Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Sergio

  • Rank
    Junior Member

Previous Fields

  • Country
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Relationship status
  • Copyright
  • Biography/Intro
    I am a 23 year old 3d artist and designer based in Melbourne, Australia.
  • Occupation
    3D Artist and Designer
  1. Jonathan13, i definitely agree with you about government involvement. The only time someone should interveine is if the parents are going to do the surgery against the will of the child. If the child does have some sort of condition that causes discomfort, then he should be willing to have the surgery if his parents convince him. If there is an actual deformation which causes problems, and cannot be resolved through other means, then circumcision does make sense. Did you know that balanitis is mostly caused by not washing properly? It can also be caused by washing too much. The fact that 2
  2. I am certain that in any remotely common scenario you can design, you should ask the permission of your child before operating on his penis. Well, i think his son should have a say. It's his penis, his body. If his father wants to circimcise his son, he should wait till the boy is old enough to make a choice for himself.
  3. What health issues? Was it Phimosis? Whatever it was, could they not have waited until the child was old enough to understand, and gotten his consent first?
  4. Why did you only choose dead secretions? All of these things regenerate. The foreskin and nerve endings in it do not come back.
  5. There is a logical technique called "argument from absurdity". You preserve the logic of your opponent's argument, and apply it in different contexts, which is a great way to reveal any double standards in your opponent. This is completely valid, so long as you preseve the original logic. You know when you are dealing with an irrational person if they respond with "But this is different" or "analogies are not arguments". That person's motive is not to find the truth, but to provoke anger and irritation in others. I suggest that you don't engage with such people, your time is more valuable.
  6. For many uncircumcised men, the foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. The nerve endings are different to the nerves in the head - while the nerves in the head respond to direct touch and friction, the nerves in the foreskin respond more to being stretched. the sexual experience is supposed to have a variety of complimentary types of pleasure. Circumcision removes half of the total nerve endings, resulting on only one type of stimulation, and it reduces the sensitivity surface area by over half. Plus, it slightly reduces the girth of the penis. The only places that such a procedure
  7. The answer to this issue is surprising, yet simple. In a capitalist society where all land, water and air are privately owned, no one is allowed to pollute other people's property. If your neighbour's genetically modified corn releases pollen that contaminates your organic corn, then you can sue him. This created a deterrent effect in the long run: all new genetically modified organisms will be virtually sterile, or farms will have sophisticated barriers to prevent spreading. No one will want to risk being sued for growing uncontrollable crops. This is one example for how the free market can s
  8. Thank you! I rendered them using Cinema 4D 9.6, and did some of the modeling in AutoCAD. You won't get those colours in any renderer, though - that was all photoshop enhancement and manual recolouring. Some of his buildings look pretty cool, you can see a consistent theme running throughout each development. However, I read that his design approach is to scrunch up pieces of paper randomly and then draw inspiration from the more interesting ones. I don't think there is enough 'math' in his designs. If I were designing a building development, I would make it look as if some mathematical
  9. I was thinking of the governemnt in Atlas Shrugged: it had gone too far down the road to totalitarianism for it to be reversed "within the system" or through other means, even though it was a democratic system. There were 2 choices: wait for a total collapse, or change things earlier. The same can be said for America: certain flaws with the approach to American government make it impossible to reverse the direction that the country is moving in, unless there is a massive philosophical shift. Ayn Rand was complaining about America 60 years ago - and things are just getting worse for liberty. In
  10. An interesting addition to this question: Suppose a government system is 'fine' for the time being, but it is heading towards a disaster that cannot be stopped through normal means. Is a revolution acceptable?
  11. There are 4 types possibilities for knowledge: true, false, unproven, and unprovable. These last 2 are different to being false. Unproven ideas are those which are theoretically provable, but have not yet been proven (e.g. the existence of aliens). Unprovable ideas are those which do not interact with our reality at all. This last category is the one that Agnostics get so focused on, for some reason or another. The fact that they do not interact with out reality makes them 100% irrelevant - and unless the agnostics are proposing some way of interacting with them, they are just wasting their ti
  12. It depends on how pro-liberty you are. If you support significantly more liberty than other nations, you will be discrediting ideas about the failure of the capitalism, and people will probably try and stop you. Governments are monopolies, and like all monopolies they hate new competitors. Note how the number of nations in the world has been gradually shrinking over the past 1000 years.
  13. Sure, but shouldn't they prove it? It is a bit more complicated than that, too. To me, he idea of taking a life, even in self defense, would overwhelm me with negative emotions. The idea of killing millions of people is worse. And when we come to killing innocent people, that would go against every fibre of my being. I fail to see how killing millions can be legitimized by cloaking them in the label of 'enemy nation', but more importantly, I know that no sensitive, emapthetic person could ever advocate such things, especially not with the intensity I have seen here. This is what I mean
  14. Mark, there was some package dealing, context dropping and appeal to tradition. Look back in your posts, there was another post before the exchange you quoted, which may help you see the context. If you wish to understand why someone would reject your version of history, check out the Mises institute website, which is the basis for the economics of Objectivism. They have shown that the commonly accepted versions of most historical events, especially WWII, are based on popular propaganda, government press releases or liberal academic talking points at the time of the event. Truth is not the
  • Create New...