miseleigh
-
Posts
212 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by miseleigh
-
-
Here is my answer for question one. It is longer than it needs to be, and needs some heavy editing to strengthen it; I would certainly appreciate ideas and comments now, if anyone is interested enough to offer them
Critique of my application of Objectivism to the issues discussed would be especially helpful. I do not think what I've written will hold up to my professor's red pen just yet, and I probably hold some mistaken premise somewhere that I haven't discovered yet.1A) My argument in such a debate would focus on the need to create laws regarding pollution that are based on individual rights. Too many laws, or badly written ones, would have as much a negative effect as too few.
Fact one: The Constitution was written to protect individual rights. In addition, the Constitution states that all individuals within the United States have the same rights. Since the government is sworn to uphold these rights, any laws written regarding development, environmentalism, or pollution must take individual rights into account. (Source: the US Constitution.)
Fact two: Liberty is one such right granted by the Constitution. If a company pollutes the air, water, or land such that the pollution does not negatively affect other individuals, the people that make up that company are asserting their right to liberty and not infringing on anyone else’s rights. In this case, to uphold individual rights, there is no basis for laws or regulations intended to stop that pollution. If, however, the pollution causes demonstrable harm to another person against their will, that person’s rights have been violated and they may sue the company. The government should then react by creating the necessary laws to prevent that harm. Such cases would include a company upstream of a township, where the company provably dumps harmful substances into the water. However, the main point is to uphold individual liberty, on all sides of a conflict. The government’s edict is to determine who’s rights have been violated, and what the appropriate punishment should be. (Source: the US Constitution.)
Fact three: DDT is an example of the dangers of over-regulation. It was banned by the EPA in 1972, even though a judge for the EPA had listened to seven months of testimony that led him to state "DDT is not a carcinogenic hazard to man...DDT is not a mutagenic or teratogenic hazard to man...The use of DDT under the regulations involved here [does] not have a deleterious effect on freshwater fish, estuarine organisms, wild birds or other wildlife." The benefits of DDT to humans were immense: the number of cases of malaria in Venezuela dropped from over 8 million down to 800. India and Italy had similarly drastic drops. Food production soared as damaging insects were killed. Today, still, the only negative effect of DDT that has been proven is the thinning of eggshells in raptors: yet it remains banned. (Source: ReasonOnline, “Silent Spring at 40”)
The problem still remains of the Tragedy of the Commons, the problem that individual users of a common resource will use more of that resource than the resource can sustain, thereby depleting it. The fallacy that this claim uses, however, is that commons exist without some sort of agreement between the individuals using it. If the resource is truly a common resource, it is owned by all the individuals using it, equally; therefore, none may use more than his share, or he risks violating the implied contract, at which point the government may rightfully step in to correct his oversight. If the common resource is actually owned by no one, rather than by all, any one individual’s use of it may be as extensive as he wishes, but his use of it may not violate another’s rights through pollution or other directly harmful effects. (See fact two above.) Using the classic example with herds of sheep on a field, if all farmers agreed a field is a common resource, the first decision would have to be how many sheep the field can support; then, each farmer may keep his share of that number of sheep on the field. Individual farmers can trade sheep rights amongst themselves if one farmer has more sheep and another has fewer. If, however, the field is not owned, any farmer may keep as many sheep as he likes on that field. He simply risks starving them if too many sheep overgraze the field. In both cases, the farmers risk lawsuits from the townspeople downriver when the sheep pollute the stream. (Sources: Hardin, “The Tragedy of the Commons”; Crowe, “The Tragedy of the Commons Revisited”.)
1B) Sustainability means ensuring that a resource or level of production can be sustained for an indefinite length of time – that it can continue at its current rate in the future. The logging industry, for example, is sustainable as long as the same numbers of trees are planted each year as are cut (excluding other factors such as a changing demand or climate.) Farmers ensure their fields remain sustainable by rotating crops such that each subsequent crop replenishes the nutrients in the soil that the previous one used.
1C) The environment should be protected only when, and always when, doing so protects individual rights. The environment only has value as it pertains to humans; therefore banning substances that do not adversely affect humans, even if they have some negative effect on the environment, violates individual rights: the rights of those producing that substance. The idea that the environment has intrinsic value, or value outside of what humans assign to it, destroys the concept of “value”: something which makes life better for the one doing the evaluating. In order for value to have meaning, a the evaluator must first choose life over death – humans are the only creatures known that can do this (animals do not commit suicide), and thus the only creatures that can have a concept of value. Therefore, the environment only has the value that humans assign to it. (General source: Ayn Rand.)
