Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Time_Maker

  1. Hello Again RationalBiker: "This alone indicates the James is capable of experiencing joy which would be enough from an Objectivist's point of view to rule out suicide." True... but should pain also be part of life? I don't know... "It seems entirely possible, though there exists no sure thing, that therapy can help him work through at least some of his other problems in life, and he could learn to find the joy that he finds in work in those other facets of his life." Possible. It could also be possible that a therapist would also say "your crazy" and throw him in a mental hospital. Ever been in a mental hospital? "Now I may be wrong and it's just my opinion, but based on the scenario and your response to some of the posters, it looks more like you are trying to make the solid case for suicide as opposed to looking at the very realistic alternatives that were given to you." Nope, my point was, could a mind be too far destroyed to be repaired? Your answer, to this question, is a No. Fletch "Isnt that a rather rude thing to say, considering it was you that started this thread by asking for other peoples opinions? " Please clarify this statement. What exactly did I say that was rude? Mimpy: "James could talk in therapy. He can release all the stuff that he's been keeping inside to someone who might actually try/want to help him, unlike the counselor in college." Perhaps, but the risk might be too great. James might spend the rest of his life in a mental hospital. And that's not a good thing. JMeganSnow: "Fletch is correct and this is not called for. Please try to keep this discussion civil." As I responded to Fletch - please clarify this statement. What did I say that was rude. "This hypothetical is getting way out of hand. Let's not psychologize theoretical James any more, unless he is an actual person and you're qualified to speak for him." What hypothetical? Please give examples that show the hypothetical that is getting way out of hand. "In response to my earlier post: No, the value of enjoying your life in whatever way you can. Even if you can't have everything you might want because of accident or trauma, you can still have a great many things. I, for example, will never be an olympic gymnast or Miss America or a Nobel-prize-winning scientist. However, just because I can't achieve everything doesn't mean that I shouldn't enjoy what I can do." I'm going to make the assumption you're answering my question on your quote of "JMeganSnow: "[this]doesn't mean that he can't pursue values. He may experience some temporary or permanent curtailment of what he can pursue". What value is that? The value of living for others? The value of pain? The value of sacrifice? I'm not being sarcastic; I really want to know. " (thats the only quote, and question I asked you). But, to answer your question, what if every single thing you do, except for work, brings you pain and sorrow? What if it doesn't seem like you can ever overcome that pain? Is it still worth it? I'd say no (but perhaps Therapy MIGHT help). "Right now it sounds like his emotions are filled with a vague accumulation of what he's seen other people wanting to do." What leads you to that idea? What did I describe about James that made you conclude that he's a second hander? Hunterrose: "Suicide is more like throwing the PS3 out the penthouse window - ain't no trying again. I can understand breaking controllers because of some #%$^ frustrating games, but suicides on the HNL." If HNL means Hole Nother Level, maybe it is like getting into world -1, the japanese version (which I never did). "I even found out small fiery mario on my own back in the day" So did I. Its amazing how great that game is, and how glitchy that game is as well. But enough about a plumber who eats mushrooms and grows tall. "but that's a correlation between health and one's nurturing, not between happiness and one's nurturing." Sure, but the mind's purpose is to identify concretes, and identify what is real and what isn't If the mind turns into a funhouse mirror, how can an individual know what is real, and what isn't? "I somewhat understand what is required in order to be able to fly, but what does one have to know/be taught in order to be happy" You don't have to be taught how to be happy, you just have to be taught how to understand reality. You have to be taught what is real, and what isn't, and what is facts of reality, and what isn't. Badkarma556: "My point was that if you come in and ask a complex hypothetical question about a person who is considering killing himself, one natural reaction (which happened to be mine) is to ask "is that person you?" I was trying to be indirect in asking you to clarify that you are not "James" and you are not considering killing yourself. Thanks for the clarification, but I don't like indirect questions. They are very confusing and indirect. "By "life" I mean more than just "non-death", but a state of existence of liveliness, vitality, and happiness. A state of working towards and achieving values." Great but what's this reference to? "Clearly escape or fighting are the best two options but there are conceivable conditions where this is not possible. " I'm assuming your referring to the concept of suicide. But this makes no sense. Escaping suicide or fighting suicide... I know how one can fight it, but how can one