Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

JASKN

Admin
  • Content count

    2522
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    69

JASKN last won the day on August 27

JASKN had the most liked content!

About JASKN

  • Rank
    *turns hand

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Columbus, Ohio
  • Interests
    Learning things, music, design, business

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Ohio
  • Chat Nick
    JASKN
  • Relationship status
    In a relationship
  • Sexual orientation
    Gay / Lesbian
  • Real Name
    James Newport
  • Copyright
    Public Domain

Recent Profile Visitors

23665 profile views
  1. Ayn Rand's official public notice

    I know I've heard or read Piekoff talk about how Rand's group of close friends and acquaintances were deeply disappointed by the general reception of Atlas Shrugged, and that before its publication they had worked themselves up to believe that it would be something like a cultural silver bullet. I don't remember if he'd grouped Rand into that also, or what he said specifically about her reaction.
  2. Is this rape? Consent? Something else?

    You suggested Sally has a mental disorder, which isn't stated in the premise, and is not "taking the story as stated." You say verbal consent isn't necessary "as long as everyone is active" - kissing is active. You say a person can change her mind, but that Chris is immoral because he knew prior wishes but then tested for a change of mind. You say "Chris can get Sally more interested, find out what she also is eager to try" non-verbally if "everyone is active," which presumably Sally would be if she is "trying," but then you say that a "prideful way to pursue sex" would be only if Chris communicated verbally. Looks like there are a lot of double standards going against Chris. And of course, robotic sex instructions like "may I please put my hand on your left breast" isn't how any normal person has sex. In addition to giving Sally a mental disorder, you've moved the premise further from reality by insisting on verbal-instruction-only intercourse.
  3. Hate Speech: a crime in Europe

    Meanwhile, this cop remains on active duty after assaulting a nurse bravely doing her job.
  4. Hate Speech: a crime in Europe

    I caught CNN while waiting in a lobby, and The Black Guy they had on didn't even understand that the cop was being sarcastic - and the CNN talking heads didn't correct him.
  5. I'm right there with you for focusing on positives, but the thing is, these things are only meaningful with a selfish personal foundation. Human life itself is only meaningful with selfishness as its basis. We could argue that using another word would be beneficial at this point in civilization due to knee-jerk negative reactions from most. But it's certainly not beneficial if the reason we're finding another word is to try to change its meaning and purpose just because most people don't like the idea that human livelihood has to be based on selfishness!
  6. An Objectivist would argue that no value can be had after an individual's death, because there is no value recipient. Other individuals may gain value through your work, but it would no longer be possible for you to gain any value yourself. Some value may have been gained while you were still alive by the thought of people for whom you care about continuing to benefit from your work after your death, so you still may wish to take lengths trying to ensure that your work is preserved after your death. But this lesser value only applies to your living self. Why had you created your work to begin with? Presumably because you enjoyed the act of creation and seeing the fruits of your labor, seeing others enjoy it or become influenced by it, etc. The catalyst for creation was the benefit you received while you were alive. If you could somehow trade your healthy living years in exchange for greater dissemination of your work after you're gone, the necessary premise for value creation is flipped in theory, and no longer makes sense in practice.
  7. Hi Aaron, welcome to the forum. In your hypothetical, is this person on his death bed, or could he reasonably expect some healthy years to come?
  8. Greetings - Again!

    I'm glad to hear that, because this is the low-maintanence version! Glad to have you back - now when reading I need to remember again to do my double-takes between you and Strictly Logical.
  9. Immigration as related to loyalty

    Care to spell out the logical progression of that one?
  10. Immigration as related to loyalty

    I suppose you can choose your sentiment/summation, Rand can choose hers, I can choose mine. Evil must be stopped. What we have today does not first have that goal in mind. Now that I've acknowledged that some "border" control is necessary, you can acknowledge that today's immigration laws are seeped in racism and are unjust and immoral. The transparent trick is to claim that we're just trying to keep the bad guys out when really they just don't want the brownies in, which is what Trump does (mixed with his "egomaniacal" bullying). Modern America is "ideal" compared to savage eras of human history. The point is you don't reach an ideal by denying its foundation - you don't create a society based on individual rights while violating some individuals' rights.
  11. Immigration as related to loyalty

    Since I didn't mention skin color, I guess it's you for implying that these groups are only of a particular "race"? Edit: Seriously, though, at this forum of all places let's not get anywhere near to the loony practice of shouting "racism!" at the mere acknowledgement of stereotypes, the mention of racism, grouping people, etc.
  12. Immigration as related to loyalty

    This is sacrificing the perfect for the good, making the exception the rule, ignoring the nonviolent norm that is already happening outside of the law, and in turn violating rights. This is not the point. Ideally, rights-violating countries would not exist. "I consider myself a citizen of the world" is an acknowledgement that there is only one legitimate way for men to deal with one another, no matter which borders are erected or which laws are passed. The anti-immigrant rhetoric and now action is beyond pandering, he is obviously racist. "Keep dem out! Get rid o dem!"
  13. Immigration as related to loyalty

    I'll take an immigrant worker over U.S. citizen back-country hillbillies or inner-city career welfarists any day. Anyway, this argument fails because we already have millions of "illegal" immigrants who work and make this country better, and don't go around threatening people with violence.
  14. Immigration as related to loyalty

    ...If I think it's in my interest to support a tribalist immigration system, and if I think the quality of people entering the country anyway make my life worse. Before the state come the principles which enable its value. Given your proud support of the racist tiny captain, I assumed your use of "loyalty" suggested the opposite. In principle, I am proudly a citizen of the world.
  15. White Supremacist Protest Violence

    This makes me want to cry. So much for Land of the Free, Home of the Brave. We're talking about hardworking, honest people, more respectable than many Americans, who, with our "lawful" faucet drip of an immigration process, have no better hope of making a better life for themselves than bypassing the "process" altogether. And who the hell cares about country "loyalty"?
×