Many views of environmental protection actually rest on the unspoken idea that the environment holds value for humans. Most discussions of sustainability do not use the environment as an end in itself; instead, it is future generations that are thought of. Environmentalists often use the idea that the rainforest may hold hundreds of undiscovered wonder drugs as a reason for its protection. Making the human-centered view outspoken, and following it completely through individual rights, would do more to promote human welfare and wealth than allowing the intrinsic form on environmentalism to continue would.
-
Time for the take-home midterm exam.
1) As it is an election year, imagine that you are taking part in a debate about what policies (that is, laws or practices) the United States should pursue in the upcoming decade. Your opponent believes that environmental problems are exaggerated and that the environment should not be a focus of US policy. Draft a script that you would read from at the debate.
a. What facts would you cite to persuade your opponent and your audience that a focus on the environment, and on sustainability, should be a high priority? Draw on readings (both articles and web sites,) films, and class discussion where appropriate. Say what your sources are (but no need for formal citations.)
b. As part of your argument, offer a definition of sustainability in 2-4 sentences, drawing on the definitions used by authors of our readings (and mentioning their names when you use their words or ideas).
c. Select one policy or approach to protecting the environment that you think is best, describe it, and explain why you think it is the best or most important.
In class today, I clarified this question for myself, asking if I could argue from the other side if I preferred. My professor was hesitant to say yes, but later emailed me: "You may write your midterm essay as you wish. As I said in class just be sure you can identify accurately the perspectives of authors from class readings and then you can argue opposing viewpoints." I think he agreed partially because of the outside discussions we've had, and because it's clear I do some amount of research. Coming up (hopefully in an hour or so): my answer to question one, and if I have time, question two. (There are three.) However, if anyone has a comment about the question or possible responses, please wait until I post at least a rough draft, lest I be accused of asking others to write my test for me. Thanks!
-
And now, finally, for the promised review of a video we watched in class.
"The Next Industrial Revolution", based on an article of the same name by William McDonough, is by far the best documentary I have seen from the sustainable development movement. Unlike most videos in the genre, this one actually had some amount of focus on how being sustainable is profitable. There were several impressive concrete examples; the new Ford Rouge factory was one such example. The major feature of this rebuilt plant is the plants - on the roof. A 'living roof' helps insulate the building, reducing energy costs; it prevents runoff, a major source of land damage around the site; and the internal design lets nine models to be built at any one time, allowing for changing customer demands.
Although there was some focus on the possible profitability for companies, this video still had more focus on preventing pollution and not harming the environment than on the benefits to humans. The idea that being green is now a very marketable position was entirely missed. The thought that pollution should be prevented because it harms people was thrown out - instead, it should be prevented because it harms animals, because it's not natural, because of a myriad of other reasons that did not involve people.
I happen to agree with McDonough on his end result - a form of architecture and production that utilizes every possible resource to save money. It is the way he gets there, and the way he presents his ideas, that I completely disagree with.
Emotion is a large factor in this video. The example involving Nike starts off with how our footprint is poisonous - referring to the minute amount of synthetic rubber we leave behind with every step. Showing a marathon afterwards is meant to induce a feeling of horror and guilt in the viewer, and it works. In presenting the Industrial Revolution as a design problem, something McDonough uses in his architecture classes at Oberlin, the makers of the video easily paint industry as a force that intends to pollute, intends to destroy life, and intends to be as unsustainable as possible. Nowhere is the Industrial Revolution given credit for creating the technologies necessary for McDonough's work and the green architecture he is so much in love with.
Overall, if this is the best (read: most rational and effective) video the sustainable development movement can produce, the movement may be in trouble. Without focusing more specifically on the business and human aspects of the cause, the good parts of the video become lost in emotion and appeals to 'natural law.' Even so, there was enough focus on the business aspects for me to enjoy it, most of the time; and for businessmen to at least consider looking into 'eco-efficiency' as something that may make sense. With a little egocentric principle behind it, "The Next Industrial Revolution" may indeed come to pass.
-
Brian, thank you for the links. I will have to check out that article.
Continuing on, now that I have more time to post the rest of the email correspondence so far...
Meganthanks for your thoughts.