escape it? "n this context I was using environmental factors to mean "bad experiences." I'm not a psychologist but I've known people who have suffered from PTSD and I really think that there is no experience that cannot be overcome." Ok, maybe its my lack of communication skills, but are you saying is that we escape or fight from environmental factions from bad experiences..? I'm sorry, talking on this form, for whatever reason, just exposes how bad of a communicator I am. "Our difference of opinion is that I do not believe that this type of damage is possible in an irrecoverable sense." I'm sorry, but my to understand you have completely broken down at this point. What difference of opinion are you talking about? What's the subject. Honestly, it feels like I'm talking to someone who can't think and is always jumping around (thats my opinion. No one else has ever called you on it I noticed, so its just me :|) . Everyone: Until later
  2. Hello Badkaram (regarding post 2): You said: "Let me first start by saying that the danger of asking hypothetical questions about a third person is that most people will assume that you are actually talking about yourself." Sorry, but I don't care what you, or "most people" think. Unless there's a reason why I should care what "most people", I ignore it. You say "achievement of life impossible". What is the "Achievement of life"? You also said "n these cases it is better to kill yourself than live as a conquered slave.". Nope. the best case is to either escape, OR to raise up against the country. "My quick answer is basically that no, it is not, because saying that environmental factors have screwed up someone's mind too much to achieve happiness is very deterministic." Yes there is proof that environmental factors can screw up the mind too much to achieve happiness. Please look at feral children, as one example. A human being's only tool for survival is his mind. In my hypothetical example, James' parents plucked the wings to their son's mind, making him "half a person"; a person that can only fake living and happiness, but never really embrace it. Software Nerd: In my story, James no doubt learned his metaphysics from video games. Video games, as you may know (especially Japanese Games) usually have a "good guy/ bad guy" storyline. The Evil Bowser kidnaps the Princess, and its up to the common Italy Mario to (eventually) rescue the princess. The Evil Wizard Ganon put Princess Zelda to sleep; and its up to the (good, heroic) Link to wake Zelda up. His world in fact was made up of a world of Good and Bad, and, if your good enough, the Good will always outwin the Bad. Something that I didn't think about is, if you read between the lines, perhaps James thinks reality has a big reset button called "Suicide"; press it and try again. "Well, presumably, the experience taught him something and he'll be a slightly better judge next time. " Oh? And how would James learn his lesson? In my story, what gave you any clues that he did? And what lesson did he learn? Fletch: " I remember wondering to myself how horrible it must have been up there for people to decide that throwing themselves out of a window 100 stories up was the better of all other possible alternatives. " Couldn't the argument be made that they weren't committing suicide? I can make the argument that they were attempting to save their life, by taking a last chance risk of jumping off the building. It clearly didn't save them, but the gain (.00001% chance of surviving) was better then a 0% chance of surviving. "e has already survived all of the wounds of his early life. All he needs now is help dealing with the scars." Scars? Or perhaps a mind that is permanently changed. Huntress: First, I like your picture. Did you save the princess too? Or find world -1? ""Is it moral to kill oneself based on how one was raised or nurtured?" On that question alone, I'd say no, as one's happiness/satisfaction with life doesn't necessarily correlate to how one was raised/nurtured." Sure it is. The mind is an organ, not unlike a leg (yea, I know a leg isn't an organ, but listen to this...). If a young child has his or her leg binded up as a kid, that leg will never grow to a full sized leg, regardless of the type of therapy or help he or she gets. Why would the mind be any different? "It may surprise you or not, but a lot of people with normal and proper upbringings are having these same difficulties. While an improper upbringing can lead to problems, care should be taken that it not be used as a social crutch." Why? And what is a social crutch? "In your hypothetical example, you used "unable" several times. Wouldn't "unwilling" be more correct?" I am going to make the assumption that you are unable to fly. Not unwilling, but unable. You don't have the proper tools to flap your arms and to lift up; it just isn't possible. In my story, James is unable to lead a successful life that is happy. Not because he's not willing, but because he's unable (or, to be optimistic, he doesn't know how because he was never taught how). Mimpy: What would Therapy be able to do? JMeganSnow: "[this]doesn't mean that he can't pursue values. He may experience some temporary or permanent curtailment of what he can pursue". What value is that? The value of living for others? The value of pain? The value of sacrifice? I'm not being sarcastic; I really want to know. To everyone: Until next time!
