Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

stillremains

Regulars
  • Posts

    9
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by stillremains

  1. Ayn Rand believed that you should never live for another person, but dying for the cause of freedom is not sacrifice. You are dying to protect something that you love. I agree with you that it is not in our best interest to leave. I have another thought, as well. If the Iraqi people want to be free so much, why are they not doing more to help accomplish it? Anyway, I see your point, but I just don't think it is right or logical that we would leave for any reason, when ultimately it would probably hurt us.
  2. To those who said that we have no reason to be there, what about the people in Iraq, even though there may be few, who do want freedom, and aren't interested in the sectarian violence. Don't they matter? Ayn Rand surely believed that there was nothing more important than individual freedom, so why doesn't theirs matter? Just a thought.
  3. What are your opinions? Should we be there, to destroy a dictatorship and free the people of Iraq, or should we pull out now, possibly leaving the region in chaos, but saving American troops?
  4. I understand what you mean David, and let me clarify, because I didn't mean that they don't have rights at all. I meant that they cannot discern what their rights are or that they are being violated. Ayn Rand addressed this same issue in "Ayn Rand, the best of her Q&A". She is asked if mentally retarded people have rights. Her answer is "no". She then explains that the person has the right to be protected and should always be treated as a child.
  5. I think that there is one thing most of us are forgetting: These women posing for these pictures are probably not objectivists, and therefore are not thinking about it the same way we are. That means that their motives are most likely less than honorable. It doesn't matter what your veiw of the human body or nudity is; what really matters is their motives. I had the chance to hear one of the calander girls speaking on the radio, and to me she sounded like a naive, ignorant, college girl, that just wanted attention. If that is her motive, then none of you can defend those girls, because they have no honorable reason for doing this calander.
  6. This problem does have a solution, you just have to break it down to completely bare, rational terms. It's hard not to let emotion get involved, however, and I can understand that. Here is the way I see it: A mentally handicapped person has no "rights" per se, because in order to have rights one must be able to use reason. Therefore, by doing this surgery, her rights were in no way being violated, because, since a retarded person is treated as a child forever, the parents are granted the "right" to bring her up as they see fit. They clearly thought the surgery was in her best interest, and the government has no place to interefere, neither does anyone else. The doctors and the parents gave clear, explicit reasons as to why they performed the surgery; all was for the benefit of the girl and the well being of the family. In my opinion, unless it can be proven that they have taken away from this girl's quality of life, this is a non-issue. The problem is that people tend to throw rationality out the window when it comes to problems like these. That is unfortunate. I really hope for the best for this girl.
  7. There is no question as to whether or not executing him was the right thing to do. A. a dictator does not have rights, because they dedicate their lives to depriving others of them. Therefore, just as a totalitarian regime can claim no rights against being invaded by a country like the U.S, Saddam has forfeited his right to live, just as he has taken away that right from so many others. B. It is not a matter of what would be worse for him to endure. Rationally, execution was the only solution. It was the only way to completely get rid of a man who had no buisiness living here on earth any more. He gave up that right when he destroyed the lives of his citizens. I completely agree
  8. I am a columnist for my high school paper, and this issue we are doing a story on global warming and whether or not it is a viable threat to human existence. I have gotten into numerous debates with the writers about it, because they say that it IS a real threat, and that humans should do something about it. I argue that raising taxes, placing regulations on the automobile industry, and getting the government involved is the wrong idea. I also hold that if global warming is in fact a real threat, then humans should act not out of a sense of responsibility socially, but out of self interest, meaning that we should only do something about it for the sake of continuing human existence on earth. A. has global warming even been proved to be having an affect on the planet as of yet? And B, if it is, what should we as humans do about it, if anything? If someone could give me some ideas, I'm having a bad case of writer's block so it would help.
×
×
  • Create New...