synrose
-
Posts
30 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by synrose
-
-
SPOILER post, scroll to read (It's white):
Seems to me Daniel Plainview did have aspirations for family. He immediately trusted the brother by another mother, and by feeding the baby H. W. Plainview alcohol in the bottle he was instilling his alcoholism in a form of forcible heredity, to have something in common with him. Plainview failed miserably in family, having no knack for it in spite of his desire, and no real family in existence. H.W.'s deafness did not hinder Plainview's love for the boy, but it was the boy's hatred of him that ended the bond. Why did H.W. set the house on fire, a trail leading directly under his bed? H.W. hated him into adulthood and chose MEXICO (hint hint) to start a competing business. H. W. starts the conversation with a LIE "I love you" and Plainview knew it. The previous scene between Eli Sunday and Plainview established that he absolutely preferred plain speak, and he addressed the congregation and townsfolk with "plain speak". H.W. therefore was no different from every other useless individual that Plainview had wished to escape from.
Plainview did have a knack for the oil business. He succeeded, and brought success with him. Everyone's livelihood did improve. The rivalry between Eli and Paul Sunday- the twin brothers, was the unspoken Objectivist story in this movie. Paul left his family with the money he earned from Plainview and invested in his own business which was successful, while Eli asked for handouts and strongarmed Plainview for more and more money. The most satisfying scene was when Plainview slapped Eli around! It's like the film did the thing that perhaps we secretly wish to do but shake our heads and feel guilt... It felt SO GOOD to see that little twerp getting slapped to the ground my goodness LOL. My hopes for Eli's character at that point was for him to stand up and become a man, and make something of himself. Instead, he goes and beats up his old dad. (BTW - Eli must have been beating up the little girl too for not praying enough.) PAUL in his only scene in the movie made a point of asking Plainview if he was a church man - the reason why he asked this was because Plainviews answer would indicate to him how much he should trust him. Plainview admits to belonging to no church, and Paul goes ahead and tells him about the oil and makes a deal. Paul's price was reasonable, while Eli's hand was deep in the cookie jar - 10k for the church above and beyond the 6 dollars per acre. Plainview instead gave the 10k to Paul, and slapped the hell out of Eli! Haha. Now that's what Ayn Rand meant when she said that altruism is evil, but charity should be given to the gifted.
LOVE IT!
-
Sorry about that - I did a search but this thread didn't come up.
-
Zoso I'm glad I'm not the only one to mention....
#1 American Beauty - If a film ever managed to best this one, it would cause an instant worldwide revolution.
#2 Dr. Strangelove or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb
#3 Cool Hand Luke
#4 V for Vendetta
#5 Magnolia
#6 Amadeus
#7 Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas
#8 The Wizard of Oz
#9 The Princess Bride
#10 The Miracle Worker
Now that I have seen There Will Be Blood, my list needs to be fixed! Again! I'm thinking a #2 spot, but I need to give it another viewing.
Sentimental picks :
Pee Wee's Big Adventure
Romeo And Juliet (1968)
The Graduate
Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure
Life is Beautiful
Garden State
The Wall
The Blair Witch Project
-
*** Mod's note: Merged with an earlier topic. sN ***
I was misled by my former husband and trusted film confidant. He told me he walked out of the theater in the middle of There Will Be Blood because it was philosophically irritating. I finally, finally got around to seeing it last night. I'm angry that I'm so late to this party!
Wow.
I roared with laughter throughout this movie. From the Objectivist perspective - it is pure gold. If you haven't seen it - rent it - no - BUY it today.
I want desperately to discuss this film and IMDB is filled to the brim with nitwits. Any fellow film buffs here want to talk through it with me?
-
My happiness ends the minute someone else exerts force upon me. Therefore, my happiness is dependent on non external interference. The kind of discipline you have proposed here is something I do not have - the discipline to rise above all external influence. If I am being tortured, I am not happy, and my unhappiness is directly caused by my torturer.
-
I'm perplexed about the idea of handing out any bonuses if a business does not make a profit. That isn't to say your hospital did not make a profit - but isn't that the real purpose of a bonus? Furthermore - those who are most responsible for the success of a business should be the one's receiving the largest bonus. If your hospital is not for profit - doesn't that make the concept of bonuses absolutely moot?
