DarwinsApostle

Homosexuality hurts no one. If it makes someone happy, whether because they were born that way or because nature somehow molded them that way, so be it. This really doesn't need a deep philosophical analysis. And anyone with a prejudice against gays is unjustified. My MIL who claims to be an Objectivist has a problem with homosexuality. It's her own personal bias clouding her objective reasoning. So Objectivists who are anti-gay are out there.

Hi all. First of all, sorry if you don't think this topic belongs in the Political Philosophy catagory. I wasn't sure where to put it. I was reading about the "tank man" at Tiananmen Square because of the whole controversy over having the Olympics in China. I wanted to know more about it since everyone's seen the picture and I wanted to know the back story. As I'm sure you know, there's more to it, but it boils down to citizens, mostly students, protesting against, "...the authoritarianism and economic policies of the ruling Chinese Communist Party" and calling for "...democratic reform within the structure of the government". (As quoted from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiananmen_Squ...otests_of_1989). The most famous photo representing the protests is of the unknown man who stands strong against a fleet of tanks headed for the square. He successfully stops them in their tracks and foils their attempts to get around him. He is eventually pulled away by the crowd but his message and his stance were clear... we don't want you here. In that moment he became the face of the protest. Now, I take a look at that picture and think about what a powerful message it sends. It reminds us that freedom isn't free. I respect his bravery and his resolve, since he knew that he could have been killed in that moment. He made a statement and was willing to stand for a free China. Now, maybe I'm reading too much into this. Who knows how philosophically minded he was, but the point is: he became the face of the protests, the photo showed the absolute struggle of the freedom-minded Chinese citizen against the all-powerful communist government, showed the world the true colors of communist China and it went down in history as a historical moment. I respect him and all the protesters who were against a communist government. My husband looks at the picture and doesn't understand the big deal. He says that since nothing was accomplished by the guy standing there (the tanks eventually continued into the square and killed people) and since the guy was on a "suicide mission" (since he could have easily been killed) then there's nothing great about the event. I just want to know what you guys think. Should we respect the guy or is it no big deal? To me, there are few photos that represent the struggle for freedom and the lengths to which people will go for that freedom in such a clear and powerful way. In my mind, its the ultimate showing of the individual against the collective. Any thoughts??

Well, the answer to that is an obvious "no", but even so... what does this have to do with laws and morality? There are countless situations in which important matters are left up to people's judgements. Sometimes they are right, sometimes they are wrong. This is inevitable in a free society, and in the situations in which their judgement is wrong or someone gets hurt, then the law deals with it. The bottom line is that there is nothing immoral about having alcohol in one's system. It becomes an issue when their behavior has the potential to affect others. Prescription drugs can have a negative affect on one's driving, as can cell phones, radios, and children, but it's not until these things prove too much for a driver to handle can the government morally step in. It's wrong to punish the innocent... bottom line.

I think shock ads may have an initial impact on youth, but as they grow older and have contact with others that have tried the drug (be it marijuana or cigarettes, whatever) they realize that most of the government's claims are exaggerated and then the youth may discount any warning, be it true or not. In the long run, they have a negative effect.