OCSL
-
Posts
109 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by OCSL
-
-
Hey, welcome. Which non-fiction have you tried reading (Rand's)? VOS is a great one to read first, in my opinion. Initially I did not enjoy her non-fiction (because the fiction she wrote was so intriguing) but they are definitely worth reading if you are interested in O'ism.
edit: spelling
-
...
I have never found a site that gives a response to the main criticism of the scanners. The critics hold the position (I believe originated by U of SF) that the x-rays are dangerous since they are concentrated just on the skin level (sorry don't know scientific term, epidermis maybe?). All articles that I have read seem to talk mainly about how the rays could have no harm since they are distributed throughout your entire body. I hope these people are wrong however since I would not like to go through the grope-fest again.
-
Not to suggest any of this is good or appropriate, but why would you refuse to go through the scanners as opposed to the alternative?
I know this question was not directed at me but I also chose groping over the x-ray the last time I went to the airport. I've read numerous articles that claim that the x-rays increase people's chances to contract cancer. No institution has said they are safe (that I know of) besides the government. That makes me skeptical enough to avoid them.
-
I'm in agreement with the post above me that there is some hidden agenda here. You can vote as many times as you want in the poll which seems like a mistake that would have not been made (or remedied) had these people wanted serious results. Nonetheless, as someone mentioned above, I would not be too thrilled to find that my parents made a site deciding whether to abort me or not.
edit:
Here's the original post on the site if anyone cares:
Well, Alisha is pregnant. wOOt. I am pretty excited about it. We have had difficulty in the past with three unsuccessful pregnancies and I am hoping this time will be better.What worries me though is that two of them had issues with genetics, the fetus didn’t develop properly, heart beat was slow, centerline disorder kind of stuff. The third ended at a little over a month, so there wasn’t much detail to it, but kind of depressing after we had gotten into the second trimester just prior.
It is rather unfortunate too to have to reset the whole process, but I am excited at the prospects of being a father. I’ll cross my fingers and toes that this one goes off without a hitch. Alisha’s uncertainties however are valid.
We’ve put off having a kid for so long that I worry there is stagnation in our desire to do so. At first we put it off to finish our childhood, and then I decided mine was not going to end without a push. By that time Alisha had just gotten a new job and was getting settled, so we put it off longer. Now, nearly ten years after our marriage the prospect of being in my 50s when a kid graduates childhood is a bit unnerving. My parents had their two children in their early 20s and I’ve valued the bond I’ve had with my parents because of our closeness in age. I only hope that I could maintain such a relationship with any child we have.
We’ve talked often of having 3-5 children, and starting this process with some time in-between (a year at the most) would end up with a 30-36 year gap between me and the children. Would I be able to give them the same depth of relationship as my father did? This hill we told each other we’d climb is looking more like a mountain.
-
When I click on the full report the link does not work. Is this just on my computer?
-
As seen through your discussion with your coworker, the meaning of the word selfish is misunderstood by the vast majority of people. Most suicides are out of cowardice or irrationality (e.g. 1800 page suicide letter man). I would be interested to hear an example someone has for a rational reason to end your life. Some situations most likely exist but would probably have to be pretty "out-there" since rationality and suicide do not often intersect.
-
Monsanto is imposing a cost upon the farmer against the farmer's consent, because the farmer ordinarily saves seed to plant the next season's crop instead of buying them. This is an initiation of force.
I was specifically responding to the case the Mikee was referring to. It consisted of an individual who had his fields infected by Monsanto seeds and continued to use them after he had the knowledge of the infection. To respond to your statement, everyone who purchases from Monsanto signs an agreement that they will not replant the seeds after the season they are purchased for. Maybe this is not "fair", but the fact is the farmers knew this before they ever completed a transaction with Monsanto. Correct me if I'm wrong since my knowledge of Monsanto only consists of ~5 hours of research.
-
If there is a right and a wrong, then why don't people all practice physics and philosophy? Everything else seems extraneous to reality.
Right and wrong does not apply to an individual's occupation, but to the way the individual conducts themselves in their chosen work. If two people approach work with productivity as their goal in two separate careers, such as physics and philosophy, they are equally rational.
-
I'm for choice, but here, farmer's don't have it.
The farmer has the choice to not use seeds that aren't his.
-
The consensus seems to be that luck exists, although not as some mystical force. Since I doubt anyone on these boards is willing to argue that luck is a mystical force, will someone argue that it doesn't exist at all?
But first, consider the fact that a child born to intelligent parents immediately has an advantage over a child born to unintelligent parents which is best described as luck.
I do not see where a consensus exists supporting luck. The only way luck can be see is as a mystical force. It is saying that one person magically is favored over another. Being born to a wealthy family is not lucky. There is not a line of babies up in the clouds waiting to see what household they will get put in and some get lucky and others don't.
-
Wow, that sounds worse than normal libertarianism.
edit: spelling
-
"I find that the harder I work, the move luck I seem to have". - Thomas Jefferson
I like this quote.
The person you complemented could possibly believe that they found Objectivism at a younger age than you because they had a greater drive to understand the meaning of life. All definitions of luck explain a "force" that causes some to be lucky and others not. I do not believe in the supernatural.
