Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


emanon last won the day on August 12 2010

emanon had the most liked content!

About emanon

  • Rank
    Junior Member

Previous Fields

  • Country
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Relationship status
  • Sexual orientation
    Gay / Lesbian
  • Real Name
  • Copyright
  • School or University
    Queensland Conservatorium, Griffith University
  • Occupation

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Interests
    Music, Philosophy, Literature etc
  1. Exactly, but it is Illegal in both America and Australia. It is ridiculous. Why shouldn't the guy who *owns* the bread/milk - after all, he paid for it so he owns it - be allowed to sell at whatever price he chooses? It is inconsistent legislature. So, it's okay for Apple to sell their products for probably 10x their cost (and damn-straight it is okay!), but it's not okay when it comes to milk and bread? I just... don't... understand. And people get upset and carry on about how ghastly it is for these people. They talk about them as the "greedy shop-keepers" and one government officia
  2. If you agree or disagree, post and tell me why so I can better understand this bizarre phenomenon. We've just had serious flooding here in Australia, all along the North-Eastern coast. With it has come people raising prices of things considered "essentials" like Bread and Milk to as much as $10 each... and with the rises in price have come a lot of people who are complaining about it, and how "not on" and "despicable" it is etc. I don't get it, and I definitely don't agree. I see lots of reasons why serious price hikes are perfectly fine: 1. You aren't compelled to buy your bread
  3. Hi All, I've had a friend for about two years who has been depressed for probably 75% of that time. She's seen/sees a psych and takes anti-depressants but still it persists. I have personally been depressed twice in my short life for 3 or 4 months a turn, and as a result I learned a lot about what causes me to go down that dreary emotional road, how to avoid it, and what I need to do to get back again. The two things that seem to be very different about us however, is that I never considered suicide an option... or rather, I considered it briefly and ruled it out. Secondly, is that no
  4. I think the issue here is that when you are being questioned by an police officer, you are being asked very pointed questions which do not give you much room for full and proper explanation etc. And what you end up being forced to give is probably only partial truth.
  5. While I have a hearty disdain for Deepak Chopra, I don't really think the video clip is that funny. It was a smart-ass, throw away question with a meaningless answer. Anyone remember the game where you have people repeat the word silk, and then ask what cows drink? This reminds me of that.
  6. I think people misunderstand. I *do* admit openly to violating the road rules, and that, as such, I am culpable for punishment. That's completely okay with me. There is no "manning up" required. I'm not looking to avoid responsibility for my actions. Actually, this is not really even about me personally, this is about the regulations in general as they apply to my age group. Disregard the fact that I am personally affected by them. My problem is with two things: 1) The excessiveness of the punishment... 2) That the excessive punishment is imposed onto a targeted group of people rathe
  7. So I posted here a while back about how I accrued the total 4 demerit points on the "provisional licence" which I currently hold as a young driver. (In case you are curious, the two offenses occurring about 6 months apart where speeding between 13 and 20km/h over the speed limit for 3 points, and "defective vehicle"...broken tail-lights... for 1 point). At the time I was given an option to either take a 3 month suspension, or a one year "Good Behavior Bond" which means I would have 1 demerit point for a 12 month period. if that point was lost, the fine and suspension would be double (so
  8. I think her very first sentence said it all VERY clearly: Right there, she has said plainly that following objectism IMPROVED her life, and goes onto say that not following it has caused deterioration... until the point where she is engaging in horrible reductionism. I would simply point out her first sentence and say... "Whenever you think that you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong." --- Remember also, that it is not your job to turn her into an objectivist. If she doesn't want to accept reason, I would tell her simply that
  9. Oh, sorry. Gotcha. I agree with you.
  10. This really sounds like someone referring to a "Duty to Humanity"?
  11. But do you think, given the context in which he uses the word, especially at the end of the video, that this is what he meant when he said "humanist"?
  12. Can you clarify for me what you mean by #6? The 6th comment in the article you linked? The sixth comment by a specific author? etc Thanks
  13. Either way, for better or for worse, what I started is tangential to the original post. So if anyone is really dying to continue this particular discussion, it'd be best to start a new thread I think instead of hijacking the original posters'. Sorry about that. So let us know when you work it out, Dream_Weaver
  14. Besides, I think the fact that Jabob____ needs to ask the question, might be suggesting that he already knows the answer, but was just hoping it was not the case. I wonder if this is how he came to read Atlas Shrugged?
  • Create New...