Evoken

The entire thing is basically a complain that the world does not acknowledges the author's right to be lazy. Also, as is typical of all socialists, communists, the author hates the fact that some people are more successful than others. There is so much wrong with that article that I don't even know where to start. I started extracting parts of it as I was reading to a text document in order to write some comments, but I ended up with a really large document. Anyway, here are a few paragraphs I think worth commenting on: I wonder who the author thinks we should ask when we want to know if an unborn child wants to be born or not? Can he imagine an scenario where he chooses to be born? His analogy with the candy bar fails, it is just not on the same level as people not choosing to be born. The person accepted and ate the candy bar, he had the option to reject it too. One does not have this option when it comes to being born. There is also a critical mistake the author makes. The world does not has an obligation to sustain your life. It has however the obligation to respect your right to life and also your freedom of action. The world does not has the obligation to provide you food, for example, but it has the obligation to preserve the means by which you may buy food (i.e. the right to work and earn a salary). Another thing is, parents are the ones who decide to have children, having children entails a wiliness to invest resources and time in educating, raising and taking care of them, until the time that they can take care of themselves. The children are responsibility of the parents, not of the world or society. If we extend the author's logic a bit farther, the act of parents investing in food, clothes and education for their children when they did not choose it also "smacks of coercion and even enslavement". If the author is to be consistent, the mother should give birth and leave the child alone, so that whatever happens to him, happens. Awakened against his will? What a lazy man! What does he proposes? That he be allowed to sleep for as long as he wants any day of the week? So, if it is his will to sleep 16 hours a day, then, well, who are we to say otherwise? Good luck having any form of functional society with that mindset. I wonder why the author thinks that everybody "despises" his job? Why does he inserts the derogatory remark "which he despises"? Personally, I love doing graphic and web design, I am passionate for it. Ergo, I work on that area. Ergo, I do not despise my work. Also, being reprimanded by your boss for being five minutes late is wrong now? You are the one who failed at your responsibility, assume the consequences. You are being paid to be there at a specific time. Lastly, the whole bit about "doing exactly what he is told the way he is told to do it" is unrealistic. That is simply not the way things happen in the work place. You are hired because of your skills and knowledge, you are hired because the company that hires you finds you valuable and important for it to achieve it's own goals. That being the case, the company that hires you expects you to know whatever you are supposed to know in order to perform the role that you were hired to perform. See? My boss does not sits behind me telling how to do things in any of the graphic and web design programs that I use. My boss is not there telling me how to create any piece of art, ad, etc. Rather, they tell me what they need to do, and ask me to come up with options or solutions to it. Instead of seeking to treat me as a slave, they encourage me to propose ideas, to speak out my mind and to get creative and "break the mold". In that situation, both my boss and I benefit. He benefits, because I provide the solution his company needs to achieve it's goals, and I benefit because I grow professionally and, since they company achieves it's goals, I also get paid. There is much I could comment on, but I rather leave it at that, at least for now. Evo

I would like to know how people here respond to the objections against Capitalism raised in this article. http://naturyl.humanists.net/work.html I just read it and extracted some relevant paragraphs from it. I will write some comments on them and post them later. Thanks in advance, Evo

A somewhat serious joke: Philosophy has speculation and mindless rambling as it's standard of value, so anything that puts an end to speculation and mindless rambling is evil and must be avoided. Ayn Rand and Objectivism does that. It cuts thru the useless philosophical fog (for not saying BS) and says clearly and without rhetoric how things are. It is a rational philosophy that is grounded in reality and not on imagined scenarios and vacuous speculations. In short, as another poster said, it makes the philosophers look like fools. Evo

Thanks I would say you are better off not dealing with presuppositionalists, those are the worst kind of apologists. Their basic claim is that logic, morality and induction are impossible without god. So everytime you talk about those things, you are pressupposing the existence of god. Evo

I guess it would depend, no? Someone that is high because he smoke some marijuana has the potential to harm other people, a drunken man has the same potential. Anyone that is drugged or drunken is no longer using reason, or at least his ability to reason is hindered, so his interaction with the environment and with other humans will be flawed and may lead to disastrous results. That is my opinion too. Yes, yours and softwareNerd''s input has been helpful and is really appreciated. Evo

Alright, this answers my question. Evo

Saw that in another board, to be honest the whole Jesus was a myth or Jesus married Magdalene thing is too cliche. It has been going on for several years in books and now into movies. I think that a much more effective thing would be to make a movie in which the real Christian teaching and logic is expressed. A "loving" God showing no evidence of himself, torturing for eternity in hell those who do not believe in him, bringing the apocalypse to destroy 90% of mankind along with the earth, that women have no right to speak in places of authority, that they should be subject to their husbands, etc. Most Christians do not know their own religion. That would do more to scare people off than just claiming Jesus never existed or some similar thing. Evo

Thanks for your post softwareNerd. What happens if a couple has sex without taking the necessary precautions to avoid pregnancy? If the woman ends up pregnant, then is she still on her rights to abort? Can there be an instance in which the woman forsakes her right and must carry on with the pregnancy? Also, lets say that in this case, the husband wants the woman to carry on with the pregnancy but the woman wants an abortion. Since the fetus is inside the woman and the woman has right over her body, then we can say that the woman has the last word on this issue? Evo

1-Final Fantasy VI 2-Final Fantasy VII 3-Metal Gear Solid 3 4-Xenogears 5-Baldur's Gate II 6-Neverwinter Nights 7-Resident Evil 4 8-Chrono Trigger 9-Final Fantasy Tactics 10-Metal Gear Solid

Thanks for the links. Focusing first on abortion. From what I read in the thread you linked to and the article by Peikoff, I think the Objectivist position can be summed up thus: -A fetus does not has rights until it becomes a person. -A fetus becomes a person that possesses rights at birth, not at conception. -The woman has the right to abort the fetus at any time during pregnancy, whether it is one month or eight months, it doesn't matters. -As long as the fetus is biologically linked to her, it is part of her body and since she has right over her body then she has right over the fetus. -After birth, the fetus now being a person has rights of it's own which the mother cannot violate because it is no longer biologically linked to her. Is this a correct presentation of the Objectivist position on abortion? Thanks, Evo

-Polygamy -Abortion Is there any argument for or against these from an Objectivist point of view? Thanks in advance, Evo

Thanks. While learning about presuppositional apologetics, I came across the website of an Objectivist named Anthon Thorn: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Sparta/1019/Thorn2.html He has several articles there about Objectivism. Evo

Hello everyone, Just found about this boards and decided to join. I have been learning about Objectivism during the last couple of months and while I still don't know enough to make a decision of being an Objectivist or not, I find that I am in full agreement with everything I have learned about it so far. So, perhaps it is only a matter of time (and more learning) before I think of myself as an Objectivist. Hopefully this forum will be the right place to ask questions about Objectiivsm. See you all around, Evo