Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

manavmehta

Regulars
  • Posts

    94
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About manavmehta

  • Birthday 03/11/1976

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0
  • Yahoo
    manav_m

Profile Information

  • Location
    Minneapolis, MN
  • Interests
    Astronomy, Software, Music

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Minnesota
  • Real Name
    Manav Mehta
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted
  • Occupation
    Software Engineer

manavmehta's Achievements

Junior Member

Junior Member (3/7)

0

Reputation

  1. * Some spoilers ahead * Yes, perhaps important things were left out from the perspective of continuity, but I still don't see why they cannot make the later movies while continuing to omit those things, or make up for their absence in later movies. To me, personally, those things weren't important in this movie, but they did omit some of the things I would have liked to see (and I do agree that people who haven't read the book would be lost at certain points). But, then, those are the compromises of condensing a 500 page book into a 2 hour movie - you please some of the book's devoted fans, while you dissapoint others. I personally loved this movie, and thought it was very well made and true to the book. I think Voldemort was brilliantly done visually, though I was also dissapointed that they omitted his red eyes and his clear high cold voice. And I loved the Yule Ball scenes - they were hilarious, especially some things they added which are not in the book (the way Ron says "where!?" when Prof McGonagoll asks him to place his hand on her waist )
  2. My picture is in my avatar, but since its not very clear....
  3. "Wouldn't You Rather Be Manav?" "Make Room for the Manav." "Manav Is Good For You." "Gotta Lotta Manav."
  4. These are hilarious! I've got tears in my eyes from laughing
  5. Me too! That was indeed the best line in the movie and this was the best movie of this year (surpassing Batman Begins in my book) and the previous and the one before that...! I saw this movie no less than 3 times this weekend! After seeing it the first time, I went back to the cinema hall the next day looking for other movies to watch, but everything other movie playing there seemed so unattractive in comparison to what I had seen the previous night that I could not bring myself to watch anything but this movie again! Every one of the 3 times I watched it was as much fun as the previous time (though the breathtaking suspense was gone the 2nd and 3rd time), and I came back refreshed each time! I am still thinking back on the movie's funniest lines and laughing my head off. I highly recommend this one to anyone who wants a genuinely good time. This is art at its very best (philosophically sound and entertaining).
  6. I remember in the past seeing a link at the top which used to lead to some IRC chat forums but I don't see it any more. Has this feature been removed?
  7. Nice signature Yup, pretty much. Well, not exactly - it differs from year to year. Some years I am in the US 8 months of the year, some years it's 3 months, and some years I just don't go back to India at all. My previous US stint was the longest - I worked in Minneapolis from Oct 2003 to Nov 2004, then worked in India from Nov 2004 to Feb 2005, and now I am back in Minneapolis since Feb of this year (and will probably be here till Mar 2006). What dictates the durations of my US stay is the requirements that my company has for keeping me here to service a client on-site. There are five votes for Asia so far. I count me, Prometheus, Indobj and Shakthig. Would voter no. 5 come forward please?
  8. Even though I am in the US six months of every year, I voted Asia because that's where my actual home is. I'm from India, and I know for sure I'm not the only Asian in this forum (mine is the only vote so far for Asia). I guess the others are too busy working insanely late hours for their respective US clients I know I am and it's a wonder I manage to find time to browse this forum.
  9. Nobody is advocating that America should interfere with other cultures and try to change them. But minding your own business is different from tolerating the objectively evil practices of other cultures. We cannot convert those who do not want to be converted, but that does not obligate us to tolerate them.
  10. Sometimes it is better to offend people than to tolerate their evil practices. Bride burning, the caste system, child marriages, female infanticide - these were all evils of the old India which no one should ever have tolerated. Today, if they still exist, they are not tolerated and are probably relegated to the most primitive villages of the country where the people refuse to integrate themselves with modern times. They were continued only because they were tolerated by society. They were objectively evil practices - they were evil regardless of whether people tolerated them or not. In the same vein, America's race prejudices were evil regardless of whether society tolerated it or not, and regardless of whether white supremacists are offended when someone pronounces moral judgement on them. You seem to belong to the primacy of consciousness school of metaphysics - you seem to think that good and evil are not objectively determined by reality but by whether people consider them to be good or evil.
  11. That is exactly what I meant. Ayn Rand wouldn't have wanted followers who treated her ideas like dogma, so I think it is an insult to her to even call such people Objectivists. This is the reason why I don't call myself an Objectivist. Though Ayn Rand's ideas seem true to me at a glance, I have not yet entirely convinced myself that they are true. The day I call myself an Objectivist will be the day I have completed the enormous task in my mind of tying the last of her ideas to reality.
  12. ************* SPOILER WARNING ************** I didn't agree with the League of Shadows' idea of justice, so I was rooting for Batman all the way through! The idea of decimating an entire population may have some plausibility when you are dealing with dictatorship nations, but it hardly applies when it comes to an american city crippled by corruption - the answer is not to kill all the innocent people, but to bring the criminals to justice. The idea of Bruce Wayne choosing not to be an executioner may be flawed in its reasoning - I agree that criminals don't deserve compassion - but there is something to restraining yourself from the use of lethal force and letting the law take its course. It is the whole reason why we choose to delegate our right of retaliatory force to the government. But, anyway, phew! gasp! WOW!!! This is one of the best movies I've seen in recent times! The movie was about a clear cut fight between good and evil. The good characters were principled and stood for something, as opposed to the gray protoganists and anti-heroes you usually see. Bruce Wayne was portrayed as a thinking, intellectual man, using his intellect to achieve his values. And they did a fantastic job explaining the origins of Batman. All in all, a good ride - I enjoyed it thoroughly, and I thought it was an excellently done movie, from the plot, the excellent production values, the fine acting performances (especially Christian Bale), through to the thrilling musical score. I found myself sitting at the edge of my seat during the climax! And I loved it when Rachel Dawes sums up the essence of morality in one line - what you are inside doesn't matter, it is what you DO that defines you! When the titles started rolling in the end, I found myself doing something I rarely do at a movie - applauding! I may not completely agree with the movie's explicit philosophy, but I loved its portrayal of a man using his mind to reach his goals, and doing it with a smile on his face!
  13. People who smoke Marijuana might also do it for the taste. I don't see why taste would be a factor in smoking, but not in the use of mind-altering drugs like Marijuana. I don't know for a fact that Marijuana doesn't taste good, and if what Eric Mathis is saying is true about the use of Marijuana, then it is possible to smoke it without getting high, and I can even envision rational people deriving some value from Marijuana - it can be used recreationally the same way alcohol and cigarettes are used. I smoke cigarettes because they relax my nerves when I am stressed out at work. I drink because I enjoy the taste of beer, and because it relaxes my nerves and therefore helps me to unwind after a hard day's work. So taste is not the only factor determining recreational value. Point taken. Both #1 and #2 are criteria, assuming that you can determine easily whether your consumers are deriving the value you intended from the product. If not, I don't see how #2 can be applied. Taking your particular example, there is a non-medical, recreational use for Marijuana, so the pot dealer is not immoral for selling it -- although a majority of Marijuana users probably use it to get high, a pot dealer's intent may be for it to be used rationally for recreational purposes.
  14. How could a dealer ever know if his product is being consumed by rational consumers, short of stalking every consumer to find out how they are using his or her product? The above is the reason why I consider (1) to be a sufficient criteria for determining the morality of a profession.
×
×
  • Create New...