Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

FeatherFall

Moderators
  • Posts

    1633
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    23

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    FeatherFall reacted to Reidy in Paul Ryan as Vice Presidential candidate   
    His debate with Biden should be worth a look.
  2. Like
    FeatherFall reacted to Boydstun in John A. Allison takes over as CEO of the Cato Institute   
    Atlas,

    Peter Schwartz' point that “amount of government” would not be a principle giving genuine unity to a political philosophy is correct. When “limited government” libertarians use that adjective to distinguish themselves from individualist anarchist libertarians, they are talking about limited proper functions of government. Defending the country could at times require a whole lot of government, but the number of proper functions of government would still be limited to its constant few. That is what was in the books on this political philosophy in the ’70’s written by Robert Nozick, by Tibor Machan, and by John Hospers. What those proper functions were coincided with Rand’s conclusion in the matter.

    The preeminent libertarian political philosopher of that decade was Robert Nozick. His book Anarchy, State, and Utopia towered above all others in libertarian philosophy, in content and in public recognition. That is still so today. I know, I know, some folks attached of the political philosophy of Murray Rothbard may not like to admit that; some also do not like to admit the importance of Ayn Rand’s writings in political philosophy to the existence of the modern libertarian movement. Nozick’s book is studied in classrooms today, and it will be studied a hundred years from now. It is a modern classic of political philosophy.

    In the ’70’s the other writings influential with libertarians were free market economics books, Rand’s literature and essays, Tibor Machan’s Human Rights and Human Liberties, and John Hosper’s Libertarianism: An Idea Whose Time Has Come. On the anarchist branch of libertarianism, there was Murray Rothbard’s For a New Liberty and David Friedman’s The Machinery of Freedom. Rothbard’s The Ethics of Liberty issued in ’82. Those are the books one would need to discuss in order to genuinely discuss libertarian political philosophy of the ’70’s and early ’80’s. The Schwartz criticism you mentioned might have some traction in connection with David Friedman’s approach, but to his alone. He is a utilitarian and is concerned to maximize liberty with an eye to utility, as I recall. All the others come from the perspective that individual rights is a valid moral concept and that the sole proper function of government would be to protect them. Rothbard and his followers would argue further that there is no proper function of government because such an institution necessarily violates individual rights.

    A few years after leaving the Libertarian Party in ’84, I stopped studying and writing about political philosophy. I returned to what I had studied in college (late ’60’s), which was metaphysics and epistemology. In 1990 I created the journal Objectivity * (subscription, hardcopy) from which political and social philosophy more generally was excluded. Finally there was a place to focus in print on the other areas of philosophy, at a level of interest for both academics and independent scholars. There was also much history of philosophy and science education in the journal. It was not limited to Objectivist contributors and readers. Anyone friendly toward rationality, objectivity, and modern science (standard, no reactionary or basement science) was at home in that clean calm place, made so in part by the exclusion of political philosophy and cultural commentary.

    My statements about libertarianism and about the LP in those days are from personal memory, not from reading about those days. My impression that Rothbard was not in attendance at the founding national convention of LP was from my memory of the report at the time by an acquaintance who had attended. My memory of such a detail could easily be mistaken. I was a delegate from Illinois to the LP national convention in New York in 1976. I would say most delegates were in the limited government side the divide. Rothbard, Raico, and Childs were delegates and were active on the floor in attempting to put anarchist planks into the party platform. I remember one of their attempts, concerning national defense, failed after Nozick got up, identified the sneaky move that was afoot and the unacceptability of its ultimate implication. There was a big struggle going on at that convention. Anarchism seemed concentrated in the New York delegation. There was only one anarchist in our Illinois delegation as I recall.

