Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

SapereAude

Regulars
  • Posts

    1734
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    13

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    SapereAude reacted to FeatherFall in The Aurora Massacre   
    Michelle, you’ve made some interesting and good points which I’d like to address.

    Are handguns necessary for self-defense?

    This is probably the best question I’ve seen from the pro-gun control side of this thread. It’s good because it questions a fundamental premise of ours and does so in a way that doesn’t invite an easy answer.

    It is a flight of fancy to pretend that we (humans) are capable of preventing other, more violently aggressive humans, from obtaining the things this man found and improvised. So, I’m going to start from the point of view that we need some sort of tool to combat an attacker armed with the same stuff that the Batman shooter was armed with. I am also going to limit my selection to things that a movie-goer would reasonably be able to carry with them. The theater could have put in some sort of improved door or armed guard, but the costs are prohibitive so I will leave that alone for now. So, what tools are appropriate, cheap and available?

    This is the list I came up with; Feet (running), Bare hands, Thrown Weapons/distractions, Collapsible Batons, Knives, Pepper Spray, Tasers, and Handguns. The Batman shooter had ample space between himself and most of his victims, so I’m going to rule out anything without the appropriate range (hands, batons, knives). He attacked his victims in an area where mass retreat would lead to a “bottleneck,” leading to more casualties. Running toward the victim or throwing stuff at him to create a distraction while you close the distance is either too risky or requires more cooperation than can be expected of relaxed theater-goers. This rules out feet. Pepper spray is usually an excellent close-range defense against an attacker armed with a firearm, but even a shooter without a gas mask could fire blindly at a crowded theater and still hit someone. Because the shooter had both a gas mask and a crowded theater, I’m ruling out pepper spray. We are left with firearms and Tasers.

    The shooter was wearing armor. I am not intimately familiar Tasers, but I have no reason to believe they won’t function when someone is wearing armor. Armor does reduce the effectiveness of many firearm projectiles, especially when fired from a handgun. The barrels are rarely long enough to effectively capture the pressures needed to propel a projectile fast enough to pierce armor. Some handguns do, in fact, create such speed. An example of such a handgun round is the .38 Super – a small bullet packed with lots of powder. Combined with a fully-jacketed projectile (no hollow-points), a .38 Super could have killed the Batman shooter.

    We have two effective self-defense tools. Which one is better? I think it depends on the person. The Taser has a limited range and can only be fired a small number of times, but can be more effective if it hits a non-vital part of the body. A handgun has more range and can be easily reloaded, but requires more training to deal a killing (thus incapacitating) blow. So, I believe the answer to your question is, “yes,” depending on the person.

    The second point that should be addressed is that a firearm’s primary design is for killing. I’d agree with this, but I’d like to point out the differences in firearm/projectile design that lead to different “secondary” functions that are so great they may have to be considered “primary functions” depending on the context. A .22 comes out fast, has a relatively straight trajectory and packs a very small relative punch, and so it is not a good tool for self-defense, but rather is great for short/medium range target practice and hunting small game. A handgun has a short barrel, which limits the amount of powder that can be effectively utilized to propel the bullet – long range killing is out of the question. Rifles are the ultimate long-range personal weapons because they have long barrels and heavy projectiles with lots of inertia, but fail at close-quarters because their long-barrels become cumbersome. Shotguns are unparalleled medium-range killing tools, and can be shortened to minimize the drawback of a long barrel for close-quarters fighting.

    In the military, when they issue a weapon to combat troops it is almost always a rifle. Sometimes it is a sub-machine gun (basically a big machine pistol), or a shotgun. These are for the troops who’s primary job is to kill enemy soldiers. For the officers who, if everything goes well, don’t see combat, they issue pistols. The reason is that pistols are more easily kept at hand for self-defense in case something goes wrong and a combat troop or spy gets close to the higher-ranked officers. This is evidence that the handgun is a better self-defense tool than killing tool.

