• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About shadesofgrey

  • Birthday 07/13/1978

Previous Fields

  • Full Name
    Not important to you.
  • Description
    I'm not an objectivist. I'm interested in human nature and how/why people identify with various groups be they religious, atheist, objectivist, marxist, whatever. I like discussing some of the above topics to learn more about them.
  • Looking or Not Looking
    not looking

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Blue Bell, PA
  • Interests
    guns, astronomy, physics, nature, chess, piano, running/fitness/weights, anatomy/physiology, cars, music, reading
  1. This is so bizarre it's almost breathtaking. Ragnar is laughing, Rearden refuses to sell you anything at any price, and a quarry worker just raped your daughter. Galt is rewriting his radio speech, putting reasonableness and intrinsic value ahead of purpose and self-esteem. I'm sure the kids in the ghetto will be pleased to hear that they're getting free vouchers, but disappointed that their drunk, drug-addicted, ignorant, abusive mixed-race socialist parents have an Objectivist right to religion and are sending them to a maddras in Indonesia. As long as they refrain from falsely shouting "Fir
  2. Xray, Rand was wrong. There. Feel better? Michael Yeah I think that's pretty much a load of crap, too. Rand was human and had preferences like anyone else (a fact that I think tends to be forgotten). If she wanted to see women as in a complimentary role to men or dependent upon them or their relationship for meaning, then so be it; she's free to have that opinion. But that's ALL it is, an opinion. Would I say it's applicable to every woman out there? Absolutely not. To assume so would be the height of arrogance.
  3. shadesofgrey

    Wall E

    I don't think human inventiveness is a limited resource and even if I did I don't understand what this has to do with your example. I'm not a farmer, I'm a web developer. If I was a farmer I would definitely be an organic farmer etc. I would add that human inventiveness may not be a limited resource in theory, but the problem remains in getting the invention needed to the right place in time. If it takes 100 years for us to figure out a way to harness fusion or solar energy or some other "inexhaustable" resource, but we run out of our current holdings in 80, then that inventiveness didn't do
  4. So who does decide what is rational, you? "Rational," in this context, means logically related to the requirements of man's existence and prosperity. You've never heard of a school treating all cultures as equal? You've never heard of a school running down the great industrialists by calling them "robber barons"? Must I go on? Darrell Welllll......I think there are certainly individual teachers that espouse ideas that your average objectivist would oppose; you hear about it every so often when a group of parents get up in arms about some idea their kids brought home. However, I think the i
  5. shadesofgrey

    Wall E

    I agree with the first part. "First-world" countries have markedly lower birthrates than developing countries probably for the same reasons that the poor and uneducated tend to have more children. Additionally, now, with the jobless rate being what it is, birthrates in the US have dropped measurably as people are more into "planning" family growth. Overpopulation doesn't really have to do with physical space though. Sure, if you get too many people together in an area that's too small, you have to deal with santation issues, disease, strife, environmental degredation, etc. Usually the term is
  6. I never ACTUALLY thought I'd see this on an objectivist forum. Compromise? The best of both worlds? A little reason inserted into the equation rather than an automatic, emotional, reactionary negating of the opposite side's view? That perhaps the answer to the environment vs. industrialization question is somewhere in the MIDDLE (a shade of grey if you will ;-) is refreshing to see on here. Right on. High fives all around.
  7. I'm opposed to a federally-funded healthcare program chiefly because I work in healthcare and I know firsthand that the standard of care at private hospitals exceeds that of the VA (for instance) in general. If for no other reason than the amount of beauracracy is high within government institutions. That doesn't really have anything to do with my mammogram point though. That wasn't related to federal funding; it's private insurance that sets the cost of mammograms.
  8. Thank you. I'm getting really tired of this reactionary crap from objectivists. They're supposed to know better. Unfortunately even some of the ones I know personally are prone to simply gainsaying some point because at first glance it's not in line with their beliefs. The whole concept of a rational series of statements intended to establish a proposition goes right out the window when they hear some trigger word like "Obama", "healthcare", or "socialism." Being a student of general human nature, I find it fascinating to see how people who profess to come to conclusions based only on rational
  9. The middle ground. I've been lucky not to find any grey hairs as of yet The non-E issue is what I was getting at. If we don't know what we don't know, I can't think of a good way to describe what we don't know.
  10. shadesofgrey

    Wall E

    Hm....interesting, I've never heard that about vitamin C before. The literature is pretty clear on megadoses of vitamin C being ineffective in preventing onset or duration of the common cold, but I haven't seen any randomized controlled trials regarding Hep C. I'll have to look into that. C. Diff. a horse of a different color, you're right. Unfortunately it usually arises from antibiotic use to cure a different infection, like pneumonia or pancreatitis. Usually Vancomycin is used to treat it, but that's a pretty harsh antibiotic and the prevailing census is that it won't work forever. There's
  11. Interesting, I've never heard of that. Regular cats work with heat instead of electricity, which is why cold engines pollute more than hot ones. The precious metals in them do the catalyzing of exhaust gasses into what (in theory) should only be CO2 and H2O. It's not a perfect process, so you get CO, SO4, hydrocarbons and other stuff. On another note, Adam is right about spillover highway pollution. The amount of CO ingestion running next to a busy highway has been estimated to be equivalent to a half-pack of cigarettes over an hour. That doesn't take into account any other pollutatant or par
  12. I wouldn't think so. Even if you take it to the extreme in terms of sound, to the point where something is physically uncomfotable to hear, people could still choose to listen to it because they wanted to for some reason. There's plenty of photographs or art that's deeply disturbing, but people choose to look at it for one reason or another. They desire exposure to things that elicit a viscerally negative reaction. So in that sense, what may cause a physically negative reaction because of its ugliness may still be appealing for emotional reasons.
  13. If art is representative of the artists "re-envisioning" of the world around him, paint splotches should be able to be art in that they can representatively convey meaning. If it's rich in symbolism, cannot those same paint splotches be used as symbols? Red representing anger or passion perhaps? I think it would be short-sighted to say that we've never looked at an abstract painting and gotten a "mood" out of it. A bunch of pointy black and red lines scrawled on a canvas conveys an entirely different mood than a group of pastel circles. Regardless of what YOU think of it, the artist may have
  14. I was wondering when someone was going to mention Wilkinson on here; he's like your quintissential objectivist sculptor. My dad introduced me to his work years ago and I've always liked the modern simplicity of the pieces. His website has a great cross-section of all of his works.
  15. Well, the idea that rights are inherent in what it means to be human COMES from humans. Jefferson saying "We hold these truths to be self-evident..." pertains only to anyone who AGREES with the declaration. Unfortunately, you will have no trouble finding people today or at any point in the past who think that all men are most certainly NOT created equal. The English crown certainly didn't agree and their standard of living was as good as the Americans'. Ultimately it's an opinion, not a fact. It's an opinion that benefits most people and generally leads to a better quality of life all around,