Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Lasse K. Lien

Regulars
  • Posts

    81
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Lasse K. Lien

  1. If someone is a convicted rapist, does that give the state the right to rape him as punishment? If not why not, and how do you square this with the state being given the right to kill a convicted killer?

    - 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 :P

  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. Interesting... although sick. So he is a Christian then?

    May I ask where this PDF and its link were sourced from? Thanks for the reply.

    - 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.

  9. 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?

  10. Now taking that same assumption, switch a credit card with a strand of hair. You notice the strand of hair and KNOW without a doubt it belongs to the man to whom the money belongs. You CAN trace the hair (through DNA, databases, etc.)...

    - 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?

  11. You're in school taking a test, and you become aware that a student is cheating off your test. Clearly, you are not being harmed directly in any way, or are you? Do you tell the teacher? Why?

    Assuming you do not care more about your reputation with that specific student than you do justice, you should tell the teacher. Am I wrong?

    - 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.

  12. 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.

    And the last point, if you only employ people already in work, then when that person leaves their current company, a new position will become available there, so the net effect is the same.

    - 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.

  13. 1) Prison is exile, except inverted. The problem here is cost. Who's responsible for funding prisons? Surely, the prisoners and private donations ought to be the major source of income, and prisons should be self-sustaining. What happens to a prisoner who refuses to work to support his imprisonment?

    - 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.

    2) Prisoners still have rights. Namely, the right to life. Is there any circumstance where an O'ist would reason that another individual no longer has the right to live?

    - 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.

    4) Prevention fails. Criminals will always exists, and the law will always be broken, sometimes on accident.

    - 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.

  14. 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?

  15. Well, rationality is also about making long-term plans based on current facts and ongoing trends. We make the best possible predictions and make decisions accordingly.

    So, if I am an old and ill, and my children are healthy and young, the most likely thing is that they will outlive me. Since I love them, I should act now to ensure, to the best of my abilities and in a non-sacrificial way, that after my death they keep getting benefit from my works, properties, ideas, etc.

    - I can see how it would give you great pride to know that you've managed to keep your familiy financially secure, and that they will lead great lives partly as a consequence of your sucess if you should somehow die.

    But there seems alot of people are taking this way to far, why not take a mortage on your house and go have a great time with your money while your still alive?

    Certainly seems like a superior option, yet seems it is considered morally repulsive by most people.

    It seems somewhat of a strange virtue to make an effort to leave behind alot of money when you die.

    Sure it can provide happiness to know they'll come to good use, but that does not mean it wouldnt make you happier to spend it yourself..?

  16. I'll give you an example of something that happened in Oslo, the capital of Norway, like a year back or so.

    According to the press, a woman found an unmarked envelope with about 8000 euros in it left at a seat on some sort of inner city public transportation. She gave it to the conductor and said she had found it.

    Now this seems like the "right" thing to do in the first place I guess, but when you give it some thought I doubt it is and I probably would have taken the money.

    First of, Norwegian law says that if the money is not claimed within three months the state gets 66% and the finder get 33%.

    However obviously anyone claiming the money would have to explain why they where carrying 8000 euros around (which is not the local currency), and since it was probably some sort of criminal transaction gone wrong its very unlikely that someone would actually come to the police station and claim it.

    When it comes to the "I would want others to do the same for me" argument it does not really apply, as I would never carry around 8000 euros on public transportation (why take public transportation if you've got that kinda money to begin with?) and certainly wouldnt lose it.

    It also seems much more in my interest to keep 100% then forfeiting 66% to the government.

    Then as in all moral questions its highly contextual. If I found someones wallet I would obviously try to track down the owner through creditcards/etc in that wallet - however if I should find a suitcase with one million dollars along with a credit card abandoned on the streets I would probably keep it (all though that prospect is highly unlikely and obviously not that relevant in this debate).

  17. While your post is thoughtful, and even though I agree with it almost 100%, I would be careful when analogizing sex with smoking. The former is a necessity for a happy, rational life. The latter is a "vice," which, when overdone, can lead to serious health problems, and is completely nonessential in any other capacity.

    - Thats pretty harsh, you dont think smoking in any way can enhance your experience of life?

    Its obviously not a requirement, but to dismiss it as having no upsides and even being a "vice" seems kind of silly.

    Fine dining is not a requirement of life, and certainly rarely something missed by those whom have never tried it, aswell as a serious health hazard when overdone - that does not mean its necessarily a bad thing.

  18. Sending the navy to protect the property of American citizents does not seem equal to subsidizing the Egyptian military.

    The fact that the US have interests in the area does not really matter, and as we can see now the military founding just may end up hitting the US right back now that Mubarak is thrown out of office.

    I for one clearly support Mubarak. Not in the sense that "Gee, I hope he one day controls the world and his politics are awesome" but in the sense that a democratic Egypt seems less ideal.

    A semi-secular authoritarian dictatorship is far better then a democratically elected religious one.

  19. This makes sense to me, but I was wondering more along the lines of morality with the relationship of parent and child. Sometime parents "force" their kids to do something like play a musical instrument. Is that wrong? Generally this would probably be looked as an OK thing because it's a wonderful/positive experience, but isn't the use of force involved (sort of)?

    - First off, your example is kind of silly. Forcing your child to learn to master an instrument he has no interest in seems contra-productive and irrational. If you dont want to and have no interest in learning that instrument I have a hard time seeing how forcing you to go would create a wonderful experience in any sense.

    That being said, the parent/child relationship should morally involve quite a bit of force, and there is nothing wrong with that.

    Kids are kids, and if you made them there your legal responsibiliy - and you have to make they survive (legally) and get a decent upbringing (morally). This includes elements such as bedtime, restricting access to alcohol when there nine years old, etc. This is not a consequence of negotiations beetween equal partners, its the consequence of proper parenting.

    When it comes to child labor, then your obviously also going to have to force your child to work.

    If this is required for the familys survival it is clearly the morally and legally optimal choice.

    Thankfully this is no longer necessary in the West, and I can see few morally legitimate contexts where you would make your adolecent child work to earn money for the family. All though im sure there are exceptions.

  20. I like to ad that even prostitution is not evil or bad in anyway (granted it isn't human slavery). It is better that men fuck a whore, than rape a random woman.

    - To elaborate on what RationalBiker was already pointing out, the comparison is completely outlandish in the sense that the act of paying a prostitute for sex and the act of raping are motivated by completely different things - most people paying for prostitues would probably not rape women if there was no prostitutes avaliable, and at the same time there is no reason to assume that rapists would not be rapist if the option of prostitutes where present.

    Basically rapists would probably in the case of random attacks (which represent a minority) be motivated by sexual violence and subordination of other people - and in the case of rape among aquientences it could be a way of hurting a particular person for no other reason then hurting them, or fealing you've "earned it" or whatever insane justifications people can make for themselves.

    People who purchase prostitues usually (probably) are just looking to get laid for no other motives then that it would make them feel good there and then.

    Obviously a normal prostitute would not meet the "requirements" of a rapist, and therefor not act as any sort of substitute, as you seem to imply.

    To put it simply, if the mentally unstable Ben is stalking Stacy, and she has no interest in him even though he has confessed his love on multiple occations, and Ben has come to the point where he is chosing to force her into pleasing him - it is not as if he, on his way to Stacy's house, would be distracted and satisfied by a brothel accidentaly on his route if he should happen to pass one.

×
×
  • Create New...