Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


FrolicsomeQuipster last won the day on March 14 2013

FrolicsomeQuipster had the most liked content!

About FrolicsomeQuipster

  • Birthday 05/21/1989

Profile Information

  • Location
  • Gender

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
  • Website URL

Previous Fields

  • Sexual orientation
    No Answer
  • Relationship status
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Country
  • Copyright
    Public Domain

FrolicsomeQuipster's Achievements


Member (4/7)



  1. Turns out people can type with boxing gloves on.
  2. http://blog.paulmckeever.ca/2013/09/15/neither-conservative-nor-liberal-nor-libertarian-the-objective-label-in-electoral-politics/ More on: http://blog.paulmckeever.ca/2013/09/15/neither-conservative-nor-liberal-nor-libertarian-the-objective-label-in-electoral-politics/
  3. Interview about them http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reg_ar_rights Also just went to the lexicon and I saw quite a bit more than one sentence. http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/individual_rights.html http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=arc_why_individual_rights And smore: http://www.philosophyinaction.com/archive/rights.html
  4. Ditto on Leonid, morality is only about choice, inherent moral imperfection leads to the contradiction of a choice that isn't a choice.
  5. On your first topic, there already is a great one called; "Atheism the Case Against God" Which I'd recommend whether you're going to write on the topic or not. Its also has a pretty good part about skepticism if I recall correctly. And there's never enough novels.
  6. The mastermind method. Go to some remote unpopulated island with costumes and a made up language declare yourself the overlooked indigenous population. Why didn't anyone find you? Tunnels you were underground every time someone showed up, for "religious reasons". Why make contact now? A peaceful reformation happened after "insert fake history here". Lace the whole thing with appeals to self determination to the UN and make lots of fuzz about your peaceful culture and other bull. Then when you're acknowledged keep giving lip service until they figure out and you've already got protection agreements from several forces. The most important thing would be to functionally already have a working state apparatus and several local charities, the latter being misguidedly implied to be public institutions. After a while you'll drop the culture bomb that the idea of "public ownership" is completely foreign and there was just a misunderstanding. At that point they've already shown people that those institutions actually do work and they'd look like total asshats if they'd denounced it at this point. If pulled off right whoever goes around pointing out what's actually is happening will look like a conspiracy nut. I could even just leave this here cause a plan on some obscure forum describing what's happening would only make the whole thing less believable. George Lucas kept the sale to disney secret and even bigger cover ups have been revealed. You wouldn't even need all that many people, you'd just need to look as if there are a lot of people, or at least "enough" to realistically be granted self rule. Masks as a part of the religion so one person could make multiple cameos. Caves off limits to non believers, lots of torches visible, small conference rooms, professionally shopped pictures of large underground rooms. The underground jig would also be a great reason why there's seemingly so many pale people. The Luck method. Win the jackpot and use funds to make the prophecies of a cargo cult come true, give out lots of intellectual ammo too and use support to win local elections then start nagging about secession.
  7. I always hear decried that you can't be certain, but I don't think there's any ambiguity left when there's people locked in someones basement for years.
  8. To me the initial question sounded like; "If we had a sense that told us what's inside of a specific initially empty box it would be invalid because we'd first have to put something inside."
  9. Confusing a mystic is like tying a knot in a couple of cables that were already tangled together.
  10. You can't read their minds, but if they hold the rules of math and proclaim they're computing a certain calculation you can predict their conclusion. Similarly if they truthfully proclaim to hold or show himself to act according to certain values. To claim that someone who holds true to pacifist ideas will condemn self defense isn't mentalism but the acceptance what both of those mean. I can't say I'd put my bets on her sexuality based analytical prowess though, but then again I know of no attempt by her to exercise it.
  11. You can only imagine it if you also omit the things that would make it impossible. It was a square and in the same way time and aspect it was not a square. That's unimaginable. It was a square and when you looked at it from the side it was a circle. It was a square but a moment later it was a triangle. It was a square but its edges blended in with the background and on it was painted a red hexagon. These and and what you mentioned are ways of saying that anything was also a divergent thing in a different way with the means omitted. Because the contradiction is omitted. You can't imagine both the object and all the laws involved being what they are and not what they are at the same time. Say you know the identity of ice and water in relation to each other, if you want to imagine an ice cube sinking you have to first omit one of the factors that would make it impossible. You could just have something that looks like an icecube sink, you could suspend the applicability of their relations to each other, you could say it is the will of Dog. What you can't do is hold the full context while applying and at the same time not hold the full context and or apply it.
  12. I've heard Peikoff make jokes about things randomly turning into Hegel but apparently its actually not all that uncommon.
  13. I don't think the quote was only referring to the retrospective sense. But I think it does presuppose a familiarity with both states. When you're having your first few dreams as a baby you don't fully grasp the difference yet, but its grasped so quickly and deeply that it takes years of chanting "you can't know" to unlearn.
  • Create New...