Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About colin

  • Rank
    Junior Member

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Not Specified
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Copyright

Recent Profile Visitors

584 profile views
  1. Given that I have written this and you are reading it, I would say that there is a 100% chance of being alive now in either scenario.
  2. Assuming that yours is an honest attempt to work out a problem that is bothering you, I would say to you that you have framed your question in a manner that begs the question. No. Producers produce items of value. It is moral to do that. Traders also produce something of value and then trade that. No. Looters take values produced by others by the initiation of force. This is not moral, nor is it trading. I doubt that a person could accomplish this without looting. Are you aware that this is possible. Where do I sign?
  3. I did understand that. My question was on what basis. Is the belief in the prime mover based on anything other that a feeling?
  4. On what basis do you believe that a prime mover is more likely than infinite movement? Presumably, the prime mover would have to move, and be caused to move itself. So isn't it more likely that there was always some sort of movement?
  5. I'm not sure what the point of the thread is. Are you suggesting that, since a LFC society is likely to become corrupt eventually, we should simply skip the middle-man and work for a corrupt society to begin with? Given that corruption springs from the ability to use pull in order to achieve one's ends and that a LFC society, is the one in which pull is least likely to achieve results, it seems that a LFC society is the one least likely to become corrupt as has been repeated above.
  6. You're freaking me out man. Those neighbours of yours who you wouldn't mind seeing die, are paying taxes just like you are and for the same reasons - the government forces them to. I sounds to me like you need to either find more lucrative work or find a less expensive place to live.
  7. "A pregnant woman is an actual human being. A fetus is merely a potential human being. To ascribe rights to a potential being that trump the rights of an actual human being, is to turn the entire concept of rights on its head. " And the basis on which you say that the fetus is merely a potential human being is that it is still attached to the mother by way of an umbilical cord. Correct? I agree that rights cannot be ascribed to a potential human being. The difficulty I am having is seeing why it is you say that the attachment to the mother is the key ingredient in terms of defining it as
  8. Can't this same argument be made in respect of a fetus? At least one which has the capacity to reason? Is it lack of a physical attachment to the mother alone which creates the rights of a child?
  9. Not that I'm the judge or anything but I think that hunterrose is right. Either the entity has a right to make demands on its parents from conception or it has no right to make demands ever. Saying rights to the care of its parents starts at birth or when language develops, or at some other point either before or after birth is based on nothing rational that I can see other than some sort of fiction that the parent has agreed to a contract with the child implicitly. What are the terms of the contract? Does it exist until the child is capable of taking care of itself? What if the child is ne
  10. That is wrong, and is the source of your lack of understanding (assuming that understanding is what you are going for). Others on this thread have pointed this out to you and you have ignored them. Perhaps you should be trying to understand what is actually the basis of Objectivist ethics instead of proceeding on a false assumption and then refusing to let that assumption go once you have been corrected and directed to sources where you can find the truth. "dontcha think??"
  11. This is Spinal Tap "There's a fine line between clever and...stupid."
  12. One of my favourite quotes: "It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes short again and again, who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy cause, who at best knows achievement and who at the worst if he fails at least fails while daring greatly so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid sou
  13. 1. Ayn Rand (100%) Click here for info 2. Nietzsche (60%) Click here for info 3. Jean-Paul Sartre (59%) Click here for info 4. Thomas Hobbes (58%) Click here for info 5. Cynics (57%) Click here for info 6. David Hume (56%) Click here for info 7. John Stuart Mill (54%) Click here for info 8. Aristotle (50%) Click here for info 9. Plato (42%) Click here for info 10. Aquinas (42%) Click here for info 11. Epicureans (42%) Click here for info 12. Stoics (42%) Click here for info 13. Jeremy Bentham (39%) Click here for info
  14. I have to say that some folks need to get a thicker skin. If you feel intimidated by what a moderator types to you on an internet forum, then you really do need to develop some coping skills. For me, I find the atmosphere here great. It is certainly not as accepting of alternate viewpoints as the average chat room, but I don't really think that is its purpose. I don't really post that often because I don't really think that I know enough about most of the topics being discussed that I actually have much to add. That doesn't make me feel intimidated, that makes me think that I am in a place
  • Create New...