Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Rudmer

  • Rank
    Junior Member
  • Birthday 05/10/1990

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
  • Interested in meeting
    Any Objectivist, or person interested in Objectivism, in northwest or central Arkansas
  • Relationship status
    In a relationship
  • Sexual orientation
  • Real Name
    Patrick Anderson
  • Copyright
  • Biography/Intro
    I am an Air Force brat, a graduate of the Arkansas School for Mathematics, Sciences, and the Arts, and an Honors College Fellow at the University of Arkansas studying Computer Science, Political Science, and Philosophy. I am relatively new to Objectivism, but have held most of its tenets as my own for as long as I can remember. Currently, I am working my way through OPAR. If you are interested in the Objectivism society I founded, the UARK Objectivists, please send an email to [email protected]
  • School or University
    University of Arkansas
  • Occupation
    Web Developer, Student

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Fayetteville, AR
  • Interests
    Computer Science, technology, Apple, Google, logic, philosophy, politics, heavy metal, bowling, snowboarding, hockey, painting
  1. I am a CS major who was completely uninterested in the field until I took a programming class in high school, and I can't help but agree with this. However, I will say that if I had to learn Scheme as my first programming language, rather than something like Python or Java, I would have been much less likely to pursue CS any further. Back to the broader subject of this thread: does it really matter if there is a lack of a certain gender in any given field? I can understand how being the only female in a class could be uncomfortable, but if you enjoy the subject matter then it shouldn't be
  2. I saw the end -- basically, Bats was shitting his pants. But that's not action, that's buildup. At least show the first lunge or something, you know?
  3. Well, that was thoroughly unsatisfying. I was hoping for some actual Bane vs Bats action. I still have my fingers crossed that the movie imitates the comics, and has Bane break Bats' back. Hopefully any future trailers will be more exciting and inspiring.
  4. Last time I checked, "homosexuality" was not an entity capable of rational, conceptual thinking, and thus is unable to value anything. Homosexual people, on the other hand, are perfectly capable of valuing life just as much as anyone else. If your definition of "valuing life" necessitates the desire to procreate, then I know many straight people who would not fall into your definition, either. Ayn Rand was most likely one --she lived a long, full life and never had children. The desire to procreate has absolutely nothing to do with having one's life as a standard of value. EDIT: I see D
  5. (This was originally posted by me on my tumblr, here.) “An idea is like a virus. Resilient. Highly contagious. The smallest seed of an idea can grow. It can grow to define or destroy you.” - Cobb, Inception I want to found a startup. Pretty simple idea, right? I wish. This thought, which began as a mere twinkling of a research idea over a year ago, has been a large blip on my radar all semester and has started consuming every precious cycle of my brain’s free processing time in the past two months. So in just over a year I have gone from thinking “wouldn’t it be cool if…?” to c
  6. Rudmer


    The scenario I'm envisioning is basically this: You, your lover, and a Predator are in a sewer. The Predator has a . . . whatever extremely deadly weapon Predators use . . . and is going to kill on of you because, well, he's a Predator and therefore one of you has to die. There is no reasoning with him because he's a Predator. You can't take the weapon from him because he's a Predator (and even if you could, he'd still kill one of you with his bare hands). You can't run, because he's a Predator. And that's as far as I'll go with that. You've constructed a "lifeboat scenario" which anyo
  7. Rudmer


    I have to say, I think that there's a small but not inconsequential false dichotomy here. Taking the bullet or not are not, realistically, my only options. Would I take a bullet for the one I love? Absolutely. Would I do anything I could to make sure it wouldn't come to that, up to and including killing the other dude first? Even more absolutely. Anyone doing the former but not the latter has, by their actions, shown that they do not value their loved one as much as they claim to, which makes the act of taking the bullet self-sacrificial.
  8. I think this is a great short. The repetitive structure is a great way to advance the narrative, and the ending definitely tugs at the heart strings a bit. Bravo.
  9. I purchased and read this yesterday, and it's actually not too shabby. As Superman, the character is just as fantastic and has the exact same sense of life as the traditional Superman character. I actually like that they changed Clark Kent from a gargantuan doofball to a more normal (if moderately depressed) guy. Seeing him first come out as Superman had a lot more affect that way -- it's like Superman is who he truly is, that when he's wearing the cape he's free and that the Clark Kent persona is the mask he has to wear. BTW, it's worth noting that they are not recreating Superman (like
  10. You're in the wrong place if you expect "non-judgmental" responses. Not judging means not using ones mind, which is (if anything is) the "cardinal sin" of Objectivism. As Ayn Rand said: Source: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/moral_judgment.html
  11. I would agree with you, if this thread was his first or second or tenth. But he has been doing this for weeks now, and has been told multiple times by experienced members and moderators to knock it off, and yet he continues. Smells like a troll to me.
  12. And he won't. Someone, in every thread, always tries to get him to think for himself, to reason without being spoon-fed the correct, obvious answer. He absolutely refuses to do so. Your average three-year-old does more thinking than JacobGalt appears to be doing -- at least three-year-olds are constantly asking "why" and inventing new ways to get into mischief. With JacobGalt, it's always the same mischief: ask an inane question in the title, write one or two sentences that do little to explain or expound, and then sit back and wait for the answers (many of them rather annoyed, many of the
  • Create New...