Rex Little
-
Posts
106 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Rex Little
-
-
A person does not wake up one morning and find herself 9 months pregnant.
Usually true, but not always. I've heard of women who actually delivered babies before they realized they'd been pregnant. (Generally they were so morbidly obese that the extra weight and bulge of the pregnancy was a trifle by comparison. This begs the question of just who they found to get them pregnant in the first place. . . but I'm veering perilously close to a threadjack.
).I shall change my pronouncement about third-trimester abortions to read: I have never heard of anyone aborting a healthy baby at that point of the pregnancy.I haven't either, personally, but the rabid anti-abortionists claim it does happen, and I've never seen the rabid pro-choicers deny it. I'm inclined to believe that in a nation of 300 million people, anything that can be done, will be done at some point.
But this is a trivial side question. Those of us in this discussion who claim that a (healthy, non-dangerous) third-trimester fetus has the right not to be aborted aren't extending that to the first trimester, which is where nearly all the action is.
-
I've never heard of an abortion being performed after the sixth month in any case
Then you haven't been paying attention. Here's a case of an eighth-month abortion. They're rare, but they do happen.
-
I think fletch hit this one square. My chain of reasoning is as follows:
1. If an infant has the right to life at birth (which we all agree it does), it has the same right 10 minutes before birth. Nothing in its nature is essentially different.
2. Following the timeline back, at some point in its development it acquired the essential characteristics which confer rights. We can disagree about when that is (and can't know exactly when it happens for any particular fetus). But for the purposes of first-term abortions, it's irrelevant (as I will show).
3. The right to life does not include the right to live inside another person's body without her consent. Therefore the mother has the right to have the being inside of her removed whenever she wants. However, if the being has the right to life, and it's possible to remove it without killing it, then she has the obligation to do so. It's analogous to the case of an univited visitor in your house who's not threatening you but just won't leave. You have the right to physically drag him out, or have the police do it, but you don't have the right to shoot him dead and drag out the body. However, if he has somehow attached himself to the wall in such a way that removing him will kill him, you can still remove him; his death is no longer avoidable without violating your rights.
So as I see it, there are three categories of abortions:
Before the fetus is viable outside the womb, abortions should clearly be allowed, whether or not it has rights. There is no way to remove it without killing it. The vast majority of abortions are in this category.
After the fetus has acquired the characteristics which give it rights and is viable outside the womb, abortions of convenience should be forbidden; as fletch said, if she wants the kid out, induce labor. (However, there are plenty of cases where something goes wrong with the pregnancy and the only way to protect the life and physical health of the mother is to abort, so a blanket ban like the recently-passed law isn't the answer either.) Ninth-month pregnancies are in this category; probably eighth-month as well.
Between these is a gray area where either viability or possession of rights, or both, can be debated. As medical science gets better at keeping premature babies alive, the point of viability moves earlier; at some point, it might predate full brain function. (For all I know about the subject, maybe it already does.) In this area, I'd be comfortable letting a doctor certify that in his expert opinion either the fetus isn't viable or doesn't have a working brain, and allow an abortion based on that. In any case, not many abortions are done at this stage.
-
I've had several Mormon friends and neighbors over the years. I never thought to ask them if they considered themselves Christian, but it seems to me the answer must be yes. After all, the full name of their church is "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints." And when they advertise on TV offering to send you a free book, it's the Bible.
As to the second question: I have a brother who's a fundamentalist Christian, and he considers Mormons not to be Christian. I'm not real clear on what his reasons are; something about them "denying the divinity of Christ." What he means by that, and whether a Mormon would agree, I have no idea.
I don't know enough about various religions for this to be more than an opinion, but it seems to me that if the term "Christian" is defined so as to include all the other denominations mentioned in Diana's post, it has to include Mormons as well. (As she noted, not all members of those denominations would use that inclusive a definition.) They believe that Jesus Christ exists, that he is the begotten son of God, and that he was resurrected after being killed. By me, that's Christian.
-
Whoever issues or passes a note, bill, order or check, other than the notes or bills of a bank incorporated under the authority of this commonwealth, of the United States or of some one of the United States, for an amount less than five dollars, or whereon a less amount than five dollars is due at the time of such issuing or passing thereof, with intent that the same shall be circulated as currency, shall be punished by a fine of fifty dollars.
The way I read this, it doesn't prohibit a check for less than $5, because there's no intent that a check will be circulated as currency. Basically it's saying you can't spend Monopoly money or something like that. (Still seems like a useless law; common sense should prevent the problem from arising in the first place.)
