Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About semm

  • Rank

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Not Specified
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified

Recent Profile Visitors

1169 profile views
  1. semm


    Danisal, so you are saying that her view on the morality homosexuality is an application of ethics, but that her view on the morality of abortion is not? Could you please make clear for the the distinction?
  2. semm


    Hey Ash, Just to get the unfortunate bit out of the way first. The one and only part of your post that I was referring to as being disingenuous was your question asking whether I ever heard of Ayn Rand. I was not using the refernce to that question to attack the substance of any of your actual points in any way. It upset me a little bit that you said it, but we'll just forget about it now and concider it water under the bridge. I would be interested in hearing more about your disiinction between consciousness and conceptual consciousness, could you provide me with a reference if y
  3. semm


    Hey Daniel, you bring up an interesting point that several other people have mentioned; let me see if I can find a new way of arguing against your position. Ayn Rand herself said that her philosphy was a 'coherent whole' and also that if you rejected one part, then you have rejected it in it's entirety. I dont at the moment have a refernce available but if you have some doubt as to whether or not she said this perhaps I can dig it up. So this would mean that if I was in disagreement with Rand's philosophical) view on abortion, or homorsexuality or anything else, then I could no longer
  4. semm


    RE: Now I'm really confused. I will come bakc to your first part tomorrow most likely since about to go to sleep now but I just wanted to get the seocnd part out of the way. I know you dont agree with what you are saying, not even a little bit. By your reasoning no two 'true' Objectivists could at any point disagree on anything. If they did that would mean that one of them was not a 'true Objectivist.' Firstly, I am unsure that even this is taken to be true in Objectivism. But, for the moment though, I'll accept your premise. This would imply a few things actually: First, it would
  5. semm


    Ryan, I'd be happy to respond to your points. Prove a fetus has rights: A fetus is a human being. A Human being has rights. Therefore a fetus has rights. There is the proof. Now if you want to argue that a fetus is not in fact a human being then it's up to you to provide the proof, or change your definition of a human being. The fetus is part of a human's normal development. The only thing which separates them is a span of time. Unlikely we will ever know when consciousness begins: You are right. I should ahve said. There is no way to know if a being is conscious. Logic dic
  6. semm


    A Few more replies: RationalEgoist: Current laws are base don anything but science. If I may quote Buckamn in the majority opinion of RoeVWade (noticed this at reason.com). We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer. The court fully admits to its position merely being one of compromise. I would say any such law is by
  7. semm


    I will address each of your points in turn. Daniel: If you have such an objective measure for consiousness it would indeed be a major breakthrough in cognitive science, not to mention AI. There is no known way of taking a being, and being able to say with certainty, 'This being possess coniousness (or a 'rational faculty if you prefer)' or 'This being is not conscious' The line IS fuzzy, right now as a poitn fo fact. The smartest monkeys have in many respects greater analytical problem solving skills than many severely retarted human beings, but most people would aregue that the several
  8. semm


    Note: Please familiarize yourself with the Objectivist position on abortion before participating on this thread. A good starting point is the Abortion article on the Objectivism Wiki. - GC I find the views of certain members of The ARI, such as Peikoff and Brook, on the topic of absortion to not be rational. I will brefly here present my pro-life, objectivist standpoint and invite anyone who cares to to try and find a contradiction in my arguement. The views of Peikoff, and likely many other objectivists, is that people are only endowned withe rights of a human beings after they
  • Create New...