Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Reason_Being

Regulars
  • Content Count

    73
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Reason_Being

  • Rank
    Junior Member

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Canada
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Ontario
  • Chat Nick
    RB
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Sexual orientation
    No Answer
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  1. Please indicate where I used a straw man. I'm also curious as to why you feel the need to use such aggressive, borderline hostile tone. Lighten up.
  2. Well if you view any questioning of your point of view as a lack of logic then that's too bad, I guess there's no point in discussing this. I see nothing illogical in stating that nukes don't prevent war in all cases, as has been proven by history. Maybe in your mind, logic works in a different way than it does in reality?
  3. I've already stated that having a nuke does not deter war. If that were the case, there would have been no point to the Cold War. And 9/11 wouldn't have happened. Crimea's value to Putin is its strategic military significance. That fact alone suggests that Putin is thinking future war plans. If Crimea eventually falls into the hands of NATO, that would put Russia in a weak position regardless of their nuclear arms. I think you are being short sighted in writing off my argument. By your logic there can never be a World War 3 because everyone has nukes. It doesn't work that way, there is alw
  4. Yes precisely and it's nothing new, really. Everyone knows that Putin wants to keep Crimea out of the hands of NATO as Ukraine drifts towards the EU.
  5. Then explain why Putin is so dead set on getting little old Crimea. If you think he is willing to go through all this just to retain a tiny bit of Russian influence over Europe, I think that's very inaccurate and ignorant of the greater geopolitical context. Why is Crimea so important? Because of its military influence. That's it. Having a nuke does not shield a country from getting attacked. The circumstances under which Russia would actually use a nuke can't be fully predicted, but they sure as hell are not going to drop a nuke on Europe unless the situation is so dire that the mere
  6. Yes and I already stated that despite having nukes, their military is outdated. That's why Putin wants Crimea so badly. Because of the missile shield which would give NATO an overwhelming military advantage.
  7. No, I am saying that if NATO gets Crimea, then they will be in a position to wage war with Russia.
  8. If Russia were to take all of Ukraine, I think it would not result in large scale war. The opposite would be true if NATO got a hold of Crimea. Whether you would like to see NATO go to war with Russia is one thing. The reality is that they probably would is another. The stars would be aligned... Russia: a natural resource-rich country which is already an antagonist and which is at an enourmous military disadvantage. If NATO gets Crimea, I don't see Europe just leaving Russia alone and letting it gradually lose influence over Europe over the course of a decade. No, the west will seize the o
  9. I think you both might be overlooking a grander geopolitical situation and just how important of a strategic military zone Crimea is. A vital missile shield is located in Crimea. If it falls into the hands of NATO, it will give the West a decisive military edge over Russia because, despite having nukes, Russia's military is outdated and would be ripe for a NATO offensive should the West decide to go to war. Despite being declared as an imperialist by just about everyone, Putin acted in pre-emptive self-defense. By preventing Crimea from falling into the hands of NATO, he might be preventin
  10. I agree. While it is true that the bill itself is stupid and reflects the religious right's misunderstanding of the concepts of rights and liberty, the idea of any person having a right to another person's services/time/life is more fundamental of a folly than the mistakes in the bill (I haven't actually read the through bill, but I get the gist of it). At this point, the veto of this bill is being seen as a great victory for the LGBT community in Arizona, and a victory for "civil rights", which means that any attempt to bring forth a new law which properly protects freedom of discrimination w
  11. Israel an apartheid state? That is simply laughable. There are Arabs in Israel's government, Arabs teaching in their schools, Arabs who enjoy more freedoms in Israel than they would in any of the Islamist states which circulate this Israeli apartheid nonsense.
  12. Sorry, I know my original question was very brief but I am looking for something more detailed in a response. The scientific method is defined as: "a method of research in which a problem is identified, relevant data are gathered, a hypothesis is formulated from these data, and the hypothesis is empirically tested." (dictionary.com) It's the last two words of that definition which is the source of my confusion on this matter. Science requires empirical testing. How does one conduct scientific experiments while philosophizing? I'm pretty sure that philosophy has been referre
  13. Is it accurate to categorize philosophy as a branch of science? I would like some clarification on this matter.
  14. Well as a teacher you are entrusted with the safety and welfare of your students. When the children are in danger at school, it is the responsibility of teachers and staff to protect them. I do believe that the teacher had a moral obligation to try to help those students in any way she could. Whether there was even a remotely realistic chance of saving them, I don't know. Not having witnessed the events, this is only speculation on my part but something tells me that one kid with some guns is not an unbeatable adversary if you are an unarmed adult. Maybe she thought she had a chance to make
  15. The outstanding presence of this conflict in the media is a testament to the power of sensationalism. The tally of civilian deaths in the entire history of the Isarel-Palestine conflict is less than ten thousand. And it is rarely ever mentioned that nearly a quarter of the Palestinian civilians who died in this conflict died at the hands of OTHER PALESTINIANS! (note: I am basing this on wikipedia). Meanwhile, millions (yes, MILLIONS) of people have died as a result of the Congo wars over the last couple decades. I don't remember the last time I had even seen a news report about the Congo on
×
×
  • Create New...