Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Nicky

  1. I think you're right that a pregnant woman has a moral responsibility to abort her unwanted pregnancy as early as possible. But that has nothing to do with politics. Huh? This scenario has nothing to do with "implicitly adopting responsibility", and everything to do with a correct interpretation of rights. If Mary was on the boat uninvited, ordering her off it in the middle of the ocean would be murder for the same exact reason it is in your scenario: your property rights don't include the right to kill someone for trespassing. The earliest you can get an unwanted person off your prope
  2. I'm not one of those people. I used it because I found your post simplistic. I also find your next post (all we have is tyrants) simplistic. The world isn't divided into good people and evil people. The vast majority of people are somewhere in between. And the only realistic path to a better world is through convincing as many of them as possible to believe in it. This statement sounds very similar to the communist and fascist approach to politics. They too thought their systems were so modern and advanced compared to those bumbling ancient civilizations (well, supposedly not civilizat
  3. You know Americans fought a war over not being represented in their government, right? By the way, when you go around making simplistic statements like this, you're misrepresenting Objectivism too, not just American ideals. Just because there are a set of fundamental principles that should supersede popular will doesn't mean that democratic mechanisms should play no role in deciding how those principles are implemented. Through history, democratically elected governments have been by far the most successful in protecting individual rights, and Ayn Rand never disputed that fact. Even
  4. Only way I could possibly answer that is with a list of books to read. Let me know it you're interested.
  5. The notion that you should keep a large chunk of the population from influencing the government contradicts American values. And the notion that you can...well that's just naive.
  6. I already explained that it's not a criminal conspiracy to believe in Nazi ideology, under US law. As for Eiuol's execution, I'm not saying that he would be executed in a year because anyone is planning his execution, as they are entering the country. In fact, I assure you, no such plan exists at the time the migration is taking place. In fact, no one has ANY specific plans to kill anyone. They only have a general, abstract belief that everyone who opposes the cause deserves death. Which is protected speech under the US Constitution. There are people in the US right now, saying stuff like
  7. The reason why there are no historical examples is because no society in the history of mankind has ever done something as foolish as what you are in favor of: opening the borders to a throng of people fundamentally opposed to their political values. That's the "fantastical" part in this: the notion that any country would ever do what you're suggesting: fail to stop a mass migration of totalitarian thugs, in the name of "freedom". But the two components of my scenario happened many times, separately: there have been many large scale migrations, and there have been many instances of a tota
  8. I said nothing about any activities. I am talking about beliefs, not activities. If any of the Nazis commit an illegal act, then they should of course be arrested. That was not my question. And I already proved, in this very thread, that people DO HAVE A LEGAL RIGHT TO ANY BELIEFS, in the US. And there isn't any prospect of that changing, because the First Amendment isn't getting abolished anytime soon. So that's not the question either. You might as well be answering every question with "well, first of all, my answer assumes that the Moon is made of cheese". No, it's not made of che
  9. 1. No, it's not, that would imply that you can also keep people from leaving using the same exact mechanism. Which is absurd. 2. Easement is a well established common law right, and there is nothing in Objectivism that would allow you to dispute that. All prominent Objectivists are 100% in favor of easements. Besides, airplanes were invented a while back, so the notion that a fence could stop someone from entering a country is ridiculous. 3. My question involves New Zealand, a typical western country with a mixed political and economic system. So there's no reason to even bring up a
  10. Not in my scenario. And it's a perfectly realistic scenario, history is full of far, far larger scale migrations than the one I'm suggesting. They weren't supported by any government, people are perfectly capable of mimicking patterns of behavior off of each other, without any central organizing force.
  11. We're talking about current immigration restrictions, not hypothetical ones in an ideal country. New Zealand is a typical western country. It's not fake, it's right next to Australia. I know there's a meme about how Australia doesn't exist, but I've been to both, and took pictures just in case. So, if you lived in New Zealand, would you be in favor of letting 5 mill. Nazis in?
  12. You sure are. Emphasis on "claiming", because you've repeatedly ignored requests to present any evidence for that claim. This is I think the fourth time I'm asking you to specify even just one of those "many extensive studies" you claim have been done on the subject of IQ differences between races, for instance. That's not the only question you've been ignoring, either. You're yet to explain how exactly would an IQ test amount to a scientific measure of intellect (it obviously isn't, the notion is laughable: IQ tests have about as much to do with the scientific method as a learning disabled je
  13. Yes, one should. Preferably before basing insulting claims about billions of people on it. Did you research this? And what did you think? Are they accurate, and what specifically are they accurate AT?
