Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Greebo

Regulars
  • Posts

    1458
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Everything posted by Greebo

  1. Point of order. We were not made. Period. An arguably questionable claim as well. Argument from emotion. Where two consenting adults are concerned, the potential emotional anguish of other family members with boundary issues does not constitute an obligation on the would-be couple not to couple.
  2. That isn't much of an answer to my question two, since the context of incest in that quote is not immediately clear. One cannot discern from that paragraph whether one is talking about two adult cousins who've chosen to become lovers, or a father sexually assaulting his pre-adolescent child.
  3. An excellent solution, but not one presented in the constructed hypothetical false-trap dichotomy of the question. And really, not an unrealistic possibility - if you never saw the series finale of M*A*S*H you should watch it - that very situation (crying baby, enemy at hand) is examined.
  4. Question 1: The entire situation is not a rational one - you're escaping for your lives from an immoral slave based society. No moral (ie rational) option is available - its down to survival. In such situations, the cold algebra of survival suggests killing the baby is the best course of action. Question 2: Please cite the evidence that such a conclusion has been reached?
  5. Threats are not "speech" in either an epistemological or a constitutional sense - threats are force. Slander - deliberate falsehoods about another person - are also force. They cause harm to a person's reputation with no basis in reality. Speech means the expression of ideas - restriction of speech refers to limiting the right of someone to attempt to persuade another person. It doesn't mean standing up in a crowded room and shouting fire in order to cause a panic which could kill someone.
  6. First of all, the sword statement is biblical. If it's in A.S., Rand used it to make a point. That said you're kind of dropping context. The "taking of the sword" to which Rand objects is the use of INITIATED force to fulfill one's wishes. Being prepared to defend yourself, studying martial arts, sparring to develop skills, etc - these are not uses of force as it is meant in Objectivism. Using a gun to protect your home certainly IS force - but it's retaliatory, not initiated.
  7. True, but then again, NOBODY pays "no" taxes. Some people pay no federal income tax, true, but there is no avoiding taxes overall. I wouldn't hesitate to take a tax break for anything I qualify for - solar panels, whatever. (Of course I *DO* pay federal income taxes as it is...) On the other hand, I *wont* rent any of my rental properties out to section 8 - because the section 8 people will pay me more than the free market will - giving me a profit my fellow landlords don't get, at taxpayer expense.
  8. The question assumes an alternative exists. It does not, at present. Roads, Rails and Runways are all subsidized with money collected by threat of force. One cannot travel freely without benefiting from these ill gotten gains. No moral choice is available, so no definitive "should" can really be stated.
  9. Yes, he's technically right - it's his company, and he can run it like he wants. But he doesn't own you, as you seem to know - and if he's so foolish as to consider simple ownership as being akin to having all the knowledge and skills necessary to succeed as an owner, then well - I think it was Andrew Carnegie who said something about not being smart so much as being able to hire smart people. His loss.
  10. Based on your description (which is, for the record, one sided) your director is encouraging you to engage in a transaction in bad faith. You and he both know that if you sell this client this product, which has a *SPECIFIC* intent (to determine the viability of future services), you're selling him a pre-determined outcome. You already know the result of the "research" before you do it, which means it isn't research at all, it's a fake. Your director wants the $2,000 - but if he deliberately bilks the client, he will be harming his long term interests because that client will (or at least may) figure out he was conned - (and I'd use that exact word to clarify to the director exactly what he's proposing), and so in addition to the much more serious issue of corrupting the integrity of the business (which your boss may not see as the value it really is), your bilked customer can do SERIOUS HARM to your company's reputation by simple word of mouth. Now - as for you as an individual - since you know the above, you know that if you engage in this action, you'll be deliberately conning a customer, corrupting your own integrity. So to answer your question - "Would an Objectivist be ok with this?" The answer is a resounding, absolute, unequivocal - NO. And the second one - what would an Objectivist do? Well *I* would: 1) Immediately start seeking another position elsewhere, just in case. 2) Lay the cards on the table with the boss - Inform him that his intentions are in bad faith, stand to harm the company long term and go against your own ethical code. (This is why you do #1 - cause this may well cost you your job, but save you your integrity) 3) IF and only if the Boss refuses to pursue this line of bad conduct, stay with the company. You cannot in good conscience choose to stay there if he simply lets you off the hook and then screws the customer. 4) If the boss insists on doing this - then tell the customer, "You don't need this service, its a waste of money for you, and I cannot in good conscience recommend you do it. If you choose to do it anyway, at least you do it knowing it was a waste of money instead of wrongly thinking you'd be getting good value." - - If #2 doesn't, #4 will cost you your job - but again, save your integrity.
