fletch
-
Posts
549 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by fletch
-
-
It is injustice to remove a man's freedom for him having done what was required for his survival.
Is it your contention that so long as a man acts in a way in which he believes his survival requires that he is not to be punished? Are you not suggesting that it can be right to sacrifice others, like the grocer, if you believe that your survival depends on it?
-
Furthermore, just knowing that this happened to you as a child is enought to traumatize you for life. It is something she will struggle to come to terms with.
She will certainly have no memory of the event, and can only be traumatized if someone at some point tells her what happened. It is not something that she ever need know, and hopefully her family will never tell her.
-
A proper moral code does not lead man to pursue survival at all costs either. In a free society, a truly rational man would have any number of alternatives to robbing and killing a grocer to get his next meal. Using force as in your example, would really solve nothing. Having robbed and killed the grocer for your lunch, what would be your plans for dinner? Force can only be morally justified as a response to the initiation of force. The grocer in your example has not initiated force upon you by the mere fact that he is in posession of something you need. Rights are not determined by need, neither is morality. You would be the initiator of violence and would rightly be removed from society and put behind bars--but at least, in a round about way, you would have solved your hunger problem. You get three meals a day in prison.If you wish me to deal with your example, okay, let's do it. In fact, man does have a right to use force against the grocer IF the only alternative is death (as opposed to trade or production), because life is the standard of morality, not property rights or the respect for other men. Man is not a sacrificial animal, ethics does not tell him to die, ever. Ethics aids man's survival, and that is the source of its legitimacy. -
Given c, d would be nullified by the extra effort involved in the theft. So there has to be another step in the argument, but I don't know what it is. I mean, does anyone seriously think that theft is effortless and results in an increase in free time?
Theft can result in an increase in free time if the payoff of that theft is greater than the payoff one might expect to get as the result of an equal amount of effort put toward honest work. Like here, for example:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4133388.stm
$65 million can buy an awful lot of leasure time! The trouble is, I think they all got caught. Looks like they miscalculated on e.) Making that error nullifies f.) and defeats a.)
-
Excuse me? He condemned these remarks only after having been backed into a corner. The true judge of character would have been to denounce these remarks as well as the man years ago. If he had such "contempt' for these ideas, why did he allow his children to be exposed to them? What about the other parisheners who hooted and hollered with approval at this mans racist rants? Was Obama concerned about the poisoning of their minds? Or does Obama just reserve his condemnation for racist whites like Imus and his dear old grandma? If anyone is ignorant, it is Rev. Write. Obama is either equally ignorant by associating himself with such a hate-filled man for his whole adult life and yet seeming to have no real knowledge of the depth of the mans bigotry and anti-Americanism or he is a coward. I strongly suspect the latter.Obama has expressed contempt for such ideas. He's condemned them as being static, incendiary. To judge this entire relationship on only those clips, to not try understand the context, the background, the reason they were manifested, the possibility that their relationship could have been based on different ideas, is ignorant.The truth is, we know virtually nothing about Barack Obama. What his principles are and where he would lead this nation if given the chance are a complete mystery. He can be described in a single word: change. He has left the definition of that word to each individual, thus seeming to find a way to be all things to all people. The only things we know for certain about Obama are those people he has chosen to surround himself with. Three names come to mind: Tony Resco, his wife who only recently found reason to be proud of America and racist, America hating Rev. Write. Not much there, I'm afraid.
-
I guess it would have been OK if you were just using the matches to light a cigarette or a joint, just so long as you werent "messing with fire."I specifically remember her saying, "What the hell do you need matches for? You better not be messing with fire!" and then going on about watching her soap operas. -
There are a couple of other things that Obama managed to overlook in his speech. First is his own status. He is a sitting US Senator, before that a State Senator. You cannot overestimate the credibility that Rev. Write gained by having a man like Sen. Obama sitting in his church and praising him in his books. Further, Obama referred to Writes' comments as "not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity." Apparently, that unity is only needed today. It must not have been necessary over the last 20 years while Obama listened intently to this divisive garbage while the parisheners cheered wildly and soaked it all in. This leads to what I think is Obamas real flaw here. This whole 20 year episode was a leadership test for Obama--a test he failed miserably. If we are to take him at his word that he condemns the anti-American rantings of Rev. Write, a man he calls a friend and mentor, why did he wait until now to condemn the man. Why did he not do it to his face if he found it so offensive? The answer can only be cowardice. He either lacked the courage to confront his 'friends' bigoty head on, or Obama lacked the conviction to refuse to be associated with a man who he himself admits only pulls the races farther apart. Either way, such a moral coward should never rise to lead this nation.
