Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Living for the state

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 177
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

My goal, for the moment, is clarifying any misconceptions you, or anyone reading this, may have regarding my outlook on globalization. I have no other goal.   An individual is the ultimate minority

Don't worry - I only got it after a lot of reading and lectures too, and actually some very thoughtful posts here too.  Some of that is really deep and outside of my interest points (ethics and politi

Your tribalistic thinking is for savages.

Nicky, does "a motor run by atmospheric electricity" sound mystic to you?

No. Atmospheric electricity is a type of electricity. Electricity can power a motor. That's very basic Physics. 

 

What I find stupid is what you're getting at: that atmospheric electricity is a viable, efficient source of power, and there's some kind of conspiracy to stop you from harnessing it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What I find stupid is what you're getting at: that atmospheric electricity is a viable, efficient source of power, and there's some kind of conspiracy to stop you from harnessing it.

Have you realized that there will be no way to charge for that energy, since ionosphere is "free for all" to tap into? And just so you know, the Wyatt archetype does not reflect our reality. People in the oil business want to stay in the oil business; they do not want any alternatives to oil. The same can be said about people in electricity business. This is what ruined Tesla's towers idea, when J.P.Morgan realized that there was no way to make people pay for it.

Edited by Ilya Startsev
Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you realized that there will be no way to charge for that energy, since ionosphere is "free for all" to tap into? And just so you know, the Wyatt archetype does not reflect our reality. People in the oil business want to stay in the oil business; they do not want any alternatives to oil. The same can be said about people in electricity business. This is what ruined Tesla's towers idea, when J.P.Morgan realized that there was no way to make people pay for it.

If you know for a fact that you can "tap into the ionosphere for free, why don't you?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am like Rand. We are philosophers and writers, not engineers or scientists.

Why don't you take up engineering on the side? You said you don't have any money. Sounds like you could use some free energy.

 

And since you already know how to get it...

Edited by Nicky
Link to post
Share on other sites

Why don't you take up engineering on the side? You said you don't have any money. Sounds like you could use some free energy.

 

And since you already know how to get it...

I don't know how to get it, but why deny that there may be some others who do? I am not interested in it practically, setting up experiments, drawing up blueprints. I simply support all these ideas on an ideological basis.

 

And don't worry about me being financially poor right now. I am going to become a professor, not some john doe in ghetto.

Edited by Ilya Startsev
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know how to get it,

That's fascinating. Free means that it comes at no cost. You literally have to expand no effort or energy to get it.

I've never met a man who's incapable of getting something for free before. You're a walking oneliner. You should be in a bad jokebook.

but why deny that there may be some others who do?

Because you were claiming that there is a way to efficiently extract electricity from the atmosphere (actually, you were claiming that it's free), and when I asked you to show me, you said you don't know it.

You admitted that your original claim was a lie. Are you asking why I'm denying that your lie is true?

I am not interested in it practically, setting up experiments, drawing up blueprints.

Sounds like this supposedly free electricity has a price you're either incapable or unwilling to pay. Edited by Nicky
Link to post
Share on other sites
Sounds like this supposedly free electricity has a price you're either incapable or unwilling to pay.

FYI--free as in "exempt from external authority, interference, restriction." Yes, people who created these engines do not pay anything because there is no way to pay for electricity from ionosphere. So they drive around without paying for gas. I don't have an engine like that available to me. Should I contact those people - probably. Will I? That's my problem now, isn't it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

FYI--free as in "exempt from external authority, interference, restriction." Yes, people who created these engines do not pay anything because there is no way to pay for electricity from ionosphere. So they drive around without paying for gas. I don't have an engine like that available to me. Should I contact those people - probably. Will I? That's my problem now, isn't it?

No, your problem is that you're talking out of your ass. You don't know anyone who's driving around without paying for gas, you're just lying about it.
Link to post
Share on other sites

No, your problem is that you're talking out of your ass. You don't know anyone who's driving around without paying for gas, you're just lying about it.

Are you implying an intent to lie on my part? You are wrong. I simply choose to believe it. There are people who are driving electric cars and not paying for gas. Do you doubt that they exist?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the problem here can be summed up this way: You, Ilya, stated that you knew something for a fact. Then you said you neither know how it works nor have you witnessed a credible, functional example of it. You believe such things can exist, but you have no hard evidence. However, believing isn't same thing here as "knowing for a fact".

Link to post
Share on other sites

<snip> There are people who are driving electric cars and not paying for gas. Do you doubt that they exist?

They are paying for the electricity. Being in the automotive field, I can attest that these cars exist. I've even been offered the opportunity to test drive one, and have heard live testimony from a transmission specialist who owns one.

 

This is a poor equivocation to go from a car hypothesized to run on atmospheric electricity that can be extracted for the price of a piece of machinery designed to exploit that fact, to one that is plugged into the conventionally used electric grid of today - equipped with a meter to measure usage, and a billing system to pay for the infrastructure that makes it possible.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, this video influenced the first expression I uttered on the topic. It's in Russian. It looks credible to me. However, you may be right that it is fake. Now, it's a question of belief either way.

It's fake, and saying that it's real is a lie.

It's not a question of belief. If it was a question of belief, the words truth and lie would have no meaning. Convincing lies would just become truths.

It's a question of evidence. Is there any evidence that it's real? If there isn't (and there isn't), then saying that it's real is a lie.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there an English translation of this that you are aware of?

No, because if I were aware of a translation, I would have posted it in the beginning of our discussion.

 

Nicky:

It's a question of evidence. Is there any evidence that it's real? If there isn't (and there isn't), then saying that it's real is a lie.

Your illusory view of reality is no greater than mine.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a lie too.

Please note that I'm not saying that you're wrong. That would be way too kind. I'm saying that you're not trying to be right. You're purposefully lying.

I know that I should now end the discussion with you than look stupid and continue tolerating your attacks on my integrity. I know that you hate theosophy as well, but here is a quote from them: "There is no religion higher than truth." Do you see how it relates to our discussion here? Do not calcify your monopoly on truth. Neither science nor religion has a complete hold on it. If Objectivism is neither science nor religion, then it should be a more flexible world-view. Otherwise, it's dangerous because it would lead to stagnation and, ultimately, self-destruction.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know that I should now end the discussion with you than look stupid and continue tolerating your attacks on my integrity.

Oh, give us a break. Your two threads, which started out as plausible arguments between seemingly rational actors have dissolved into a joke with your stupid crap about global consciousness and thinking plants. You've clearly crossed the line into troll-dom, even if you're too lost in your mysticism to see yourself objectively. How pathetic that a human being can come to this state: compared to this, virgin births are downright respectable. Edited by softwareNerd
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...