Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Jackethan

Regulars
  • Content Count

    220
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Everything posted by Jackethan

  1. I don't remember anyone saying that the reasons the aliens were not leaving Earth was because they ran out of fuel here. The aliens came, and their ship was motionless for months, it wasn't until the South African government sent in recon that they discovered that the prauns inside were infected with some sort of disease. They evacuated the surviving Prauns, probably also took a bunch of alien technology with them for study, and left. There is no reason to believe that they do not continuously send helicopters to retrieve more technology from the mothership all the time. They always showed sev
  2. It's not your job to fix her life for her. She's your ex, she obviously did something to make you not like her so much anymore, so now you have to divorce her from your esteem. She's certainly not sitting around wishing that you'd finally give up the ghost and become promiscuous, she's not thinking of you. You have to not think of her. And you have to stop projecting her faults on to everyone. People are not all the same, you cannot guess that from one fault that you see every single promiscuous person is the exact same as your ex, and thus hateworthy. People are far more individual than al
  3. I think your obsession with other peoples' business is your trouble here. It is also a sign of low self esteem if you cannot get over the fact that other people get to partake in immoral behavior without being able to see the repercussions. Take your emotion to its logical conclusion: Would you prefer to watch these promiscuous people be executed or flogged for their moral crimes? Would you be happier if you were Christian and believed they would all be punished for their sins in the afterlife anyway? Morality is not about seeking punishment. It is about saying how one -should- act, not the co
  4. So your question is, what if alone one of your partners isn't your highest value, but when the three of you are together you are each eachother's highest values? Sounds a little rationalistic to me, examine why it's not the same when you imagine having a relationship with just one of them. As far as what other people say, if you don't like it, ignore them I'd say walking around in public being affectionate and doing three way makeout sessions at the park will attract negative attention but it's nothing the odd gay couple doesn't experience in some places. Your relationship's integrity is b
  5. My first question is are you an Objectivist? I can't really offer much help if you won't get my lingo. It is imperative to the relationship that all three people involved hold all three as the highest value, this is the only way the relationship can possibly work. If you like one of the women better than the other, or one of them likes one you more or less, then the relationship has already failed so get out. If you are each your highest value the biggest thing after that is communication. No subject can be taboo between you, at all. No secrets can be kept from eachother, and you each must
  6. In response to that email correspondence, Louie, the point is quite silly. He's saying that because you can push the a button to jump in the game you have more control as a player than the designer does over the content and meaning of what's happening. A game is exactly like any other kind of art, and the game designer maps out and catalogues all the possible choices the player is intended to have. That's they key word, the game designer -intends- to give a choice to the player. The choice the player makes alters the flow of -his- game experience yes, but the game itself, the code, is not chan
  7. And my point is, your definitions of art are subjective: With 1: The artist paints a random street scene, in it he is demonstrating the drive of human beings to get where they need to go. Some are going to work, some are going to play, some to eat, but they all meet here. Some are smiling at eachother and saying hello, others are shyly looking at their feet as they walk. Some are in cars, one car stops while turning left to let a pedestrian walk across the street. The point of the work is a study, a study in the benevolent universe premise. The artist went out to the street, found just any
  8. *** Mod's note: I have split some posts from an existing thread, to start a separate "what is art?" thread. - sN *** Okay. The definition of art is a selective recreation of reality based on the artist's value judgments. This: Is "Something piled together." This: Is quite obviously a pot of flowers. This: Does not suck me in. And "Sucks you in" is not an objectively definable criteria for art criticism, unless you can describe just what the hell "Sucks you in" means.' The tubes of paint are also quite obviously tubes of paint. Please show how that is -not- art. It look
  9. 4) Acceptance of Objectivist epistemology is essential to mankind's future survival on earth. My answer to the above would be "Irrelevant." I don't care what's essential to mankind's future survival on Earth. I care what's essential to my survival on Earth, the rest of mankind can figure it out for themselves.
  10. As for the Nietzsche quote. I don't think it's evil at all for the first thing you think of to be 'what if I do?' That's normal, and healthy. Thou shalt not is a law supposedly put forth by an authority. Your first reaction should always be, says who, by what authority, for what purpose. It is not evil to be disobedient. Nietzsche had his own version of what you're talking about "When you stare into the abyss the abyss stares back at you." The only way learning of evil can affect you is if you drop the context that evil is evil. It is not evil that corrupts your worldview, it is you that allow
  11. I'm circumcised, or mutilated as some people here put it. I don't feel mutilated, I like the look of my penis. I'm not going to press charges on my mother and father for doing this to me. Maybe I'll do it to my son. Regardless of whether religious motives were -the first- reason why circumcision happened, I happen to like the aesthetic. Why is that your business? Shall I go through life downtrodden and angry that I was 'mutilated' as a child? Shall people I want to date ignore me or pity because I'm a victim of 'genital mutilation'?
