Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


EC last won the day on March 10

EC had the most liked content!


About EC

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  • Birthday 07/23/1977

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
  • Chat Nick
  • Relationship status
  • Sexual orientation
  • Copyright
  • Occupation

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Interests
    Physics, Philosophy, Sports, Reading in General, Thinking, Shooting Pool, Movies, Music, Technology, Poker

Recent Profile Visitors

6038 profile views
  1. What if instead of discussing at which point a human being becomes an entity with rights, we discuss when any entity gains rights? Whether or not late-term abortion for humans is moral can only be decided when humans and all animals are abstracted out of the picture. All the problems with this discussion is that we are all "too close" to the issue. When does an AI gain rights? Answer that, and it tells you how to properly answer the question for *all* types of life that potentially possess's the ability to reason conceptually. We have to correct philosophy so that it applies to all types of entities that possess conceptual consciousness or it can lead us to the wrong answers, like in this exact case.
  2. So you're going to go through a bunch of rationalistic mental gymnastics that leads nowhere then? Have fun.
  3. No. It's adding pure rationalism to subject matter that is naturally anti-rationalistic. Responding in a way that appears "intellectual" just gives the subject intellectual credence that the subject matter doesn't deserve. Are we to take Karl Hopper's philosophy seriously also? Because that's what this thread looks like it's converging to in my eyes. I'm not anti-intellectual, but I hate seeing people over-complicate things that are actually simple. It usually comes from people who are faking their intellectual abilities, which is annoying. If something can't be stated in plain English it's unlikely to be true.
  4. ^^ I hate when people try to turn something that's relatively simple like concepts and concept formation, that can be stated and explained in simple english, into rationalistic nonsense. The rationalistic nonsense of most philosophies is the reason most people properly think that most of philosophy is complete nonsense only studied by idiots in universities that aren't intelligent enough to study a real subject. Please don't do this to Objectivism. It's the only philosophy that doesn't do this idiotic nonsense that pretends to be intelligent.
  5. I see Mr. Swig answered, but I was also going to say what you are describing sounds exactly like how I understand the law of identity.
  6. I understand that you are trying to argue for what you consider the "official" Objectivist position is on this issue, but I think either that position is wrong on late-term abortion or it's not as "official" as it's made out to be as @DonAthos has been arguing. I think (very limited) rights begin when a being develops the faculty or reason (a fully or nearly fully developed brain capable of producing a conceptual mind) develops regardless of it's ability to use that faculty yet.
  7. I had already thought after I posted that certain things, virtual particles for instance, can "pop" in and out of existence. You are correct that death can be instant also. But I don't believe an animal's life comes into existence instantaneously at birth, it's a process over weeks and months. They call mammalian birth live birth for a reason, the animal is alive during birth. It's also why there are stillborn births where the animal is "born" dead. You are attempting to wipe out these facts, i.e., reality, to preserve your rationalization that it's appropriate for mother's to choose late term abortions (outside of things like threats to her health, of course). She has already made her choice when she chose not to abort before the fetus became viable as a living child.
  8. I made the simplest possible argument-- that the identity of an entity does not suddenly "come into being" from one infinitesimal time period to another. I'm talking about human babies here but it applies to everything, including the universe.
  9. You are essentially claiming it "becomes" an animal one Plank Time after full birth, but not one Plank time before full birth. Think about how ridiculous such a claim is please.
  10. Yes. It's what literally everything is build from.
  11. This idea is factually wrong. It's been proven that our "universe" can't exist without the concept of a "multiverse". Physics and "our universe" wouldn't be consistent without that concept.
  12. This is what happens in most cases. I know you guys are talking about hypothetical "Bigot Towns" but in reality there are small towns in rural areas that possess exactly this property and the above is exactly what eventually happens to them over time.
  13. Why don't you guys just provide the definition of "tribe" as it applies to the context of Federally recognized Native American tribes? That specific definition has to exist out there somewhere. I'd find and provide one for you but I don't really care much about this subject.
  14. This is just wrong for a massive number of reasons.
  15. I guess I strayed to far to keep a convo going.
  • Create New...