thenelli01

Why add the second part? Why say "and without giving something of equal value in exchange?" What is "equal value" anyways; who decides if a fork is equal to two dollars or one, and if they are given "equal value" it still ignores the fact that their property is taken without their consent.

No. But if he laughs at, for example, someone being raped and murdered in the street and classifies it as "funny," that is certainly irrational.

No, you found it funny. That would be the general sense of the word funny as I described above. But is it objectively funny -- can you justify rationally laughing at it. In other words, should you be laughing at it and classify it as funny? Just like poison is a value (in the general sense of the word value) to anyone attempting to obtain it. But should you attempt to obtain it?

Relax silly, I'm not an objectivist fanboy, so I'd appreciate if you would not attempt to belittle me and put me in that camp. You don't even know me. But, my point is that there are many things that are objectively not funny - particularly things that contradict rational values that sustain life. So no, someone getting knocked out in a stupid game or being raped are objectively not funny.

Cool, I'm excited.

Miss Rand used two definitions of value: A) General: That which one acts to gain or keep. B- Specific: That which one acts to gain and keep, which furthers one’s life. The second is specific to the Objectivist Philosophy. So, no, I wouldn't compare those two definitions. I would say that Value using definition A (not the definition of value that you provided) and funny "that which makes you laugh" are similar. Poison is of value using the first definition. Well, I'd have two definitions. A) General: That which makes one laugh. B- Specific: That which makes one laugh, in accordance with rational values. So, no, someone getting hit in the "knockout game" would not be funny to someone who values human life and a civil society.

Doesn't that throw humor in the realm of subjectivism? If something is funny, then it shouldn't be about whether or not someone laughs. E.g. a group of friends laughing at the other friend who was playing the "knockout" game. It seems to me that funny is similar to the concept of value as it has two definitions -- one in the broad sense (I.e. Anything that someone laughs at), and then the sense specific to the objectivist philosophy. I don't think you could say that the person knocking out a random person on the street is really "funny" just because someone laughs at it. Similarly, poison isn't really a value just because someone acts to obtain it in order to drink it.

I don't see how making people laugh constitutes being funny.

My response would be to ask him to establish that they are victims. And if they are victims: victims of what and by whom? The fact that someone was not born into "good families or with better brains" is not the fault of someone that was born into good families or with better brains. It just is -- so how does he establish that these people have a right to their money? Don't get me wrong -- there are victims. Poor people are victim to the minimum wage laws and the welfare programs, for example. But, I don't think that is what he is getting at. I think he is just talking about some people being born superior to others, and, therefore, it is the responsibility of the people with superior qualities or better situations to take care of them. His argument is essentially: You are born smart, I am born not as smart, therefore, I am entitled to your money to make right this injustice. But justice doesn't apply to things that just are -- i.e. in nature -- it applies to actions.

good w me as of now.

I am interested -- I'm in CT.

I think it is good, in essence. I think a 5 year old might not know these terms (to name a few): blacksmith, moccasins, grain, or even cattle. I think you can explain it using things he deals with on a daily basis, which also will help concretize what you are trying to explain. For example, instead of moccasins, use a pen, or, instead of grain, use a paperclip. It will help him visualize it.

Huh? I could kill myself quicker by shooting myself with a gun, rather than doing nothing.

What....

Need to distinguish between murder and killing. There is nothing wrong with killing qua killing (ending life or to cause death). Killing in self-defense, for example, is proper. Killing animals for food is fine too. Certain types of killings are immoral -- murder being one of them. Murder is when you intentionally initiate the killing of an innocent, non-consenting human being. Think Jeffrey Dahmer. When someone murders someone else -- they have proven that they are unwilling to act rationally within society by initiating force against others. Nothing "happens" to their right to life... you can't take that away from a someone, it is inalienable by virtue of being man. They simply have lost their claim to have their rights respected by choosing not to respect others'.

I have no disgust/fear of nudity qua nudity. It is simply specific people nude -- namely: overweight, old ugly men. And I use the term nudity a bit looser than you, I think, to include lack of clothing -> no clothing. It is the whole picture, not simply the genitals. It is unpleasant to the eyes -- but, I concede, I don't know how to justify my distain rationally. I only can say that it is an ugly sight, and I prefer not to surround myself with ugly. Why is it ugly? I'm not sure. I will say -- I am not suggesting to censor it in public areas.

According to you, "it's disgusting" is an objective reason to legislate. I think Miley Cyrus is disgusting, maybe we should ban her.

To you it's not disgusting. To me it is. It is subjective. "It's disgusting" is not an objective reason to legislate against something because it is a matter of preference. The question is: who gets to decide what is offensive to the senses or not? Clearly the property owners. There is public space -- that doesn't mean that there aren't any rules. That is like saying: the government doesn't have the right to enforce traffic rules (laws) because the streets are owned by the public. The government takes the place of the property owner in cases of public space and properly makes the rules.

This may be true and it might be a bad comparison, but my point still remains: People have preferences -- I prefer blue over orange. I don't like the color orange as it is unpleasant to me when it comes to home decor, clothes, etc. So, if I buy a house and, by default, the colors of the walls are orange. According to JASKN, it would be "silly" to change the colors to blue because: 1) Looking at the color orange doesn't "harm" anyone. 2) I can simply "not look" at the walls.

Who said anything about censoring? Censoring applies to the government, not to property owners. As a property owner, I would make sure everyone who is on my property is wearing clothing. As a radio host, I wouldn't allow communists to give a 30-minute speech of propaganda and lies, based on the premise: "Even though I find their ideas offensive, obscene, and downright evil, I should still allow them to speak." Why should they be allowed to speak on my property, even if I don't have to listen? Why should naked people be allowed to walk on my property, even if I can look away? That is not censoring, that is an application of property rights.

Yes, many human bodies are actually worse to the senses than the smell of feces. This really isn't a philosophical issue. JASKN prefers people to be naked, I prefer them to be clothed. I prefer not to be surrounded by feces, or other things that gross me out. Nude overweight people make me feel uncomfortable -- very unappealing to the eye -- just try stepping into the men's locker room and seeing a bare-naked overweight, old man right in your face.

I disagree. Is it silly to be "uncomfortable" or disgusted at the smell of poo? Some things are unappealing to the senses. Poo is unappealing to the nose, and most people nude are unappealing to the eyes.

None -- only as an extension of property rights.

This is so silly.

Another random rant. I don't have any questions for you -- I almost regret asking you anything in the first place. But, your evasion and rant-like posts does highlight the nonsensical, dogmatic nature of most of your posts.