EC

Or short circuit it all and create our own nation. And yeah, I've heard I believe it was Yaron Brooks objection that governments won't allow even floating nations at sea. The thing is its none of their business how a new nation is created as long as they are rights respecting free nations which a new Objectivist founded nation would be the shining example of. ***Actually I'll go a step further and make it official. I'm founding the Constitutional Republic of Atlantis right this second. I need no person, group, or government's sanction nor approval and it now officially in existence. Let's start building it!***

But were they arrived at via reason as a consequence of man's nature in reality without being linked to supernatural entities? Again, coming to correct conclusions for the wrong reasons still means that the answer is incorrect. That said, I have no interest in any form of mysticism from any culture. It's a direct rejection of reality, and not worth any type of discussion as the arbitrary should only be dismissed without discussion.

No, I know with 100% absolute certainty that anything based on any type of mysticism of any type is incorrect even if they occasionally reach the correct answer for the absolute wrong reasons. An instance off the top of my head is the Christian "thou shall not kill". The correct principle behind that is of course respect of every individual's right to life and not a random "commandment" from an imaginary dictorial being who even if one of these things existed would have no right to do so and would be violating morality by definition by acting as a dictator over others.

There's no such thing as a "dharmic" principle. You are resorting to complete arbitrary mysticism. Essentially, everything from every religion has to be dismissed instantly out of hand by moral rational people.

Animals do not possess the ability to use reason as it is a conceptual process (which animals lack) and requires the use of logic which requires the ability to form concepts and which is required for non-contradictory identification. Also, reason isn't an infallible process as errors are possible but the use of reason allows one to correct any errors of knowledge.

Completely arbitrary assertion (and an example of smearing).

Ayn Rand "Philosophy studies the fundamental nature of existence, of man, and of man's relationship to existence. In the realm of cognition, the special sciences are the trees, but philosophy is the soil which makes the forest possible." Quote right from this forum.

My guess is that this was done purposely and like not by Gus.

What is wrong with you? What is good for the life of man qua man is the good and what is opposed to the life of man qua man is the evil, and this directly follows from man's nature as a rational being. Why are you even on this forum, let alone the mass of anti-Objectivists also posting. You are lucky that I was demodded for enforcing the forums (appropriate) rules as written and in context.

Science is applied philosophy such as physics or ethics in the same way engineering is applied science. Areas of ideas don't exist as random separated islands, there is a hierarchy of knowledge. What is it with this forum being bombarded from a million different directions by false irrational ideas and strange random assertions all based of floating concepts, out of context premises, etc?

My position on this matter is identical to all of ARI's positions in every respect. And not because they said it but because I completely agree with everything that they have released and there is a ton of content on this subject released from them that goes explicitly into each position and issue involved. I'm not going to go over every aspect of every issue here which is what this would require from innocents in war, the history of the situation, what Justice requires, the list is endless and I know how the discussions on this forum on an issue like this goes with context constantly dropped (not accusing you of that) and random questions thrown out. ARI's many analysis videos and commentary on this subject from the very start of this context (and really since 9/11) match my own with me having arrived at the same conclusions for the same reasons but they answer everything explicitly and in the detail I wouldn't want to personally attempt here. But will state being against those supporting and/or engaging in terrorism is not in any way equivalent to being against any true innocents involved in the conflict (or any conflict for that matter). I just see zero reason to reargue what has been essentially near perfectly argued by them here and in this sort of an environment where I can predict how this sort of conversation will go and mostly by which members. There is no point in rearguing and explaining what is done over and over again in elegant manner by ARI and is freely available to all in this format which quickly becomes a crapshoot of essentially randomly thrown out questions when every question, answer, explanation, and moral principle is covered in that manner. I don't have the time or energy to do that here versus hostile individuals or groups and refer them to that mass of content that made every argument while covering essentially every possible objection already perfectly.

Did you actually watch the video because that is not the argument at all, it is both much more complex and much simpler in other ways.

This answers all of the nonsense stated here accurately. And no, I won't be responding to those who promote it and evil. https://newideal.aynrand.org/hamas-and-the-tyranny-of-need/

So a modern day promoter of modern Nazism and terrorists in SK is going to be allowed to post here?