  14. Are you claiming that IQ scores are as accurate at measuring intellect as a ruler at measuring height, or basic record keeping at measuring lifespan? By the way, where are you getting the notion that most of us dismiss the average lifespan in Denmark as irrelevant from?
  15. By all means, dispel the doubt, by citing the studies and the findings. Only one I know about is Richard Lynn, who did a terrible job guessing national IQs from low sample sizes, non-uniform tests and conjecture, and then wrote a book that interpreted the results poorly (and that's a charitable choice of words). More importantly, once again: science has a poor understanding of what intellect even is. That's why it's such a struggle to create artificial intelligence: we don't really know how it works. So the notion that they have a test that quantifies intellect is ridiculous. The first th
  16. That second statement doesn't confirm Watson's claim that IQ differences between whites and blacks are genetic, it contradicts it. If IQ is 80% genetic, then, clearly, the other 20% is environmental and cultural (cultural in the sense that it's culturally biased, not in the sense that the person grew up in a shitty culture...growing up in a shitty culture is an environmental factor). And since the (few, not all that reliable) IQ comparisons between Africans and Europeans claim about a 20% difference, there you go: that's due the environmental part and any potential cultural biases built into t
  17. Just to be clear, because I'm having trouble believing what you're saying: if people who openly subscribe to Nazi ideology started pouring into New Zealand (and you lived there), you wouldn't be in favor of the government halting the migration at any point? Not at one million, not at three million, not even at five million? As long as they're not part of an organized invasion, they're just regular migrants who happen to subscribe to Nazi ideology, you would not want it stopped? You would rather allow Nazis to become the majority in the country you live in, than break with this belief you're cl
  18. This isn't some random guy off the street. This is one of the prominent geneticists alive. (Well he was, back when he first made these views known, over a decade ago. That's when he was ostracized ... now I don't think he's still of sound mind, these latest headlines are just the result of unscrupulous journalists taking advantage of a seriously ill 90 year old man.) Point is, when politicians, journalists and academics who don't possess that standing in the world of science dismiss him, that's not an effective strategy. If someone of higher status is wrong, he must be challenged, not ign
  19. Okay, so if you lived in New Zealand, you wouldn't be in favor of the government preventing millions of Nazis and white supremacists from settling in the country?
  20. Nazis took over Germany while they were a small minority. And they only had a third of the vote, with most of that vote coming from people not actively involved in the party. Not everyone who voted for Hitler was a Nazi, they just liked him more than the weak alternatives. So 100 million Nazis and people who'd rather vote Nazi than let's say Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, WOULD realistically threaten to take over the US. Which leads me to conclude that the reason why you're fine with letting them try is because there's no way there's enough of them willing to move to the US. If so, I tend to a
  21. Whatever. So do you plan on answering the question, or do you just wanna build childish arguments about how law abiding Hitler was?
  22. On the one side, Watson failed to exhibit some basic humanity, by using his public status irresponsibly, to spout unfounded nonsense that demeans billions of people. On the other side stand the brutish savages who are too stupid and intellectually lazy to face him in open debate and prove him wrong instead of banishing him. Oh yeah, and only one of the sides has the redeeming quality of having figured out the Double Helix (one of the great scientific discoveries of the 20th century).
  23. Not sure why I need to explain that the Nazis weren't scrupulous, democracy loving, law abiding gentlemen, but here's some fun facts: Hitler wrote Mein Kampf in prison... prison he was sent to after being put on trial for high treason after the so called "Beer Hall Putsch", an attempted coup d'etat, with the use of elements of the military sympathetic to the fascist cause, in 1923. After his pardon by a fascist friendly court a year later, he followed that up with a campaign of violent street fights and rioting, and countless murders of political opponents. All this, while the Nazi Party
  24. No, that's a contradiction of terms. The Constitution, if followed, does not allow for a dictatorship. The Nazis are advocating for establishing a dictatorship by whatever means necessary. They are openly Nazis. Have you ever heard of a Nazi who follows the US Constitution? Only thing that's not happening is that individual Nazis coming into the US are not walking up to the first LEO they see to tell him they're here to commit specific illegal acts. They are smart enough (or well trained enough) to only speak about their ideology and plans in general terms. And that is recognized as
  • Create New...