Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

bluecherry

Regulars
  • Content Count

    1165
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    21

Everything posted by bluecherry

  1. "Regarding the survival of the species, I quoted the Objectivist from the article that admits the family is a vital social institution. Would you agree?" Maybe once upon a time? Now, not really. I think we'd be fine treating genetic relations as nothing special beyond a medical context and even when it comes to something like adoption where one is raised in a stable, but not genetics-based environment, I think everybody would manage fine as adults even if they didn't go out of their way to maintain contact with people they lived with growing up. This isn't to say that anybody necessarily must
  2. You are attempting to criticize the ethical component of Objectivism because you are saying it is anti-family. However, first you really need to define what constitutes family and why it would be bad to be anti-family. Family is just a genetic fact. Objectivism is not against recognizing the existence of a basic fact like like that. Objectivism also isn't looking to eradicate humanity. We supporters of the philosophy like humanity's potential even I'd say. So Objectivism isn't anti-family in the sense of wanting to end all genetic connections. It takes you a little time to get to it, but it se
  3. Nobody being honest ever restates things? I restate things often because either 1) I'm showing exactly what it is I'm responding to in particular 2) I may be rewording things in an attempt specifically to make sure that it is clear what is being said, either that I have gotten what somebody meant correctly or that somebody else sees what is entailed by what they said exactly as they said it and then they can either embrace and defend this entailed stuff or reword and clarify what they actually meant if this entailed stuff is a result of not wording things well.
  4. A very good question. You seemed to believe I was making stuff up though rather than looking right back at your post. Maybe the fact that I was not making stuff up means it could actually merit an attempt at addressing the contents perhaps, hmm?
  5. This isn't finding out what you believe from a stranger, it's what you said yourself. "While females learn how to dress and make up, which is not a particularly useful skill in the workplace, males practice leadership and team work through sports, learn musical instruments, work on buying and maintaining their first car, learn how to use and program computers, etc., etc., " I wasn't speculating.
  6. You, Nicky, have a hilarious misconception of time usage. You believe that females are not doing things like sports, instruments, work, etc because they are just TOO BUSY getting their hair and make up and clothes and such done. I'll put aside the fact that females definitely do these things. While it may be rather time consuming getting something done like hair and makeup for some fancy Hollywood party perhaps, the vast majority of occasions one does not spend much more time on getting dressed fairly nicely than boringly or sloppily, as was Nerian's point. Furthermore, you are very much mista
  7. That's a whoooooole lot of assertions you've got going on there and squat for any reasoning or evidence given to back it up. I suggest you at least attempt to remedy that. As for that aesthetic realism thing in the post above, what, if anything, is the evidence of success you claim they've had? I saw the link mentioning one guy as an example, but even if we take at face value his claim to previous attraction to males and later attraction to at least one female, that doesn't rule out bisexuality all along and, importantly, doesn't clearly show in the slightest how and why attraction
  8. "It has never been especially popular at OO.com" Hey now, that's not true. D: It was really popular early on in my time here. There were times so many of us were in there at once that we crashed the program. I hope the chat gets restored somehow. I haven't used it much lately mostly because there just wasn't much of anybody else around.
  9. I can think of a couple possible rational reasons to look into it. The first reason is medical. Do you have an elevated risk of certain diseases? Having relatives with a history of certain diseases is often indicative that you are more likely to get it. If we count relatives still alive that maybe you just don't know, they may be better options to look into in case you need a transplant of an organ or tissue that can be given by a living donor. The second reason is if something has gone really wrong in your family, it may be gratifying to be able to go back and figure out exactly when and how
  10. Might I suggest that the issues of context and hierarchy of values are coming into play possibly? Also, I do believe Tara Smith, who generally seems to be a pretty competent person in her writings, has written some potentially relevant things on the rule of law. Does anybody around here happen to have said stuff she's written on the subject? It may prove helpful here in facilitating the discussion to get some input from a clear writer who has already put a lot of thought and effort into the subject.
  11. "bluecherry, I just showed how Peikoff's argument *is* a proof. Since you are already pre-committed to reality in the very act of debating the issue, any conclusion which goes against that is self-contradictory, and therefore cannot be morally or rationally justified. So choosing not to live is immoral, and choosing to live, and all of the moral commitments that come with that choice, is moral." It's true that you can't prove you shouldn't seek to remain in existence. However, it's not for the reasons you say. All that having an argument about the subject proves is that somebody DOES care
