Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

fatdogs12

Regulars
  • Content Count

    176
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by fatdogs12

  1. I didn't mean a blanket government regulation. Just that there should be a legal remedy (that doesn't take forever) to stop this. However it's executed that works well is fine
  2. I think if we knew that humans were causing it the Government would be serving in their proper role to stop it. Simply because they are causing hard to others by doing it. Same thing as why you cant just dump toxic wastes into rivers, because you would be harming other people's property.
  3. I will re-read all your previous posts and go through OPAR again to see if I can get what you are getting at. Not trying to be argumentative about the issue, I just truly do not see the reasoning though I think I understand what you are saying (could be wrong though). We'll see. Either way I appreciate your input
  4. It shows the principle by which they are granted rights. That is all I have been addressing. Ayn says: Men are granted rights because of X. Retarded people are still granted rights because of Y. She specifically says Y is the reason they have rights. Since their rights are predicated on that and since he never had that which it was predicated upon I cannot see how we can derive that this person has any rights. Even if they are not property, I cannot see how they have any rights. They are not at all rational beings, they will never be rational beings. What rights can non rational beings have? I completely understand why any rational being should have rights. But someone who cannot conceptualize anything at all I cannot see how that follows. I don't see how that's relevant. The general case is simply that man deserves rights because he is rational. They are only given rights because they are rational. There are definitely retarded people who are pretty much at Schiavo's level, not brain dead but incapable of much of anything. In the example we are using the person has no parents. He could have been abandoned or his parents desire to sell his body for research.
  5. But see I'm not ignoring the quote at all, I want to use the whole thing. You said "Yes, and that same quote says they should be cared for as perpetual children" This does not apply to our special case because her reasoning was: "Like children, retarded people are entitled to protection because, as humans, they may improve and become partly able to stand on their own." In our situation the person cannot ever "improve and become partly able to stand on their own". They will never stand on their own. So her reason for granting them rights in this case is simply moot.
  6. I see the reasoning from people. but I don' think it addresses the issue. I've shown a direct quote from Rand that says that not all humans are afforded the same rights and that their rational capacity is the reason for that. While a number of things have been said I don't think anyone so far has addressed that issue... Parents call all the shots for their children, make decisions for them. They decide where they will go, what they will do. I guess that means they just have the legal responsibility for them? Idk on that. We are talking about someone in essence who is more animal than human in man's most fundamental category though and can't support their self at all. I'm interested to see your view on this issue.
  7. So what? Of course he's still a man, that's not being debated. Ayn Rand already said a retarded person should not be afforded the same rights as a regular person. But he is afforded some rights according to her because he may improve.... Our guy can't improve. I don't see rights coming of this
  8. Okay see that's why I was so specific that the person did not have a rational capacity. That they had less brain ability then many animals. If they had any rational capacity at all then these are people that are not part of the discussion. I'm not sure how you came to believe that 'the ones that we're talking about, do have a rational faculty.' If that was the case this would not even be an issue. Most retarded people in my experience have a basic rational capacity, which is beyond any animal. They know basic concepts, they know what pants are etc. Definitely not talking about those people. I don't see that the scientific aspect matters though. All that matters is if doctors can be certain they have no rational capacity and will never have one would it be moral. From everything I've read it doesn't make sense to grant someone with no rational capacity and no hope or one any rights. They certainly can't exercise any rights. They have no values. They don't try to live, they just exist.
  9. Well the parents definitely did in the beginning I would think. So now they could either be owned by the parents or could have been abandoned. A dog can do much more yet is own-able so I don't see how that makes a person who has no rational capacity any different. Would love to see the reasoning behind it though if someone wants to share.
  10. I don't think that is the issue of the thread though. We are talking someone who simply has no rational capacity nor has ever had one, nor will ever have one.... And we are also talking about someone below the level of most animals. EDIT: Of a number of animals. I think the situations you mentioned relative to this are fairly cut and dry. If someone at some point had a rational ability, then yes that would make sense. Here though, simply they never did and won't in the future. Essentially we are talking about a person lower than a dog as far as abilities mental and otherwise go, definitely far below a monkey.
  11. This really doesn't follow. We are protected by virtue of being a human being... That seems to be the answer, but there doesn't seem to be a reason why they should be protected. Meaning simply: Why are human beings granted the rights they are to begin with? If they are granted these rights because of because they look the same, breath the same and move around then they are being granted rights which have nothing to do with their ability. As Tenure says I thought rights are meant to protect man's mode of survival... I guess in this case they are just handed out to those who don't have that basic thing that sets man apart from things like dogs, cats and everything else.
  12. So because something 'should' be something but isn't it gets rights? I don't see that point making any sense. Why should something be given just because it "should" have that? That's a pretty strange dichotomy to me.
  13. That article actually makes my entire point for me. Here is a quote (thanks for Old Toad for finding the quote) "A brainless baby, on the other hand, has no rights, because rights follow from the characteristic which, in him, is broken, i.e., non-existent – a rational faculty." This is my entire point
  14. What makes human beings so special? As she said they get those rights only because of the possibility of improving. But in a case where we know there is no chance why do they get that right? THanks
