Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Danneskjöld

Regulars
  • Posts

    63
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Danneskjöld

  1. Thx. But to clarify, I do know who "them" is. I have been knowing these two guys for years now. In my canton live only 36'000 people, and I serve every year with the same 50 guys. And the two commanders who will decide have been there ever since I had to join. So I do know them. I can imagine how they react in the first place. Honestly, I just really cannot imagine how they will react, when I refuse to work and think, i.e. when I leave them the decision whether to put me on standby or into jail....
  2. Hm, I have been thinking for a while about leaving the country... but for doing that, I would have to know a place, that actually is a better choice in total than Switzerland. I do not. Well, in favor of the Civil Service I do have to mention that I did learn useful skills, and we did build some cool stuff (as a road through a steep forrest to a farmer or a nice wooden bridge over a creek). Not everything is bad about it, actually, I did have some good time there too. I am pissed that the laws are fundamentally wrong and nobody seems to care enough to change them. Publicly criticizing it... I will have to think about that.
  3. As far as I see, I do fully agree. Unfortunately, I was not thinking this way when I was 19. At this age, the state decides which kind of service you will do. At that time, I was thinking that military (especially in Switzerland) is superfluous, and a waste of time and money. So I decided (by claiming a health problem makes me unfit for military service) to do civil service instead. Now at the age of 26 it is impossible to change my mind and join the army. So I have the opposite options slavery (surrender) or jail (rebellion). The best I could get is the middle-road, the Standby-Soldier. Not serve, but pay. I will talk to them next week and try...
  4. I am completely pissed of the Swiss system (once again)... These beacuse of following reasons: 1) I am obliged to serve the state in a Civil Service for 8 days a year until I am 40 years old, because I am not serving in the military. 2) The state pays me currently a salary of 7$, while my normal salary would be 25$. 3) I do have to pay an additional monetary fine for not serving the military, even though I serve in the alternative compulsion "Civil Service". I was so pissed this afternoon when I got my "slave-salary", that I was reading some laws concerning how to get out of this compulsion. I have 2 options: a) Degradation to Standby Soldier I would not have to serve anymore except in case of an extreme emergency, but still be obliged to pay the fine (which would be higher as I would not get a Civil-Server-Discount anymore). But to get a degradation to Standby Soldier, I will have to ask my commanders. As they will decline in the first place, I would have to beg and hope for their good will. As we are not a lot of Civil Server in the part of Switzerland I am talking about, my chances are pretty low. So I would have to threaten to be there, but not to use neither my mind nor my hands to work for them. That would eventually lead to option . Jail and fine I can choose to go to jail for 30-45 days and to pay an additional fine up to 1000$. I still would have to pay the further fines every year, but I am definitely out of the Military/Civil Service organisation for good. WTF? "BE A SLAVE OR GO TO JAIL, it is your own free decision" So I started to read some parts of the federal constitution and I found this: (free translation only!) a) men and women are to be dealt as equals men are obliged to serve either in military or civil service, for women it is voluntary. Paying fines for not serving in the military is due to men only. WTF???? On such obvious contradictions in the constitution are our laws based.... And as I start to realize, I am discovering only the tip of the iceberg. WTF.............
  5. one fight a day is definitely good. you loose 10 wellnesspoints, but can once a day get 30 back at the hospital. whether it's good to participate in more than one or how exatly it works I cannot tell yet...
  6. You cannot yet join a party, I just tried: Quote: "You have only 15 Experience Points. To access this feature you need at least 40 Experience points (experience level 7). Unlock Features"
