Jake_Ellison

Why are you being silly, AllMenAreIslands? First off, why are you giving the father a vote on what happens in a woman's body? Are you saying that you're entitled to a child from a woman, just because you had sex with her? Because if I do your math, taking the automatic Yes vote from the clump of cells, adding the Yes vote from you, the poor woman gets outvoted of her own body. What is with this voting nonsense? We are trying to have a discussion on individual rights, ethics etc. from an Objectivist (the philosophy of Ayn Rand) perspective. Where are you getting the voting from? What, in her philosophy, did you interpret to allow for your solution?

You are very confusing. First, you are using "human" as a noun, "a fetus is a human", then you argue the fact that "a fetus is human", but here "human" is an adverb. Later, in "it's just a human fetus" it's an adjective. A woman's liver is "human" too. It doesn't make it "a human". I'll let you think it through, I'm not going to answer this any further. Here's a sixth definition though, if you insist: 6. Tapeworm: a worm and a parasite, which lives inside a body. In light of the above definition, please stop referring to tapeworms that are outside the body. They can't exist in reality, except as dead bodies, quickly decomposing. Human beings on the other hand can and do. In your next argument you bring up the fact that a fetus is human, and in fact use the word "human" constantly, and I have no idea what you mean by that now. I decided to first let you clarify what you mean by "a human", "human" and "its own human" before I answer those points.

I'd love to focus on the difference between a fetus and an infant some more, because that is the basis of your point: you don't see the difference. 1. We do not have test tube babies. We have test-tube embrios, and we have artificial insemination. What we don't have is an artificial womb from which a human comes out, without ever being inside a woman. When you'll point me to that happening, I'll be happy to discuss it (doubt it would change anything though). Until then it's a product of fantasy, which doesn't apply to reality any more than God does. So please, stop with that, for now. 2. That's a matter of opinion, an invalid one at that.(since you're not bringing any knowledge to the table, you're just challenging the scientific fact that a fetus is not the same as a human, without being an actual biologist, qualified to do that, based on new evidence) The key in the "concept of a human" is exactly that it doesn't have a host. That's where objectivism derives all its ethics from: the independence of the individual. A human is not defined by the lump of tissue that forms when the sperm fertilizes the egg, it is defined precisely by its ability to exist independently. Alright, now we are getting at issue number two. What defines a human, metaphysically. You are saying its the fact that they are cognitive: I can of course dispute that very simply, by saying that you're still human when you're sleeping, even though you're not cognitive. Aren't you? Another example would be you in a temporary coma: not cognitive, still human. Why? Because you have the capacity to be cognitive: it can be expected that you'll wake up, without becoming a different entity first. Here's Aristotle to back me up: "Now 'why a thing is itself' is a meaningless inquiry (for—to give meaning to the question 'why'—the fact or the existence of the thing must already be evident—e.g., that the moon is eclipsed—but the fact that a thing is itself is the single reason and the single cause to be given in answer to all such questions as why the man is man, or the musician musical, unless one were to answer, 'because each thing is inseparable from itself, and its being one just meant this.' This, however, is common to all things and is a short and easy way with the question.)" Here's the same thing, interpreted by English speaking scholars: "To have an identity means to have a single identity; an object cannot have two identities. A tree cannot be a telephone, and a dog cannot be a cat. Each entity exists as something specific, its identity is particular, and it cannot exist as something else.An entity can have more than one characteristic, but any characteristic it has is a part of its identity." What you are suggesting is that the characteristic of a 1 year old Albert Einstein (that he is really stupid) changes his identity. That one temporary characteristic, his current stupidity, changes his identity, which is that he is Albert Einstein, with everything that entails, all his characteristics (at one point in his life, he has goofy hair, at one point he is the greatest physicist, at one point he is sleeping and completely inactive). This idea, that his current ability to think or reason- this one characteristic- changes his identity, defies Aristotle's law of identity. Nop, I said no such thing. I said choosing abortion is fine. Abortion is chosen in the first three months, and you're not aborting a functional human, you're aborting a lump of flesh. I think a fetus gets its rights when it has the ability to exist without his mother's body. (I'm not a biologist, that's for them to figure out.) Reconnect it how? You are ignoring reality completely in this sentence. A child is a human being precisely because it doesn't plug into another human being for its existence. It exists independently. Rights are a political issue, they don't change the metaphysical identity of something. We are talking about the parents' responsibility to deal with the political (I guess most people would say social) consequences of their decision to bring a human being, with political rights, into the world.

