Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


thenelli01 last won the day on March 11

thenelli01 had the most liked content!


About thenelli01

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Previous Fields

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

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

7413 profile views
  1. I answered that in the preceding sentences: "I don't think there is a fundamental distinction (only a distinction in form) between the physical dependence via the womb and physical dependence via mother's care for a newborn. Therefore, I think your red line of obtaining rights when it gains "independence" is arbitrary. A baby's nature a week before birth and after birth didn't change significantly (I.e. in kind) and neither did it's dependence. Yes, it's separated by the mother's physical body, but it still depends on the mother's physical body to care for it's basic survival needs. It's the entity's nature that determines it's worthiness of rights, not the arbitrary distinction between womb and non-womb." Basically I was saying that independence didn't change from womb to non-womb. But now I think I may have been using independence in two different senses: a metaphysical sense (i.e. literally still being connected to the mother) and ethical sense (i.e. it is still dependent on the mother physically but only in an ethical context). I was saying because the dependence was still there, the distinction between womb and non-womb is arbitrary (before I realized the mix up). But the real question is whether metaphysical independence (i.e. being a separate entity) is an essential characteristic of the nature of man and the context of rights (as I think you were alluding to/arguing). And then I see how that connects to the potential vs. actual.
  2. I wonder if the issue here is that I’m mixing up two senses of the word dependence... a metaphysical dependence (fetus dependent on mother for life) ... and ethical dependence (baby is morally dependent on the mother for life).
  3. Do you disagree with above? Just curious - I want to see if my thoughts are flawed in some way. I also think it’s important to remember that there is a difference between someone who makes a mistake/error in judgment and then corrects the issue vs. someone that consistently makes the same error over and over again. And I think your distinction between the period of time you know someone is important too... in the sense that I’d be willing to give someone more of the benefit of the doubt the longer I knew them and if their errors are antithetical to my judgement of their character over a long period of time. This would seem to be important in the amount of chances I’d be willing to give them before I’d consider it a lost hope (and obv depends on the seriousness/context of the situation). You still need to set up boundaries in every relationship you are in so you don’t end up in a situation that is against your interests. I'm interested in your opinion.
  4. Absolutely might have been too certain of a word... I think that might be influenced by my own recent experiences to be fair, but I wanted to say something because I saw someone was viewing the topic and I thought those books might help. You don’t think kissing another guy and then telling him what happened BUT leaving out that part constitutes a lie? It’s fine if she is confused, but it’s not fair to string him along and leave out *material* details that violate his understanding of the relationship and impact the decisions he makes moving forward. That is what Ben, and anyone else in a similar situation, should be worried about regarding a potential relationship with this person. There were other red flags too that other people brought up (again just based on the info given, we obviously don’t know the full context). One big one is the fact that the first post says she knew Ben for only 2 weeks, was kissing him on the second meetup and saying she wished she met him earlier. It’s a red flag that someone is willing to go behind their partner’s back, cheat on them, and then lie about it, especially for a person they only knew for two weeks. 2 weeks is not a long period of time to know someone. Someone that does that to a person they have a commitment to can easily do it to you just as quickly when someone new and more interesting pops up... and you have reason to think they just might. [Granted, maybe there were other things going on in the girl/other guy’s relationship that we don’t know about, but I’m just going by the facts given] The issue isn’t that pursuing a relationship with this person will necessarily result in a bad outcome stemming from these issues. It may or may not. But I think the risk is higher that the same result will happen to you and you need to protect yourself. From Ben’s standpoint, she didn’t do anything necessarily morally contemptible to him that I can see (at least at first). But I think the subsequent posts by other people in this thread were right - set boundaries. State what you are willing to accept and let the other persons actions dictate the course of the relationship. Of course, the boundaries need to be objective, fair and clear (they shouldn’t be unrealistic or unfair to the person in a sort of power move). If you’re really interested in the person and they prove themselves through their actions, might be worth a shot (obv depends on context and the person involved). But I’d be weary about continuing to pursue a relationship with this person. Trust is an essential part of any healthy relationship and it’s a tricky thing trying to rebuild it after it’s broken. Set boundaries and expectations in clear and concise terms .. and see if their actions correspond with their words. His main point was that change starts here and now (not some time in the future) and the responsibility is on the person with the character/behavioral issues to make the corrections, not you. Doesn’t mean you can’t help when someone asks for it, but they need to be the self starter of their own change. If they truly changed, it will show through consistent changed behavior. You can’t know their true thoughts/feelings, you can only judge a person by their behavior. He is religious, but he has a very rational approach towards psychology in my opinion. That’s a good question - I don’t remember if he distinguished between the two, but I don’t think he did, at least explicitly. But if I remember correctly, he did provide a bunch of anecdotal stories from his own practice in “Character Disturbance” that accounted for varying types of relationships. sorry for any typos, I’m on my phone.
  5. I should have read that other topic in the other section because I would have gotten some other insights before I bothered writing this. Let me review the other topic (which I skimmed and see issues pointed out by other people) and think about it some more. If I have anything to add I will.
  6. Sorry to revive an old topic, but since people reread these topics as such, I wanted to provide my point of view. Kevin was absolutely right about the situation given the facts and it wasn't a matter of "hindsight is 20/20" - I suggest reading these two books for anyone interested: "Character Disturbance" and "Wolf in Sheep Clothing" both by George Simon. It gives you a clue on how to judge and deal with people in an rational way from a psychology viewpoint (as judging their actions, which is a good indication of their character and predictor of future actions, instead of trying to psychologize).
  7. I don't think it's fair to classify my comments as "like a red herring." It's either fallacious or not, but a quick review of the sequence of the conversation would prove it isn't. Can't say the same for you though, as you have been using ad hominem attacks throughout this topic, which is partially why I haven't been so eager to respond. Hopefully it can be respectful and honest moving forward. Now regarding below and above: I'm positing below (and hopefully I am not redundant because admittedly I have not read through the other topic yet) A developed fetus has rights because of it's nature as a human being and its potential to develop into an independent, rational adult (similar to newborns). There is a point when the "thing" inside is clearly no longer just human cells, but has developed fully enough to surpass the realm of potential and now actually has the characteristics where it deserves classification as a human being. As such, it should be considered as what it is: a human being physically dependent on the mother for life. How to determine whether or not an entity is a human being is up for discussion but there have been a few suggestions in this thread that I think are worthy of debate. So when you say, "A fetus is physically dependent upon the mother's exercise of her rights. Therefore it has no right to its own life until it acts toward the removal of that dependency." I don't think there is a fundamental distinction (only a distinction in form) between the physical dependence via the womb and physical dependence via mother's care for a newborn. Therefore, I think your red line of obtaining rights when it gains "independence" is arbitrary. A baby's nature a week before birth and after birth didn't change significantly (I.e. in kind) and neither did it's dependence. Yes, it's separated by the mother's physical body, but it still depends on the mother's physical body to care for it's basic survival needs. It's the entity's nature that determines it's worthiness of rights, not the arbitrary distinction between womb and non-womb. (I'm open to arguments - but please just arguments - FYI I'm sure my arguments aren't new per se - this topic has been debated on this forum for ages in multiple threads - Once I have more time and will to read through them, I will do so.)
  8. I might have to refamiliarize myself with these fallacies, but I’m not sure how this is ad hominem? That question wasn’t making an argument, rather just clarifying his position. That was my original question to him in the previous post “Unless you think it’s morally permissible for a mother to have a child in an alley and abandon it there to die?” He replied and then in my next response I was just clarifying his position, and then I qualified why I think leaving it to die is the necessary conclusion of abandoning a child at birth. I’m interested on why you think that is ad hominem?
  9. So you are in favor of the right of mothers to have a baby in an alley and leave it to death? I say death, because that is what will happen most likely, without any assistance from third parties. What if the mother has a baby in the desert or in a rural mountain town in Colorado, where third parties aren't around? Can we leave a baby in the snow to fend for itself because it is a 'physically independent entity' that has a self responsibility to gain 'the values it requires to sustain its own life.' The baby is physically dependent on the mother because of its undeveloped nature, and the mother has a responsibility to the child (until adulthood or transfer of that duty) because she is the one who brought the child into the world. Despite what you say, babies would not be able to survive very long in this world without someone taking care of it (proof is meet any newborn and read the stories of babies that ARE left to fend for themselves - spoiler: the ending is usually tragic). The mother brought the baby into the world and, therefore, she has the responsibility to make sure its rights are protected. She cannot expect anyone else to take care of it.
  10. You could have asked what my standard is (which is fair and legitimate) instead of prefacing the question with the claim that I don't have a standard. You don't know me.
  11.  thenelli01

