Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

andre_sanchez

Regulars
  • Posts

    117
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://guitarlearningcourse.com
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Not Specified
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Sexual orientation
    No Answer
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted

andre_sanchez's Achievements

Member

Member (4/7)

0

Reputation

  1. The more land this entity owned, the more expensive every other piece of land would become. You can only buy land that someone is willing to sell. Even if this corporation had a trillion dollars, that doesn't mean it will be able to buy the land it wishes to. As such, those who did NOT want to live as "virtual slaves" would form their own corporations and set up colonies in the unbought pieces of land BEFORE this corporation is able to buy everything. Since these people would not be willing to sell the land for any amount of money (after all, if they did they would end up having to pay their earnings back in rent), the corporation would never be able to acquire their property. Until this corporation owns everything, it would be suicide for it to charge "slave" rents, since it would just make the unbought land that much more valuable and harder to get.
  2. If I cut off your eyes, are you then not a human being? A bee has eyes, is it a human being? Please stick to essentials. Having an eye is irrelevant. A bee has a brain and eyes. Is it a human being? This element however is at least essential (so far as we understand the mind). If I cut off your legs, are you then not a human being? Bees have legs, brains and eyes, are they human beings? Please stick to essentials. While I think it would be incorrect to make "breathing" an essential component of being human, I suppose the claim is fair in the sense that humans need oxygen in order to power their bodies. Bees breathe, have legs, have brains and have eyes, are they human beings? In the sense that they perceive the world through their senses, yes, it's fair to say that is an essential requirement of being human. Bees observe, breathe, have legs, have brains and have eyes, are they human beings? You are defining a human being as a non-fetus. Birth is an event, not an attribute. Nonetheless, bees are born, observe, breathe, have legs, have brains and have eyes, are they human beings? Can you please define "think" in a way that applies to babies, yet not to animals or a fetus. If you believe an 8 month old unborn fetus is still to be regarded as a fetus, please use him and if not, please use the highest level of development you believe a homo sapiens can reach while still being classified as a fetus. My dog has a name, and in fact, bees are born, observe, breathe, have legs, have brains and have eyes, and if someone names them (babies do not name themselves, do they?) they have a name, are they human beings? Bees make sounds, are born, observe, breathe, have legs, have brains and have eyes, and if someone names them (babies do not name themselves, do they?) they have a name, are they human beings? The only attribute you have listed that bees are unable to meet, is think. In a certain sense, bees even meet that. You would have to define "think" so that it is above the capacity of bees, and once you manage to get over that, there is a large number of other non-human animals with greater capacities. In fact, a baby does not seem to be any more capable of "thought" than a grown monkey, dolphin, or any number of animals. If you have evidence to the contrary, please provide it. Is a comatose human being NOT a human being? So to be clear, babies, young children and comatose patients all meet the definition of a human being, correct? Indead, it does not. This is about separating at a fundamental level, a fetus from a baby. Otherwise, they need to be treated the same. What rights a baby has is not relevant to the question of a fetus being, or not being, fundamentaly the same as a baby.
  3. You have to explain why a "baby/young child/comatose patient" is a human being, and why the term does not apply to a fetus. It's not enough to make a statement.
  4. DarkWaters, A couple of questions: 1. Can you tell me what the fundamental difference between a fetus and a baby is? 2. Can you tell me what the fundamental difference between a fetus and a young child is? 3. Can you tell me what the fundamental difference between a fetus and a comatose (not braindead) person is? I have seen no answer to this. The morality of abortion aside, I believe your argument in favour of it is contradictory, and therefore incorrect. Do you support the right to commit infanticide? If you do, then we can discuss the matter with that in mind. If not, you have to explain the difference. Specificaly, you have to explain what grants babies and young children rights and why that does not apply to a fetus.
  5. Returning to the subject of vigilante justice itself, if the moderator will be so kind as to allow my thoughts to be seen by you, how do those of you who claim it is illegitimate reconcile the fact that it is an integral part of Rand's work? It's almost as if you people haven't read "The Fountainhead". It is a perfect example of the vigilante process at work. Howard Roark took the law into his own hands, was subject to judicial review, and then was released. Not to mention Ragnar Danneskjold, the philosopher-pirate. By your standards, he has no right to "use force", yet he was one of the book's heroes.
