Senator

Well, I am sure that there must be some definition out there which say that if I walk around admiring the butterflies and I happen to glimpse someone who is paid by some goverment, and has some problem with someone else. And then have my brains blown off, that is "not murder". But you know what? I fail to see the difference. My life has been snuffed out of me, you get to look at black for all eternity in one case, you get to look at black for all eternity on the other, even for having done NOTHING.

History had war, slavery, torture, religion and bad singing. Sufficient is to say I never, EVER define my morality with "how it was known" in history. In an absolute morality, a planet full of murderers is not something that it is okay now, it's a planet full of murderers. For the same reasons 1 individual can kill 10.000 if those 10.000 demand his life. If you believe that he can't, then you believe in the right of the majority to take the life of someone if it so pleases. My kisses to Mao. If you believe that he can, then clearly you believe that there are some absolute rights which a majority can't infringe. Well, if it is 10.000, a continent, or a planet doesn't matter then.

Consequences of INACTIONS? Wait, wait wait, what was that again? Now you have to move aka work/life for someone as well or else be killed? And the inaction in the example if I remember was seeing somebody? So I guess everyone should walk around with closed eyes now or something? You have an obligation to kill the terrorist. You do not have the right to kill someone else, simply because you like to. Of cource your life and convenience is not the concern of said other who btw has an obligation to immediately save his life from people like you. The funny thing is that if the civilians had started shooting at the troops then, you would label them terrorist. In other words you want to have the right to kill someone innocent but then not be killed. Basically to have their lives "not count" you know. The right to take the life of another for convenience, that's the only morality I see in that argument there. Collectivist, greater good rhetoric *yawn* In fact, come to think about it, soldier is a taxpayer paid, civil servant job last time I checked. Boy, leeching an existance out of the wages of others AND demanding the good to kill innocents and not have it count. Anything else? A Baily's with ice perhaps? Actually, I'd say it's very distinguishable. And I will saw you how, watch One guy commits the crime. The other guy doesn't. See? Isn't everything much easier if you only look at the objective and only universe? Crime are done by Criminals. So far so good. Crimes are NOT done by people who DON'T actually do them. There some seem to have a problem. If someone is a criminal, you have the right to do anything you like to him (proportionally) so far so good. If the guy isn't a criminal, you don't have the right over a single hair of his life. Pacifist, would be someone unwilling to kill another. I am. (willing) Ergo, we must be led to the conclusion that what differentiates me is something ELSE other than will to kill, something which I would define as, not being incapable of shouldering that responsibility, rather not demanding the lack of it. You willingly kill someone who did not want initiate force against you. You are a killer.

Basically the big mistake of the guy is confusing "ideal capitalism" with how some "so called" capitalists act out there. To be a capitalist, or objectivist etc, does not (hopefully) imply to be a fanboy of every big company or act of big company out there. If Blackwater kills 20 people for example, just because its a "private company" they aren't capitalists in my view. If a company damps 60 tonnes of heavy metals into the river (which it does not own) that's nothing more than an act of vandalism to all the people's bodies and properties it will pollute, that's not capitalism in my view, and so on. If a big land developer, send a couple of thugs and burned someone's house in order to buy it, that's not capitalism in my view, even if it is done by "a big land developer". It's one thing to be a capitalist. Another thing to be a fanboy. Usually then, most people talking about the evil acts of capitalism will attribute acts to it, that were never "capitalistic" in the first place.

