Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Nacirema

  • Birthday 12/06/1989

Contact Methods

  • AIM
  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Interests
    Filmmaking, drumming, philosophy, and, of course, living life to its maximum potential.

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
  • Chat Nick
  • Interested in meeting
    I'll take whatever may come. Friends are always a plus, and if romance can spring out of this, even better.
  • Relationship status
  • Sexual orientation
  • Real Name
  • Copyright
    Must Attribute
  • Biography/Intro
    I'm a filmmaker and musician from the NOLA area. As for my own discovery of Ayn Rand, like many, it wasn't so much the idea of "I should agree with this," but what rather drew it to me initially was the sudden relief that everything I secretely thought and felt about capitalism, about selfishness, about pride, about sex, and about life, was in fact, not wrong or immoral.
  • School or University
    University of New Orleans
  • Occupation
    Passion is film and music. Currently working at Best Buy.

Nacirema's Achievements

Junior Member

Junior Member (3/7)



  1. That sounds to me like every strain of the flu. Or hell, if you get vague enough, every disease known to man.
  2. I don't think it would be necessarily too bad, based off that article (unless I'm missing something). I mean sure, it may be shortened, but it is a 1,000+ page book, and a lot of it description. Using the rule-of-thumb for scriptwriting, if you found a way to make all of those pages into the script, that'd be a 1,000+ minute movie. Also, this made me quite literally laugh out loud.
  3. Nacirema


    A human has rights when it is human - not before, not after. A corpse has no rights, and an amalgamation of cells equally has no rights, whether "potential" for life is there or not. Even in the case of bacteria, how do you know it wouldn't have evolved into life by now if we hadn't been killing off so many of their species with anti-bacterial medication?! Oh, the horror! The horror! Won't somebody please think of the Bacilli! Also, the statement of whether or not the woman must accept responsibility the life of the infant because she invited the fetus into her knowing the consequences is still flawed. First, a fetus, and especially the clumped together group of cells during the first stages of development, is not life. So saying that a woman has no right to seek medical treatment is like saying if a woman falls riding a bike, then when she breaks her arm she invited the break by not wearing shoulder pads, so she should have to endure the pain. Even more, how does creating a life situation cause responsibility for that life? If I open a new business that drives another man out of business through nothing but fair trade, am I obligated to get that man back on his feet, or give him a job? Then why am I (speaking generally, as I can't physically do it, of course) expected to incubate a group of cells into a human? Also, something that popped into my head while I was writing: Let's answer this question separate from the abortion issue - if sex is so ultimately tied to making babies as you say it has been, is, and always will be, then should birth control be illegal, since it lessens the chance of a baby being produced? What if they one day do make a literally, 100% effective birth control? Should it be legal?
  4. I'm used to seeing fedoras. Of course, then again, ska is a big music style down here, and their worn a lot in that style of music. They are some pretty classy hats, regardless.
  5. I would also like to point out that his "1964 murder example" is flawed not just in the argument he makes, but in historical accuracy. While 38 people did overhear, the way the newspaper made it sound (as he does) is that 38 people looked out their windows and saw a woman getting beaten in the streets, and did nothing. However, half of those people simply hear her and the suspect (I believe it was her ex-boyfriend) fighting hours earlier, and the other half heard similar shouting during the murder, which (if I recall correctly) took place in a parking garage with no clear view from any angle (at least, none that any of the supposed 38 neighbors) would have had. This information is readily available, and should be easy to distinguish, even at the time of the article being printed. Of course, given the accuracy of the author's analysis of Objectivist ethics and principles, this isn't too surprising.
  6. The same way it is always done - empty promises, double talk, and lots of well-spoken, well-delivered speeches. Specifically? No idea. Hopefully, there's enough a philosophical revolution in this country to keep that from happening.
  7. If you ask me to label a specific person, then yes, chances are that they are not the horrible, philosophical love-child of Hitler and Stalin. But I was not analyzing my friend Bobby Joe, I was making a remark about the philosophies behind those ideas. You don't need everyone to be a hardcore, died-in the-wool Socialist, Marxist, Collectivist, etc. If the ideas are there, you can eventually and slowly slip in the plans that will make the terrifying ideals of those philosophies a reality. It doesn't even have to be an intentional change - save until that one last man sees his chance for power, and takes it.
  8. How are those groups individualists? I don't know much about the social democrats, but multiculturalism as I've experienced tends to say that you (i.e. as an individual) can not pass judgment on a culture's practices, no matter how innane, barbaric, or simply irrational/illogical they may be. And environmentalism actually calls for people to sacrifice their well beings, and in some cases even their lives (or at least the lives of others) for the betterment of the environment (occasionally, they'll mention society, but that's few and far between). Point being, both sets - "old" and "new" collectivists - still place some form of a collective over the individual. More importantly, anyone who thinks as an individual is decidedly evil. If you mix milk and poison, the poison will still kill you, or at least make you very sick. The final result of mixed premises can never be good; in a compromise between good and evil, evil wins. Period.
  9. Galt had somethings that we don't: a valley, a super-advanced cloaking device, and a motor that exported (and ran on) unlimited energy. If you can get all that (or a new planet), I'll be the first to join you. Until then, I can do a lot more for my happiness if I'm not sitting in some prison cell.
  10. Nacirema


