Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

ToyoHabu

Regulars
  • Posts

    67
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    ToyoHabu reacted to Hairnet in Selfishness and making others pay   
    What I am about to say is a pessimistic way of looking at things, but I would argue the following: You were forced to live. No one asked if you wanted to be born, and now you are most likely going to experience intense pain, madness and death. Now, you have the next eighty years or so to make it all worth it. The phrase "You only live once" is often used as an excuse to do something goofy at a party. However, when one examines the fact that they will only live once, the preciousness of their own existence becomes obvious, and the desire to waist it on petty things vanishes.


    So I ask myself at least, what makes the pain, suffering, senility, and death worth it? The answers to that don't include spending time around crazy people who I secretly despise. Just to make it clear, life is not just pain, suffering, senility, and death. In fact those can be very small parts of life if you are rational. If you are not rational, and spend time manipulating people, violating the rights of others, and just being and over all asshole, you will push the good out of life and bring in the bad.


    Ethics are for your benefit, for you to live your life. You can use game theory to imagine situations in which unethical actions may bring an advantage to someone. However this usually doesn't take into account the full context of an individuals existence.
  2. Like
    ToyoHabu got a reaction from brian0918 in "Bad" monopolies in a Laissez-faire system?   
    The question as posed seems to have the implicit assumption that we have a right to whatever product we would like to have. No matter how awesome the product is, that someone has invented, we have no right to it. They have no duty nor responsibility to sell it to us and have the right to charge any price they want, that awesome product the make is theirs to do with as they please(insert normal cant kill me with it clause here).

    There has never been a monopoly not based on government force that has ever acted in the manner you describe that has not resulted in its own destruction.

    We have nothing to fear from monopolies in a laissez faire economy
  3. Like
    ToyoHabu got a reaction from aequalsa in Natural Monopoly Question   
    He defeats his own argument with that quote, as he acknowledges that they are in fact in competition with other entities in the marketplace. Why is this a problem?

    I would say that electric wires run to your house is just one method of delivering energy, there are many alternatives that would be in competition with that method of delivering energy, alternatives technologies like solar power and wind. Even natural gas combined with fuel cell technology could compete.
    People could also explore alternatives like purchasing less power by building more energy efficient homes and business. Large user like manufacturing could go back to producing there own like they used to.
  4. Like
    ToyoHabu got a reaction from Jonny Glat in A hypothetical concerning the existence of 'viable' violence   
    Viable has several meanings according to context, Based on your description I think this one "Able to be done, possible" fits. Using this definition, its is certainly possible to steal $50000. I would think it is not as possible as finding a doctor and a hospital and some benefactors who would be willing to work things out.
  5. Like
    ToyoHabu reacted to RationalBiker in "Atlas Shrugged" Movie   
    Most people on this forum don't think with their nuts anyway.


  6. Downvote
    ToyoHabu reacted to Jacob86 in Refutation of existence of an all powerful being.   
    It is baffling to me that Objectivists are incapable of seeing the horrendous error in equating "inability" to "ability" and "weakness" to "strength".

    Your argument basically says that in order for a being to be all powerful, He must have the "power" to possess a weakness. In order for Him to be able to do all things, He must have an inability. This is so absurdly altruistic. Strength does NOT require weakness. Ability does not require inability.

    The "ability" to posess an inability is NOT an ability. The "ability" to be weak is NOT a strength. It is a weakness.

