rodney203

Members
  • Content Count

    164
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About rodney203

  • Rank
    $$$
  • Birthday 05/09/1958

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    alexandria louisiana
  • Interests
    camping backpacking motorcycling reading philosophy travel

Previous Fields

  • Full Name
    rodney choate
  • Relationship status
    Single
  • Looking or Not Looking
    looking for female

Recent Profile Visitors

2,093 profile views
  1. I came upon an interesting website that some ladies contribute to for their own amusement and/or enjoyment. It is sexy, light BDSM type fiction stories from the perspective of (presumably) sexy women. The name of the site is called "I Know, I Know, But".
  2. Something seems to have changed at the site. The old link that used to get me to the right page is at my work. I'll try again tomorrow.
  3. Having some trouble finding the right page of the site. I'll update later.
  4. Maybe it would be fun to define what an "orthodox Objectivist" is. We should be able to argue for days about that one. So just what would an "orthodox Objectivist" be like; what would they hold to be true, what positions would one take? Would they really identify with ARI, or some other organization, or none?
  5. A cool website I found a good while back is the "Earth Impact Database".
  6. I said: "Judging by what are already established Objectivist ideas, what would the word "metaethics" mean? I do have an answer. I'm wondering if anyone else sees a problem with that word." =============================================================================== Never mind. I went to wikipedia and started reading. I understand why academia doesn't like Objectivism. It's too simple (and maybe too right). When I saw that word, "metaethics" I thought that someone was going to start calling some ethical things "self evident" or something, and that crossed me wrong. Never mind.
  7. Judging by what are already established Objectivist ideas, what would the word "metaethics" mean? I do have an answer. I'm wondering if anyone else sees a problem with that word.
  8. This is an added comment to something George Smith posted. Just as we believe in separation of marriage and state, so we believe in separation of school and state. However, since the correct solution for education is not at hand, and will not be for the foreseeable future, some people propose "voucher" programs as a method to make matters more "fair". But more fair for whom? Under a voucher system, parents who have a child in a public school are given money to take their children out of that school. Where does this money come from? Is it picked from trees? No; it comes from the pockets of people with NO children, who are, in effect, taxed to pay for two school systems when they have kids in neither. This is more fair? This will somehow encourage society toward the correct solution of all private schools? I don't see how. Likewise, someone please tell me how granting marriage to more special interest groups will bring us closer to the right goal.
  9. George Smith posted: "In my first post I called for the separation of marriage and the state. But until then, what? Suppose the state refused to recognize interracial marriages? Or suppose it recognized marriages between Republicans but not Democrats? Or marriages only among Christians? Would you simply reply, "Well, we don't want the state involved in marriage at all, so none of the above concerns us"? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- First George, I agree with separation of marriage and state. You made a good point up there and it made me think. My concern is this: Granting marriage privileges to one group, then another, shrinks the size of the remaining persecuted group, and seems to do nothing to move toward separation of marriage and state. It seems to me that marriage is mostly access to special treatment and your argument seems to have more compassion for those who want the special treatment than for those who don't want it, but would rather just get their rights. Does decreasing the number of victims improve the morality of the matter, or worsen it?
  10. This comment is intended to apply to many of the topics discussed here. A common fault I see in people's discussion, and probably in their thinking too (many people, not just here), is the reckless mixing of "opinion", "ethics", "politics", and "government" (before proceeding please read the note at the bottom). If I ever do it I apologize as it is not my intention. I think this habit of others is frustrating to some of the posters here, but I have not seen it pointed out explicitly. So I'm just making it explicit: Start being more careful which one of the list you are referring to in your points. Particularly, notice the context that someone begins a topic in, and don't change it. If someone starts with "government", (i.e., what the law should say), don't change it to one of the other contexts. People are doing this all the time. This is very frustrating and not at all helpful. (Note: in my thinking I have found it useful to distinguish between "politics" and "government". "Politics" being the general principles of how one ought to treat others in all our relationships, even our private ones; while "government" is the term I use to describe the legal requirements of social interaction, enforced by law. I believe that Objectivist thinkers have been ignoring this distinction, or even avoiding it, for fear of rocking the boat (socially) and running off followers. Applying Objectivist ideas to personal relationships is a very touchy issue as we have seen in the movement. It was tried, but they failed because the people involved were unwilling to take a completely fresh look at personal (including sexual) relationships. This problem plagues the movement still)
  11. Yea, you get it! (I edited the topic to clarify one of the bullets. Check it out.)
  12. Regional news (today): A man shot and killed his wife and then himself. The couple had been separated a month. They are survived by FIVE children. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Me: Do we not hear of such incidents as the one above all too often? The "Obama" explanation: "We just didn't get our "message" across to men. I now understand that it takes more than just 200 years of legislation. What we need is better explanation and more legislation." The "conservative" explanation: "This shows that men are just bad and need to be controlled with more legislation. Of course we can't use the word "men" in the law, so we just let the family courts do it". The "liberal" explanation: "What we need is more programs, family assistance, and especially more legislation."
  13. <<< He's a master baiter ------------------------------ Did you just make that up?