  7. Hehe, I am checking out the forum a little and find a lot of stupid stuff.... no need to answer that one....
  8. If you check out the news (http://www.erepublik.com/en/article/is-war...ty--929133/1/20) of today, you will find this: ------------------------------------------------------- Hello again my dear readers, My question for you today is : IS WAR NECESSARY? I think we all know the answer. This game is based on war module. The economy is based on wars. Baby-booms are made during war times. The greatest amounts of gold are spent in Epic battles. The servers were upgraded to sustain great wars. And still many of us keep wondering themselves: Why, we can't step aside once, not in RL or ERep and fighting each other like some stupid kids? Why? Good question! Because we can't! Because we all like to win! And to win there is always need for an opponent who to lose. This is the way our race flourished. This is the way we are raising our children. To fight and to be better or high placed than others. In every moment of our lives we are over one person and under another. And most of us want to go higher. These are the facts, in real or virtual life, everything is the same. eRepublik gave us what we all want. Another global arena where we can race together. So, my dear friends, indeed war is a MUST! We can now rest and stop denying that and think how we can win it! Thank you all for reading! Crocky -------------------------------------------- Can anyone answer that? I am not so far yet to talk politics.... Some baseless and/or undigested slogans as "The economy is based on creating goods, not on wars" are coming to my mind, but I could not justify my position and would not know how exactly to address his further thoughts....... mfg Dk
  9. Hehe, I'm registered as well. Let's see, if it's fun to play. Name: Danneskjoeld Location: Norway, Svalbard Some advices for the beginning? Worked and trained today, I guess there is not really more to do for the time being?
  10. It came a week ago, but I have not had time so far to read it. Have not had time for that specifically either. I do understand all of this and I agree (as far as I see by scanning this post roughly) fully with it. I do know that I am right in what I wrote in the initial post, but I start to see your points. It is the application of the word "Identity" which seems to be used in a very narrow way (actually, I guess its more the broadest way possible, and only this way). But you are right, I do not have a clear idea of the subject, that is why I started to write my thoughts down and check them. This process will be going on in the next few years... [edited for clarification]
  11. Yeah. But I also could imagine that Swiss banks will check cash transfers thouroughly made by known connections of Gaddafi. And refuse them and/or freeze further accounts. As over 4 trillion dollars is deposited in Switzerland, they will give a shit on Gaddafis money and will try to hit him this way. Probably. His recent ceremony, where he celebrated the 40th anniversary of the revolution and his dictatorship, is said to have been bigger and more expensive than the opening celebration of the olympic games in Bejing. And there they celebratet the recently freed Lockerbie assassin Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi as a hero, and performed an act showing executions through hanging. The most shocking thing is, not only when dealing with Arabs or Muslims. The tendency is to apologize to everyone for everything...
  12. Well, I definitely do not think that it is the right course, even though it might be justifiable. About the money: 16.07.2009 was to be read in our newspapers, that Gaddafi withdraw 5.8 billion dollars from swiss bank accounts, which is 89% of Libyans money in Switzerland. Well, I guess that is officially true, but there might well be hidden money through stooges of stooges of the Gaddafi-Clan in our banks. Hehe, actually it would definitely be not fair to the Libyens, but would be fun to observe Gaddafis reaction to that. Well, about the conscessions, I am not sure actually what was going on with our "presidents" visit down there. There was to be read some days ago, that in the contract is something written like "from now on no Libyans are going to be molested in Switzerland anymore"... but no word of the hostages...
  13. The swiss party "Lega dei Ticinesi" makes propaganda for war against Libya. Rough overview of the occurings: A year ago, the son of Libyas president Gaddafi was arrested in Geneva/Switzerland for mistreatment of employees of the nobel hotel. He was released shortly after, in the meantime Gaddafi imprisoned two Swiss businessmen in Libya. The businessmen are still held in Libya, even though the Swiss president Merz went to visit Gaddafi two weeks ago and got the (it seems only implicit, and not factual written) promise, they would be released before september. But now they will have to face court for a visa delict soon and are not allowed to leave the Libya. Sidenotes: Since Gaddafi's son's imprisonment (which was correct according to Swiss law) Gaddafi has cut the relationship to switzerland to a minimum except for threatening. He said that he would approve of an atomic bomb on Switzerland. Last month, he brought to the UNO the request, that in their next session (being held in New York shortly) they would be debating the extinction of Switzerland, of distributing its land to the neighbouring countries Germany, France and Italy. So now the "Lega dei Ticinesi" demands a military intervention to rescue the hostages out of Libya. Would that be justifiable?
