Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


whYNOT last won the day on June 13

whYNOT had the most liked content!


About whYNOT

Previous Fields

  • Country
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Relationship status
    In a relationship
  • Sexual orientation
    No Answer
  • Real Name
    tony garland
  • Copyright
    Must Attribute
  • Occupation

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    South Africa

Recent Profile Visitors

9435 profile views
  1. It's necessary to bear in mind that the religious are not going to conveniently disappear anytime soon, merely because *we know* that Objectivism is right and proper, and that the Christians, etc.are "mystics" who will eventually have "revealed" to them this fact and, one would wrongly suppose, become persuaded by the philosophy. Which is why I can agree with the principled argument made by Journo and still think he's dropping context. He is preaching to the O'ist choir and ignoring that vast number of religious conservatives for whom family, community etc. is their mainstay, and won't change. My argument still, that nationalism and individuality/individual rights are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Even when a country and several others perhaps, adopt individual rights, e.g. when trade is undertaken by *individuals* - not controlled by bureaucrats/government agreements and tariff wars - and when people can move freely from one to the other - and one person, say, is a Christian who holds to family, community, nation and God, those individual rights 'accomodate' all the people and all their ethics throughout the free nations. As irrational as one rates those ethics to be. Now, such a reduced govt. would have no intention, consent or resources, militarily, to do any more than protect its border integrity from other un-free countries (which would still be around). Then and still, I don't see why each (free) nation would not continue to possess its own *sovereignty*, the core of nationalism (after Left/Right, socialist/fascist collectivism is dropped from the equation). And if one values one's nation for these accomplishments, for protecting one's freedoms, even patriotism could be in order.
  2. As far I've read, absorbing material - not so trivial I admit. Thank you. I will need to return to this exchange on Karl Popper, further.
  3. Okay, thanks. I follow (sort of). "Unfalsifiable"? I would be keen to read an Objectivist analysis of Popper's theory. Falsification looks quite trivial to me, but I probably don't understand it.
  4. "European" was clearly my brevity for all European countries and cultures - and any specific one...if you could assume the best 'read' for once. Next time, for your sake I will list them one by one. Yeah, Elan raised rational and individualist as the foil to nationalism. Nothing wrong. Except, I prefer to see the reality of what exists on the continent and what is immediately possible. Invoking individual rights in that arena is akin to wishful thinking at the moment. As i said, I think the movement to right-politics (a precursor to "nationalism", EJ implied) is for self-protection of the worried citizens' of "Europe". Journo's one headline stated and I quoted : "From family to tribe to nation" -- i.e. nationalism by conservatives. I took that concept further for the Left. Jews, I guess you don't know, have always been known as the best assimilators in European countries, especially the secular Jews. More German than a German, was once said about them, pre-war. "Jews aren't European" is an error. Where do you believe at least half lived for many100's of years?
  5. Hey, well done. You cleared the hurdle (that you set up, largely) and things can only get better.
  6. I just saw this, don't know what you've already heard. Contradictions are impossible in reality, but contradictions exist in people's heads. Keep the metaphysics separate from epistemology. Does that help?
  7. Do I detect a slight animus to nationalism (In Journo's essay)? Well, I am for individual rights as much as he, but until some countries in the West willingly take on rights protecting individual sovereignty, they'll have to make do with protecting the sovereignty of nations, in my view. Speaking of today's Europe especially (that he mentions) I don't think he's noted that theirs is not a nationalism born of antagonism and supremacy over other nations, it came out of a deep concern for not losing European culture and identity, one being dissipated by an influx of migrants who don't entirely - or not at all - approve of those things and the efforts of intellects and struggles which created them.. Mostly conservatives who, I gather, are *not* anti-immigrant nor racist, but simply worry: too many, too quickly. Naturally too, there are the usual minority of true racists who