Alon Tsin

Well, here is a picture of me during a lab experiment I had a month ago...

If you come to the rational conclusion that you are threatened, You have the right to use force as you rationally see fit. You also must hold moral responsibility for any decision you make(as is true for anything you do in your life). From this example, you cannot rationally reach a conclusion that the man wants to use the gun on you (If we stick to this example and have no other relevant information about the neighbor ). If you are still concerned, you can call the police or purchase a gun yourself to defend yourself. How do you define "unfriendly looking"? If those men have knives, or they verbally threaten you then you should strike them since you can rationally know that they mean you harm. If you don't know what those men want, you can ask them, or warn them before using your Tazer. I answered your two examples to show that (Unless you have no time to think and must react instantly) you can always act in a way that will be right and responsible. ---------------------------------------------- To conclude - If you are certain that you are threatened ("certain"- by means of logic and reason) you have the freedom to act against the threat as you see fit ("as you see fit" - again as concluded by means of reason and logic). Because you act by means of logic and reason, you should have no problem to take responsibility for you actions . To extrapolate to the case of Iran - Since Iran has threatened the US and Israel repeatedly, since the country is a theocracy headed by a madman, Since the country openly supports terrorist organizations attacking Israel, US and their allies - You can logically infer that Iran is an immediate threat. Therefore you are entitled to strike at it preemptively. How to do so reasonably, now that's the question that this thread is all about...

HAPPY BIRTHDAY IFAT!

:-) Indeed... I am surprised that CNN actually wrote about it...

No, but you are responsible for how you act about the theft. In the context of his thread, if you know the money that was taxed (or, as you say, stolen) from you is being used for immoral things (like unjust war), it is your responsibility to act - to flee, to fight or to stay. Either way, you are responsible for your choice.

The movie premiers in Israel today (Wednesday). Spiderman 3 was also released outside the US before it premiered there...

Private roads are not "second rate" property, because a road owner would have no logical interest to deny the government the use of police cars. More so, should an irrational road owner deny the police access to his roads, the citizens will not fund him because their security would be hampered. The same goes for government buildings, ambulances etc.

I don't post much here, but I think that if I take time and thought to write something, I deserve at least the common courtesy to be notified in a few words that my post was deleted and why. P.S- I obviously don't mean posts that are ads or spam, but posts by members who perhaps went a bit too far.

Man! I feel enlightened! I have never actually realised that the LORD is actually THE LORD OF THE RINGS!! Thank you ds1973... my life is now full...

Here is a good piece by Michelle Malkin , in which she shows that the rap songs so popular today are BY FAR worse that the remark that Imus made.

Hi I am from Israel, or more precisely I live in the northern city of Haifa.

First of all, anything that can prevent such dreadful things as Autism, Polio or CP in children is good. I have a cousin whose son has CP, and it is very very hard for the mother and the entire family. I wouldn't wish such a thing on anyone, and if modern science and medicine can provide a solution then it is wonderful. However, I will go on and say that if you have the ability to make sure that your child will be intelligent, healthy and athletic and you don't do so, you are immoral. Raising your child to be a productive, educated and goal motivated human being is probably one of the greatest values you can have during your life, and therefore if you don't use every measure you can to fulfill your goal by making sure your child's life is better (e.g Good health, high intelligence, good looks) then you are morally wrong. By the way, if you are concerned that people might do "crazy" things with their child's "design" (for lack of better word) , you should remember that if (or when) such a procedure is possible ,it will probably be performed by doctors who will have some personal judgment or laws that will prevent too much creativeness.

Congratulations and Mazal Tov on your marriage!

Moose, Perhaps you should post some of Mrswig's Bible stories in this Christian forum? It actually might liven up the conversation

And Dumbledore could be Churchill...

I would like to address some of the points made in this thread. I live in Israel, so I can give some perspective from an Israeli point of view. About Israel's right to exist :I would like to refer you to a wonderful book by Alan Dershowitz "The Case for Israel", in which he brilliantly outlines why Israel has the right to exist , supporting his arguments with solid historical facts . In short, The fact that the Israeli-Jews created a value-filled and productive society in a desert, achieved wonderful things in many fields (like science, literature,education) and managed to survive numerous vicious attacks by surrounding enemies is by itself an answer to the question of Israel's legitimacy. I would also like to remind you that the US was also established by British colonists who took the land from the indian tribes, and yet no one (in the western world) questions the legitimacy of the US or it's right to exist (and rightfully so!) Granted, many things in Israel are wrong - Religion and Politics to name a few - but none of those problems is big enough to question Israel's legitimacy because of it, because the basic values of human life , education and productiveness still lead this country. About the Israeli Arabs and Integration : I think that it is wrong to equate the integration of Mexicans in the USA with the integration of Arabs in Israel. The Mexicans , though from a different culture, are generally (as I understand ) people with values similar to those of the American people (such as productiveness and the value of life), who come to America to improve their lives and their children's lives.Therefore, integration can happen, and it will not be destructive. The problem with the Arabs is that their culture is the culture of Islam - the culture of hate, the culture of Death. That is their basic premise, that is their goal. You cannot integrate someone with values such as these - that would be suicide. Unless the Arabs manage to change their basic values , I see no future in massive integration of Arabs in Israel - The only future would be total destruction from the inside. The Solution? In short - there are several points: 1. There should be two states - one Palestinian, and one Israeli. 2. All the Israeli Arabs who refuse to swear loyalty to Israel should be transferred (with compensations, of course) to Palestine or any other Arab state. 3. There will be no contact between the two states until the terror in this state is destroyed - e.g No Palestinians shall be allowed to work in Israel and vice versa, Israel shall not fund the other state etc etc.. 4. Any terrorist action shall be followed be severe retaliation by Israel - exactly like the USA would have reacted if Canada started firing missiles on Chicago. This is the best solution in my opinion. ** I realize that my points are short and might need more development , but I had no time to elaborate on those points. If needed, I will elaborate on future posts** Alon

