Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited



  • Member Title
    Night Watchman

Profile Information

  • Interests
    Philosophy, Bodybuilding, Guns, Fast Cars<br /><br />I consider myself an Objectivist; That is, I have personally evaluated Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand and, to my knowledge, I agree with it completely.<br /><br />Here is a list of books on Objectivism that I have read:<br /><br />Altas Shrugged<br />The Fountainhead<br />Anthem<br />We the Living<br /><br />For the New Intellectual<br />Philosophy: Who needs it<br />Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal<br />The Virtue of Selfishness<br />Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution<br />The Romantic Manifesto<br />The Voice of Reason<br />Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand<br />The Ominous Parallels<br />The Ayn Rand Lexicon<br />Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology<br />The Capitalist Manifesto<br />The Art of Nonfiction<br /><br />I've read just about all of those books twice, some of them three times. I am currently working on The art of Fiction. I've also read Dr. Hurd's book, Grow Up America. I am currently working on The art of Fiction.

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
  • Website URL

Previous Fields

  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Country
    United States
  • Copyright

Recent Profile Visitors

6381 profile views

Inspector's Achievements

Senior Member

Senior Member (6/7)



  1. David, that article only addresses the mentality of the pawns of terrorist organizations. It is saying absolutely nothing fundamental about the cause of it, which we all know is based in philosophy. There will always be at least some people who are clueless joiners willing to do violence, just as there will always be at least some criminals. But crime becomes widespread and rampant under specific conditions, explained by philosophy. Which is how it is with terrorism, as well.
  2. I am also watching this. Being a fan of science fiction, I've looked at aging the way he does for... well, as long as I can remember. I find it absolutely dispicable that he actually has to argue in favor of his field. People opposing him are saying that they actually want to shrivel up and die. And not just die, either - a jump from a bridge will achieve that no matter what treatments are developed - but to suffer the wretched effects of aging. Ugh!
  3. So - to be clear - you are making the claim that a woman who will sell her body and sexuality for money to strangers (again, in the context of "stripper" almost certainly to sleazy men) is not valuing her body and sexuality less than a woman who refuses to do so and will only give those values in a romantic context?
  4. Which part of what I said? The part about not holding one's body and sexuality as being as valuable as one who will not sell them on the cheap (again compared to one who gives them only for romance) or the part about that indicating low self-esteem?
  5. Okay. So, then what I'll say is: Without going into what we don't know - what her exact reasoning may be - we have to focus on what we do know. What we do know is that she is valuing her body and her sexuality lowly enough that she is willing to sell it on the cheap (cheap compared to romance) to strangers (most of whom are perverts and sleazoids). To value these things so lowly is to mean that one doesn't hold them in high esteem - i.e. indicating by definition low self-esteem, at least for this purpose. If you want to bring absolutely bizarre or extraordinary contexts in, that's another matter, but as far as I am concerned, just about everything I say should automatically be considered to have that caveat on the end of it. (including that sentence)
  6. Now I'm confused - what you're agreeing to is that a woman may not want to do it and it doesn't necessarily have to have anything to do with being ashamed of her body or her sexuality. That she could hold both in very high esteem and also not want to do it. Are we on the same page there?
  7. Before we go there, then, are you saying you agree with my point and retract your statement that in order to take a self-esteem hit from selling one's sexuality that it would necessarily have to be sourced in shame of one's sexuality? I.e. that shame of one's sexuality is the only possible source for not wanting to do that? I just want to be clear on this point. I'll get to your next question as soon as I know we're past that.
  8. You may want to check that premise. It is not necessary for one to be ashamed of something to not want to share it promiscuously with anyone who will pay. It could also be that one values it highly enough that it is not for sale. Would you sell out on your principles for money? No, but does that mean you're ashamed of them?
  9. Actually, it didn't work, even in that sense. All of that technology and industry was stolen. The technologies were given by naive western nations or taken in war, and the factories were built by western nations and then nationalized or literally stolen brick by brick from eastern Europe. Looking at GDP as versus foreign aid and expropriation, the Soviet "economy" was almost entirely theft. I mean unless you consider that a form of "working." Heh.
  10. It'd be cheap for the grid electricity, not for the cars. The cars would be slower, shorter, ranged, and more expensive by far. In the 1990's the government squandered literally billions... let me repeat that: billions of dollars chasing the windmill that is the electric car. Only to have nothing but leftist propaganda about how "the companies" "killed" the electric car. The companies did no such thing: The electric car was slower, more expensive, and had 1/3 the lifespan of conventional cars. How many oil rigs would billions of dollars buy? You have to consider opportunity cost. Stop thinking like a science geek and start thinking like an economist. Let me put it this way: when I look at the pyramids, I'm not impressed by the science that went into their construction. I'm horrified that a society would squander so many of their precious resources (expropriated by tax, no doubt) building gigantic and useless things that did nothing. That what science was involved was enslaved and made to serve the goal of mystic, life-destroying nonsense. So too it is with the idea of a "green city." As "carbon" is absolutely zero threat to anybody, to spend gazillions to make a place "neutral" of it is horrifying, plain and simple. They may as well be taking their money and setting it aflame.
  11. What I was going for - in case it was unclear - was the fact that they will be squandering gazillions to kowtow to environmentalism. That leaves a taste in my mouth so sour that I can't separate and appreciate anything else about this.
  12. Hahahahah. Leftist ghetto-and-third-world-idealizer meets someone-who-actually-lives-there. This one is a classic. Give 'em hell, D'kian.
  13. Yes, do please come here! If you need someone to vouch for you, D'Kian, I'll do it. If that helps.
  14. The fact that it is that bad at least some of the time is more than enough for me to be in agreement with that blogger - I will not voluntarily leave the protections of the rule of law (such as still exist here) for anything so frivolous as a vacation.
  • Create New...