Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

RationalBiker

Patron
  • Content Count

    4155
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    10

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    RationalBiker got a reaction from Trebor in Dad of slain boy says he'll kill son's murderer   
    Two possible things (at least) can happen;

    1) Should the intended victim choose so, he could seek charges for threatening bodily harm against the father should the appropriate jurisdiction(s) have an applicable law.

    2) IF the father actually carries out the murder, he would have well established premeditation and malice aforethought by advertising his intent, and likely face capital punishment if such jurisdiction allows, assuming sufficient evidence is otherwise there for the charge/conviction.

    IF he really intends to carry out such an act, he's really making the repercussions on himself potentially worse by being so vocal.



  2. Like
    RationalBiker got a reaction from dream_weaver in Building Ayn Rand"s robot.   
    "I recognize that as your claim, not that you have achieved that claim"


    Past that, I can't stop you from believing what you like.
  3. Like
    RationalBiker got a reaction from Dante in Tattoo Ideas   
    That's really your issue though, not that person's.



  4. Downvote
    RationalBiker got a reaction from Tanaka in Tattoo Ideas   
    That's really your issue though, not that person's.



  5. Downvote
    RationalBiker reacted to Jacob86 in Argument for the existence of God   
    Please revisit the extensive discussion on epistemology earlier in this thread-- OR if you'd like to bring it up again, I'd be happy to begin a new thread on epistemology.
    You are assuming a faulty epistemological principle that the ONLY method of verification is through empirical observation and that apart from empirical observation, NO proposition can be known to be true or false with certainty.

    *Notice, I emboldened the categorical words above ("only" and "no")- these are the key words which make the assumption false. Replace "only" with "one" and "no" with "some", and I would totally agree.
  6. Downvote
    RationalBiker got a reaction from Tanaka in Tattoo Ideas   
    The finished work...





  7. Like
    RationalBiker reacted to brian0918 in Argument for the existence of God   
    It certainly does, however the individual you are talking to is not an Objectivist, and has been going in circles debating others for the last 40 pages. Do not take the content of his posts as indicative of the content you should expect from others.
  8. Like
    RationalBiker got a reaction from bluecherry in Why do human babies have rights?   
    Who said anything about taking her to a desert???????? Not at all analogous to what I said.

    Not being obliged to provide her food and lodging is NOT the same as taking her into a hostile environment and dropping her off. One is an act NOT TO HELP whereas the other is an act to deliberately cause harm. To put it in the words of Batman, "I'm not going to kill you, but I don't have to save you." You are right, I don't mean that because that is not the same as what I said.

    The context under which you are obliged to take care of her is to the extent which she has represented a value to you and you have CHOSEN to assume the burden for her care because of that value. However, the biological connection alone of her being your mother IS NOT a condition which morally causes that obligation.




    No, they are quite definitely not the same. One represents a lack an of obligation to help another while the other represents a deliberate injurious act. Do you feel personally responsible for taking care of every bum starving on the street that you see? If you don't feed them, they could die. You could be killing someone everyday. Only YOU can prevent forest fires.





    Not only "not", but "absolutely not". You did not make a deliberate choice to bring your mother into this world, whereas, you probably did make a deliberate choice to bring your baby into this world KNOWING the condition under which ALL babies are brought into the world, helpless and dependent. Your whole argument reeks of assuming an unchosen obligation and altruism. Lacking a more specific context of why you in particular owe your mother the care of which you speak, your position is the complete antithesis of Objectivist ethics.


  9. Like
    RationalBiker got a reaction from Grames in Argument for the existence of God   
    That's all I need to hear. Thanks.



  10. Downvote
    RationalBiker got a reaction from Jacob86 in Argument for the existence of God   
    That's all I need to hear. Thanks.



  11. Like
    RationalBiker got a reaction from SapereAude in Not Admitting Guilt   
    They have detection devices to determine that so the objective facts should come out in trial regardless of your statement. However, if they are stopping you without the objective evidence of your speed and you get charged anyway, there is a flaw in the system that needs to be addressed.




    I don't see where anyone argued otherwise. What I'm arguing is how the justice system works and how your rational self interest in the long term may not be best served by admitting guilt versus ensuring that the justice system works properly. Addtionally, IS IT in your rational self-interest to pay a fine OR is it in your rational self-interest to learn from your mistake involving the least amount of punishment you can receive?





    Why were you speeding then? Is it in your rational self interest to knowingly break the law while knowing the risks? It doesn't sound rational from the start if you know you are speeding and you know you risk paying a fine because you will confess if stopped. Or, is some part of you gambling that you won't get caught in the first place?





    No, you should rejoice that you live in a society where the state must prove your guilt so that the innocent are not punished unnecessarily.


  12. Like
    RationalBiker reacted to dream_weaver in Taking Children Seriously   
    Each new generation born is in effect an invasion of civilization by little barbarians, who must be civilized before it is too late.— Thomas Sowell

    And from the quotation database, this too, comes to mind.
  13. Like
    RationalBiker got a reaction from DavidOdden in Hiring Moderators   
    The critical distinction missing here is what you are intending to keep is on someone else's property. As such, if a person intended to keep their car on my front lawn, I would not respect their wishes if I didnt' think it served the purpose of my front lawn.

    One of the limitations of posting on another person's property is that it is subject to being removed at the wishes of the owner or designee.
  14. Like
    RationalBiker got a reaction from bluecherry in Hiring Moderators   
    The critical distinction missing here is what you are intending to keep is on someone else's property. As such, if a person intended to keep their car on my front lawn, I would not respect their wishes if I didnt' think it served the purpose of my front lawn.

    One of the limitations of posting on another person's property is that it is subject to being removed at the wishes of the owner or designee.
×
×
  • Create New...