Welcome to Objectivism Online Forum

Welcome to Objectivism Online, a forum for discussing the philosophy of Ayn Rand. For full access, register via Facebook or email.

Nicky

Regulars
  • Content count

    3440
  • Joined

  • Last visited

3 Followers

About Nicky

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Profile Information

  • Gender

Previous Fields

  • Country Not Specified
  • State (US/Canadian) Not Specified
  • Relationship status No Answer
  • Sexual orientation
  • Copyright Copyrighted

Recent Profile Visitors

13845 profile views
  1. I think your premise is wrong: it hasn't been proven that continuing to burn fossil fuels will cause catastrophic climate change. The only proven fact is that it will cause mild warming, that is in no way catastrophic, and will be harmful to some but beneficial to others (the net effect depends on how people who are affected adapt to the changes). The people predicting catastrophes can't even agree on a single narrative on how and why these catastrophes will occur, let alone prove it.
  2. You might want to look into what introspect means. Until you do, just keep it simple: the appropriate verb to use there is think. Better to keep it basic and right than be pretentious and wrong. And no, the issue isn't that people don't think about what cops are supposed to do. The issue is that people have empathy for cops: they don't just think about what the cop was supposed to do in theory, they also think about how difficult it is to be a cop. The reason why this jury didn't find the cop guilty is because they had a long time to think about every aspect of not just the case, but of the dangers and stress a cop is subjected to on a daily bases, and concluded that they themselves might not have handled the job any better either. Couple that with the justified contempt the average American feels for the militant left behind all the protests and anti-cop, anti-white propaganda, and it's easy to see why a thoughtful jury will never deliver a guilty verdict in a case like this.
  3. That would be less laughable if it was just this one jury you disagreed with. But this decision isn't an outlier, it's typical. Case after case, juries refuse to hold cops to the silly "standard" you want to hold them to. And yet, you (along with a small minority of leftist and anarchist leaning loud mouths) seem convinced that you understand American law, and American juries keep delivering the "wrong" verdict one after another because they just can't match your intellect.
  4. What happened to the feature where I was able to put mods on ignore? Who decided to get rid of that one?
  5. Obviously, the cop wasn't supposed to shoot him. At least not without seeing a gun first. He's clearly bad at being a cop. He should've read the situation and realized that the guy isn't a killer, he's just an idiot. That's why he was fired. But being bad at your job isn't what it takes to be convicted of a serious crime. The notion that a cop should be perfect at his job, or he's going to prison for 10+ years is ridiculous, and incompatible with American legal principles. Open carry means that you can point your gun at people?
  6. The life and death scenario was obviously caused by the presence of the gun, not the traffic stop. If you don't even understand that, there's really no explaining anything to you. Being a safe gun owner requires a certain degree of competence. If you aren't competent, you are risking your life and that of people around you. This man clearly failed to be a competent gun owner. A competent gun owner would not have done what he did.
  7. That's the big argument this guy thinks could convince a jury to send a cop to prison? What a joke. What kind of an idiot doesn't realize that once you mention that you have a thing that can kill everybody...that's the new topic of conversation. We're no longer talking about the license...now we're talking about the deadly weapon. If you decide to be a gun owner, it's your responsibility to handle it, and yourself, properly. If you're not prepared to handle a routine encounter with a cop calmly, without creating the impression that you're about to pull your gun on him, don't be a gun owner. How 'bout running through this exact scenario ahead of time, in your head? Figure out that once you mention your gun, there's no further reaching into anywhere, until the cop has time to think the situation through and tell you what to do next?
