Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Prometheus98876

  1. This again? What makes you think that just because your brain is in a jar , it would make reality nonobjective?

    "If the vat is reality" - You mean if the vat was all that the universe consisted of? In which case there is no outside world and your question makes no sense? Or less sense than it would without that particuilar contradiction.

  2. Well, here at least, most places will not explicitly tell you that you are meant to put them back. However it is generally understood that this is what most supermarkets/stores will expect you to do. Assuming you know this, it is probably reasonable to conclude that ignoring this and choosing not to return the trolley is not the most moral thing to do.

    You would be doing somethign which you know goes against how they wish their property to be used. Even though you might not have agreed to anything contractual or explicitly agreed to obey their wishes in this regard.

  3. The term "laws of reality" mentioned before seems fine to me. "Laws of nature" is alright as long as one knows that what is meant are laws with describe "natural events". However, this could be confusing. These laws would apply just as well to things which had a to to with actions which outside of human cause/intervention would not happen, which some would not consider to be "natural" ( people are strange about defining this word sometimes).

  4. Time is relational concept, based upon the measurement of motion. The purpose of the concept is to measure durations and if you will excuse the wording, isolate and compare the "timing" of events relative to each other. It has no other existence (regardless of what physicists may tell you based upon their interpretation of Relativity ), it is not a place, or series of places, therefore it makes no sense to say one can "time travel".

    One cannot travel through a relational concept which exists for the stated purposes, no more than one can "travel" through your friendships , or no more than one can travel through the number twelve.

  5. Yeah seriously, Steve has a point. Do you realize how easily intelligence on his planet might have been wiped out / prevented from ever existing in the first place? It would not take much. The thing is, we just cannot say that inteligence would or would not be any more fortunate on any other planet on which it might arise. Or even what the chances of such a planet with such a potentail existing.

    Keep flipping the cards into the hat, or go find something else to do.

  6. If I am to accept what you say, then he was addressing a scenario that I cannot imagine ever happening: a woman politely saying "I withdraw consent" without actually trying to leave the situation. Do I have this much correct?

    You tell me, you guys are the ones reading things into what he said, things which he neither said nor implied. It has been pointed out what he did and did not imply ( to some extent). I can only speculate as to what you seem to be pretending he said/implied, hence the previous post. However I think I am correct as to what I beleive you are choosing to beleive that he says/implies ( despite the fact it is fantasy).

    "Now, I’m going to try giving Peikoff’s statement the most charitable reading I can manage"

    You have already aproven that false by choosing to ignore his context and imagine your own in its place. That is not conduct proper to a rational mind. Or would you like to demonstrate that he did say or imply what you think?

    "I'm also horrified at the extent of the attempts by participants in this forum to rationalize Peikoff's statement."

    I am disturbed that "Objectivists" would ignore the context of Peikoffs explicitly stated philosophical views, in order to try justify a rather illogical interpretation of what he said. Let alone the context in which he was speaking at the time.

    This kind of poor thinking is not going to do anyone any good. Check your premises.

  7. Just think about it : Did Peikoff say that if the woman tries to get out of the situation alluded to, that the man has the right to kidnap her and force her to stay there? Or anything like that? No. That would be the initiation of force, which you know full well Peikoff is against.

    No, he implied no such thing. He simply said that the fact she then withdrew consent part way through, does not make the act rape , morally or legally.

    Sure, if he held her down after the point where she tried to actually get out of the situation ( as opposed to simply "withdrawing consent" ) and tried to sexually violate her, that would be an act of sexual violence. Maybe *that* would be rape. That is not what Peikoff was discussing, or at least there is not reason given his track record to think that it was and *every* reason not to.

    Seems to me you people are confused on this point, which is why I accused you of switching / dropping contexts.

  8. I did not attempt to give you defense of Peikoff. I never pretended that I was offering one. I have no interest in persuading those there that are wrong that they are so, that is why I have not tried. They have already shown poor judgement on this issue and I have no interest in trying to untangle their errors. I simply pointed out that it is in fact clear as far as I am concerned. It should be to you if you keep the context in mind and do not insert your own, as others here have done.

    That and pointing out that you (and others) have implied I should apply very poor methods of evaluating Peikoffs statements. Methods which make no sense.

    Anyway, I made my point. He is not going to comment on this or bother to clarify. His point was actually not very unclear, it just takes a little reasonable effort to fill in the gaps. Why would he care if people are not willing or able to do so correctly? It was a throwaway comment after all and if others do not get the idea and wish aato get the wrong idea, it has no bearing on him as far as I see.