    Finally, but not unimportantly, Michelle, is your point about being uncomfortable when sitting next to an armed person. I understand how you could feel that way, but please also be aware that I feel the exact opposite. I have worked in retail environments where co-workers were almost always carrying a firearm. I live in Wisconsin where the occasional person would carry openly even before our concealed-carry law was passed. I have always felt safer when I saw it, because none of the people carrying exhibited threatening behavior. In general, I welcome armed strangers – but only when they appear respectful, competent and sober. As long as they maintain proper etiquette, there is no reason to be fearful of an armed person. Generally, you are safer when you are in the company of armed strangers.
  2. Like
    SapereAude reacted to softwareNerd in What does objectivism have to say about these ideas on taxation?   
    One cannot think of a country and its government this way. Consider this: 100 people live somewhere, 90 of them decide they will form a government that will expropriate a bit of the wealth of the other 10 each year. it is not legitimate for the 90 to say to the 10: "You are free to leave". What gives the majority the right to present a minority with this type of option? Nothing.
    If you are born in some place (like the U.S.) you clearly have a right to be there. If you remain, your neighbors may force you to do certain things. However, this does not make it right. Nor are you consenting by remaining. You might well remain if this is the least bad option available to you.
  3. Like
    SapereAude reacted to Hotu Matua in Objectivist view on Animal Abuse Laws   
    Going back to the original topic, "animal abuse laws", let me share with you this reflection:

    We underestimate the power of social ostracism and economic boycott as tools to fight immoral people without violating their rights.
    If you happen to know a neighbor wh tortures his pet, show your community what this son-of-a-bitch does.
    Without trespassing, take photos or videos. Post them in Facebook and Youtube. Write a letter to the newspaper, to other neighbors, to his friends of family.
    Do not buy from that person. Do not sell him goods.
    Do all of this, of course, in accordance to the failure of his character and considering not to put yourself in danger.
    Treat him with justice, which means, give him the treatment he deserves.
  4. Like
    SapereAude got a reaction from softwareNerd in SCOTUS Upholds Obamacare   
    Like calling rape "surprise sex"...?
  5. Like
    SapereAude got a reaction from JASKN in Favorite Non-Ayn Rand Novel?   
    A Conferacy of Dunces by John Kennedy Toole.
    I've reread this book every year for more than 20 years now.
    I still laugh out loud the whole way through.

    "you can always tell employees of the government by the total vacancy which occupies the space where most other people have faces."
  6. Like
    SapereAude reacted to agrippa1 in SCOTUS Upholds Obamacare   
    The hope that Justice [sic] Roberts ruling of the Mandate as a tax will allow a simple majority repeal, is a false one. He states explicitly that the "tax" definition is for purposes of Constitutionality only, and that for legal purposes, including application of the Anti-Injunction Act, and presumably for application of Congressional procedures, the Mandate is what Congress defined it to be in the legislation, i.e., a penalty. Roberts has ruled that A both is and is not A.

    There's no silver lining here. SCOTUS has affirmed the authority of the federal gov't to lay and collect taxes, regardless of the application towards the enumerated powers. Having specifically rejected the only justification, in terms of those powers, Roberts allows a violation of the 10th Amendment and leaves no interpretation open that limits the authority of the gov't to wield taxes as a weapon against Liberty. Congress could pass a tax on Buddhists, that SCOTUS might find unconstitutional on 1st amendment grounds, but upon wider consideration uphold it as within Congress' unlimited power to lay and collect taxes.

    There is no limit. This is total tyranny, proposed, decided and sanctioned by one man.
  7. Like
    SapereAude reacted to FeatherFall in Muslim mob stones Christians – in U.S.!   
    Nicky's point should not be discounted. I don't know how credible the reports are that the christians were saying the things in SoftwareNerd's bullet points, but I can believe it. Regardless of how emotionally inflammatory such speech is, it doesn't seem to rise to the level of a threat. Maybe it was harassment, depending on what else they were doing. Either way, civilized people don't let their children and teenagers throw rocks, bottles, and large plastic crates at people for harasment.
  8. Like
    SapereAude got a reaction from JASKN in SCOTUS Upholds Obamacare   
    Lets call this what it really is:

    your body has just been nationalized
  9. Like
    SapereAude reacted to whYNOT in Objectivist view on Animal Abuse Laws   
    What happens to such people anyway? I don't know whether they get their just desserts - or not.
    One way or other, they can't cheat reality, or disvalue life, and not pay - somehow.
    We should remember too, that studies found it was children (who tortured animals) who showed some
    probability of becoming murderers later; adult animal-torturers, I'd guess, are seldom killers.