  3. Howdy Ya'll I have a question about justification of suicide. I am sure everyone on this site agrees that one should kill oneself when happiness is unachievable. An example of this is when an individual becomes severely handicapped, or perhaps is locked in a POW camp. If you don't agree to this, I am going to assume you do because thats not going to be the topic of this thread. The topic of this thread is, "Is it moral to kill oneself based on how one was raised or nurtured?". * * * Let me give a purely hypothetical example. Lets say we have an individual by the name of James Doe. James was born to a mother and father who were drug addicts. James remembers watching his father snort coke , and watching his mother pop pills. James is a smart and inquisitive young kid, always asking questions, and always reading (he was taught to read at a young age, because that's "what mothers' duties are"). And young James used to ask questions to his parents about the world around him, but his parents would always lie and tell him the wrong facts. When James would get slightly older, he would call his parents on it. The parents response: "We were only joking! Can't you take a joke! All the other kids at your school would get it!". But that wasn't the only type of abuse young James had to endure growing up. James was kept isolated from other children, and was never allowed to socialize with other children, expect on rare occasions. Instead, James was put on a diet of Video and Computer Games. Of course, James became quite good at them, but James was not good at talking to other people. In grade 5, James was allowed to have his first friend come over, Al. One of Al's hobbies was to tease and beat James up at school. James mother liked Al though, and told James to play with Al, and don't be silly about Al beating James up. Of course, James' parents used to beat James up as well, no matter how major, or minor, the problem was. Given these problems, James would escape further into the world of Video Games, where everything is rational, and where the rules are consistent (an escape that James' parents encouraged). James quickly learned (but not yet realized) the outside world is dangerous and unable to be understood, so its best to stay inside and avoid it. James was also sexually abused as well through most of his young life, first by his mother, then by his younger brother. However, no further details need to be stated in that regard. James however did learn a lesson, but did not realize he learned it until much later in life: to have sex, one must take from another. James was also shunned by his classmates (when they weren't beating him up). James was disabled, having a speech problem, making no one able to understand him. Plus, for whatever reason, James can also see sounds as colors, giving him problems in class whenever music was the subject (James would say "I like this song because it looks green", instead of talking about melody and rhythm). This however did teach James a lesson: People are animals. One person is the same as all other persons. James would never be able to understand them or reason with them, so stay away from them as much as possible. In grade 6, all of this abuse would come crashing down onto James, and James collapsed into tears one day during class. James' teacher sent James to the school consoler. James made the counselor promise to keep what he told a secret. The counselor agreed. James then proceeded to tell the consoler, in a span of an hour (that is the amount of time James had) everything that is wrong with his life (sans the sexual abuse, it did not hit him yet that was bad). James was then sent back to his class. When he got home, both of his parents were waiting for him, and they both beat him up. They told him those things never happened, and that he was crazy. As another punishment, they also removed his privilege to play video games (thereby throwing him into a world that is dangerous and makes no sense). James learned two lessons that day: Reality exists only in one's mind, and never trust authority, they will betray you. In grade 9, James, via his mother, discovered Objectivism. Objectivism threw James for the ultimate loop. On one hand, he acquired so many life lessons from what happened to him. On the other hand, Objectivism makes sense. James elected to integrate Objectivism into his life. For the remaining 4 years of his education, James life was split into two stark extremes: What he reads as truth of Objectivism, and how reality is. James knew to understand science, one must use reason; but in his science class, the theory of the giant dragon living under the earth was given the same level of truthness as plate tectonics (he would of course be suspended for disagreeing with his teacher, which would result in him going back home for his beatings). James knew that might doesn't equal right, but when James gets thrown off the top of the gym bleachers and left for dead, and the gym instructions punish him for just lying there and not getting up, it makes him wonder what is just, and what isn't. Between all of this, James' mother would get a job as a school teacher. James would eventually realized the "sexual touches" he received as a young child was wrong. He would also decide its time to talk to a consoler about all of this. While in college, James went to his college psychological counselor to try and learn how to communicate with people, how to set aside this abuse, and to get his mother removed from teaching. After explaining his past, and how he feels, the counselor responded with something like this: "Clearly you went through a lot. You are depressed. Take some anti-depressants and you will be fine". James left the counselor's office, and put the prescription for his anti-depressants in the first rubbish bin he could find. James eventually left his school, and worked for the Government. He has a good job, working in a moral and just agency. Everyone at his job likes him , they see him as an "up-and-come-er" who will go far in the agency. And James likes his job as well, he gets enormous value and joy from it. But not everything is right with James. James is unable to be comfortable and communicate in a group setting, but acts like he is, making James feel guilty (James is unable to follow a group conversation, because he sees everyone as one and