jump on board. The former's concerns are valid, and perhaps Journo could acknowledge that this nationalism is a defense strategy against other ideologies gaining the upper hand, distinct from his preconceptions of traditional nationalism. I think what goes for the individual goes also for a nation. One needs to be to be strong to be kind/gentle. The West has suffered some moral weakening and loss of rational-intellectual prowess - which won't be turned around causally, by "enacting" full-scale humanitarian policies. Then ... everyone becomes equally weakened or compromised. "The Argument: From family to tribe to nation". Again, Journo could consider what is inherently wrong with that hierarchy. The bedrock of family - very much inclusive of the individuals, too, and their value - was not my cup of tea, nor I suppose, of many Objectivists, but one can sometimes see the good it provides to its members. And it hasn't done too badly for the West up until now. That such citizens look up to their country and hold it to standards, has often been a positive. But my point: within family-unit and alongside and outside it, Western individualists have generally found the space and freedom they've needed. So much freedom, in fact, that now there've been emerging fresh generations of secularist 'individualists' (actually anti-individualist). I don't know what they, the New Left, Progressives, neo-Socialists, etc., could be well-regarded for, as a whole, but make no bones about it, these are far greater "tribalists", "groupists" and collectivists than the conservatives could ever have come up with in recent times. That formulation for them could be something like: "From tribe to society to global people". I advise - not *ever* from them can we expect individual rights to be supported or arise - whereas from the conservatives, the derided "nationalists", far more likely.
  8. As per usual, Eiuol, you apply the common, societal, normative standards to my use of "moral". So saying that I "demonize" a woman's - or any person's - choice by some societal standards or by religious morals. This is "social metaphysics" which I repudiate. Have you heard of the ethics of rational selfishness? You can't accept that an advanced fetus can be killed "amorally" - as I have always called the act - because it doesn't "possess rights"? That's completely untrue and circular reasoning. "Life" is the base of rights. Rights don't themselves determine whether an act is moral or immoral. One can act within one's rights and commit a moral breach(rationally-selfishly, to repeat). I brought this up a few times and it was ignored. (That I suggested too that, as the result, a viable fetus should in future have the same rights an infant has, is something else). Always, you pick the lowest hanging branch. "Yuckiness" is the most minor part of what I have put out here, plainly referring to the "crude" procedure being one motive to put many women off late abortion. "Rational reasons"? What you have are *practical reasons*. E.g. , "my husband left so now I want a last-minute abortion. And adoption? Why bother?" Which definitely tells one she didn't place much rationally-selfish value in having her child, to begin with - i.e. she had amoral ( in terms of rational -selfishness, again) premises. Easy. You can't and won't accept the basic premise of an individual, viable, human entity as being "life" in its own right and worthy of continuing to live - you will never accept any other premise or consequence. Fine. Say so and let's move on.
  9. No one shares my interest in finding the objective - not subjective nor intrinsicist - solution to abortion, so I'll end here. Thanks and be well, guys! See you another time and place.
  10. "What evidence ..." Do you know anything about women and pregnancy? have you asked many? Why do you need evidence for what only concerns one's thoughts and evaluations based on universally- known facts at large, and Objectivist principles? Have you looked into the mechanics of a late fetal extraction? It is quite simple. Studying embryology will tell you little more than you need. And I said "...even if they are ambivalent about ..." I made no "assumption". A query, if assumed the fetus is a living, viable being, can it be a/immoral to kill it? If yes to both, then would you not at least criticize (heh, "demonize") the only person who HAS the power and made the choice to do so? Or would you "conform to" her wishes? Why would a woman get a moral pass to kill, which you wouldn't allow a man? Answer these questions, please. They are the crux of my argument which you avoid with sophistry. See the polls and make the obvious inferences. A large majority of women, about half pro-choice, think late abortion is wrong. The arguments for and against late abortion, fetal viability, etc. *may* make some "ambivalent" -- but