Craig24

I'm confused. This about the obligation a mother has to a child she's given birth to right? If that's the case then this isn't an accident. This is intentional. People don't give birth accidentally.

In other words you believe that Amnesty International is being bribed in some way to keep their mouth shut about any persecution or genocide? Is that your claim? If so, can you prove that?

link to Casualties of the Russo-Ukrainian War Why on earth can't you provide links this way?? Weren't you advised to do this in an earlier post? What exactly am I looking for? Proof of the claim "Russo-Ukrainians" were persecuted by the Urkrainian govt? What am I missing?

Oh please! This looks like a big giant dodge to me. If you think there's been ongoing persecution against those pesky Russo-Ukrainians just prove it already.

Only the pregnant woman can give birth. Pregnancy can't be transferred to someone else. Parental obligations can be transferred. Anyone can take care of a baby. And Boydstun's link from an earlier post seems to show that there's never a shortage of willing adoptive parents.

More like they have a moral Right to keep or use or dispose of the ZEF as if it were their property although, technically, it isn't really property but it is a part of her body and her body does belong to her.

It would have to be that the unborn can use the woman's body by Right to remain in existence. That changes the meaning of what a Right is from "a sanction to independent action" to "a sanction to full physical dependency". I never understood the claim that because a woman brought the ZEF into existence she has a legal obligation to give birth.

I'm guessing they differentiate between a broken bone and a living thing (the unborn). Fixing a broken bone doesn't result in the death of a living thing, abortion does. That's the prolife view.

I thought I would create a venn diagram to describe the mainstream vs Objectivist view of selfishness. There is disagreement on what selfishness is and some agreement as well as disagreement on what is selfish. Of course a portion of the mainstream does support capitalism but does not define it correctly or support for the right reasons.

In some cases a self destructive action might be called selfish but don't altruists actually agree with us on great variety of what's actually selfish while disagreeing with us on the morality? The profit motive comes to mind.

What I'm seeing here is that you want a single word that covers the false part of the conventional package deal meaning of selfishness. Let me try something: Selfishness = acting to benefit yourself through indifference, negligence or malice towards others. Is there one single word to subsume the red part? .... You present quite a challenge.

Then we must disagree on what is necessary. You draw the line at vaccines? Do you favor mandating vaccines for everyone? What should the penalty be for not vaccinating? A simple fine? Denial of services? No entry to stadiums, parks, buildings? Termination of employment? Armed soldiers going door to door giving the jab? The firing squad? ... Excuse my sense humor.

Ok. Vaccinating doesn't help either. The CDC recommends masking even if vaccinated because you can still be contagious. If you are going to throw it out there that these measures are not full proof then the only way not to initiate force by your standard is to permanently isolate from others. Not reasonable.

I see. So you can't know if you're contagious. Testing doesn't exist. Masking and distancing isn't an option. It's vaccinate or risk killing others. Binary option fallacy.

You aren't a shooter unless you are contagious.

Which people are saying the looting is wrong? I'm not a corporation getting welfare so I can't be a hypocrite on this one.

Thank you. This is potentially great news.

What makes you say that?

My action? I'm stuck on a train that will kill 1 person or 5 people no matter what I do. I can only minimize the casualties.

To the extent that liberty is established and protected, something resembling "social order" is a by product. That's as far as I will go with it.

What will make you happier. Having the ability to climb a mountain or just being at the top of it?

False dichotomy. This assumes men have to choose between one or the other. Why can't he be both? Something else occurs to me: If you make enough money to be a good provider it means that you are productive. Productiveness (one of the seven major Objectivist virtues) is an "alpha" quality. What's "beta" about it?

You are making my point for me. Thanks.

Is that what you made? A mere assertion? I think you know that no one is obligated to disprove a mere assertion. There is an invisible pink elephant in my bedroom. Can you disprove that assertion? Should you have to?

This presupposes that a family has to be sustained. Why is that necessary?