the same, and not as individuals, even though he knows he shouldn't). James is unable to trust people, and is unable to identify who is friend, and who is foe (again, he sees everyone as the same, even though he knows he shouldn't). This of course results in him having no friends, no mates, only one lover in his life (if he was a better judge of character, he would have known not to choose her). James also goes through the motions of pleasure, and spends his weekends (when he isn't working), alone and depressed. James is unable to go to movie theaters or watch TV (we won't go into those reasons), sees pubs and discotechs as places to kill the brain, and is unable to talk to people because he's scared. * * * With this hypothetical example now laid out, I want to ask of you, should James kill himself? I can see it going both ways. Why he should kill himself? The brain and philosophy can be analogous to the human body - it grows at some point in time, and then it stops growing. There are reports in history of feral children; that is children who were raised by animals. Once they reach past a certain age, these children can never be reintegrated as a human being again. Also, in psychology, there are reports of children being completely isolated from other human beings, and just given food and water. These children also never become human, and can never even learn languages. This analogy works for James as well, but in a less dramatic sense. James was isolated as a kid. James may never be able to learn the basics social interactions; may never be able to learn how to trust or understand other people; may always live his life isolated and "faked" for everyone else's pleasure and benefit (which goes against Objectivism). He also only find joy in his work, and nothing else. Why shouldn't James kill himself? Perhaps there might be ways to correct his mis-intergration. Perhaps he doesn't fully understand Objectivism, or perhaps he needs to find a psychologist who can help him integrate Objectivsm. Perhaps some anti-depressions would be good for him (even though it would hide reality) or some anti-social medication (same problem). My problem is, I don't know what the correct answer is. Is there a third answer to this hypothetical problem that I'm not aware of? Thanks for your help with this issue. Sorry for this topic being such a downer, however, I would like an answer to this question. Mods: Please feel free to move this post from "Ethics" to "Psychology" (or another thread), or rename the thread if you so choose. Thank you.
  4. Time_Maker


    There are two different ways I can respond to this thread, and I am going to respond to both. In regards to stress: No stress is bad (trust me, I experienced it), a little bit of stress is good, and a lot of stress is bad. Think of stress as like a string on a piano. If there is no tension on the string, then the hammer wouldn't hit. If the string is at the right tension, it makes a sound. The more tension the string has from that point on, the worse the sound will get. If too much tension is put on the string, it will snap. In regards to quoting Ayn Rand from her novels, as I notice a lot of, I noticed she never made any comments about having to go, shall we say, to the bathroom. Therefore, is going to the bathroom evil and wrong?
  5. After rediscovering this thread, I feel like I should edit my response to reflect the questions that Inspector bought up. I don't consider myself "Hardcore", I like "Softcore" myself. I like places like Yosemite, places that are rugged, cold violate . I'm a Photographer of nature. Some of the most beautiful places of nature are the hardest to get. I like the challenge, and I like the feeling of success from taking a wonderful beautiful picture. I also know how to survive, and get out of it as well. And that is all the reasons why I love the outdoors.
  6. Very seldom do I do this, but, I don't robots should ever have rights. Why? Rights = Protection of Values Ultimate Value = Life Robots can not die. Therefore, robots should not have rights. Any disagreements?
  7. I don't know how relevant this fact is to the discussion, but it appears to me stores who design their buildings irrationally make far less per square foot (an important number in retail) then those who design their buildings rationally with a sense of purpose. As fact, let me run some numbers, according to Redherring (1): Neiman Marcus: $611 per sq/ft Best Buy: $930 Tiffany & Co: $2,666 Apple Computer: $4,032 In this entire list, Apple Computer's stores have the most logically, and rationally designed stores. They are also making the most sales per square foot. Coincidence? Your input please. (1) http://www.redherring.com/Article.aspx?a=2...ector=Computing
  8. Hello Non-Contradictor and DavidOdden Thank you very much for enlightening me on the Status of AP classes. I read through the link that you provided, and I was not able to find the relevant section, however, I believe you (I am just VERY angry at my school district for sicking the police on me, and my parents and scaring the hell out of me as a teenager!). I am sure you understand that I have a short fuse when I think someone's rights and freedoms are being infringed. With that said, what would be my advice to the original poster? In that case, the answer is clear. Either: 1. Drop the class (assuming thats possible) 2. Slack off and get a "C" grade. or 3. Stop attending (seeing how this is voluntary) and get an F. Thats the only three moral options possible. Everything else isn't. Marrten: As for private schools. It is possible to attend a private school, as far as I know, however, they cost a lot of money, and it would be up to the parents to decide if they want their child enrolled in that school. Home schooling is an option, however, that normally requires a parent to stay home and teach the child. There is a third method, called "Independent Studies", which I went through for the last year of my education. To get enrolled in "Independent Studies", one must either be a parent, have special aptitude in a sport where training takes most of the time (e.g. an Olympic quality figure skater), or to be charged with "bringing a gun to class". How do I know this? Because thats how I got my last year of education in. Of course, Independent Studies is run through the school district and is state run.
