Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


therights last won the day on October 9 2011

therights had the most liked content!

1 Follower

About therights

  • Rank

Previous Fields

  • Country
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Copyright
  • Experience with Objectivism
    Just started to learn about Ayn in the past few weeks.
  • Occupation
  1. Is it right to regulation fish to prevent over fish? What's the capitalist view on this?
  2. It's not just removing a little bit of skin. It's removing a part of the body that directly affects pleasure. I was using the finger comparison to show how flawed the logic is. I think people arguing against this point are probably circumcised themselves and have to rationalise the situation because they don't want to feel as if your parents did something wrong. The truth is, everyone makes mistakes and we should learn from them.
  3. Excellent advice from you guys and you basically reinforced what I was already thinking. Greebo you said '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,' I totally agree with this. He does think that because he owns the company he has been instantly bless with the knowledge of the industry.
  4. According to research it has been proposed that it decreases your risk of getting cancer - that's fine and obviously a good thing. However, it does reduce a persons sexual stimulation and their is a risk in the procedure itself, even though it is tiny. This is the best way to approach it. Leave it to choice. If you have a child educate them on the pros and cons related to the procedure and when they are at an age were they can make their own decisions - allow them to do that. What if new medical evidence came out that hacking off your earlobe might prevent you getting a form of a c
  5. Hello, Thanks for your advice here. It is pretty much in line with my own thoughts and feelings and I am now starting to seek employment. I tried to be as objective as possible with my description so it didn't appear like I was only putting across my side of the argument. Basically he wants me to sell something that will cost £2000.00 to tell a client what I already know. He needs to spend a great deal more to make his business work. When I pulled my director in to the meeting after the disagreement I asked him not to speak to me in the way he did, especially not in front of peop
  6. Hi, The director is also the owner of the company. It's basically online marketing that we do. But the upfront fee is for research. But I know doing the research is pointless because the research will show that the guys budget needs to be 50 times higher than what he actually has. My directors point of view is that if we tell him that it can't be done then we will get no money off him. But if we tell him we can research first we will get 2k from him... So basically my director has fallen out with my already and I could have jeopardised my promotion by defending someone else's inte
  7. I have recently been put in a awkward situation at work and I would like to share it with you to see if you can offer any advice from an objectivist point of view. I decided to have a career change a year ago which appeared to be a good decision. I excelled in my new position and was told that I am getting promoted to manager when I have been there a year. The reason I have been told this is because of the excellent client feedback I get and my ability to interact with clients and sell them various different services. I am also very good at getting results and a high return on inves
  8. Following that logic then you would have to say that it's a good idea to hack off a child's finger at birth as it will prevent them getting cancer on that finger. Removing their appendix at birth will stop them getting appendicitis. Keeping them in a constant catatonic state will probably prevent them from leaving the house thus preventing them from getting ran over by a car. The reason for circumcision is not logical - its religion and tradition. For me freedom comes before safety. If the child wants to hack parts of their body off, let them chose for themselves when they are older.
  9. Trebor, I am assume your are an objectivist and I have no idea how you can argue a case for circumcision. What right has a parent got to cut off a part of a child's penis without its consent? There are risks, even though they are small, but should we take this risk just for the sake of it? If a child had an infection on their foreskin, then take it off by all means if it saves the child losing his penis, or his life. But don't start hacking away at a child's body for the sake of tradition.
  10. Are you sure she is only referring to welfare and socialised medicine that or is that your opinion?
  11. Very well put and poetic! Harming another individual is a form of violence and violence should only be used for self defence so circumcising your child is not congruent with objectivist philosophy - neither is hitting your child.
  12. Ayn Rand mentioned that individual rights should not be subject to public vote. A jury can decide whether someone is guilty or not guilty, surely this is a public vote that could result in someone losing their right to liberty, or even their life. What is the objectivist view on this issue? Would it be morally wrong to do jury 'duty'?
  13. I absolutely love Google. It's amazing how they have made their brand synonymous with the word search. They also help me make a living.
  14. I think all drugs should be legalised here in the UK but sold out of specialist distribution centres that have a duty of care to offer users strategies to get off drugs.
  • Create New...