  14. Need definitely to get a better understandig of metaphysics as a concept. But it is getting late, that has to wait.
  15. That sounds like you have to use some kind of knowledge to create categories of metaphysics, but blank out other knowledge.
  16. No, we are not merely talking about this two lines, we are talking about this structure: According to your statement, each category has to be defined directly in this structure. You have 14 complete and exact defintitions to give, so that there can be no doubt, that you can "sort" every existent in it. That means 14 long paragraphs. So do not consider this as "metaphysics" or "ontology". I do not and never have myself. Give it any name you wish, "The Categories of Existents" for example. [edit: disable emoticons]
  17. Actually, I don't know it neither in English nor in German, most probably they will tell you the same. Honestly, so far I don't give a damn. So why should it be self-contained in its presentation? How do you want to create a neat presentation of a complex structure, if you have to give every definition of the structures categories within the structure itself? It would be a poor presentation, if I had to show you in 30 pages what I did in 14 lines. How would you possibly figere out the created structure? That is exactly what concepts are here for. So are the concepts I am using in the structure. They are defined, so I try to use them accordingly. As I said before, on the metaphysical and non-metaphysical part I need some further thoughts. But that does not change the rest of the structure. So do not take it out of context. The structure is intended to categorize ALL existents. Atoms and galaxies are existents. Therefore each of them must belong by definition to a category. And by definition atoms are different from galaxies. How would you describe the essence of the difference? As shown above, atoms must be part of the structure. They must be, because we know they are existents. Of course we know it due to empirical investigations, i.e. physics. That is why they are non-primary existents. As you see, so far we agree (unless you think atoms are primary existents). And whether metaphysics in general omits all physics knowledge or not is for the proposed structure irrelevant.
  18. I do not see where your heading to or what your point is. Atoms are metaphysical. I try to differentiate them from the integrated concepts of existents. I do not try to prove anything regarding to physics, i.e. regarding to HOW these metaphysical entities behave or are. It seems, that you are talking about something being primary or not.
  19. ??????????????? Read the very first post. And all following posts that led me to the proposed structure. DO NOT TAKE SOMETHING OUT OF CONTEXT.
  20. Was it or was it not the kind of your next argument you wanted to use?
  21. If you think of saying that there are humans which do need glasses to perceive things clearly, skip it. They do perceive directly something, i.e. the primary entity.
  22. Hm, the translations of oblique by the online-dictionary I use (http://dict.leo.org) does not make sense when I translate your sentence into german. Can you give another word (or explain) what oblique in your statement means? [edit: and yes, this touches on the perception part of our discussion, i.e. it must be considered when discussing (categorizing) qualities, which are situated somewhere in the non-entity category.]
  23. So instead of b1) entities in a “extended sense” b11) lower-level entities b12) higher-level entities you would put it this way: b1) entities in a “extended sense” b11) entities beyond the range of unassisted perception b12) collective nouns (winds, fluids, flocks, armies) To object this distinction: b1) entities in a “extended sense” is by definition the same as b11) entities beyond the range of unassisted perception. A thing cannot be a sub-category of itself. So there you have only one sub-category b12) collective nouns (winds, fluids, flocks, armies). Only one sub-category is a contradiction in itself, as there is only one category. Leaving this aside, my question would then be a differentiation of your b11) entities beyond the range of unassisted perception (which is by definition the same question as posed before). I am talking of pertaining to reality in respect to entities (as we are discussion the differentiation of entities). Neither photosynthesis nor the economics of medicine are entities. So that (if?) they are not metaphysical does not imply, that atoms are not metaphysical. I will have to check definitions, before getting to a definit answer. But so far I do not see why atoms are not a metaphysically given fact.
  24. Our discussion is about a primary/secondary entity distincion, not a primary/secondary quality distinction. So this quote does not say whether or not a primary/secondary entity distincion is useful/correct/compatible with Objectivists Philosophy.
×
×
  • Create New...