    Objectivist political philosophy is a type of libertarianism, which is the view that the only proper function of government, if any, is to protect individual liberty. That is the paramount political value. In Rand’s political philosophy, the proper purpose of government is to protect individual rights, and the purpose of individual rights is to protect the free exercise of the individual mind in the conduct and service of his or her life in a social context. That is a type of individual liberty. Well, Atlas, I better close. One more memory. Some generous people had put some money into that New York convention. There was a brief sound and light show that had been created for the occasion. The music was a song I had not known till then. It was “Won’t Get Fooled Again” by The Who. On a screen were flashed various images, but I only remember some of the photos of faces of intellectuals important in the political movement and political philosophy. Rand’s face flashed on the screen, and he crowd went wild.
  3. Like
    FeatherFall got a reaction from Jake in Japan had to tell Obama NOT to apologize for Hiroshima/Nagasaki   
    Ditto, Jake. It's probably worth noting that the Japanese entertained conditional surrender prior to the final raids. Conditional surrender ain't good enough; let's remember the Weimar Republic.
  4. Like
    FeatherFall got a reaction from softwareNerd in Japan had to tell Obama NOT to apologize for Hiroshima/Nagasaki   
    Ditto, Jake. It's probably worth noting that the Japanese entertained conditional surrender prior to the final raids. Conditional surrender ain't good enough; let's remember the Weimar Republic.
  5. Like
    FeatherFall got a reaction from Grames in The Aurora Massacre   
    Michelle, you’ve made some interesting and good points which I’d like to address.

    Are handguns necessary for self-defense?

    This is probably the best question I’ve seen from the pro-gun control side of this thread. It’s good because it questions a fundamental premise of ours and does so in a way that doesn’t invite an easy answer.

    It is a flight of fancy to pretend that we (humans) are capable of preventing other, more violently aggressive humans, from obtaining the things this man found and improvised. So, I’m going to start from the point of view that we need some sort of tool to combat an attacker armed with the same stuff that the Batman shooter was armed with. I am also going to limit my selection to things that a movie-goer would reasonably be able to carry with them. The theater could have put in some sort of improved door or armed guard, but the costs are prohibitive so I will leave that alone for now. So, what tools are appropriate, cheap and available?

    This is the list I came up with; Feet (running), Bare hands, Thrown Weapons/distractions, Collapsible Batons, Knives, Pepper Spray, Tasers, and Handguns. The Batman shooter had ample space between himself and most of his victims, so I’m going to rule out anything without the appropriate range (hands, batons, knives). He attacked his victims in an area where mass retreat would lead to a “bottleneck,” leading to more casualties. Running toward the victim or throwing stuff at him to create a distraction while you close the distance is either too risky or requires more cooperation than can be expected of relaxed theater-goers. This rules out feet. Pepper spray is usually an excellent close-range defense against an attacker armed with a firearm, but even a shooter without a gas mask could fire blindly at a crowded theater and still hit someone. Because the shooter had both a gas mask and a crowded theater, I’m ruling out pepper spray. We are left with firearms and Tasers.

    The shooter was wearing armor. I am not intimately familiar Tasers, but I have no reason to believe they won’t function when someone is wearing armor. Armor does reduce the effectiveness of many firearm projectiles, especially when fired from a handgun. The barrels are rarely long enough to effectively capture the pressures needed to propel a projectile fast enough to pierce armor. Some handguns do, in fact, create such speed. An example of such a handgun round is the .38 Super – a small bullet packed with lots of powder. Combined with a fully-jacketed projectile (no hollow-points), a .38 Super could have killed the Batman shooter.

    We have two effective self-defense tools. Which one is better? I think it depends on the person. The Taser has a limited range and can only be fired a small number of times, but can be more effective if it hits a non-vital part of the body. A handgun has more range and can be easily reloaded, but requires more training to deal a killing (thus incapacitating) blow. So, I believe the answer to your question is, “yes,” depending on the person.

    The second point that should be addressed is that a firearm’s primary design is for killing. I’d agree with this, but I’d like to point out the differences in firearm/projectile design that lead to different “secondary” functions that are so great they may have to be considered “primary functions” depending on the context. A .22 comes out fast, has a relatively straight trajectory and packs a very small relative punch, and so it is not a good tool for self-defense, but rather is great for short/medium range target practice and hunting small game. A handgun has a short barrel, which limits the amount of powder that can be effectively utilized to propel the bullet – long range killing is out of the question. Rifles are the ultimate long-range personal weapons because they have long barrels and heavy projectiles with lots of inertia, but fail at close-quarters because their long-barrels become cumbersome. Shotguns are unparalleled medium-range killing tools, and can be shortened to minimize the drawback of a long barrel for close-quarters fighting.

    In the military, when they issue a weapon to combat troops it is almost always a rifle. Sometimes it is a sub-machine gun (basically a big machine pistol), or a shotgun. These are for the troops who’s primary job is to kill enemy soldiers. For the officers who, if everything goes well, don’t see combat, they issue pistols. The reason is that pistols are more easily kept at hand for self-defense in case something goes wrong and a combat troop or spy gets close to the higher-ranked officers. This is evidence that the handgun is a better self-defense tool than killing tool.

