Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

jparagons

Regulars
  • Posts

    6
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Previous Fields

  • Relationship status
    Single
  • State (US/Canadian)
    NewYork
  • Country
    United States
  • Copyright
    Public Domain

jparagons's Achievements

Novice

Novice (2/7)

0

Reputation

  1. Regarding individual self-defense (bumping this thread because many other topics get replies pointing to previous threads when a question has been touched upon already), where does behavior (including physical actions) cross the line and constitute something to justify violent retaliation? Implicit verbal threats ("You'll be sorry if you don't get out of here right now!")? Explicit ones ("I'm gonna kick your ass!")? Physical actions that are meant to harass/intimidate, but not injure -- like shoving or poking someone in the chest hard? I think if it's something like on a sidewalk or in a parking lot, trying to walk away is clearly justified, but what about somewhere that you have a right and purpose to be, like a store or bar? What if the person follows you and continues their behavior but still doesn't throw a punch? A little more difficult, but if they are following you and continuing to intimidate you I think it's much more clear that they intend to continue to escalate, and preemptive force could be warranted.
  2. Here's a related question: If the number of innocents saved by executing murderers (through deterrence and future killings of guards, inmates with lesser crimes, etc from said murderers) is greater than the number of innocents killed, does that override the fact that innocents were killed?
  3. Well, another issue in people not "liking to hear it" is that it's inconsistent with their own experiences and all the other experiences they've heard about -- plus, it's fairly uncommon for someone to claim that sexuality is a choice while not simultaneously prattling on about the homosexual agenda and other religious-right nonsense. bluecherry, have you considered the possibility that you simply weren't aware of how you felt until you focused on it? I know I personally can remember things I thought or felt back around the age of entering puberty which I should have realized the meaning of, but didn't at the time.
  4. True, but on average people who are physically fit are also mentally healthy, and if I remember correctly, the evidence points towards the physical fitness being the cause.
  5. A sentiment I commonly see among fellow Objectivists is that any given individual in a country is responsible for the actions of the government of that country. For example, one might say that it is acceptable to target civilians specifically if their government acts aggressively to the US (or does so indirectly, by sponsoring terrorism). What is the reasoning behind this? Let's say, for example, some random peasant named Ivan in the old Soviet Union. The totalitarian government uses force to suppress dissent, prevent emigration, etc. The threat of force is used to prevent him from making any moral choices. As Rand would say, morality ends where a gun begins. How, then, can this person be held morally responsible, especially given that the actions he'd be held responsible for weren't even conducted by him? Even if (for example), Ivan helped to manufacture bombs, shouldn't the initiator of force (the person who made Ivan make those bombs in the first place) be held responsible exclusively? More importantly, however, is the fact that as far as I can tell, this seems to be based on a collectivist line of reasoning: Ivan happens to be in the same arbitrary group as Stalin (geographical location or citizenship), therefore Ivan is as bad a person as Stalin/responsible for what Stalin did. I can't think of any other reasoning that supports it. What other arguments are there? "If we make it clear that we're holding civilians responsible for the actions of a dictator that's attacked us, maybe they'll do our work for us and get rid of him"? Could we also then be justified--even compelled--to attack neighboring countries for the same purpose?
  6. For those who've praised Xenogears: is there anything in the storyline that's pro-life/pro-reason/etc? In the only part I can remember, they detailed how some new resource was discovered and the populace was separated into (using the game's terms) "haves" and "have-nots", which is just asininely socialist. IIRC correctly it was on the second disk, but that game was basically one big dialog with little bits of gameplay every couple hours or so. As an aside, I'd come to some of the same conclusions about FF7 as you, Tryptonique, but yours were much more in-depth and articulate.
×
×
  • Create New...