-
Posts
240 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Sir Andrew
-
-
It should be said, though, that war inherently challenges civilizational- particularly Western- premises of individuality and individualism. When we go to war, we accept that we might die for a cause that will ultimately outlive us but which may require the cessation of our existence to complete.
If an individual makes the choice to join in a war effort, how does that challenge individuality? The cause may not outlive him. America successfully defeated Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Imperialist Japan all in the timespan of 5 years.
-
None of these replies takes in to consideration the fact that Hamas may have a justifiable reason for launching rockets as a means to defend themselves against the actions of Israel.
Spookthegod
More Intelligent than the average surfer
Is that why they signed a treaty specifically stipulating the end to rocket fire, and then broke it?
-
Seeing a highway full of cars as far as the eye can see with buildings on both sides. I get a sense of awe and the feeling that nothing is impossible.
-
Amanda Tapping of Stargate fame. I love her eyes and her hair.
-
Ben Barnes. His face is well-proportioned. I like his eyes.
-
Someone else opens up a rehab clinic and they can rationally choose to sign themselves in.
That's assuming they're in a state of mind that views their addiction as a problem.
-
I understand it's a way to make money, but....
Isn't that what a business is supposed to do? A business has no "responsibility" to pay American works an artificially inflated wage.
-
Drug dealers have their right to sell their property, and you have your right to not buy any.
And what happens when someone becomes addicted to that drug and are incapable of rationally rejecting it?
-
I was interested to find this thread because it relates to an ethics problem I'm trying to resolve at the minute - a question that came up during a debate on the Gaza conflict on another forum. I'm arguing with someone who basically believes that Israel has no right to defend itself when it knows that innocent Palestinians will be killed as a result.
That's not a very precise concept. The questions should be "Is it possible to defend ourselves without collateral damage?" and "Have we used proper restraint and done everything prudent to minimize collateral damage?". Furthermore, that argument already asks and answers the question "Are all civilians innocent?", which isn't necessarily true in a situation where militants are embedded in the civilian population.
My answer is yes, you fire the missile and that the blame for the death of the innocent family lies squarely at the feet of the terrorist who forced you to make a decision between your family and the other one. Forced into making that choice, it would be immoral to sacrifice your own family for the sake of the other one. You should not feel any guilt whatsoever.True, you can still feel the loss but the loss was justified.
Let's assume that in this scenario, the deaths of those innocent children would definitely make the relevant organs available for yours and that the transplant would definitely save her life. Should you do the deed and transfer the blame on the hit and run driver who forced you into this situation in the first place? In some ways, the essentials of the situation mirror that of the missile situation. Someone has forced you into deciding whether or not to kill innocent lives in order to save the life or lives of your own loved ones.That is not an issue of collateral damage, that is flat-out murder. The drunk driver has already gone, and even then, if you were in a car accident, the threat of the drunk driver has passed.
-
This one is probably my favourite:
Pure CapitalismYou have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull.
-
If I don't pay for porn, why should my taxes?
-
That is a great one! It illustrates the details of the bail out in as crystal clear a way as I've ever seen.
I don't know how I missed this a month ago, but thanks!
-
I had an argument with a friend about laissez faire capitalism. I argued for it, stating that it is the most logical system to deal with others, limited the evils of government, gave man the right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness et cetera. He argued, as most liberals do, that economic rights didn't matter because not everyone has access to the knowledge of the market, so other people can "screw" each other over (ex. the subprime mortgages). Therefore, he stated, the only thing that people can trust is the government. How do I respond?
Ask him if he thinks the government is made of unbending robots, and since this is false, how you can trust people who have the power to "screw you over" with force instead of money.
-
What's right is not determined by what's easy.
That's certainly true, but what I was getting at was that there would be no difference between my using a pdf found on the internet or hand-typing the entire speech to search through if I needed it. In both instances, I have the original text for my use.
-
By doing this, rather than buying the searchable CD, you encourage exactly what I was talking about in the "Being consistent" thread. You should never trade principles for convenience. It is exactly in the name of such "convenience" that others wish that your property be taken and used to fulfill their desires. (I am of course talking about the use of taxation to quickly amass funds for public services.)
Well, I bought a brand new copy of Atlas Shrugged. I could sit there and type the entirety of Galt's speech manually by hand to keep for my own reference, but it's easier to search in a PDF file that already exists. Is there a contradiction there?
-
If you do a simple google search for the titles plus "pdf", there are a few results. I use them in case I want to find a quote, so I can search through Galt's speech or whatever without having to read the skim the whole thing.
-
An artist's work is always the result of his worldview, even when he's using parody or satire (whose point is to reject an opponent's world view in a comedic fashion.)
-
Romanticism is about choosing, and your choice meaning something. And the point is, what Jack achieves doesn't mean anything.
How is stopping a nuclear bomb from blowing up in Los Angeles not mean anything? (Not to mention the other feats he's accomplished)
And he lives constantly with the guilt of what he has done. Whether or not one should feel guilt for the things Jack must do, the fact is that it is an unchallenged premise throughout the whole series that what Jack is doing is morally wrong, or at least very 'grey'. And so even if we couldn't call it entirely malevolent, it is far from 'Romantic', in that Jack's actions and choices are always 'wrong' or at least 'not the best' or 'not good'.According to whom?
So I guess, if you want to put it that way, Jack doesn't so much live in a malevolent universe, so much as an impotent one, which is roughly the same thing: namely that one's choices and actions ultimately have little meaning, no matter how much they might matter in the heat of the moment.Again, how is stopping a nuclear bomb something that 'ultimately has little meaning'?
-
I"m not sure what is meant. Could be referring to the inauguration. Four days late though to match the title of the Rand play "Night Of January 16th".
Snaps, I forgot about that. I think my mind was thinking Bush would still be President for a few more years with Obama as the President-elect
-
I predict the Cardinals will continue their win to the Super Bowl, but will be stopped by the unstoppable Pittsburgh Steelers.
-
What I find intruiging is the amount of times afetr winning a debate I was confronted with the phrase 'Well, thats just like, your opinion man'. I thought about this a bit and what kind of mind would make such a statement in the face of defeat. Correct me if I'm wrong but a person that holds the view that all knowledge is uncertain and relative, that no-one can ever be sure that something is true, and that all knowledge in essence just an opinion, must have been influenced to some degree by Kantian philosophy?
It's possible, although the statement is as much an evasion as a statement of philosophy.
I've never understood why someone who asserts that there is no such thing as certainty or knowledge would even bother debating (except to try and disarm the person who claims certainty). Is one floating abstraction supposed to trump the other, let alone someone who may base their arguments on certainty and reality?
-
I've done the same thing with downloaded music. I've deleted what I don't want and bought what I still listen to. (In a bizarre twist of irony, the bootleg version of a CD I have sounds better than the CD I bought, so I kept it)
-
I wonder if the choice of that particular day was a calculated decision?
Why so? What am I missing?
-
Set your DVRs, the Fountainhead will be playing on Turner Classic Movies at 7:30AM January 20th.
Laissez-faire
in Productivity
Posted · Edited by Sir Andrew
I would buy one of those shirts. If he does not decide to make it, would you mind if I whipped one up?