theestevearnold
-
Posts
282 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Posts posted by theestevearnold
-
-
There's a possibility that YB could prove to a few fence sitters that NC is evil and/or Objectivism is good.
But the values NC would gain from the event might amount to an injustice.
-
If a man asserts that animals have rights, the burden of proof is on him.
There has never been an argument worthy of response.
-
I love it. I haven't seen 'em all yet.
-
The Jackman musical was greatness. Five stars.
-
It was done by the History Channel. And I know this was mentioned in another thread but, in case you haven't seen it, I can't stress enough the greatness of This Is John Galt Speaking (on YouTube).
-
why it has anything to do with philosophy in general.
Read the Romantic Manifesto.
-
Among other things, esthetics display abstractions as concretes, which is a way to present their applications to reality.
-
I'm afraid that your posts must be treated as if nothing is said
4) pretend something is true (for drama, gaming...), but not really act as if it was true
But you can't fully think something is true and at the same time fully think it isn't true, so I think this would be #4.
Amen, brother.
AR proved why I should treat "God exists" as if nothing was said, and refrain from debate.
This thread is still good for discussing nuances of belief and the evil of blind belief.
#4 option is an example of an appropriate (temporary) willful suspension of disbelief I can use to enjoy certain movies. It does not introduce logical fallicies into my epistemology because I know it's not reality.
-
We're discussing a woman of amazing character who's not here to tell her side of the story.
-
Apparently sex wasn't obtained by Branden's lies, so it weakens my defense.
He still got what he deserved.
-
Show me one way a government can earn revenue without initiating the use of force.
Read Government Financing in a Free Society by Ayn Rand, also in VOS.
-
Read The Nature of Government by Ayn Rand, in The Virtue of Selfishness, then retract that statement.
-
The consent of the governed, who delegate the retaliatory use of force to their government, to enforce a legal system of objective laws, and a military for defending against foreign aggressors.
-
Government, by definition; initiates the use of force to earn revenue.
What I meant when I said you think taxation is okay, is that you've accepted an incorrect definition of government.
-
Show me one way a government can earn revenue without initiating the use of force.
Read the ways suggested throughout this thread.
-
I don't believe in taxation or government
If you don't believe in government, do you think a man should take matters into his own hands if he thinks his property was stolen?
-
Government, by definition; initiates the use of force to earn revenue. Therefore the concept of government or the state is not compatible whatsoever with the philosophy of Objectivism. Most Objectivists contradict themselves by saying they believe in a minimal government yet advocate one of the most fundamental axioms of the Objectivist philosophy; the non-initiation of force. It doesn't work like that.
Wrong. A moral government should not initiate force against its citizens. You've accepted that it's okay, but it's not. The US had no income tax for a long time. There are ways government can earn revenue without force.
-
The only possible breach in AR's moral integrity, is if she deceived Frank O'Connor about the affair.
She deserves the benefit of the doubt.
-
Branden got what he deserved.
-
If the state doesn't protect a citizen against such force, the citizen retains the right to retaliate.
-
Lying to obtain a value is (indirect) force.
Nathaniel Branden initiated force against Miss Rand.
-
There are laws against libel, filing a false police report, & purgery. All of which are not fraud (have no gain of a material value).
So non-fraud types of deception, lies, false pretenses, misleading info, or whatever you wanna call it, is protected against by the US justice system. So it's not outside government's current (proper) role.
Lying to a person to gain a value is wrong. Sex is a value (whether it's material or not is up for debate).
Should there be no legal avenue of justice for a woman who was deceived into having sex?
If so, would a woman be justified in at least slapping her victimizer?
-
Please fix your definition, or it becomes a red herring confusing the debate.
Material values include goods and services. Not just goods. Sex can qualify as a service, but in this context it might not, so I will not use "fraud" anymore when referring to obtaining the value (sex) by deceipt.
The courts place a monetary value on emotional distress, but I'm not saying that someone who caused another mental "harm" initiated force.
-
Yeah, the Lakers aren't doing well.
Animal rights
in Ethics
Posted
Amen, Brother.
If a man selling meat gives his property (animals) "free range", &/or slaughters his property in the least painful way possible, the men in the market use their dollars to "vote" on the issue.