Let's have a meeting briefly after class soon so you can understand my framework.
You may well disagree and continue to learn.
I find it difficult to follow these types of arguments when clearly all evidence and even the majority of even those economists philosophically locked into strictly free market thinking do not believe the problem was too much government when the rapid expansion of mortgages came from new financial activities supported by ASBs (Asset Based Securities) which were completely and entirely unregulated. This wildly transformed incentives to give mortgages by those who just resold and resold them again. A strictly private market outcome of unregulated financial innovation.
Belief and faith can be held to strongly, but what does that mean about understanding when evidence is ignored?
Do you believe there was a great Depression? do you believe it originated in a large role of government, when the federal government was a very small part of the economy?
A market fundamentalist believes that markets alone bring "the greatest possible equity and prosperity, and that any interference with the market process decreases social well being." I believe this denies the reality of periods of significant and prolonged unemployment - except to always assume and then find (create?) the evidence this resulted from government action; ....much less the problem of managing the "Commons" which I see as quite pervasive. I share the perspective well stated by Josepth Stiglitiz: "...market fundamentalism, based on an incorrect understanding of economic theory and (what I viewed) as an inadequate interpretation of the historical data."
I know you begin from the point of view that government action will always make things worse but how do you explain the improvements in water and air quality when stricter standards are enforced? Saved lives and less illness less important than money for whom? I do not believe these standards significantly reduced rate of growth of economc output if at all, and may have increased output as well as well-being. The counterfactual assessment of what might have otherwise occurred is a diffcult task and easily biased so be careful to assess the bias of the analyst. Including my own.
As you might guess from my comments last class, I am very surprised that right wing congresspersons have so far blocked bailout legislation. If there are no actions taken - and I have my own preferences on the nature of the best policy remedy that I do not expect to be reflected in political compromise - the recession will deepen and last longer. If you think diminishing the role of government and deregulation as suggested by this group of congresspersons will succeed, I think this is a highly, highly risky proposition. - and if they succeed in blocking government action sooner or later will have serious consequences.
If you ae interested in views closer to mine in assessing the work of Milton Friedman, the most notable modern father of market fundamentalism see:
Agreeing to Disagree
Robert Kuttner speaks with Milton Friedman
By Robert Kuttner
Issue Date: 01.05.06
http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?sectio...articleId=10764
Cant and Recant
From our January 2006 issue: The last major research Milton Friedman conducted on the Federal Reserve challenges key assumptions of a very prominent economist: Milton Friedman.
By Robert Kuttner
Web Exclusive: 11.16.06
http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?sectio...articleId=10795
I look forward to a future conversation.
Now, I have not read these links yet. Although I've read Milton Friedman's Free to Choose, and enjoyed it, I'm not sure how deeply I want to delve into economics. I may have to, though, considering that I'm blaming government regulation for the current economic issues in the US. Ah, well, I can argue for freedom even without continuing to blame regulations for everything.
Professor,I would like to see the evidence you speak of. I only use the word 'believe' because I know that I have not seen all evidence relevant, or even enough evidence to claim that I know what's been going on; I have not been interested in the economy until recently, and so I have a lot of catching-up to do. What I have seen does point to government regulations, as well as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as major players in the current economic problems by providing incentives for banks and lenders to issue loans that would otherwise have been bad investments.
As for whether or not I believe there was a Great Depression is a rather ridiculous question. As for the reasons for the Great Depression, I know much less about it than I do about our current situation, and do not know enough to say. Since I have heard many parallels drawn between our current situation and the years leading up to the Great Depression, I may decide to look into it.
I am for free markets, but not for the reason that free markets provide the greatest good for the greatest possible number. I am for free markets because human beings require freedom to survive as humans. Without freedom, without the ability to choose and act upon that choice, humans can no longer rely upon reason and intelligence - the very things that humans must use for survival. The fact that free markets often do work better than other systems is a byproduct of that ability to use reason.
In addition, I do not think I have implied that government action always makes things worse. The government is there to protect citizens' rights. In areas such as pollution, the government ought to step in to protect those rights - the right not to be forced to breathe poisoned air or drink poisoned water. However, once a compound is proven safe, or if it only affects those who use it, it ought to be allowed. The government should also force transparency of production, ensuring that users know if a compound does have a negative effect, and therefore the user could avoid the product.
