Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Grant

Regulars
  • Posts

    154
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Grant

  1. [Mod's note: merged with a previous thread. - sN]

     

     

    Hey guys

    A friend of mine has approached me with a slight conundrum he's been having and I now too am having. We both acknowledge that animals have no rights. That said, if we saw an individual senselessly torturing their dog/cat/whatever in the street, we (and many others I assume) would feel the need to use force to get the owner to stop, assuming a verbal threat was of no use. In doing this, we have obviously infringed upon the rights of a human being who has infringed upon no ones rights and consequently we are now liable for criminal charges. At the same time, I struggle to understand how any human being can stand by and watch an act of this nature take place.

    Would appreciate any reasonable thoughts on the matter.
    Thanks.

  2. EDIT: Wikipedia tells me that the writers were the same for both films, so I don't know what the deal was there. But the directors were different, and I'm not really familiar with either. I vaguely remember liking the Bond movie Goldeneye, which Casino Royale's director also did.

    The script was rushed to meet Writer's Strike deadline.

  3. 'Objectivistic'? Oh, and those images suck.

    Edit: Wow. Just read that thread. Proof right there as to why individuals like Kelley (etc.) who claim Objectivism is an open system, are evil. You end up with faith-junkies like Johnfloyd declaring they're advocates of Objectivism, the philosophy of Reason.

  4. It isn't really political, I wouldn't say.

    Moore himself is an Anarchist, but he really isn't putting a lot of viewpoints and moralizations in the story.

    I can't say much without giving away the ending or plot points. Read the comic.

    Ok, I was just wondering whether there's a good chance that I'll walk out of the movie feeling sick :)

    After hearing that Moore is an Anarchist and that Rorschach was based upon an Objectivist character, I figured there may have been a good chance of that.

  5. Voting is not an act of sanction. It is an action to help put one candidate in office and not the other. It is an action which determines who takes the power between the choices you are faced with.

    I do not sanction any of the candidates I have been voting for here in Canada. I have no influence personally over the choices I am given.

    People abstain in every election. Politicians are not worried about those who do because you are only relevant if you can prevending them from winning.

    Message can only be understood when you speak out which you can do regardless of how you vote. Change is not something that is accomplished through using political elections "to send a philosophical message". It can only happen through intellectual activism, through speaking out with good arguments and loud enough. You won't influence the future selection of candidates by not voting.

    Firstly, I'm not saying that you'll bring about change by abstaining, but I don't think it makes sense to willfully participate in an election where the only 2 options you're given are equally horrid. On a far lesser scale, it's like choosing between Stalin and Pol Pot. How the hell do you do it? At what stage do you say "Screw this. These people aren't worthy of my vote."? And if for instance, 1,000,000 people chose to abstain, I'm pretty sure the candidates would take that into account. After all, they're looking for as many votes as possible.

    In Canada, it's far easier to pick your candidate, because as much as there's no great choices there either, there's an obvious lesser evil as far as I can tell (Conservatives over all the liberal parties). This US election is not the same. There's no clear-cut lesser evil. Both have the potential to be just as horrendous. I can't see a good reason for picking one over the other. It's a pure gamble either way.

  6. We're faced by two worthless candidates. If Obama is an empty suit, McCain is an empty old bag. Neither offers a bright peg on which to hang a hat of hope. Nothing, from either. Far from thinking that any Objectivist who does not vote/abstain as I do is significantly different from me, I see it just the opposite: the choices are so bad that one can just as easily vote for one as the other, or abstain completely.

    But, if you do vote for one, you give sanction to a system that offers you 2 attrocious choices. At least if more people abstain, they can see that what they're offering is not what people want.

    I believe that a candidate should have to earn their votes. I don't think Obama or McCain have earned theirs in the slightest.

    I like what Peikoff had to say about the candidates in his most recent podcast. Pretty much summed it up.

  7. I'm unsure who's in the right here. Is the woman entitled to give back the football since it was continually thrown on her property without her consent? I mean I can understand the argument that if a stranger drove his car onto your driveway, I doubt somebody would argue that you have the right to take possession of his car even though he was tresspassing. Hmm... any takers?

    Yeh, no way the ol' hag can keep the ball. But, I'm guessing she has the right to call the cops who'll end up issuing the 'tresspassers' a warning (or a fine).

×
×
  • Create New...