L-C
-
Posts
238 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by L-C
-
-
As a bilingual speaker, I've been proficient in English for years. But only since becoming an Objectivist have I realized how much difference there is between various languages. Not just the words, but the meaning of words, even those who are completely analogous.
A good example is the word justice and its Swedish equivalent. Now, we have a word for justice but it's not the same at all. Ours is effectively and most of the time a synonym with equality. Consider the mentality and ideology of the Swedish people and you'll see what this does to the concept of justice. Apart from archaic-sounding tales of "courtroom justice", imagine if the word didn't exist at all, and that the only word you had access to to express it is "fair", as in "The Fairness Doctrine". Interesting, isn't it?
Now look at the effects of the fool. How does the Swedish government treat criminals? Victims? Businessmen?
Perhaps speakers of other languages have stories like this of their own.
-
I see democracy as harmful (where it is yet another form of "cracy") or meaningless. A government that has to uphold individual rights doesn't need democracy, since all rights are set in stone and any laws that are added must conform to those.
When it comes to electing representatives, I don't see why the number of people who agree on something has any bearing on its legitimacy. A "lineage" of Objectivist scholars who specialize in various political fields would probably be a better idea.
-
Would you like to talk about math and physics with me? If you have a question I will try to answer it. If you have something new and important to say, I am all ears.
Got any advice that would help with passing my Linear Algebra course?
And I agree, discussing religion and the supernatural is a waste of time. Just forget all about it.
-
Using nuclear weapons is only a deterrent to those countries who believe their interests lie in the real world. In a nation of 'martyrs' it would actually encourage retaliation rather than discourage it. Our enemy has an identity and refusing to accept that it has one not only compromises victory, but makes it impossible.
Threatening to use, yes. The Soviets wanted to prevail on Earth, however wrong they were. Islamists want to win in death. That's why they'll have to be used, not just waved around.
-
L-C, I'm pretty sure I was good starting material, despite the faith I had when younger. I'm sure I'm not the only one on this forum who was raised in a religious family.
It's a good thing that you shed your religious beliefs. At most I'd point them to Rand's work and let them fail or succeed.
What do you think 'starting material' is? If they're already completely rational, then they're not starting down that road, are they? And if you won't argue with religious people about the existence of a god, then whom would you argue with?I wouldn't argue about the existence of a god, that debate is already settled for me.
-
And in fact it would not be a crime. It is not a crime to not testify when ordered to do so. It is contempt of court, which also will land you in jail. It's a subtle distinction, but a principled one.
Are you talking "is" or "ought"? If the latter, I use "crime" to mean anything that would make the government use force against you. If crime is only a subset of that category, then place it under the "super class" instead, whatever that's called.
-
My experiences from every little situation with micro-anarchism (lack of rules in a social setting) have taught me that in the abscence of authority, it's always the peaceful who suffer.
-
Altruism != charity, so no. It is perfectly possible for charity not to be sacrificial for the one doing it.
-
Personally I wouldn't waste my time arguing with someone who's so far away from reason as to be religious. At least give me some decent starting material.
-
Betsy commented on this, Ifat. She said that (quoting from memory) "A good woman is attracted to a man's character". Not that looks don't matter, but not as much as they do to men.
Which I think is true. Men go gaga over looks more than women, in my experience. As for myself, how do I put this, I have an "affinity" for attractive faces. It's like a trained supertaster or a highly gifted and tone-sensitive music listener. It matters so much to me that it would do no one justice for me to pursue a woman who won't make me want to stare like an idiot.
Would that basic body structure and beauty (not kemptness, which anyone can master) were determined by moral character. Pure fantasy, of course. As it is, it's a genetic lottery and in a way, it's a shame that it so heavily affects my (and that of many others) choice of romantic partner.
-
I don't think it should be illegal not to report a crime or potential crime or to refuse to testify, and I'm wondering why it should be.
The divisor between crime and non-crime is the initiation of force. If no such thing is present, it cannot be a crime. It if it, is must be a crime.
-
Government has the monopoly on retaliatory (and pre-emptive) force. Important distinction.
-
No, a man should not have a say.
And a man should also not have to pay for the baby if the woman decides to keep it, but the man doesn't.
This is my view. The corollary of responsibility is choice. Either the man can choose, or he is not responsible. A contract, most commonly marriage, would make his obligation to provide for the child the default.
