Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Jackethan

Regulars
  • Content Count

    220
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Everything posted by Jackethan

  1. Having a fetish "may" interfere with complete sexual expression. May is the key word there. Obviously, if you can't get off without rubbing your hand on a latex balloon, you want to work to train your mind to lose that fixation (or find someone else who likes balloons too.) Most fetishes are results of subconscious training people do to their minds. Some of the most irrational fetishes -are- a result of people surrendering their willpower and just following the 'whim' of their body, or of the moment. However, if a man who has a fetish for stockings and becomes aroused when his wife is in stock
  2. Allow me to stir the pot! What if you make a trade with someone, trading money for some item of theirs. At the time of the transaction, you believe you deserve the item based on the amount of money you gave, and you're pretty sure they deserve the money for the item. The next day you find the same item, same quality, same maker, for much cheaper than you paid. Who deserves what now? Obviously it's a case of caveat emptor, however did you deserve to be treated fairly? Did the guy who sold to you deserve your money? And on a separate note, how do you go about psychologically divorcing you
  3. You don't "Dishonor" anybody, this isn't ancient China. You made some mistakes. Now you can rectify them. If your family and friends dislike you for being honest with yourself and being true to reality, then they don't really have much worth as friends do they? Less self pity, and more celebration. You've graduated into the real world now!
  4. She built on other people's ideas instead of making up her own from scratch and that's somehow bad? Ayn Rand developed the first principled, coherent, non-contradictory philosophy. She didn't even coin the term Lassiez-faire capitalism. It was first identified by Adam Smith. She drew influence from many philosophers, to make one cohesive and integrated philosophy. As far as classical liberalism: Classical liberalism means "Likes new ideas." It means to prefer nonrestrictive freedoms over old traditions. So yeah, you could call her a classical liberal. Is that bad? Concepts lose their
  5. It's not irrational to want to mitigate future strife by acting to ensure someone's selfish desire is fulfilled, particularly in the case of family members who tend to not go away. Obviously if the family member is being altruist and causing you more trouble than value you should evaluate your relationship with them and possibly not spend as much time with them, but I wouldn't say it is contra Objectivism to say, perhaps, "No, on second thought, we'll do the movie some other time, you go have fun at your party with your friends."
  6. The (conservative) radio station that (my dad listens to) I heard yesterday said he'd already done away with Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
  7. Loreena McKennitt - The Highwayman Trying to get in the mood for Halloween.
  8. Christmas was a pagan holiday, the pagans weren't into the whole ascetic altruist thing, they were more into having fun and getting drunk, a decidedly selfish mode of jubilation. Since this seems to be the place where everyone discusses how their fam did Christmas, I'll share mine! My family did christmas pretty normally. We had a big tree that we decorated while listening to Mannheim Steamroller christmas music and we'd have presents under the tree and a big meal of lechon (roast pork) rice, beans, platanos (fried bananas), and red bean soup. It's my favorite time of year, even the sill
  9. Motive is thought. Thought can not be criminally punished. Why you buy a gun can only be known to anyone if you tell them. Even in such cases the 'witness' of someone saying they want a gun so they can kill people is heresay. There is no way to know the motive of a person when they buy a gun, and therefore it is impossible to legislate that only those who want to kill are banned. The only option is blanket ban, or ban by arbitrary criteria. Both cases violate individual rights.
  10. Are there any citable examples where Yaron agrees with Beck on something anti-Objectivist?
  11. Your brother was being silly when he said you shouldn't have invited her to use your computer. He's not your dad, it's not his house, and not his computer. If he thinks you're sleeping with his girlfriend he should ask you, not sit around worrying about "Semblances of impropriety." Your brother and his girlfriend were both being abusive and manipulative to you when they came to tell you about all the bad things the other had done. You are not in their relationship, you can't really know the context of their relationship, and any attempt to involve you in a fight is just petty, abusive, and
  12. It is blanket psychologizing to imply that -all- socialists are going to be more reasonable, or even to imply that more socialists than christians are more reasonable. It is also generalizing to say that all members of the republican party are religious, and to say that all members of the libertarian party are irrational. There is a generous gulf between what politicians do and say, which affects the definition and ideology of their political movement, and what normal people think. The main mistake I see with the 'ignore the Right' argument is that it seems to completely ignore that: A. peo
