Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by steckSalathe

  1. Hey. I was wondering if you could lend some help. I am trying to persuade a group of people, with no prior knowledge of Objectivism (who knows what they think), Ayn Rand, or Atlas Shrugged, that they should read it. It is really hard for me to stay unbiased. I was thinking to present its significance by relating the content of the novel to today's world and look at the similarities. Although that will probably be hard to stay unbiased (whether I'm right or not). Definitely take a look at its significantly increasing popularity, and try to explain that the reason for that is its relevance to today's world. Explain how it is actually a mystery novel and maybe touch on the story some more (how effing cool it is!). I would greatly appreciate any ideas.
  2. Hey guys, being from Alaska, I've heard that name since I can remember. For those of you who don't know, The 'Pebble Mine' is the name used for the exploration project and proposed mining project in Southwest Alaska. For Alaskans, this has been in the news far longer than Sarah Palin and is still extremely popular. All the popularity comes from the huge controversy over it. The Pebble deposits are proposed to come in at 72 billion ponds of copper, 91 million ounces of gold, and 4.8 billion pounds of molybdenum. They say it would create about 2,000 jobs and last 30-60 years. Obviously, an amazing discovery. The opponents come in at a pretty large number though. The mine will sit up river of the world's largest Sockeye Salmon fishery (Bristol Bay). This fishery is responsible for thousands upon thousands of jobs every year (and for every year to come they argue). The companies that make up the 'Pebble Partnership' have a low environmental track record and, the opponents argue, they will not take the necessary precautions with Pebble. Many prominent jewelers have already pledged that, if the mine goes through, they will not buy gold from Pebble (a testament that Bristol Bay is not worth the risk). I know this is just a quick overview, but does anybody have any knowledge on this already and could give some insight?
  3. Yeah man, this is probably my most visited site. Appreciate it.
  4. Isn't pee sterile? haha sorry. But yeah man, I'm sure you have probably thought of everything (or else posted here), but when delivering it, tell the customers that the cooks may not have washed their hands. And if they don't like that fact, they wont order from there again (just make sure you don't get in trouble for doing that). Not responsible for the quality of products--->don't stress. If the customers actually do get sick because the cooks weren't washing their hands (or peeing on the dang thing), the fault will be on them.
  5. Guy is a hypocrite! Did he not realize that by pulling of that stunt, he was killing an animal!? Edit: or was that the point? I have absolutely no idea.
  6. People get college degrees to asses risk for insurance companies (like the ones who would raise prices on Softwarenerd's subdivision). They deal with pretty complicated math to figure out the different levels of risk. And where to draw the line.
  7. Ok, I must say thank you. I think there might still be some confusion on both sides (definitely on mine), but I found the answer I was looking for. Pretty simple You can buy anything you want, or not buy anything you don't want. It is your right to buy something that might not be tested (wouldn't that require the seller to forewarn their customers though?), and if they say it is tested, well, that is fraud. Ok. About global warming. I also stated that I am sorry if it is outside reality. I guess it is, so I apologize.
  8. Jake_Ellison - I agree that what the government and FDA does now is horrible harassment. It sucks and I would never want to suggest that. Did I miss something else? JMeganSnow - I love what you said about this being a benevolent universe. And I agree that we should not live to avoid fear. You pointed out the things that DO happen under a regulatory government. And I was just pointing out what I thought would be the flow of things in a free market. Wasn't trying to point some little thing that COULD go wrong. According to you though, this is just something that people could choose to do. Like someone could still choose to kill someone in a free market. I can imagine, in a free market, lots of defective (harmful) products being sold. AND at the ignorance of the seller. Not just some evil person trying to make a buck at the cost of others. But in the case of the ignorant, he might not go through all of the necessary precautions that today's FDA might make him (there are DEFINITELY a lot of unnecessary ones today, but besides the point). Even if he isn't a trusted seller (because he doesn't have a reputation with his customers), some people, I am sure, would still purchase his product. Am I not understanding something else? Or is this just the way it would be and the crapy products and sellers would eventually vanish? But in that case, not before some people were harmed. Do you just have to understand before dealing with someone, that they could harm you?
  9. Something I have problem understanding is that, with cases such as this, it always seems like, well, wait 'till it's too late. Wait 'till someone gets hurt or dies. Now, the FDA might MAKE sure that a company isn't doing harm to any of its customers. If there was no agency to do that, a company might harm their customers (for whatever reason, let's say it is cheaper not to run the tests on this potentially harmful substance) whether they know they will cause harm or not. They might just think they can get away with it. Well, people start dying and only then does a company get held responsible (sued, go to jail, whatever). Wait 'till it's too late. Another example is global warming (can we just say it is real for the sake of an example? I am sorry if I am ignorant to the fact that it is totally outside of reality). The only, rational, reason we should demand (as customers) better 'environmental' standards of companies (the only reason companies should change) is self-interest, i.e., we want to breathe the air around us. It seems like no one would change until it is too late though. I am not suggesting any government agency to impede on free trade, but am wondering how a free market would handle this.
  10. Some of them aren't ALL bad... at least the coin landed on heads and that air safety one isn't the other way around. Why did I decide to go to college there this semester?
  11. Absolutely sucks man. Look at the philosophies of the "philosophy world." Life and death are pretty much opposite roads.
  12. Absolutely stupid, but wouldn't a coincidence (if god is behind them) be god showing himself? But yeah, a statement devoid of meaning lol. And sneezing is more important than the school bus of kids! Haha what a stupid god!
  13. I have a question to expand on the OP's original. So, as I understand, the evader works not see. "[Evasion] is the WILLFUL suspension of one's consciousness, the REFUSAL to think" as Ayn Rand said (I added the caps). The opposite would be the person who accepts and opens his arms to reality. The third person, as Peikoff said in OPAR, is the one who does not work to see. The lazy. To me, everyone that asks me, "Who is John Galt?" or "What is that Objectivity stuff anyway?" I would classify as Lazy. Lazy because after a little conversation I get the response, "Oh yeah? That sounds nice." or something along those lines. But are they not evaders!? I mean wouldn't they have to be? I realize that they might not be worried about anything at all and, therefore, do not give any mental effort to understand but, someone who goes to church every sunday, whether thinking about it or not, would have to be an evader, right?
  14. Uhhhhh I don't know man. I'll be DEAD. I (or some part of me) will not be around to care about anything or anybody.
  15. I would love to take you up on that man. I wonder if I'd add to the brew...haha FYI Juno=Juneau My name=Brian
  16. This is personal and contextual question, has you have seen. But yeah, that is why it can be rational to commit suicide or to die for someone else. Someone else said, "all talk" though. Well maybe but, I could see someone being so incredibly devastated by the lose of a value, i.e., a loved one that they would not want (not based on a whim) to live. My dad (who I was very close to) died at a young age in my life but, I would not think of killing myself. I wouldn't kill myself because it did not take away from my possibility to achieve happiness . Like I said though, I can imagine that situation damaging somebody so severely that their life can not be productive (like if your freedom was taken away as somebody else said).
  17. Well here's debating for the sake of debating. I would say that the line is drawn where scratching your arm turns into something that prevents you from living as a man (wether that means not living because your dead, because you can't live with the guilt or all of your skin is scratched off). But then I don't know because anything that kidnapper makes you do is not your fault. Although, I would sure feel responsible if I opted out of doing something really insignificant to myself.
  18. steckSalathe