-
Obama in 2012!
(let's face it, the votes don't count. Acorn has received how much money?)
-
Dying in prison with terminal cancer is the same as death penalty? What?
Seconded.
-
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405...emEditorialPage
Turns out there is a financial motivation...
http://www.gulfnews.com/business/Oil_and_Gas/10237597.html
I brought this up to my obama lovin greenie hippy mom - she said "More lies from Fox news. When will you stop allowing propaganda to influence you?"
-
I'll peep. The government relies heavily on the fact that most Americans are just too uneducated about civics and government functions (by design, people) to understand fully how these opportunistic ass hats manipulate the system to suit their personal needs. Why was the law changed in the first place? To prevent a republican vote due to a vacant seat? Grrr. What if state constitutions clearly outlined the rules for senator death/senator becomes president... if it were amended then there would be no more opportunism. BTW Blago should have been tried for treason.
-
Oooo I love this thread. It goes great with morning coffee. Allow me a moment to thank everyone for being others. Sigh.. what a relief. This thread proves it. This is no small thing. I have been looking for 29 years! ty ty ty
I accept the dictionary's definition of arrogance because words are defined by common usage. The majority of people who use the word are feeling offended by someone's display of superiority.
As to whether their offense is dignified, well that's circumstantial. I've been stunned a few times when the word was hurled at me when I was simply outlining a position with evidence. People really, really hate it when they are proven wrong. This is something I do not understand. When I am proven wrong in an argument, and my brain has been wrung out and nothing is left to argue, I consider it a great gift. I change right there, on the spot, to the full satisfaction of my opponent. I thank them for helping me clear out wrong thinking for a superior thought. Notable example: gun control. Funny thing was that the example that pushed me over the edge was the idea that someone's collectible antique Civil War musket could be confiscated by the government. I was ready to fight back, but my brain stopped the words from being allowed to be formed, and my mouth hung open. I said "You know what, that is a really good point! You've got me!" I changed that very second. (ahh the teenage years)
-
I'll be the first one to name a reality TV show and a soap opera.
Survivor!
One Life to Live - but admittedly I haven't watched for over 10 years. I sure loved it in the 90s while I homeschooled lol
Curb Your Enthusiasm/Seinfeld
Dah Ali G Show
South Park
Northern Exposure
Chapelle's Show
Star Trek - pre-voyager
MP Flying Circus/Fawlty Towers
The Kids in the Hall
The Simpsons/Futurama
King of the Hill/Beavis and Butthead
-
And I agree, people who say "to me", mean it to prevent any potential questioning or disagreement. They don't think their personal preferences require any arguments. But in reality, all preferences are personal (if it's a person's opinion, then it's personal) , including one's take on the Holocaust, math, or hair, and all preferences need to be rational, and require arguments, if expected to be taken seriously by someone rational.
I'm notoriously guilty of summing up my thoughts into neat little one-liners. When someone says "to me" it's not exactly non thought but the end of thought. This is the way I think, this is the way I am, the end. No further discussion necessary. All opinions are not valid or based on rational reasoning. Opinions based on reason are superior to opinions based on feelings.
-
Who is important is relative: it depends on "To whom?". (value is relative, and "how important" means "of how much value")
How about this - those free people who voluntarily serve to defend their free country are more valuable that those unfree people who are forced to defend their tyrannical government. Their value is measured in their morality. A free individual fighting to defend himself within a tyrannical government is equally valuable as the free soldier in terms of morality. Sorry if some of this is just rewording.
Moral equivalency would be for a third, free person to defend a tyrant, or a moocher, the same way he would defend a fellow free man. Such a free person would act against his own interests, for the sake of equivalency (refusal to discriminate between a moral and an immoral person).Interesting. A warrior genius who is looking for a challenge, a way to display his self worth in order to achieve happiness through glory may decide to fight for the side of tyranny. Then this individual is acting within his self interests! lol this is mental masturbation now.
-
My husband and my mother got into an asinine argument yesterday.