even if uncertain they (rationally) plainly don't take the chance of ending the life of an advanced fetus - in such a crude and probably painful (for the fetus) manner, especially - later to perhaps suffer guilt and remorse. And just because they were slow making up their minds.. Tell them it is their reproductive right, and they won't do it. Tell them the law doesn't forbid it, they still won't. And you supposedly support women.... but they and men are the same species of rational animal! To show respect for women I suggest treat them by the same standard of rational (and emotional) beings they are, no less than men. I think Eiuol you're implicitly agitating for a Leftist, SJW, and hard-core feminist 'principle' that few women would ever act upon but find it unethical/distasteful/non-self-respecting - and, being politically pragmatic, it is a non-principle, no guide to moral action. Thank god most women know better. As the one I linked to, wrote: "These abortion laws aren't what pro-choice is supposed to mean". Quite.
  11. "waiting a while" - what, 36 weeks, or 24 or 20? Is 22 weeks not long enough to make a serious, far-reaching choice? If it is not, and she's unsure, than one would think it's best she doesn't go ahead with the pregnancy. Does she want to risk eventually having to kill her viable fetus, an existing human, while making up her mind? As basics, I think to intend having a child needs 1. conviction 2. fitting circumstances. If either is lacking, I don't think the choice is rational. The stats speak for themselves - if you've not heard several mothers and other women make clear their repugnance, as I recounted. The majority of women will not, pro-choicers, included, venture into the third trimester to have an abortion. Even if they are ambivalent about the biological existence of a human life, and have (somehow) been oblivious to the fetus' size and weight and of its sporadic movements which they personally sense, it appears the 'procedure' itself, finally puts them off. A fetus is not "a clump of cells".The in situ crushing of a skull and evacuation of the remains has become too well-known and unforgettable. A woman's 'natural instinct', so to speak, is never to kill what they perhaps, earlier, valued. Her "instinct" is entirely rational and moral. [So, btw, making her difficult choice to abort before that "bright line" point is fully deserving of one's sympathy]. The real moral blame should go to the medical practitioners who supply the service, who conduct the late/full term abortion. They know exactly what is involved, so can't evade the actuality. And they are ethically bound by the Hippocratic Oath (with all the provisos of foremost acting for their patient's life and health, of course). They would have to face criminal charges.
  12. "Ignorance and disregard". I have nothing but high regard for all the women (80 to 95+ percent, depending on which polls) who take their bodies, lives and pregnancy, her embryo/fetus or motherhood, with the gravity this deserves and who choose to take immediate steps for an abortion when they have unwanted, accidental pregnancies. This I've made clear. That great majority of women, very apparently, have such high consciousness, self-esteem and respect for a potential life, (and the responsibility of raising a child) to allow for arbitrary actions on this. I am on their side. Otoh, it is all of you who've argued in support of (let's say) the more irresponsible, irrational woman, the small minority, who leaves her decision late, then - amorally chooses to have her fetus killed, rather than even to get it adopted. In other words, it seems you don't expect very much from women. (The soft bigotry of low expectations, as it's called). Then - who has the greater respect for women, you or I?
  13. "Misogynist" may not be a common PC term, yet. Just like "---phobe", one sees this used most often in order to (a). assert for oneself the moral high ground (b). substitute for reasoning (c). "shame'' one's opponent into silence. You must be aware of how much this ploy is used, particularly from the modern Left. And you claim - I - "...introduced whatever PC slogan..."