    An omnipotent being could not do any of the things listed in all of your silly objections because all of those things are weaknesses, inabilities, deprivations. An omnipotent being is not "able" to be non-omnipotent; and the inability to be non-omnipotent is NOT a weakness, but a strenght. The inability to be weak is NOT a weakness.
    If you wish to argue otherwise, then I cannot fathom how you can separate yourself from the envious, sniveling, altruistic, greatness-haters running rampant in the world.
  7. Like
    ToyoHabu reacted to bluecherry in Raising Kids & Objectivism   
    Just to be clear in case my wording didn't get across correctly what I meant the first time, I was not suggesting that you should consider creating a less than desirable environment for your kid. If you meant that I should know you wouldn't be doing what you were doing if you thought it was less than desirable, that's kind of beside the point because what I was trying to bring up was to ask if maybe you simply haven't considered some things before to realize that perhaps their may be something lacking in your approach. Furthermore, I do not believe everything about the way you are raising this kid must be bad or even that the sum total is not generally good. I'm asking about a pretty specific aspect here which has been used in a limited enough amount and way that, if you can assume for the sake of a hypothetical for a moment, the bad effects of which could be overall drowned out by other positives in what you have been doing so that you may not realize what damage has been done or what further potential for good has been missed out on. So in sum total, I'm saying just because you turned out well and your kid has been pretty good, doesn't mean the physical punishment usage and threat of usage is helping bring about any positive outcomes, or at least not the best possible outcomes compared to other options, in either of you.

    Now, why should you consider methods of raising children that exclude the use and threat of use of physical punishment in general, even if very limited and light physical punishment only? First off, aside from bringing up correlation with your own upbringing and that you turned out well, a correlation which does not establish a causation among other things, you also bring up a correlation to having seen children raised by parents who refused to use physical punishments and threats of such and some negative results in how those kids turned out in your observation and experience. This too only is a correlation though and not an established causation. Why should you question the connection being a causal one here? From what I've seen at least and I suspect you may have noticed this too, by far and large, the same families who refuse to use physical punishments have more than just that one element in common. These families often have a more lax attitude toward parenting and what the role and purpose of a parent is in a child's life. Think of the kinds of parents who may want too much to be like the child's friend rather than any sort of authority figure in general to them. The kinds of parents are low on setting guidelines and making any kind of refusals to their children at all often. They may have a very short-range and kind of hedonistic approach to the child perhaps, just aiming to give the child whatever they happen to want at the moment with few questions asked and let the child do whatever the child wants whenever with little hesitance. In general, they give in, they fail to guide, they let the kid run wild with little to no directions on where to go or why to go there. This, however, is not the kind of approach anybody here is advocating anybody takes with raising children. What is advocated is not being "soft" and constantly caving in and letting kids get away with whatever. What IS advocated is firm guidance and clear limits and consequences, just with physical punishments being dealt out by the parents not being one of those consequences. There is a very different reasoning for this one same position held between these two separate parties where the differences are more important than the similarities. It's kind of like how both Objectivists and communists may advocate for atheism, but they have very different reasons and very little else in common and very different results in spite of how they have atheism in common.

    So what is the different reasoning behind why a number of people here do not advocate the usage or threat of consequences for wrongdoing taking the form of parents inflicting any kind of physical pains? Quite frankly, "the consequences of lying include getting hit by a parent" just does not make sense. It is a very arbitrary form of punishment not stemming from anything about how reality works. The two main goals here are teaching and protecting kids basically, right? Hitting the child contributes to neither of those things. It doesn't tell them anything about the inevitable logical results of being a liar, only the potentially avoidable consequences you are copying based on tradition and association. This doesn't let them know why it benefits them not to lie, just why it benefits them not to get caught lying by you, much like just because a bully may have been in a kid's life at one point and threatened to hit them if they didn't give them their lunch money, it doesn't mean it is in one's best interests to give lunch money to anybody who asks for it as a general policy in the future, even when those people do not threaten to attack them if the child refuses to give the money up.

