Jump to content

Don Giovanni

Members
  • Content Count

    3,858
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Don Giovanni

  1. There's going to be no Rand vs ~Rand, on my part at least, i've had enough of those to last me a life time.. and Don's post is so full of face palms, that it makes my skin crawl even considering jumping in. I will say, if you want to start an objectivist debate, start your own god damn thread, don't clutter up DFW's thread with your propaganda.
    typical. the reason you hate debating might be because it forces you to actually back up assertions. we weren't even debating objectivism, just your misunderstanding of gold and economics. i just think its funny that one of your biggest problems with rand is based on something you have completely wrong. its laughable really, all this verbiage about how dumb she is and it turns out you're clueless.i wouldnt even consider myself an objectivist and am not interested in debating the philosophy, but dont think that your bullshit will work on me where you just claim things and then try to insult anyone who embarrasses you like i just did.please, recontinue this thread however you want. ive only come here to deride you a little bit and with that... im off.
  2. One of the stupidest things about Rand, I thought, was how she thought that Gold should be the basis of any economic system, because gold has objective value. Really? A metal that's primary use is for ornamentation has objective value? Really?
    just reading through this thread and thought i should pwn this undue criticism here. apologies if you have already corrected your thinking. first of all, ornamentation IS an objective value. all cultures that have ever existed ornamented things. gold specifically has a certain shine, color, and texture to it that people find pleasing. those ARE objective values. aesthetic pleasure is an objective value to humans. secondly, ALL metals are objectively valuable in general. that should be obvious. they can be formed, are stronger than rock ect. lastly, gold is resistant to oxidative corrosion. thats why its used on electronic connections like instrument cables, headphone plugs, some wires, and other stuff like that.now, gold would work well (and has) as a standard of value because it is limited and labor-intensive to create more of (by mining). as opposed to our current standard of value which is paper money who's supply can be arbitrarily changed by the government on whim. as you can see, our current system holds something much less objectively valuable and physical as the basis for economics. if your thinking is so far off on this matter i can see why you would dismiss rand. her "cute" ideas seem to be out of your league.
  3. First of all, yeah, if you pick an extraordinary year you can find a picture that wouldn't have been nominated that year. But, you're wrong, it would have been nominated over Juno, and would have been 50/50 for nomination over Michael Clayton and/or Atonement.
    well i didn't find "a" picture, i found the best one from this year. and i forgot about juno, **** that movie. but hurt locker isn't better than clayton or atonement, not by a long shot. though i guess there's no guarantee the academy would get that right.
  4. I agree with this. This has a lot to do with why there is no story.
    ok, to put an end to your trolling...you missed the point of no country for old men. its point is essentially one of its lines: "you cant stop whats coming"there was a story. it involved chases and violence and other stuff. it was all brought about by the choices of the hunter guy early in the movie, and the point was that once he set things in motion, try as he may, he couldnt stop what was coming, it was hopeless. this has been explained to you. let me point out that chigur also gives him the option to turn himself in to save his wife and he decides not to. theres another choice. saying there is no story is just being trollish.cormac mcarthy is basically saying people are enslaved to hopeless determinism, you might even say RUTHLESS DETERMINISM. in other words: dont blame me for punching you twice in the neck.
  5. Well at least you are consistent.And the similarities are striking.The globe has warmed up, it's the reasons and actions to 'correct it' we are disagreeing about. There is a God, it's the reasons and action to 'follow Him' that we are in disagreement about.You can be pro-environment and not buy into the belief that SUVs are evil.You can be pro-God and not buy into the belief of organized religion.There are lots of people making lots of money on the global warming issue.There are lots of people making lots of money on the religion issue.Pretending that man is smart enough to understand the complexities of the environment in total is arrogance.Pretending that man is smart enough to discount God in total is arrogance.If we ignore the environment, we will end up with a crappy future.If we ignore God, we will end up with a crappy future.
    i dont agree completely, but you have a good general point here. the main thing is that we cannot force these types of things on other people by law. if you want to voluntarily worship whatever god, fine. if you want to voluntarily recycle, great. but the second any group starts forcing their views on the world, that needs to be shot down.and yes, global warming has seemed to have dropped about a foot and a half (and counting) of snow outside my door, the most in probably 10 years.
  6. you know, i used to be all about the environment and global warming, but at this point, anyone who is still on board with it completely and dismissing these recent developments is showing themselves to be unobjective and unreasonable.environmentalism is a religion, and its followers support it on blind faith, but i find it funny that there are creationists in here trying to tell people to look at the evidence. all of you need to realize that reason must be used in every issue, not just those that help your party's talking points.

  7. Were they hanging out together, just the 2 of them? Where do you live? Did you call them Kima and Lester? Did you meet them at a party or something, or was this an impromptu sidewalk-sighting? I can't think of any other good questions. DID YOU TELL THEM THEY'RE AWESOME?
    this was in baltimore. they both sat down next to us at a bar, to watch the football games i guess, and then they were walking the same way as us on the way home. i know kima lives a few blocks away for a fact, not sure if lester was just visiting or what. but yes, we called them kima and lester. i dont know what the hell their real names are.
  8. If you keep a guy up late and stick underwear on his head, and make him listen to loud music...you are not breaking the GC
    semantics aside, a republican judge just ruled that a combination of technically legal procedures such as what you mention over time constitutes torture. and because of that, someone responsible for 9/11 can no longer be tried for the changes he was charged with.
  9. 1. There is no proof of torture. And to a certain extent I support tactics that get information our of war criminals that will save American lives.2. What law did anyone break? The reason there has been no charges, is because there is nothing to charge anyone with.3. Welcome war criminals into the US Penal system, that makes a lot of sense.
    please. there is plenty of evidence. including an off the record confession by bush, and on the record confessions by underlings in the cia. do some research. also anyone who has experience in the field will tell you that torture only gets unreliable information, if any at all. you are using the same terrible excuse that bush has used to go against everything this country stands for. and he has broken international laws against the use of torture. there are no charges because he was president.i mean seriously you basically just said that you would support torture to get information. no wonder you see no problem with any of this.
  10. hahahahahaha, god, you're such a fucking retard.Baloonguy pegged you to the wall. You are 99% emotive, 1% reason.It's very common for leftists to be heavily slanted towards emotion over reason, but you take it to such an extreme degree that you're incapable of seeing the real world that exists before your very eyes.Hope hope hope! Change change change! Hope change hope change hope hope change!
    you seem to be devoid of any ability to actually say anything. all of your posts consist of you laughing at your own worthless observations about other people on an internet forum, or cries for attention in the form of exaggerated, intentionally controversial statements.i seem to be seeing the same real world that most of the rest of the world sees, and a good amount of people in this country, including this constitutional law professor:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXeIrf7QDiw
  11. Do you even know what the Geneva Convention says?Cause I am willing to bet you don't.
    i know they are concerned with the treatment of prisoners of war, and i know they generally are against torture. even if i didnt know that i could just wikipedia it so this type of attack is useless on the internet. are you going to tell me they arnt prisoners of war now?
  12. I've never met a more closed minded person than the closed mindedness of a young liberal
    conservative christian republicans: the beacon of open mindednessgood thing we have you to be so open minded about things like evolution, environmental concern, equality, and rights of prisoners (human rights, in other words)oh and youre right, that sentence doesnt flow very well. in fact, it doesnt make sense. it implies that 'closed mindedness' is a person.
×
×
  • Create New...