Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About realitycheck44

  • Rank
  • Birthday 10/24/1988

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
  • Relationship status
  • Sexual orientation
  • Real Name
  • Copyright
    Must Attribute
  • School or University
    Webb Institute
  • Occupation

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Interests
    Marine Engineering<br />Naval Architecture<br />Math<br />Physics<br />Skiing<br />Backpacking<br />Rock Climbing<br />Reading <br />Soccer<br />Running
  1. The issue has little to nothing to do with gun control. Notice that school shootings are relatively recent issue. Guns aren't a relatively new invention. My grandfather hunted on the way to school and threw his gun in the coat closet, where most of his friends kept their guns. While if I brought a tiny pocket knife to school today, I'd be expelled. Bob is right. If you want to kill somebody, you will find a way to do it, regardless of what medium you use. You may try to argue that guns can kill more people than an axe, mace, club, knife, etc. But honestly, it isn't that hard to look up ins
  2. SoftwareNerd, I'm not sure how an organic food can be "fun"... at least not any more so than any inorganic food. Could you explain please?
  3. I'm sorry to say this, kufa, but you're probably going to have to get used to this. Of the 6 or so friends of mine that I've given either AS or TF to, only one (to my knowledge) has actually finished. (I don't know how many of the others actually started.) Anyway, don't hold your breath- if you do, you'd better like the color blue.
  4. That would change the way things are done, no doubt about it. But I question whether it would be better for the country. First of all, it would be a very "majority rules all" way to do things. And judging from my classmates, nobody has the slightest idea of what it would be like under a capitalist country. Even people who supposedly support big businesses, don't understand the idea that the gov't should have NO control over the economy. I think this type of bill would end up being worse for the country. You'd have the crazy religious people on one side, and the crazy socialists on the other.
  5. Okay, guys, I think I should clarify my opening post. I'm "playing" a democrat, but I don't have to necessarily come up with something socialistic. The point is, many (or at least some) think that the democrats are better than the republicans, and I'd like to hear what type of bill a democrat would pass that would defend against the "imminent theocracy". (Sorry, I'm only being halfway sarcastic.) The whole New Mexico thing doesn't really matter too much. Right now, I really like aequalsa's idea of making it a law that the budget must be balanced. I mean, a private citizen cannot spend more tha
  6. For my American Government class, we're doing a simulation of Congress where one period plays the House of Reps, another period plays the Senate, a third period plays interest groups, and another teacher plays the President. Our objective is to write bill that passes the House, Senate, and President and gets made a "law". (The catch is that to get an A, your bill must become a law... kind of annoying, I know) Anyway, this is kind of a cool opportunity for me to both try and get some people exposed to rational thinking and also see what kind of horrible state our country is in. So, my question
  7. Before we go any further, I would like a clarification on the question being debated. Personally, I don't think this is quite the right question you are looking to debate. The "Objectivist position" is only the position of Ayn Rand (or works she approved as "Objectivist"). I think that it is fairly clear from Francisco’s speech on sex (and other works) what her position on sex is. As to you implied question, "what do most Objectivists think about sex", I have to say: who cares? The question (I believe) you are asking is whether or not her views are correct (ie, in correspondence with reality)
  8. Thank you David. I had indeed forgotten the philosophical aspects involved, not only with this particular video, but with a few others on YouTube. Thanks for reminding me of the copyright issues. As on aside, do you think YouTube is going undergo the same lawsuits as Napster and other illegal music downloading sites?
  9. Haha, are you joking!?! I love that show. I haven't seen it in ages, but I still know all the words to the opening song. We sometiems sing it at basketball games to mess with the other team. It's really random and really funny. I also love The Red Green Show. It's kind of pointless, but I think it's hilarious. Plus, the stuff he (Red Green) comes up with is hilarious. For those of you that haven't seen it (probably most of you), it's hard to describe. One part of the show he always comes up some invention to save time or money- he once duct taped two cars together to make a "poor-man's Humm
  10. Hmm, I've never heard of it. I don't watch much TV, though, so that's to be expected. What channel and day does it air?
  11. Oh, I agree about the "darker and more mature" part. But I find Deathly Hallows to be kind of childish. A good title, in my opinion, has some sort of symbolic meaning hidden (or not so hidden) in the text. Like Atlas Shrugged. All the other HP books have some sort of meaning that you find out about after reading it. But "Deathly Hallows"??? It just doesn't work for me. But this is only my opinion. () By all means, feel free to disagree.
  12. Moose, perhaps this was posted in the wrong thread at the wrong time. I apologize for that. I re-read all of your posts in this thread, and you're right (in this thread) you are respectful. Again, I apologize. My major concern is that we are now having so much activity by non-Objectivist members of this board that, besides being annoying, it might give the impression that our philosophy is not thought out, when in fact, many people are just too lazy to respond to your points over and over again. The paragraph that put me over the edge was: First of all, the "Randian standard"? I didn't k
  13. Miss Kufa brings up a good point. It is one that was entirely overlooked in this thread. One can appreciate the art (or movie) for the way it was portrayed. That is part of what separates a good movie from a bad movie, not just the writing. This has been discussed in a poetry thread (the one on T.S. Eliot). We also discussed art that does not have a hero- ie, art that portrays "real life". Moose, your posts are beginning to annoy me. You use the term "Objectivists" to describe any person who goes along with the "Randian" concept of art and does not like movies that you do. In essence, you a
  • Create New...