As for the bailout - I do not think it is constitutional, and I do think it is a bad idea. Many companies that failed have been bought by better ones. Not only is this preferable to the fascist state we will become if the government is allowed to continue controlling the economy, but it also allows banks to learn that they can, in fact, fail. Children learn this way too, and it's been proven effective. Why should the government initiate a plan that will cost every person in America about $3,000 to implement, rather than allow the failing companies to be bought by well-run ones? As John Allison, an executive at BB&T bank, wrote in a letter to congressmen and senators, "A significant and immediate tax credit for purchasing homes would be a far less expensive and more effective cure for the mortgage market and financial system than the proposed 'rescue' plan." I've attached a copy of this letter to provide the viewpoint of someone who is actually in the middle of this situation rather than standing on the edges.
Unfortunately I cannot meet with you after class to discuss this, since I have another class immediately afterwards. However, I'm free after that, at 2:30, if you have time then.
Sincerely,
Megan
His response to this is to thank me for my thoughtful email, along with more suggestions to meet in person, followed by:
I strongly endorse your emphasis on the value of freedom. One role of social and economic analysis is to advance understanding of conditions conducive to sustaining human rights and freedoms, and why there are differences among groups in their analysis.I will be working up material on the financial crisis and the government repsonse, but I will wait until it best fits into course and a bit longer to analyze what is included in the legislation.
One thing I am going to do is create a small collection of links that help prove my points, and send that to him with the suggestion that he include some of it in his analysis. Although I have only been in his class twice a week for a month, he seems like a fairly reasonable man who has been indoctrinated into the arena of non-logic. I may actually be able to have some effect in this course. Coming up tonight, when I have more time: a critique of the movie we watched in class yesterday, one which I actually enjoyed, for the most part. (Except, of course, for the parts I'll be criticizing.)
Brian, as for reporting him to the department head - if it gets truly awful, I may, but since we have posters around the school about recycling, and sustainability, and the teacher's union, and advertising the coffee at the small cafes by lauding that it's solar-dried, I doubt it would help very much. And whether it's professor Mass or Egan - I'm not sure I should say, especially since I haven't asked his permission to post his emails to me online.
D'kian, I am so glad my professor doesn't react that way. I hate shrillness
We'll see how he reacts when we get to the global warming section of the course, though. It may be similar.And C.F., I am absolutely enjoying this
I keep thinking of all my poor classmates who have never heard a different viewpoint on this kind of crap, and I keep hoping that one or more of them will listen a little. Plus I just enjoy debating, and I rarely have a good forum for that. It's already been helping me hone my debate skills 
-
The computer science department at my college (the University of Massachusetts, Lowell) has this one small component listed as a graduation requirement. It's called a 'social science with an ethics component.' (We also need one with a diversity component.) Now, there are not many courses I can take that fit this requirement, but I did find one: Sustainable Development. So I sign up, and show up for class prepared for environmentalism, socialism, and who knows what else.
I've been receiving everything I expected. Luckily, at least, my professor has made it clear from the start that he knows he has a personal bias, expects everyone else to have their own personal bias, and having one will not affect one's grade as long as one presents arguments to support it. Oh, happy day, that I can argue in class and do well because of it! (Not that it would matter to me if he did lower my grade because of my views, since the only thing I need to take from this class is 3 measly credits that I could get simply by showing up.)
Step 1: Review the syllabus. Note that we will be watching many videos and reading many articles. Note, in particular, that the last video to be watched in class is... drumroll please... "An Inconvenient Truth." How inconvenient. I've already watched it once, and despised it the first time. Hopefully I'll be able to convince my professor to include "The Great Global Warming Swindle" as well.
Step 2: Raise my hand immediately when someone else in class expresses major concern over CERN and the LHC since it's going to create black holes that will swallow the earth. Explain politely but with certainty that there are no physicists expressing such a view, and that I will take a physicist's word on this matter over anyone else's any day. Cringe when my professor uses this opportunity to say the same about global warming. Delight in the fact that there are already several collectivist students in my class who despise me, and it's only day 1. They have no chance.
Step 3: A few classes into the course, expect to learn interesting information when my professor asks us if we have any questions regarding the current economic situation in the US, or any other topics. Ask him what effect he thinks the CRA had on the current situation. Ask if he thinks the proposed bailout is constitutional, and if it will help.
