Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by CWEarl

  1. CWEarl

    Animal rights

    This is exciting stuff because of the probable vast increase in efficiency. I'm all for it.
  2. CWEarl

    Animal rights

    Compared to what? What other creature is even capable of making this distinction? If people in Africa adopted Western principles (particularly Capitalism) then they could also have the luxury of complaining about gas prices. Meanwhile, their ignorance is not our responsibility. Hardly. You'll have a difficult time finding an Objectivist who agrees. So it's not pollution when animals dump their feces in the ocean? They are capable of organized violence. http://www.nwf.org/News-and-Magazines/Nati...f-the-Deep.aspx Humans are smart because, rather than being subject to their environment like dolphins, we have learned to shape the environment to suit us. The creatures who are aware of the choice, obviously. When confronted with the absurd notion that other animals are smarter than humans, I offer this challenge: Show me an animal that can triple its own life span with products of reason.
  3. CWEarl

    Animal rights

    p1 has been identified as a false premise already, but p2 is false as well. Not all animals suffer while being butchered. A good hunter will kill an animal instantly with one blow. A farm operation or even a slaughterhouse is capable of the same when proper care is taken.
  4. I've thought about getting a dollar sign tattooed somewhere.
  5. Avatar wins best drama and James Cameron wins best director, beating Inglorious Basterds in both categories. Disgusting; a clear demonstration of Hollywood values.
  6. Yikes! As someone who plans on studying architecture after finishing studies in Urban Land Economics (Real Estate Development) this is disturbing. I wonder if a move to the US will be worthwhile. I hope to take architecture down there. Incidentally, the post-secondary difference between Canada and the US is that colleges and universities are separate institutions in Canada, while colleges are located within universities in the states.
  7. This is no surprise to me because I basically think most people are statists to the degree where they want the state to call whatever they think is important a "right." A rational person will promote their values in a private sense while a statist figures it's best to have the government legislate their values. In this case, the government shouldn't criminalize marijuana, but should make sure that every individual has "free" healthcare. They don't see that there is a contradiction to thinking that everyone should have the right to smoke while also having the right to have others pay for whatever medical issues result.
  8. Pipes and cigars actually taste good (I actually love the smell of burning pipe tobacco). Though they are not free from risk, they are not a full-time habit like cigarette smoking. I smoke a cigar once every few weeks, and my pipe has been unlit for years. I actually smoked my pipe nearly daily when I bought it, but I found that the tobacco was sold in pouches that were too large; it invariably dried out before I could finish it.
  9. It is better than my response to be sure. However, at the time I put my response, I was puzzled by threesixty's post. Why take the bother to post something like that on an Objectivist discussion group. People who want to learn something ask reasonable questions. People who basically insult and announce their departure don't appear to want to learn anything.
  10. Me too. His posts are too full of vague generalizations and hyperbole to be considered proper arguments against body building. They just come across as childish rants.
  11. Seems to me that the loss is yours and not Objectivism`s.
  12. In the comment section, in response to a comment, he claims that not one line was written out of hate. In the very first paragraph: I hope he doesn't go around telling people he's a journalist. You'll notice that there isn't a single philosophical argument in the article. It's just a smear piece.
  13. I enjoy watching those on the Knowledge Network in Canada.
  14. Yes. The only proper way to form and maintain a government is to elect its members. A government limited to the protection of individual rights through police, courts, and armed forces is not itself a violation of individual rights simply because its members were not elected via unanimous consent. How would a government even function if the disapproval of a single individual could leave important positions vacant? On what do you base this knowledge? I look forward to responses from those better equipped than myself.
  15. I'm angry. I find it hard to believe that they even read AS. If they did, then it's clear that they read it with "liberal" blinders on. They want to believe that individualists are crazy and it would appear that nothing will change their minds.
  16. An example of why The Fountainhead is my favorite book. It's one of the passages that expresses my own thoughts with more eloquence than I was previously capable.
  17. A cult that, more than anything else, demands people apply reason to reality - essentially thinking for themselves? Absurd. A cult of hardcore individualists? Nonsense. During the Q&A of Rand's second appearance on Donahue, an audience member claimed to have been influenced by Rand's writing in the past but, fortunately, was no longer part of Rand's cult. Rand cut her off, saying, "I am not a cult!" Indeed - no individual could be, and no true individual could belong to one.
  18. Simple. Reality is what it is regardless of how people perceive it. What anyone "sees" does not determine what reality is. To claim that reality is subjective is plain nonsense that only the mystic and/or the insane believe. Reality is not whatever the sane or insane perceive. It is the universe as it is. One can argue about the validity of perception, but not about the nature of that which is perceived. Fortunately, there are tools available for us to determine the validity of what we perceive, namely the scientific method backed by solid philosophy (Objectivism).
  19. Naomi Klein has taken opportunities to glibly misrepresent the opinions of a dead man who can not defend himself. This video uses clips of Milton Friedman that expose her misrepresentations and outright lies, creating a debate on his behalf. Edit: The latest comments (there are over 4000 in total) are a great source of amusement as well.
  20. I've just started studying Economics myself, for a Diploma of Urban Land Economics which will lead to a Bachelor Degree of Business in Real Estate (with a focus on Real Estate Development). I've noticed certain left-biases myself, but I suspect they were inserted because I'm taking the courses in Canada. The text I'm using is a Canadian, Microeconomics version of the most widely read text on economics in the world, The Principles of Economics. The text and it's American author, Gregory Mankiw, is the subject of an infuriating Adbusters Campaign. Adbusters is a publication by the Media Foundation (I see they've dropped "Vancouver" from the name) that takes a conspiratorial left view of society. I picked up the special economics issue a few months ago and wanted to throw it across the room whenever I read an article therein - but it was educational. If you are curious about what a left view of economics really looks like, check out the campaign. Meanwhile, I don't object to the use of the term Moral Hazard inasmuch as it refers to one of the principles of economics: people respond to incentives. However, my studies have just begun, so I won't bore you with half-baked opinions on the matter (for now).
  21. Of course, this makes no sense. What could a weak (ie: limited) government have to offer big business? If a government's role is limited to the protection of individual rights within the state, a business has little to purchase by way of bribe, contribution, or lobby. The political philosophy of the Left depends on a benign government and malicious businessmen. To fulfill this need, the Left readily ejects reality. This is an argument for the separation of economics and state.
  22. I get about 2 hours worth of reading done in a day. In the morning, I read for school (most recently Principles of Microeconomics, Mankiw et al.) and I read The Economist while taking public transit. For fun, I'm currently reading What the Dog Saw by Malcolm Gladwell. I disagree with your assumption. It all depends on what books are read. There are many books (anything by Naomi Klein, for instance) that keep dummies dumb. Obama's reading comprehension may be through the roof but that doesn't mean there's any wisdom to his ideas.
  23. Dangerous? My guess was based on her stated requirements for what she considered romantic art. As there was no such thing as Amazing Race during her lifetime, I extrapolated. And I made no attempt at a philosophical statement. I just guessed.
  • Create New...