Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

The Lonely Rationalist

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by The Lonely Rationalist

  1. Never mind the naysayers, that architecture looks incredible.
  2. My god, this little fiasco is just hilarious. I've never even seen an episode of the show, but I'd be tempted to vote for Bristol just to see the full-on meltdown that the media and the left is going to have if she wins.
  3. Bad news for you, then- she said she'll never run again: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20021921-503544.html But I agree with the Chris Christie thing, definitely.
  4. I think what Ryan is trying to say is "Rand used a different definition for a word than a dictionary uses, so everything she ever said is wrong."
  5. Thing is, Ron Paul doesn't have a chance in hell of getting the nomination, much less winning the election.
  6. I voted straight Republican, with the exception of 2 local offices (the Republican candidates are so bad that I refuse to support them). I guess it's because I'm really hoping the Tea Party's influence will shine through and get the GOP to repeal Obamacare and oppose him. I'm probably being way too optimistic, but that's the only way I could bring myself to vote.
  7. I find it odd that no one has mentioned Tim Pawlenty yet- the fact that he isn't opting to run again for governor of Minnesota this year and his constant media appearances in which he really is setting himself up as the anti-Obamacare candidate hints at him running in 2012. The Cato institute just rated all American governors for their fiscal polices here: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/html/PA668/PA668index.html Pawlenty was one of the four governors to get an A, and they say that he has vetoed many tax increases, has lowered the amount that state spending increases each year, and is a supporter of amendments to stop bloated budgets (Page 21). Also, for anyone interested in Mitch Daniels (who many think will run in 2012), he scored a B due to his commitment to decreasing spending (at the expense of increasing the state bureaucracy) (page 18).
  8. How can you say that? Don't you know that her books are preachy, her characters are Nietzschean supermen, and she wrote just to express her pseudo-philosophy? All the experts know that!
  9. I understand why it is immoral to illegally download music, movies, and the like. But is it immoral to download something that you could never otherwise see, such as a television show from another country that's years old and is incredibly unlikely to ever be released in the U.S.?
  10. A very good point. My own life is my standard of morality. I admit I didn't fully think that part of the issue out. It doesn't upset me greatly- I've recently fully admitted my desire to myself after denying it for a long period of time. I just had a few residual concerns about it. I am of average weight.
  11. For my entire life, I've been attracted primarily to overweight and obese girls. I normally prefer women who weight around 230 lbs, though I have been attracted to girls who weigh much more than that. My problem here is whether my desire is immoral. Since it is unhealthy for a woman to be obese, am I actively encouraging them to have a lower quality of life by having such a desire?
  12. Plus, it's only mentioned that he attended church with Dagny when they were very young.
  13. Out of curiosity, do you know the actual Objectivist view on ethics? Objectivism holds that if something goes against man's nature, then it is immoral, as it is self-destructive. So yes, having sex with an animal is definitely immoral, as it means you are going against the proper function of sex- sex is not just for physical pleasure (Of course, I'm no even sure bestiality would be pleasurable) devoid of all spiritual values, but a celebration of the spiritual values that 2 people hold. As for incest... I don't think it's necessarily immoral, no matter how taboo it may be. If someone has a differing view than me on the issue, though, I'd like to hear it as well.
  14. Good lord, I haven't seen someone self-destruct this horrendously since Hazmatac created that "Evolution is false" thread.
  15. And today's the day it's published! Can't wait to receive my copy.
  16. In fact, here's something I just thought of: The new Ipod comes out. People want it, and therefore increase their productivity to get more money from their company. Their company therefore creates more goods than they did before due to increased productivity, thus increasing sales and earning them more money than before. But consumers who bought their product then need to increase their productivity, and on and on and on... It seems to me that as new wealth is created, older wealth loses it's value: People want the new thing, and less want the old. Therefore the new good's price goes up while the old good's price goes down. In that sense, although wealth was created, money was not. Am I wrong? Am I totally misunderstanding something? Please point it out if I am, I'm really trying to get this.
  17. Okay then, I get how money represents wealth. However, while I can see how you can make wealth (Build a house, bottle some wine, etc.), but by doing so, are you "making" money? If money is just a medium of exchange, then can more of it really only be made by printing more? And Mindy, the only thing that puzzled me there is how he notes that one can "make money," while at the same time describing how wealth is created by man's mind. Is he just substituting the world wealth for money to explain a popular phrase (Making money)?
  18. I've been wracking brain, reading Francisco's money speech over and over. I'm still not quite able to figure out whether money is the same as wealth. I understand that money is a physical representation of trade- We use money only as a medium of exchange. I also understand that wealth is that which helps man's survival, luxury, and happiness. But when it comes to "Making money," is that the same thing as creating wealth?
  19. I admit that I haven't spent much time dwelling over this issue, but for me, the issue seems obvious. An individual's rights are his own. They are not something separate from the individual which can not be violated, they are part of his being (Metaphorically), and thus he has every right to relinquish his own rights. After all, if he can not, then to whom does his own life belong? Listening to the podcast, I have to say that Peikoff is being contradictory (And I don't say this in a mocking way. On the contrary, this is one of the very few times I have disagreed with Peikoff). He says that one can exercise one's right to life by committing suicide, but then says that allowing yourself to be beaten should be prohibited by the government. I would say that one is exercising one's right to life (However immoral the action might be) by allowing others to beat you, or even kill you.
  20. I don't know... I was really looking forward to John Galt using a Death Ray in the movie.
  • Create New...