Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ex_banana-eater

  1. Can someone please provide me some examples of why it actively hurts me if I pirate copyrighted material? I've had the urge to do so lately, but I need to stay in full focus and realize why it would actively harm me. However, I can only seem to see the upsides or really vague principles like "you'll become a parasite."
  2. I wonder what should qualify as a dangerous infection. I think it should be contextual--you probably should get prosecuted for knowingly having the swine flu and then knowingly walking into a hospital ward of sick babies.
  3. You can look up the definition anywhere. I think your suspicions are wrong. Preemptive force typically means to attack an enemy in the face of an imminent attack. The classic case is Israel in the 6 Day War.
  4. That is like asking whether brick and mortar degrees are taken seriously and competitive. Some are, some aren't: a degree from Harvard is usually esteemed more than one from DeVry. In my experience going to an accredited distance education university, I generally have to do more work than my previous brick and mortar university--and am graded less leniently. If I was an employer, I would probably be unimpressed if someone had a BA or BSc and would judge them based on their interview, experience, and references, seeing as almost anyone can party for four years and end up with a degree. To me, someone who worked as an accountant during the day and did a distance education degree by night would be a better candidate than a student who went to a brick and mortar university requiring him to take classes in the day, which caused him to have an unrelated job at night.
  5. Also, the principle saying, "People can initiate force against others based on their whims at the time."
  6. The idea that speech can negatively effect the morale, morality, or opinions of a country has been used to make any type of speech illegal.
  7. If I contract any type of disease and someone else gets it (someone who had the opportunity to get a vaccine), then why would I be at fault? By the way this government handling of the vaccines is ridiculous. Massachusetts is mandating that the vaccine must be taken by law, and other states are doing the same for those who work for the government. This, for a flu that is milder than the last two seasonal flus according to CDC epidemiology. There's also epidemiological evidence that children under 2 don't benefit from flu vaccines, nor do people over 70, yet the government is encouraging older people to get them. I hate the whole idea of the government being involved in my health, and it should be kept to a minimum, even though I recognize the government may have a right to quarantine people at certain times. Where do we draw the line? I certainly do not think it should be a flu. Especially this particular flu, since previous flu strains have killed many more people. My girlfriend's brother had to be quarantined and he missed his midterms and ability to work on important projects at architecture school--he had to stay at home and play video games while he recovered from a mild sickness.
  8. There is certainly a situation in which you should use pre-emptive force. Those people that walk right into your face, with their nose right next to yours, have invaded your space so greatly and are showing that they are such an extreme risk to you, you need to defend yourself from them. If you just let them hit you first, there is really no possibility that you could defend that swing. Good boxers keep people on the outside, they know that it's really hard to defend a punch if someone closes the space.
  9. What do I have a "collective responsibility" for?
  10. To your assertion that virtue ethics is a "bogus" classification? You're preaching to the choir.
  11. It doesn't matter, I just wanted to know if you were familiar with what was written in the Virtue of Selfishness and Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. Tell me if you agree with the following statements, and if you don't, what your objections are to them: And: Would you say a dictatorship is a system of government, or not? To qualify as a system of ethics, the system does not have to be based on a rational standard of value. Why would it? I have exact definitions though--and they're based on subsuming all of the concretes instead of throwing them out. You don't have a concept if you only have one concrete. I agree that definitions and classification are important, that's why I am using proper ones.
  12. You need to work on your literacy skills. I never said I was going to educate North Koreans, and I never said I was going to go to the DPRK (although I am allowed there and know people who've gone, so this is also wrong). Do you always let your imagination run so wild?
  13. I said that I would consider it a major success. Just like any intellectual at ARI would consider it a major success if the United States became capitalist in their lifetime. I did not say any more than that. That was not at all the correct way to say that it was too lofty and unrealistic. You accused me of "being just like Obama" and then illustrated an immoral action. You are re-writing history; you never said that Obama's goals were lofty and unrealistic in the beginning. You said this: Nothing that I want to do is in any way similar to this. No, I did not; since I did not say anything was my ultimate goal other than being an intellectual the best I can (action-orientated goal). In that sense, nothing "falls short of the goal." I did, however, say I would consider the fall of the North as a major success, compared to little successes (such as influencing the present South Korean government to stop giving aid to the North). This is you, again, trying to add something to what I said. Words have actual meanings and you better look at them closely and carefully before you add more to what I say than I have. If you are unsure, why not ask for clarification instead of making some kind of pronouncement? Why do you continue calling it a "goal"? Show me where I said it was a "thought" or a "goal." Brush up on your reading skills. That kind of success is not unrealistic. Give me a reason why it is unrealistic in my lifetime. His basic points did not address anything I said. He made strawman criticisms about what he thoughto my means of operating would be. Show me where I said this? Where? WHERE? I never said he knew more about Korea than me. I was implying that I, as a person who has studied Korea intimately, know a little more than was illustrated in his snide comment here: Of course I know that. How condescending, considering any idiot knows what he wrote.
