Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Andrew Grathwohl

Regulars
  • Content Count

    360
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Andrew Grathwohl last won the day on May 28 2014

Andrew Grathwohl had the most liked content!

About Andrew Grathwohl

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday 11/16/1989

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
    NewYork
  • Relationship status
    Single
  • Sexual orientation
    Straight
  • Real Name
    Andrew Grathwohl
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted
  • School or University
    Indiana University
  • Occupation
    Post-Production Associate for Audible.com, an Amazon company.

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Brooklyn, NY
  • Interests
    Meeting inspiring people
    The beauty of inanimate objects
    Synesthesia
    Sound
    The mind
    Textures
    Civil engineering
    Trade and public policy
    Academic writing
  1. It is very refreshing to read an Objectivist-reasoned defense of *not* going in, guns ablaze, and wreaking havoc around the world - with unintended but very damaging consequences for American security. Just because we have the moral justification to drone-bomb a suspected terrorist and kill innocent women and children in the crossfire, doesn't mean we should. We may recognize our own moral obligation to do these things, but I can assure you that nobody in these ravaged countries (Yemen, Pakistan, etc.) do. This is what causes terrorism, and the intoxicating mysticism of religion is used as
  2. It appears we may be on our way, though! http://www.computing.co.uk/ctg/news/2102735/ibm-unveils-chips-mimic-human-brain
  3. If Jimbo does run, will his opponents not attempt to discredit him by bringing up his Objectivist connection?
  4. http://race42012.com/2011/03/20/you-heard-it-here-first-jimmy-wales-considering-senate-run/ Would be a very promising candidate, if you ask me! He'd probably be the first self-proclaimed Objectivist to run for Senate in US history.
  5. I am convinced that there isn't a single Objectivist working on this film. http://dollarsandcrosses.com/2011/03/atlas-shrugged-movie-producer-comments-make-charlie-sheen-seem-like-the-voice-of-sanity/
  6. I don't understand the analogy. I'm not saying that a property owner is drawing a line in the sand and saying "none shall pass." I am saying that the property owner sees police speeding down his road as potential destruction of his private property. I could easily envision a road owner not wanting to risk lowering the value of his property (or his land that the road is on, or the other properties on that land that may or may not be his) to a police pursuit that has nothing to do with the owner's interests. The example was intended to pose as an abstraction of the true meat and potatoes of t
  7. I got asked this question recently and was pretty stumped by it. In a fully capitalist government, the government would consist of all functions required to protect individual rights: the courts, the military, and the police. The government would not be allowed to trample on one's right to property. The government would also not be allowed to own any property that wasn't directly related to those legitimate functions. The government would be in the business of protecting the property rights of its citizens - not trampling them. Following this logic, it would necessitate that the government
  8. I've had my try at advocating the Objectivist viewpoint on Reddit several times. The key is how you choose to word your argument. When being straight-forward and uncompromising in your remarks, expect downvotes. Lots of them. However, the more targeted you make your remarks - the more specific to a concrete issue - the more likely you are to get sympathizers and supporters. The Reddit community, like most massive online communities, does not like to deal in large overarching concepts. Most have little to no integrated concepts behind their understanding of epistemology and metaphysics. The
  9. Yes. The computer got answers wrong not only when it was willing to buzz in, but even when it was the first contestant to do so.
  10. I didn't say that smoking cannot enhance your experience of life in any way. I said that it is nonessential. I smoke a pipe 1-3 times a week, and I would be the first to tell you that it is not an essential aspect to my life whatsoever. Anybody who did view smoking as an essential part of their lives would probably not be smoking tobacco (or probably even cannabis for that matter, which I also used to do). People who do not view sex as enjoyable have serious issues that need to be resolved, and they most certainly do not live a rational life. Leonard Peikoff even said that sex is more
  11. It's not circular reasoning; it's the law. Works in the public domain can be utilized freely. There is no need to cite it, because you cannot be legally prosecuted for not doing so. In the case of Wikipedia, or this very message board, you're dealing with an issue of individual policies implemented for (legitimate) reasons of protection. But the issue at hand was that you told him to get permission from the copyright holders for their pictures before distributing their works. He told you that the images are in the public domain. That's that! Asking him to cite the sources of those images do
  12. Seriously? It's in the public domain - it doesn't need to be cited.
  13. While your post is thoughtful, and even though I agree with it almost 100%, I would be careful when analogizing sex with smoking. The former is a necessity for a happy, rational life. The latter is a "vice," which, when overdone, can lead to serious health problems, and is completely nonessential in any other capacity. On the topic of avoiding metaphysical realities, the OP must realize that contraception is a metaphysical reality just as much as unprotected sex leading to the possibility of pregnancy is. The possibilities of our metaphysical reality, provided to us by the ingenious and inv
  14. Sorry, but not even the studio trickery involved in making your run-of-the-mill theatrical trailer could cover up the horrific acting exhibited by every single actor and actress shown in this preview. This is going to be a D-rate portrayal of an A-rate novel. What was Peikoff thinking when he gave up the AS rights to the people involved with this??
×
×
  • Create New...