  11. Little confused - was your BF your BF at the time you had this other fling? From your descriptions, it sounds like there are deeper issues here that won't be healthy in a long term relationship. He's got issues but I'm talking more about you and how you seem determined to change/fix him. That's not healthy, or realistic.
  12. I'm an Objectivist and my wife is not. We don't agree on every minor detail - but on the major principles that matter in our relationship, we agree. I don't think your issue is that he's an Objectivist - per se. There's plenty of people of other philosophies that feel this need to push those closest to them to be like minded with them - and at one time in my life, I was one of those, well, frankly, jerks. Fortunately for me, my wife is able to let me know when I'm crossing the line - she's a strong woman who can stand up to me when I get a little overly intense. BTW I'm not saying HE'S a jerk - just that he's got the potential to be enough of one if he's not careful that it will ultimately push you away. He has to learn to respect your boundaries - and to allow you to reach your own conclusions in your own time. O'ism demands that we all check our own premises, not that we force others to do so. Have you read Atlas Shrugged? If you have, then refer him to how both Dagny dealt with Hank when Hank expressed his own self-loathing after their first night together, and equally how John Galt never tried to push his way of thinking on Dagny. With Dagny and Hank, she never told him why he was wrong, she just told him where SHE stood in the affair, and with John and Dagny, he stated his positions on matters but left her the freedom to choose for herself, and in neither case did Hank's failure to recognize his errors of reasoning or Dagny's failure to recognize hers change the regard that the other held for them each in turn. Hope that makes sense.
  13. Well enough answered by others. If you accept the claim simply on faith, yes. Any religious argument ultimately boils down to, "Someone told me to believe this so I do." Any "objectivist" who believes in Objectivism simply on faith isn't an Objectivist. Objectivism says, "Here's what we've concluded, here's the arguments we used to reach the conclusions, here's the premises upon which those arguments rest, and here's the arguments showing why those premises are true. Study them, analyze them, and evaluate their accuracy for yourself." To be an Objecivist, you must always check your premises, first and foremost, and never accept anything "on faith" just cause Ayn Rand said it. This is not a question about Objectivism. This is a question about "some posts". Furthermore, there is a difference between rejecting an argument because one doesn't like it and rejecting it because reason contradicts the argument. A person who is not well versed in Objectivism will likely not have the information necessary to rebuke certain rational sounding arguments posed by those who subscribe to a different philosophy. Coming here to ask for help in understanding 1) if, and 2) why such an argument is wrong is not simply rejecting said argument out of hand. It is checking one's premises. Said person may ultimately conclude that O'ism is actually wrong. We, of course, would disagree, but each person must evaluate their own premises in the end. Not a question, a foregone conclusion that begs the question. First, support your claim that Rand's works are considered to be Biblical in nature. Second, support your claim that Objectivism, which is a foundational framework philosophy, is in error in some manner.
  14. Cause it was posted on Saturday and you replied on a Sunday?
  15. Yep, you're making excuses. Cultivate it. Listen, I'm an older you, with one exception. See, I don't have a degree either, but I have a successful career which includes a 15 year history as a Consultant where my advice was given to major company IT departments like T. Rowe Price, Legg Mason, (then) Blue Cross/Blue Shield (now Carefirst), Aon, and quite a few more. I've sat on a hell of a lot of interviews in my consulting career as a candidate, and on even more interviews on the Interviewer side as a reviewer of potential candidates. I've also been posting on computer message boards since before the internet was known to more than the military and a few cutting edge Computer Science departments. I assure you - if you assume a "piss on Grammar" mindset, you will do more to hamper your own potential future than the lack of degree ever would.
