Nacirema
-
Posts
51 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Nacirema
-
-
http://www.riskybusinessblog.com/2009/03/w...lout-movie.html
From reading this article I don't get a good feeling about how AS would be handled by Hollyweird.
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.
...principles of Objectivism, which argues for an aggressive free market and against government activism. Let's just say it's probably not on the president's nightstand. -
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
old collectivism = the individual is unimportant. The nation/class/race/religion is mans highest cause. A much more consistant collectivism, where the collectivist both practice and preach their collectivism in a higher degree. Examples: nazis, communists, fascists
new collectivism = pretty much subjectivism. The individual isnt per se unimportant, and the nation/class etc. isnt mans only cause. Instead its just "something in between", murky, grey, unprincipled and most importantly contradictory. A mix between individualism in some things, and collectivism in others. Examples: enviromentalists, social democrats, multiculturalists.
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.
Nothing, if you are "extreme" about something good. But its better to be a mix of good and bad(like todays collectivists), than to be extremely bad(like the collectivists of old).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.
-
I think I understand your point, softwareNerd, but morality didn't end for Galt then. He maintained his moral principles by establishing Galt's Gulch and gettin' outta' Dodge. His denial to compromise was a driving point of the last part of the book.
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.
-
nah, in all seriousness, you can have all the sex you want, but if contraceptions fail, have the child. not difficult.
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?
-
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.
-
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)
-
This message is brought to you by the environmental movement.
http://www.aniboom.com/video/1224/Humans&a..._campaign=embed
Thanks to Diana Hsieh at Noodlefood for the link.
To the ending of the video:
What f*cking environment is there to "ruin" on the moon?
-
yes, you knew that you could create human life when you had sex, regardless of using birth control the risk remains.
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).
yes. you should have thought about that before you had sex and created life. if you want sex without the risk of children, get sterilised.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 the womans right to choose what to do with her own body. if a woman is pregnant after consensual sex, that is the result of her choice to have sex and she should accept the consequences.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.
-
...actions have consequences. It is quite simple, therefore, if you don't want children, don't have sex. Since pregnancy is a natural by-product of sexual intercourse, if a man and a woman choose to have sex, they are both accepting the risk of pregnancy (regardless of the precautions they take).
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?
-
The dark and evil, I think, stems from the premise, not the action.
Both of the religions in question here are based that people have no right to their own life.
That is the great evil that they both commit.
-
The government is not as effective as possible, i think we all agree on that.
However, I have racked my brain around this question
My thoughts have been the following...
If i live in a community where me and my neighbours decide to be responsible for local services (garbage/roads/utilities/etc), it would make effiicient sense to have an individual responsible to manage such things in a cost effective, time efficient manner. Agreed? Lets call this person "an elected official", etc.
The economies of scale and capitalism would eventually lead to a larger and larger community pooling their resources (by choice) for such services. And those who chose not to contribute - what would happen to them? These "moochers" would become such a financial, judicial, and time responsibility, a social network would have to be established to manage these moochers, in order for the others to remain productive, etc. Basically, the evolution of a culture and society are way more complex than the simplistic view that the government play those three roles in society.
The complex social, intellectual, medical, educational, family, etc., resources just are not feasible in countries/cities/communities that have developed since the advent. I think using some of Rand's philosophies, coupled with other reasonable approaches to living in a peaceful, productive capitalistic society may evolve. Human beings evolved to the point they are at today, and they will continue to evolve, as will philosophies in conjunction with further understanding and appreciation of the forces driving that evolution. If there was no follow-up or critical analysis on Darwin's theory of evolution (and it is still a theory), or further understanding of other scientific findings, no progress in our understanding would be occurring. We can't live in a vaccuum.
It's fine and correct to say that the government should play those three roles, but the consequences of ignoring the importance of other elements could lead to other unimaginable issues.
I could come up with probably 5-10 other things that a community (city/country/etc) would benefit from having a centralized system in place run by "elected officials", but I think I'll leave that alone.....
It's pretty late, so I may be misreading, but if you're saying that there are some things that the government should do/can do better other than the big 3...
What are they? What could private industry not do (other than the big 3) that government could (do better)?
If this is not what you meant to say, I apologize.
BTW, off-topic, the Theory of Evolution is "still a theory," yes. It will always be "just a theory." Similarly, gravity will always be "just a theory."
Theory, in the science community, is a complex idea that has stood multiple tests. So a theory is actually much more impressive than a fact (and can also be improved). Sorry, just bugs me when people dismiss it by saying "it's just a theory."
-
I have not played the video game Bioshock but I do know from reading about it that Andrew Ryan is the so-called Randian founder of the underwater city in that game. Is this a fair representation of what Andrew Ryan in the game is about?
No, it's not (at least, I don't recall anytime he said anything close to that). Most of what the character said actually matches up with Objectivism fairly well (I found), except for only one specific comment that he makes (which is nowhere related to the quoted post).
...Which is why I found his user-name especially humorous. Talk about missing the point two ways (i.e., missed Ryan's point, who [through his writers] missed Rand's).
[Edit: Wording and adding point]
As for murder itself, consider this: if it is okay to just murder anyone who gets in your way or annoys you, then it's fine for anyone else to murder you for the same reason. I don't like that you won't approve my loan? *Stab*
Don't like your taste in music?
*Bang!*
While this isn't the full application of the ethics, which is regarding men as (at least having the likelihood) of equal traders.
-
This article seems to be written in a rather sloppy fashion.