  12. Premise: ". . . life is the ultimate value, to which all others are means, the choice to commit one's self to that ultimate value is the most basic decision, from which all other moral decisions should follow." Conclusion: "Choosing to live is the most fundamental good choice that you can make, choosing not to live is the most fundamental bad choice that you can make." That conclusion you've drawn is a nonsequitar from the premise. There's a difference between a choice related to the issue of that which is good and a choice which is itself good. As for a commitment to being in reali
  13. Ok, yeah, you are definitely operating on an entirely different moral system as your basic premise here. Here's a quick primer on the philosophy this forum is about as it seems you may have come across this forum unaware of what Objectivism (the capital "O" matters here, it's the name of a specific philosophy as opposed to a lower case "o" objectivism which may be used to refer to other, very different ideas) is. Link
  14. Just checking, but Floyd Yeung, are you familiar with what the philosophy of Objectivism is about? I ask because, in addition to this being your very first post here, the idea that "wasting food is immoral" is actually more of a belief of people from a very different set of ideas than the ones this forum is dedicated to, at least when it comes to what people usually mean by "wasting" food. Usually, when people talk about "wasting food" they mean any time food is thrown away that hasn't spoiled. They seem to be under some belief that it's like some sign that you are "ungrateful" for your m
  15. Dustin, I wasn't asking if any of your questions/objections in this thread alone you considered to be answered/resolved, I was asking about if you considered that to be the case of *any* of your questions/objections you have raised on this forum in general. Also, you have in your post there stated your position, but you have not addressed anything any of us have already said to you here about why we contend such a position is incorrect. You didn't answer my question either about what sources, aside from this forum, you have on Objectivism, or even point me to a place where you alread
  16. Alright, I'll just 'fess up to being an impatient ass here and say up front I haven't read the whole thread yet. If what I say here has already been said or had objections raised to it, just go ahead and whack me over the head and tell me to go read the rest of the thread. Here's my thoughts on the issue of choosing to live. In theory, yes, choosing to live is a pre-rational choice. Reason, motivation, they're totally irrelevant before determining one intends to stick around in existence where such things are applicable. However, the notion that one then goes ahead and acts to live
  17. Asking how logic applies to government is a lot like asking how physics applies to government. Governments exist as part of reality. Logic is about how reality functions and therefore applies to reality in general. That's how/why logic applies to government. Government is not some kind of weird floating exception to reality or apart from reality. Everything from there on out is just going to be specific examples of logic used on government. Is that what you really want though? Just a list of examples? From what I've seen, Rand didn't really use the heavily symbol laden "formal" logic much anyw
  18. I'd like to point out briefly that any time we talk about anything in the actual, existing economy we have in real life, we're talking about what's going on in a mixed economy. The situation under an actual capitalist economy could be very, very different for any given specific example from the real world that we may discuss. Walmart, its owners, and the wages of its employees are all impacted by things like minimum wage laws, child labor laws, OSHA, the EPA, licensing laws, alcohol and tobacco laws, anti-monopoly laws, roads and other infrastructure being tax-funded, tax codes in general, law
  19. Dustin, what do you believe Objectivism means by benevolent and malevolent universe premises? I want to double check you are talking about the same things we are. When we talk about these things we are talking about the basic set up of the universe itself, like the way physics works and how people relate to it, not how people have been treating each other. The malevolent universe premise is the notion that the universe has an actual intent, a will, and its intent is to thwart us at every opportunity, to actively work to see individual people fail. It's going to change itself willy nilly as nec
  20. I've registered objections to this argument of yours previously in the chat before.
  21. Actually, I made the specification because I have had a number of close friends with pretty strongly negative assessments of Objectivism.
  22. Could you maybe put a little more of the context that line is from? Some of the additional surrounding text.
  23. I'd characterize it as a huge bonus, but not a necessity. What is necessary is that they not be strongly antagonistic to and condescending about Objectivism. I don't find it attractive when somebody won't take seriously something this important to me that I've put a lot of thought into. I think I may also, for romance, require that somebody not be big on initiating force to compel others to live according to their point of view. That's just something that I find too downright infuriating to get past enough to really love somebody like that if they will actively try to make me and others live t
  24. Actually, I'm pretty sure the bacteria killing is pretty well established. The question is just whether killing the bacteria (what the antibacterial soaps do) really provides any significant health advantage over just removing them (what regular soaps do).
  25. Clarification. Supposing the case of somebody who voted for a pro-force initiation candidate because the other realistically likely candidate(s) was/were even MORE pro-force initiation, then I agree with that. That's trying to reduce force initiation when you don't yet have the power to stop it. However, if somebody votes for a candidate BECAUSE that candidate says they will do some kind of force initiation, then I think it is basically initiation of force by proxy. The candidate has free will to do or not do stuff still, yeah, as does everybody responsible for enforcing laws all the way down
×
×
  • Create New...