Bourcet
-
Posts
33 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Bourcet
-
-
Most I.T vacancies are for development roles, whether that be for desktop applications, web applications or web development in general.
If you look at these vacancies you find that it's rare to find a requirement for one specific language, especially in web development as sites often interact with databases, so you'd need skills in html, xml, css, asp, javascript and sql for example, or alternatives to these.
It's not necessary to get a degree as most people have degrees now, so you'd need to distinguish yourself by providing evidence of your achievements and capabilities, and the great thing about web development or development in general, is that you can have your own portfolio to show potential employers.
You can teach yourself through books or get certification, rather than get a degree.
In terms of computer repair, you could work in a shop and receive computers from customers, with the task of identifying the problem which could be software or hardware based, and then solving that or replacing the hardware as components are so cheap, it's not necessary to repair for example a CD Drive.
An alternative is I.T Support which could be internal for a company and you'd solve the problems that staff have with their software and hardware, or you could work for a dedicated I.T Services company on the service desk which would, at entry level, involve answering calls throughout the day from customers and then logging the fault and escalating it to second line support who would actually solve the problem. You don't need a lot of I.T skills to do this as it's mainly about organisation skills as opposed to troubleshooting.
-
I am reading Bernstein's "Objectivism in One Lesson" and I have a question on the basis of Ethics.
If I am understanding correctly, contrary to Kant and his deontologism, objectivist's ethics links values with facts and ethics with the life of a man qua man.
If something promotes man's life qua man, it is good. Not because it follows a rule enacted by God, society, or the whim of an individual, but because it favours man's ability to live a flourishing life, to achive his long term purposes.
But then, why is it inmoral to steal one dollar from a millionaire?
In which way stealing that dollar prevents him from surviving, from living a plenty life of man qua man, from achiving his ideals, values or projects?
In fact, if we were to ask that man if the loss of such a dollars has impacted his ability to survive or advance in his goals, I think he would answer no.
Still, he would be angry, at least moderately angry, and would consider the thief a thief.
What is the basis for the inmorality of this one-dollar theft?
The basis is the principle of individual rights.
By stealing a dollar you are admitting that you do not accept the principle of the individual rights of man, which of course means that should anyone steal from you then you have no basis of complaint since you don't recognise individual rights.
If nobody recognised individual rights then there would just be widespread theft, in fact people wouldn't bother producing since it would be stolen. Either there would be dictatorship or gang warfare.
A slave no longer has a purpose, other than to escape.
-
I think when growing up every child responds with joy to exciting things that he values, but I wonder why some adults respond with tears of joy.
When I have found something very funny I have always had tears when I laughed, however recently I've had it in response to joyous things and I don't know if it is because there is some negative component that I am unaware of that saddens me and therefore induces tears.
For instance, I was reading a book the other day called The Stress of Life by Dr Hans Seyle (Mentzer referred to him) and it was a great read in the sense that the author wrote with clarity, he intended for his work to be understood and it felt great to understand some science and for some reason I thought how wonderful this was (because it is rare) and tears began to roll down my face, but I wasn't sad at all.
Maybe the tears were a reflection of the sadness that unfortunately most authors do not engage me?
-
After searching the forums for the term "probability" I didn't come up with anything directly addressing this question. If you know of an existing thread that does, I would appreciate being pointed there.
I am currently taking a "Foundations of Probability and Inductive Logic" philosophy class. I am trying to figure out what the NATURE of probability is from an Objectivist standpoint. What does it refer to? Is it a measure of a metaphysical relationship of possible outcomes or is it somehow a measure of epistemic relations? If so, what are the means of inducing these relationships?
I very much enjoyed Peikoff's recent podcast where he tells the story of trying to figure out how many people would be in the lobby of Ayn Rand's apartment building and it started to shed some light on this question but I am looking for a more explicit and succint response to the questions I listed.
