CWEarl
-
Posts
69 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by CWEarl
-
-
Smartest? Indeed. But you have to question what's smart. By my own standards mankind lacks intelligence.
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.We pollute our air. We kill one another. We go to war. We have nukes. We complain about high gas prices while people starve in Africa... I know, it's an old school thought that any fourteen year old can come up with.
Hardly. You'll have a difficult time finding an Objectivist who agrees.But it's a valid one.
So it's not pollution when animals dump their feces in the ocean?Look at dolphins. They live in their environment in peace. They don't pollute the water.
They are capable of organized violence. http://www.nwf.org/News-and-Magazines/Nati...f-the-Deep.aspxThey don't go to war.And they eat a lot of fish.Dolphins are smart because they've found a way to live in perfect harmony with their environment. Humans are not smart because they haven't done what dolphins have.
Humans are smart because, rather than being subject to their environment like dolphins, we have learned to shape the environment to suit us.
Is it okay to eat meat when you know you could have a salad instead? Maybe. Animals feel pain and are alive. And humans can get around the meat eating. Dolphins can't.So, really, who's smarter?
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.
-
p1. A world with less suffering is better than a world with more suffering.
p2. Animals suffer while being butchered for meat.
p3. A 'rational' man takes reasonable steps to make the world better.
p1 ^ p2 ^ p3 -> A rational man should not eat meat.
I know there is something wrong somewhere, i just can't put my finger on it.
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.
-
Hello friends. I have never had a tattoo nor do I intend on having more than 2 in my lifetime more than likely. However I do wish, that when I get them that they have a lot of meaning behind them. I would like for my first one to be an Objectivist one. However I am having some issues thinking of how exactly to go about it. I would like to put the Galt oath "I swear by my life and my love of it..." but I am wondering if I could spice this up a bit so its just not text. This would likely go on my back somewhere (shoulders or lower) but I was curious if anyone had any ideas for symbols/pictures etc. or specific font types for the text. I want to make sure I get something that is both unique and that I will really appreciate. I have no problem with colors over black & white.
I've thought about getting a dollar sign tattooed somewhere.
-
Avatar wins best drama and James Cameron wins best director, beating Inglorious Basterds in both categories.
Disgusting; a clear demonstration of Hollywood values.
-
(Both the Engineer and the Architect complained that their chosen professions were so heavily regulated and there were so many liability issues in actually doing any real architecture or engineering in the construction industry that they would probably "never sign off on a single plan"... that's depressing)
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.
-
Earlier this afternoon I went to a local Head shop here in Austin, Texas. I browsed around for a bit
and upon heading to the exit I was greeted with bold, vibrant text near the exit stating"Health Care As A Civil Right Petition."
I grabbed one of the many printed petitions in order to read over the unsettling document, and in hopes of scanning in a copy
to show you guys.
I do think a head shop advocating for the government to take their hands off of marijuana and other drugs yet wanting
government involvement in another area of their life is a blatant contradiction. Isn't it? This inconsistency ruined my
shopping experience to say the least! Anyways, here is the petition form:
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.
-
As an ex smoker, regarding the practise itself all I can say is ghak. Why anyone who has apparently managed to avoid smoking cigarettes would wish to take up smoking a pipe of cigars is beyond me. Completely aside from the well known health implications of this self-destructive habit there is the smell on your clothes, your skin and your breath your possessions, the lessening of the taste of food and drink, the way it makes your teeth yellow.
Ok...
I'm done ranting now. I hereby return you to the evasion in progress. 
j/k
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.
-
Now that is the proper sort of response to someone who does not understand something.
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.
-
Yea, that's how I read it as well. I'm not sure why one would be so concerned with what others do with their bodies.
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.
-
Thank You. After reading your comments i decided to stop learning more about objectivism. If it leads to acceptance of war initiation, then it is not for me.
Seems to me that the loss is yours and not Objectivism`s.
-
http://www.advisorteam.com/temperament_sor...er.asp?partid=1
the above link is for those who've never taken it. I've taken it a few times over the last year to see if i've progressed into something new, especially having read atlas shrugged, but found that i'm the same INTJ i always was. Upon further research, I found that Ayn Rand was also an INTJ, too. Was curious if there are others of this personality type on the board. My initial thoughts are that most people on this board will probably be either entj's or intj's. Anyways....thanks for the input.
I'm an INTJ.
-
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-sto...ked-witch/full/
My God. This must be the nastiest piece of trash I've read all year.
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’ll lay my cards on the table—Ayn Rand and her followers have given me the creeps since high school. Rand herself always looked to me like Lotte Lenya’s Rosa Krebb in From Russia with Love, and her disciples like extras from Village of the Damned.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.
-
The only thing that was ever good about BBC programming were David Attenborough's Wildlife documentaries.
I enjoy watching those on the Knowledge Network in Canada.