I was dissatisfied with what I had been taught thus far in my life. I read many books in search of a philosophy I could embrace and once I came across Atlas Shrugged my search was over. Was that luck?
-
That would mean that you are intentionally unfocussing your mind (and making difficult to impossible to reach full focus if needed), something which one ought never to do if they wish to live rationally. I don't see how one could ever enjoy smoking anything (as marijuana and tobacco smell terrible, for one thing), and at least with marijuana, I don't imagine it is possible to use it without getting the equivalent of an alcoholic "buzz."
So are you advocating that no legal drugs should be used that have similar effects to marijuana (which there are many of)? Using a drug for a clear cut rational purpose (e.g. relieving stress) does not cause you to live irrationally.
-
What should I do about it? Confront her? Immediately break up with her?
It sounds like it bothers you so if it does you should obviously break up with her. However, if you are asking what the rational thing to do is, it would be to stay with her since she has all those great qualities you listed. There is nothing wrong with smoking herb. If you think the practice is bad since the government has a law against it, think again. There is no reason to follow irrational laws.
-
...
Wow, definitely post a picture when the color is finished. How long did the session take?
-
Are you referring to sentence structure or vocabulary? If the latter then I would suggest looking over SAT, or GRE vocabulary lists. Recently, I went over this list of words and I found it very helpful. Apologies if you weren't referring to vocabulary.
-
When you got your drivers license you agreed to abide by the laws of the road. The punishments are excessive, but that is irrelevant. As it appears, you were guilty of every demerit you received so the only thing you can do is accept your punishment and be more careful in the future.
-
Of course it does. But how can you say that it takes a stand against that, if it protects someone who discriminates against a group of individuals? Doesn't that seem like a bit of a contradiction?
Objectivism is also against religion but should people still have the freedom to believe in god? Of course. On a side note, some people might argue that people who believe in god can be much more dangerous then people who are racist. I do not believe that people should be barred from doing things just because I or the philosophy I follow disagree with them. The contradiction between taking a stand against something and not creating laws against it holds no weight to me. There is no reason that restrictions should be placed around someone on how they want to live their life. As sad as it would be to see someone running a business based around discrimination, the fact is he should have the right to do so.
-
I think this closer to actually agreeing with what cleanremarks is saying, so I'm addressing it. If you don't like the obvious danger of such a road, don't drive on it. No issue of force involved, whatever the property owner says goes, unless force is initiated.
Your right, thanks for clarifying.
-
I agree with you all that arbitrary, unchecked power is something to be passionately resisted. However, I do believe that the government has the right to make reasonable laws at the demand of its people. The PEOPLE are the government. The PEOPLE decide what is reasonable, not by overwhelming majority, but by reason and fairness. Any educated adult knows the difference between a fair legislation(i.e. the civil rights movement or minimum wage) and the arbitrary practice of tyranny.
Also, I believe the government has the right to tax its citizens. However, consequently, the citizens have a right to demand services from the government because of this(roads, schools, defense, etc.). How would there be things like traffic laws if everyone owned their own roads? It would be as chaotic as driving in the Congo(which I've done).
Just curious, do you consider yourself an objectivist or did you just come here for a debate (nothing wrong with that)? You say you disapprove of a dictatorship but what you are suggesting is certainly not total freedom for its citizens. If all roads are privatized I would assume traffic laws would still exist. The government's job would be to protect against the initiation of force in an objectivist society. If the owner of a road said people can drive in any direction at any speed I would assume the government would intervene. People often confuse total freedom in the objective sense with anarchy. However in your example, no harm comes to the people who are discriminated against. Ultimately the land owner would suffer when he loses customers for his highway.
-
Ugh, I knew I'd be misunderstood, I probably had poor word choice. What I meant by moot is that TLD's point wasn't even important because you could STILL donate money for those things anyway without paying taxes, so those important functions would still be financed. I agree with the rest of your post.
I totally agree. That is what I was trying to say but after re-reading my post it doesn't get the point across. Sorry.
-
Thank you very much for posting this. I do not think about procrastination at all since I believe I manage my time well and this should change.
Best quote from article:
You must be adept at thinking about thinking to defeat yourself at procrastination. -
All I am saying is that Objectivism says that people need to support those functions. In our world, taxation is the only means of doing so. In a more perfect world - and being purely theoretical (which we do not always have the luxury of being), I agree that that would not be the case.
BTW: the initial post was asking about Objectivist claims, not purely the position of Objectivism. Also, one always needs to distinguish between what Rand said and how to apply her principles in the real world.
That is not an Objectivist position. The only way that you can support the police, army, and justice system is through taxation in "our world". Thus, your statement is clearly supporting taxation which Objectivism is obviously opposed to. The status of the current world is irrelevant.
-
If these are voluntary, and would better help detect terrorists, couldn't a terrorist just choose to not go though one? Are they not completely pointless?
As Jake pointed out, there would be an alternative to the body scanners. The substitute would probably be just as thorough, but take longer thus creating the incentive for going in the body scanner.
Help put an end to the TSA madness
in Current Events
Posted
Thanks, I'd be interested to read the article your referring to. The links you posted on the first page do not seem to be the ones you're referring to.
Tangent: Is this what people would consider intrusive (link)? It is hard for me to tell whether there is censoring or not but I'm under the impression this is a normal x-ray picture since I have seen it on other sites.