emanon
-
Posts
82 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by emanon
-
-
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 and milk from that store.
2. Bread and Milk aren't essential. You can live what, upto 30-50 days without food? You don't need bread and milk that desperately to survive for a week or two, and if you do, $10 isn't a lot to pay to stay alive.
3. The people who truly need it (if there are some) would probably not be able to get any if the price were fixed at the lower price as, with product shortages, supply would run out very quickly.
4. What about increased cost of attaining the product?
5. Why the hell shouldn't they put the price up? Because you *want* bread and milk? By the same logic if you want bread and milk for free, you should get it for free too.
6. Why is it different to charge $10 for bread vs. charging $3 for bottled water? Neither of them cost a fraction of the price, the only difference is taht people think the have some right to food at whatever price they want.
I hear all the reasons, and I understand flooding is terrible, but I can't help but think that people are just complaining like a two-year-old who wants that toy in the toy-store.
If they aren't willing to use their brain, reason and ability to obtain what they want, and they aren't prepared to pay the price, then that is not the store-keeper's fault. So what if you have to eat baked-beans for two weeks. It's not going to kill you, so stop acting like a spoiled brat... (?)
Regards,
C.
-
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 matter how "low" I got, I always wanted to be happy and be able to enjoy life. She doesn't seem to experience this.
The problem is that I can see what so many of the causes for her depression are and what would help her, but for me, it is such a test of patience when dealing with someone who obstinately refuses to take action to help herself.
To be clear, I'm not that person who tells her to do things then makes a big deal when she doesn't. I do make suggestions, but I try and remain impassive as to whether she actually takes them... (Which is never, to my knowledge)
I find it personally incredibly challenging to deal with a person who refuses to act in their own interest, and who has adopted this view point that the world should be some magical place where everything gets done for you and you just magically get everything you want, without any effort or responsibility... and then gets upset because it fails to live up to this expectation.
The fact is, that as far as I can tell, she really doesn't want to get better. I don't know whether it is because she gets more attention this way? Or whether it gives her a perpetual excuse for not taking action to become an independent.
Either way, I just don't know how to proceed. I don't know if I can be friends with her much longer unless she takes affirmative action because our views of the world are so drastically different that we are no longer able to relate in anything but a superficial way.
Does anyone have any suggestions or anecdotal advice? lol
Chris
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 rather than as a law that applies to all equally.
Let me note here that if I weren't under 25, I would never have had my licence suspended to begin with as I would have 12 points to use in a 3 year period rather than 4 points in a one year period.
To my way of looking at these youth-laws, they are akin to if a law existed that, for a completely hypothetical example, made it illegal for women to do certain jobs that require skill x because "studies have shown that women tend to do poorly in skill x". But what about the countless women who are exceptionally talented in skill x?
Outside of that, in a practical sense, you just have to live with the restrictions until your license is clear. If you ignore them, you run the risk of losing your license completely. If you ignore that, you run the risk of going to jail.I know and yet the idealist in me is reminded of Howard Roark.
Is it morally okay for a person to do nothing about an injustice for no better reason that they are *fearful that the source of the injustice will carry out increasingly greater injustices in the name of its preservation*?
Is it?
-
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 a 6 month suspension).
Anyway, I opted for the 3 months. Furious enough about having my license suspended for so little**
I get my licence back in 4 days... however, I now ALSO have to endure a 12 month driving curfew, which means I am not allowed to drive between 11pm and 5am. (I should mention that neither of my offenses where committed at night time either)
At what point does one say that this is too much punishment. I have paid fines for both offenses, and have endured a 3 month disqualification. Now MORE punishment. Also, this curfew regulation only applies to drivers who lose their licence under the age of 25years.
This seems ridiculous? How much longer am I going to have to pay for a simple mistake?
At what point, as a thinking Man, am I obligated to say "No, your rules are unjust and I wont accept this undue punishment"?
And these sort of regulations are become increasingly common in Australia. Someones child is in a car accident, most often it is merely accident or mis-judgement, and they go on a personal vendetta to "make sure no one else's child is lost in such a tragic accident" by imposing more and more rules.