    Finally, but not unimportantly, Michelle, is your point about being uncomfortable when sitting next to an armed person. I understand how you could feel that way, but please also be aware that I feel the exact opposite. I have worked in retail environments where co-workers were almost always carrying a firearm. I live in Wisconsin where the occasional person would carry openly even before our concealed-carry law was passed. I have always felt safer when I saw it, because none of the people carrying exhibited threatening behavior. In general, I welcome armed strangers – but only when they appear respectful, competent and sober. As long as they maintain proper etiquette, there is no reason to be fearful of an armed person. Generally, you are safer when you are in the company of armed strangers.
  6. Like
    FeatherFall reacted to Jake in The Aurora Massacre   
    @FeatherFall & Nicky

    On second reading, my post was a little premature. It was not a direct response to either of your posts as much as it was an attempt to prevent the direction I thought the thread was taking (and has since taken with Kate's posts and responses to her).

    My point is that the principled (and only meaningful or relevant) argument against gun control is that it violates rights. Discussing what-ifs and alternatives is fine, but cannot stand as an argument for or against gun control. When gun rights advocates argue at the statistical, anecdotal, or practical level, they concede to gun control advocates that there is no principled reason to protect 2nd amendment rights, and thereby make it an unfortunately typical pragmatic contest of who has the best statistics or the most shocking real-life story.

    An analog would be arguing about taxation by showing that it negatively impacts the unemployment rate, economic growth, etc. It doesn't matter. Such an investigation is a great way to remind oneself that there is no theory-practice dichotomy, but the principle is that compulsory taxes violate the right to property - 'nough said.
  7. Like
    FeatherFall got a reaction from SapereAude in The Aurora Massacre   
    Michelle, you’ve made some interesting and good points which I’d like to address.

    Are handguns necessary for self-defense?

    This is probably the best question I’ve seen from the pro-gun control side of this thread. It’s good because it questions a fundamental premise of ours and does so in a way that doesn’t invite an easy answer.

    It is a flight of fancy to pretend that we (humans) are capable of preventing other, more violently aggressive humans, from obtaining the things this man found and improvised. So, I’m going to start from the point of view that we need some sort of tool to combat an attacker armed with the same stuff that the Batman shooter was armed with. I am also going to limit my selection to things that a movie-goer would reasonably be able to carry with them. The theater could have put in some sort of improved door or armed guard, but the costs are prohibitive so I will leave that alone for now. So, what tools are appropriate, cheap and available?

    This is the list I came up with; Feet (running), Bare hands, Thrown Weapons/distractions, Collapsible Batons, Knives, Pepper Spray, Tasers, and Handguns. The Batman shooter had ample space between himself and most of his victims, so I’m going to rule out anything without the appropriate range (hands, batons, knives). He attacked his victims in an area where mass retreat would lead to a “bottleneck,” leading to more casualties. Running toward the victim or throwing stuff at him to create a distraction while you close the distance is either too risky or requires more cooperation than can be expected of relaxed theater-goers. This rules out feet. Pepper spray is usually an excellent close-range defense against an attacker armed with a firearm, but even a shooter without a gas mask could fire blindly at a crowded theater and still hit someone. Because the shooter had both a gas mask and a crowded theater, I’m ruling out pepper spray. We are left with firearms and Tasers.

    The shooter was wearing armor. I am not intimately familiar Tasers, but I have no reason to believe they won’t function when someone is wearing armor. Armor does reduce the effectiveness of many firearm projectiles, especially when fired from a handgun. The barrels are rarely long enough to effectively capture the pressures needed to propel a projectile fast enough to pierce armor. Some handguns do, in fact, create such speed. An example of such a handgun round is the .38 Super – a small bullet packed with lots of powder. Combined with a fully-jacketed projectile (no hollow-points), a .38 Super could have killed the Batman shooter.

    We have two effective self-defense tools. Which one is better? I think it depends on the person. The Taser has a limited range and can only be fired a small number of times, but can be more effective if it hits a non-vital part of the body. A handgun has more range and can be easily reloaded, but requires more training to deal a killing (thus incapacitating) blow. So, I believe the answer to your question is, “yes,” depending on the person.

