Doug Morris

What determines whether a topic goes into the portal?

The judges' excuse for rescinding Hough's nomination is that she used hostile, disrespectful language.

A column in the June 14 email edition of the New York Times reports and criticizes a case of political correctness perpetrated by trans hardliners: Stop subjecting novels to moral purity tests, Pamela Paul writes.

That's one event among many. It would take more study than I have time for to properly evaluate its meaning and significance. Putin was not part of the national government until about 5 years later.

Russia proper and its satellite Belarus were not invaded, occupied, or incurred into either, unless you count Belarus by Russia. If you go back a little further, the former Iron Curtain countries have a lot to remember.

This wording could raise some complicated issues, but maybe we'd better let it go.

Even talking and breathing can spread germs.

As medical playing safe, and to set an example.

Yes.

Does the Magic School Bus give a complete, precise, perfectly correct account? Or is it to some extent dumbed down and/or simplified because someone thought, rightly or wrongly, that there was only so much children could understand and/or only so much they could handle? Might there even be something else wrong with it?

Assuming in the first example that you stole all your wealth, or in the second example that the man is a murderer, these are examples of how acting immorally can make it harder to act morally. Another example: if a person lets themselves become an addict, it is a lot harder for them to achieve a good, rational life than if they had avoided addiction in the first place.

The most effective way to overcome scarcity is to be economically productive and to consistently respect the rights of others. This does not rule out "that an ethical man would ever think competitive thoughts, feel competitive feelings, or have competitive intentions, in his work and in his dealings with other men. " It simply says that such thoughts, feelings, and intentions should not be fundamental or a bottom line.

What part of Ayn Rand's explanation do you not understand? A misleading way of putting it. Socialism is an egregious and massive violation of rights. A very vague phrase. The vagueness works to the advantage of the irrational side (Altruism, Socialism, Religion) and, if not challenged, ti the disadvantage of the rational side (Objectivsim).

No. Only in extremely rare circumstances which are very different from the way the world usually works is there any conflict. This becomes clear if we consider a wide enough context and a long enough range. An example of such rare circumstances is the old chestnut "two men in a lifeboat that can only hold one". If we want to be extremely thorough, we can acknowledge that such circumstances are at least imaginable and consider how we can tell whether we are truly in such a circumstance and what to do if we are. (This becomes somewhat less true to the extent that statism pits people against each other. "Morality ends where a gun begins.") How did you get into this situation? Did you steal all your wealth? If so, you have already committed a very serious violation of rights. You have to decide whether to continue this process of rights violation or to change over to respecting rights. If you are the victim of an injustice, you may be morally justified in committing perjury in self-defense. The key point to an Objectivist (and many others) is that you shouldn't have stolen in the first place. Again, how did he get into this situation? Is he a murderer? If so, he has already committed the most serious violation of rights possible. He has to decide whether to continue this process of rights violation or to change over to respecting rights. If he is the victim of an injustice, he may be morally justified in committing perjury in self-defense. The key point to an Objectivist (and many others) is that he shouldn't have murdered in the first place. If you consider a wide enough context and a long enough range, this does not impair or set limits on one's own ability to survive and prosper.

First paragraph of a current Newsweek article: Pundits on the Kremlin's state-run television admitted that Russian-speaking Ukrainians are fighting back against Moscow's aggression, despite Russian President Vladimir Putin and other top officials claiming they were invading Ukraine to liberate that segment of the Eastern European nation's population. Is Newsweek lying?

wyYNOT, If this is about eastern Ukraine, why did Putin start by attacking the whole country and trying to take Kyiv? Why are you ignoring Boydstun's Country-404 post?

DEA officer stops at a ranch in Texas and talks with an old rancher. Ghost Girl, studied Literature, Languages, and Communication at Foreign Langauges (2011) Posted May 10 He tells the rancher, "I need to inspect your ranch for illegally grown dr*gs." The rancher says, "Okay, but do not go in that field over there," as he points out the location. The DEA officer verbal... Read More »

Can you cite specifics?

Not sustainable indefinitely, of course. But probably sustainable enough for at least one more destructive war. Does anyone really know what's in Putin's mind?

If they can do it to Ukraine why can't they do it elsewhere?

Russia may have suffered a lot of defeat in Ukraine, but it has also killed a lot of Ukrainians and otherwise done heavy harm to Ukraine. It has enough power to do the same to other countries.

Such a strike would not violate the rights of those governments because they don't have any. But it would kill a lot of innocent people and otherwise wreak great destruction, especially if the target government got off any nukes.

One point that might call for some clarification: criminals, dictators, and people "scoring" drugs can have achievements that are bad.

I was trying to clarify the concept of "twisted" in the sense being used in this discussion. I agree that animals and plants are alive and deserve respect for their lives as they exist. What should be illegal and what is immoral are two different questions. Since I am talking about what the law should do, this distinction is important for understanding what I am saying.

People may be guilty of a lot of subjectivity, but this does not mean they have to. Aristotle and Ayn Rand have given us a good start on understanding objectivity; we need to carry this work forward and to teach it to others.