The government happily makes a big deal of it and passes the legislature too because no surprise, the more rules there are, the more chance that simply being alive will cause them to be broke, which means more revenue for them.
Any thoughts? What would you do in my situation?
Regards,
Chris
**And the infuriating thing is that the road I was recorded for speeding on has two separate speed limits for either side of the road, one side is 60km/h the other is 70km/h. I assumed they where the same and was driving at about 75km/h)
-
I think her very first sentence said it all VERY clearly:
It sounds a lot like how I used to sound back when I consumed everything she'd written, and indeed it did start a "fire" inside and quite quickly made me able to accomplish so much in short period of my life that it was ludicrous- but it wasn't to be.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 she is wrong, and that if she wants proof, examine her own life. Then leave the conversation. You simply can't "logic" an irrational person into reason. If you could, not a single person on earth would 'believe in god'.
Good Luck
-
The 6th "dangerous idea" the site lists, namely that many people are going to university when few actually need it. In the UK the government looked at the fact that people who went to university earned much more, on average, and concluded that getting more people to go to university would raise living standards rather than simply dilute standards.
Oh, sorry. Gotcha. I agree with you.
-
The glory of Verde’s Requiem or Mozart’s Requiem or Bach’s pieces is that they are fantastic, incredibly human and like all great human’s thing they reach for the infinite. They reach for beauty. A religious person would call that the divine. You could call it the humanist.
This really sounds like someone referring to a "Duty to Humanity"?
-
a lot of people use the word "humanist" or "secular humanist" and refer to a "duty to humanity". sounds to me like collectivism
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"?
-
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
-
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
-
And he's English
haha Yeah, you have a point there
-
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?
-
Ha... you either didn't listen to the entire video or you completely ignored the context, especially for the Humanist references.
They were prince arch bishops who employed Mozart. These were not spiritual beings who inculcated these composers with a sense of the divine that makes the music divine. The glory of Verde’s Requiem or Mozart’s Requiem or Bach’s pieces is that they are fantastic, incredibly human and like all great human’s thing they reach for the infinite. They reach for beauty. A religious person would call that the divine. You could call it the humanist.&
The most important philosophy I think is that even if it isn’t true you must absolutely assume there is no afterlife. You cannot for one second I think, abbragate the responsibility of believing that this is it...That alone seems to refute any claims that he is Kantian or Humanist in the toohey sense of the word...
He uses the word humanist to mean that he doesn't believe in God, he believes in the potential of humans and human creation...
And can't forget:
I have no quarrel with individuals who wish… who are devout and who have faith. I don’t want to mock them. I really don’t, but damned if I’m going to be told by them what to do with my body or damned if I’m going to have the extraordinary battles won by enlightenment over the past 400 years, to have those battles abdicated by a new dark ages. It’s you know. The battle lines must be drawn.and the priceless way he ends the interview:
The End.It’s terrible. I don’t want to come over as some terrible anti-ecclesiastical figure, but.
-
I disagree, I see this sight as being very helpful, and I consider myself a "newbie". This is the only place where I have actually found real Objectivists, not "post-objectivists" or fans of ayn rand, or other posers, but people who actually understand it.
Okay, fair point. Really all I meant, however, is that this site is *not* some piece of work by Rand, it isn't objectivist literature. If you want to understand what she intended, you have to read her or perhaps Peikoff. Yes, there are some great posters on this website, eg. David Odden and Knast do supply some really great answers which are generally well aligned with what Rand wrote.
BUT, you can't know that what is being said is in fact objectivism unless you go to the source and understand at least the core aspects as written by Rand herself, and verify it with your own mind. Otherwise you are accepting the posts, even posts which are correct, on a basis of faith...
That is why I suggest people are quite familiar with the source (Rand herself) before they come to a forum. Then they have the neccesary information already to test the hypotheses set forth in the posted questions and also, to test the answers of other posters for flaws.