    The second point that should be addressed is that a firearm’s primary design is for killing. I’d agree with this, but I’d like to point out the differences in firearm/projectile design that lead to different “secondary” functions that are so great they may have to be considered “primary functions” depending on the context. A .22 comes out fast, has a relatively straight trajectory and packs a very small relative punch, and so it is not a good tool for self-defense, but rather is great for short/medium range target practice and hunting small game. A handgun has a short barrel, which limits the amount of powder that can be effectively utilized to propel the bullet – long range killing is out of the question. Rifles are the ultimate long-range personal weapons because they have long barrels and heavy projectiles with lots of inertia, but fail at close-quarters because their long-barrels become cumbersome. Shotguns are unparalleled medium-range killing tools, and can be shortened to minimize the drawback of a long barrel for close-quarters fighting.

    In the military, when they issue a weapon to combat troops it is almost always a rifle. Sometimes it is a sub-machine gun (basically a big machine pistol), or a shotgun. These are for the troops who’s primary job is to kill enemy soldiers. For the officers who, if everything goes well, don’t see combat, they issue pistols. The reason is that pistols are more easily kept at hand for self-defense in case something goes wrong and a combat troop or spy gets close to the higher-ranked officers. This is evidence that the handgun is a better self-defense tool than killing tool.

    Finally, but not unimportantly, Michelle, is your point about being uncomfortable when sitting next to an armed person. I understand how you could feel that way, but please also be aware that I feel the exact opposite. I have worked in retail environments where co-workers were almost always carrying a firearm. I live in Wisconsin where the occasional person would carry openly even before our concealed-carry law was passed. I have always felt safer when I saw it, because none of the people carrying exhibited threatening behavior. In general, I welcome armed strangers – but only when they appear respectful, competent and sober. As long as they maintain proper etiquette, there is no reason to be fearful of an armed person. Generally, you are safer when you are in the company of armed strangers.
  8. Like
    FeatherFall got a reaction from brian0918 in The Aurora Massacre   
    Kate, I am aware that some police units in the UK do not carry guns. I'm skeptical that it's a good decision, but as long as they remain effective at their jobs I don't object. This, however, is irrelevant to the morality of preventing me from using self-defense tools.

    I believe the first sentence of your last post to be the most important part if it, because it represents a contradiction in your thinking about rights ethics:


    The Objectivist view of rights is that conflicts of rights are impossible. It would be one thing to claim that I have no right to tools of self-defense. It would be another to claim that my right is trumped by someone else's rights. Rights are inalienable; Any view of morality that entertains a conflicts of rights views rights not as inalienable, but rather as inconsequential. Rights become, under such a view, merely words that represent how strongly you feel about something.

    I encourage you to review the Objectivist idea of rights. This community is a good resource, so is the Ayn Rand Lexicon. In a nutshell, rights are moral principles governing freedom of action in a social context. They protect your ability to act on the product of your thought. Such a view is inconsistent with the idea that you could have a right to not be near people with certain abilities. It is also inconsistent with the global police state you described in your last post.
  9. Like
    FeatherFall got a reaction from bkildahl in Leave George Zimmerman alone!   
    Russ, your selection of the tape involves a serious omission of proper context. In response to dispatch saying, "We don't need you to do that," Zimmerman says, "OK." It is interesting to note that the sound quality that could be identified as rushing air noticeably changes at the same time Zimmerman says, "OK." This could be taken as an indication that Zimmerman immediately stopped his pursuit.

    In many people's minds, having a suspicious prowler around creates an emergency. But for the sake of argument I'll grant you a small concession; maybe emergency is a more severe variety of a common concept. At the very least, a prowler represents a threat. The proper response to a threat is to identify it and, when possible, take action that will eliminate it. Previous action of the type you prescribe was taken by Zimmerman countless times, to no meaningful effect. That you would have had Zimmerman sit on his hands and call the cops so they could drive over while a likely thief gets away is disappointing. But maybe I don't understand how it is you think Zimmerman acted immorally. In part, it sounds like you condemn him for risking his own safety without proper preparation. If that's the case, I'll counter that his firearm prepared him. I think this whole controversy is proof of that.

    More serious is your condemnation of him for manslaughter.



