Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Lasse K. Lien

Regulars
  • Posts

    81
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Lasse K. Lien

  • Birthday 08/31/1988

Contact Methods

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Bergen, Norway

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Norway
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Relationship status
    Single
  • Sexual orientation
    Straight
  • Real Name
    Lasse K. Lien
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted
  • Occupation
    Student.

Lasse K. Lien's Achievements

Junior Member

Junior Member (3/7)

2

Reputation

  1. - In theory I guess they could be given that right, but its quite impractical given that the damage he would receive from a raping would obviously be different from person to person. And it would probably not equate to the damage the victim experienced. The death penalty is much more conclusive. That being said, I dont think it makes a huge difference one way or the other if you have life imprisonment or the death penalty. Both options sufficiantly sucks - and represent justice.
  2. To get back to OPs second question, I think Hansons show was wrong in the sense that they gave an impression of these people being a danger to society - when in reality it was basically just sad individuals with no social abilities and obviously sexually frustrated - now in the real world its very unlikely that any of these guys would convince a fiveteen year old girl to meet them for sex (or any girl for that matter), so when the option is presented there just about desperate enough to jump on board, probably not because there pedophiles but because they havent had sex for like the last ten years (or ever). Does that make it right? Off course not. But for them to be a threat there would have to be a real chance that fiveteen year old girls actively contact old guys on chatroom trying to get laid - which I have a hard time thinking ever happens.
  3. Regarding the OP I think its a pretty silly idea just because there is going to be an extreme overweight of male participants to female - and neither group would probably be all that attractive. However the idea that you should learn technique makes sense in some way, there is a difference in skill and certainly there are objectivly better things of doing a handjob/blowjob or whatever - but then again its not that important. Basically if your really into someone sex is usually going to be awesome regardless of how much each individual perfects any technique. And not to be mean in any way, but it sounds really strangt to "hang out" at brothels to chat with the girls. That kinda seems like hanging out at a restaurant whitout actually ordering anything because the place looks exotic. Not that im advocating to render their services, but if your not going to it just does not seem an appropriate place to be. Not that rendering them makes it more appropriate in general though
  4. So this Norwegian national newspaper VG have picked someone for man of the year in Norway since 1973 - and this year they thought it would be fun to have an online vote rather then picking themselves. Anyhow, somebody from our camp thought it would be interesting to include an Objectivist blogger and see how high we could get him - would be much appreciated if you could click the link http://www.vg.no/spe...retsNavn/?err=0 and scroll down to Onar ├ům and give him a vote (his also written a fair amount on this forum).
  5. Think Peikoff covered this pretty good in his podcast on whether natural disasters/etc where "just" or not, stating how justice can only be applied to human relations and a measurement of actions (whether a decition was fair or not fair, etc) - things that are outside of human control, such as our parents, to some degree our looks, to some degree intelligence, the presence or absence of a penis, nationality, etc are not correlations of human action in any relevant way and to debate whether it is "fair" or not is pointless and inflates the concept of justice. At least thats my understanding of it, but I might have misunderstood some elements so if someone would elaborate on that it would be much appreciated
  6. Its probably primarily an evolutionary explanation. The conditions for men and women to sucessfully reproduce are different, throughout history men have been conditioned to hunt and women to raise children. It would be silly not to think the brain is not influenced by evolution, and the only factors in play are how you choose to raise your child. I remember seeing some documentary where they did a test on one day old babies, showing them pictures of different things and mesuring how long they focused on each picture - showing a significant difference where boys would focus more on mechanical things while girls would focus more on pictures of humans (or something like that, dont remember excactly). Little girls are not just brought up to enjoy playing with dolls, they probably enjoy it more then boys relatively would if they where brought up that way (as they sometimes are).
  7. If you have not kissed your current boyfriend yet I dont see why you would consider him your boyfriend, or the two of you a couple. I certainly would not refer to someone I have not even kissed as my girlfriend. And in what environment did you try to kiss him, and what context allowed him to stop you and ask you about prior sexual experiences and demanding an STD test prior to making out? That behaviour makes no sense imo. P.S. Your point that if someone does not approve of a "less puritan" view on sex must be gay is somewhat hilarious. I would make the general assumption that on average they are not excessively puritan, by comparison
  8. Humans did not evolve from apes, evolutionary theory claims we have a common ancestor with apes. So where you got it from that we lost most of our smell and nocturnal hearing I have no idea, considering we dont know what attributes the common ancestor held. Do you wish to elaborate?
  9. - His a Christian, but it does not seem to influence his writing that much, I've skimmed through a few hundred pages now and its really hard to stop reading. In the end he keeps a diary, speaking of his friends and social life and summing up his preparations for the attack like he was a random posting on an online forum (using smily's, "lol", etc) which makes it quite a disturbing read. He is certainly dedicated, and mentions how he is selling of his property and ordering high-class escorts for his last few days before the operation (he clearly did not plan on surviving, planning on using his last bullets on the police. But he must have ran out, or changed his mind). He mentions a network that originated from a Serbian nationalist he meet back in 2002, and how his whole life has revolved around first getting the money he needs, then writing this manifest and then performing the marketing operation. (Even more disturbing, in his log he mentions that his primary plan is to raise 3 mill Euro to start a organisation to promote his ideas. He mentions saving up 500k, and says he will invest half in the stockmarket to try running it up. If that fails, he will use the rest for plan B to promote his manifest. That was the terrorist attack). He also makes the observation that its a sacrifise and that he would rather raise a family and build a career - but that nobody else will do it if he does not do it. He mentions how all his friends are settling down, while he moves back to his mom to save money for his mission. Alturism at its cruelest it would seem. He seems quite conscious over how all his friends and family will hate him after this (if he should "wake up in the hospital") and how his life would be utterly horrible from this spot until the "cultural conservative revolutionarys" take power. He estimates this may take 70 years.. The PDF was linked by several on facebook, and should be safe. I cant read PDFs on this computer and downloaded a wordfile, cant remember where at this moment. But reading it knowing this guy just killed 80+ people in cold blood by himself makes it a really strong, disturbing and at the same time fascinating read.