My husband claims bluntly to my hippy green obama-lovin mother "I don't like shaggy hair. I think men should have neat, short hair cuts, and women should have long hair. A man with shaggy hair is, to me, disrespectful."
(when someone says the phrase "to me," all thought stops)
My mother gets all prickly. "Shaggy hair? Like the Beatles?" "yeah." "Well I think buzz cuts are militaristic, and a show of totalitarianism. We fought hard in the 60s to end that kind of fascist mentality in college!"
(She thinks that when she uses "isms" and "istics" she sounds smart. A self described intellectual.)
My husband "In my opinion, a man should look like a man from behind. Long hair makes him look like a woman!"
Mom: "I think long hair is beautiful."
Finally I jumped in. "You are both wrong. He is wrong because when he uses the word respect, he means to use the word preference. And you are wrong because his preferences are of no concern to you!"
They ignore me, and continue on as if I am not there. I wish this were a rare experience, but I experience it day in and day out. Woe is moi.
-
A legitimate government would not accept such a donation. The facts of the example aren't quite clear, but it sounds like the bazillionaire might be a spy. So, a legitimate government might take his money and throw him in jail to boot.
hehehe
A lot rests on that legitimate government. Not that we don't need one right now desperately. -
No, funded by the voluntary contributions of individuals who understand what it means not to have a rights-respecting and rights-PROTECTING government.
Wouldn't it be a better investment for the individual who seeks self-defense to provide for his or her own defense?
What is to stop the opportunistic lobbying bazillionaire from qualifying his donation to the government with the guarantee that his favorite tyrannical government involved in espionage is left alone? (For the sake of argument)
I'm not trying to be irritating here, I really just can't get my mind around it. Seems like there actually is no solution at all to this problem.
-
The freedom of individuals requires a rights-respecting and protecting government.
Funded by rights violating taxes?
-
In its narrowest limitation, one would expect that such wars will be limited to protection the geographical area of the country. Unless there are alternative mechanisms, one might also include certain situations where the government provides protection of the rights of its citizens outside the country's geographical area.
Maybe the geographical area needs to include tax-free zones to maximize individual choice? These zones of course are not maintained in any way other than through the money of those who wish to spend it (toll roads? private police? community fire brigades?)
Yikes I'm just trying to make sense of it all.
-
So legalized theft is required to prevent rights violations (like, say, theft for example?)
There's the paradox. The only solution I can find is to eliminate government controlled military and allow for private mercenary companies! But then - what jurisdiction would the private mercenaries work within, and who is to stop them from violating the law of the land without a government military? UGH I just can't make it work!
-
No, freedom may not be governed. Force must be governed.
More please. What do you mean?
It is self-defense and only self-defense that is the justification for any use of force.So a non free people are equally justified in use of force as free people are in the name of self defense? Moral equivalency?
I guess I was also trying to establish that yes, a government is necessary in order to maintain a military for the purpose of self defense, therefore taxes are necessary to fund such a military. This is not to say that a government owns a monopoly on military force, only that if one desires to reside in such a defended geographical location, taxes, or dues, should be payed to maintain such a military.
-
Please forgive me while I simplify this argument. I don't want to delve into each term here, but rather reach an endpoint of understanding.
Freedom may be governed because a government's official role is to protect free people.
Free people live within a geographical boundary of which the government protects militarily.
It is the protection of these free people that is the justification of war.
Free people are more important than non free people because their awareness and potential for greatness are not hindered.
Am I on the right track here?
-
NBK is a discussion on the sensationalistic trends in the media and entertainment industries, like Network. Why would I disagree with that philosophically if it really happens?
However - there have been some films that I disagree with philosophically that I really enjoy for the art of the film. A good example of that would be Magnolia - which is in my top 5.
BTW - Home Alone is thrown in there as a joke. I like my lists to have at least 4 entries. The joke went over swimmingly as you can see.
-
Don Hertzfeldt's REJECTED
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgQqSVrkkag&feature=fvst
Hey Africa
Warped humor
Marine Let's Congressman Baird Have It at Townhall
in Current Events
Posted
The Marine strikes again!