Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

stevetherawman

Newbies
  • Content Count

    14
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

stevetherawman last won the day on January 26 2014

stevetherawman had the most liked content!

2 Followers

About stevetherawman

  • Rank
    Novice

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Canada
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Ontario
  • Relationship status
    Single
  • Real Name
    Steve
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted
  1. Suffering is not metaphysically necessary for free will to exist. The reasoning behind this is that human beings inherently (but willingly) act to attain pleasure. This would be the case even if such a thing as pain did not exist. Although it probably (most likely) needs to exist on a biological level for the survival of an organism, it has no metaphysical basis as a necessity for free will. Thoughts? Might be kind of random but it's just on my mind right now, need you guys to lighten the load for me haha -- Steve
  2. stevetherawman

    Buridan's Ass

    It's pretty much impossible to test this theory... No two haystacks could be EXACTLY the same
  3. stevetherawman

    Animal rights

    What's the point of this argument? It's total semantics. Animals don't have the ability to conceptualize. Period. If they did, they would have attempted to communicate with us conceptually by now, that has not happened to this date. Only humans so far have shown that they have a conceptual consciousness. Since the concept of 'rights' is again a concept, only humans understand rights. Therefore only humans have rights. Any attempts at proving that animals have a conceptual consciousness is just a bunch of whack job scientists trying to anthropomorphize and degrade humans down to the level of animals.
  4. stevetherawman

    Animal rights

    Animal whisperers!!! ;D
  5. stevetherawman

    Animal rights

    Death penalty is the most irrational, animalistic thing out there
  6. stevetherawman

    Animal rights

    Haha maybe if apes were like the ones in the planet of the apes they would have rights, in reality they are wild animals
  7. stevetherawman

    Animal rights

    ......
  8. stevetherawman

    Animal rights

    HUGE. Animal welfare is the respectable notion that animals should be treated with care and respect, but that animals should be considered property to be owned by humans. Animal rights is the radical notion that animals themselves as individuals (even though animals have no theory of mind whatsoever) have rights and that any human coercion against them is immoral. The fundamental flaw of animal rights though is that if all animals have rights then a gazelle has the right not to be attacked by the lion, correct? That would be an act of aggression. Aren't humans animals too? What gives other animals the right to coerce against other animals and not us? Silly idea.
  9. stevetherawman

    Animal rights

    I wouldn't call the notion that dogs can identify with certain objects by their name abstraction though, they have just learned via memory that certain objects are characterized by humans as certain sounds.
  10. stevetherawman

    Animals, Children and the Retarded

    There ARE parallel lines between animals and humans. Humans have an intangible consciousness and animals have a tangible consciousness. The HUGE difference is that animals don't have the ability whatsoever to conceptualize and all humans do. The whole marginal humans argument is getting pretty old to be honest... Babies ARE human beings and will one day have the ability to reason just like the rest of us. Animal babies, even when they do mature, still won't have the ability to reason. When it comes to the mentally retarded it's pretty simple actually, they are unhealthy, simple as that. They are still 100% conceptual beings but lack the faculty that may give them the abilities other humans have, it is NOT their fault they are unhealthy, they didn't choose to be this way. Hope I answered your question to some extent.
  11. stevetherawman

    How Could a Government, Without Force, Earn Revenue?

    I haven't accepted that it's okay, I don't believe in taxation or government; I believe in a voluntary society based on the non-initiation of force. Show me one way a government can earn revenue without initiating the use of force. Also, what gives the government the right to rule over a stretch of land? Governments don't have property rights, only individual human beings do.
  12. stevetherawman

    How Could a Government, Without Force, Earn Revenue?

    Government, by definition; initiates the use of force to earn revenue. Therefore the concept of government or the state is not compatible whatsoever with the philosophy of Objectivism. Most Objectivists contradict themselves by saying they believe in a minimal government yet advocate one of the most fundamental axioms of the Objectivist philosophy; the non-initiation of force. It doesn't work like that.
  13. Was just wondering why aesthetics is part of the Objectivist philosophy and why it has anything to do with philosophy in general. Different people find different things aesthetically appealing....
  14. stevetherawman

    Animal rights

    [Mod's note: merged with a previous thread. - sN] Hey guys, longtime Objectivist here... One thing I just can't get over is the idea of animals having rights. Obviously it's ridiculous and all but how do we prove without a doubt that animals don't have a conceptual consciousness like humans and that they only exist to survive and reproduce and to fill an ecological niche? I've seen animal rights groups stating that whales, dolphins, great apes, elephants, etc. are self aware like us and can conceptualize (because self-awareness means stepping outside your body hypothetically) ... Any ideas on how to prove them wrong? Thoughts? Thanks guys looking forward to some answers.
×