Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

DonAthos

Moderators
  • Content Count

    1760
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    94

DonAthos last won the day on January 13

DonAthos had the most liked content!

1 Follower

About DonAthos

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Sexual orientation
    No Answer
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Some congressmen (which is inclusive of senators: Congress is comprised of senators and representatives) continued down that path, despite the insurrectionists' egregious acts, others did not. The reason why many of them agreed to challenge the election originally is because they were under political pressure to do so, by Trump and his supporters. They are deeply concerned with their continued ability to fundraise and be elected to office, and sought to appease these radical elements. In this way, they were not "risking their future political careers" so much as doing what they thought best at
  2. I had quoted you as saying that the left has a "de facto monopoly" on media and social media. That conservatives and libertarians are not represented. I point to podcasts and local radio stations and forums and magazines and newspapers and on and on to demonstrate how that is not the case, at all. I don't know precisely how to parse "numbers/influence"; how influential are folks like Rush Limbaugh or Alex Jones? But I did point to the fact (so far as I know, and I invite correction) that Fox News is the highest-rated cable news network. So how exactly we define "mainstream" (which seems r
  3. This thread ought not become a clearinghouse for Trumpist grievances, but... how in the world can you believe such a thing? I know there's been movement lately by some prominent, private social media businesses, Twitter, Facebook and others -- and especially in light of the Capitol assault -- to curb elements that are actively fomenting violence or spreading dangerous disinformation, but is that what you mean? Otherwise, you represent yourself on social media. Perhaps there's some disconnect between us as to the meaning of "conservative" or "libertarian"? Or do you think that if you tweet
  4. I'm glad you brought up tu quoque; I've been thinking about it recently, too. Logical/reasoning fallacies have a narrow scope. Tu quoque demonstrates that you cannot establish that any particular claim is false due to a proponent of that claim being hypocritical. The reason why altruism is false/wrong/evil is not that any given proponent fails to act in a consistently altruistic manner, just as selfishness would not be shown wrong if some proponent of selfishness did not always act selfishly. That doesn't mean that calling out hypocrisy isn't effective rhetorically, or have other use
  5. And you are able to question anything. But you're conflating this with somehow living consequence-free and implicitly denying others their right to assembly. A Nazi could style himself as "simply questioning whether Jews are evil baby-eaters," but that doesn't mean that I should be forced to hire him, give him a platform to express his views, befriend him, or whatever. If I don't want to associate myself with him, that is enough: he has the right to question, I have the right to fire. And yes, the people who are continuing to question the validity of this election, at this point, are dive
  6. @whYNOT, et al. An armed mob forced their way past guards to disrupt our democratic process and as part of an overall effort to overturn the results of our Presidential election. Into the Capitol. Where Congress was present and at work. Members of Congress were rushed to safety -- and we don't know what the outcome might have been otherwise -- but five people died overall, including this woman, who was helping to initiate the violence, and including another police officer, who was tasked with stopping it and got his head caved in with a fire extinguisher as a result. This was an assa
  7. I have enough superstition about me not to want to declare that we've survived this, just yet. But despite everything, it looks better to me today than it did yesterday, and it's the first time in a while I've been able to say that. That said, we are far, far from anything approaching good, and we could lurch towards the worse at any moment. Or towards the worst. Trump is an authoritarian and a statist. He has been searching for a way to overturn the election for months, and the only way we have yet preserved our system is because other people (to varying degrees) have frustrated him in h
  8. That certainly would be nice. Trump raises the specter of the death of American democracy. Quite beyond what Trump himself represents in his lack of principle, and in his easy, thoughtless willingness to violate liberty, to lie, defraud and cheat -- what would the decline of our democratic institutions mean for individual rights, in either the short or the long term? How would we better safeguard rights by entrusting them to a man who has shown consistent disdain for every liberal virtue, rights included? Further, if Trump had gotten his way (and while I feel a touch optimistic, at p
  9. And I was glad to see it. Still, there comes a point when continuing to ask for evidence, as though the matter is wholly unsettled, is itself questionable. Trump's lawyers have brought case after case in multiple states before multiple judges, and the judges have asked them for evidence -- for the merits of their many claims. Trump's lawyers have failed to provide it, time after time. The judges have thrown out their suits, and yet their claims (in public, in the media) don't fade -- they intensify, grow more grotesque and outlandish. At some point here (which we are well past, imo),
  10. Recognizing that the election was fair has nothing to do with one's feelings about Biden or Trump, generally. Christopher Krebs, of Trump's Homeland Security, for instance, said that "59 election security experts all agree, 'in every case of which we are aware, these claims (of fraud) either have been unsubstantiated or are technically incoherent.'" For this, Trump had him fired. Yes, they are attempting to dupe you and silence the people who would tell you the truth. It would be better if you trusted credible sources, instead.
  11. Judges have been making rulings on the matters brought before their courts, in due course. Not all of the allegations made by the Trump team in the press have also been filed as legal matters. Why wouldn't they pursue legal remedies for these other allegations, for which they supposedly have evidence? Why only pursue smaller and more technical matters publicly (and lose, and lose, and lose again), instead of submit their evidence to the sort of scrutiny you indicate you would prefer? My best guess is that they don't want their "evidence" scrutinized. In any event, even a lay person observ
  12. The word "coup" has been used in this thread, and though Eiuol misunderstood its intended meaning, the reference was: that Biden, et al., were in the process of attempting a coup. This is incredible. We may well be witnessing a coup-in-progress, in fact (though I continue to hold out hope that it isn't so), but not one perpetrated by Biden. tad, we've had productive discussions here before -- though it's been a while since we've spoken at all. I can't make you listen to me, but I need to say this to you: You are mistaken. Trump did not win this election. Whatever you believe
  13. No, Eiuol. That's not how this discussion is. We're not arguing, I'm not your teacher (Go potentially notwithstanding; we'll arrange a schedule shortly ), and I'm not repeating myself further on this issue. The illegality of crossing the border is itself predicated on the intention to keep Juan from working at Starbucks. Remember our struggling American families? Or don't you share Trump's compassion for them? And yes, precisely, the idea that it should be illegal for Juan to work at Starbucks is the very immorality against which I argue. Preventing Juan from working at Starbucks
  14. Endless are the opportunities for disagreement and discussion -- aren't they? When we reheat leftover pizza (though sometimes I eat it cold), my wife says that I like my pizza "too hot." But that's not how it seems to me. I like my pizza "hot," not "too hot." She likes hers too cold. I think my example simplifies exactly as much as necessary. That's why I constructed it in the manner I have. That's true. But Juan does have such a motive, and his rights need to be respected, not violated. Do you doubt that there are many "Juans" in the world -- immigrants who just want the opportun
  15. I'm not going to revisit the border control debate here. There are already a few threads devoted to that issue. But I think it's a serious mistake to begin with the view that your opponents are dishonest. Political questions involve very advanced ideas and are not easy to answer. There is much room for honest disagreement. I don't begin with any assumption that anyone is dishonest, in general or in specific. But for an Objectivist to reach the conclusion that someone who takes a job at a barista at Starbucks has thereby initiated the use of force? No, I don't think that conclusi
×
×
  • Create New...