TeaPartier
-
Posts
28 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by TeaPartier
-
-
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.
-
i have previously volunteered to write lyrics if someone wants to make some music
-
this is a hilarious question, I've never thought of it before.
After thinking about it a little more, I agree to an extent with what you say. In certain cases, ad-blocking is acceptable (though probably not sustainable if enough people do it, and said sites lose money as a result). I've done some research and found that some sites, in their terms of service, prohibit the use of ad-blocking software, so one would have to constantly be on the lookout for sites that present their content on such terms. In those cases, I would definitely consider it to be an immoral action – violating a contractual agreement.
this is a good point
-
Douglass Hofstatder and the Wachowski bro.
Haha that's awesome bro, Hofstadter and Wachowski combo.
Yeah this was a great philosophically neutral action movie. me likey.
-
Mr. Odden et al. have been accusing me of having low self esteem, feelings of inadequacy, etc. which color my interpretation of Atlas. I would say that yes, I do feel inadequate - if "inadequate" is taken to mean "not a Randian hero." I would add that anyone who does not feel inadequate in this sense is probably deluded.
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 ...
-
On nearly every page, there is some touch that whispers "even if you reach your highest ambitions, you are nothing but a maggot and a parasite on the truly moral."
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.
Do you think that the message of Atlas is true, and are so strongly committed to the truth that, for the sake of obtaining it, you are willing to sacrifice all self love? I refuse to believe that anyone is capable of such a thing.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.
Needless to say, I am done with this philosophy. (Though I will keep reading the parts of Rand that aren't actually dangerous to my mental health.) But, I do want to ask how anyone can not be done with this philosophy after reading Atlas.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?
-
-
Part 1: http://unapologetica.blogspot.com/2009/11/criticisms-of-objectivism-part-1_02.html
Part 2: http://unapologetica.blogspot.com/2009/11/criticisms-of-objectivism-part-2.html
Part 3: http://unapologetica.blogspot.com/2009/11/criticisms-of-objectivism-part-3.html
Part 4: http://unapologetica.blogspot.com/2009/11/to-begin-discussing-objectivists.html
Part 5: http://unapologetica.blogspot.com/2009/11/criticisms-of-objectivism-part-5.html
I'm sorry not to post any of my own rebuttal attempts at the moment; I'll return here and try my hand at it.
What I would like to see by the end is a fleshed-out rebuttal using the different parts of all our objections from this thread.
Thank you, guys!
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
-
Sorry. He refuses to admit that he has an addiction . Remember "I do not have a pain management problem, I have a pain problem?" And then, when he FINALLY he concedes that he has an addiction, he ends up saying that it is not a problem because it does not interfere with his work or life. I fail to see the rational in this.
"The title diagnostician of the show would be as smart a physician as Dr. Kildare and as sharp a sleuth as Gil Grissom of CSI, it was important to us that he be damaged, both emotionally and physically." =- Shore quote on House's creation.
For the record, you seriously expect me to respect someone who uses "full of fail?" in a response after being a rude little twerp? I am obviously dealing with a mental midget here. Not surprisingly, a Tea Partier.
What brand of Bleach have you been consuming? That House violated the property rights of an individual is inexcusable because he is bound by his position as a doctor not to betray the trust of his patient. Do yourself a favor and read "The Ethics of Emergencies" and Tara Smith's "Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics." While the patients' conditions may have been a medical emergency, it was not ametaphysical emergency. If you knew anything worth your salt you would know there is a marked difference, and that a personal emergency does not equate to a metaphysical emergency. In fact, Smith goes to a great deal of length to point out that should you do something that injures someone else or their property in the course of securing an end to your personal emergency, that it is the Objectivist-responsible thing to do to take the correct measures to atone and pay back for the infringements you have caused directly or legally. So, in order for House to be consistent, he should have spent either an allotted time in prison or paid a fine for breaking and entering, which of course he di---- no, wait, he didn't. Someone has failed here, but it isn't me.
Maybe if you spent more time reading and less time watching trashy TV shows, you wouldn't have needed me to point these things out to you.
awful response. suffice to say I wouldn't want you in charge of my doctor.
-
HOUSE:
*House is a Drug addict. Irrational Hedonism.
*House suffers from a complete and absolute Emotion/Reason dichotomy, being able to use applied reason and logic -at times- in his work, but his life is a morass of emotionality and chaos that he cannot approach rationally.
*He is a Pragmatist: House lacks a moral structure and he is incapable of grasping moral principle (but he seems to be able to understand scientific principle-- again, the dichotomy)- he is a frequent exponent of "The ends justify the means"-- he deceives, he breaks into patients' houses without their consent... In short, the man could not be more of an Un-Objectivist mess if you tried.
*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.
-
If any one character in that series is close to Objectivism, it's Dr. Lisa Cuddy.
Good god... the idiocy that gets into these forums...
-
Glenn Beck: the Conservative Lenin?
I think this insane question reveals everything that is needed to be known about you...
-
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 Tea Party movement is filled with religious and racist nutcases, not to mention libertarians, 9/11 truthers, pacifists, and America-apologists. The original Tea Party events organized by the Ron Paul people were scary enough - now it's a freakin' nightmare. It's no place for Objectivist ethics at the moment, and I think you'll find it extremely difficult to disengage these people from their very canned ideological views.To answer the original question: Yes, the Tea Party movement is very shallow.
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.
-
-
But said right wing activists say no to that, and instead march inside the building and when stopped by police, begin to assault them with metal pipes and stab them with knives.
that sounds nothing like the tea party movement. lame hypothetical
-
As an Israeli I am outraged with the fact that our soldiers were sent there severely handicapped, with restricting no-fire orders (as are common in IDF) resulting in a terrible tragey and what could've spelled death of many Israeli soldiers.
this, yes
-
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.
-
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.
-
Not at all. It is sufficient that there be an agreement to enter into a duel. Contracts are a subset of agreements. Since an agreement to duel cannot be enforced, it cannot be the subject of a contract.
I'm not sure what this distinction means, how do you know what is "enforceable" and what isn't?
Why does it seem that there are a substantial number of responses in your thread that you have not bothered to read yet?what?
-
How could the concept of contract have anything to do with the topic?
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".
-
A contract, necessarily, must be enforceable by the government. That means if you contract with X to perform some act and you do not, then X may take you to court to get you to perform. The court cannot order you to do something illegal -- that would render the legal system incoherent. The court also cannot revoke your rights as a human being, most saliently your right to choose. It follows from this that the court cannot order you to give up your right to choose, thus cannot order you into slavery, nor can it order you to give up your life. (And, of course, the court cannot order you to perform an impossible act).
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.
Someone explain to me why two people cannot make an informed, voluntary contract between each other on any terms they want. -
Someone explain to me why two people cannot make an informed, voluntary contract between each other on any terms they want.
/thread
-
I'm sure this will turn out well.
-
One of the best movies I've ever seen... definitely in my top 5
Chili
in Miscellaneous Topics
Posted
someone suggested marinading the beef before hand, which is an excellent idea for the second attempt