    I'll put aside the fact that you omit the time between Zimmerman's pursuit and the altercation and, by extension, mischaracterize the entire encounter. A pursuit is not a crime. I'll repeat myself, because manslaughter is a crime that is precipitated by or committed in concert with other criminal activity. A pursuit is not a crime, and so it is not evidence of manslaughter. You would have police prosecute Zimmerman on the assumption that he was criminally liable for a conflict in which he had all of the defensive wounds (save one), none of the offensive wounds, and fired only a single shot. Sure, it's possible that Zimmerman engaged in criminal activity and began the altercation. But the burden of proof for such an accusation is too high a bar to meet in this case. Prosecuting him is, at the very least, an absurd waste of time and money. But you go a step further with your statement that I quoted in bold. You don't just want to give the prosecution a chance to convince a jury that Zimmerman is guilty; you want Zimmerman to prove that he is innocent. You are saying, in effect, that Zimmerman is to be held culpable for our lack of knowledge. That's reckless and unjust.
  10. Like
    FeatherFall got a reaction from aequalsa in Leave George Zimmerman alone!   
    The media frenzy immediately following the incident was full of shameful, awful reporting. Police never told Zimmerman to stop following Martin. The 911 dispatcher asked Zimmerman if he was following the suspect, Zimmerman said "yes," the dispatcher told him, "you don't need to do that," Zimmerman said, "OK." That's on tape.

    After that, Zimmerman claims he lost sight of Martin while trying to find an address to give to police (he was in what looked to me to be the adjoined back yards of two townhouse complexes, so addresses would have been hard to come by). After Zimmerman gave up on the address hunt and began moving back to his vehicle, he was approached by Martin. Regardless of who approached who, Zimmerman absolutely could have used stand your ground laws if he didn't break any laws himself. According to Zimmerman's account of what happened next, he didn't.

    As Zimmerman tells it, Martin appeared behind Zimmerman as Zimmerman was returning to his vehicle. Martin asked something like, "You got a problem?" Zimmerman turned around and replied in the negative. Martain said something like, "You do now," and punched Zimmerman, breaking his nose and laying him out. After several long moments of fighting in which Zimmerman recounts that his head was smashed against a concrete walkway and it "felt like it was going to explode," he turned to try to push himself out from underneath Martin. This movement exposed his firearm, which Martin attempted to take. Zimmerman drew his weapon and fired.

    This retelling is based on 911 recordings, videotaped police interviews at the location of the incedent and many news reports that I have heard, seen or read. Important things to remember about this case are:
    The only living soul who witnessed the beginning of the altercation (Zimmerman), said he was returning to his vehicle when the altercation started. I have no evidence that this is a lie.

    Zimmerman had multiple injuries to his face and head. The closest witness identified Zimmerman as the man on the bottom screaming for help.

    Martin had what could be offensive wounds on his knuckles. The only other wound I am aware of is the gunshot wound that killed him.

    Martin has a history of burglary or theft related activity, which supports the likelihood that the activity Zimmerman witnessed prior to the altercation was indeed, "suspicious."

    If all of the above is true (I think it probably is), then Martin Zimmerman was doing the right thing. He obviously didn't do the right thing in the best way, but few people do in emergency situations. He has every right to take personal responsibility for his neighborhood's safety - that is a noble conviction. To judge him as a John Wayne wannabe who was looking for trouble is unjust. I have a suspicion that Zimmerman would not have moved into fighting distance had he a choice, but rather followed from a safe distance until police arrived. I believe Martin snuck up to Zimmerman to start a fight, because he was pissed that Zimmerman was following him. I couldn't possibly say this with any certainty, of course.

    Police had the best position to decide with certainty, and they chose not to prosecute - that is, until the rioting began and this became a political shitstorm.
  11. Like
    FeatherFall got a reaction from Craig24 in Leave George Zimmerman alone!   
    Russ, your selection of the tape involves a serious omission of proper context. In response to dispatch saying, "We don't need you to do that," Zimmerman says, "OK." It is interesting to note that the sound quality that could be identified as rushing air noticeably changes at the same time Zimmerman says, "OK." This could be taken as an indication that Zimmerman immediately stopped his pursuit.

    In many people's minds, having a suspicious prowler around creates an emergency. But for the sake of argument I'll grant you a small concession; maybe emergency is a more severe variety of a common concept. At the very least, a prowler represents a threat. The proper response to a threat is to identify it and, when possible, take action that will eliminate it. Previous action of the type you prescribe was taken by Zimmerman countless times, to no meaningful effect. That you would have had Zimmerman sit on his hands and call the cops so they could drive over while a likely thief gets away is disappointing. But maybe I don't understand how it is you think Zimmerman acted immorally. In part, it sounds like you condemn him for risking his own safety without proper preparation. If that's the case, I'll counter that his firearm prepared him. I think this whole controversy is proof of that.

