Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Inspector

  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 seriously hope this type of research gets funded and developed, I'd like to live for a few hundred years!

    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.


  3. The first specifically, but the second also as an alleged natural result of the first.

    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. Usually yes, in all cases--I don't think so. There is a lot of context that one must know before they make this judgment, and none of it has to be "bizarre".

    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. Oh absolutely. I think that would be the default position for most women of high self-esteem ,or even women in general. But, I'm just saying that it doesn't *always* have to be the case. I just don't see why it has to be true that if she does choose to do it (strip), that it "somehow" naturally follows that she has some psychological problems, as most seem to be claiming. I'm not going to speculate at her reasoning except that maybe she just wants to make a lot of money fast.


    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. I don't think I ever claimed that, at least intentionally. There is plenty of reasons why they may not want to do it, but that doesn't negate the fact that a rational woman could want to do it without shame for *any* reason but actually have positive reasons why she does want to do it, i.e., make a lot of money fast.

    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. I agree, but if a woman of self-esteem chooses to share her body in a sexual way only as a means of desire not the actual acts, but live fantasy to make money, what's wrong with that?

    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. She'd have to be ashamed of [her sexuality] for that to happen.

    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. Stalin's collectivization and command economy turned Russia from an agrarian backwater into one of the worlds superpowers in less than 50 years. Because it worked does that mean it was moral?

    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. What if we had nuclear power plants all over the place and drove electric cars? Wouldn't that be cheap and effective?

    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. No I was being sincere. As an architectural student, I intend to visit Abu Dhabi at some point just to go see all the wonderful construction that goes on there. Have you ever seen the hotels in that city? They are breathtaking, just as Clawg said.

    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. As for supposedly healthy green tea . . . when I was in New York I was drinking a lot of it and it started giving me terrible stomach pains, so I had to quit. I don't drink green tea any more, and I haven't had a twinge since. Healthy for whom, I ask?

    Does the same thing to me. I drink it only when I want to induce vomiting. (works like a charm!) Also, it tastes terrible. It's supposed to be good, but it's not good for me I can tell you that.

  13. See, if you're going to say things like that then I really have no response but: same to you, buddy. No point in discussing this if you're going to be like that. Have a good one.

    Now I think I'll have a Coke.

  14. You do realize they were all sourced at the bottom? Some were from spurious sources as you suspect, others were from sources I would certainly trust, such as the Journal of Clinical Nutrition and other peer-reviewed scientific journals.

    Yes but I can't read the studies. First you can't be sure that they aren't pseudoscience (i.e. as in the link I gave). Second, you can't be sure without reading the primary source that the studies say what the man is claiming that they say. Again, the study may have just found a correlation, whereas the people citing it are claiming causation. And third you have no idea without reading the primary source what exactly was studied. How much sugar? In combination with which diet? And which exercise level? Etc, etc, etc.

    Because as I said I've seen a number of articles, both scientific and journalistic and so far nothing I have seen justifies the kinds of ideas I see routinely thrown around about soda. I.e. "Soda will make you fat!" "Soda will make your kids hyper" "Soda will dissolve your teeth!" "Soda will give you the diabeetus!" "You may as well drink poison!" "Even if you're fit, soda is harming you in ways you can't perceive; you just don't know it!" I'm halfway expecting to hear "soda will fill you with thetans and you will be devoured by the Dread Lord Xenu!"

  15. Except that sugar is bad for you for reasons other than weight-gaining or dental concerns.

    I severely doubt the scientific veracity of those claims. I've been watching junk science for a bit now and I smell junk science all over that - correlation does not equal causation. Nevertheless, that is hardly a study - it is a set of unsubstantiated claims. I'd read several such claims and studies and they were all bogus - equating correlation and causation, or were of "high-sugar diets" which didn't contain necessary nutrients (i.e. it wasn't the sugar itself, but rather a lack of other things that was clearly at work). And besides, a few sodas a day with no other sugar consumption hardly qualifies as a "high sugar diet." Which again shows the context-dropping of the "soda is evil!" mentality.

    Now maybe one of the studies (which is not available) you listed might be different from every one I've ever seen. But color me skeptical for now. (or a "denier" if you must)

  16. I would bet money that if you drank 1/2 a liter a day or more over the course of a month and then cut it cold turkey keeping everything else in your diet and lifestyle the same, you'd weigh more after the month of soda than after the month of consuming an extra 1/2 liter of water.

    But that's basic math - what you're missing is that it proves nothing about the healthiness of unhealthiness of soda. And it certainly doesn't prove that I'd be better off or healthier without it.

    As a matter of fact, I do drink about 1/2 liter of soda per day. Sometimes more. And I am fine - my health in no way suffers from it. This is what you're not getting. I'm sitting here as living proof that soda can be consumed by at least some people without harm. But your statement was so sweeping that you accused soda of being intrinsically bad - bad even for "seemingly" healthy or fit people.

    Hogwash! I drink it and I am fine.

    But there are MANY other claims against soda made from peer-reviewed, scholarly medical journals that cite the detriments soda has on your body. As the link musenji pointed out explains, the contents of soda have multiple adverse effects on your body.

    What kind of studies?

    You've either got your head burried deep in the sand, need to claim your Nobel prize $ if you have any real counter-evidence to cite or, more likely, you probably view the negative impact moderate consumption of soda has on your body is outweighed by its taste. Is this fair?

    No, it's unfair because you still won't let go of your assumption that soda is inherently harmful to anyone who consumes it, rather than simply being a beverage with calories that can be unhealthy if consumed with no regard for the calories by someone who can't afford the calories. But the same can be said for any food. That doesn't say anything about soda as such.

    Being skinny is not being in good shape (see the residents of east Africa). Maintaining a healthy body weight certainly is though which is what you might have meant. I know the measuring stick for a lot of people is the scale they stand on but there is more to it than that.

    Precisely my point - I would be unhealthier if I were to seek to become significantly skinnier - yet you suggested that even if I am fit, I should still cut out soda. Why? I don't need to lose weight.

    Off track, the $ comment was a joke :thumbsup:

    So was mine. I mean "how much you want to bet?" Of course I'm joking. But still I am serious about the point I am making. Taking in too many calories is unhealthy. That doesn't mean that ANY given person would benefit from cutting out soda. That is intrinsic thinking at work and I encourage you to reexamine it.

  17. It's possible I am missing something but I can't imagine what it is. . .

    You're missing that I'm skinny and drink plenty of soda. You made the claim that "For those of you who drink it already and are in "good" shape, you'd be in better shape and health if you quit. " There isn't any way that not drinking it could put me in any better shape. If I lost weight that would be unhealthy at this point.

    So, really, without even going into the many ways in which your sweeping claim is wrong, I can just present myself as counter-evidence.

    So yes I want to bet and yes I like money very much thank you. You on the other hand...

  • Create New...