  8. Okay, then the answer to your question is easy: it's because American government officials are bound by the First Amendment not to favor or dis-favor any religion over another. Even if they privately have a negative view of Islam, it would be irresponsible of them to share that view in public, because it would create the appearance of religious discrimination every time one of their decisions goes against a Muslim person, group or country/countries. Case and point: the anti-Muslim views expressed by Donald Trump during the election are being used (so far, successfully, I might add) in Court to challenge some of his administration's actions, especially the temporary ban on travel from several Muslim nations. This is an act that a President who hadn't expressed a bias against Islam (Obama, for instance) would've probably been able to enact without any serious challenge...precisely because it would've been impossible to prove in Court that Obama is anti-Muslim. Even if, maybe, in private, he has some negative views about parts of Islam. Religious debates belong in academia and the media, not in politics. Every time a politician opens his mouth on religion, he is threading on thin ice. Not just in the US...everywhere.
  9. Which leftist leaders are pro-Islam? I know leftist politicians tend to refuse to condemn Islam or blame it for terrorism, but does that make them "pro" Islam? Are they choosing/promoting Islam ahead of other belief systems?
  10. Would you mind explaining what you mean by "globalism", in more concrete terms? As far as I know, the main two causes politicians who are dubbed "globalists" (Clinton, Obama, Tony Blair, Angela Merkel, etc.) have promoted on the international stage are free trade agreements and fewer restrictions on immigration. The far left (Bernie Sanders and the like) is opposed to "globalism" precisely because of that. There are some global warming related agreements as well, but they tend to be non-binding (which makes them almost irrelevant). Anything else I left out, that would be considered "globalism"?
  11. I already addressed this point. If you're going to just keep repeating yourself, you're welcome to it. Just don't expect a response. You're clinging to a preconception in the face of the obvious. "lebensraum" means livings space (literally, living room...it's only a few letters off). Makes absolutely no distinction between living on land and living in the middle of the sea. Wherever you're living, that's where the collectivists want to expand their control to, to make you live the way they want you to. You could be on Pluto, and nothing would change. You'd still need to be able to defend your way of life.
  12. If you study the history of Luxembourg, you'll find that it was founded by a very powerful family (the House of Luxembourg), in close alliance with the Catholic Church (also extremely powerful at the time) and various other centers of European power. Members of the House of Luxembourg served as Holy Roman Emperors, a position second only to the Pope, in Western Europe, at the time. After the rulers of Luxembourg lost their influence (due to shifting alliances, the Reformation, etc.), Luxembourg was left at the mercy of surrounding states, and exchanged hands many times over the course of the centuries (depending on who had the most power in the region, at any given time). Just in the past 100 years, Luxembourg was taken over twice (by Germany, in both World Wars), and they would still be under Nazi control if the militaries of Russia, the United States, Britain, Canada, etc. hadn't liberated it. After WW2 they became members of NATO (the largest military alliance in the world), the Benelux alliance, and, eventually, the EU. So they clearly don't stand on their own, without a powerful military. They are protected by the greatest military force in the history of mankind, and, as an EU country, they are subject to EU laws. Is that the kind of state you wish to form? One that's sitting at the center of European power, and mooching off the US military for its' protection? Doesn't seem very Objectivist. There's nothing wrong with a country founded by Objectivists entering into an alliance with the United States (or Europe, or the UK, or even China), but surely, Objectivists wouldn't want that alliance to be one sided. We would want to contribute our fair share, and have a strong military that's ready to fight if any of the members of the alliance are attacked (the way the US was attacked on 9/11, for instance), no? Isn't the entire reason for trying to form your own country that productive people are subject to legal theft, in existing countries? How is it implausible that, if you can't defend what you have, someone will want to take it from you?
  13. Well they go hand in hand. You can't have freedom without military might. Are you planning on building this "Atlantis" of yours without a military? Because that's a fatal flaw right there.
  14. By the way, most of the people who show their patriotism don't do so because they think their country (whichever country it is) is perfect. They know it's not. But they still see the good in it, and that's what they celebrate by singing the anthem or raising the flag. Do you see the good in your country? Do you think the US military for instance is a force for good in the world? Or that law enforcement, the court system, etc., does a lot of good? Or do you think it's all bad?