Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by TeaPartier

  1. Lol, nice profile picture.

  2. someone suggested marinading the beef before hand, which is an excellent idea for the second attempt
  3. Spicy, tastes good, but the meat is kind of bland. My Chili (first attempt) 3 tbsp EVOO 1 onion, diced 2 stalks celery, diced 1 green bell pepper, diced 1 jalapeno, finely chopped 2 lbs ground beef 1/2 tsp pepper 1 tsp salt 1 tsp Paprika 2 tbsp Cumin 2 tbsp Chili Powder 1/2 tsp Louisiana Hot Sauce 1/2 tsp cayenne 2 fresh tomatoes, diced 1 clove garlic, minced Method: 1. Pat the beef dry and mix the salt and pepper in with your hands. 2. Heat a large heavy bottomed pot over medium heat; add olive oil and stir in veggies. 3. Add beef to the pot by pulling apart small chunks. Continue stirring frequently until brown. 4. Mix in spices, tomatoes, and garlic. 5. Bring the pot to a boil, then reduce to a simmer and cover for 2.5 hours, stirring every half hour or so. 6. Simmer uncovered for half an hour, or to desired thickness.
  4. i have previously volunteered to write lyrics if someone wants to make some music
  5. this is a hilarious question, I've never thought of it before. this is a good point
  6. Haha that's awesome bro, Hofstadter and Wachowski combo. Yeah this was a great philosophically neutral action movie. me likey.
  7. I don't think I've earned my way to be thought of like the idealized characters in Atlas Shrugged, as of yet. However I do not feel fundamentally incapable or inadequate to ever improve myself to earn the heroic status that is demonstrated in this book. You seem to be saying that one has to be delusional to think it is even possible to act morally and think by means of reason. What is your objection here? Explain. ... and NO I don't think this thread needs to be closed ...
  8. Well it appears by this statement, that you think yourself as being fundamentally and irrevocably immoral, and you are feeling bad because Ayn Rand does such an excellent job of making known the destruction that results of one's immorality. No, I don't hold that same premise as you, so yes, it was very inspiring to me to see the concretization of such immensely moral figures in Atlas Shrugged. If you mean, sacrificing love for those parts of myself based upon evasions, falsehoods, and immorality - in exchange for seizing upon and uplifting those parts of myself based upon fact, whole truth, and morality ... why, yes. I'm ecstatic to have been empowered in this way by Atlas Shrugged, and yes I have indeed been made more capable to change my life for the better as a result of this book. Exactly what sort of mentality of yours does Objectivism pose a danger to, and why are you worried about the health of such a mentality as that? This this whole thread makes no sense bro, what's wrong?
  9. http://www.objectivistcenter.org/cth--71-Has_Objectivism_Been_Refuted.aspx
  10. This analysis is full of epic failure I don't care to mention right this moment, but he does ask some awesome questions and occasionally raise some awesome legitimate points. Apparently Rand has said this: “The possibility of human immorality is not the only objection to anarchy: even a society whose every member were fully rational and faultlessly moral, could not function in a state of anarchy; it is the need of objective laws and of an arbiter for honest disagreements among men that necessitates the establishment of a government” -- which IMO is completely wrong. The writer brilliantly defies her own statement with another of her own statements: "Her description of Galt’s Gulch: “We have no laws in this valley, no rules, no formal organization of any kind” (Atlas Shrugged, pg. 714). “We are not a state here, not a society of any kind – we’re just a voluntary association of men held together by nothing but every man’s self-interest” (Atlas Shrugged, pgs. 747-748) This is anarchistic." This is another extremely interesting thing he pointed out, which apparently completely slipped by me when I read it in VOS: "The closest she comes to committing to a course of action is given when she claims: “Man has to choose his course, his morals, his values in the context and terms of a lifetime” (The Virtue of Selfishness, pg. 24)." Ayn Rand as of today is essentially the sole source of Objectivist philosophy... and I think Objectivism has essentially nailed the right philosophy for man in many ways... but for me there are still truly fundamental things she has not even dealt with (or I have yet to read or grok from her writing that I have read), and there is certainly a ton of room for improvement, especially in terms of specifying a lot of things in a fully technical explanation... http://yudkowsky.net/rational/technical Anyway, I seriously appreciate his miserable failure of an attempt... thanks chuff for bringing it up, I disagree that it is completely pointless to read or respond to as everyone else seems to be saying (though I'm not really responding to it myself, at least as of now). Read the reviews on Amazon of this book, I think it's where he got a lot of his material: http://www.amazon.com/Without-Prayer-System-Trinity-Papers/dp/0940931508
  11. awful response. suffice to say I wouldn't want you in charge of my doctor.