  12. I hate to rain on your parade, JMV, but antacid is probably the one thing you don't want to take for a stomach problem, or a digestive aid. Source: http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2009...cteria-and.html As far as how coffee gets drunk...Cuban espresso always always always has sugar. In the words of Celia Cruz you cannot have Cuban coffee without AZUUUUUCAR. My dad is one of those people that drinks coffee with no sugar or cream. It wouldn't be so bad if he didn't drink cheap ass American coffee. My preferred coffee type is Starbucks, and my preferred espresso is La Llave. I like to ma
  13. Another alternative that I consider to be a better answer than copying the US form of government, is a Constitutional Nomocracy. A state run by rule of Constitutional Law. In this system, various positions would be elected to for administrative purposes, perhaps even a president of some kind, to handle issues of war or what have you. But the body of law from which all other laws in the land must hierarchically spring would be written into the constitution. And the constitution will include the preservation of specific individual rights, all explicitly, and outline guides for interpretation of
  14. I completely agree with Old Toad's post number 232. Let's say, there is a new person around. Someone who is completely new to Objectivism, and belongs to a strange amalgamation of other philosophies. Let's say this person is confident in his particular area of expertise, that this person has an ego, a healthy ego. And a rational mind that only accepts new facts when they can be proven. Let's say you, the reader, as an Objectivist, gets into a discussion with this new person, we can call him Larry. Larry is not a troll, he's genuinely interested in learning about Objectivism, in this hypo
  15. The idea of a god is just as ridiculous as the idea of a magical invisible unicorn, the only difference is, generations of people have deluded themselves toward the existence of a god, and not a magical invisible unicorn, so we should all accept that the idea of a 'god' is possible simply because a lot of people from the past thought he was real so it must be true? No. There's no Yaweh, there's no Thoth, or Isis, there's no Thor, the only gods that exist are men, and they are only gods by achievement, not by divinity.
  16. You do not necessarily have to produce anything that is of use to another person in order to gain self esteem from achieving your values. You can make yourself an amazing gourmet breakfast and enjoy eating it, this always helps my self esteem. Ultimately your pride must come from -your- recognition of value in -yourself- or something you have produced. Trading value for value is not necessary for man's psychological health, but necessary for man's moral existence in the modern age. I add, if you lived in a cabin in the woods, completely self sustained, and never saw anyone else, you could s
  17. Greebo, the idea sounds to me like a form of the draft. Further, the government should have no say in how society would operate. One does not need to have been in a life threatening situation in order to understand the origin and meaning of individual rights. I'm actually wondering why a government would need a legislature at all, wouldn't most administrative caries be handled at a local level?
  18. I think this is a very important quote to help people understand that talent is not everything. There are many people I have come across recently who believe that they lack whatever innate talents one needs to be successful. In other words, I've met a man who dreams of being something, but feels that if he discovers he lacks the talent to do it (a talent which in his eyes can only be gained at birth) then his dream has failed and he should give up. To me, this mentality is not only untrue, it is sad. I was always taught, and I continue to maintain, that a person can do anything he wants to
  19. I'm not going to cede a point because everyone else believes it's true. What scares me about many other homosexual arguments on this thread is that A: People say that gay is not a choice, they do not say 'for some people it is, for some people it is not.' They simply say it is not a choice. B: They use the 'gay is not a choice' argument to defend the morality of homosexuality, AS IF that meant that if being gay WAS a choice, it would be completely immoral. As far as assuming all gay people are like me, I was not doing that, it was the other gay people who were assuming that I am like
  20. So sexual orientation is a measurement of abstract unknowable psychological tendencies, not a measurement of action? If one day they do discover the 'gay' gene, if such exists, are people who don't have it but still wish to be gay barred from that orientation? Similarly, if a psychologist tells you 'you're most likely straight' are you then acting against your nature if you have relations with a man? If a psychologist told you, if you're straight, that you're absolutely 100% homosexual, and they have lab tests on your brain chemistry to prove it, would you just toss your hands up and go
  21. I disagree. I chose to be homosexual. I am attracted to many attributes which can be found in both men and women, most of them are non-physical attributes, and I chose to pursue relationships with men over women after comparing my attractions to average personality traits of each gender. As far as attraction from a strictly sexual sense, or in other words, arousal, I have found that I can be made to be aroused by nearly anything, from the attractive to the unattractive to the disgusting. I thus reject the claim that homosexuality is not a choice, or that it is simply something you're born with
  22. Intent, in the cases you point out Jake, is thought. Is thought ever a crime?
  23. What if the video is a guy with a video camera taping the movie at the movie theater? I don't see how the two issues are different, a digital copy of a movie could be considered a 'recording of a rights violation.'
  24. I do not see any difference, morally, whatsoever between pirating movies and downloading (for free) videos of CP. If you are paying for it, then you are supporting the criminals, however if you got it for free, you do not provide the criminal with any benefit in return for the video. You are, in both cases, simply in possession of the product of a rights violation. In the case of pirated movies, possessing the product of a theft from a movie maker, in the case of CP, possessing the product of a violation of a child's rights. Further, anyone asserting that someone who downloads CP is automat
×
×
  • Create New...