Black Wolf
-
Posts
647 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Posts posted by Black Wolf
-
-
A nice article dismissing this finding this study as irrelevant
-
If racism of particular people were the things keeping black people down - then asians and jews would not be having the same "privileges" they have today
-
This is truly amazing... I heard about it this Monday. I was excited
-
Are you sure SOPA violates due process? I do understand that it's a 71 page bill, but on the very first page it says that no action by the state can be found to violate the first amendment. It also says that sufficient evidence must be provided that the website owner's primary purpose is to distribute copyright material. Also, it says that criminal action can be taken against anyone who files false SOPA claims. Is there something in the 71 page thing that contradicts this?
-
What???
McVeigh was a registered Republican in the eighties, yes, but there is simply no evidence of his being a mainstream conservative. And though he was raised Catholic, he himself said he lost touch with it as an adult, and described himself as an agnostic (though he did ask for last rites from a priest before being executed -- no atheists in a foxhole, I suppose...). He was not a "practicing Catholic" at all. He didn't attend Mass as an adult, which is the bare minimum for being a practicing Catholic.
Just for corrections, because I missed this one: When McVeigh claimed to be an agnostic, he thought it meant "I'm not sure what denomination of Christianity I am". That's why he didn't attend mass - not because he was an agnostic. He still professed a belief in a God.
-
I get the impression from your statements that you have a deeper confusion on the delimited nature of children's rights as a special case?
I might. I think perhaps, my confusion stems from the lack of arguments provided other than reductio ad absurdum.
I understand that children have limited rights, due to a developing rational faculty - but the problem I'm having is - does this make them inherently slaves, if they do any work?
-
"This is the issue I'm having: I'm not so clear that it's not true. It may not be necessarily a bad thing that a kid is told to wash dishes, but the issue I'm having trouble with is the idea that child labor is not slavery. Would I have to argue that, by definition, a kid is a slave until he is an adult capable of making his own choices?"
Slavery entails the usurpation of one's rights to one's proper wages and to one's ability to determine one's own choices. It makes a man a commodity, little more than a useful machine that can be bought or sold. It is a degradation of man. Expecting a youngster to contribute to the welfare of the family that is supporting and protecting him is not a degradation (within reason...), but rather a sharing of responsibility, one that will prepare him to be a more effective worker when he is on his own. It's an educational opportunity, not slavery (I am speaking of typical conditions here in the United States). I don't know why you would have to argue otherwise.
Because if someone can make the case that a child can't consent at a certain age, regardless of what they actually say - and if people make the argument that a slave is, by definition, someone who is working without consent - then the case can be made that a child is inherently a slave.
Your argument is that if the child is working, or being asked to find a job that is not a danger to his health, in exchange for continued shelter. That's great - but it doesn't eliminate the problem of - can a child consent? Child labor, good or bad, humane or inhumane is not voluntary unless the case can be made that consent can be given. Mutual transactions that aren't consented doesn't eliminate slaveyr.
CapitalistFred and you have provided very good arguments that kids should be allowed to work - but it doesn't eliminate the problem of:
- Can a child consent to work?
- Is child labor voluntary?
- If it's not, is it slavery?
The fact that a child is able to purchase may imply that the child is capable of consenting to certain activies. Now, imagine if the store clerk said.. "Hey kiddo, you want more of these candies? If you get a job here, you can afford more of this candy!" The child instantly says yes... in this situation, it doesn't seem like the child was in his right mind to consent. What would be proper consent - if he asked his parents first? Assuming what Avila said, that a child getting a job is merely contributing to the welfare of his family, perhaps the case can be made that child labor, with consent of the parents, is not slavery.
-
Firstly, taken to the extreme, that argument would mean that any work done by any child is slavery, and that therefore every child who is told to wash disches or make a bed is in fact a slave, clearly this is not true.
This is the issue I'm having: I'm not so clear that it's not true. It may not be necessarily a bad thing that a kid is told to wash dishes, but the issue I'm having trouble with is the idea that child labor is not slavery. Would I have to argue that, by definition, a kid is a slave until he is an adult capable of making his own choices?