    Ocon 2019

    Anyone planning on going? I was considering going - would be my first time. I only have a few more years at the discounted price so if I’m gonna go, it would be a good time to. Did anyone go to one previously, and what was your opinion? Advantages/disadvantages? Worth it? it’d cost me about $1,500 with flights/hotels and a week of my vacation time, so I’m trying to see if it might be better just to live-stream (or wait until they hit YouTube) at a fraction of the cost and spend my vacation time doing something else. There are good topics listed that I am interested in. I could also just wait until next year and hope it is closer to New York City. any thoughts?
  12. FYI I just realized this topic is going on in the politics subsection with the same example about the lifeboat. I remember I quickly read that example of the lifeboat a while ago and then recently thought how it could apply to abortion without remembering that that was what the topic was about. Sorry, I haven’t been on this forum as much lately and when I do I just skim. Apologies on the duplicate. I’m gonna go through the old topic to make sure I’m not just repeating what was said and see if I can offer something new...
  13. It would still be incumbent on the mother to transfer the duty to someone else, which entails physical dependence on the mother. Unless you think it’s morally permissible for a mother to have a child in an alley and abandon it there to die?
  14. You don’t know me well enough and haven’t spoken to me long enough to know whether or not I have a standard of rights.
  15. I put “etc” to indicate that there needs to be some objective standard of being considered an actualized human being, but not necessarily the one (or only the few) I’ve listed. I think if a fetus could survive outside of the womb, that would indicate its developed nature and capacity for independence, which would seem to be a good standard to support that it should be considered human. (Open to arguments here) With respect to the 6 month mark for feelings and consciousness - I specifically wrote “6 month(ish)” or whatever timeline is determined. My point isn’t to nail down an exact pin point on the time, but a philosophical standard saying “at (any) point x, when the fetus has these qualities a, b, c then it should be considered an actualized human being and deserving of rights.” A born child is physically dependent on a mother’s exercise of her rights also. If the mother doesn’t use her money to buy her child food and feed it, the child will die. The issue isn’t dependence on the mother, the issue is when does the fetus get rights deserving of being protected by the mother.
  • Create New...