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.

thenelli01

Regulars
  • Content count

    695
  • Joined

  • Last visited

6 Followers

About thenelli01

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender Male

Previous Fields

  • Country Not Specified
  • State (US/Canadian) Connecticut
  • Relationship status No Answer
  • Sexual orientation No Answer
  • Copyright Copyrighted
  • Biography/Intro 21 years old. I like to learn and think, work out (lift weights, run, etc), read, play sports.
  • Experience with Objectivism [7-3-13] I gained interest in philosophy during my first year at college. This motivated me to go to the library and I began reading the works of Plato, Socrates, Marx, Kant, Nietzsche, and C.S. Lewis to name a few and found myself at odds with all of them. Incidentally, I picked up The Virtue of Selfishness without knowing anything of Ayn Rand. This was back in February 2012. Since then I have read ITOE and Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal in addition to VOS. There is still much to learn, which is the primary reason I am on this forum. My other interests are economics, psychology, and physics.

Recent Profile Visitors

6720 profile views
  1. I can't help to wonder what your motivation is for seeking this information. Are you gay? Is your self-worth dependent on whether or not Ayn Rand accepted a person's homosexuality enough, to the extent of maintaining a friendship? I only ask, not because I care whether or not that you are gay, I don't. I care about you using Ayn Rand as the standard in which you judge your own self-worth. If this is not the case, and you are just curious about the topic, please ignore. IF it is the case, I suggest you rethink your reasoning.
  2. Hello, Anyone that watched care to offer any analysis of the first debate?
  3. Does the CDC make the distinction between just killings and unjust killings or take into consideration the context of the cop killings?
  4. But, why is the fact that reason kicks in relevant if it isn't a baby still isn't far enough in the development stage where "rights" arise? I.e. Potential is not the actual. Edit: And I just read your edit -- Lol at the goats :-|.. I think you sort of answered my question.
  5. A fetus is a human biologically -- i.e. it is the offspring of two humans -- shares DNA and everything. I don't know why you keep saying a fetus is not a human (unless you mean "Man"). A baby doesn't have the capacity to be rational in the context that gives rise to rights. It has the potential to be able to reason as adult humans do, but until then they are around the level of some higher animals. I don't see the difference between having rational capacity on a VERY low level, but having the potential to develop to the rational capacity of an adult human (baby) vs. having the potential to develop to the rational capacity of an adult human (fetus). What does it matter if a baby has some degree of rational capacity if it isn't actually the degree of adult humans if it isn't for potential? Unless you are arguing that babies do have the same rational capacity as adult humans or at the least the level in which notions of "rights" arise, it seems both are on a progressive timeline towards rational capacity with babies only being a bit further.
  6. Or, I was thinking you were referring to the question in the OP.
  7. Well, that is the part you should answer, because if potential matters in the case of babies (-- i.e. the capacity has the potential to develop into human adult reasoning capabilities--- the capabilities that matter in the context and discussion of rights), then it seems to be a contradiction to say a fetus doesn't have rights because it is a potential, not an actual. But, if the potential isn't what matters in the case of babies, then it seems some of the higher animals, which have reasoning capabilities equal to or greater than babies, should be treated as the same status as babies.
  8. Huh, that is not the reverse of my question.
  9. Can you really attribute this idea to Ayn Rand? But size of the vessel of a baby is the same size, or smaller, as some of the higher animals. The vessel size of a baby and an adult isn't the same size. To make the analogy more accurate, the size of the baby's vessel is the same (or smaller) as some higher animals with raw clay on the side. As they get older and their brain develops, their rational capacity increases (i.e. the raw clay is added to increase the size of the vessel). So, why aren't some of the higher animals treated as the same status as babies, morally and politically?
  10. Can you explain this a little bit more, seems contradictory. Doesn't the fetus have the potential to become a rational human being, just as a baby does? The only difference is that an infant is further along the progressive timeline. Can you explain the distinction more thoroughly, please? I don't think the argument for choice in abortion lies in a rights issue -- but, I do think Objectivists tend to go this route. I am just curious how to answer this.
  11. Wondering if anyone is familiar with this argument and can answer this point: if man's rational nature is the relevant characteristic when determining rights or that distinguishes man from other animals -- why do infants have rights if they are at or below the level of some of the higher animals? If it is the potential for rationality, then isn't this an argument against abortion?
  12. So did the bone scan confirm that you are permanently injured?
  13. How has this injury affected your life? Can you still run? (Just curious)
  14. Something similar just happened to me. I was overpaid thousands of dollars -- I reported it to my employer, handed in my checks and they gave me a new one in 2 weeks. If the error is caught in the future, you are going to have to repay the money anyways. Would you want to live with that over their shoulders, knowing that: A) You can be caught and fired for not following through with an obvious overpayment of money you don't deserve. B- You will probably have to pay it back in the future if error is caught. C) You are deliberately living inconsistently with moral principles you hold to be true.
  15. Unfortunately, I am not going to be able to make it today. Have fun.