Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Capitalism Forever

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Capitalism Forever

  1. My word! There was a malaise affecting America all right ... it was Jimmy Carter. I wish I could personally thank every American who voted against him in '80.
  2. Why are there no group rights? That's easy: There can be no right that conflicts with another person's rights. "Group rights" would mean an abridgement of individual rights, therefore they don't exist.
  3. "Moral" is not an equivalent of "legal."
  4. This is one of the most important and--if all goes well--most beautiful aspects of life, so I think it deserves more than being discussed as a side issue in a lengthy, rambling thread entitled "homosexuality." So I thought I would start a generic thread about questions like: How does a rational man approach romance? What makes a marriage successful? What are the pitfalls, and how can they be avoided? How does the ideal woman differ from the ideal man, and why? What is wrong with the feminists' sense of life? and so on. Feel free to add your thoughts.
  5. You make it sound like you are a tolerationist.
  6. If you know that the clock is always 5 minutes slow, and the clock consistently remains 5 minutes slow, then you can use the clock to tell the time. But if the clock has stopped, you can never use it to tell the time; even though it happens to display the correct time twice a day, you don't know when it does so.
  7. I think we are really splitting hairs here, but it is the possible action that is potentially existent. To say that a possibility potentially exists is to say that it is possible for the possibility to be there--IOW you have two levels of possibility wrapped around the action in question.
  8. I think your problem is that you confuse "existent" with "material object." Possibilities exist, but they are not material objects. They are possibilities. Similarly, actions exist, but they are not material objects. They are actions. Reality cannot described by merely referencing material objects. We have other referents, such as attributes, actions, and possibilities, for describing how the material objects are, what they do, and what they can do. Not to mention that we have spiritual objects, too: consciousness, will, ideas, emotions, happiness, freedom, money, bank accounts, corporations...All these exist, but are not material objects--although, just like actions and possibilities, they can only exist in conjunction with material objects.
  9. Do I understand it correctly that you think free will vs determinism is a false dichotomy? That the two are compatible?
  10. It's been so many circles my head is reeling. I agree with your suggestion. Over and out
  11. There is no way two men can complement each other to the extent that the ideal man and the ideal woman do.
  12. That's the beauty of the $oftware business--it's always easy to sneak an 's' into your name.
  13. That depends of the laws of the corporation's nation of origin--but they certainly do have the moral right to do so. No, it isn't.
  14. Which is a pretty good summary of how rational they are. LOL!
  15. You're not alone in being surprised.
  16. Saying anything will necessarily presuppose your axioms, and that is exactly what makes them valid: you can't deny them without presupposing them.
  17. Wow, you chose a pretty convoluted way of stating your misunderstanding of what I meant. Let me provide a quick summary in my own words: It's up to you whom you fall in love with. A rational person will seek to find the best possible romance. The bodies and personalities of men and women complement each other, therefore the best match for a man will always be a woman and vice versa.
  18. To sum you up: Knowing more than the other party should be a crime, but lying should be legal. Well, in case you ever get elected to some office, I hereby declare that I don't know more than anyone else.
  19. Lemme get this straight: You are asking for evidence that the anatomies of men and women are different--that right? If for some reason I wanted to convince you, I would continue this conversation, but since the people I want to convince already know about the differences I have in mind, you'll forgive me if I stop here.
  20. Yes. I would say that "decision" is the broader concept, and contracts and parenthood are subtypes of "decision." (Perhaps "commitment" would be a better word for it.)
  21. No, but I fear that President Bush is trying to be "compassionate" with the people who would like to see Islam mentioned in the constitution. It is true that Christians see Muslims as their enemies--but it is also true that Christianity teaches them to "love their enemies."
  22. Sorry to be splitting hairs, but I never said "in reality." I said that contradictory statements (read: self-contradicting statements) can exist (i.e. they can be uttered) but they can never be true.
  23. How about "A contradictory statement is never one that correctly describes reality" ?
  24. I fear that the reason for it has to do something with "compassion" ...
  • Create New...