Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


JASKN last won the day on December 23 2020

JASKN had the most liked content!


  • Member Title
    *turns hand

Profile Information

  • Interests
    Learning things, music, design, business
  • Gender

Previous Fields

  • Sexual orientation
    No Answer
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Chat Nick
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Country
    United States
  • Copyright
    Public Domain

Recent Profile Visitors

28144 profile views

JASKN's Achievements

Senior Member

Senior Member (6/7)



  1. Hey Doug, just happened to be sitting here with the ARI site up and the forum notifying me of your reply: https://estore.aynrand.org/p/638/free-minds-and-free-markets-pdf-download
  2. A brain operates automatically in many or even most ways, and in fact the common understanding of idea "dredging" is that it's involuntary, which is why I used it as an example. Furthermore, some communicated ideas are intended to harm the recipient - not just lies, but perhaps bringing up past trauma, or shifting a person's focus with the intent to change his decisions. Why would these things not constitute an initiation of force? Do you mean these?: If so, a communicated idea can easily cause a physical brain change which interferes with its functioning, or which interferes with a person's integrative process of self-generated, self-sustaining action. So, why would ideas be excluded as an initiation of force?
  3. You've qualified "impose" with "direct," yet still no explanation or standard has been established. At what point has someone been directly imposed? Since a person with any body or property may supply the definition, "adverse" "physical damage" broadens to any/all happenings in the universe, no? What is "normal functioning"? By what standard do I differentiate "normal" from "damaged" (assuming the above "adverse physical damage" definition is out)? This is simply begging the question. Another person physically changed my brain by communicating an idea to me, and the resulting "content of consciousness" was automatic and not by my choice. So, why was the spreading of the idea not an initiation of force?
  4. What is "imposing"? Existing on the same planet, all happenings could be argued to be "imposing" on all beings. What is "physical damage"/"physical force"? Ideas physically alter a brain - why is that not "damage" or "force"? I may not have asked for an idea, yet my brain processed it and changed nonetheless. How "serious" does the physical force need to be before it becomes "harm"/"damage"? A bad smell may give me a headache, or it may ruin my day by drudging up some childhood trauma. Who should be held liable for the time I waste realigning my attitude so that I can function properly again? Why? What is "privacy", what violates privacy, and why is that an initiation of physical force?
  5. So, the willful spread of fraudulent ideas is an initiation of force? Does that mean that the accidental spread of germs is not an initiation of force?
  6. You emphasized "spreading," why? What is it about spreading germs that is aggressive, vs. spreading ideas that is not? Why substitute "aggression" for "force"? How is spreading germs aggression/force but spreading ideas is not? What is the standard of the "effect" of not-physical harm vs. the "force" of physical harm? Couldn't the spread of bad ideas be argued to be "physically damaging" to a person's body, even manipulating enough to be argued as control over their body? Couldn't the spread of bad ideas easily be argued to be a threat or incitement, especially those ideas shared with the intent to convince others to act in a way that they had never intended to act themselves?
  7. Does a communicated idea not physically alter the brain of the recipient?
  8. That isn't the only interpretation of this meme. Judging by your derision, you were expecting more than memes from those arguing against masks. But why? Maskers are viewed as part of an international, irrational medical theater movement, abetting the tidal wave of 2020-style stripping of basic human rights. And then you offer derision in response - so why should you receive more than memes?
  9. Vilifying a group of people, cuz "science." Classic.
  10. Yes, I've already found via a single Google search an example of a Democrat politician making completely opposite statements in May about BLM, vs. today about these hillbillies. I'd bet you could find an example of the same from every single public figure.
  11. A silver lining is that this is an obvious example of what not to do for anyone who's actually interested in freedom and the legitimate rule of law.
  12. Harry Binswanger says homosexuality is a psychological issue, then when pushed says he doesn't know enough about psychology and can't give a definitive reason why. It's clear to me that anyone who finds homosexuality disgusting (especially more disgusting for one sex than another) is the person with the psychological issue, clearly traced to certain cultural upbringings. The masculinity/femininity/psychology/heroicism "debate" is rationalized from behavioral stereotypes. In reality, sexual arousal is involuntary at all stages of human life, practically speaking and until future discoveries about the human brain. Behavioral traits do seem to be inherently linked to sexuality, though not universally, and more diversely than assumed prior to the last 10-20 years.
  13. Sounds to me like you weren't doing your part for that brief moment, and I'm personally worried about all of the grandmothers of all of the poor souls who were within your visual vicinity.
  • Create New...