  16. I think this is wise. I'd simply say, "Dad, I really would prefer that you didn't buy them because I think they're going to end up as junk but if you want them, they're yours." And leave it at that. And regardless of who purchases them eventually, invest the proceeds wisely.
  17. Well, first off, I suppose the concept of full disclosure is alien to you? But that isn't the sense in which I was using the word "duty" (and btw, there is a reason I put it in quotes). It was along this sense that I used the word.
  18. You realize, I hope, that this has no relevance to anything I said in the previous post. I do agree with this. Considering that I just asked you to clarify what meaning you intended with the word "Republic", this response seems particularly ridiculous. Our "Republican Values" didn't emerge at the start of the Revolutionary War - they were a result of the Continental Congress which didn't take place until after we'd WON our independence. Ah, good, you've added ad hominem to your repertoire. That along with non-sequitor has you up to three so far. Now do you want to actually address my points?
  19. Admirable, but you do not have a crystal ball and cannot be sure of the outcome. I do not share the popular opinion (aka Chicken Little) that we're headed into Atlas Shrugged like conditions in the near future. The only question here is were the bonds really and truly "given" to you? Or were they "given with strings"? I think you need to ask your father (more tactfully, of course) to clarify his intentions when he gave them to you. If they are truly yours then ultimately the choice is yours and the choices of your father are not your responsibility. At most you have a "duty" to share your concerns with him before agreeing to the exchange. As long as you know he knows what you think of the bonds, if he then buys them from you, that's on his head, not yours. Your desire to protect him is admirable, but like you, he's a grown-up and can make his own choices. If he's willing to buy them from you and it makes him happy to do so, and costs you nothing (nothing that's actually yours) to do so, then that's as good a course of action as any.
  20. If you mean "The Fourth of July", it's remembered for the day we declared our independence. The intended context of your use of the word "Republican" is unclear to me here. Do you mean "Republican" as in "The Republic" or as in the political party that didn't exist on July 4, 1776? December 7th, 1941 marked a triumph of Japan. We remember it to this day, long after that triumph was shoved up their collective rear ends. We remember it not with anger and rage but with sadness over the tragic loss. False dichotomy. Those are not the only alternatives. How one chooses to remember 9/11 is a personal choice. I choose to remember it as a tragic day of loss and grief - one which I was fortunate to find that my father in law (now ex) survived (worked at the Pentagon).
  21. I think you meant: "I've learned the hard way that managers try to string employees along..." If you wish to get a well paying job working for someone else that doesn't primarily require manual labor, then I'd encourage you to remain in school at least long enough to take some additional English Language courses.
  22. Not an expert, and not laying a charge of fraud here by any means, just observing that the signature is dubious compared with numerous other and seemingly more credible signatures found online. Specifically the y in Ayn and other subtle differences in the n's. Has the letter been authenticated?
  23. I have presented you with a conclusion, not an assumption. That I have not spelled out every detail for you in little dots you can easily follow is not the same as no such logical connection existing. This is an online forum - it is not an effective medium for teaching the whole of Objectivism - it is an effective medium for elaborating on specific points. If you want the full argument you can find it in "Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand" - concisely and directly spelled out for you point by point. If you ask me what the reasoning is, I might take the time to spell it out FOR You - but if you just decide I'm assuming with your first statement, then I'm not going to waste much time on this because you're still jumping to conclusions instead of checking your premises. It is a fringe scenario because the majority of people by and large on a daily basis do NOT get lost in the woods and depend on one other person's talents combined to make it out. Less than 1/10 of 1 percent of people on a daily basis end up in that situation. Ergo - fringe. You mean you don't know that sacrifice is voluntary, or why it's based on relative values? The latter is simply the definition - a sacrifice is giving up something of value for something else of less or no value. The former should be self evident. Again - self evident. Fail to file your taxes for a few years if you don't believe there's force involved. So if the majority of whites believe that blacks should be enslaved and imprison, torture and/or kill those who fail to comply, that's not force, because the majority so voted? Pure Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for lunch. Thank you for proving my point. That you think the two can be separated reveals a big big flaw in your epistemology.
×
×
  • Create New...