    Who knows which ones practised cruelty on animals as youngsters, except their families? what could and should those families do about it? and after the fact, it's easy to for someone to say "Ah, I knew Johnny had it in him to be a killer." In another 99 cases, he wouldn't be one.
    (And I know you'd oppose social workers visiting homes to find tell-tale signs of psychopathic behaviour.)
    We can't say for sure how anybody will turn out: statistics are a dangerous tool to rely on.

    What I am sure though, is that pre-emptively restricting people's rights on the basis of what they could be capable of doing under certain circumstances, is a highly suspect, slippery slope, which can only lead to more restrictions for all.
    If freedom comes with such a price - that we are never completely without risk, and have
    to be aware and self-responsible - wouldn't you still gladly pay it?
    Individual rights, essentially, are one's last line of defence against immoral, irrational
    and evil people, but they are not a guarantee of security.


  10. Like
    SapereAude got a reaction from whYNOT in Objectivism and homosexuality?   
    There is the very real problem of gay activists wanting to have their cake and eat it too.

    A great deal of this can be blamed on the pathology all too common in our increasingly collectivist society- the admiration of victimhood.

    On the one hand they are protesting being defined by and singled out because of their sexuality and on the other the basis of the gay rights movement is that they are defining themselves by and singling themselves out based on their sexuality.

    If they focused on fighting for individual rights instead- equal rights for all- the rights of gays would just be a natural part of that.
  11. Like
    SapereAude reacted to JASKN in Objectivism and homosexuality?   
    Preach!
    The best thing gays can do for themselves is to remove the idea in their own minds that their values are somehow stigmatized. That's breaking old thinking habits in exchange for new ones. If you don't think you are an oddball yourself, nothing people say will affect you much, and they will eventually just absorb your attitude about yourself without realizing it.
  12. Like
    SapereAude got a reaction from JASKN in Objectivism and homosexuality?   
    He may have *changed* the way people view gays but not necessarily for the better.
    And I am not thinking in just in terms of my Objectivism but in terms of someone who is gay.
    Milk wasn't a hero or a role model of an advocate for rights. He was a stereotype.
    Like the so called "gay pride" events where exhibitionists wear appalling clothing (or no clothing), get trashed in public and flap their junk at passer-by what he did was more harm than good.
  13. Like
    SapereAude reacted to whYNOT in Objectivist view on Animal Abuse Laws   
    Leon,

    Your emotion I believe I understand, and I think is fully valid. With me, cruelty gets to me in two parts: Here is a monster who shares with me the existence of "rational being", who has momentarily debased my own value in my life, and of life itself. Then there is the trusting,uncomprehending animal, accepting its owner's cruelty and authority, still - after all it suffers, with no escape, or recourse to law. I reckon your reaction is close to that(?).
    So much for 'emotionalism': it's a lightning fast evaluation of reality confronting
    our principles and "value judgments"- as AR wrote - after all.
    If these are rational, one's emotions are true and dependable.

    However, the argument that a vicious animal owner should face criminal charges for what
    he 'might' do in future to humans, is definitely invalid or subjective. (Notwithstanding the corollary psychiatrists found in such cases.)
    Rand warned, in another context, that the potential cannot be equated with the actual -
    which applies here too, I think.
  14. Like
    SapereAude reacted to whYNOT in Objectivist view on Animal Abuse Laws   
    Government intervention? No way!! I wouldn't suggest anything even approaching that.
    My point is when and if interposing oneself between animal and brutal owner, one, say,
    trespasses - or a fight broke out between you, one would likely be charged with interfering
    with his individual rights. Either, as I think, a court would be extremely lenient - or
    one would have to prepared to face some gaol time going in.
    No, the government must stay out until that point of your infringement.
    But it doesn't mean we all have to tip-toe around getting involved ourselves, in something
    we find insupportable.
    The principle is that the abuser/torturer is acting in a sub-human fashion, and a captive,
    non-rights-carrying animal suffers. I'd do my time, if it came to that, and I think
    many rational egoists would do the same.