    So, supposing you assume that the hitting and threats of such to your child are not about the teaching itself, but about protecting them in some (slightly counter intuitive) way? How about that, you may inquire. Suppose you took the view point perhaps of treating this as supplemental to the actual teaching material, seeing it as protective by trying to use the physical pain as a way to drive in that you really mean it, they better remember to stick to this one. Driving home the point and getting them to remember it you may think is helping protect them, so if it it accomplishes this you may believe it is a good parenting move. Again I would ask why you would use this as your form of driving in your message. There are other ways to make strongly clear to a child why they really are doing themselves no favors by generally being dishonest. One way is to *demonstrate* those consequences in action. Do things to show it, point out examples of the consequences. As has been brought up before, liars are not trustworthy. Show the kid that you now find their actions and claims cannot be trusted because they've shown they're willing to lie to you to try to deceive you. Don't let them do various things because you can't trust claims they make about what they say they'll do, if they will stick to safety measures like they say they will, if they can be trusted not to break some fragile object when they say they will be careful, if they really mean it when they say they intend to take care of that goldfish if you get it for them, et cetera. Think of it this way: there are two teachers teaching science classes. Which one do you think would help drive home an understanding and acceptance of the message in the text book better - the one that does demonstrations to illustrate examples of the truths from the lessons, or the one that just smacks students with a ruler if they forget or get things wrong or don't seem to believe it for lack of clarity? Maybe threatening to inflict physical pain could get a kid to fall in line more quickly than having a long conversation with them about reasons and following through on these kinds of demonstration punishments, but parenting is about the long term interests and as with school learning, quicker is definitely not always better. Trying to cram and quickly memorize text for a test may be quicker, but it is not good in the long term as it misses actually comprehending in favor of memorizing and it is quickly forgotten, never really making it into storage in the long term memory. Parenting is for the long term, you don't want to just get lazy and opt for the quicker method that will get them to do something beneficial for now for reasons they don't know in lieu of the one that actually will get them to stick to it long term because they know why it benefits them even when you aren't around.

    If you understand and agree with my reasoning thus far about the efficacy of punishments taking of form of demonstrating why the logical consequences of certain actions are bad for a child, good. Perhaps you may ask why you can't still use punishments and threats of such involving inflicting of physical pain anyway, in addition to those demonstrations which are already being used to drive home the point. I would ask why you would still want to do so though. Why might you think it really needs that even further form of trying to make them remember? Why might you not believe that the approach of giving reasons and demonstrated logical consequences is sufficient? Might the kid still mess up with this method and try to find a way to get around lying not being generally in their best interests anyway and you may find yourself then having to repeat the process with them again with repetition as an additional reinforcement? Quite possibly, even likely, but the same can be said for a method that also employs inflicting physical pain upon discovery of bad deeds. If you have any other arguments for why you may think you could still get some more kind of benefit from keeping inflicting physical pain in there as a regular (even if rarely and lightly used) part of your disciplinary repertoire, the ball is in your court now to please say what that benefit is.
  8. Downvote
    ToyoHabu reacted to bukhari in My Anti Gravitational Theory   
    yes good point
    Whole the universe is surrounded by different gases.It can be understand by the following example
    If you put down a footbal or tenis ball on the surface of the water it will float on the surface of the water on the other hand if you put a steel ball on the surface of water it will sink down .
    Same is the case with earth and the moon all these are suspended in the universe according to their density and will never fuse or strike with each other.Thats why all the planets are moving and rotating in their orbits from the thousands of years.
  9. Like
    ToyoHabu reacted to JayR in My Anti Gravitational Theory   
    How does this theory explain the moon orbiting the earth and affecting the tides?
  10. Downvote
    ToyoHabu reacted to bukhari in My Anti Gravitational Theory   
    there is no gravitational force in this world if there any force exist then it would apply on the basis of their masses and weights.For example put a paper and a steel rod in front of a blower then switch on the blower you wil see the air will throw the paper many meter away from the blower on the other hand the steel rod will move some inches away from the blower.
    But in case of gravitaional force the result is reverse it works more effectively for heavier objects rather than light objects.For example if you put down a stone from the top of a building it will comes down on the ground very rapidly on the other hand if want to throw down a ballon it will never comes down on the ground if the gravity exist then the ballon should comes down more rapidly due to its lighter weight as compared to stone but it never happens because there is no force of gravity in this universe.Accuately there are two factors that are controlling the entire process
    1 density
    2 pressure
    Any object that is more dense than air will comes downward and the object less dense than air will go upward.The factor that controls the falling and upgoing speed of the object is the pressure of the air.
    There are many examples to support and prove this concept .
×
×
  • Create New...