EC

I don't think that would be possible.

I don't need to start a new thread, it's not debatable, it's a verifiable fact of volition, humans do NOT possess instincts.

^ I'm not trying to be rude, but the above post didn't even make sense. I'm done here for now. Edit: Whoops two posts up.

Thanks for the links, but glancing over them I still can't understand what the purpose for banning them is, besides that they are not on some arbitrary list. Is it because they believe there is some health risk? This just doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever. Are they also going to ban the foods that contain these vitamins? It's insane this is even being considered. I don't know what to think here, but if I were a European I would get out of that hell as soon as I could before they create a arbitrary directive banning emigration.

I just want to say this is absolutely wrong. Instincts of anything is something humans absolutely do NOT possess. I'll hold up a bit before commenting on some of the other things until I see how you respond to what Felipe said. Edited to correct Felipe.

It would be immoral to help them if it was either a sacrifice to yourself or you gained no value from helping them. And value here could be as simple as a positive feeling, even though I also would have a problem with a person do something just for the sake of a feeling. But, I don't want to re-argue a long existing thread here.

Your dropping context here. Virtually anyone would help the old lady in this odd imaginary situation if they wouldn't be harmed in the process themselves. That doesn't imply that someone must help all old ladies in any situation though. And you are implicitly saying via the word "heartlessness" that this indeed is a moral situation, how else could this situation be described?

Do you have a source for this info. you could link to? I'm interested in knowing what the alledged "reasoning" behind such a directive would be.

GWDS-- you never answered the following question, it is essential in understanding the Objectivist ethics and our reactions to things like the Tsunami that you seem to hold against us. In other words, if a person does not give charity to the "needy" can he be considered moral?

I just wanted to take action to preserve this post before you decide to "edit" it out of existence. And I take nothing I said back, I stand by my statements.

You're doing it again right now. You can't edit your posts out of existence.

GWDS--you didn't just "edit" your last post you completely changed it. I didn't make any "allegations" against you either. To completely have no philosophy as you claim is Nihilism, a type of philosophy. And your ethics seems self-evidently to be altruism based on your own comments.

You have a philosophy whether or not you choose to realize it. The wrong is in the forcing. But here's a question for you: If someone doesn't give handouts do they have a right to exist?

And you will never find this stuff so addressed. Objectivism explicitly rejects that anyone "deserves" a handout on the basis of need. This kind of inverted thinking is why every other "morality" is wrong. If you want to help the sick no ones stopping you but that's your choice, and it doesn't in any way indict other people if they don't make the same choices as you. And you have no right to force others to do so against their will via government or any other means. What you are suggesting here is explicitly altruism and it is what we are against, what we find to be evil. The difference between you and us is we understand your morality and philosophy perfectly, but reject it because it's wrong, you on the other hand do not understand ours and are trying to discredit and rejecting it without first understanding it. See the difference? Edited by EC to remove extra that change a few words, etc.

It seems that we have several new members that have ideas that are quite left-of-center. They seem to be here to ask questions and study us(Objectivists). Which is fine. But, I'd like to flip it around a bit. What do you guys think of us? It must be a bit baffling to you that we are both godless and rabid Capitalists at the same time, huh? Do you find it strange that most Objectivists are extreme moralists? Do you understand our morality? Do you understand why we know that self-sacrifice and altruism is evil? Do you understand why we claim that not only is knowledge possible, but we can verify it? Do you understand why we are in general proud of ourselves without possessing guilt of that fact? These questions are not rhetorical, I really am curious. Edited by EC to fix spelling.

I listed my reasons in my post, mostly that I personally don't trust most modern sources of history. But you are probalaly right that what he meant was worse than that, meaning something along the lines of knowledge isn't possible or something similar.

I like the way that professor thinks. Although, if ones not careful with that line of thinking, it could smack of subjectivism. History did take place, and a lot of it was recorded. But especially lately, one has to seriously consider the sources he's getting his history from. I try and read historical sources that are as close to the actual participants of a given event as I possibly can and disregard other peoples interpretations unless I consider them to have a good reputation(which is rare).

Hmmm...does someone have an essay to write?

Welcome to the forum Laura! Have fun, I do.

Wow. Now if all Canadiens were like you I would have a much higher opinion of you guys.

^ Tom made the exact point I've been trying to make the whole time here, with limited success. Good job.

Exactly!

I have nothing to say accept I agree with AisA's statements. Even if all of this stuff is true it still in no way puts the U.S. government in any way in an analogous moral position of the modern terroists which seems to be the point of this. It's simply false. Our government still possesses the full moral right to kill any person at any time that supports or engages in terrorism against us anywhere in the world. Up to the level of killing whole populations of illegitimate nations if need be. Which is what I really think is analogous to the "genocide" of Indians. Of which blood I also have coursing through my veins. When I say I want to see evidence, I don't mean someones, anyones, interpretation of these events. I want to see directives from our government at the time these events took place, I want to see first hand reports of the major particpants, if any. And maybe newspaper articles circa from that era dealing with this issue. I don't want to see modern interpretations that could have formed by biased individuals whose whole purpose could have been to find "evidence" of past government impropriety for the sole purpose of attempting to negate America's modern day moral standing, which is being attempted here in this very thread by people who "claim" to be Objectivists. This type of "evidence" can properly be discarded without consideration for the exact say reasons "evidence" of global catastrophe's, etc., can instantly be discarded without further consideration when offered by environmentalists.

I just glanced at you first "source" very quickly(all that was needed) and found this about half-way down the page-- Main trade: deerskins + war captives for slavery (italics mine)-- case closed. Find me a source that is not an evil leftist version of a historian and I might begin to take your non-sense seriously.

Does Ron Reagan Jr. remind anyone else here of James Taggert? It is something I think of whenever I happen to flip by MSNBC and I see his annoying as*. I don't in general watch that network because of its severe leftward slant, but every once in awhile I catch something there. Anyways, he's got the weasle look that I imagine JT would have and that annoying, snide, sniveling, condensending liberal attitude. He also doesn't seem fit to walk the same Earth his great father did once did. But I guess that's just my opinion. Edited by EC to fix grammer and spelling. Why can I never get it right the first time?