And that responcibility, when you willingly initiate the action of blowing the other guy's brains out because you don't like him "seeing you" is yours. Do we really have to trace back the ruler and see which was the last brain that effected its path? Oh, I see. It's my/his bad luck. Is that "luck" thing some kind of objective substance or spiritual bullshit? Luck, is when someone dies from an unconcious act of the universe. When there is a conciousness behind, it is responcible. You killed it, you are the one who willingly and conciously did not concider his life to be his. The rights of others? Is that something like the greater good or something? Ironically, I would write the exact, same, sentance. Me, oh I wouldn't protect your rights don't worry about that, but see the good side, I wouldn't violate them either. Yes, I would say that the U.S. should not target him with a bomb. And the pilot should absolutely not drop the bomb. Again, your convenience does NOT grand you a right over other people's lives. That's the beginning of everything concerning collectivist thinking then. Because thats what you are saying there. You are lazy. You want to kill someone fast, and so you ignore the lives of others because you think its tough doing it the other way. You are basically using the lives of others for you convenience a.k.a have the others "live" for you. Apparently someone is the owner of his life, only until the point you feel its "easier" to kill him in order to get some other objective. I have found those who kill civilians, to be lazy murderers. Occasionally, they might justify and themselves, if they are selfish as "I did for me", if they are altruistic "I did it for the public", in either case, leeches. I don't care about anyones wars, I don't see any special case called "war" I only see individuals, some of them in groups. When one of the tries or does kill another that did not initiate force against him, that's a murderer. I don't care about nations or flags, I don't care if the US as a collective would have won or lost. I only care about myself, and murderers. You would kill said self, you are a murderer.

I think thats an excuse to transfer responsibility to someone else, other than the brain that is actually in the objective universe, pardon me the pun, blowing the civilian's and sovereign individual's brains out, that would be you. Your success, is not the OTHER individual's problem. HIS life however, IS his. You see I have a problem with those scenarios. I don't place myself in the position of the soldier. I place myself in the position of a plain innocent individual. And I would hate, really hate, to be dead, because I "saw" someone.

We already have a huge genetic limitation, and that is in separating between "men" and "women" categories because men have genetic muscle mass advantages etc. Sports don't have any divine reason they "should" be happening, other than adhering to their limitations (eg, when the ball is out, it's out). And those limitations, be it their rules, or the shape of those that play them can be, anything.

I'd say it is absolutely fair play. You own your genes, you own your body, you can do anything you want to it, including suicide, gay sex, having your face uncovered, your hair long, and your lipids and calcium formations in any amount and cartesian coordinates you like. When I am not an objectivist, I am a transhumanist btw and I look forward to an age where the body is the least bio-3d printed at the spot at a WILL's desire. Not only changing your hair or skin colour but asking yourself "will I go out as a woman or man today?"

Other people might be. However, until that civilian enacts some kind of positively proven use of force against you, eg, shooting at you, he as a Individual is innocent. I don't care what other collectivist label (race, religion, geographic coordinates) you put on it to remove that personhood and put some form of collective guilt on it.

I don't. Frankly, other days I define as natural even skyscrapers, since humans are parts of nature, therefore everything we do is "natural". My use of natural there is a completely subjective decision concerning sports only, based on a certain aesthetic standard of my own. In that one that there is a certain beauty when someone competes with a body made of his own DNA and secreted hormones, and has eaten only food little modified from its natural state. And someone who has injected himself with a ton of synthesized hormones. The same way I wouldn't like in a game of chess between two humans someone to be using a hidden computer even if "the computer is a creation of the mind, therefore an extension of its natural ability etc etc" Failing to have this opinion shared, I'd say that at least I don't like the dishonesty that in a sport with the regulation to not use a number of substances (even if one of them was orange juice), some do.

I am disgusted that A) is even an "objectivist" option. Sorry, but you do not have yourself the right to help yourself on others peoples lives, I dont find it that tough a concept to understand. I don't care if you "need" or "have to" or "your life depends on" someone else's. That's like saying that if I have an illness, which by killing someone will get cured, I can do so. Thievery and looting. Unless the PERSON (not collectivist lazy classification like race, religion or territory) has enacted an objective act of aggression against you, eg, shooting at you, he is innocent.

Be-cause in sports you supposedly go to see humans competing with their natural abilities, showing the best they can do. Personally I would prefer it if sports split into two kinds: An "au naturale" version, where drugs would be extremely illegal And a version where someone is free to get the best performance any way he can, including tons of life threatening even (by willing consent of cource) drugs, implants, nanotech and whatever else they wish.