Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Nicky last won the day on August 10

Nicky had the most liked content!


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

Recent Profile Visitors

13971 profile views
  1. White Supremacist Protest Violence

    I won't waste my time challenging this statement. It should be clear to every Objectivist why it's monstrous in its dogmatic dismissal of rationality and individual moral responsibility.
  2. Immigration as related to loyalty

    “We will reform legal immigration to serve the best interests of America and its workers, the forgotten people. Workers. We’re going to take care of our workers.” - Donald Trump When you stand for Trump, THAT is what you stand for. Once you support that, you have no leg to stand on accusing anyone else of altruism. Donald Trump's stance on immigration is driven by clear, pure, undeniable altruism. He wants immigrants (legal immigrants, who are wanted in the US by American companies) kept out because they "don't serve the best interests of American workers".
  3. White Supremacist Protest Violence

    I am. I'm not on "the Left". You know that, we've both been posting on this board for years. So why are you talking past me, and to "the Left", while quoting one of my posts? If you address me, talk to ME. When have I refused to condemn Mexico and Canada for being scumbags to immigrants?
  4. White Supremacist Protest Violence

    It's not funny, it's sad. It is ironic that someone on an Oist forum would think that "they do it too" is a defense for the government violating individual rights. Still not funny, though...not all irony is funny. Wide open borders are foolish. But leaving innocent economic migrants alone is very different from having "wide open borders". So, if you wish to continue the conversation, I suggest you drop this childish straw man.
  5. White Supremacist Protest Violence

    What about all the innocent immigrants he's deporting? You have nothing to do with that either?
  6. White Supremacist Protest Violence

    On a separate note, it also strikes me as extremely stupid to drive dangerous ideologies underground. That's when they turn from obnoxious loudmouths into violent insurgents. And this bunch might just prove better equipped for mass killing than the Islamists. So I really wouldn't poke the bear. The guy who drove his car into the lefty agitators was just some idiot who flunked basic training. Someone who didn't would go about mass murder a lot more efficiently. Just leave them alone, let them protest and march, expose and shame politicians like Trump who show any sympathy for their cause, and that will be that.
  7. White Supremacist Protest Violence

    A federal judge ruled the "supremacists" had a right to protest. It seems the reason violence occurred is because "counter protesters" gathered in an effort to block the lawful expression of free speech. Notwithstanding the murderous act of one individual who drove his vehicle into the crowd, is there a reasonable basis to blame the supremacists for the violence? ---------------------- Not for the fistfights, no. That was the local authorities' fault, for allowing (and at times encouraging) a counter-protest clearly designed to shut down the right wing march. And it is a frightening thing...not just for white supremacists, for everyone who believes in free speech. These leftist groups have been doing the same thing to everyone they disagree with. The authorities have the responsibility to protect people who choose to exercise their right to protest. That means that, once the supremacists obtained permission to hold this event, the counter-protesters should've been kept away for the day. They could've protested the next day, or some place else. But the supremacists are to "blame" for the murder. The person who committed that attack was influenced by their ideology. They're not legally responsible, of course (not unless new info comes to light, suggesting that he was acting on orders), but they are morally responsible.
  8. Is this rape? Consent? Something else?

    You're missing the point. The issue isn't whether I mind, the issue is how absurd it is to suggest that if I decided to do "mind" after the fact, I should be taken seriously, and my sexual partners should face rape charges.
  9. Is it your position that Taiwan's President, Miss Tsai Ing-wen, would order the unilateral use of nuclear weapons against an invading Chinese military?
  10. A good relationship with China is far more important than anything we could possibly hope to gain by threatening them. And the only way we can maintain what is currently a good relationship is by leaving the balance of power that has been established in Asia alone. This is not Russia. They're not invading their neighbors, they're not going around grabbing back territories they agreed to give up, they're not even interfering in western elections. They're not perfect, but they're trying to get along with us. We already help Taiwan a lot more than they're helping North Korea. China didn't arm North Korea with nukes (Pakistan did). We DO arm Taiwan with sophisticated weaponry. So, if I were in the US government, I'd stay as far away from the subject of Taiwan as I can through all this. Treat it as an entirely separate issue, and be thankful that the Chinese are willing to do that too. We should stick with economic pressure. And even that, lightly. China is powerful and confident, and we're lucky they're trying to be somewhat nice. For what purpose? Who would Taiwan use them on? Invading Chinese troops, on Taiwanese soil? Or Chinese cities? The Taiwanese and Chinese are the same ethnic group. They're not trying to annihilate each other, they're having a political disagreement. Imo, the main thing that move would achieve is that, after the PLA strolls in (in a war that would be both a given and very brief), China would have some US nukes in its arsenal. And the US would have an adversarial China to deal with, for the next few decades.
  11. Is this rape? Consent? Something else?

    Makes no difference, that happened too. I have said no to sex before, only to then do it anyway...without verbal consent. I bet most people have, that's just how sexual arousal works. We have an entire concept, dedicated to the phenomenon: seduction...you know, convincing someone to do something they didn't originally intend to. So you're still saying that I'm a rape victim, and so is everyone else who has ever been seduced. And it's still just as out of touch with how people interact.
  12. Is this rape? Consent? Something else?

    I 've had sex many times, without being asked for verbal consent first. I guess in progressive loonie land, I've clearly been raped. And no, anxiety or PTSD would not cause someone to willingly sit through being raped any more than shyness would. Besides, wouldn't either of those conditions be relevant enough to the story to be mentioned?
  13. Would murder and slavery remain legal, in one half of this "federal Korea"?
  14. Is this rape? Consent? Something else?

    Only thing getting raped in this story is common sense. First off, if the guy's penis cuts through clothes, that's quite the medical wonder he's got there. Second, the behavior being described here (she wanted to say no but didn't) is a symptom of severe mental disability, not "shyness". The very first thing for the state to do, in that case, would be to immediately place her in the custody of a guardian, who would then have to give consent before she even leaves the house, let alone goes on a date. Then, we can talk about whether the guy knew that she was incapable of saying no, or not. But, as long as this story is about an emancipated adult, of course it's not rape. Why would shyness cause someone to get raped, be aware of the fact that she's being raped, and keep that piece of information to herself? I know shy people, and if I were to even so much as slap them a little, they would express their displeasure. In fact, I wouldn't even have to slap them...if I just walked up to them and poured a glass of water on their had, guess what: they would work up the courage to tell me that they didn't care for that. So I'm pretty sure they wouldn't sit silently through a rape.
  15. Me and everyone else, yes. Of course he will never voluntarily disarm.