When being faced in my class with interpretations of probability such as Richard von Mises Frequency interpretation, Karl Popper's Propensity interpretation and F.P. Ramsey's Subjective interpretation, what is the proper way of viewing this subject?
Thanks for any help you guys can offer.
I don't know what you have read but Peikoff discusses in OPAR how knowledge progresses from the possible to the probable to certainty in a context, based on the quality/quantity of evidence gathered.
-
I will take note of that book, but some questions: 1.)by what formal concept are recruitment agencies referred to by, and 2.) what does CV stand for?
I don't know how it works in America, but in England they are referred to as just recruitment agencies and you can find them on the high street in city centres. It's best to go in person because if you do it online they just ignore you. There are general recruitment agencies for office work or more specific agencies for I.T work and so on.
I contacted an agency once for I.T Support roles and had to go to their office to fill in some forms and do some basic tests. Then after several weeks they contacted me and told me I had an interview for a project management role several days later.
A CV is a curriculum vitae, which in America is a resume.
-
If you were kidnapped and given the options to either (one) kill a stranger who is also being held hostage, one who has done absolutely nothing to you, who has not first initiated violence, etc. by which case, you will be released... or (two) kill yourself so that the stranger may be released... or (three) refuse to act and the kidnapper will finish you both rather brutally... how would you respond? Explain why.
I have heard it said that "morality ends where the gun begins". Under threat of your life, what do you do?
Note: for whatever reason you know indefinitely that you will be released should you kill him and the same for him if you kill yourself. Of course, in this sort of situation the kidnapper is likely to go against his word... But let's just pretend that these are absolutes. Also, try not to pick a fourth option, ie: "I would fight back". Act as though the above three are your only choices.
These examples are just another way of expressing a code of ethics, or more like trapping you in an impossible world where the ethics of egoism are thought to apply and are considered bad.
I assume that the altruist would take his own life, since that is the ultimate self sacrifice, and therefore he would be praised as a good man. The man who kills the stranger must be the egoist and since he considers his life more important than the stranger, he's a monster and must be condemned as bad. As for the man who allows the kidnapper to kill the stranger and himself then he must be considered as bad since he refused to save a life by extinguishing his own.
My response would be to kill the stranger, since I have a choice, I choose to save my own life since that is what is most important. But my choice is not free because I am being forced to choose. If there was no force, then I would not kill the stranger, or myself...well, the scenario would never exist would it.
I think this example allows you to make choices and judges you morally based upon them. But this is a mistake since morality only applies to a choice that is free and not forced. And all these examples are from the altruist perspective that rely on force and result in death. Isn't it funny how people express how great altruism is, by relying on force and death.
What would your response be Summer and why?
-
Careers advisors claim that most vacancies are hidden and filled through networking, so you can volunteer to increase the size of your network.
I volunteered for a long time and my boss basically networked for me and found me some contacts, one of them actually offered me an interview. I also contacted a company in the business pages and asked if I could volunteer for one week in a certain role, he instead told me about a paid vacancy that they would consider me for after my week of volunteering. I did not complete the week. After interrogating
the current employees, I decided it would be a bad move.Probably the easiest and quite effective way is to sign up to a recruitment agency in person and let them find you jobs, as responding to advertisements rarely results in employment, unless it is a large organisation that takes on a hundred or so staff for basic temporary seasonal work.
At the moment I am doing an internship for a large organisation, unpaid, with the potential of paid employment after that period. If it doesn't work out, at least I will have gained some new skills, worked in a large organisation which I have never done before and hopefully get some new contacts.
Applying for jobs online is pretty pointless. I have even applied for minimum wage I.T jobs and have been turned down, even though I have a degree in I.T and close to 3 years work experience in I.T roles.
Your CV is pretty bare but you could expand on it by describing some of the skills you have used while in education and some achievements. You also need to describe what it is that you want, generally speaking and what you are good at.
Check out a career guidance book called What Colour is Your Parachute, I found it helpful in finding my transferable skills and how to approach companies.
