Sir Andrew
-
Posts
240 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Sir Andrew
-
-
Can you be more specific as to how you would act?
Separate the two.
I do see the point about the dog being property and how that gives him the right to do whatever he pleases with it, but what if the sight/sound of seeing the dog be beaten causes me pain?
Question though: If a pet is property, then is the use of force moral in criminalizing bestiality?
-
Just because an animal does not have the capacity for rational thought (and therefore does not have 'rights' in the proper sense of the term) doesn't mean that an animal is incapable of feeling pain.
Assuming you saw someone "torturing" an animal (and in your hypothetical, that you have some means of determining it to be "senseless", as opposed to defending himself from the dog's attacks), I would act to stop the person.
-
What is especially annoying is when you run into someone who believes that magic rocks can cure cancer or that praying will make the paraplegic walk again. The only thing more annoying is when these same people point to alleged instances where this worked and yet have absolutely no scientific proof that it worked - and then proceed to damn (or dismiss) science
That's because prayer is the mystic's way of omnipotence without the risk of looking like a fool. If by chance or for an unknown reason, what they wanted does happen, it's because some divinity willed it from their prayer. If it doesn't happen, then their divinity merely "didn't will it to be done".
-
“If you now deduct the workers’ wages and the other production costs from the exchange-value, there will always be a certain sum left over. This sum was what Marx called profit. In other words, the capitalist pockets a value that was actually created by the worker. That is what is meant by exploitation.”
At that point I would ask "Then why does the worker need the capitalist? Why doesn't he take his productive self elsewhere and produce for himself?"
-
I still like a suggestion I heard once which was to make it a 3-part movie. It's a risk, but if it's done well, that movie would gross a ridiculous amount of money.
I'd picture a two-parter. Part 1 is an action thriller, Part 2 is Drama/Action. Part 1, which would be called "Atlas Shrugged", is Dagny searching for John Galt, "The Destroyer", and so it's a hero finding the villain. Then it ends with a cliffhanger of her chasing him in the plane and crashing, and it ends with him saying "Hello, Ms. Taggart, I'm John Galt." Part Two, called "The Strike", begins with her at Galt's Gulch, and the rest of the novel, with the capture and torture of Galt, their love, the end of society, and the new beginning.
Dang, maybe I should write this.
-
...but I'm wondering...how did the rights to A.S. ever get sold in the first place?????????????? It seems totally out of character for the folks at the Ayn Rand Center to let something like this happen voluntarily.
According to sources on Wikipedia, Leonard Peikoff sold the rights (including full creative control, which was a drastic mistake) for $1 million in the early 90's to some Objectivist investor.
They were supposed to have made progress on the script, turning it from a two-parter to a 127 minute movie, and then the Director left for some reason. (I've always toyed with the idea of writing the first 30 minutes/pages and sending it to them for kicks)
Personally, I think a mini-series would be much better for the novel, in terms of depth, but we'll see.
-
Wow, those are amazing.
-
Since we're speaking of fitness, anyone have any suggestions on an easy way to drop some weight in my stomach and bulk up the abs? My stomach is the one thing about my body I don't like
-
You would be surprised how many states have tried or are trying to secede since the Civil War. There is a movement in Texas to secede and there is also a movement in northern Michigan to secede.
Actually, with Texas, it doesn't surprise me. We already act like we're better than the rest of the country, lol.
-
When it comes to my unanswered proposition that Ayn Rand's Jewish background might have played some role in the development of Objectivism's most basic premises.
I've read nothing about her family's religious background, merely that they were ethnically Jewish. I don't think I've ever seen her mention it either.
Now, Ayn Rand's most basic proposition is that man is, can be, and ought to be, a heroe -the best he or she can be- . Her novels are pure idolatry, and she made an idol of herself.Have you even read her books? I don't know what this point has to do with any of your other arguments, but nevertheless, the proper term is "romantic". "Idolatry" is a religious concept, which accepts the premise that there is one exclusive god.
I ask myself whether Obectivism was structured, in a dyalectic way, upon Monotheism. i.e. her theory of rational selfishness might not have taken that form wasn't from a previous and prevailing theory of mystical altruism.Grammar aside, it cannot have been "taken" from a mystical altruism because the foundational premises of the two are diametrically opposed (A is A versus A is-not A).
-
Um, guys... We're like outnumbered hundreds of thousands to one, and while I might like those odds it's far more likely that these retards will try to figure out a spiritual lobotomy to "cure" us than the other way round.
I'm living a zombie movie.
-
I never got how a rep system worked, although I think simply posting would be the best way to get known around these parts.
And I empathize with the girl, I know how her predicament. I came into Christianity when I was about 12 or 13, yet there was something always about it that I couldn't put my finger on, there was a part of my mind that felt uneasy about it, but I always silenced it. (Strangely enough, I almost never read my bible while I was part of the faith.)
I picked up The Fountainhead a month ago, which put the issues on the forefront of my mind, and then Atlas Shrugged gave me a complete break from it.
