Objectivism Online Forum

# GoodOrigamiMan

Regulars

244

• #### Last visited

• Rank
Member
• Birthday 06/03/1984

## Previous Fields

• Country
United States
Pennsylvania
• Real Name
Alex Hardt
• School or University
Drexel University
• Occupation
Rational Animal

## Contact Methods

• AIM
GoodOrigamiMan
• Website URL
http://
• ICQ
0

## Profile Information

• Location
• Interests
Chemical Engineering, excetera.
1. ## Study group suggestion

Good book; count me in.
2. ## DrexelObjectivist Webpage

Our website is finally ready to be introduced! There are still many improvements to be made on its appearance, but it's fully functional. DrexelObjectivists Any comments are welcome including problems and suggestions! Also, there is a link on the blog that goes to this page: DrexelObjectivists This was the older version of the site without the frameset. I prefer the frameset, so this version of the site will probably be removed... The banner was nice, but it was too big to put on top of another webpage (which is what the frame does). To play fair, it will not look good loaded thru the blog in the frameset - it is best to hold down [shift] so that it opens in its own page.
3. ## .999999999999 repeating = 1

You can use the same method with any repeating decimal – but you will end up with the fractions that represent them (1/9 for .111111, 2/9 for .222222, etcetera - see below). But just like .99999 these repeating decimals do not equal the fractions or in your case 1. This is because as Rational One said, they are limits, so a repeating decimal is always approaching it’s limit (the fraction or 1) but technically it will never get there. What is happening in the subtraction is you are erasing the indefinite series by subtracting a lower power from a higher one; you are then left with the result and the factor of the power (9). So the answer becomes a fraction – representing the limit (becuase in the process you erased the reapeating) of the repeating decimal. X=.33333333333 repeating 10X = 3.3333333333 repeating 10X - X = 3X 9X = 3 X = 3/9 Therefore .33333333333 repeating = 3/9
4. ## "supersize Me!"

I got in some major arguments over this movie with my family, they loved it, I thought it was unbearable to watch. My evaluation was that it was a movie about a guy who: Has no choice where to eat - McDonalds Has no choice when to eat - Breakfast, lunch and dinner, every day Has no choice what to order - I forget the reason why he couldn’t stick to the McSalads... guess there would be no reason for a documentary Has no choice how much to order – one of the rules was he couldn’t decline the supersize question Has no choice how much to eat – had to finish everything every meal For the people who found the movie hilarious, it is all of those *choices* that they are stepping on (demeaning their metaphysical importance). Considering how important choices (free will) are to me – I couldn’t stomach Supersize Me anymore than its protagonist could stomach force feeding himself (both events were easily predictable ). I don’t even think he had a choice to stop the diet... his nutritionist made him! (too bad)
5. ## What is the nature of an "entity"?

Grammatically it would seem fine to say “the new house is the same as the old one” but it would not be ok to say “the new house is the same house”. In this context the standard for judging the house’s sameness is, (as taken from the definition) whether and entity remains one without addition, change, or discontinuance. This is what we mean when we say “it is the same” – it means that it is what it was and it hasn’t changed in the mean time. However if we are talking about two separate entities, then “same” becomes a way of comparing their attributes, or you can say “same as” which seems to specify such a comparison without the context. I wouldn’t worry about the issue too much, all that is needed is a objective standard – then it is a simple yes or no answer. The root of the house problem I’d say is being unclear about grammar... it isn’t a problem until we start thinking about it.
6. ## ITOE: Concepts vs. Collective Nouns

While I don’t have time to properly respond... I found this useful: And another collective noun: “existence” (as used in existence exists). One question that will come up is - what is the difference between “existence”, as a collective noun, and “universe”? And another question: Is there rule for which concepts may be used as collective nouns, or can they all be used as such?
7. ## We Need More of This Now

You can get to by googling Atlas Shrugged "Chicago Tribune"; for me it was the first link.
8. ## Why did Dagny save an enemy's life?

Joshua, the group of guards imprisoning John Galt where chosen, (I am paraphrasing here) “for their ability to follow orders no matter what, without asking questions”... that is the mentality that made the holocaust possible. The guard in Atlas Shrugged was the moral equivalent of a Nazi in the holocaust. Considering that you condemned Dangy for killing the guard, and in the same paragraph condemned the Nazis, you are a hypocrite. And if you believe, “we should do unto the Nazis as we would have them do unto us” – well then you are insane. oaktree, as for why not shoot the guard from behind a bush. I interpreted as a testament to her not being a cold-blooded killer. She gave the guard the choice.
9. ## Taxes: Does one have to pay

Have you no shame?
10. ## What qualifies a person as "evil"?

If human life is the standard - evil people are those that destroy it - either directly by initiating force, or indirectly by advocating (implicitly or explicitly) the initiation of force.