To me the emotinal cost (to my self-esteem) is the main reason why I avoid deceiving people in my life: I get an immediate feeling of dread (I guess) if I do that to someone close to me, which goes away as soon as I correct myself. Here's a paper on the psychology of how these things affect a person on a subconscious level (Well, the paper is more general than that, I wanted to get a specific quote, from page 10/11-the chapter called "Reason and Emotion", but it's a locked pdf file, so I'll have to link to the whole thing. It's probably for the best, since understanding the context of the whole thing is important): http://www.fireflysun.com/ObjectivistPersp...nPsychology.pdf However, when it comes to lying to a stranger, or to someone I deal with only through business, I guess I am less emotional about that part of my life (or I haven't been at it long enough for this to become automated), so my emotions wouldn't stop me right away: my rational mind does, however.

DrSammyD posted this to a topic (on the Objectivist view on the responsibility of parents) which I believe has been answered fully there. (basically, parents are responsible for their actions- creating a human with no ability to survive means they have to help him survive. Just as creating a dangerous virus makes you responsible for helping everyone to survive against it, if no one has that ability. You created the situation in which a life is in danger, it's your responsibility to sort it out.) However, this post is related to the issue of abortion, so I took the liberty to answer it here. Why is it so hard to understand what is? In other words contemplate the defining characteristics of a thing? 1. A fetus is a part of a woman's body: it receives its nutrition from that body, through her bodily functions, and it could not exist independently of that body. If you take the rest of the woman out of the equation, that fetus stops being what it is, it loses its identity. (just as a kidney or a heart loses its identity in the same event: it goes from being an organ performing a function to being a piece of flesh) Surely, you have to admit that this is what defines a fetus: its dependence on the rest of the woman's body. 2. An infant is, in essence, a man: something which exists independently of other men, capable of learning. ( on its own no less - someone made a point that children learn language on their own for instance) Like every man, it has a right to life, derived from its capacity to reason. (not ability, and not potential: capacity)-by capacity I mean that sometime, in its (independent) life-span it will reason, without ever becoming something else metaphysically.( by joining with something else, or absorbing something else into itself, which would then turn this new thing into a man. - the way a fetus operates) 3. A monkey is a monkey: independent of other monkeys, but with no rights, because it has no capacity to reason. 4. A chair is a chair, because its function is to have men sit on it. 5. A table is a table because its function is to have things kept on it. For instance, you could have an armless chair, which is taller than a coffee-table, and yet one is a chair, the other is a table, as defined by their function. I hope this 4./5. example illustrates measurement omission enough so that you won't reply with the same argument on the difference between a fetus and an infant.

To FeatherFall: I'd say that's a big stretch in both directions: 1. Saying the Japanese chose their targets and valued life. I think they struck at everything they could. We don't know what they would've done had they been given student visas, but I'm pretty sure they would've tried to knock down a few skyscrapers in NY, precisely for the same reason the Islamists did. 2. Terror being a conduit for al Qaeda supporters' sadistic joy. As you said it yourself, it's a tactic of war, and a very effective one. Plus, how would you describe the joy of the Japanese after Pearl Harbor, or the Germans after the invasion of Poland and France? I don't think joy at hurting someone is a rare thing in war. I think (and this is just a personal, pretty rash opinion) that you are looking for rationalization for something that is basically a not yet integrated, relativist view of US foreign affairs and to some extent history, which stuck with you since you learned it in school. Here's a clue I got to that: You should know if it is a good thing or not, there really is no need for guessing. After all, it's a pretty important part of history any knowledgeable person has an opinion on: I think you are in the process of changing your opinion (from it's a bad/grey thing to it's a good thing), hence the hesitation.

