Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Sir Andrew

Regulars
  • Posts

    240
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Sir Andrew

  1. I don't know man, I first masturbated with I was 12, and now I have to carry around a portable DVD player with me so that I can watch porn when I'm walking down the street.

    I'm still waiting for sunglasses with a LED screen built into them. I want some privacy while I'm walking in public.

  2. That's certainly true. Catch phrases aren't designed to get people to think, but just to stick in someone's mind. The problem with activist organizations that the the source of all the thinking (and the slogans on the picket signs and the petitions) is from the activist organization itself, so volunteers aren't thinking. They're merely disseminating what the higher-ups have said.

    I'm thinking more of just presentation. Like the way there's the Atlas Shrugged site that gives an intro to the philosophy of Objectivism, while also being helpful to students reading the book. I'm not saying we have to rework the philosophy or make it "hip" or "cool", because part of what makes Ayn Rand so interesting is she's just as relevant today as she was 30 years ago.

  3. I have to disagree. More rewarding? Maybe. Less practical? Definitely.

    A common language is a necessity for efficient communication. Dictionaries exist to codify language, to establish a standard that both parties can refer to. To basically re-invent language every time you start a discussion is unnecessarily cumbersome.

    Well, you don't have to do it every time. But your argument shouldn't rest on the authority of a dictionary, it should rest on the authority of reason and logic.

  4. I doubt that bit about not referring to a dictionary. You can say, "altruism means so-and-so" and the person can deny it. What then? You can either agree to a definition and run with it, or have reference to a dictionary.

    That's true, but then you run the risk of losing the debate by pinning your entire argument on whether or not your opponent will accept the authority of the dictionary. It's far more rewarding to get into an argument of semantics before you even start debating actual issues, because your opponent has to defend and (hopefully) reconsider their own definitions, and thus the concepts behind the words of their argument. If you can get them to concede that your definitions are correct, you can then proceed to work through the issues you're debating and move forward with confidence.

  5. Something that strikes me about this thread is that most activist organizations that I've seen always have a big push for volunteers--volunteers to hand out leaflets, volunteers to hold picket signs, volunteers to collect signatures, etc.

    If you think about it, that sort of thing would really be self-defeating for ARI. Drumming and grandstanding don't get people to think, they accomplish the opposite.

    Sorry, it just struck me as interesting.

    Yes, but the philosophies behind those organizations (assuming there even are any) don't make people inclined to think.

  6. I played BioShock before I became an Objectivist, and it's the best game I've ever played.

    Ryan is the hero, but he fails for reasons already mentioned (letting any Capitalist in, not those with the same philosophy).

    As far as the destruction of the city goes, in his mind it is no different than him burning down his forest when he was still on the surface to keep it from being nationalized

    Oh, and I thought the voiceover work on the game was phenomenal. I was surprised to hear that Armin Shimmerman did the voice for Andrew Ryan. If they make a BioShock movie, I don't know how I can see it with anyone else's voice playing Ryan.

  7. More than once I've been accused of making up my own definitions, even though Webster's supports my view.

    You shouldn't need a dictionary to back you up, though. (If you cite it, it does make you look uncertain of your ideas, that you have to use a dictionary as proof.) Just logically and rationally define what a word means and what it doesn't mean.

    Like in your altruism vs. charity example. You can simply say "While charity is simply giving something away, altruism is the belief that men should sacrifice themselves for the benefit of other men.", and then explain how charity isn't always a sacrifice (like dropping some spare change in a collection bucket or whatever.)

  8. Jesus doesn't scare me, but he is rather irritating. I hate how he has to use metaphors to try and say something. Just say it and be done with it! You don't have to start everything with "So, two guys walk into a bar.."

    And we got that you were telling the truth the first time! It reminds me of the Ayn Rand quote. It goes something along the lines of "Only a dishonest man has to worry about being trusted."

  9. They don't want to fail. They want to be nationalized.

    If they borrowed money from a bank, and they failed anyway, the bank would come in and restructure. If they borrow money from the government and fail, the government now has an excuse to nationalize them to run them 'more efficiently'. Then they don't have to maintain a profit margin, because the government will be there with a bandaid everytime they fall.

×
×
  • Create New...