    Good day

    I just deleted 1,000 stolen songs off of my iPod. Incredibly hard thing to do but, I feel absolutely wonderful about it. Although, some reassuring comments would really be appreciated. All night shopping spree baby!
  19. I think what he was getting at by saying one forfeits their rights when they violates the rights of another is, now I can't complain when someone comes and takes a dollar from me because i didn't 'need' it. If I didn't respect his rights, how can I expect anyone to respect mine. maybe? And I'm not for that whole death sentence thing but, in an 'Objectivist society', I wouldn't think one would have to worry too much about that. What a place to be eh.
  20. no way man haha. i mean yeah, if you're getting 5 (or 100. or a god) when putting 2 and 2 together, i will agree to disagree about being study partners.
  21. "Vy can’t ve just climb!" -Swiss climber, John Salathe's, response to some activists of 'clean climbing' that were accusing him that some of his techniques were 'damaging' the rock.
  22. I would say James at one of his stupid parties would be a lot more lonelier than Dagny, sitting in her apartment, listening to Richard Halley.
  23. Well, after coming here everyday for a while now, i finally decided (and figured out how) to make an account. So, here's to learning and sharing some stuff that really matters eh. If anyone on here is a climber, I travel a lot and would really like to find a partner that knows what we climb and why. Well thank you everybody. Brian
  • Create New...