  9. Hello Brass There is some evidence that the world is heading towards a global government: 1. The increasing power of the United Nations. For the most part of its history, the United Nations was a puppet organization. The United Nations had no say in such events as the Korean War, the Vietnam War, or the Cuba Crisis of 1961. Only recently, starting with the Gulf War I, did the United Nations start playing an increasing role in the World's Affairs. This includes demanding education for everyone in the world (and the law-work to support it), Production Controls (Via the Kyoto Treaty), and demanding that everyone gets subsidized health care. 2. An increasing closeness to other governments, economically. Over the last two decades, organizations like the European Union (with its unified currency) and NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) came up. Eventually, the EU will start holding elections for president, and, in lessor form, the United States, Mexico, and Canada may very well merge into one country (in the boarder states, the mexicans are clearly in the majority. Also, MEChA, a Mexican Student Organization, already made it clear that they want the southern states to be returned to Mexico). It is a lot easier to get all the countries in the world to march in lockstep when there are fewer countries. The more countries there are, the harder it is to get each one to follow the leader's course. Now, I did state the world is heading towards a one world government. However, just because one is heading towards something doesn't mean one can reach it. The dream to unified the world under collectivism or Communism will remain just that - a dream. Please let me know if you disagree further.
  10. Hello DavidOdden: In post number 31, you stated "Completely irrelevant, because nobody is forcing her to take the class, nor is anyone threatening her parents if she doesn't take this class." Unless I'm mistaken (and please correct me if otherwise), this individual is in HIGH SCHOOL. Therefore: This individual has no choice to his or her classes, no choice if he or she wants to attend, and no chance to escape. You also stated "Completely irrelevant, because nobody is forcing her to take the class, nor is anyone threatening her parents if she doesn't take this class." Says who? See my last paragraph. This individual is in High School. Under the government of the United States, this individual HAS NOT CHOICE. And because this is high school, her parents ARE being threaten. You also stated "NOBODY FORCES YOU TO TAKE AN AP CLASS [caps are yours]." Oh really? When did being allowed to choose your own classes in high school started? If an individual is attending high school, they HAVE NO RIGHT to choose their own classes. NONE! NADA! If you can quote for me where this individual stated that there was a choice, I would more then love to see it. Then, I would eat crow. But before that [bites tongue before I type something that will get me kicked]...
  11. I always wanted a chance to give my opinion on a world government, and now that I found this thread, I will take this chance and seize it. There is nothing wrong with a one world economy/ political system, insolong as its capitalistic in nature. In fact, a one world political system would be great. It will reduce the costs to do "international" business (because there would be no such thing as international business anymore). It would decrease the cost to convert money, because everyone would be using the same currency (ideally gold). It may even remove the cost of having to maintain a military resulting in a very cheap government. How would such a political system get created? Only when other countries realize that its better to combine, then to be separate (out of many, comes one). Now, sadly, it appears that the world is heading towards a one world communist/ islamic-fascist government. However, such a government would never really work in the long term. Communism and islamic-fascism requires collectivism. Once one group takes control, another group will attempt to overthrow the first group. Such a system will continue until the world Balkanize into competing groups (ala France, or England, or Germany, or the Roman Empire, until it was unified). Then the world would effectually be in the dark ages.