-
No, no no! It goes beyond hypnosis and NLP!
Picture John Galt tied to the bed and the generator, about to get the electric shocks.
Now picture John Galt inside a last-generation MRI machine that can show changes in brain cortex derived from the pain he is about to experience.
The torture starts, and you get the typical pattern of pain in the cortex.
Then the bad guys stop the electric shocks, The brain pattern get back to normal. And now the bad guys bring Dagny to the room and start hurting her in front of John Galt, in a way I won't describe here.
What would be the pattern shown in John Galt's brain if he had to witness Dagny's suffering?
Wouldn't we have an objective demostration of Johns Galt pain, elicited by witnessing his must beloved person suffer?
Pain and suffering have a subjective as well as an objective component. You will be never able to experience John Galt's pain for Dagny, but you will certainly be able to SEE, wihout any doubt, a brain activity pattern consistent with pain, and with deep pain. You will then say that John is being tortured. That his brain (and, through neurohormonal mechanisms his whole body) is being hurt, injured, against his will, even if the generator has broken. The electrochemical shocks are being produced by the sight of an scene, deliberately produced by Ferris and his crew.
That phychological torture represents an EVIL by itself, indepently of the fact that John Galt is tied to the bed and cannot escape. The evil goes beyond the restriction of Galt's freedom to move. It goes to the damage made to his values.
I don't know I have made my case, but I think physchological violence exists. I still don't mean that psychological coercion exists. That would take further analysis.
Your example relies on actual physical force, psychological torture cannot exist without it.
-
http://www.kdhnews.com/news/story.aspx?s=36899
So it is confirmed this lunatic also happened to be an Islamic lunatic. But I'm sure his peaceful and tolerant religion had nothing to do with him shooting up a military fort.
What do you think should happen so this doesn't happen again? prevent muslims from joining the military?
-
Let's picture the scene of Braveheart, when the brave leader is addressing its army to fight the English, and shouts: They may take our lives, but they can't take our freedom!!
That is the context of my question.
Is it up to us to let someone hurt our mind? Is this a matter of choice?
Is it really possible for an adult man to hurt other adult man's mind without the victim's consent? Can a man initiate physchological violence without a preliminary physical violence?
Let's take a person that deliberately HIDES information that would ease the sorrow or grief of other person (e.g., not telling that her beloved one is alive, and not dead).
Let's take a government that deliberately HIDES information from the public, or DISTORT information, causing alarm or panic among the public, and support for its policies .
Or let's take this more frequent situation: a person is ostracized by the rest of his colleagues at work, say because of his race, religion, sexual preference, or whatever. They decide to bully him, mock at him, and put him under stress though a myriad of small actions, each of which does not constitute by itself an act of physical violence. Certainly, he could quit and look for another job where he finds people that shares his values and can have a more cooperative attitude. But getting another job may be very difficult in many circumstnaces, so that this man will have to ENDURE this social situation for a while, say, some months. During that period, would you say that these unfriendly colleagues are exerting PSYCHOLOGICAL violence against him? Are these man's rights being violated?
In response to the last elaborate example, the answer is no, his rights are not being violated. Rights only pertain to freedom of action, so long as man is free to act, his rights are not being violated.
There is a book called The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People where the author explains how you are free to choose your response to stimulus. He is not an Objectivist but it's a very interesting book.
For example, if you are driving along and a car cuts you up and honks his horn at you, you can decide to get angry and let it affect you, or choose to ignore it. Or with your example at work and people are ridiculing me because I am atheist, I can choose to ignore it or let it affect me. Sure they are abusing me, but I can let it affect me or not. And even if I do let it affect me, I freely chose to let it and freely chose to remain at that company.
-
For the same reasons, in my judgment, anyone who follows HIT - in light of the overwhelming evidence against it - does not understand the philosophy of Objectivism.
Summary of HST principles, described in non-technical terms
I'm not prolific by any stretch of the imagination, but I fall into the latter category.