-
"The US has exactly as much right (to attack another country because they have nukes) as other nations have to attack the US for having nukes."
This is not correct - the United States and Iran are completely different countries with completely different regimes. The United States, despite perhaps having a history of having some ideological wars, has a Constitution and regime that prevents them from doing so. With Iran, their Constitution encourages their military to start ideological wars - wars in the name of Islam.
Iran has a history of initiating force against us - They did nationalize oil found by American enterprise
-
I've been hearing a lot of arguments against child labor, that children of young ages can't consent - therefore, if any child were to work somewhere, it would be slavery.
Now, I'm not sure if Ayn Rand has addressed child labor laws at all, but I am guessing in a free-market society, child labor wouldn't necessarily be illegal - government may perhaps take action against them only in cases where it seems as though the parent is out of their mind, either for leting or encouraging them to work in certain places.
But at the same time, it can also be argued that, if children work anywhere - regardless of whether or not it's at Starbucks, or a coal mine- the child is a slave.
Would it be wrong to argue that the child is a slave, until he is conscious enough to be able to legally consent?
-
Who said atheism automatically makes one rational? Or more rational? I'm never met an atheist acutally say that - and believe me, I have MANY complaints about fellow atheists.
-
"Nor was it important to Ayn Rand, so you're probably in the wrong place to look for a concept of family to strive for (a family of your own)."
Ahahahah, what?
-
That was just a joke, I'm not really into psychologising you know, but I will update my opinion on the subject. I never meant to imply that I think there are no loonies and neurotics. And it's not that I dismiss the prevalence of psychiatric disorders completely (I might have thought that way before) but while studying some diseases and pathology my opinion is now that things like Schizophrenia, OCD, ADHD probably exist, but if they do, they are neurological problems. So called "psychiatric" DSM problems are probably either psychological or have a pathological cause in the body that is hard to diagnose (like porphyria). Anxiety is a medical malaise that probably has a physical cause in the body most of the time and in really severe cases probably a combination of bodily problems and neurological problems. The chemical imbalance theory is just like the old "humor imbalance" belief, it's a convenient way for doctors to explain diseases they can't figure out and develop "treatments" for them. Not all doctors want to cure patients, if they found simple cures then they wouldn't make as much money, psychiatric drugging is a billion dollar industry and it's easy as hell to sit in a chair and make a generalized diagnosis to write a prescription.
I was joking too.
And yeah, I don't think my ability to pinpoint spelling errors instantly prevents me from seeing the bigger picture. It makes me happy that I can recognize that it's a spelling error - and it helps me a lot when writing essays. And if I feel something is worthy of being disagreed with, I generally don't mention any spelling or grammatical errors I come across.
As for the topic hand, I wonder - is it possible that maybe, just maybe, philosophers may have a potential job market outside of colleges? Perhaps a psychologist can hire a philosopher as an assistant. Like.. maybe, all a depressed person really would need is to have a conversation with a philosopher. I really don't know how something like this would work out. But I will agree the modern psychiatry is too pre-occupied with medication as a solution. Obviously, this approach would not work right now.
-
So, I have a question -
Didn't Judge Walker defy binding precedent by ruling in favor of Perry, on the grounds that it was a violation of Due Process and the Equal Proteciton Clause? Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810, 34 L.E.2d 65, 93 S Ct 37 (1972), is a Supreme Court case, which is a higher jurisdiction than the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Since Judge Walker refused to rule along with a lawsuit much similar to the one he judged, he violated binding precedent.
-
No but there is an ought. And it's much more than the simple sexual mechanics. It's the mind/body taken as a whole and the way two different sexes compliment one another metaphysically and phycho-epistemologically. Same sex relationships do neither.
If this is based solely on Ayn Rand's comments on feminine/masculine, then your last statement is unsupported. You understand that people have no obligation to reproduce, fine. But there is nothing about gender differences alone that hinder any compliments.