  12. Moose, you stated "It's based on my observation that people tend to react [with fright], when a spider suddenly moves into their field of vision. People don't react the same way with most insects as they do with spiders." I work for the government. Recently, we've been having problem with mice or rats in one of our buildings. The reaction to seeing a mouse run across the floor is one of fright, just like a spider. Also, in the state government, there are numerous people from different cultures who work in this building: American, Hispanic, Arabic, Indian, and various other Asian cultures. They all react the same way to mice. Conclusion: The fear of mice running across one's field of vision causes fear in the majority of healthy people. I'm going to extrapolate what I know with mice to spiders. Let me assume that these people will have the same response to spiders running across the floor as mice. Why would there be the same reaction across cultures to a spider? It is either: 1. Coincidence 2. The world is starting to become "Americanized" and all cultures are following ours 3. People get scared about unexpected things running across their field of vision. 4. The vast majority of people are born with a fear of mice and spiders because of natural biological reasons. I believe we can reject choice 1 based on statistics odds (There is about 500 people working in this building). We can also reject choice 2 because its too unlikely (why is the fear of spiders the only trait that is being carried over in the world??). Choice 3 may make sense, HOWEVER it does not explain why, when a person does recognize that motion as a spider, they refuse to touch it. Therefore, choice 4 is the only logical option, and that also removes such choices as "upbringing" and "culture". Which raises the question: Do humans have instinct (please don't answer it, there's another thread in progress)? What is my option of a spider? I don't squish them, because its too messy. I usually flush them down the drain. I know there is only one spider that will bite in my area, and I know the features and the odds of finding one (that spider being a Black Widow). Dismuke: I know this is off topic, but there is a quick way to kill and wasp or a spider. Take some hairspray, and spray it on the wasp or spider. The wasp will fall down, making it easy to squish (just not with your body, please!). The spider will stop moving (because the spray is too heavy) and it can be scooped up and flushed down the drain.
  13. Marking and producing to the Irrational, and the morality of that... That is a good question. Whenever I see a word with various degrees, like "irrational", my first question is, "how irrational". Almost everyone has some degree of rationality in them, otherwise they wouldn't be able to work, and consume food. (Given the context of this thread, I am assuming this is what is being referred as "irrational"). I think most people do respond to rational-ness in advertising, marketing and product placement, if its done correctly. All products must fill a need. People never buy a drill because its a drill, but they buy a drill because it produces good quality holes. People don't listen to "on hold" music because its music, they listen to "on hold" music to let them know the line is still alive and to put them in a more relax state of mind. A person who is able to communicate the needs the products or services will meet, will have to do so in a rational manner. I am not qualified to talk about the designs of buildings, and if a design of building X meets the needs of people Y. However, the marketing of a product or service should be self-evident to most people (I hope, or at least to me). As for the ethics of appealing to the irrational-ness in people. I don't exactly know how to appeal to to the irrational-ness in a person. I suppose by making a product, or a service, appeal to an irrational need, like "you need this to be popular" or "use this service to hide from reality" would be irrational, but sadly, I can't think of any examples of that.
  14. Hello Everyone Very interesting replies. I myself use Safari version 2.0.4, and I don't have access to the spell checker, or any of those features that one mentioned (I do have Firefox, but I like Safari better). What I do, and works for me greatly, is to type up my response in a third party app. I use "Textedit" for this purpose, however, I'm sure Word, or any other program will work just as well. Why do I use a third party app? For the following reasons: 1. My spelling is horrid. To be understood, I have to use a third party application so I could be understood 2. avoiding "time outs". I know a lot of sites time out if you don't respond after a set period of time. By having a third party application open, I can type as long as I need to, and take a break if I so choose. 3. I can save the file, and refer to it at a later time (I like the way my hard-drive is organized, and I don't want to go searching for posts).
  15. I don't think people are scared of spiders, per-se, but scared of the unexpected (which is of course natural). If we were to replace a spider, with, lets say a mouse, or a rat, or a cute kitty, the same exact reaction will happen (but the end result will of course be different - you might decide to hug and nurture a kitty instead of squishing it). People expect order and consistency in their lives. If something behaves in one manner at one time once, it should then behave in that manner constantly (for better or worse). If your car always has a ticking noise, and it doesn't increase, or cause anything else to go wrong, then that ticking noise is natural. If you sit down at the computer, and everytime before it the computer works great, then you expect that. If, however a spider jumps down, that is an unexpected change, and a rational person will jump and get away from it. Of course, I'm not referring to phobias, but just rational reactions to unexpected changes.