-
In an Objectivist society, would there be a need for voting?
Yes. The only proper way to form and maintain a government is to elect its members.
And certainly, if there were, voting would be determined unanimously, correct? Majority voting does not support individual rights.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?
I am trying to argue for unanimous voting (similar to voting procedures in a jury. If you have seen 12 Angry Men or the recent Russian remake 12, you know what I mean) in my government class, and the biggest argument against it is that it is arbitrary, slow, and not practical. In a sense, I can see why that is the case. But I know that unanimous voting is the only way to truly preserve the individual's rights, especially regarding taxation.On what do you base this knowledge?
A little clarification on this entire topic would be very helpful.I look forward to responses from those better equipped than myself.
-
Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged discussed by the BBC (on March 31, 2009). It's viewed as an "economic" novel, although the host doesn't think it's actually a "novel".
Some people are very shallow philosophically and it seems that journalists are typically a cut below.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/news...iew/7975404.stm
They come across as somewhat humane to me.
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.
-
I'm roughly two thirds into the novel, and I came upon this interesting speech from Gail Wynand (Part three, chapter 4 pg. 447 of my PB edition):
"I would give the greatest sunset in the world for one sight of New York's skyline. Particularly when one can't see the details. Just the shapes. The shapes and the thought that made them. The sky over New York and the will of man made visible. What other religion do we need? And then people tell me about pilgrimages to some dank pesthole in a jungle where they go to do homage to a crumbling temple, to a leering stone monster with a pot belly, created by some leprous savage. Is it beauty and genius they want to see? Do they seek a sense of the sublime? Let them come to New York, stand on the shore of the Hudson, look and kneel. When I see the city from my window - no, I don't feel how small I am - but I feel that if a war came to threaten this, I would throw myself into space, over the city, and protect these buildings with my body."
I must say, the last two sentences in particular sent shivers down my spine. I think you all know what I'm referring to - it's almost prophetic. Not that I'm suggesting Rand was some clairvoyant, oh no. But she must have felt deep inside that the evil savages that exist in the world will one day wish to perpetrate such a heinous crime as was 9/11.
I apologize if this has been discussed previously on this board.
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.
-
Objectivism is a pretty open "cult", all the information one needs is available online for free, or for very little money in her bokks, on official AR websites. Anyone who doesn't bother reading about it before they comment is a moron, for reasons 100% unrelated to any mistake made in this thread, by anyone.
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.
-
I am currently in an argument with my cousin (we are both fans of The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged), and we are discussing Objectivism, specifically whether or not reality can be objective. He argues that reality cannot be objective, because two people can see two different things and they can both assume that what they are seeing is correct. For example, I could see an empty room, but he may see the same room with dancing pink elephants all over the place (such as a hallucination). How can you possibly know what is real and what is not? Which reality is right? Is it possible to say a reality is right, since everyone could just be living in their own subjective reality?
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).
-
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.
-
I'm an undergraduate economics student currently taking a course on global capital markets. In fact, I'm deep into a paper right now. I thought I'd take a quick break to make this comment. Sometimes econ can be so frustrating to study (utilitariansim, altruism, what ways can the government intervene, inductive errors, etc.). So, I need to kind of reorient myself from time to time.
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).
-
I want this!
-
One of my favorite complaints about capitalism, or a weak central government, is that the businesses that are powerful enough can bribe politicians to write laws for them.... as if this is a complaint about economic corruption, as opposed to political corruption.
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.
Why do people make excuses for corrupt politicians when they criticize big business? Lack of sufficient funding is no excuse for buying laws from big business. If anything, this is an argument against the government providing the things that liberals and progressives want, as well as an argument that supports the notion that the government, as an entity, is less efficient and rational as we expect more from it.The political philosophy of the Left depends on a benign government and malicious businessmen. To fulfill this need, the Left readily ejects reality.
Kickbacks are illegal. If a politician needs to buy a law from a big corporation, then he is corrupt. Period. A government that needs big business to finance them for the things it needs, is a government that is overstepping it's boundaries.This is an argument for the separation of economics and state.
-
Your turn...
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.
Also Barack Obama reads 95 books a year, I don't care what anyone says that is quite a load of books! Dummy he is not.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.
-
It is always dangerous to guess what Ayn Rand would like.
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.
She once said that she liked "Charlie's Angels" because no one was going to take the show seriously, they could do what they liked, and AR thought it was enjoyable.I also remember AR asking people not to send her music because no one knew what her tastes were.
But even more important, AR's tastes have no direct philosophical or moral meaning. She wrote about the philosophical issues in aesthetics, but the consequences of those views provide for a wide range of personal preference. "Understanding Objectivism" by Dr. Peikoff is an excellent source.
And I made no attempt at a philosophical statement. I just guessed.
Animal rights
in Ethics
Posted
This is exciting stuff because of the probable vast increase in efficiency. I'm all for it.