When you live in a relatively free society (Which means a society in which your basic rights are mostly kept , like in the US , or Israel) , the use of force is not considered self defense, and therefore unethical. Of course, it begs the question when is it moral to use force in a revolution, which is out of context in this thread. the ARI is a non-profit organization, voluntarily funded by private people (Objectivists). ARI has set it's goals to promote Objectivism in the US , mainly through lectures , conferences and forums. That is obviously not altruism since every man that donates to ARI has the same goals in mind. On the other hand, even in an Objectivist country , taxes are paid by people for militaryself protection and for law enforcement. They do not pay taxes for the education of enemy countries , or (for that matter) for financing other people through social security. ARI's investment in the education is , therefore , not altruism , but egotism since every man funding ARI selfishly wants to live in a free, Objectivist society. I will give you a very simple answer: You cannot educate anyone who doesn't want to be educated. period. You cannot educate people by forcing you ideas on them. It never worked and never will . You can force them to understand that their ideas are wrong and to make them want hear you ideas. You cannot do any other thing. Japan before the WWII was a country that worshiped death (e.g the Samurai code). When the US nuked them and showed them that the consequences of their Death-worshiping is death and nothing else, they managed in a very short time to change their views and beliefs and became an economic power. You can educate your enemy only by showing him the consequences of his philosophy, not by chanting you ideas at him (Exactly like John Galt showed everyone the consequences of their action in AS). On the other hand, ARI tries to educate people who want to be educated. No one is forced to go to their lectures, or even to read Ayn Rand's books. ARI cannot educate people who don't want to be educated. By the way, notice that we both are from Israel, and we still manage to read Ayn Rand's books, and even benefit from ARI's articles and videos on their site, even though we are not from the US (in which ARI works). We wanted to be educated, and we were. I believe that anyone in Iraq who wanted to be educated can be. It cannot be forced on him... Alon

I disagree with you in several points you made in this segment: 1. Objectivism has no "retribution" policy as such, but rather a self defense against force policy. From the p.o.v of a government that would mean : The country is under attack -> I must protect my citizens and prevent such things from happening -> I attack the offender so the attack is stopped and never happens again (like nuking Japan in WWii). 2. An ideal Objectivist government is funded by it's citizens for 3 reasons : Self defense against outside aggressors (The military), Self defense against inside aggressors (The police force) and Mediating disputes between citizens (The courts). A government based on those ideas cannot ethically spend her citizen's money on foreign education such as you suggest because that's contradictory to Objectivist ethics (just like government social security is contradictory to Objectivism).To put it bluntly - as an Objectivist government I must not finance any aspect of a foreign citizen's life on the expense of my citizens. 3. Trying to change the government in the country you live by force is not bad as such . For instance - If you lived in Germany in 1933 , would it be immoral to change the Nazi government by force in order to liberate it's citizens? I think not. Using force in order to gain freedom is not immoral. However, if you live in a relatively free society (like the US) , using force to change the government is wrong because you will not really gain freedom by doing so. I am running out of time, but I will post a more coherent reply to the topic.... Alon

Thanks for the welcome ! I think I will stick with my well - educated martial-arts emoticon ...

As people on this thread said, Objectivism is not faith as such by definition, since it encourages one to think for oneself and use logic and solid evidence as the basis for decisions. (In contrast to religion that encourages you to have faith and act on the basis of it). There is a different problem in that context, and that is that some Objectivists treat Ayn rand as prophet - they quote her words without really understanding them , and live by them exactly as Jewish orthodox man would live by the word of Moses. That's the real problem. To clarify - I think that Ayn Rand was illuminatingly right in a vast majority of the things she wrote about, however the correct way to really absorb her words is by critically and logically analyzing her words by yourself , rather than treating every sentence she ever uttered as God-given. Alon

Hi all! Just wanted to give a short introduction of myself : My name is Alon and I am from Haifa, Israel. I am student of Aeronautical Engineering in the Israeli Institute of Technology (Technion). My hobbies are internet (mainly news sites) , history, fantasy books, chess and soccer. Well, that's about it! Looking forward to debating and discussions here with you all .... Alon