-
Government doesn't deal in options. Our government school and healthcare systems are anything but options for non-millionaires.
-
If execution is limited to just those cases where there is no possibility of error, then the argument against execution goes away
I would have no problem with the death penalty if it's only used in cases where guilt has been 100% proven and there is zero possibility of error. Which basically means people like Hussein.
-
This quote by Branden mirrors my own sentiments about the subject:
What is the Objectivist stand on capital punishment?There are grounds for debate -- though not out of sympathy or pity for murderers.
If it were possible to by fully and irrevocably certain, beyond any possibility of error, that a man were guilty, then capital punishment for murder would be appropriate and just. But men are not infallible; juries make mistakes; that is the problem. There have been instances recorded where all the available evidence pointed overwhelmingly to a man's guilt, and the man was convicted, and then subsequently discovered to be innocent. It is the possibility of executing an innocent man that raises doubts about the legal advisability of capital punishment. It is preferable to sentence ten murderers to life imprisonment, rather than sentence one innocent man to death.
It would be different if the choice were between death and release, but it's not. Life in prison offers virtually the same benefits (especially under a proper legal/prison system in LFC) but without the inevitable horror of execution of innocents.
Don't rush to the death penalty as a solution because the current prison system operates on a revolving door principle. The consequence of innocents being executed is a ridiculous price to pay for whatever marginal benefits that would be gained by a murderer being killed rather than locked up forever.
-
It's interesting having access to two languages. Swedish has no word for "fewest", so instead the progression goes "few, fewer, smallest". The last word being the superlative of both size and number.
On the other hand, English as no verb for "doing" a name as in "I *verb* Leonard". Instead you have to be someone, or have a name.
There's lots of other differences. A nefarious one is the fact that there's no real equivalent to "justice" in Swedish. The word in question is a de facto synonym with "equality". To imagine it, picture the word justice replaced by fairness, as defined by egalitarianism.
-
The lie is in the evasion, irrationality and force employed, not the "lie" that was told to protect against them.
-
I also don't believe you should waste your time being "selfish for other people". I think this goes against being rationally self interested.
Not an invalid sentiment by any means, but the thing I'm describing can be a remarkably isolated trait in some people. Even my dad, who is very honest most of the time does it to some extent , and although not an Objectivist, I consider him a "winner" in life in general.
-
Among all the things I've noticed since becoming an Objectivist, here's one:
The unselfishness of others, particularly friends or family, can get very annoying. Where they'll say yes to things you know they'd rather not do (at the moment), such as visits, favors, events etc.
So you end up having to be selfish "for" them, in order to prevent trouble later on as they become bitter because they self-sacrificed, or feel guilty because they didn't.
A lot of people don't ever want to you ask for anything for this very reason, since both yes and no are answers that will upset them. Sacrifice - or guilt. Altruism sure is a mess.
It's refreshing talking to Objectivists. They'll give you a no when they really can't spare the time whatever the situation concerns, and the honesty between the two of you acts to prevent the resentment that can otherwise build up between "friends" who treat each other with less respect for their respective lives and resources, rather than more.
-
Not sure what you mean. I was referring to not letting the "bastards" bring you down, even if you're sensitive. The good deserves better than to succumb to its antagonists.
-
Prosperity is not the motive of altruism.
-
The moral issue is quite simple: moral responsibility lies with the aggressors who launched the initial attack. Those initiators of force made necessary the use of coercive tactics against people who have not yet been legally proven to be themselves the initiators of force.
Does this give the government of the attacked country a carte blanche on the use of force? If they attack us, can we then torture them beyond what might be necessary for our protection, or utilize torture even if another method would do the job?
-
Awesome revenge fantasy. Justice is a value, and justice is done. Poetically.
Justice is the best life for the good and the non-existence of the evil. Sadism is not good.
Democracy
in Questions about Objectivism
Posted
A system where people can make the government initiate force. A variant of the "cracy" general model where you can put X in front of it to determine who makes the government initiate force.
Appointment by a committee of Objectivist scholars stemming from a lineage (not genetic) of such with its origins from the country's founding. But in an Objectivist country it probably wouldn't matter much.
Only if the populace is Objectivist, which isn't something that should be depended upon.