Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

cliveandrews

Regulars
  • Content Count

    184
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by cliveandrews

  1. Why do you ask? Because I believe people should be independent? Yes, that would be part of the objectivist creed.. Also, does it confuse you when I believe a 26-year old who lives at home and whines about his parents needs help?

    Did you read the part where I said I have a seriously debilitating, possibly life-threatening physical illness which severely limits my choice of action and has made it almost impossible to find suitable work? And did it not occur to you that living with my parents is not my preferred arrangement, but one that has been forced on me by circumstances beyond my control? Or are you satisfied with rotten distortions like the implication that I'm just too stupid and lazy to move out of my mom's basement?

  2. As far as I can see, your family has supported you, is giving you food, shelter, an education, and I assume, a few other things. So, despite this, you DESPISE them. Do they have different beliefs than you do? They are entirely entitled to their differening opinions. They are also entitled to respect from someone they are providing for. My suggestion is you grow up before you start hating others. By the way, have you considered any connection between your health and your mental attitude?

    :dough:

  3. I made a thread a year ago in which I discussed a serious, debilitating health problem which limits my choice of action and my ability to work:

    http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...c=16398&hl=

    I have a choice to make: I can either pursue a career as a medical billing/coding specialist, which will allow me to be financially independent, but which holds utterly no value whatsoever to me, or I can accept financial support from my parents, whom I despise, to attend college for 2-3 years to pursue a career that I would value highly and which would give my life meaning and purpose. I don't even know that the goal is realistic under the circumstances, but I will enjoy the journey and and am willing to gracefully accept my end if I try and it doesn't work out. I am currently in my first term at university and I love studying, but am overwhelmed by feelings of contempt and disgust for my rotten family. Their behavior disturbs me so much that it sometimes becomes psychologically debilitating. I physically live with them, but stay on campus for 12-16 hours a day to limit my exposure to them. Accepting their support requires me to conceal the extent of my disregard for my family and withold the kind of treatment which I would actually prefer to give them.

    The full context of the situation is difficult to communicate but my question boils down to this: is it wrong to accept support from a corrupt family, and is having a debilitating illness which limits my alternatives an important consideration?

  4. I'm not talking about online degree mills like University of Pheonix, Kaplan, etc., but actual state universities that offer distance learning programs. One of the major universities in my state offers an accounting degree that can be completed entirely online and make one eligible to sit for the CPA exam. I have always thought that online school cheapens the already tremendously cheapened value of a college degree, and personally don't think very highly of distance learning programs. But if I am nailed down to a job and the degree could potentially lead to a better one, it would be better than nothing. My question: are distance learning degrees taken at all seriously and are they at all competitive? If you were an employer in your field and you saw an applicant who earned his degree online (from a reputable school), would you consider him?

  5. I've been fascinated with Greenspan recently and have been trying to come up with an explanation for his actions as the Fed chairman. One interesting train of thought is that he never really departed from Objectivism, and that he intentionally accelerated the destruction of the mixed economy with the goal of destroying altruism. Is this a possible explanation for the course Greenspan took in life, or do you think it's silly?

  6. I'm looking at a textbook used for training medical billing specialists at a vocational school. It says "In the early 1900s, most americans continued to pay for theier own health care expenses, which usually meant either charity care or no care."

    Is this true or is it just another example of leftist propoganda in education?

  7. There appears to be quite a bit of evidence that the accusation are not true. Even if they were, the man should be jailed, not executed.

    If my father threatened to kill me for religious reasons, and I believed he was serious, but had no way to prove the fact, and I thought I could get away with it, I would be strongly tempted to kill him first. I think the threat of violence is a crime almost on par with the act of violence itself.

  8. Actually Dawkins is a 6-6.9 on a scale between 0 and 7. And the only reason he is not a 7 is because it would require him to make the absolute positive statement "There is no God or anything remotely like it" which any good scientist would never make since we do not have complete knowledge about the universe. He's "agnostic" to God in the same way as he is agnostic about fairies, leprechauns, invisible pink unicorns, and Thor. So, basically, he rejects the idea of them as stupid and arbitrary, which is essentially the same thing Objectivists do.

    I agree that many atheists do fall into the pragmatic/utilitarian camp, or argue that we have a somewhat innate moral sense that can be explained by evolution (there actually are some pretty good arguments that human's have evolved with emotions that lead them to adopt a benevolent morality). I think they are far better than religionists though, and would much rather live in a world filled with people at least explicitly committed to reason than a world explicitly committed to faith. Even lip-service to reason is better than faith (at least you've got an in).

    Who uses a scale of 7? :D

  9. It is not a contradiction if you consider it as risk vs. sacrifice. A high value may be worth protecting at the cost of risking one's own life. When we speak of something that is worth dying for, we are saying that we are willing to take that risk; we are not saying that we are simply willing to trade our lives for it.

    If I agree to allow someone to kill me so others may be granted freedom, I am sacrificing my life. If I fight for that freedom for myself, at the risk of losing my life in the fight, then I am fighting for a value worth dying for. If I succeed, I am free. If I fail, I am either still a prisoner or I am dead (and neither could be called living).

    Furthermore, if I consider a value worth dying for, it is because I don't consider existing in the absence of that value living.

    If I could potentially cure my arthritis at the risk of dying, even with unfavorable odds, I wouldn't hesitate. I would trade arthritis for brain cancer with a 25% chance of survival. Better to have a disease that could kill me than a disease that makes me want to die. Because even though I continue to exist in this condition, it prevents me from living the kind of life that I ought to live, and will eventually compel me to commit suicide at this rate.

  10. Drug dealers cater to men's vices. It is a decidedly unimpressive way to make money because anyone who is willing to sqander his life can do it. I don't admire liquor store owners either.

  11. Actually, from personal experience. It is more of just simple evasion of critical questions. I never asked what the relationship was between the two. I never thought of collectivism. In fact I first started to get worried the idea of collectivism after hearing so many libertarians mention it. I don't think at that point in time I EVER asked myself what the opposite of individualism.

    We all make mistakes. I gave $600 to Ron Paul the same year, and really wish I could have it back now.

  12. I have been having a debate with a socialist on medicine. Now when I start an argument I ALWAYS end it on my terms. I finish what I start. However. I am too the point where I feel like im swimming in a cesspool of stupid. I'm not going to back down, but I don't know how to get through an argument where the guy is as thick as they come. How do you get through all those levels of evasion? This guy also claims to have read all of Rands books, and compares her to Marx. AH... It never fails to amaze me about people.

    http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=126011328594

    Feel free to jump in it.

    I'm also curious. Am I debating him properly? Am I doing something wrong?

    You have to be very aggressive. Never defend, just attack. Just keep swinging and telling him exactly why his statements are retarded without yourself ever going on the defensive.

  13. Michael Moore is small potatoes. Why are you so concerned about him?

    He just got my attention today because he's apparently coming out with a new film called "Capitalism: A Love Story" which supposedly documents how the unfettered free market destroyed America. The guy is just such a foaming at the mouth idiot, nobody in entertainment is so irritating.

×
×
  • Create New...