Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Easy Truth

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Easy Truth last won the day on September 21

Easy Truth had the most liked content!

Recent Profile Visitors

2539 profile views

Easy Truth's Achievements

Senior Member

Senior Member (6/7)



  1. Doug I'm not sure, here are several articles that seem to challenge that idea. https://www.medicalauthoritarianism.com/index.php/category/unvaccinated/
  2. LOL. I actually agree with your post, but I would say going to the gym and working out may do you more good in this realm. It's not the "Objectivist correct" thing to say, but that is my experience.
  3. Then ultimately: That most valuable thing that one cannot have, cannot be the thing that defines one's value to oneself. That great job that one did not qualify for That great car that one cannot afford That respectable country club that does not accept you The in crowd that does not take you in And the success that is so elusive They all have to be put aside as something that happened, rather than "that is the failure that I am". Otherwise the consequence is dire. And sadly, self generated.
  4. I've read through this thread and I still don't know the definition of "having" or "attaining" someone. If you get to kiss her, did you have her? If you get to have intercourse (sorry to be so direct), did you have her? If you get a commitment from her to not sleep with anyone else for the next two months, did you have her? Or if you get a lifetime commitment to be monogamous, did you have her? Also, what is a definition of a date? Is a walk in the park a date or just a walk in the park where someone is tagging along? Do both people have to acknowledge that it is a date? I've seen where some people put it on their calendar and that's considered a date.
  5. Tad, you'll have to elaborate on this. I just can't imaging a scenario where the government EVER has the right to put a gun to your head and inject something in your body without your consent. I can imagine a person being forced to stay at home but not the injection.
  6. I doubt if anyone could argue that vaccines should never be required. The question is by whom in what venue. Privately they can be required. The argument is against a mandate that everyone should get a vaccine or be incarcerated.
  7. Yes and no. Even with an afterlife, life could still be considered meaningless.
  8. "Yes", "No" or "Maybe", or "I don't know" are going to be common answers. "No" in this case simply means he disagrees. The only option you have is to make your case or ignore and move on. There are no judges here and there are no rescuers either. One thing that may help would be if you said what could or should have been said for people do understand it better.
  9. The requirements you mention are based on responsibility of ownership. Someone who does not own a car or have swimming pool etc. doesn't have those responsibilities/requirements. In a social context, we have a requirement not to harm another (I suppose physically but for now it has to remain vague). The idea of increasing risk, unnecessarily, is harming people. In principle, that does have merit. But in the case of vaccination, do I or you have the right to invade someone's body and vaccinate them for the good of the group? The fundamental right is to be unmolested, to keep people away and to be supported in that by "the system".
  10. The key issue is threat identification. The moment it "is" a threat, a reaction begins. If there is agreement on when it began, then we know when initiation happened. But suspect there may not be agreement. Increasing risk to an intolerable level would require identifying the "intolerable level".
  11. But by definition, the potential exists. The potential for this transformation also exist with faith based thinking. At what point should we treat a potentiality as if it were the actual expression of force? A person tells you he fantasizes about stabbing you. There is a knife on a table within his reach. Is the moment of expression when he said that to you, or when he reaches for the knife, or when he lunges at you?
  12. Alright then that would imply that some initiation of force is to be ignored. But nevertheless it is an initiation of force. Which goes back to the issue of an objective cutoff point. At some point it becomes actionable. We are now in the real of "threat identification" which has subjective and objective elements. It seems that some threats, we decide to ignore, because we can't live if every little threatening behavior is disallowed. As in breathing. Or do we define "threat" such that, if it is not actionable, it is not a threat?
  13. So is increasing the risk of death from .00001 percent to .00002 percent due to exhaling an initiation of force? I hope I didn't repeat myself too much.
  14. Doug, a major problem with your argument is simply using the word "risk". If you said 50 percent risk, you would get far more agreement than now. The problem with Covid or the flu is the relatively small risk compared to ebola. I was wondering why you don't use Ebola, but I think it's because the contrast would reveal the problem with Covid or the flu. After all the flu also kills a lot of people every year. Just living in your house has a risk of an airplane crashing into it.
  • Create New...