    Morning sickness. Cramps. Back problems. Mood swings. Stretch marks. Payment for prenatal vitamins. Payment for ultra sounds. Ruined shirts (from surprised lactation). Regular medical check-ups. Extra money spent on food. Leaving work for a few months (strong possibility near the end of term). Contraction pains. Pushing an eight-pound baby (average weight) through the narrow walls of the vaginal canal. All of that is just what leads up to the birth. Nope. Not difficult at all. Oh, and here's a slight hint to your intelligent, creative force dilemma: There wasn't. Before you claim responsibility again, here's a question I'd like you to take on: Is it moral to treat STDs? Viruses have at least as much consciousness as a newly fertilized egg or an underdeveloped fetus, and they come about by having sex. If you're willing to have sex and accept the responsibilities of it, then shouldn't you have to deal with whatever STDs you get? Is the search for the cure for AIDs an immoral one? Should one not take medication if one catches herpes or gonorrhea?
  11. The first part (to me) is easy - if you renounce your consciousness (you're ability and/or will to think and to reason), then you became just a mindless mass of muscle, either waiting for someone to harness you or you simply go out and destroy anything that you don't understand. The second part, as I understand, comes from the fact that you can never denounce your body and continue to live. To renounce your body fully, you would need to stop eating, stop taking medicine, ignore sleeping, etc. In effect, you'd die in a matter of days. So, to try and renounce your body and achieve a greater life is a contradiction. To say you've renounced your body is to speak one. That's how I understand it, anyway.
  12. Too tired to debate, so I'll just answer the question. The roles and how they would relate to our current branches Big 3: 1.) Write minimal, objective laws ("Congress") 2.) Ensure the law is carried out [though there's a better wording for that] ("judicial") 3.) To protect citizens from domestic and foreign threats ("executive", a la the police for local and the military for international)
  13. To the ending of the video: What f*cking environment is there to "ruin" on the moon?
  14. Nacirema


    When you bought a new, fancy car,you knew that someone might want to steal it. Regardless of having insurance and or a car alarm the risk remains. (In other words, while not as a reason for outlawing abortion, but as a statement of fact, I accept this). You should have thought about that before you drove your car and had it stolen. If you want to travel without the risk of theft, use a bus (and don't carry a wallet, watch, briefcase, etc....now I'm just being silly). Or, in other words....what? So in the land of RebelConsrvativ-ia, we who are not either rapists nor rape victims get three options: Never have sex, never have children, or pump out as many children as we can. Whether we can afford it or not, who cares? As a side note, tell me, do you believe in God? I fully respect your right to own a new car. If your car gets stolen after you bought it, that is the result of your choice and you should just accept that it's gone. Definitely do not expect your insurance company to give you a check to buy a new one.
  15. Nacirema


    Let's apply this argument in other places... "Actions have consequences. It is quite simple, therefore: if you don't want a stomach ache, don't eat. Since a stomach ache is a natural by-product of eating, it a man or woman choose to eat, they are both accepting the risk of a indigestion (regardless of how their food may have been prepared). Therefore, antacids are immoral." "Actions have consequences. It is quite simple, therefore: if you don't want to get sick, don't go outside. Since disease is a natural by product of exposing yourself to outside air that may have contagions, if a man chooses to go for a walk, he is accepting the risk of disease. Therefore, medicinal treatment of colds is immoral." Also, several times you mention it as "extremely likely" that sex will result in pregnancy, but this it not true. Many birth controls are nearly (or above) 90% success rate, starting with condoms. Hormone controllers (pills, patches, the new inserts [i forget their proper name]) have a near 99% success rate. With odds of 10% and 1% of pregnancy expected, respectively (not to mention the even greater unlikelihood if the two are used simultaneously), can you still say that pregnancy should be the expected result of all consensual sex?
  • Create New...