That's my thought, but everyone is, of course, free to make their own decisions. There's no gun in my hand
-
http://bigthink.com/ideas/21626
Sets forth the idea that America should stop giving financial aid to Africa. One of the interviewees had this to say:
The problem with aid is that it's essentially giving free money to somebody with no recourse, says Moyo: “It means that the incentive structure it introduces is a very negative incentive structure. You can steal that money and have no recourse. You can use that money for non-productive activities and there’s no penalty. There’s no punishment. You don’t lose office. You don’t end up in jail.”Of course, the "Government Advisor" remains completely in favor of the aid despite the corruption and destabilization of any economy or possible government which it results in...
-
Am I to take it that no one else is a Stephen Fry fan?
If not, I'm curious what in particular views you are particularly adverse to?
- Chris
-
Not illegal, but yes, it's immoral.
You are taking a new book, giving the payment due, then using the honour-system policy to make them buy a used book for the same price, thus demonstrating your dis-honorable nature.
I would suggest that being honorable and honest, which involves trading value for value, would be a rational value to hold. If you act against this value, or you do not hold it as a value, you are immoral.
If you were acting morally, you would act by the code of a trader and not a looter. By not offering a value to the store, you are declaring yourself a looter.
Furthermore, no where in Rand's work or philosophy does it say that one man should take advantage of another man's weakness just because you can.
A trader or a looter. You can't be both. I think this is an example of why Rand disliked people who try and act in the grey area of an issue. They are attempting to deny that reality is presenting them a choice....
The store's money comes from? Blank out.
The store's policy is designed to? Blank out.
Doing this means I am? Blank out.
-
A really great interview by Stephen Fry. I really enjoy a lot of Stephen's views and these are some really great points and explanations. And it's just plain interesting to listen to and watch!
http://bigthink.com/ideas/17864
Enjoy
-
I think what the original poster maybe be alluding to is how there are at least a few people on here who don't even attempt to think for themselves.
They just post a little quote and then go "why?" or something like that, and make no effort to practice the fundamental ideal of objectivism: Self-generated thought.
A lot of people, wanna-be Objectivists or otherwise, seem to simply want people to give them an answer that they can memorize and regurgitate.
There are a few genuine newbies on here, and to be completely honest, this is probably the worst place they could be. The contradictions, arguments, dumb questions etc will not foster a proper understanding.
If there are any newbies reading this: If you want to really understand O'ism properly, forget about this site for a few months and go read and re-read books by people whom actually know and understand O'ism fully. That is to say, get your knowledge from the source, not second hand.
ie. Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff are where you should start.
When you feel you have a strong grasp of the philosophy, then come back here and use this place more a testing ground for conceptual flaws.
- Chris
-
Genesis 6:5, which read And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually."Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding" -Proverbs 3:5
These could work.
---
If it helps, think of the question like this:
"________________________ [insert Biblbe Quote]" is like saying that a bird can only live properly by breaking its wings, or a tree by mangling its roots.
The quote can be anything which regards man's nature (as a thinking animal) as evil, unworthy, insufficient etc.
Thanks for your help so far. The reason I asked rather looking myself (which I have already done) is that like someone pointed out, it almost never refers directly to the mind which makes it hard to do any search
-
Instinct of self preservation is what man does not possess: Man has the power to act as his own destroyer. A living entity that regarded its means of survival as evil would not survive. A plant that struggled to mangle its roots would not survive. A bird that struggled to break its wings would not remain for long in the existence they affronted. But the history of man has been a struggle to deny and destroy his mind.
I need a passage from the bible for a creative project that represents the view that man's mind/rationality is evil.
The better known the passage, the more effective it will be. The intention is to link the passage to the bird struggling to break its wings.
If you can help me, then that would be great,
Thanks!
-
Its been a while but, didnt Fransisco say that? Good line.
j..
My mistake, you are completely correct. It was Francisco.
Price Gouging...
in Current Events
Posted · Edited by emanon
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 official on the news even proclaimed that if they found out who it was, they wouldn't prosecute, they would simply make the owner's lives hell with audits, excessive health inspections etc.
He actually said that on national television as if they deserve some sort of severe punishment.
Sometimes people make me sick.
[/rant]