Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by realitycheck44

  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 instructions on how to make a bomb from household materials. Again, these people will find ways to kill if they want to. Gun control is irrelevant.
  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. That just wouldn't work out well. That wasn't directed at you. If you read the posts above yours, you'll see that some people suggested I should propose some insanely democratic bill. Which would be kinda funny, but I'd rather not.
  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 than he makes, why should the government be able to? This would entail that people pay like 90% taxes or the gov't cuts spending. (The only problem with this is that the military would probably be the first thing to go. ) So, I'm not too concerned about it being from a "New Mexican" senator, nor am I especially worried about whether it passes or not. I have a good enough grade in the class to take a B on this project and still end up with an A.
  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 to you guys is, if you had one chance to write a bill, what bill would you write? Would you write an "outlandish" bill that nobody would pass- such as abolishing taxes? Or would you go for something more safe- like allowing homosexual marriage or abortion? Oh, and one other catch- I'm playing a democrat from New Mexico, and my bill must be somewhat realistic to the character I'm playing. So... Considering I'm from New Mexico, I just had the thought that maybe a bill on border control would be appropriate, but I'd rather do something more pro-Capitalism (or at least anti-theocracy). This should be interesting. [edited for clarity]
  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), and if they are not, what are the correct views on sex. That is the debate you want to have. If I am mistaken, excuse my impertinence, but it seems like it would be pretty boring debate if it was only limited to what Ayn Rand thought about sex. Indeed, I think Ayn Rand wrote clearly enough that it would not be much of a "debate", but rather more along the lines of a study session of her views, though perhaps I am wrong. But in what I read of the sex threads, there wasn't much disagreement as to what Ayn Rand advocated, but rather whether it was right. If this is indeed the debate you want to have, go for it. But if what Ayn Rand thought about sex is in question, we really two debates: What were Ayn Rand's view on sex?, and Are those views in correspondence with reality? I don't think I have the time, nor knowledge, to participate, but thanks for proposing the debate.
  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 Hummer" and actually drove it across his lawn. He's just one of those guys that could put a man on the moon with duct tape and a snickers bar.
  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 know there was such a thing. I also don't believe Miss Rand ever said that it was bad art if the hero dies. She did write We The Living after all. Secondly, I take offense to tone- saying things such as "nifty metal" and "nice motor" seems to belittle their actual achievements. By itself, this is no big deal, but I've been noticing a general lack of respect toward Ayn Rand, and, as this is an Objectivist board that's sole purpose is to celebrate Ayn Rand, her novels, and her philosophy, that just kind of makes me mad. But perhaps I'm exaggerating. Another problem I have with your posts is that you seem to think that Objectivism is some kind of dogma that people often follow blindly, when (though perhaps some do take it as dogma) the whole philosophy is utterly opposed to that concept. Okay, Moose, I will from now on respond to your posts instead of merely getting annoyed, okay? (The only problem is I don't have alot of time. But I'll try.) It was not my intention to offend you (honestly), it was more to question why you are here since you seem to be attacking Objectivism (I know I said "O'ist" before, my mistake). But perhaps this is just because you seem to be posting quite a bit, and I seem to only read threads that you post it. I hope you accept this apology and understand why someone in my position could get frustrated with all these questions (seemingly repetitive) that attack/question Objectivism on an Objectivist board. There is a debate section. But every thread I read seems to be a debate over a fundamental principle- that being "that might be fine for you, but you haven't got any right to say your way is the best". Obviously, there are times when it comes down to opinion, but we aren't debating whether a movie is good or not. We're debating what constitutes "art" and whether the O'ist definition is correct. If you have any problems with this post, please let me know. I should not have made that last post when and where I did. A mod may delete it, if he/she deems appropriate. Zak [edit for some reason it put this post with the one above. ) Yes, I now agree and apologized to Moose (must've been while you were posting).
  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 are making a collective out of people who label themselves "Objectivists". I personally enjoy certain movies, even if the ending is not happy or the philosophy is not the best. I don't think anybody here was strictly claiming the opposite. Many Objectivists enjoy Victor Hugo and Fyodor Dostoevsky, and their novels are not necessarily happy. Besides that, you seem to think that it is wrong for Objectivists to call movies that you like bad art. My question is: why do you care? I really don't give a damn if you think the movies I like are bad art, why should you make such an attack, collectivizing Objectivists and assuming opinions of Ayn Rand that she didn't give? I understand that people aren't giving you answers, but you are demanding they do so. Personally, I could write an essay about the sex thread, or this one, but I just don't care to do so, partly because your condescending attitude and demand for answers is just plain rude. If you want answers, do not demand them- ask politely and in a scholarly, student-like manner. This is OBJECTIVISMOnline. If I post a movie review here, I will defend my opinion, but I do not care to defend the ethics on which that opinion rests. That can be done on any number of other forums- this is a place for Objectivists. I am no longer able to see why you are a part of this forum. I'm not yet saying you should leave, but since all you seem to be doing lately is attacting O'ists, I'm very curious as to why you don't.