  13. That is still a broad generalization to say that the liberals follow that train of thought at all as opposed to simply agreeing on the major hot topics and divorcing their morality from it altogether. As has been said before political parties -are not- philosophical movements. There is no guaranty whatsoever that any member of such a party has taken the time to rationalize out that particular chain of thought in regards to their morality. If you were saying that the ideology of the modern liberal movement is more intellectually honest than the ideology of the modern conservative movement, t
  14. Philosophical precedent is definitely relevant, however not all members of the modern political parties are aware or even agree with the philosophies which are their progenitors. Political parties are not cohesive philosophical movements, as they completely ignore the first two branches of philosophy. It is for this reason that Ayn Rand believed it is impossible to spread the ideals of Objectivism via a political party, as they are not about ideas at all. Many members of any political party will have significant compartmentalization in their personal philosophies. Not everyone inside the pa
  15. I disagree with that premise of your argument which says that Objectivists currently collaborate and agree with the modern right and libertarianism. If you prefer I shall ignore that disagreement as I do not think it has any relevance to your question. I was a conservative before I became an Objectivist. I do not believe that members of the modern political left are inclined to be any more intellectually honest or rational than members of the modern political right, or than libertarians. I have met democrats who are nihilists, democrats who agree that we all can't help but be selfish, an
  16. When has that happened, can you cite any examples of Objectivists who represent Objectivist organizations agreeing with anti-Objectivist political stances? EDIT: Changed "issues" to "stances" for clarity.
  17. What kind of collaboration and agreement have Objectivists given to the religious right and libertarianism?
  18. If you read the wiki for the Gold Party (translation of the Gullpartiet) you can see that they're sort of nationalists. They want to regulate trade to 'give Norwegian companies an advantage.' Maybe we can change their mind on this, but I don't know what else they might stand for. The wiki for the Technocratic party that is currently in power doesn't mention much about its ideology.
  19. Allow me to be the first to welcome you to the forums Ricky! I am also gay and I am an Objectivist so I think we have something in common. Your story is similar I think to many others' here. My first question is, have you read any of Ayn Rand's books, if so which ones? You're welcome to ask questions around here, and I'm sure you'll find people, some may agree, some may disagree with you. We also have chat, you may have noticed, I hang around there most of the time if you'd like to chat there. Welcome.
  20. I think we should have one or two people assess the other political parties in Norway and meantime everyone else work on establishing a political party of our own (this will take gold). Does anybody speak Norwegian? As far as I can see our opposition in Norway is mostly socialist liberals. As far as making our own country, I believe our options are to conquer Norway politically and have that be our nation or find some other country to conquer politically. I don't know if we can establish our own state. It looks like at least some of the people in Norway speak English.
  21. More straw men. I never stated that anyone has the right to dictate to anyone else how to run their business, or who their customers should be. The photographer in your case was obviously a victim of an immoral person making a case before a corrupt judge. While you're too busy trying to rationalize a judeo-christian political view behind a veil of 'practicality.' (a tactic that republicans use all the time, one which is wholly un-Objectivist.) You could be spending your time and effort lobbying for corrupt judges and lawyers to be weeded out of our system. You have not at all refuted my poi
  22. I have to hand it to you, that was one of the most compartmentalized, rationalized strawman arguments I have seen thus far. No gay man I know, including me, even -wants- to be married by a church. The only reasons I support gay marriage is because if my boyfriend or 'husband' got sick and was in the hospital, I would not have a legal right to see him, if his family denied me. If I wanted to marry a man in another country and bring him here to America like any straight person can do, I cannot. There are many other things gays can't do without being married. So, let's tally. Gay people hav
  23. I liked it pretty well. Been a while since I've seen it but it was pretty funny to me. Another movie that's not as sinister as everyone claims it is if you ignore the fact that the author of the source is Upton Sinclair.
  24. I was only spanked once as a child, one time, because my father heard me say a curseword and he got angry (he's a born again christian.) Immediately after my mother came and told him never to lay a hand on me again. Other than that, which I don't remember very well, I never needed to be spanked. Will I spank my children? Probably not. I do not believe that children are born with 'inherent tendencies' to be 'demon children' or misbehave, so if I find myself in a situation where my child is exhibiting spoiled or rotten behavior, I'd assume I've not communicated some point or other and fostere
×
×
  • Create New...