Is it not clear to you that physiology is a scientific subject that requires the study of scientific principles, and you can't understand its terms and experiments without knowledge of those principles. In which case you are judging someone as non-Objectivist on the basis of his inability to understand a field of science because he has not been educated in that field.
I don't see what the significance is of quoting Tore Boeckmann when:
a) I didn't even know the author was an expert, since it was just a name.
I didn't criticise his science.Besides, I can criticise any expert on the basis of his presentation if his aim is to teach the lay person. I can point out that he doesn't explain or define concepts, that he does not logically develop his theory and he fills it with technical jargon.
Reading the research of a field of science requires an understanding of its principles. You cannot learn about physiology or any field by only reading about its experiments, since they are targeted toward the scientific community who have certain pre-requisites in knowledge that the lay person doesn't have. It also contains terminology that is taken for granted. Sure I could read it and maybe remember it, but it would only exist in my mind as a floating abstraction.
I hope you can grasp that I agree with HIT because I understand it and it makes sense. I disagree with HST on the basis that I don't understand it because it is filled with jargon and therefore it makes no sense to me. Also, whatever evidence there is against HIT I have not read since it has not been posted anywhere, and most likey it would make no sense to me.
Please try to convince people with clear arguments instead of threats, because the more threats you make the more likely I will just stop replying to you.
-
Are you serious? The whole point of successful Psychological warfare is that the victim is not able to chose whether to expose himself to it or not. At least I think that was his original point, not a war situation, geeez!
My point was that freedom of action can't be violated by psychological coercion alone.
His examples were vague and the context is not clear. For the first example he could be referring to a doctor in which case I assume he would have violated the contract he signed to help his patients. Or he could be referring to a man who has invented a vaccine that prevents a certain disease, and in this case the information would be how that vaccine is made and the context is property rights.
-
Hi everyone.
I am new to Objectivism and I am eagerly reading as much as I can from Ayn Rand's writings and several essays from ARI and TAS websites.
I have a question concerning coercion. English is my second language, so I may make some mistakes in grammar or spelling.
We all know that no man should initiate force against any other man, and this is commonly associated with physical force.
But, is there something like psychological coercion or violence?
Can a man inflict damage to other man's mind without his consent?
I am thinking, for example, in a man or group that denies access to information that is vital for the survival or development of other man.
I am also thinking in brilliant, eloquent man that deceives another man who has little intelectual tools to fight back the arguments, and starts taking wrong decisions that limit his survival or development .
In this respect I ask myself: can I accuse another man of deceiving me? Or should I always take responsibility of my own choice, even if my capacity to discriminate truth from falsehood was limited by my significantly lower ability to analyse information on that specific topic, compared with the deceiver?
Or an adult that systematically undermines the self-esteem of children by what he tells them, even when no physical use of force can ever be proven. (Could an adult accuse another adult of undermining his self-esteem, or my self-esteem is my only responsibility?)
In some countries, wifes can sue their husbands for verbal violence or psychological torture. For example, husbands that repeatedly tell their wives that they are ugly and fool. (In this case, I personally believe that the blame lies on the side of the person that feels offended or believes what is told to believe, but I want to use this example as well since it is so common).
I'd like to hear your comments on this.
In the context of war, if a combatant is captured by an enemy then they can torture him psychologically and it can damage his mind in the sense of unsettling it because his senses don't permit him to close his ears (if the torture is via sound), which would cause stress and could lead to physical problems within the body. But in order to do this, they would have to deny his freedom by physical force, preventing him from escaping.
You can't commit psychological torture without the threat of physical force as a man would be free to escape it. Unless of course a man chooses to accept psychological torture and he can choose to stop experiencing it whenever he wants to, as in an experiment, but then his rights aren't being violated so no one denied his freedom.