  14. They are ethical systems because they are codes of values for people to live by. Do you disagree with Ayn Rand and all the other Objectivist philosophers who characterize certain positions like "Kant's ethics" as ethics? Irrelevant to the question at hand. If we were to follow this kind of reasoning, then the only type of "philosophy" would be Objectivism. That just isn't true--there are a lot of philosophies.
  15. No, that's your idea. As I said, you projected on me something that I didn't write. I do not think it is "arrogant nonsense" to become a professor and writer specializing in international relations with North Korea and then try to educate people in South Korea, the US, or Japan, to change their dealings and relations with the country. Oh, okay, good reason. Like I said, I'm sure you make a lot of friends! I did not receive a polite answer from anyone.
  16. Is this how you generally behave to get your point across? You make snide, condescending comments that belittle people? 1. Don't assume you know more than me about the Korean peninsula. Out of us two, who has studied at university there? Who is enrolling in a Masters in Korean studies? Who speaks Korean? 2. Don't project your imaginary crap onto me. Nobody said I'm going to "educate North Koreans." You dreamed that up, and then made a rude reply in response to your dream. 3. Good luck with life if you act condescending toward people before you have any knowledge of them. You're closing a lot of doors for yourself.
  17. This doesn't make the classification "bogus." The classification is real because it divides between actual ethical systems. Just because those systems are wrong does not mean that they cannot be categorized.
  18. The goal does not imply that I was going to undertake the immoral means that you presented. You said "I sounded like..." some person who would take some horrible means to reaching that goal, when I never sounded like that at all. That was a flutter of your imagination that you projected onto me. You're using "now" like I am reversing my position. I've never changed my position. All you did was project something that wasn't there. It "sounded" like it was whatever you are imagining, because you were projecting. I said I would feel an immense degree of success if what I envisioned ever became the case. I did not say that is an ultimate career goal (ultimate career goals are process orientated; you don't just throw your hands up and quit working after creating a good building).
  19. I was referring to your comparing me with Obama in how I would operate. That was a complete jump of the gun and an emotional projection onto me. That wasn't my "goal" with respect to my career. As an Objectivist my ultimate career goal is process orientated--it's an action. I don't know what you mean by "very young" or "political arena." If you could please give me some kind of more specific examples that would help. Please note that I'm fairly solidified in my interests now--or at least my general direction.
  20. I don't think I sound like Obama. I do think, however, that you are jumping to a conclusion without sufficient evidence to support that conclusion. The Objectivist position on judgement is that you evaluate based on facts (not your emotional projections onto me) before coming to a conclusion. Little successes are certainly enough. For example, a lot of people working at ARI are rightfully skeptical that we will have a free society in our lifetimes, but see little successes as possible (even if that is just temporarily holding back the flood of the barbarians).
  21. Why would identifying virtue ethics be a bogus classification?
  22. Objectivist ethics qualify as virtue ethics. They certainly don't qualify as consequentialist or deontological. Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics, The Virtuous Egoist by Tara Smith, published by Cambridge University Press. The book seems to be written in a way that positions Ayn Rand's ethics into the current debate about virtue ethics. She does reference some of the modern virtue ethicists like Hursthouse.
  23. Smart and moral people in America generally have the ability to finance their education, or rise up from poverty because they live in a free economic system. That could be one major difference that the OP may have accounted for. There is also the fact that there are probably millions of (potentially) genius minds that will be completely wasted in some countries due to their governments and culture. Those people have much less of a "chance" because of the climate of those countries, so the OP could be causing more genius and productivity to be released into the world, and in America. I won't and probably never will know most Americans either. If they're outside of your state, they're probably just as much of a stranger and someone outside your continent.
  24. I've thought about this a bit because it is related to my future career choice. I really want to see the 24 million people in North Korea free, with a united peninsula under one liberal government. That would really feel like a major "success" for me if I educated people enough to make major policy decisions that led to the fall of the North. The whole issue of the politics and international relations on the Korean peninsula interests me, even though I wasn't born there and the people are thousands of miles away, as someone here put it.
  25. She gave a solution while writing about infinity in Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology: An arithmetical sequence extends into infinity, without implying that infinity actually exists; such extension means only that whatever number of units does exist, it is to be included in the same sequence. -ITOE p 22. http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/infinity.html
  • Create New...