-
Oh, I just read Leonard Peikoff's "My Thirty Years With Ayn Rand" in Voice of Reason which is specifically aimed at portraying who she was and targets the Brandens' accounts. Thought I'd pass that along.
-
Joker - purely nihilistic, action for no value at all, lacking any moral justification, insane yet intelligent and functional, which is an epistemological contradiction
He wasn't entirely nihilistic. He started the movie with the intention of bringing the mob back to its glory days by killing Batman, until he has his "change of heart", and decides that he doesn't want to kill Batman and starts bringing anarchy to the city.
-
If defeating Hamas means alienating the only 2 Arab states with which Israel has normal diplomatic ties, I think the costs outweigh the benefits.
So in effect, you're saying the Israeli state should sacrifice its own citizens and immediate security for the diplomatic ties of two nations, that continued attacks from the Gaza strip and deaths of Israelis is an acceptable cost?
Allies who raise an issue every time you defend yourself are not allies. If the defeat of an acknowledged group of militants "alienates moderate Arab allies", what on earth makes them "allies", or even "moderate" if they defend militants? Because they sign a piece of paper?
-
PS: The football example was only meant to demonstrate the difference in balance of power. The parallels you just drew don't really apply, considering that the real world of international relations isn't as simple as Side A vs. Side B. It looks more like Side A with moral and financial support from allies vs. Side B with moral and financial support from its own allies + Side B proxies that are allowed to participate in the same game against you at the same time as side B vs potential Sides C-F which each participate in the game according to their own interests and seek to prevent either Sides A or B from scoring a touchdown.
That's true, only as long as Side A cares more about appeasing Sides B-F than scoring a touchdown.
In my opinion, they're getting as much done while Bush still leads Side C and they'll see where they stand when Obama takes office.
-
I thought Hong Kong was beautiful in that brief flyover in The Dark Knight. Yes, I realize a 2 second establishing shot isn't much to go by, but I liked it.
-
I love the Nick Gaetano covers. This is my favorite one:
I'm slowly saving enough money to buy prints of his works from the books as well.
-
Hannity has one of the most annoying voices I've ever heard. I goes through my head like a drill to the temple.
He's like a dog chasing his own tail. It makes him sound like he's a race announcer.
-
Well, it won't survive on its own. Without care, a baby will die. Even after a month or more of experience, a baby isn't gonna be able to make food let alone just figure out locomotion to get food.
Of course not, it requires nourishment like any other baby. With a baby delivered in an unviable state, it doesn't matter how much nourishment you give it, it is unable to sustain its own life. But if you give nourishment to a baby delivered in a viable state, it will metabolize the food and sustain its own life. That is precisely what differentiates an unviable and viable fetus, and what gives the viable fetus rights. The moment when it no longer requires the mother's reproductive system to survive is the moment we're no longer dealing with a woman's right to her own body and ability to control her own reproductive system. Yes, the viable fetus is still in the mother's reproductive system, but it can be delivered at any time should she no longer wish to be pregnant.
Not at all. It's just the way it is. Making a fire can result in a burn. If you don't recognize that, well, then that's just irresponsible. I didn't say sex was a crime either. Big jump on your thought.Well yes, the cause-and-effect is true, but individual responsibility is not relevant to the issue of abortion. Should a woman do the rational thing and use birth control to minimize the chance of pregnancy if she doesn't want it? Absolutely. But the entire institution of abortion exists to reverse those consequences, and the question is whether it is moral to do so. We have already answered that question.
-
Update: I did a little digging, and I think it was probably Auberon Herbert. Even if it weren't him in particular, his ideas demonstrate my point about UK libertarians having an origin in time well before Miss Rand's discoveries.
We're not talking about the UK. We're talking about the US. Much different political scene.
And an "origin in time before Miss Rand" is meaningless; libertarianism is not a full-fledged philosophy like Objectivism.
-
Why is that lie necessary? By what reasoning is a society based on that lie a proper, healthy one, worthy of being chosen as the ideal, the ultimate purpose of a hero?
Who says that society is ideal? The movie makes it clear that Gotham's still in the pits, but is supposed to be on the road to recovery.
-
Ok, so my understanding is that rights apply only to beings that capable of volitional thought under Rand's ideology. She feels that there is some window where the embryo is just a mass of cells that has no rights.
I place that at the point of viability, because at that point, the fetus can be delivered prematurely and survive on its own.
Does individual responsibility of the individuals in the act have any bearing on this? While a mother has individual rights, the act of most intercourse is an act of volition. Certainly, the result of intercourse can be conception while it might or might not be its intent.You make it sound like a crime. The so-called "pro-lifer" Jesus freaks think this but rarely say it out loud: "You had sex, so you deserve to be pregnant!"
-
This nutjob is at it again. Pope decries selfishness in economic crisis.
We can all be miserable together!
Animal rights
in Ethics
Posted
Alright, I understand the argument now.