  16. Hello Ya'll I'm sorry that I wasn't able to respond earlier, but this website kept on producing an error (I'm going to post it in the troubleshooting threads). With that said... David Odden: In Post number 25, you stated: "But you see, "force" when used directly and honectly, means that someone has a gun aimed at you saying "Do this or die", or knife to your throat, or is they don't actually have it to your throat it is still known that they will use violence against you if you don't comply. In this case, though, nobody is threating to cut or beat Kufa, so this really isn't a case of force" So if I were to hold a gun to someone who you love head, and tell you to engage in an action, otherwise I will imprison that person, that would not be force? I think so, but it would violate the rights of one individual (a third party), which is the lack of freedom. You also stated " It's a voluntary class." No it isn't. High school is NOT voluntary. I am assuming you are still talking about this individual, and not an idealized or general idea. You also stated: "Well, so far, in no state is anyone threatened with violence if they do not take an AP class." I don't know any other way to sugarcoat it, but your wrong. To use a real life personal example (and I hate revealing myself on here...). I HATED high school. So I started skipping class (hiding out in the library and signing in with a fake name). Guess what my parents received at 6:00PM in the afternoon: An automated phone call saying that I skipped my physics class, my math class, and my gym class. Parents got upset, and I ignored it, of course. So I continued to skip class and hide in the library. The next day, at home, a police officer shows up. This police officer informed my parents, with me present, to either make sure I attend class tomorrow, or I WILL BE put in a foster home and they WILL BE arrested. This, DavidOdden, is force. Mimpy, you stated in post #27 "The grade you will receive at the end of the semester will not be one you deserve. You have no right to that grade." So the child does not have any right to his time, and the parents (if they so elect to get involved) any right to point direction to how they want their son taught?
  17. Hey SoftwareNerd In post number 22, you asked me to clarify what I mean by "forced", and if I was referring to the type of force of employment, or a mugger. I didn't have any analogy in mind when I used the word "force", I used the term directly and honestly. The question was about an AP class. An AP class is a high school class that can be used for something... (what that something is, I have no idea. I think it has to do with the SAT test?). I wasn't focused on the type of class, just the fact that its a High School class. In California, every student under the age of 18 (I believe, it might be 16) has to attend High School, otherwise their parents can be thrown in jail. Because the parents are being forced (under the threat of jail) to send their students to High School, they in turn will force their children to attend High School. Perhaps your referring to, not the fact that he has to be in High School, but the fact that he has to take that class. Unlike college, in High School, the classes that a student is assigned to is quasi-random. By quasi-random I mean a student has no choice over which non linear classes he can take (basically, every class except for the Mathematics and English, or remedial classes). The poster is asking about cheating in History, which is not linear. In other words, he's stuck in that class until next year. (Aside: I know all subjects are linear, and are related to one another, however an individual doesn't need to know anything about US History to understand History of the Roman Empire, for example. If more information is needed, I can clearify but it will be off topic.). I hope you understand the meaning of force, and the context that I used it in. Febod: In post number 23, you stated (and I'm going to assume its for me, if not then I apologize), "if you think cheating, no matter how innocent it may seem, is okay, then you need to re-evaluate the hierarchy of values you have chosen for yourself, or accepted blindly." I think cheating, and lying is ok given the circumstances. We are dealing with a student, who is being forced to attend school (otherwise, the parents, who the individual values will go to jail). Now, thankfully most of the classes he (or she) has to take are good, moral, and gives him value. But now he has to take a class that gives him no value. He has no method to get out of the class, no way to drop the class, and failing the class will reduce the chance for him to go to college. Given those facts, I'd say cheat. Edit: I hope this also answers your question as well Nate, on the benifits to cheating.
  18. I can only think of three reasons why we shouldn't nuke Iran: 1. It'll cost too much 2. Its not necessary (ok, maybe this is 1.5) 3. I know people who live in the outskirts of Tehran, and I don't want them dead. My Justifications: 1. Making a nuclear bomb is expensive. It requires a lot of time, resources, and energy to make a bomb. Moreover, its very difficult to make one given the current political climate, and it will be too risky in case we ever need to use them against China (or another large, powerful country). 2. The US has a large supply of conventual weapons. Why use nukes, when we can use Napalm, and other bombs to do the same thing. We should use nukes against those who propose an airthreat, not those like Iran (yet). 3. This is purely selfish, and shouldn't be factored in, all things considered. So to answer the question: No, I can't come up with 5 reason why we shouldn't nuke Tehran (but I think I came up with two very good reasons though)
  19. I predict that by the time 2020 comes around, option E would have happen: E: The earth would be engulf in fire by 2040. Why? Because Environmentalism is a religion. It follows the story of Christianity very closely, except to replace "God" with "Earth" and "Hell" with "Global Warming". According to Environmentalism, the Earth was perfect, until Men came along to ruin it. (just like how Man got kicked out of the Garden of Eden). However, just like Christianity, there is still time to be saved before the rapture comes and engulfs us in Hell. And just like (early) Christianity, the rapture will come soon, in 20 years! So all this talk about science and politics, its just masking the real truth about Global Warming - that its nothing more then a religion.