Now, my professor is actually in the Economics department, so I expected something other than complete confusion over my first question; he never answered my other ones. It is clear he supports the bailout, and does not think the government had anything to do with the mortgage problems. Cue emails.
Megan,fyi
I really had a hard time understanding why you would think that the CRA was a factor in the current financial crisis.
Until I saw this was a creation of Fox news and National Review
I realize now this is part of a disinformation campaign and not so subtle racist strategy
See some of the following
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economis...snt-the-co.html
by Mark Thoma a highly respected economist blog
but also
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/...8_09/014833.php
a political blog
and read down to about the 6th comment for details and reference to NY Times article and account of Bush admin rules that forced Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase subprime lending
~Email from my Sustainable Development professor.
My response:
Professor,Thank you for sending me these links. Although I still believe the CRA had an impact, it may not have been as much of one as I thought.
As for why I still think the CRA had something to do with it: after reading more about it, it appears to me that the CRA mandates lending to potentially risky borrowers. Although, as one of the links you sent mentioned, it's been in place for 30 years without problems, it was still the means by which increased regulation was made possible. Without the CRA in place, the additional regulations that were a more direct cause would not have happened as easily.
In any case, whether it was the CRA in particular or one of the many other regulatory acts in place, or a combination, the fundamental issue doesn't change: the market didn't fail, it was made impossible. And the prime mover in the destruction of the market was the government. I don't much care which branch, or which party, especially now that both parties seem to aim for more regulations rather than fewer; in any case, without the government intervention in subprime mortgage lending, we would not have the situation we have now.
John R. Lott, someone you may have heard of, wrote an opinion piece for Fox news that I found informative. As much as I dislike Fox for being fear-mongering exaggerating "journalists", at least I can have some amount of trust in this particular author, as a PhD economist from UCLA. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,424945,00.html
My angle on everything we discuss in class, as I'm sure you've noticed, is an individualist angle. A human's only means of survival is through the use of his mind, and in order to maintain that survival he must be free to use it. This is why I support laissez-faire capitalism and many other ideas that follow from freedom. Although these systems do not always work in that not everyone will do well under them, the ability to choose one's own investments and make one's own decisions and contracts at least gives everyone the chance to do well, without imposing on others. This applies to companies as well, since they are simply large groups of individuals. With acts such as the CRA, the owners and executive officers of large mortgage companies are no longer allowed to decide for themselves. So although it may not have been due to the CRA in particular, and certainly wasn't solely due to the CRA, the current situation only happened because of the idea that the government should be involved.
Thanks,
Megan
Email correspondence to be continued, as well as further updates on this wonderful class
(That's right, I'm a ninja in this class. You can't see my responses coming until they hit you in the back of the head. At least I can have fun with it!)
-
Massachusetts, in case you've forgotten (or perhaps never knew) is the state that now fines individuals $900 a year if they choose not to purchase health care (no matter the reason.) It is also the state in which anyone below 200% of the poverty level can have health care heavily subsidized.
The Boston Globe also recently had an article claiming that a higher tax rate leads to economic stimulation. The implied conclusion was that taxes should be raised.
This is why I want to get out...
-
I've never heard that parallel before, but I think it's the best one I've heard on abortion.
A pro-life friend of mine mentioned this parallel to me as the only argument he'd ever heard that actually made him consider abortion a moral possibility. Since he and I had argued fruitlessly about abortion before, I thought it would make an effective story-argument in support of abortion. All that's left is editing and finding a good forum for it.
I would love some help strengthening the comparison and making the parasitic old man more repugnant, if anyone has some ideas.
-
I wake up in a hospital with no recollection of how or why I'm there. I don’t feel any pain or illness – I wiggle my fingers and toes, and nothing seems broken. I try to move around, and I can get out of bed – there is nothing wrong with me as far as I can tell, but for some strange reason there are IVs in my arm. I follow them, and am shocked at the bridge they form to the old man in the next bed.
A doctor comes in, and I ask her what’s going on. The old man was dying, she tells me as she checks the man’s pulse. He needs life support and I am the only life support available. I’ll be able to leave as soon as he wakes up, but the old man will have to follow me wherever I go from now on just to keep him from dying. I’ll be free in less than a year, the doctor adds, when the old man can fend for himself again.
The doctor leaves before I can ask her more questions. I am stunned; what gives anyone the right to do this to me? I live in a free country. This is not freedom.