-
I know most people here will disagree with me on this, but I believe that this should legally be considered a form of child abuse, and I think it should be stopped by force of law.
How, exactly, would such a law be enforced? How scary must a parents description of hell be before the state steps in? Is the mere mention of eternal damnation enough, or do the police arrive when the parent fills the place with fire, and pitch-fork wielding demons?
-
The pastor gave a speech after 911 where he said something like "God Damn America"
What type of "pastor" would even dream of using the words "God Damn" from the pulpit? I suspect he is less a pastor than he is a proponent of Socialism + Racism + Virulent Anti-Americanism hiding behind the cloth.
I have never understood that either. You would think that if ever there was a race or group of people that would value the pursit of liberty, it would be black Americans. Yet they seem to be the biggest proponents of statism. It seems that rather than pursuing their own freedom, they wish to see shackles on everyone.And, for crying out loud, I wish so many blacks weren’t so left wing! -
The effort, he says, was inspired after reading "Nickel and Dimed," in which author Barbara Ehrenreich takes on a series of low-paying jobs. Unlike Ms. Ehrenreich, who chronicled the difficulty of advancing beyond the ranks of the working poor, Shepard found he was able to successfully climb out of his self-imposed poverty.
I read "The Mean Season" by Barbara Ehrenreich some years ago (I read as much as I could stand, anyway). It was little more than a couple hundred pages of her denouncing capitalist meanies. I suspect "NIckle and Dimed" is more of the same, particularly if the following blurb from the book is any indication:
Bottom Lineshame on our own dependency on the underpaid labor of others. When someone works for less pay than he/she can live on-when, for example, she goes hungry so you can eat more cheaply and conveniently-then he/she has made a great sacrifice for you, he/she has made you a gift of some part of his/her abilities, his/her health, and his/her life. The "working poor", as they are approvingly termed, are in fact the major philanthropists of our society. They neglect their own children so that the children of others will be cared for; they live in substandard housing so that other homes will be shiny and perfect; they endure privation so that inflation will be low and stock prices high. To be a member of the working poor is to be an anonymous donor, a nameless benefactor to everyone else.
God is that awful. I dont even know where to begin with a statement like that.
-
10. You vigorously deny the existence of God, yet you frequently blame Him for all the "evils" in the world, all the natural disasters, and everything else under the sun that is wrong in modern society.
I am not sure how this one even makes any sense. Anyone who denies the existence of God is not likely to turn around and blame Him for anything, good or bad. The truth is, it is Christians that have the most difficulty in this area. They give credit to God for all good things that happen and give Him a pass when something goes wrong. Somehow, man is to blame for 'all the evils of the world,' and not the supposed creator of all things, good and bad.
-
Would the slogan "Change" and the way it is being used be an example of a floating absraction, or is it something else?
-
Galileo,
I think the line was: "If you gentlemen dont mind, I'd rather not spend the rest of this winter tied to this fucking couch."
Although it didnt bother me, I think the goriness of the film is what limited its exposure. Particularly the scene with the dogs. Too bad, too, because I think it is truly one of the all time great SF/Horror films ever made. A handfull of men in a desolate, isolated outpost facing down a devious and deadly alien with only their wits separating life from certain, horrible death. Great premise, great movie.
-
Adrian Hester,
I've got at least a partial answer to your "who got to the cooler" question and how. In the scene where Bennings and Windows were in the store room with the remains of the "thing," Bennings says to Windows "Go get the keys from Gary."
When Windows returns to the store room with the keys he sees Bennings being absorbed by the "thing." At that point, you here the sound of the keys dropping to the floor as Windows turnes to run. Now, as to who grabbed them and got to the blood, there is no way to know for sure. However, I believe that at that point in the movie only two people had been infected or absorbed by the "thing." Palmer and Norris. It had to be one of them.
I suppose it goes without saying that this movie is my favorite SF film. I am almost ashamed to say that at one point in my life I could recite almost every line from the film from memory.