-
We could have sent special-operative forces into Afghanistan the day after the towers were struck, taken out the ruling regime and all Al-Qaeda sympathizers, and then brought all those forces back home, in under a month. Why we had to engage in an 8 year long conflict over an issue that could have been solved in a matter of days, is just unbelievably frustrating, particularly since we actually had the right and obligation to send troops - unlike in Iraq.
If the Taliban had been taken out and troops had then left days later, who do you think would have taken over? most likely it would have been a similar political force due to Afghan culture.
In fact, there would be a period of time where rivals would fight for power and there would be no government, which would only attract insurgent groups that could use it as a base or try to gain power themselves and use it once more as a launch pad for attacks against the west.
The whole point of nation building is to try to change the culture from the top through the imposition of a new political infrastructure, because the populace would only replace the previous regime with a similar one due to the ideas in the culture.
As far as I am aware, in Afghanistan, there was no movement for the creation of a government from the people for a friendly regime. If the Taliban had been taken out, there would be no radical change and a similar anti-west regime would replace it, providing support for insurgents.
-
The expression on his face made me think of a doctor inspecting a patient for some anomaly.
-
There's really no argument; it's either inductive science (HST) or rationalistic deduction (HIT) - the answer is clear to any Objectivist.
If you wish to understand bodybuilding, you must understand physiology - this is something that Mentzer never understood. With that in mind, I can recommend some books:
Maximum Muscle: The Science of Intelligent Physique Training
I'd also wait for Bryan Haycock's (HST) & Borge Fagerli's (Myo-Reps) magnum opuses. After reading these, it would take evasion on a massive scale to continue to accept Mentzer & his ilk.
Since it is not clear to me I am no longer Objectivist, well it was nice while it lasted, I guess I'll turn to religion now.
Ok I don't understand physiology, I didn't evade on a massive scale, or even a small scale, and the link didn't help me. So HST may be great for bodybuilding scientists, but until it explains itself to the lay person, it won't be accepted by people, other than those that accept by faith or by authority. Although the author is just a name with no explanation as to who he is.
Please can you tell me what education you have undertaken in understanding physiology?
-
My post was meant to be a teaser - the essay will be more informative. However, if you've read the essays against Kelley (The ARI-TOC Dispute), my essay against Mentzer will be similar in nature. In fact, anyone talented in philosophical detection can do this on your own; substitute HST (Bryan Haycock, Dan Moore, Borge Fagerli, etc.) for ARI, & HIT (Mike Mentzer, Arthur Jones, Ellington Darden, etc.) for TOC, then digest the arguments against Kelley & see if you can notice the parallels against Mentzer.
I used to post as 'BIGBANGSingh,' where I previously argued against Mentzer.
I would appreciate it if you could create a separate thread for HST where you can argue for the merits of that method, after all, if you think that HST is the best method then it won't gain much attention hidden in a HIT thread. I have only looked at the web site and don't understand the scientific jargon so it is no use to me. However, feel free to recommend a book explaining it.
-
So basically:
1. She should not be tried as a minor.
2. She should get time in jail for the murder because it seems there were good options to escape or should we account for a suggestion that she was "not in right mind" to understand that such an alternative was reasonable or even possible.
3. One person here seems to think that this was reasonable and that it required pre-meditation and the requirement to kill him to escape.
So basically sentence her for some jail time is the conclusion here? There seems to be a little bit of disagreement. This seems to rest mostly on the plausibility of escape by o ther means and if she was psychologically fit to understand that option to be reasonable enough to act on it.
If she was locked in his home and "clients" were brought to her to have sex, and then she tried to escape by killing him then that would be justified self defence since he has imprisoned her and force is the only means to gain her freedom.
But in this case, she was free to escape when she went out on "business" and nothing was preventing her. Unless he had minders follow her.
I don't know what you mean by her not being psychologically fit to understand the option of escape or being reasonable enough to act on it. The fact that she killed the man meant that she saw him as a threat and therefore she wasn't completely brainwashed in the sense of seeing the man as someone good to her.