  12. *He's not an irrational hedonist, he is in pain, thus takes pain drugs in order to rationally function. That's the opposite. *His life isn't a morass of emotionality and chaos, he's just surrounded by emotional morons. So he keeps to himself because he's specifically *not* an emotional moron / whim-worshiper. *His ends do justify his means. Breaking into someone's house to save their life in the sorts of medical emergencies he faces is perfectly justifiable in Objectivism, where the standard of value is *life* your analysis is full of fail. The fact that his standard of value is LIFE, in such a ruthlessly rational way, such that he can actually cope with the reality of medical emergencies that threaten life, and in the face of the emotional idiocy and whim worship he is surrounded with, I think demonstrates that he is in fact extremely close to objectivist philosophy (at least relative to most of everything else out there). granted, the later seasons destroy his character and the show.
  13. Good god... the idiocy that gets into these forums...
  14. I think this insane question reveals everything that is needed to be known about you...
  15. First of all, this is worse than ignorant, it sounds like intentional misinformation as a means to attack and destroy (as is so typical of the liberal left and the mainstream media): The following is the best explanation I have seen of what the Tea Party movement actually is, as well as what it should be. I have found Tea Partiers of all stripes highly receptive to this message and this reasoning, even moderate and very liberal Tea Partiers which is of course surprising. http://aynrand.org/site/DocServer/What_Tea....pdf?docID=2081 And after reading that, they are generally surprisingly receptive to the following as well, http://www.aynrand.org/site/DocServer/Call....pdf?docID=2121 People out there are on our side because they really do recognize what is right when they see it. They are so willing to believe and to follow, if only someone would stand up and lead them.
  16. Here is an excellent article by Charles Krauthammer Those troublesome Jews
  17. that sounds nothing like the tea party movement. lame hypothetical
  18. I don't see any inherent problem posing this hypothetical, it is entirely possible for this situation to happen, there is nothing wrong with considering it. Let's say you are a worthless drugged out hippie who decided to go on a spirit quest and got lost out in the desert and now you are asking for part of the water from this honest, hard-working producer. Frankly, you should be content that he is putting you out of your misery, it would be unethical for you to impose suffering upon him to help sustain and prolong your own. If the two roles were reversed, it seems like the ethical conclusion would be as well. If you are some honest, hard-working producer whose airplane was struck down by a lightening bolt out of the blue sky, and you came across some desert man who sits grinding meal in a bowl, hour after hour, century by century, frankly it would be unethical of you not to sustain and prolong your own life, even at his expense. If you can see yourselves equally as honest producers, you will be able to come to a rational conclusion without resorting to force.
  19. Yeah the mainstream media's treatment of this situation is disgusting. Those morons who violated the blockade were lucky any of them got out alive. the IDF should feel no guilt over this.
  20. I'm not sure what this distinction means, how do you know what is "enforceable" and what isn't? what?
  21. By what right could two people be stopped from having a duel by an informed, voluntary contract between each other? I think that is the essential question of this thread. And the answer is "none".
  22. The only thing I got out of this is that you are saying that a contact between two people cannot include terms that requires you to violate the rights of some other third party, or requires you to do something impossible (because the court cannot force you to comply with a contract that requires you to violate someone else's rights or requires you to do something impossible). Well yeah of course. But that isn't a response to my question as it relates to this subject because there is no other third party involved.
  23. Someone explain to me why two people cannot make an informed, voluntary contract between each other on any terms they want. /thread
  • Create New...