-
Why should Objectivists leave? Why should the advocates for liberty and capitalism be banished to some "coastline acreage from an impoverished African nation?" How about if the collectivists leave the US and establish their land of 'equality' elsewhere? Gee, they could set up shop...well, just about anywhere, now couldnt they.
-
-
I think McCain will throw them some bones, but his political career has largely been defined by his eagerness to compromise with the most liberal members of the Democratic party, not members of his own party. That is why he is so disliked and distrusted by conservatives.Thus, John McCain will be reaching compromises with those on the Religious Right, such as Senator Sam Brownback, while Hillary Clinton will be compromising with the nascent (but growing Religious Left. -
Both of the leftist candidates for president have been advocates for "change." Yet both Hillary and Obama have left what they mean by that term largely undefined. The idea is to have the voter fill in the blank. People will then support their favorite based upon their own concept of the word which may or may not coincide with what the candidate actually means by it. I am just doing what they want me to do--filling in the blank.
-
I wonder if this is an example of the type of "change" that Hillary and Obama are offering the country.
-
Not only do I think that Romney will be the Republican nominee...
Oops.
-
I dont see how McCain wins the general election without Huckabee or a guy just like him on the ticket as VP. Huckabee won what, 5 states, and he did it on a K-mart budget. He seems to be able to rally the evangelicals in the Republican party like no one else. He can probaly bring those people to the polls in November if he is on the ballot as McCains running mate even if they have no particular fondness for the guy at the top of the ticket, McCain. So I think the answer to your question: Will John McCain empower the Religious Right? is yes. He is so unpopular among conservatives that he has no choice. He cant win if they sit home.
The potential that he might actually win in November is another problem, particularly for Republicans. He will not likely represent gridlock, but will engage in constant compromise with the Democratic Congress. He has never seemed to have a problem with betraying Republican orthodoxy in order to get an agreement, and I dont think that is likely to change if he becomes president.
-
Is it acceptable to decline to help a person trapped under a vending machine because Lost is coming on in 5 minutes?
You arent really being serious with questions like that, are you?Should a parent sacrifice himself/herself for the child if there is one remaining seat? Why or why not? -
And here I always thought that Feb. 2 was only significant for Ground Hog Day. Might be time to pitch the worthless rodent and celebrate something truly noteworthy!
-
So the market basically responds after the fact, correct? Now let's say that the oft-cited "tipping point" or "point of no return" situation is incontrovertible as well. How would a free market stop us from reaching a point of no return predicted to occur in 5 years when the weather outside is not going to get nearly bad enough for people to care for another 25 years?
This is why I think the free market system is not without failure. Such a hypothetical situation could actually occur, and the free market could not do anything about it. As we get closer to the tipping point, the experts will seem more fanatical (justifiably so) but the free market will not have any of the environmental pressures necessary to make the changes in time. Does this make any sense?
Brian, if Global warming is fact, and if it is caused solely by human activity, then there is only one thing we can do and it can be summed up in one word: Adapt.
If Global Warming is fact, and if it is caused solely by natural, non-human events, then there is only only one thing we can do as well: Adapt.
The history of world temperatures is not a flat line that has suddenly and inexplicably spiked. It is a jagged line with peaks and valleys that you are expecting to stay flat. Perhaps, you can explain to me the cause of the Little Ice Age (or any 'big' ice age for that matter) that is believed to have ended around 1850. What caused it in the first place, and what caused it to end? Surely it was not human activity. So the cause must lie elsewhere. I would be curious as to what you think that cause is, and to why it would not apply to the warming we are supposedly seeing today.
What global warming doesnt answer is the question of where the Earth's temperature should be. Can you say for certain that the current temperatures we are experiencing, while warmer than the recent past, are not still cooler than the average of the distant past? How do you know that mankind will not benefit from this warming? Frankly, if I had to choose between global warming and global cooling, I am in 100% with global warming. From my perspective on this cold February day, I say bring it on!
God exists
in Debates
Posted
That sounds great, but how do you know this? Why can we not think of love without linking it to superstition, or viewing it as some sort of 'mystical force'?
The desire for God is not a 'fundamental desire' just because you say it is. Much of the belief in God is based upon ignorance. An ignorant desire does not demand fulfillment.