  15. Like
    SapereAude reacted to Jackethan in Objectivist view on Animal Abuse Laws   
    I'd like to correct a semantic error. I don't think Sentient is the word we want to use for distinction in this case. I made this mistake in an argument about animal rights once already.
    Sentient according to Merriam-Webster Online:
    1: responsive to or conscious of sense impressions
    2: aware (checked: having or showing realization, perception, or knowledge
    3: finely sensitive in perception or feeling

    Sentience only means the ability to feel, not self awareness or consciousness as we define them.




    You put together a really good case for receiving a legitimate financial compensation for the dog, but your case is still purely financial. You spent money to get the dog, you spent money (in the form of not working) to train the dog from youth. Most of the things you said are quantifiable and able to be verified by paper documentation and financial records. They are wholly different from an emotional attachment case. I believe courts rightly should award people compensation from the aggressor for breeding, training, feeding, taking time off, and medical care. It is the idea that you should be awarded more compensation based on the level of emotional investment you have made which is more difficult to objectively quantify and prove in court. Note, I don't believe it is impossible, I just haven't seen it done yet, neither had Rand or Peikoff. I believe it can be done, and I believe they both thought so too.



    I think a good case could be made for doing disturbing things in earshot/view of neighbors. At least, I've seen far more petty cases on television go to court, not even involving animals. Furthermore, in an Objectivist society a homeowner's association, township, or even city could have laws against animal abuse like that as an issue of disturbing peace of mind for locals. I think the more difficult issue to legislate is when someone, willfully or not, neglects an animal to the point of abuse. I think direct violence to an animal is easier to stop than the ones who simply bought a dog, found out it was too much work, and now just leave it in their yard, forgotten, giving water and food to it maybe on a monthly basis. In these cases, the person is not acting violently toward the animal and thus creating a ruckus to distract neighbors with. The animal is just slowly dying. I think these cases are more common than direct violence.
  16. Like
    SapereAude got a reaction from JASKN in Objectivist view on Animal Abuse Laws   
    I understand your point.
    And Dragon Lady's point as well, I should clarify that I don't mean "emotional pain" in the sense of "he hurt my feelings" but rather a tangible loss of a companionship that the owner of an animal purchases and works towards.
    So let us analyse the difference. Mind you, I am basing this on the notion that the purpose of law is to make the victim whole. In the case of willfully and viciously killing someone's pet I am calling the pet's owner the victim. So assuming that the purpose is to make the victim whole:

    Difference between a doll and a dog
    1) a doll is a manufactured thing. While one could make a "one of a kind" doll it would be possible given time and resources to make an exact replica. A doll doesn't change (except wear and tear which is in the owner's control anyway) it doesn't grow, it doesn't learn.
    a dog (lets leave cloning out as that is not mainstream at this time) is a creature that is born. If you lose one dog you can hire the breeder to produce another puppy from the exact same bloodlines but there really is no way to determine exactly how it will play out. A dog is formed by experiences, again, not possible to replicate.

    2) a doll is a static thing- it sits there, it *is*
    a dog has a relationship with its owner. Again, I can buy a new dog by the same dam and sire and treat it the same way, but there is no guarantee that it will be anything like the dog I lost.

    3) your point about the sentimental value of a doll (belonged to the person's dead daughter) this is not what I am arguing by "emotional pain" as explained above. A sentimental feeling of attachment is not quantifiable- I wholly agree with Dragon Lady on this. Perhaps we need a better term that "emotional damage"? I don't know what that would be so please accept the explantion I've given. The sentimental value of the doll is not qualifiable and indeed can be lied about. I believe companionship value of a well bred, well trained working dog is quantifiable. My dogs are well trained. They guard my home. They understand what I want of them when I want it. In many ways they are tools that enhance my life. That is quantifiable.