What's weird is that this is section 22 of the chapter of the General Laws. Section 21 says the exact same thing but without the five-dollar proviso. The fine is the same, fifty dollars. So what was the point of section 22?
-
It's probably only a matter of time when a few people who are more coherent than the second critic will sit up and object to Ayn Rand's books being used in schools. Or, maybe I'm being too optimistic.
If they have something to object to, that would be a step in the right direction. I was never exposed to her books when I was in school. I had to find them on my own (on the advice of my parents, actually, even though they were welfare statists), and that didn't happen until after college.
-
Well, yeah, for a couple of years. After that, if the Repugnants don't get Congress back, you've got the Democraps in full control. (You don't seriously think they won't get the White House in '08, do you?) I'm old enough to remember the Lyndon Johnson era, and not fondly.
-
I recommend reading Ayn Rand's Q&A on Libertarians and Peter Schwartz's article: Libertarianism: A Perversion of Liberty.
In that Q&A, I recommend taking some of Rand's answers with a grain of salt. In particular, the following: ". . . most of them [Libertarians] are my enemies: they spend their time denouncing me, while plagiarizing my ideas."
At the time she made that statement (1974), the LP had run one presidential campaign (1972). Its campaign literature consisted primarily of a largish book (about 500 pages IIRC) called Libertarianism, written by presidential candidate John Hospers. It was hard to find a page in that book which didn't have a quote from Rand's writings, complete with footnotes. I remind you that "plagiarism" consists of claiming someone else's ideas as your own, without crediting the source.
As for "denouncing" her. . . quoting someone hundreds of times in a book seems a strange way of doing that. And most of the party members at that time had come to their political beliefs by reading Rand; their feelings for her ranged from admiration to reverence. I know this from personal acquaintance with a large sample of them, as I was quite active in the LP and other individualist organizations at the time. The denunciations between Rand and the LP went in the opposite direction from what Rand claimed in this quote.
-
I am in favor of a Democratic congress proposing big spending and having it vetoed by a Republican president, as against a Republican congress proposing big spending and having it waved through by a Republican prez. So maybe it would be ok the Dems won back congress.
That's fine as long as the Repugnants can take back Congress when Hilary moves back to 1600 Pennsylvania. Otherwise we'd have a Democrap congress' spending being waved through (hell, whipped along like a racehorse down the stretch) by a Democrap president. Ask anyone who was around during the Lyndon Johnson years what that's like.
-
I have a friend who was brought up atheist and became a fundamentalist Christian about 2 years ago...strange how those things work.
Strange but not unique. Same thing happened to my youngest brother when he was 16. And not only were we raised atheist, but it even goes back to my grandparents, at least on my mother's side.
Within the family we get some interesting three-corner debates between myself (atheist with mostly Objectivist political beliefs) my Christian brother (political beliefs similar to mine) and another brother who's atheist and politically leftist.
-
And I've never seen a (non-anarchist) libertarian say that the US is indistinguishable from, say, the USSR.
Hell, even anarchist libertarians don't say that. David (son of Milton) Friedman, a self-proclaimed anarchist libertarian, wrote the following in his book The Machinery of Freedom: "I'd rather pay taxes to Washington than Moscow; the rates are lower." (I may not have the quote exactly right, but that was the essence.)
-
There's computer game called Capitalism which basically has you building a large company from scratch. It's been updated twice since its original release, the latest version being Capitalism 2.
There are also several board games which involve building up a real estate or business empire of some sort, whose luck element is far less than Monopoly if not quite absent altogether. Two that I have played and can recommend are Settlers of Catan and Puerto Rico.
-
It's been many years since I had much personal contact with the Libertarian Party, but in its early days, the vast majority of its members considered Rand to be an inspiration and the source of their political beliefs. We were saddened that she denounced the party, but very few of us felt any hostility towards her.
-
It occurs to me that we're overlooking a perfect publicity gimmick. If they cast a complete unknown as Galt, and keep his identity secret while shooting, the pre-release buzz will be all about. . . who is John Galt?
-
It's been a while since high school French, but would the French not be "L'opéra du homme pauvre" as opposed to "pauvre homme?" Please correct me if i'm wrong.
I too am working from long-ago high school French, but I believe that since the "h" in "homme" is silent, the correct phrasing is "L'opera de l'homme pauvre". (With, of course, the accent over the e.)
-
Well, first of all, the title of this topic should be "What if California were to secede. . ."