    Point made ( not case closed, given as pointed out I did not choose to make a unifying case ).

  9. Again, it does not matter how many people get it wrong. What matters is whether or not Peikoff is correct and whether what he said is sufficently clear so that [ with some effort], his meaning can be divined by someone applying the *correct* methods of evaluation. The fact a thousand ( or more, or less) people get it wrong ( especially when those I consider to be careful thinkers get it right ) is no reason for me to think it is in fact *not * as obvious as it seems to me. It would be silly to think so. That is not a rational method to evaluate the truth or clarity of someones statements.

    What matters are the facts and how they are presented. Not how others choose to intrepret them.

    Nor is the fact I refuse to go into it, a rational reason to assume I am unable to do so.

  10. No, I am not going to clarify it for you. I have no interest in explaining something which was in fact presented with reasonable clarity the first time and which is even more clear if one does not pretend he said or implied things which he did not. Do your own thinking.

    Also, I have no interest in how many "long t ime Rand fans" are getting it wrong. That has no bearing on the issue. It does not make any difference how many "long time fans" are getting it right or wrong. As with any issue, how well it is grasped, even by those that you would expect to grasp it if it was true, makes no real difference. It just demonstrates that even alleged "fans" are not infallible ( or that possibly the speaker / writer is not either ).

  11. Peikoff has no real reason to address this as far as I know. Why would he bother? It is not his problem if people drop his context and make up a new one and then wonder how he could say such "horrible" things. Really, he has far better things to do. Especially since it is really a marginal issue, compared to the far more important questions he could spend his time answering.

    If you keep the context in mind, including that of his previously stated views on violition , consent etc, it is very clear what he meant.

  12. Compared to the Brandens? In that she is someone that the authors think is a risk of misrepresenting Objectivism and the like? Sure, in that sense she is. Reasonably too I might add. I would like you to find where it says she is *as* bad ( or worse ) as those other people though. I seem to have missed that, *somehow*.

    As for who they are : Why dont you look into it instead of asking here? I am not their PR man, nor do I intend to do your fact-checking for you.

    I'm betting that in a few weeks, some of them will quit the group.

    Based on? At the moment all is going very well and everyone seems very happy.

  13. Yeah know , a fair trial is one in with the judge/jury use the facts of reality in which to determine whether or not the accused are guilty, using a lit tle thing called evidence. If there is sufficent evidence to logically prove ones guilt, they get sentenced. If not, well they do not. There should be a logical criteria of what qualifies as evidence and what does not and what is more, what constitutes a crime would be objectively defined, as woulde what qualifies as being guilty of breaking a given law.

    A fair trial is one in which the facts are presented and the accused and accusors are free to present the relevant facts in order to prove or disprove the accuseds guilt. It does not consist of allowing useless hacks to ask useless questions which distort the facts and which are not do constitute a proper means of proving ones case. Such "lawyers" should not be permitted to waste a courts time and would be replaced, by a capable court lawyer if required.

  14. Well , yeah of course they should be entitled to a fair trial. One cannot be rationally convicted of a crime without a trial or some way of proving that one actually is guilty of such. Obviously it would have to be a fair trial, or else it is pointless to bother.

    Yes a poor person would have a fair trial too. If they could not afford to hire a lawyer, I am sure there would be options. There could be "State-appointed" lawyers available to such people, or perhaps the courts could pay for the costs of hiring a lawyer if it could be shown that person could not pay for it at the time and that no lawyer would accept such terms. Or maybe in rare cases some lawyers might choose to work for less/free if it was a case they really really cared about or had some interest in.

    But yeah, I see no reason why the fact that the defendant might be poor would create a barrier to him or her undergoing a fair trial.

  15. "

    If we abandon the collectivized mindset, we see that anarchism would mean any individual can "take the law into his own hands." But when he uses what he feels to be retaliatory, and thus morally justified, force, he is taking exactly the same action to which anarchists object when taken by a government: attempting to forcibly exclude the "competing" use of force by the initiator of force (e.g., the gunman). If it is morally proper for an individual to defend himself by force, it is morally proper for him to band together with others to do so—i.e., to form a government.

    The same facts that make individual self-defense moral—i.e., the right to self-defense—makes governmental force moral if it is used in defense of the rights of individuals." - from this excellent articel ( by Binswanger ) here : http://www.hblist.com/anarchy.htm

    The above alone proves that anarcho-caps are a bunch of hypocritical, pacificist fools that are not talking about capitalism but what you see in Mad Max.

  • Create New...