Well, you listed a few other cardinal virtues theft would negate, not just honesty. For instance, you are sanctioning theft. By doing that, you are exposing yourself to being treated the same way, and giving up the upper hand(morally) when dealing with (other) thieves. I'd say a value obtained through fraud or theft would cost you your self-esteem, your feeling of security (having to look over your shoulder forever, possibly your social standing etc. The fact is that once you tell a lie, that will haunt until the end of your life: there's a good chance you'll have to either back it up with more deception or be perceived as a liar. A liar expects to get away with it, and in fact sees lying as a shortcut to a goal. Reality is that it's not, there are unforeseen consequences. If you were in fact able to foresee them, see reality as it is, you would not choose to build your life on a lie, even partially. Eventually, that building block will give in and jeopardize the whole building. You are operating under the principle that "Theft is OK." or "Evasion is OK." That becomes your value, or at least you face a choice: accept it as one of your values, or sacrifice your self-esteem, by going against your values. If you want to be convinced on the importance of acting on principle, I suggest Dr. Peikoff's lecture on the ARI website, Registered User's Page (it's called something like "The Importance of Acting on Principle") . I'd say it undermines one's ability to reason for the same reasons it would in a normal situation (explained above), but that doesn't mean it's not justified. In war you are defending your ultimate value, your life, so giving up other virtues temporarily is not a sacrifice. In the games example no one is being deceived: your opponent knows you are withholding information, or misleading. There happens to be an excellent example available on Youtube-it's a short video:

I try not to repeat any one phrase, I think that's a sign of laziness. (I think that was Ayn's main point too with that line, in AS)

Doug Stanhope has a funny bit, in which he says people should be allowed to pass their driver's test drunk, and if they succeed, they should be allowed to drive with the same alcohol level.(In fact he has a bit for pretty much every issue we discuss around here, he's a radical libertarian, I highly recommend him for good comedy) Of course, that's just comedy, I think people's reaction time goes up no matter how well they drive drunk, so they still are a danger. He does however have a good point when he says he can drive better drunk than some old lady can sober: if anything, people get to drive too easily, the tests should be more rigorous. If we look at the history of public vs. private transportation, it's clear that the latter is alway safer. (look at planes for instance) The reason why public roads are so dangerous in the first place is their owner. Judging by the history of air travel vs. public roads and other cases, a private owner would never allow drunk driving, and they would require much tougher tests before giving permission to someone to drive around. So yes, licensing should be required by government, but not in its primary role, but rather as the owner of the road. Of course, they should never own those roads: now that would really save thousands of lives. P.S. Here's a link of Doug's comedy, somewhat on topic, though I couldn't find the specific bit:

First you said someone had to be hurt for there to be a crime, now you're saying there has to be intent for there to be a crime. You are wrong on both counts. A drunk driver who kills someone has no intent, and a sniper who misses causes no damage, yet they are both considered guilty of a crime, and rightfully so. That defeats both your arguments (via reductio ad absurdum) against criminalizing drunk driving. Now, with that issue being settled, if we decide to look at exactly why both those examples are considered crimes, we can actually prove that driving drunk is also a crime.(not just dismantle your arguments) First, attempted murder is prosecuted not because someone intends to harm another, but because they have proven themselves a danger to someone: after all, I can be completely paralyzed from the neck down, making my intentions clear that I want to kill Hulk Hogan, and no one will arrest me. Why? Because despite my intent I am no threat to anyone. Now if I mention a willingness to pay someone to do it for me, I get busted. And that actually makes sense: intent is just thought, perhaps expressed through speech. Big deal. The government's role is to protect (people's rights), not to judge one's thoughts. Now if you look at the other example, killing someone through negligence: there was no intent, and yet you are a criminal. Again, it makes perfect sense: the government protects, and supposed good intentions don't get you off the hook. You're still a criminal, and a danger to others. So why shouldn't any significant danger be tackled by the government? Of course, the actions the government takes have to be proportioned with the danger it is fighting: a serial killer warrants breaking out the death chamber, while someone leaking motor oil over the road only warrants a fine. The only question is, how much danger does someone who is driving drunk pose: I'd say that if he's really drunk, plenty to warrant some prison time, or at least taking away his license.