  20. Is it moral to cheat? Considering it sounds like you are being forced to take this class, that this class gives you no value, and that it is wasting your time, I would say .. No. Why? Because the risk is too great compaired to the benefit. What I suggest doing is putting as little amount as possible in the class, to get a "C-" or whatever the passing score is. If you are caught cheating, you may get thrown out of school (I'm going to assume thats a bad thing, even though it might not be), and could hamper your future. so don't cheat, just do as little as possible.
  21. I think the focus of this is all wrong. We should not try to remove the income tax yet, but go after Social Security. Society Security is much more evil then taxes. Some taxes go to the good, like military, and police. Social Security, on the other hand, is a straight monitory exchange from one individual to another (less the government fees). It should be much easier to remove society security, now, then it is to remove taxes.
  22. Are we a product of our environment? Sure we are, so long as you follow the philosophy called GIGO (Garbage In; Garbage Out). If one allows the philosophy (including what we are) to be dictated by whatever whim we come across, then us, we are a product of our environment. However, we can choose what we believe in, and what we follow. In history, there are famous people who grew up improvised and who worked their way out of it because of their mind. I present to you Andrew Carnegie, Henry Ford, Bill Clinton, Steve Jobs, Larry Elision, as evidence to this point (as well as myself). Now, why are all of those people, including myself, not representative of the environment that they grew up in?
  23. I am an American, and I tip. I Tip 10 - 15% for good service, 0% for average service and ... $0.01 for bad service. Why? Tipping in an exchange of value - the quality of the service to my money. If the service is great, then they deserve more money. If its average, then they won't get a tip (because their wage is already included in the price of the meal or drink). But, why the penny for bad service? Because it communicates to them that I despise their service so much, that I didn't forget to tip them, but to deliberately go out of my way to give them something that is next to no value. If I don't leave them a penny, they might think I just forget to tip them, or some else took their tip. But a penny reaffirms to them (or should) that i did not like their service one bit, quickly and efficiently. (I then follow up, of course, with a letter or a talk with the manager.)
  24. Ifatart, in post number 66, you asked "Is there something wrong with masturbating to a picture of a beautiful woman one knows nothing about?. " The answer to this question is yes. What exactly would the man be masturbating to? I never really grasped the concept of "fantasy" (both sexual and non sexual) so I don't exactly see what the appeal is. Is it because the men are projecting their ideal woman on that woman's body? And if so, doesn't that mean they are deceiving reality (because the woman may not be such a person that they think?) And, is that moral in this case? Then why is morality in flux? You also asked "Should the actual value gained by the one buying the magazine be of interest to the woman who is considering the deal?" I'm going to assume your referring to "Body in Mind" magazine. I don't really see why. I am sure some pervs got sexual pleasure seeing you in a bikini. I am also sure some people get turned on by the fact your face isn't covered either. Are you going to base your choice in life on what another person might think??
  25. After reading this entire thread (all 4 pages of it) there seems to be some confusion on everyone's part. Let me illustrate the confusion before I state it right out. Let me change the topic of this thread for a moment. Instead "Meaning of Nakedness" this thread will now be known as "Meaning of Time_Maker Holding a Gun to a Person's Head". The basic question that I will ask is "is that action moral, or not, and why?" Some may respond with a "No! It isn't, Time_Maker has no right to hold a person up", another may respond with "Yes, it is! Time_Maker has every right to defend himself". These two groups will then spend their time arguing and fighting, trying to defend one another's viewpoints. Of course, everyone in this forum (should) know the answer to this question: They are both right - GIVEN THE CONTEXT. If the context of me holding a gun to a person's head is to rob them, of course such an action is immoral. If the context of me holding a gun to a person's head is because they entered my house late at night to get free stuff, then yes, I'm completely moral. But if I didn't clarify it, both sides would be right, and both sides would be wrong. Now, lets change this thread back to its topic: The meaning of nakedness. Like the fictional thread I gave above, the information that this topic is missing is "in what context". There are two contexts in this thread about nudity: Sexual and Non-Sexual. Those in the sexual camp is (basically) arguing that, because they are nude most of the time in others in a sexual context, that being nude around others in such a context is morally bad (I don't want to restart the polygamy thread at this time here, so lets leave it at that). The other camp, who see nudity as a function (either as non sexual pleasure, or as artistic device) doesn't see nudity as immoral, nor should it be. Quick question to everyone - how many people here shower with their clothes on? So, what is this thread about? Sexualness, or nonsexualness?
  • Create New...