    More serious is your condemnation of him for manslaughter.



    I'll put aside the fact that you omit the time between Zimmerman's pursuit and the altercation and, by extension, mischaracterize the entire encounter. A pursuit is not a crime. I'll repeat myself, because manslaughter is a crime that is precipitated by or committed in concert with other criminal activity. A pursuit is not a crime, and so it is not evidence of manslaughter. You would have police prosecute Zimmerman on the assumption that he was criminally liable for a conflict in which he had all of the defensive wounds (save one), none of the offensive wounds, and fired only a single shot. Sure, it's possible that Zimmerman engaged in criminal activity and began the altercation. But the burden of proof for such an accusation is too high a bar to meet in this case. Prosecuting him is, at the very least, an absurd waste of time and money. But you go a step further with your statement that I quoted in bold. You don't just want to give the prosecution a chance to convince a jury that Zimmerman is guilty; you want Zimmerman to prove that he is innocent. You are saying, in effect, that Zimmerman is to be held culpable for our lack of knowledge. That's reckless and unjust.
  12. Like
    FeatherFall got a reaction from softwareNerd in Leave George Zimmerman alone!   
    The media frenzy immediately following the incident was full of shameful, awful reporting. Police never told Zimmerman to stop following Martin. The 911 dispatcher asked Zimmerman if he was following the suspect, Zimmerman said "yes," the dispatcher told him, "you don't need to do that," Zimmerman said, "OK." That's on tape.

    After that, Zimmerman claims he lost sight of Martin while trying to find an address to give to police (he was in what looked to me to be the adjoined back yards of two townhouse complexes, so addresses would have been hard to come by). After Zimmerman gave up on the address hunt and began moving back to his vehicle, he was approached by Martin. Regardless of who approached who, Zimmerman absolutely could have used stand your ground laws if he didn't break any laws himself. According to Zimmerman's account of what happened next, he didn't.

    As Zimmerman tells it, Martin appeared behind Zimmerman as Zimmerman was returning to his vehicle. Martin asked something like, "You got a problem?" Zimmerman turned around and replied in the negative. Martain said something like, "You do now," and punched Zimmerman, breaking his nose and laying him out. After several long moments of fighting in which Zimmerman recounts that his head was smashed against a concrete walkway and it "felt like it was going to explode," he turned to try to push himself out from underneath Martin. This movement exposed his firearm, which Martin attempted to take. Zimmerman drew his weapon and fired.

    This retelling is based on 911 recordings, videotaped police interviews at the location of the incedent and many news reports that I have heard, seen or read. Important things to remember about this case are:
    The only living soul who witnessed the beginning of the altercation (Zimmerman), said he was returning to his vehicle when the altercation started. I have no evidence that this is a lie.

    Zimmerman had multiple injuries to his face and head. The closest witness identified Zimmerman as the man on the bottom screaming for help.

    Martin had what could be offensive wounds on his knuckles. The only other wound I am aware of is the gunshot wound that killed him.

    Martin has a history of burglary or theft related activity, which supports the likelihood that the activity Zimmerman witnessed prior to the altercation was indeed, "suspicious."

    If all of the above is true (I think it probably is), then Martin Zimmerman was doing the right thing. He obviously didn't do the right thing in the best way, but few people do in emergency situations. He has every right to take personal responsibility for his neighborhood's safety - that is a noble conviction. To judge him as a John Wayne wannabe who was looking for trouble is unjust. I have a suspicion that Zimmerman would not have moved into fighting distance had he a choice, but rather followed from a safe distance until police arrived. I believe Martin snuck up to Zimmerman to start a fight, because he was pissed that Zimmerman was following him. I couldn't possibly say this with any certainty, of course.