The man wakes up, smiles at me, and says nothing. We leave. Most of the time I’m hardly aware he’s even there – he’s so quiet, and follows me around well enough that there are no tugs on the IVs. But he is always there, and whenever I think about his attachment to me I get angry.
I notice that I’ve been eating more than I used to. He’s taking my nutrients from me and it’s harder to keep myself healthy. It only takes a week or two before I realize that I can’t handle taking care of another person, and I begin to think about how I can get rid of him. I don’t even know his name, and I don’t care. I don’t want him around.
Another week and I begin to feel weak and ill in the mornings, after a night of feeding two bodies. I drag him back to the hospital. He puts up no resistance. It’s almost like he has no will of his own, and can only feed and follow.
The doctor says it would be unethical to separate us, to let the old man die. He’s a human being, she lectures; he has the right to live. But then so do I, and being chained to him is not truly life. It’s slavery.
We shudder at the thought of tapeworms feeding off of us, tremble at the idea of vampires, and are horrified at the idea of slavery, yet too often we condone parasitic tendencies. I cut the IVs and let the doctors do their best to save the old man, but I do not feel pity for him. He has no right to my life.
I wake up in the hospital. I have been raped, the doctor tells me, and I am pregnant. I live in a free country, and I will not harbor a fetus I do not want. I tell the doctor to get rid of it. This is my life now.
-
Ah well, see, if they're free from Original Sin, then they're more worthy than us (more guilt for us), and we should exist to serve them too.
No, that means they'll have a duty to sacrifice themselves for us.
-
The possibility of a genuine third option other than choosing existence or non-existence (just refraining from choice) is going to undermine her argument to the extent that her argument relies on confronting us with something like: You can live or die! Oh, don't want to die? Well then you must want to live.
I think that third option is generally called 'death-avoidance.' This is when a person doesn't really want to die, but doesn't want to live, either, and so acts to prevent death but does not act to preserve life. Think of Keating, or James Taggart. This is a clear example of a contradiction to your conclusion. James Taggart had some (irrational) values - he wanted to tear Cherryl down, for example, and acted to do so - but he did not value his own life. He simply tried to avoid death.
-
Like you said, Christians value their lives as gifts from God. Because of this, they do not value their lives as ends in themselves - instead, the idea is that their lives have value because of what they can do for others. This is inconsistent with the Objectivist view of valuing their lives. If Christians truly valued their lives, why would committing suicide be a sin? (But let's not get side-tracked here, if you want to discuss this more we can start a new topic elsewhere.)How?Christians value many things, especially their own life, as a gift from God. They believe in free will, they just rationalize where that freedom of will comes from.
-
Also, your conclusion as you've typed it is missing parentheses, and I'm having a little difficulty understanding exactly what you're trying to conclude. Based on your English version, I came up with this:
(C1) (ExEy) ~(B(x) & V(xy) & V(xf(x))) (For some x and y, it cannot be that x is volitional, values y, and does not value x's life.)
But I share BrassDragon's concern that this conclusion is invalid. Any Christian is proof of it's invalidity. In addition, I don't think volition has anything to do with an entity being able to value something - a dog can't choose what to value, but it values it's own life and, therefore, the things needed to sustain it. (Please, someone correct me if I'm wrong here.)
-
P3 is flawed. A person can also not choose. The proper opposite of 'a chooses to exist' is 'a does not choose to exist', not 'a chooses not to exist.'
(P3) (x) B(X) -> C(X) v ~C(x) v N(X) would be the more correct formulation, which is probably useless for your proof.
This is an interesting idea, I'm going to have to think about this one.
-
So its cool if great numbers of them die as long as the ethnic group still exists? I'm just saying I wouldn't be so rigid in my implementation of property rights when confronted with a culture where that idea had not yet evolved. My determination of a land rights would have to include enough of the claimed land to keep such a society viable, with access to water and natural resources relative to its population.
What a number of individuals need has nothing to do with what they own. Ever. By the way, your extremely liberal interpretation of David's examples is disgusting. Please refrain from putting your own words in someone else's mouth. He did not even hint that 'its cool if great numbers of [people] die', and implying that he did looks like slander to me.
As for 'your implementation' and 'your determination' of property rights: they're your ideas. You're welcome to them. But until you have a more objective basis for your version of property 'rights', don't expect anyone else here to entertain your ideas as valid. The rigidity you're railing against is called principle, and while I can understand being confused about the basis of property rights, I cannot understand the needs-based ideas you're put forth here. Those belong in the debate forum.