  15. Haha that's funny. Monkeys in the work place... See though it seems that Ayn Rand supports the position that not all humans are given rights, that you do have to have some rational capacity or a possibility of having one to gain rights: Q: Do severely retarded individuals have rights? A: Not actual rights--not the same rights possessed by normal individuals. In effect, they have the right to be protected as perennial children. Like children, retarded people are entitled to protection because, as humans, they may improve and become partly able to stand on their own. The protection of their rights is a courtesy extended to them for being human, even if not properly formed ones. But you could not extend the actual exercise of individual rights to a retarded person, because he's unable to function rationally. Since all rights rest on human nature, a being that cannot exercise his rights cannot have full human rights. -From Ayn Rand Answers: The Best of her Q&A It's a "courtesy extended"?... that doesn't really make sense to me
  16. So then regardless if a person has a rational capacity or not they should still get the rights afforded to man, because man has the potential of being rational. Though I can't see how that really makes sense that makes the distinction clearer. So essentially if at some point some monkeys evolved to have a decent rational capacity I would assume we would have to treat all them with rights? Or is it based on how a species is as a whole (i.e. since most humans have a rational capacity, all get the rights)? Thanks, I appreciate your feedback on this.
  17. I guess I'm asking why people who have no rational capacity have rights. In that from everything I read I thought rights were predicated on a rational capacity. I can quote that part if that is what you mean. Maybe the issue isn't rights, but morality. I'm trying to find out why/if this is moral. Here is why I say it: <a href="http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=New...ws_iv_ctrl=1084" target="_blank">http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=New...ws_iv_ctrl=1084</a> "How do these advocates try to justify their position? As someone who has debated them for years on college campuses and in the media, I know firsthand that the whole movement is based on a single--invalid--syllogism, namely: men feel pain and have rights; animals feel pain; therefore, animals have rights. " "This argument is entirely specious, because man's rights do not depend on his ability to feel pain; they depend on his ability to think. " Wouldn't this mean that if a man can't think at all he has no rights? Would morality then be different? If we can certainly say a dog would have no rights and skinning them alive should be legal, then could we say that morally it's wrong?
  18. I came across something not too long ago about how in China they skin dogs alive without killing them for faux fur, then discard their alive bodies to live (I assume a short period of time, idk though) without their skin. That seemed a little disturbing at least because I usually think of dogs with their skin on but it made me wonder.... I believe I understand that the Oist position would be this is a good thing because it's pro-human life (lower costs involved than in killing them themselves, so more productive). So I was wondering if the same would be true with humans who are so retarded they do not have any rational capacity. Maybe they can walk around, but cannot talk, don't understand concepts (I assume they were born this way) and lets say have less of a brain than a dog. And because of the nature of their problems they will not at any point in the future have a rational capacity Now assuming no one wants to support this person by charity could this person be bought by companies and have similar things done to it? Like have parts of their skin removed to give it to burn victims, or amputate appendages to give to soldiers, etc? This would seem moral to me according to Oism since the feeling of pain is not relevant and since they are not rational beings and will never be rational beings.
  19. Hmm.... Makes me want to change my last name. Maybe Rockefeller would be good. "Hello Mr. Rockefeller, what can I get you?"
  20. I think that is really a pretty great post. A lot of important points there. I think one thing aside from what you mentioned is the honesty. I think it's super important to just be honest with clients. I know a lot of programmers/web developers undershoot to get business with companies and end up having to try to talk their way out of it, or even worse develop an entire application at a loss to themselves. Though I've slipped the schedule at my company many times I've found that it's just best to be honest about the situation with them. If you screwed up let them know "Hey I made a miscalculation, it's my fault. It's probably going to take another two weeks to finish". But in addition to that this is a great concrete example of adhering to reality and the consequences of not doing so
  21. I kept thinking your name was Cognito. Now that would have been a lame first name (kinda funny though)
  22. Well unfortunately I think a lot of people in Atlanta will not mind having him play here again. I've been here for 5 years now and he IS atlanta really. He's the whole face of Atlanta here. Everyone talks about Micheal Vick in a good way all the time, even though he's really only a mediocre quarterback. Even once the indictment started I heard so many people here say "Oh they are just picking on him because he's black". Many sadly don't even care what he's done, WE NEED TO MAKE THE PLAYOFFS!!!! lol
  23. I just hope the NFL gives him a perm ban (I doubt it). Either way the guy is pretty disgusting, for once I think justice is served from an economic level. In that he's lost most of his sponsorship, salary from the NFL, etc. It's beautiful to me.
  24. fatdogs12

    BIOSHOCK

    http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/813/813214p1.html <-- Watch the video, they mention Ayn Rand in the beginning and how Atlas Shrugged inspired the game... Neat
  25. Firefox has gone from 3.5% in late 04 to almost 15% now. That is a pretty big increase and there are more and more Firefox users all the time. The thing I'm not sure you recognize or not is that if Microsoft loses a 10% share in the worldwide desktop market (which is just a simple matter of time, they have already lost 25% here in the US in just a few short years) that is a massive loss in revenue for them. The fact is that Microsoft is in trouble where it matters. They don't have the advantage they used to have and that advantage is going to be getting smaller soon. They have been trying to compete with Google and Yahoo for years now and getting dumped on consistently. They have a hard time making good products these days. They have in essence become a lot like the IBM they surpassed. If you want to see if they are concerned just look at all the memo's that have leaked in the last 2-4 years from Microsoft. They are obviously quite concerned dispite their brave front. I don't love open source, as I said I think XP is the best end user OS to date. I have used it for years now with not many problems at all. But with all the stuff on the web becoming available Microsoft is becoming a lot less relevant.
×
×
  • Create New...