Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Trebor

Regulars
  • Content Count

    924
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

Everything posted by Trebor

  1. There are two issues, it seems. One is her own well-being and dealing with what happened in a manner so that it does not negatively impact her life, further. The second is a matter of justice for the crimes committed against your friend. I would highly recommend contacting Dr. Michael J. Hurd, a psychologist and fan of Objectivism, and asking his advice on both matters - I don't know (it's doubtful) that he could give you any legal advice, but perhaps he could help you to understand the significance to your friend's well-being of pursuing legal justice after so many years. You can read m
  2. Speaking of a 'handshake' protocol, I've heard it put that the handshake comes from reaching out to another person with one's weapon hand, without one's weapon of course, as a gesture of openness or friendship, etc., of placing oneself in a trusting and defenseless (somewhat) relationship with the other person. A sign or signal of goodwill. The same could be said of the bow or bowing in greeting in cultures where bowing is common - by bowing one puts oneself into a vulnerable position as a show of friendship or friendliness and trust. (Not to be confused with bowing to an enemy in submissio
  3. Jennifer, you may find Dr. George Reisman's article, "Education and the Racist Road to Barbarism," to be of some help in understanding the issue. As well, here's an interview of Dr. Reisman: "A Cure for Racism."
  4. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then....
  5. In his podcast, Episode 64, on June 1, 2009, Dr. Peikoff was asked: 03:50: "'Do you see value in having Objectivist churches? By church here I mean an institution that will serve a similar role for Objectivist as traditional churches do for religious adherents in the sense of providing spiritual and emotional fuel to the soul by providing a means to connect in person with others who are also pro-reason.'" Listen here on Dr. Peikoff's site for his response.
  6. Amy Peikoff has announced (February 17, 2012): See the rest of her post on her blog (Don't Let It Go): On Leonard Peikoff’s brief podcast discussion of the Kobe Bryant case Miss Peikoff ends her note with:
  7. Thank you, Mr. Miovas, for posting the link to Checking Premises (I was unaware of the site before you mentioned it), as well as to this latest post by Mr. Joyce, "Subjectivist Objectivists." I, for one, certainly like the idea behind Checking Premises, and I'm grateful to the principals and associates of the site for creating it.
  8. I know that it's hard to believe, but the "UN moves to promote a 'world tax'"
  9. The question, to which Dr. Peikoff replied in his podcast, Episode 202, of February 6, 2012: "Is it rape if you obtain sex through fraudulent means? For example a man does not love a woman but tells her he does so that she will have sex with him. Is this the moral equivalent of rape?" Listen directly on Dr. Peikoff's site here (Duration: 02:45) I've transcribed his answer in full, hopefully without error:
  10. The Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights: Happy Birthday Ayn Rand--Why Are You Still So Misunderstood. Thursday, February 2, 2012, by Don Watkins (Fox News Opinion) "On February 2, Ayn Rand's birthday, it's clear that she has helped many people see that something has gone wrong in America. But they haven't yet understood the source of the problem or Rand's radical solution. This was an exclusive article written for Fox News Opinion."
  11. In his podcast, Dr. Peikoff has discussed Miss Rand's definition of "capitalism" a couple of times. His comments might be of some help and interest: Episode 24 - August 04, 2008 (unofficial index): 14:20: "'In Ayn Rand's definition of "capitalism," she says that all property is privately owned. Is that really true? For example, would the buildings and land that house the government, police force, and military be privately owned?'" Listen directly here (on Dr. Peikoff's site). Episode 91 - December 7, 2009 (unofficial index): 13:37: "'Ayn Rand's definition of capitalism is no
  12. [my bold] In his podcast, Episode 10 — March 10, 2008, Dr. Peikoff responded to the question: 05:14: [A metaphysical question.] "'What is existence? Existence is an attribute possessed by existence, and we directly perceive existence.' (...) 'The fact that I can't define "existence" bothers me. Is "existence" then kind of a misleading concept?'" His response to the first part is especially relevant to what you have said, that existence is a characteristic or property [an attribute] of everything that exists. You can listen to his reply to that question on his website directly here.