-
One way to structure the conversation that might make it easier on you, in the case that your brother hears of it, would be as a story. Instead of explaining to her why she should wait, consider telling her about your own life and why you waited, and what you think of that decision now. Coming from someone she respects, I'd think that would leave a more powerful impression on her while reducing the chances of conflict between you and your brother. It'll also help her feel more comfortable about the topic, so maybe she'll ask more questions that way.
-
Dan,
I'm struggling with some of the points you've made in this article and subsequent comments. First of all, I have developed close friendships with men without any emotions that would threaten a current relationship. While there may be a sexual attraction at first, I realize that this attraction is based on his similarities to the man I love. It is not hard to avoid acting on that attraction, and it usually doesn't take long to identify the differences between my friend and my boyfriend, and soon my emotions and body respond accordingly. Perhaps, though, the close friendships I have are not what you mean by 'close', and there's a deeper type of friendship I have yet to experience in which this technique wouldn't work.
Secondly, you say you have no trouble being friends with lesbians - I don't understand this, if it is your reaction to the woman that might cause trouble, and not her reaction to you. She may not see you as a sexual object, but this does not prevent your emotions from reacting as if she could be. If the knowledge that she would not reciprocate is enough to quell the emotions you're so worried about, would that not also be the case for a rational, straight woman who realizes that you would choose Kelly over her if there was a conflict, ending your friendship with her? I should think this would especially apply to a woman who is also in a relationship.
Also, I just find it very difficult to find women I can be close to. The last close female friend I had was in grade school, and we drifted apart in high school as I came to value intelligence more and more, while she turned towards emotion. I can't think of any women I know whom I could befriend. Perhaps my close friend's fiance, but I'm finding it hard to get close to her. The idea of a life without new close friendships seems very... lonely, even with my man by my side.
-
machines are not immortal. They are destructible like anything else.
This is something that has always bothered me here. Your average computer needs to have parts replaced after a few years, assuming you don't just buy a new one; robots are no different. Any artificially-created intelligence, at the very least, has to pursue a continuous power source and new parts as values. Even the famous immortal robot needs a power source, even if it's parts deny reality by never wearing down.
@stuzal: It won't be human. Would you call a cat a dog?
-
Congratulations for getting yourself together better so quickly. It took me about four years to go from a self-loathing depressed wreck to the confident college woman I am now, so to get to where you are now so quickly is pretty awesome. Keep that up. I'm sure you will, now that you know you can...
-
Describing the landscape from the perspective of a murderer is really the last step in a rather long process. First you must put yourself in the mind of a murderer, then decide what type of murderer you are. Are you a predator who kills regularly? Is this your first time? Who is your victim, and why?
Yeah, I had to answer those in my head before I could write the assignment. But since it's not supposed to be in the piece, you guys didn't get to know what I know about him...
Which is that he's a delusional narcissist who views others as prey (hence he has no paranoia about being caught... because he doesn't think he will be.) He prefers poison because he views people as indiscriminating and leading trivial lives, so a slow death that gives them warning that their shallow life is ending seems fitting to him. This was his first victim, but he had imagined it so many times with other people that it means little to him that this time he's actually done it. The question I didn't go into was who the victim was, but I don't think it would have made much difference. I wanted to be in the murderer's head while he's looking at the city, not while he's killing someone.
So I guess his first victim was probably someone close to him, but he also imagines poisoning random people. He's thought about different methods, such as poisoning candy bars and planting them, or dumping something on food at a buffet, or poisoning and planting other foodstuffs at drugstores and grocery stores. He'll probably start actually doing them rather than just imagining it, now that he's killed once.
I don't think there's really any joy, though. I can't think of a good word right now, but his emotions are probably similar to someone who just swatted a fly or mosquito. It's like, yeah, you're glad you killed it, but it's not joy, exactly; it's like "serves you right." Intense satisfaction, maybe? Except that he goes out of his way to kill mosquitos and most people wouldn't. That's another reason why he likes poison - he does it because he wants them dead, not because he wants to kill them. He feels more alive when he knows someone worthless is dead/dying - when he knows he's a predator and that he has a purpose. (Did any of that make any sense at all? I don't know.) Like the Boondock Saints, maybe? (Except with an entirely different reason for murder, of course) Do they feel joy when they kill?