I have no idea what her state of mind was. Are you claiming that she was not responsible due to a psychological illness?
-
I think bulking and cutting are a necessity for obtaining the best results.
Sure, it's possible to maintain an energy balance and build some muscle. It's just that it takes much longer, and it's harder the less fat you have(the body can, after all, use body fat as a resource; giving something like 35 calories per lbs of fat per day). For most people this results in them slowly getting harder.
Building muscle on a calorie deficit is extremely difficult if you're not a beginner, and even then it's pretty hard(and again, the less fat you have the harder it is). A calorie deficit is catabolic, meaning that you're going to have a tough time maintinging a positive protein balance with exercise alone. The situation can be improved somewhat with the help of nutritional timing, but that's pretty tedious and won't help much if you train very infrequently.
This is why bulking and cutting cycles produce better results. When eating above maintenance calories you're setting the body up for a positive protein balance, ie an anabolic state, and you recover faster after exercise. And on top of that you get the very positive effects from strength training. When it's time to cut it should not be a problem mainting what you've gained, unless you're going for extremely low body fat.
However, bulking is often misinterpeted as pigging out and eating everything but the kitchen sink. That's a perfect recipe for getting fat very quickly and seeing no improvement after cutting. A controlled "bulk" is a better alternative, where you eat perhaps 300-400 calories above maintenance each day - or whatever it takes to move your body out of homestasis.
Individual differences should also be taken into account. Some people can gain mostly muscle by overeating, while others gain alot more fat. Those who are naturally thin and underweight tend to gain mostly muscle from overeating. On the opposite side you have people like me who have been overweight and will always find it easier to gain fat. Aside from that it's of course also a question about how strictly you want to live with your diet.
As far as carido goes I think it's a waste of time. Controlling what you eat is alot less time consuming. Granted, some people may find better control on their apetite after cardio. Personally though, I wouldnt do more than go out for a walk just so I don't sit in front of the computer all day.
When it comes to reducing fat it's all about the energy balance you create. On a negative energy balance you'll loose fat, it doesnt matter how you do it, and more intense cardio demands more energy. However, more intense and prolonged cardio also has a negative impact on muscle building(i'm not sure it burns muscle though, as it also has an anti-catabolic effect; if I have understood it correctly it's got more to do with causing different adaptations that "take out" each other - I can try searching for references if you're interested).
Yes if you could find those references I will give you a cookie
I used to eat 3 meals per day but now eat 5, so I eat every 3 hours and drink a lot more than I used to as it is required to transport the nutrients. I would say that previously I was dehydrated all of the time, but now I have around 500ml after each meal so it works out to around the recommended requirement of 2 litres per day.
I don't pig out at all, my meals are very small and my 2 minor meals are only 2 pieces of toast for 1 meal while the other is a muffin. I eat tuna quite often as it has lots of protein, of which I have around 1-1.2g per kg of bodyweight.
I think a major contribution of my weight gain, aside from the strength gain, is due to a great reduction in activity, otherwise known as laziness. I used to be very active but this caused problems with my knees and because I live in a country with a Soviet style healthcare, I don't want to go through the nightmare I had last time with my knee. It went something like this:
-See doctor: He gives me painkillers for a month, which do great...in giving me stomach ache.
-See doctor: He sends me to physio...2 weeks later.
-See physio for several weeks, problem not resolved.
-Wait a month or 2 to see a foot specialist: He has no idea.
-Wait a month or two for x ray. No problem with bones.
-Wait 3 months or so to see a consultant. He spends 5 minutes playing with my leg and books a date for keyhole surgery inspection...several months down the line.
-Receive letter from Bupa (private healthcare) telling me that the NHS has handed over my case to them. Reduction in time to surgery.
-Bupa surgery: Keyhole surgery, wake up 40 minutes later, problem solved.
All in all, it took a whole year just to remove some debris from my knee, and during the whole time I could not run or play football and it often hurt just to walk. I was even told that if the NHS were to have operated, it would have increased my recovery time because they didn't have the tools for keyhole surgery.