If we wouldn't arrest every drug dealer and user we can get our hands on, the prison system would be doing just fine. It is of course expensive to keep someone in secure imprisonment, but I don't see how we could significantly change that. I doubt having them moved around, or having a lot of material shipped daily in and out of secure prisons, just to have them perform menial tasks, would even be cost effective, let alone pay for everything. I want to also add, for what its worth, that I remember thinking Joe Arpaio is a scumbag, when I heard him interviewed. The one thing I remember especially infuriated me is his attitude toward the people serving drug related sentences. I wish I had a source, for more details, but I don't remember where it was.

Yep. This is the world we live in, and this is what is now acceptable to Americans. There's no point in obsessing about it though, thre's no way we can change the situation this way.

Here's one: "As we explain in the Stop Masturbation Program, shukra is the food of the body’s hormonal and immune system." Shukra, also known as Venus, seems to be the Hindu guru of the Asuras.(those are gods btw.) Apparently, he has something to do with the planet Venus-hence the name. All very scientific, of course. Wow, I guess there's no need to go into the part where they insist on calling straight sex "normal". That's a relief, because it would've been a week argument. Well, compared to a direct reference to a mythical creature, anyway.

Well, the next logical questions are: 1. Does he think free will is part of human nature? -that would of course disprove the above statement. It would also be easier to prove the existence of free will than to disprove this statement. 2. Ask him if by natural state he means "human nature" or "derived from human nature and reality". If he does, well then human nature (and reality) applies to the tyrant just as it does to the serf. Or do we have two different species, Aryan and Semitic? If so, why isn't there a clear distinction between the two? Why did the only attempt to create such a distinction end in a burned out bunker in Berlin, with crazy Addie boy feeding his dog a cyanide pill and then blowing his own brains out, all over the the new wallpaper? He's right about one thing, there is a "tradition of thought" on the matter.

Yes, that is exactly what he is referring to, and that was clear the second he used the words "legitimate targets". That is terminology that pretty much became commonplace because of that very document. I chose to not mention it either (precisely because I don't want the discussion sidetracked-I doulbt I would agree with Zip in the insuing discussion), so I tried to steer the conversation back toward ethics, and not consider the Geneva Convention at all. Here's why it's wrong to argue with the Geneva Convention in hand, the way Zip is trying to: it is a document we signed for one reason, to protect our soldiers and all civilians. Once a side refuses to adhere to it (as both the Japanese and the Islamists did), it no longer applies as a moral compass. Not even to us -since it no longer serves its purpose-, and certainly not to what I was talking about (the enemy's morality), and which Zip wanted to contradict me on. If the Japanese were in fact abiding by that Convention, I would agree that they would not be equally as evil as the Islamists. They would still be pretty evil (they are still fighting against good, for an evil ideology, but at least they have a shred of honor), and the difference shouldn't really influence our actions, but at least I would admit there's a point to bringing it up: it would be pertinent to the discussion. However, they didn't, so Zip was wrong in bringing it up. It really doesn't matter which parts the Islamists ignore, and which the Japanese: there is no honor, so there is no reason to differentiate morally. P.S. [to clarify] When I said "I consider killing American soldiers and civilians equally evil", I should be applying the word "evil" to the attacker(killer), not the act itself. (Otherwise it doesn't make as much sense. I hope that lack of precision didn't cause any confusion.)

They couldn't wait a few more hours? Now no one cares about the stupid factory.

I consider post number 12 (among others), in this very topic, to be an excellent summary of what my explanation would be. I didn't actually post that explanation, because I assumed you read that post, along with all the others in the topic, before you decided to opine. I believe the post I mentioned addresses your points on agnostics directly, so feel free to consider it my (now explicit) explanation. P.S. Don't get the impression that I was dismissing your ideas in my previous answer. I just chose not to repeat points that were already made. Normally, when a subject is unexplored, you would get much more detailed replies.

Legitimate? So in your view it's OK for someone to be blowing up our soldiers in Iraq? You don't see that as immoral? Because that's exactly what the word legitimate means, if you apply it to morality. (as you clearly are) [edit] Let me just add my opinion: it's only legitimate to target a human being in self defense. For that enemy to be in the right, you would have to be the one initializing force: then, anything he does to kill you would be legitimate, and I would be siding with him. Until then, I'm with you pal, like it or not. Here's a compact answer, inspired by the show House, that would sum up everything I said: "If you think you're a legitimate target, take out your gun and kill yourself."