I didn't go into his head any more than that, though. His head's a scary place. I don't like it much.
-
The person in the last section is supposed to be the victim, not the murderer, although technically neither is supposed to be in the piece at all. The last sentence tries to set the victim apart from the predator. The murderer's noticing another victim, the way a cat notices anything that moves. (It's a crazy assignment - in the third person, but I can't include the murderer or victim... it's hard. It'd be so much easier from the first person.)
I guess I have to get more into the mind of my murderer, so I can add more of the murderer's emotions... I'll work on that. I also tried to add the method of murder into the description as well, and I'd like to make that clearer too, although that's going to be difficult. (It's poison, btw, shown by the slowing heart beat and the alleys filled with decay. Any suggestions to help with this in particular?)
*Sigh.* This really is the hardest writing assignment I've had yet, even though it's short.
Thank you all for your comments.
-
The assignment was to describe a landscape the way a certain type of person would see it, so while I would take out many of the adjectives if it was a story, that doesn't quite work this time.
As our professor explained it: "Describe a landscape the way someone who just killed someone would see it, without referring to the victim, murder, or murderer in the description. Therefore, it will have to be in third person to avoid mentioning the murderer. Choose any landscape you like."
So, how'd I do?
-
I've been given a somewhat difficult writing assignment by my creative writing professor, and I was hoping to get some help with it. If I wrote it well enough, you should be able to guess something about the assignment by what I've written, so to see how well I did, I'm not going to tell you want the actual assignment is; so please, if you have time, pretend you're in a writing class and you're supposed to analyze this piece, and let me know what you think. At some point soon I'll post the actual assignment too, since I would like more focused critique as well. Thanks!
*****
The buildings stand out the most, stark and monstrous against the darkening sky, framed by crimson-stained clouds. People hurry among the towers, in a rush to nowhere, frightening the scavenging pigeons from their pecking, their squawking, their useless preening and cleaning, as angry drivers dart between the dark and looming buildings. Even though they know they’re only going to get caught at the next red light, just a block away, still they struggle through the traffic, hoping to steal a few more feet before they have to stop. There’s a beat to the city, a rhythm that will struggle to continue in the hours after sunset, but it never quite ends; at least, it won’t until the city dies. But all things die, eventually. Even now, the alleys fill with decay – but the city thinks it lives.
It’s darker now, though there is still a touch of maroon in the sky, and the buildings can barely be seen. The people can’t be seen at all; they may as well be ghosts, at this hour, silent and cold. Even the few cars still about are muted, ashamed with the knowledge that they don’t belong to this moonlit world; their drivers no longer rush, as the flow that once pushed them has slowed to a trickle, and they finally recognize that they must soon stop anyway. They no longer fight the red lights that they cannot change. The sickly yellow streetlights accentuate the laboring beat; the city’s rhythm is slow, now, so slow.
The full moon rises, adding a cold, white filter to the city, bringing it out of the dark but not back to life. At this early hour, all the people are asleep but for a few nightwalkers; the pigeons roost while the rats come out of the sewers and onto the streets, feeding on whatever they find. A few stray cats yowl in from rooftops, eyes glowing green with intent as they prey on the rats and hunt for mates. A solitary man walks along, whistling nervously in the shadows; what is he afraid of? Only the predators truly seem alive, in the deathly pallor of night.
-
You seem to be trying to quantify life. Try looking at it qualitatively as well. For example, I would much rather live fifty years as a free woman than a hundred as a slave. Once you recognize that the quality of your life makes a difference, it's much easier to see why Rand called them natural rights - they are natural because man's nature requires them to live. And by 'live', she didn't just mean 'avoid dying.'
-
Your examples are your proof, at least proof that intelligence is not the cause of the philosophers' communication issues.
Other than that, I would turn the tables back on them and ask for examples that prove their statement, and then ask them how they generalized it to include all philosophers. Also, ask how they decided that it was intelligence that caused the problem and not stupidity. How many philosophers have they read? Which ones did they not understand? How can they be sure that the philosopher in question was intelligent if they couldn't understand him?
Obama's Credit Card Fraud
in US Elections 2004/2008/2012/2016
Posted
Does anyone have some familiarity with campaign donation laws? I didn't think Canadian citizens could donate, yet the article says the website accepted a Canadian bank card. And aren't there limits on what an individual can donate to a campaign?