    Police had the best position to decide with certainty, and they chose not to prosecute - that is, until the rioting began and this became a political shitstorm.
  13. Like
    FeatherFall got a reaction from SapereAude in Muslim mob stones Christians – in U.S.!   
    Nicky's point should not be discounted. I don't know how credible the reports are that the christians were saying the things in SoftwareNerd's bullet points, but I can believe it. Regardless of how emotionally inflammatory such speech is, it doesn't seem to rise to the level of a threat. Maybe it was harassment, depending on what else they were doing. Either way, civilized people don't let their children and teenagers throw rocks, bottles, and large plastic crates at people for harasment.
  14. Like
    FeatherFall got a reaction from Jackethan in John A. Allison takes over as CEO of the Cato Institute   
    This is a delightful surprise, implied speculation of doom and schism aside. I'm not going to read any more tonight - I'm going to bed happy.
  15. Like
    FeatherFall got a reaction from JASKN in John A. Allison takes over as CEO of the Cato Institute   
    This is a delightful surprise, implied speculation of doom and schism aside. I'm not going to read any more tonight - I'm going to bed happy.
  16. Like
    FeatherFall got a reaction from utabintarbo in Wisconsin voters are giving the Teachers union the middle finger   
    There were also four Republican Senate seats up for recall. All but three survived, so one Democratic Senator will hold the office for the remainder of the recess between now and January when the Senate reconvenes... In the meantime there will be another election.

    I stay in touch with a lot of my old "progressive" friends from the area, and their lamentations are funny. My favorite goes something like this, "It looks like money can buy anything - even a state!" I laugh because I don't know a single person who was convinced to vote one way or another by the campaigning. Conventional wisdom says that the money changes voter turnout, not ballot choices, and high voter turnout increases the confidence that people in the state actually like who was elected.

    Here is an interesting irony. In the debates, Tom Barrett (Scott Walker's opponent) would laud FDR as one of America's greatest presidents. Apparently he missed the fact that FDR didn't think public employees should be allowed to have unions.
  17. Like
    FeatherFall reacted to softwareNerd in Wisconsin voters are giving the Teachers union the middle finger   
    The right-to-work is one of those controls that has been created to counteract the effect of other controls. When a union is formed following certain government-specified procedures, the employer and the employees who did not want that union are forced to recognize it. Having forced the employer and all employees to negotiate with a union formed against their wishes, it is not wrong to restrict the things that such a union can negotiate. Such a restriction is just a counter-balance.

    It would be nice to remove the laws that force unions on us. However, since that is not going to happen, having some restrictions on what unions may force upon us is an extremely good idea.
  18. Like
    FeatherFall reacted to TheEgoist in Wisconsin voters are giving the Teachers union the middle finger   
    While public unions are bullshit, I oppose right to work laws and think most libertarian, Objectivist and generally classical liberal support of them is confusing.
  19. Like
    FeatherFall got a reaction from softwareNerd in Wisconsin voters are giving the Teachers union the middle finger   
    There were also four Republican Senate seats up for recall. All but three survived, so one Democratic Senator will hold the office for the remainder of the recess between now and January when the Senate reconvenes... In the meantime there will be another election.

    I stay in touch with a lot of my old "progressive" friends from the area, and their lamentations are funny. My favorite goes something like this, "It looks like money can buy anything - even a state!" I laugh because I don't know a single person who was convinced to vote one way or another by the campaigning. Conventional wisdom says that the money changes voter turnout, not ballot choices, and high voter turnout increases the confidence that people in the state actually like who was elected.

    Here is an interesting irony. In the debates, Tom Barrett (Scott Walker's opponent) would laud FDR as one of America's greatest presidents. Apparently he missed the fact that FDR didn't think public employees should be allowed to have unions.
  20. Like
    FeatherFall reacted to Leonid in On Transgender / Transsexualism   
    I second this. Man's nature, as any other nature , to be commanded. Man lives by adjusting nature to his own needs. Everything man does, could be called a metaphysical assault. There is no reason whatsoever to treat man's physical nature in any different way.
  21. Like
    FeatherFall got a reaction from SapereAude in Gender as an anti-concept   
    Intellectual ammo, if the male is the penetrator and the female the penetrated, then you've settled the issue of gender reassignment in favor of your opponents.
  22. Like
    FeatherFall got a reaction from Nicky in North Carolina’s Despicable Amendment   
    Legally speaking, there is nothing wrong with groups of three or more individuals contracting to form a single civil union. The government should recognize and enforce such contracts. However, polygamous marriage contracts are necessarily different from monogamous ones with regard to medical decisions, inheritance, child custody, etc. Polygamous marriage contracts would be complicated webs when compared to relatively simple/"vanilla" marriage contracts. This is compounded by the fact that today's tax structure simply isn't designed to support such relationships. The result is a political climate where advocacy of polygamy just isn't worth the time.