  14. Um, I'm not exactly sure...it's been a while. I think her protection only works while Harry's "home" is with his relatives. But I can't remember why. I think other members, perhaps non-contradictor, probably know why, or at least more than I do. Yes, that is why it was so monstrous that Voldemort would want to split his that many times. I'm not entirely sure that one could "make use of a Horcrux" except for the fact that if a Horcrux is in existence, one cannot die. One would become "less than a spirit" like Voldy did after trying to curse Harry. I'm going to need to refresh my memory if you're going to ask any harder questions.
  15. Perhaps... but personally I think the gleam of triumph was due to the fact that Voldemort thought he had overcome Lily's protection by using Harry's blood, when, in fact, her protection runs much deeper than that.
  16. No, it doesn't make a significant difference. I would have a talk with the person/people if it did. Your right, it's not like I am choosing based on somebody else's logic, but honestly, it does help when I'm stuck between two answers and somebody else gets says they get one or the other. I don't want help, but there's not alot I can do about it. Thanks for the reply.
  17. I have a related question about cheating. Sometimes on tests I hear other people talking- either to themselves or with one another- and I inadvertently hear an answer. It's not like I can "unhear" it, and since the tests are usually multiple choice, it's not like I have a chance to demonstrate whether I know the material or not. The thing is, once I hear someone say the answer is D (for example), I recognize that as the correct answer. I don't want to cheat, and I wouldn't try to cheat, but I don't know whether I would have come to the same answer myself. It seems unfair for me to mark the answer right, but it seems equally unfair to not mark it at all when I probably would have come to the same answer myself. I usually just mark the answer, if I know WHY that answer is right. If I can back it up, I should have been able to come to that answer myself, right? Any comments appreciated.
  18. I agree. That's why I always wanted some unknown actor to play it. Somebody who did have that look, and who wasn't attached to any other role for us to visualize him playing. That would also lend mystery to "Who is John Galt".
  19. Oh, my mistake. I did read the entire thread, but I must've forgot the initial question. Thanks DarkWaters. I'll have to give it more thought.
  20. Yes. Well, kind of. It can be declared unconstitutional based on the Fourteenth Amendment. Until the 14th Amendment, state laws did not even have to comply with the Bill of Rights. And they didn't, as evidenced by the Supreme Court case Barron v. Baltimore (1833). It wasn't until 1925, in the Supreme Court case Gitlow v. New York that the S.C. ruled a state government must protect some First Amendment rights. As of now, to get a law changed, you must bring it to the Supreme Court and argue that it violates the 14th Amendment. In my understanding, you must do this every time you think a law violates your rights (as defined by the Bill of Rights). [Edit: A rather long discussion of this topic can be found here.]
  21. I agree, Depp is a great modern actor. I don't know if I'd want him for any other role than Francisco though. He certainly cannot play Ragnar, because people will keep imagining him as Jack Sparrow in Pirates of the Caribbean. As for Galt, I dunno, I just don't think that he could do John Galt all that well. I do, however, think that he would be great as Francisco. It's just kind of his style.
  22. This has been said before, but I'll say it too. I find it hard to answer these types of questions because I don't think a dictatorship is a reliable form of government, so I don't think that I have a right to force others to follow my ideas. What we really need is a philosophical revolution. That said, if I had the power to make changes to the government, I would do one thing above all else: stop all government spending that does not have to do with foreign or domestic security. Everything else, such as tax reform, would follow. With all the money the government is saving, we could get out of debt, and then taxes would dramatically decrease. After that, somebody could come along and say "hey, taxes should be voluntary" and people might actually think it would work because taxes would be so low already.
  23. I don't mean to speak for BrassDragon, but I think I see where he's going with that. (Please correct me if I'm wrong) It's a thought I've had myself. If I wanted to start my own company- newpaper, yachts, electronics, buildings, etc- I should first get a degree in the field I'm interested in, as opposed to getting a business degree. If I wanted to start my own newspaper, I'd get a degree in journalism. My own yacht company- naval architecture. You get the idea. Obviously, you cannot start out with your own business, so you work with a company for a while and then quit to start your own. Somewhere in there is where you either get a business degreee or think about hiring someone else to do the dirty work for you. Is this what you were talking about BrassDragon?
  • Create New...