interview.

    (If this is redundant, I apologize, a mod can go ahead and simply delete it if they wish).

  16. I don't know - since I'm only in book 2 - but if he never remembers his nightmares, that *might* be suggesting that his subconscious is still dealing with issues that his conscious mind isn't aware of.

    But I'm not terribly committed to the theory. This is a fantasy series, and suspension of disbelief applies here. :lol:

    It makes sense from a realistic point of view, but remember that this is the product of an authors mind. I think that, if Goodkind wanted Richard's choices (Post-book 2) to be effected by his trauma, than he would mention it somewhere. Otherwise, how are we to know?

    Maybe he mentioned it, but used subtle language, so that not everyone would notice it. Does anyone here remember something like that?

  17. With that in perspective, would it follow that the irrational statements Richard makes at various points in the books you're discussing stem in part from that Madness? That like Denna (but to a lesser degree), his ability to reason was impaired by his own trauma? It seems to me that after such torment, recovery would be a long process taking years. What is the time frame between books 2 and 6?

    An interesting point of view, but I'm not sure it hold water. After book 2, Goodkind never again mentions Richard's partial madness -- I always assumed that by the end of book 2, the revelations he'd made had "cured" him.

    Am I wrong? Does Goodkind ever mention that Richard retains trauma (Except for his nightmares, which he apparently never remembers) from his experiences with Denna?

  18. In regard to the prophecy thing,

    he does acknowledge that (Much) later in the series, culminating with Kahlan giving Ann a proper thrashing on the subject (Which ends up being kind of useless... for reasons that happen later in the book, as you'll see).

    Also, I always envisioned the third rule as being a warning rather than a statement - i.e., that irrational people often allow their passion to rule their reason, and that it is a mistake you should (As a proper good wizard) be sure not to make. Admittedly I have not read the book in a while, and no longer have a copy, so I may be mistaken. EDIT: Ah, I see I missed Tenzing already mentioning this.

    In addition, I would feel like I'm hiding it if I don't mention it, but Richard does grow out of these things for good eventually, but it doesn't really happen until book 6. And at that point, it's like he just suddenly changes on a dime -- suddenly he's a hero of John Galt proportions, speeches and all.

    As I said, I haven't read the books in some time, so you are probably in a better position to make these judgments, but these are the thoughts I remember having during my second reading of the series. (During the first, I was very young and mostly blinded by what was my first decent heroic fantasy stories. For all his faults, Richard is a much more admirable role model than most out there, at least before I discovered Ayn Rand.)

×
×
  • Create New...