    Aside from legality, there is a moral question as well. I see no reason why such relationships are necessarily immoral, but I don't know how on earth they would work, so I won't defend them.
  23. Like
    FeatherFall got a reaction from JASKN in North Carolina’s Despicable Amendment   
    Legally speaking, there is nothing wrong with groups of three or more individuals contracting to form a single civil union. The government should recognize and enforce such contracts. However, polygamous marriage contracts are necessarily different from monogamous ones with regard to medical decisions, inheritance, child custody, etc. Polygamous marriage contracts would be complicated webs when compared to relatively simple/"vanilla" marriage contracts. This is compounded by the fact that today's tax structure simply isn't designed to support such relationships. The result is a political climate where advocacy of polygamy just isn't worth the time.

    Aside from legality, there is a moral question as well. I see no reason why such relationships are necessarily immoral, but I don't know how on earth they would work, so I won't defend them.
  24. Like
    FeatherFall got a reaction from DonAthos in Objectivist's impotent debate tactics   
    I had a discussion about this with some friends who are visiting for the holidays and came to a few conclusions. Objectivism has become, in part, an activist movement. In any activist group there are people who have a combination of conviction, passion, inexperience and immaturity. Conviction is a feeling of certainty; passionate people are disproportionately vocal about their convictions. Inexperience creates situations where they do not completely understand their own position and creates difficulty in expressing positions they think they understand. Immaturity can cause defensiveness and abrasiveness. People who are new to movements want desperately to get out and make a difference, but they don't have the tools necessary to present their case while giving others a fair shake. This often leads to first impressions that poison future interaction.

    When these people are also passionate about philosophy, unique problems arise. In political or religious discussions people are ready to encounter passionate, abrasive people, and therefore more willing to forgive a little rudeness. Philosophy, on the other hand, is dominated by academics that have very little tolerance for rudeness. This makes the inexperienced Objectivist activist more visible than the political or religious activist, who already has a visible and experienced network of leaders to proselytize for them. Objectivism is new enough that few people have access to coaching about outreach tactics.

    Another thing that makes Objectivism unique philosophically is that it is individualistic. It asks people to do the work necessary to be certain, and to not be afraid to make value judgments about other people. Contrast this with Christian activists, who are sometimes coached to be a little mousey. Take Tim Tebow, for instance. He was brought up in a sub-culture that taught him to present his argument in an optimistic, benevolent light, and to be humble when challenged. This keeps any discussion genial and leaves an opening for later discussion.

    Discussion-Image, you mentioned that every discussion you've had with an Objectivist has included these poor debate tactics. On the other hand, you say you have an Objectivist friend who doesn't do this. I have a couple of comments about this. One is that it suggests you are indeed falling victim to a confirmation bias. The other comment is that your statements are the type that might set off an inexperienced, immature, passionate person. Be wary of what you are doing in these discussions to try to mitigate any ill-tempered response. Nobody should have to walk on eggshells around other people, but sometimes that is the price we pay to have meaningful discussions with young, active minds.

    Regarding the repulsion to non-Objectivist philosophers, it's useful to note that many people who are interested in philosophy read many different philosophers and like to discuss the things they like and don't like about them. Objectivists, on the other hand, were often introduced to philosophy through Objectivism and don't actually have an interest in other philosophies. Rand specifically mentioned two philosophers to which she owes an intellectual debt, but she criticized many others (like Kant). There are some people who read those criticisms but don't completely understand them. Some people will read the other philosopher to understand Rand's position. Some will lose interest and never discuss it, being satisfied with what they have. I suspect what is most irritating to you are those who just parrot what she said (it irritates me, too). In situations like these, it seems fair to ask the other person if they've read the philosopher to really gauge whether or not they understand Rand's criticism. Be prepared to have the same asked of you, though.
  25. Like
    FeatherFall got a reaction from EC in How does one justify the rape of Dominique in FH?   
    I hate to revisit the word, "appears," but your argument that it appeared to be rape to Roark ignores the parts of the book that put the scene in context. Like I said, I'm not going to debate this at length. I will concede that there is some small amount of confusion created by Rand's phrase, "Rape by engraved invitation." If someone "invites" you to have sex with them, that's consent. If the activity is consensual, there is no force. No force means no rape. So, there is the confusion - obviously you can't have consensual rape. So, to resolve this contradiction you either take the entire book in context and conclude it was consensual, or you focus narrowly on the scene in question, evading the rest of the book, and conclude that it was rape.
×
×
  • Create New...