It's not clear to me, so how about you enlighten me. What are the main psychological and moral differences between a Japanese and an Islamist suicide bomber? By the way I consider killing American soldiers and civilians equally evil. If you believe otherwise please provide arguments. Not that the Japanese wouldn't have just as easily attacked skyscrapers if they were within their reach.

Right now I think the best shows are "Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles" and for comedy probably the "Sarah Silverman Program". I used to love "The Wire" -probably the best show ever on American TV, and Dexter was fun for the first two sesons.

I noticed Mr Fitzgerald's running this. He certainly proved himself while investigating Cheney and prosecuting Scooter Libby, so it's safe to say he'll also go after Obama if the evidence takes him there. Do you think he'll find anything substantial?

So you want to ban alcohol altogether. Or firearms. Which one is it? By the way, I know plenty of gun-owners who get drunk frequently. Strangely, in spite of your theory, I have never seen them pick up their guns while they were drunk. In fact they tend to make it a point to never do that, and are able to stick to that principle even when they are unable to keep their balance. I can tell you that I feel perfectly comfortable hanging out at their homes, knowing that they are drunk and have access to loaded guns, and I am secure in the knowledge that they would never touch those weapons while drunk, unless they are in immediate danger. In fact I'll go further, and say that I haven't witnessed any of my friends do anything irrational or destructive drunk, that they normally wouldn't approve of. They may get a lot braver as the evening progresses, but somehow they manage to keep control no matter how much they drink. (I'll grant you, I don't hang out with any psychopaths) I'd say that proves that you are wrong about drunkenness causing rational people to become irrational. I would however love to hear what, in your opinion, are the specific processes that alcohol puts in motion, which cause you to stop being able to make basic rational choices, such as whether to play with your weapons or not. It is my understanding that alcohol generally puts you into a sami coma long before it causes you to lose that ability.

You are so very wrong, of course, but you do have good intentions. I don't believe though that the best way to learn he error of your ways is on an online forum: you should check out Objectivist Epistemology( Introduction to Obj. Epist., by Rand, OPAR by Peikoff), and Peikoff's DIM theory to really understand the difference between an agnostic and an atheist. Speaking of which, does anyone know where I could find stuff on DIM theory? (I listened to his lectures on the ARI page back when they were available for free, so I won't order those, I'm looking for a recommendation for something in written form. )

If that land was ours, we would probably have already turned it into a natural reserve, or have found some other bogus reason to preserve the sand untouched, as we have done with the oil fields that are ours. Thank God those lands are outside the Global Warming ideologues' reach, and at least someone is willing to drill for the oil and sell it to us. It would be nice though if Saudi Arabia was just a bigger version of Norway.

Soooooooo? The fact that they commit suicide while driving the plane into a solid object makes them less fanatical than the islamists who drove their planes into targets because the targets were different? You're drifting off topic here, my friend. Soon you'll be saying that the difference is that these enemies are a shade browner, so that's why we have to treat them differently than we have been treating all our enemies since the start of the Republic. Why not tell us instead why the Queen was driven out of Hamburg again? Even that's a better argument than trying to downplay organized suicide attacks. Let me remind you of what we are discussing: I said we should engage our enemies the same way we've been treating them (or rather our grandparents have been treating them), namely by seeking to destroy them as fast as possible. You on the other hand suggested that this is a bad idea, since look what happened the last time: people are feeling animosity, and the Queen was received with some hostility in Hamburg (at an unspecified time in the past, the way this hostility was manifested is also unclear). Then you also suggested that this time the enemy is different, and your only claim in support of that was that back then the enemy wasn't "in the habit" of becoming suicide bombers. That was proven false of course, via the straight forward method of providing a counter-example: the hundreds of kamikaze pilots who did exactly that, become suicide bombers. Now would be a good time for you to beef up your list of arguments, in favor of both your claims: 1. our actions in WW2 were counter-productive. 2. today we face a different enemy-one that won't respond well to disproportionate, crushing violence.