For example, I can't make out in the 4th paragraph if he is simply hurling random insults, or if he is actually mis-citing not just a character's dialogue, but the entire book his example comes from! Though to be honest, neither would surprise me, given the rest of his writing style.
-
Unless you live in the middle of nowhere, you can create a thriving Objectivist community in your area. Interest in Ayn Rand's ideas is at an all-time high. Capitalize on that!
It's not difficult to get started. Create a web site, set up a mailing list with Google Groups, advertise (e.g. on Objectivist forums, on FaceBook, and with Google ads), and start a once-a-month discussion group for anyone seriously interested studying Objectivism. For a model, see Front Range Objectivism, particularly the "FROG" discussion groups. You might start with an Atlas Shrugged Reading Group at a local library.
I'd be happy to spend a half hour on the phone with anyone interested in doing that. Or better yet, since I'm still busy writing my dissertation, you can ask about how to do it here -- or on a NoodleFood Open Thread.
If you want it, make it happen! You can do it!
You know, I've been thinking about starting an Objectivist club and/or paper at my college. With encouragement like this, I just may go ahead and do it next semester.
-
I went and saw it with only a rudimentary understanding of the story, and I have to say, I was very entertained.
I knew the basic story and ending, but all of the other nuances in the story were new to me, and very entertaining. Rorschach's death (even though I knew it was coming) - despite whatever intentions it may have had - I saw as a heroic declaration of adherence to reality, as well as a statement of not allowing the ends to justify the means. "Never compromise, even in the face or Armageddon."
And of course, no idea if it was in the original book, but the reporter looking over to Rorschach's journal seems to imply to me that eventually, the truth is going to get out.
As for the story telling style, I've never read more than three comic books (NOTE: not franchises - three individual books), Watchmen not included, and I didn't have any problem telling when each event was supposed to occur.
Does the film paint a bleak view of humanity in general? Yes. But that alone shouldn't disqualify it as art. It is still masterfully executed, and, more importantly (as far as art is concerned), it causes most people to question their own views, as the movie never makes a firm stance on if Ozzy's final decision is right or wrong - you decide.
Of course, if the world of the Watchmen is too dark for you to analyze or enjoy, you can always feel free to
-
I'm not a historian, so I can't give the answer on whether or not the market responded before to the problem of poisoned/contaminated food or not.
As to the issue of regulation, one thing that people on the other side (re: un-Objectivist side) of the debate seem to think is that (at least in my experience) when I bring up de-regulation of the food industry, that I intend for there to be a "anything goes" policy.
That's simply not true. I think Yaron Brook said it best when he said that a law against selling poisoned milk is not regulation - it's a law against murder (LINK: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rca5vLcEe8k...re=channel_page ).
In fact, that whole video is a pretty good argument against safety regulations. I try to use those whenever I have that debate. Then, I know what kind of person I'm dealing with: Either a logical person who can see the reason behind the thinking, or the irrational person who simply clings to his feelings that big, bad business men are out to get the rest of us, and it's only the grace of our benevolent government that saves us.
-
I've only recently begun reading the Tao Te Ching myself (so far, I've only gotten through an introduction and the first three "poems," as they were), so I can't offer an extensive analysis. The one thing that caught my attention is when it discusses the act of non-action, meaning that one becomes so good at a skill that the skill essentially "performs itself," with no outside thought from the creator.
I can appreciate this as a metaphor for one's talent, as I've known people who seem to completely disappear into their work, and it flows from them as if no thought is being put into their actions. I've even felt this way myself.
But, the Tao Te Ching presents this not as a metaphor, but as a literal fact of reality - which given my own experience, I know is not true. No one is ever so taken over by their task that they no longer have to think. They've simply found a way to think in a lesser amount of time than the average person in that subject, due to constant practice.
Of course, this is my limited understanding, so I look forward to hearing the other responses to this question, as well as the possible expansion on (or even clarification of) anything I have said.
-
This is unrealistic, but I'm giving it a shot anyway. One can use one's imagination.
So apocalipse happens and I'm living in the fallout of civilisation as we know it. There's only a bit of life saving medicine left and it's my neighbor's child who has it. I ask my child what he rather do. If my child was too ill or too young to communicate, I would steal the medicine on his behalf and flee so we wouldn't be caught.
The morality of the wife situation is different from the child one, because one's wife doesn't exist due to one's choice. One doesn't owe her life in the same way.
So it's okay to steal and/or kill for your child because he (essentially) didn't choose to be born, making you the steward of his well being?
Let's take this further: Why can't this apply to my wife, or even to myself? After all, my wife never choose to be born, and I know I never got to weigh in on whether I wanted to be made alive or not. By that reasoning, since I never chose to exist then I'm justified in taking whatever I can because the universe had thrust existence upon me, and I should do whatever I need to do to stay alive.
Also, more importantly/directly to the point, what if stealing the medicine puts some other child at risk? After all, this is the apocalypse, so other people must be sick as well. Your neighbor's child didn't choose to be born anymore than you did, so what gives you the right to take it away from him?
-
Well I'm going to take this opportunity to toot my own horn and point everybody to my YouTube video podcast on music and philosophy. Hope you guys enjoy.
Episode 5: Improvisation part two
Episode 4: Improvisation
Episode 3: An Evening With Adam Buker
Episode 2: Roark and Me
Episode 1: Premiere
Subscribed! Good stuff!
Fear Mongering and the Swine Flu
in Domestic United States Politics
Posted
That sounds to me like every strain of the flu.
Or hell, if you get vague enough, every disease known to man.