-
http://forum.objecti...ndpost&p=185463 Here's a link from another thread discussing this.
And another http://forum.objecti...ndpost&p=183147
And a more important one http://forum.objecti...=1
And the most important thread. http://forum.objecti...=1
Have fun.
Was that in reference to my post? Because I'm mostly asking a question of what way of dealing with Iran will result in least negative consequences for us. The topics you posted are rather old - Iranians may have more power to screw us over now.
-
I'm not sure if this is addressed, but what is the best way to deal with Iran, if we're to use retributive force on them, without screwing ourselves over?
A direct attack from the U.S. Military? What if Iran decides to attack us in a way that could severely screw our economy up? That's all they'd need to do to make us very vulnerable. And, if everyone's right about them being willing to die for religious causes, I doubt it would be too much of a strech that they'd try to curse us before they go out.
Pay mercenaries? Same problem... if the U.S government is the one paying them. If Iran figures out we put them up to it, they'll attack us.
Letters of marque and reprise? That's usually called for tiny, non international conflicts.. but it could work. If several people were applying for them
-
Ahmadinejad is an asshole, I don't think most people would argue against that. But does he really speak for Iran? Yeah, he's the president, but he really doesn't even have that much power. He doesn't control Iranian nuclear strategy, or foreign policy. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is the guy that's in charge. Ahmadinejad isn't even the -2nd- most powerful person in the country, more like the 14th.
-
Lol, I'm sorry you are an OCD grammar nazi nut.
I guess now would be a bad time to comment on the irony of diagnosing me with OCD in a topic where you decry the hasty diagnoses of modern psychiatry?
-
That or the general sort of thing *Islam* preaches and which in any case many of these sorts of people are totally fine with anyway. Not just actual terrorists in Al Queda, but these sorts of [violent] religous extremists.
You can't just a country's foreign policy motives based on what their religion says - you have to have more than that. Anyone can claim to be of a certain religion, and totally ignore the passages, or even fundamentals of the religion. It seems that most of the violence done on Iran's part has been ethnic, not religious. That's still not a case for allowing them to develop nukes, of course.
Orly. Ever read any quotes from Iran's leader?Just to be clear, we're not talking about Ahmadinejad, are we?
-
I was testing you all =O
but.. I still have a problem with this.
Edit : Do not expect madmen that cant wait to die for some "noble cause" ( they think nuking the USA etc would be noble) and get to those virgins, to be put off by the prospects of death.You are applying reason to people who are irrational. All they want is death and destruction. There can be no M.A.D. when the people who control the nukes on one side actually are mad.
This seem like the goals of Al Qaeda.. not Iran.
-
The important question to ask is: How do we know Iran is planning on using their nukes in an aggressive way? It would be foolish for them to even try using it on us or Israel... it would be the last thing they ever did. Didn't we create several fear campaigns about Russia and China developing nukes, only for them to not use them several decades later? Doesn't Iran only want self-defense?
-
meunstral hormones
Just thought I'd point out the typo. It actually made me hungry for some cheese.
-
http://facebook.cufi.org/2011/11/iran-nearing-nuclear-capability/
http://in.reuters.com/article/2011/11/07/idINIndia-60362820111107
Well, it seems as though Iran has mastered the important steps needed to create a nuclear weapon.
Many people are arguing that if Iran were to not only be able to develop nuclear energy, but nuclear weapons, it would be a good thing. If Iran had the ability to develop nuclear weapons, Iran and rival countries with nukes would be less likely to get involved in all-out war. I would be compelled to agree with this, if
A) They have given us back the oil that we've uncovered and
Iran wasn't mentally illSo, should the United States take any steps necessary to interfere with their creation of nuclear weapons? Or should we let Iran develop them?
North Carolina’s Despicable Amendment
in The Objectivism Meta-Blog Discussion
Posted
So what is the difference between civil unions and marriage anyway? Aside from tax breaks and monetary benefits?