  13. No, we are not discussing honesty as being true to others, and since you insist on equivocating between honesty and telling the truth, evading the distinction, I don't think there's much point in continuing the discussion. Since you think that I am being dishonest, engaged in self-deception, why in the world would you want to continue any discussion at all with me anyway? Regardless, even if you do see such a reason, I do not.
  14. The distinction is valid. The principle is not that lying to an enemy is always good or right or what one should do, nor is the principle that one should never lie to an enemy, that it is always bad or wrong to do so. The principle at issue is honesty, not whether or not one should or should not lie in particular instances. One should, on principle, always be honest, but honesty is not a matter of always telling the truth. The principle of honesty is that one should always be true to reality, or, put negatively, one should never evade relevant facts. When confronted by an enemy, dependin
  15. A differentiation in details, but not in principle. What does (right and) wrong even mean, Objectively speaking? I'm curious, are you very familiar with Objectivism? Is it your view that morality is irrelevant? (I don't get the point of your question.) This all started with your question, I believe, as to whether or not it is moral to lie to an enemy. By saying that one has the moral right to lie, in self-defense, to someone who is acting to violate one's rights, that does not mean that one's only moral option is to lie, nor that one is morally obligated to lie. It just means t
  16. I basically agree with you on this. The same issue (and phenomena) is at play with all sorts of preferences, I believe, such as career choices, for instance, or sports activities that one enjoys, etc. An orientation (of personal preferences) that flows from one's positive and negative life experiences, especially while young, and especially one's thinking and conclusions (correct or not) drawn on those experiences, the significant ones.
  17. If I understand you correctly, you're saying that Miss Rand considered homosexuality to be immoral (your point as to whether she was referring to some innate sexual orientation or to some homosexual acts taken) most likely based upon the psychiatric view (science of the day) that homosexuality was a mental illness? Mental illness equals immorality? Edit: You say, which is perhaps significant to my question, "This science claimed (somewhat contradictory) that homosexuality was not only a mental disorder but also a choice." What do you mean by "somewhat contradictory"? How is it contrad
  18. The issue is one of principle. One can trust the taxman (or the extortionist/kidnapper/blackmailer) only to the extent they do what they say they will do. With the taxman, sure, he is controlled by law, but in principle, and in time if the principle is not rejected, what he demands by force will grow, legally. It's the issue about a mixed economy breeding more and more controls as it is not a stable economy, because of the principles that have been accepted and rejected. Individual rights have been rejected in lieu of some other primary, and although there may still remain areas of de facto re
  19. "Trustworthy extortionist"? Isn't that an oxymoron? "[O]ut to make an easy buck at your expense" is a form of destruction of your life and values, incidental or not. The taxman, the extortionist/kidnapper/blackmailer are acting by choice, not by accident, against your life and values. The man who claims a right to take anything from you by initiating force, in principles claims the right to take everything from you. Is it ethical to treat someone as a enemy without telling them? Why do you ask? The answer, in my view, would depend on the context.
  20. I don't understand why you think that they are different, in the relevant sense. Sure, pay your taxes ("the taxman can be bought off at the demanded ransom") or comply with the extortionist/kidnapper/blackmailer (the extortionist/kidnapper/blackmailer can be bought off at their demanded price). What's the relevant difference? Why not "dump the taxman and a extortionist/kidnapper/blackmailer into the same bucket"? An enemy is someone who is actively out to destroy one's life or values, including one's pursuit of one's values.
  21. Okay, thank you, I'll look it up. Out of curiosity, can you say that it does answer my questions as to the criteria and evidence on homosexuality as/as not a mental illness?
  22. If it was a matter of science, I would be interested to know just what the scientific evidence and criteria was for having held that homosexuality was a mental illness and what the scientific evidence and criteria was for the change of view.
  23. Saw this mentioned by Timothy Sandefur ("Freespace") as "Now, this really is straight out of Atlas Shrugged": "Dems propose 'Reasonable Profits Board' to regulate oil company profits" By Pete Kasperowicz - 01/19/12 10:20 AM ET But of course the Democrats are worried about higher gas prices!
×
×
  • Create New...