Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Alone

  • Rank
    Junior Member
  • Birthday 01/01/1984

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
  • Chat Nick
  • Relationship status
  • Sexual orientation
  • Copyright
  • Occupation
    Information Systems

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  1. +1 Have read and do recommend.
  2. I wasn't able to find that particular audio book, when you get some free time I would really appreciate a link.
  3. What is the term for people who attempt to reduce philosophical concepts to disconnected granular facts? Is there a term? ...oh yea! Scientists! Sam treats morality like a scientific theory, and exposes it to a range of facts in an attempt to fine tune it / falsify / strengthen it. He feels that the broader the range of facts his theory becomes exposed to the stronger it becomes. The various "peaks and valleys" he discussed in the video were all "facts" that he's exposed to his theory in an attempt to revise / falsify / strengthen it. He isn't seeking a principle or an irreducible prim
  4. Any evidence to the contrary would be helpful in refuting the "assumption."
  5. Objectivists aren't eco-careless, we're just not eco-worshipers or climate alarmists... and the arguments used by climate alarmists and eco-worshipers run along the lines of "What?? you're not on board with our alarmism and planet-worship!?? You must be careless then! or worse you MUST be Anti-Environment!" There are a tons of legitimate reasons to care about the environment. The problem is that these legitimate concerns are lumped together with the eco-worship and alarmist nonsense as though the are of equal value, or one in the same with no differentiation. I, for example, live on top
  6. True but "Progressive" is a really common political term and its intellectual roots are clearly derived from communism.
  7. Speaking with someone for a few minutes would be a pretty easy way to find out.
  8. I don't disagree with anything you wrote, and you share that kind of "just get it out there" position I'm in... I would hate for an Atlas Shrugged movie to be release that doesn't do the book justice, but I think getting it out there along with all of the other forms of "creativity" you mentioned is what needs to happen. The only state that makes sense is Alaska, its geographically cut off which would make for an easier split, once the rest of the country goes under.
  9. Media is the answer. If you want ideas to spread then you have to sell ideas in the right way. ARI does a lot of great and valuable promotion, but look at it in terms of dollars... and consider how insignificant the chirp over at ARI is compared to the kind of distorted world views being spewed from the nightly news out to hundreds of millions of people... 7 days a week, every day of the year. These entities have long ago stopped telling people "what" and have established an accepted role of telling people "what to think." Chirps the size of what ARI does will never amount to anything
  10. There is a degree of uniqueness in the way this bill was passed, with misinterpretations pertaining to reconciliation and misinterpretations of the commerce clause, that might expose this bill to a beating in the courts. There might not be any historical comparisons. I'm not a law student so I couldn't tell you. They will look at past case law first though, so it would be good if anyone had any input on that.
  11. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/HealthCare/...ory?id=10178015 As of yesterday (3/23) 14 states have already filed papers in federal court challenging the constitutionality of the newly signed health care bill. Too bad skirting the constitution when its convenient comes back to bite politicians in the ass when they try to use the constitution to do whats its there for. I don't see the lawsuits doing much but getting laughed at. Power does what it wants.
  12. A Perfect Circle - Lyrics - Lyrics
  13. The point of "fixing it" (obviously) is to expose just how broken it is, not to really fix it. Its strategically a good move, because without a lot of bad publicity the FED isn't going anywhere any time soon. You see, the machinations of the FED are not common knowledge. Most people have no idea what the FED is or why it is there, or how it operates. They vaguely classify it as some kind of bank or an arm of the US Treasury. They could tell you that it has something to do with economics, but they couldn't tell you much else. The car analogy isn't correct. For that analogy to work
  14. Of course, all of these yes voters who claim to be on the fence are quite obviously asking to be bought off with future additions to the bill. When they say, "the bill still needs work but we should debate about it" what they are actually saying is, "my demands haven't been met yet, and ill use the senate debate as a platform to plea so that my special interests are met or else I won't vote for it." The bill was originally over 1900 pages, now its closer to 2200 after buying a few senators, these debates have no potential to shrink this bill. The only two outcomes that are possible is th
  15. It was the opposite of an honest reply, because it was sarcasm. You said the equivalent of "oh yea smarty pants, tell us all more since you're so smart." Your intention was mockery, while your post mimicked that of someone asking for more information. It isn't like hitchens masks what he believes and, being a journalist, there is plenty of print as well as interviews to draw definite conclusions from. You are replying as though I'm claiming to have some special knowledge about him.
  • Create New...