So now my main goal is strong legs, but since I'll be working out I may as well improve my upper body.
-
What do you guys think about the cycle of bulking and cutting?
At one time I used to weigh 147lbs at 6ft and I didn't do any weight training at all, I used to jog quite often. I then injured my knee and couldn't do anything for 1 year. Since then I have done my physio and have been working out for around 5 months and the main reason is to strengthen my weak knees.
Now I weigh around 174 lbs and although I have increased my muscle mass, for the first time ever I have got some belly fat, which is quite discomforting.
I'm wondering if it is necessary to have these cycles of bulking and cutting, or if instead I should incorporate some cardio work to reduce my fat.
Also, what is the basis of doing cardio work at a certain pace to reduce fat, and anything over that pace that causes heavy breathing, starts to reduce muscle instead of fat?
-
According to the article and the link within that, she worked from 6pm until 6am, returned to his house and hand over the money, for 3 years.
What prevented her from using that money to escape?
-
You only have to read it if you interested in doing so... If not, don't read it. He can't decide that for you. It doesn't appear as though he specifically addressed you.
There seems to be no specific reason as to why it is necessary to show criticism from a random person, other than look at him, he's wrong.
If he wants to know what is wrong with the criticism then that's fine, he's coming here to find out. If this person is important, like if he is a politician, then his intention is to show us how bad he is and therefore we can decide to stop supporting him.
But as it stands it's like perusing books in a book shop and someone stops by and rants for 10 minutes that Objectivism is bad. I don't care what a random person thinks and don't want to waste my time correcting him, there would be no point to it.
My intention in asking my questions is to find out if this is anything other than "look how stupid this man is". Do you want to find out what is wrong with this man? why he writes such nonsense? do you find him convincing but find something is wrong somehow, and you post it so others can point out how he is wrong? do you want to show how stupid certain groups of people are? (Marxists)
-
In braindead terms, we failed to pour in enough troops. And to use them as police.
In absolute terms, we failed to support political liberalism. We created a slave state -- just like in Viet Nam.
I don't think it's as easy as that because you have to look at the Afghan culture, and giving them a constitution to protect individual rights would not work because they would never accept it. You cannot force people to be free, they could easily just get rid of it and establish an Islamic theocracy.
The only way to do it would be to change the culture, just like Peikoff states is necessary in order to establish a laissez-faire society.
If a group of Objectivists took power by force in the U.S now and changed the constitution so it would protect individual rights in full, then they'd have to enforce it by denying free elections because the people would not stand it and vote back in some socialist.
You cannot convert barbarians to civilised people at the drop of a hat through law. They wouldn't recognise the law and soon change it.
-
What are the members' comments on Irish demands for independent North Ireland or union with the Republic of Ireland? I 'm not sure if supporting the northern Irish people here would be moral or not. Any suggestions?
You have to look at what they are trying to establish politically, and although religion plays a part, the republicans wanted to create a socialist state, however I don't know what they want now.
If they want to create a capitalist state whereby individual rights are protected then of course it would be moral to support them as the UK is not capitalist. If they want to establish a communist state then obviously it would be immoral to support them as they would deny individual rights.
Obsession with self-image
in Psychology and Self Improvement
Posted
I train each week and look forward to the challenge of improving each time, either increasing the weight or number of repetitions. It gives me short term goals and the long term goal of gaining muscle, which I do for myself because I find it attractive.
It takes a lot of hard work to gain muscle and to visualise your achievement is very rewarding and motivates you to continue improving in each session.
I enjoy working out, I enjoy the challenge and having goals, and I enjoy the result because I find it beautiful in comparison to being underweight, weak and more prone to injury in other areas of life.
Whether or not you find it attractive is a personal issue, and for me, I consider the body of Frank Zaneto be appealing, only in the sense that I would love to look like that just for my own pleasure.