  10. Its highly unlikely that anyone on this forum, or objectivist in general where killed in this massacre, as it was an attack on an isolated island used by the labour party's youth movement (labour party being the socialdemocratic party dominating in Norway, having the primeminister and controling the government ATM). Still its not a big country and its not like you exclusively socialise with other objectivists - there have been no official lists of casualties published, but im quite certain I know atleast one person who was killed. The terrorist released the following manifest in English describing his thoughts. His apperantly been planning this by himself over the past nine years. http://www.2shared.com/document/wfAyaNXV/2083_--_A_European_Declaration.html He seems to consider himself a single cell in a sort of munk-order, a continuance of the Knights Templars (apperantly restarted in the UK in 2002 by himself and eight others) - devoted to living in poverty and using every avaliable resource to fight for the cause, and be willing to martyr yourself. "Martyrdom before dimmithude" is a direct quote. Basically his political views are anti-Islam and anti-multiculturalism and egalitarianism. He stresses the importance of hiding your political beliefs and pretending to be much more mainstream then you really are. His act of terror was partly a way of marketing his manifest (which obviously worked, im even linking to it here), and the presumption on his part being that people would be forced to listen and eventually agree with him (he also has a plan for how the Knights Templars will win by the year 2100). That someone could hide such extreme plans for nine years without sharing information with anyone is mindboggeling. The result is the biggest massacre performed by one man alone.. Ever?
  11. - Im not quite sure I understand what you mean, given that I already stated I would probably keep the suitcase with the million even if it did contain a credit card or something similar to easily identify its owner I would probably keep it (because the amount of money is contextually relevant), so it would then seem somewhat clear that I certainly would not advocate going through alot of trouble investigating into whom the owner may be?
  12. - First off I would obviously find such behaviour quite amusing as it certainly would not help him pass the actual test, but assuming it would, I see no reason to make a scene of it. Its not really an issue of "justice" if someone cheats on a test or not. I would not personally do it, but could not care less if others did it unless it explicitly effected me personally. For example if it was a qualifing test for some specific amount of limited jobs/etc. Or in cases where the teachers would compare answers, conclude that one of you had to be cheating (if you both got identical answers wrong several times) and arbitrarily make assumptions that could end with you getting the blame. But aside from that it hardly seems necessary to make a big deal about something that really is not your concern.
  13. When it comes to your topic you dont really need to speculate or get to much into details on this. The concept of "stealing jobs" presupposes that there are a certain amount of jobs in circulation at all times and that these need redistribution. This is basically the same marxist economic view of a static rather then dynamic marked, where wealth is constant rather then created and expanded. It also appears some of the points your bring up imply positions that nobody are currently holding (such as the internship), but it is still somehow "stealing" that job from someone else. With nobody holding the position to begin with I find this hard to comprehend in the first place, but the point is obviously suggesting that someone else deserves it more. But if you can make that argument about an internship you can make it about anything, and claim injustice over billionairs traveling in space while other people probably much more interested in astronomy will never get the chance/etc. Coming back to the first point in question, regarding foreigners putting up a bunch of money to travel to poor countries and run schools and such - they are obviously not taking any jobs. There is probably close to no real demand for such services in these countries, and consequently no way anyone could profitably run a school comparatively to other occupations. - This is certainly not necessarily a consequence, he could in theory be a big value for the firm and his departure could lead to bankrupcy or downsizing, or he could be changing industries all together (Lets say he worked as a telegrapher, demand have somewhat shrinked the past few decades..) But what is true is that on a large scale if people change occupations to more productive positions, that will create more jobs in long run. Which again benefits the unemployed not being able to take advantage of this opportunity.
  14. - Im not sure slavery is an appropriate punishment in general, all though it may sometimes be warranted. Theres also the question of whether prisons should be private and profitmotivated, given the incentive to get people in jail. Opens the door to corruption, as seen with this judge handling juvenile offenders. Administrating prisons (per definition using force) seems a legitimate government job. - A bunch. War comes to mind primarily, but focusing on civil law people convicted of murder could certainly be executed. The right to life is a good thing because it makes it possible for me to life my life optimally. But there any no advantages for me (or presumably you) to avoid executing murderers, assuming you can be certain of the persons guilt. On the contrary, it would seem in both of our interest to get rid of people posing such a great threat to the rest of the population. - You should back that statement up somehow, as I doubt that is the case. Do you think pickpocketers are as common in Iran as in New York? Do you think cocain is used at the same regularity in Singapore as in Europe? What makes someone commit a fellony is imo a combination of risk of getting caught relative to the possible punishment. Lets say armed robberies had a sucessrate of 99.9% - but came with the death penalty. People would be willing to take that risk, while they would not if the punishment was merely five years but a 80% chance of getting caught. But to say that the level of punishment does not play into the frequency of criminal endevours is simply wrong.
  15. Personally I figured he was dreaming, and that Mel's suicide actually got her back to reality. I mean, they stay in the final dream for fifty years - then get killed by a train and returned to the past level, which Mel claims is still a dream and therefor she pushes for another suicide. Now considering that time becomes like x-time slower per dream, would it not seem obvious that if they where 50 years in the first dream, they would not return to reality by just going back one level?
×
×
  • Create New...