? What? I have not used derogatory "slogans" of any type to anyone. It seems odd to explain on this forum what is a rationally-selfish "moral disapproval". "Values", supreme value, sacrifice of values, and so on. Also, I made a passing remark about late abortion "foreign" to us (the early pro-choice liberals, in this country) and that you believe is my whole argument?! Did I say we "disapproved" of it? I did not. I intimated that it was the furthest thing from our minds. Getting a legal abortion, and soon, was all that counted. Sure. If known back then, I have no doubt it would have been rejected as immoral/unconscionable, as it is largely today by women (as well-expressed by the pro-choice writer above).. I think you should not put words in my mouth, I will be doubting that you "participate in good faith". .. "It still isn't an entity that bears any rights". And why not, in future? When an "objective" - not arbitrary, not subjective, not religious, law comes into place, that can change. I believe it will. All western nations have similar laws, but all lack an objective basis. I repeat simply. Is it ethical to kill a human? Not of course a human zygote or embryo -- but a fully-formed fetus? One with vital life-signs and viability? If that is answered, then the laws and rights will follow. If it's immoral, then the fetus gets the same protection of law a baby would. Then you'd see late-abortion doctors arrested and charged with infanticide..
  14. You're covering up. Anyone can easily deduce your simplistic thinking: A. "This poster thinks late abortions are wrong". B. "Women have abortions". C. "Yes! I have found this poster is anti-woman. A misogynist!" D. "Therefore his views on abortion are prejudiced against women, and so I can expose him!" A psychologizer, who has added nothing of value on this topic. You not only are illogical, not only believe that PC slogans are meaningful, you have lowdown motives in trying, for lack of any reasoned argument, to impugn my character, especially lifting from a thread in which I was offering my honest advice to someone from past experiences.
  15. If you had followed so far, you would be clearer that this fetus is - objectively - an autonomous life, with all attributes and properties of a human, one you are being so casual about aborting. "The Objectivist argument against late-term abortions would be that the fetus is a potential life not an actual one". Huh? I think you meant "for". Leaving that, and what you're transposing and taking out of context, is Rand on ~potential vs. actual~ but "essentially, this concerns the first three months" of pregnancy. NOT the last three months. She talks of a "clump of cells". Remember? She didn't mention late-term, except saying that after the first trimester, the subject is "debatable". The argument now, is that this fetus IS actual. So your "Objectivist argument" doesn't hold water for third trimester abortion, and going by her philosophy it is doubtful she would "embrace it" - as someone said here . "Up to her". What if that woman's husband "suddenly" leaves her one day before, or at the last second, on the day of its birth, what then? What a terrible inconvenience. Of course, she'd have every cause to abort it! After all, a baby has zero value to her, now. This action indicates sacrificial immorality and cynical unconcern for her life and any life - but you'd not judge it "negatively". Maybe it is equally "up to her" for a mother to murder her baby just *after* its birth? After all, if her husband cheats on/abandons her, she is morally justified, by your standards. Oh, but then she'd be charged by the law. A baby which, by your reckoning, wasn't a human life one minute or one day earlier, suddenly and magically becomes "life" by emerging from the womb. Work that out. Therefore your argument is irrelevant, amoral and ultimately, circular. Circling back to what has been endlessly repeated: What is human life (and when) - and *should* it be protected? Self-evidently, if it has become a viable, independent, surviving human body/life, as everybody beyond doubt knows and can see it has (whenever a fetus has had to be removed early) - at THAT stage of third trimester development, whether in or out of its mother's uterus, it is identified as a human being. Of course, if one insists as you and, quite likely most late-abortionists do, that a fetus is an integral "part" of a mother, i.e. like any one of her vital organs - heart, kidneys, stomach, or her limbs - THEN, isn't that nice, one may dismiss a grown fetus with easier conscience, and late-abort it without guilt or a rational morality. In that case, again, everyone will repeat - "this is the mother's body and her life, she can choose what she wants with it...etc, etc", justifying the choice of, er, ~ removal ~ of this so-called, "part" of her. Except, sorry to break it to you, the fetus as being "her body" or "her life" is a biological and metaphysical falsity, and the excuses made break down to justification or evasion. Putting "a self-sustaining and self-generating process" into this context - a fetus possesses its OWN physicality and ACTS towards its OWN life. Its existence depends on its 'environment', of course, as do all living things, and babies and adults, but it is "an end in itself". Since fertilization, it was never an integral "part" of anything or anyone else, physically (later, also consciously). Rand's preamble to rational *selfishness* covers this ground, and obviously with good reason..
  • Create New...