-
Interesting. Can you give an example of another such ideology?
Communism. Jews were heavily involved in its early development and in bringing about the Communist revolution in Russia. I don't have data, but I'd bet heavily that there were a lot of them (relative to the general population) in the American Communist Party in its heyday.
-
Lucifer's Hammer, by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle, would make a great movie. There's a scene right after the comet hits, and one of the pieces causes a tidal wave which hits southern California. A surfer catches the wave and manages to ride it all the way into downtown L.A., where he wipes out against the Bonaventure Hotel. I'd pay the $9 for that scene alone.
And at the end of the book, the good guys defend a nuclear power plant from a gang of fanatic environmentalists. How can you not love it?
I'll second Scott Connery on Moon is a Harsh Mistress, too.
-
I think part of the answer might be that among Jews intellectual activities and achievements have always been very important. I think that would make it more natural for such a person to embrace Objectivism than someone who grew up with less respect for such activities.
I think this hits it pretty square. Look at the adherents of almost any "extreme" (i.e., self-consistent) ideology, and you'll find a high proportion of Jews.
-
This is the second Atlas Shrugged movie thread that I have crashed simply by saying that one of the characters could be black.
Not sure what you mean by "crashed." Are you referring to the lack of any further posts after yours? Be patient; sometimes months go by between posts on this topic.
As for black characters, post #77 (nearly a year ago) suggested Denzel Washington as John Galt (not a bad idea at all, IMO).
-
I'll second the recommendations for Scrabble and backgammon. To answer D'kian's question, Risk plays very poorly with only two; as soon as one gets a slight advantage, it translates into extra power and the advantage just keeps growing until Game Over.
There are a lot of good games on the site that Prometheus1 linked, but be careful--many of them aren't intended for fewer than 3 players. Check that detail out before you buy anything.
If you guys are into really intense strategy/war games (very few women are, but your g/f could be the rare exception), there's a game called Titan that's been my favorite for over 20 years. It's intended for up to 6 players, but unlike most games of that sort, it plays just as well with two as with any larger number. It does use fantasy creatures to fight battles, but don't be put off by that; the ogres and behemoths and griffons could just as well be called infantry and tanks and fighter planes. There's no role-playing or quests or anything like that.
The only problem with Titan is that you'll have a hard time getting hold of a copy, as it's out of print.
-
William H. Macy as Eddie Willers (too old?).
Yeah, I'm afraid Macy is a bit old for the part if you want to stay strictly true to the book. Eddie should be about the same age as Dagny; they were childhood playmates. But other than that, you're right--Macy projects just the competent-but-not-heroic image that defines Eddie. I guess it wouldn't hurt to just let Eddie be older in the movie and leave out any reference to his childhood; that's not important to the story.
I don't know if Tinky Holloway would make it into the movie, but if he does, Stanley Tucci has to play him.
-
Legally, the agreement to pay for your food is implicit; you can be arrested for failing to do so. There's no legal requirement to tip, unless the restaurant specifically requires it ("a 15% service charge will be added to the bill for parties of 8 or more").You havent signed any contract agreeing to pay for the food that youve just eaten either. However, it is implicit in the context of going to a restaurant that eating the food constitutes an agreement to purchase it (compare to eating food provided for you at someone's house, where a different social custom applies). I think the argument that tipping 10-15% is also implicit in the restaurant context is fairly soundtheres also buffets and the like, where you serve yourself.That brings up a question I've never known the answer to: what's the customary tip at a buffet? I wouldn't think it should be as much as the usual restaurant tip, but not zero either; they do clear the used plates off your table, and in some cases bring your drinks. I usually wind up leaving about 10%, but I have no idea if I'm being stingy or overly generous.
-
Anytime the discussion turns to casting Atlas, Pitt's name comes up for Galt. The consensus seems to be that it should either be Pitt, or an unknown.
One thing's for sure: if Pitt plays him, there will be major plot changes from the book. You don't cast Brad Pitt if you're going to leave him offscreen for two-thirds of the movie. I don't have my copy in front of me, but I think it's at least that far into the book before Galt makes an actual appearance.
Angelina Jolie doesn't fit my picture of Dagny at all! I see Dagny as having finer features than Jolie (as who doesn't?) and being not nearly so, er, top-heavy. Jodie Foster, anyone?
On Abortion
in Ethics
Posted
Speaking just for myself, I consider that a gray area, at least the sixth month or so. A post with my full line of reasoning on this got moved to this thread; it's #675.