  6. Responding to strawmen gets old you know? What do you mean by "at all costs"? Man should not pursue survival at "any" costs, he should pursue survival at the cost that he actually has to pay for it. Most of the time, the cost is what Rand calls "reason". Sometimes, it is not. Reason is not a primary. Reason is justified by survival, not the other way around. You do not live so you can practice ethics, you practice ethics so that you can live. Indeed. That was not my example. I was very clear on my example. In fact, it would. Not using force on the other hand, would not. If he is dead already, which is what the example is based on, he would have no plans for dinner. Only the living can plan. If however he lives, he can have a wide variety of plans for dinner. You need to remember why force is justified under those conditions. It is the same reason force is justified in the conditions I have set up. Indeed, he has not. I'll bite. Please explain exactly what they are determined by, either in your own words, or through a link or quote. I realize Ayn Rand made such a statement, but her statement had a context which yours lack. It is injustice to remove a man's freedom for him having done what was required for his survival. If you do so, you are a threat to me, and to society in general. As such, you must be removed from it. As I am not your slave to provide you with care, this removal does not involve prisons, it involves graveyards. It is my sincere hope that you do not make such a choice at any time in your life.
  7. What you are saying is that man is not a sacrificial animal, unless RIGHTS, as floating abstractions, is the altar on which he is to be sacrificed. Rights have a source. What is it? He in fact is. I do not see this contradiction. Ethics is not based on collective identity. The means you use to support life are secondary. They are not unimportant, but they are not the primary from which they are derived. When the primary conflicts with the secondary, it has primacy over it. Rand herself realized that lifeboat situations required a different standard. She realized that, if you put a gun to a person's head (and that gun does not need to have a human agent behind it), his actions are not in concert with reason, as the term is used by her. If a man with a gun to his head shoots another, she did not believe that he had acted in contradiction to ethics.
  8. Is there a right to enforce this right? Notice that I am not asking who has this right, I'm merely asking if it exists.
  9. Courts. Well they aren't, but within the context of the rape itself, they are. An action due to sickness is not liable to punishment any more than an involuntary nervous response of your muscles. If you are tased by a police officer and that triggers your leg to kick him, you are not commiting assault. Ethics requires choice. A sick person may have its range of choices limited, but he is still responsible for the choices he makes.
  10. What if? How is that using another person's life as a bargaining chip? Accidents are not subject to ethics (and therefore law), choices are subject to ethics (and therefore law). You may incur a debt towards a person by accident, but a debt is not a crime, and a crime is not a debt. Even the non-payment of a debt, in itself, is not a crime. Only if you choose not to pay the debt, are you commiting a crime.
  11. I'm not sure about that, nor do I think it is relevant. I would think a raped baby would be severely traumatized, but I do not have any evidence of it. As a matter of fact, yes. Damages are irrelevant. You cannot calculate the damages caused by rape or any other crime and any attempt to do so is entirely arbitrary and subjective. You can calculate part of the damages objectively, in financial terms, but there are always intangibles involved as well. The reason rapists should be put to death is because they have violated the fundamental law of human society, that of not using another person's life as a bargaining chip to get what they want out of them. It is not because their crime demands the "payment" of their lives, but because they have forfeited the right to them by the choices they have made. Have you ever wondered why there is such a strong link between murder and rape? It's not a coincidence. I think it's fair to say. Rapists are not sick, they are evil. I don't think raping adults is more acceptable. It isn't. I agree with you, the idea that a younger person is somehow more entitled to life is pretty absurd. Good point. The point is that it is not extra punishment.
  12. So you're a sadist? How much would you contribute towards this? I suppose we could work out some sort of "Pay Per View" scheme. A paid TV channel that finances the stay of such monsters in prison, by selling footage of them raping each other (Live!). That might work.
  13. While I am not a member of the global warming cult, for temperatures to drop this or that year has pretty much zero relevance to the global warming debate. Ultimately, global warming is irrelevant, regardless of the theory being correct or incorrect.
  14. Are you against the use of force in self-defense? Are you against the use of force by the state? That does not seem to be the case. It's interesting that you ignored the only question in my post. You are purposefuly evading the fact that yousupport the right to use force in order to preserve one's life. The right to use force is not the right to use force arbitrarily. You put up a strawman when you implied that this was my position. 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.
  15. Who is going to feed him while he is in prison?
×
×
  • Create New...