    I will use an example of my favorite dog to explain what I believe the value to be.
    Let us say dog, advance ordered from one of the country's best breeders of her kind, comes from champion bloodlines and during the pre-pickup weaning period is raised in a specific environment in a specific way. There is a waiting period to get in line for a puppy here.
    Lets say the price of the puppy is $2000 and she is 2 years old now.
    $2000 plus $500 a year on vet bills.
    2 years on training on a daily basis. Time is money. I own a business. My time is valuable. If I have to start from scratch I lost two years. That has a very real value to me.
    I usually work 18+ hours a day. I deliberately arranged to have this puppy available at a time when I could spend 4 months of its formative period spending most of my time with it. That also was not only a tangible value but also something that I would not be able to repeat any time in the near future.
    A combination of the careful choosing of breeder and the circumstances of the breeding/weaning and my altering of my lifestyle in the beginning *and* my ceaseless work with this dog has created a remarkable animal. My dog is of a breed that many find tempermentally problematic. Mine has none of these issues and people familiar with the breed are constantly remarking about how exceptional she is.

    So... if some lunatic comes into my locked gated yard and kills her in cold blood.
    Am I owed $2000?
    Would $2000 make me whole?
    I think objectively not.
    I think that person not only maliciously and willfully destroyed my property but incidentally stole two years of my hard work, not to mention the 3 months of planning that went into acquiring her.

    To respond to Dragon Lady's query about how I could justify this as being objectively different than a pet cockroach:
    1) averaging out lifespan of species cockroachs live an average of 6 months- that means that the most tangible companionship I could be deprived of is 6 months total as opposed to 12-20 years for a dog
    2) while roaches can be bred for certain qualities one could hardly argue life enhancememnt (exception-maybe a scientist who uses them in experiments? roach circus sideshow?) given by a cockroach. Mine dog guards my home. Well.
    3) roaches have not been noticed to form attachments therefore a roach could be replaced without much difference with another roach. You replace my dog with another dog and it will not automatically listen to me, do my bidding, and protect my family, my home and my own person.
  17. Like
    SapereAude reacted to softwareNerd in Wisconsin voters are giving the Teachers union the middle finger   
    That would be ideal. I assume anyone on this forum would advocate allowing business-owners and employees to enter into whatever contracts they agree. Some employers may agree to unions where every employee has to be a member; others may say they will fire anyone who they suspect of being sympathetic to unionization. I doubt any Objectivist would suggest that a system with countervailing controls is better than one without controls. However, when one has to choose between a system with certain controls and one with a different set of controls, it is fine to prefer one to the other.
  18. Like
    SapereAude reacted to Craig24 in If Socialist Campaigning Feels Good...?   
    No one can act in their own interest by campaigning for a system that suspends the ability to act in your own interest.
  19. Like
    SapereAude reacted to aequalsa in The Life Of Julia   
    I wish more people would try to start a small business for that experience alone. Until you do it is not as obvious how very owned we are. I feel your pain, man.
  20. Like
    SapereAude got a reaction from Amaroq in Gender as an anti-concept   
    Sorry, this person you were talking to is just wrong.
    How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg?
    Four. Calling the tail a leg doesn't make it so.
  21. Like
    SapereAude reacted to FeatherFall in Gender as an anti-concept   
    Intellectual ammo, if the male is the penetrator and the female the penetrated, then you've settled the issue of gender reassignment in favor of your opponents.
  22. Like
    SapereAude got a reaction from aequalsa in North Carolina’s Despicable Amendment   
    While I disagree with EC's stance on this and many matters I don't think it is fair to call it trolling.

    Allowing for gay marriage would in fact be a change from norms that have been accepted for a very long time and across cultures.
    Some think that is a bad thing, some do not.

    But! The point is if we're going to change it because "people have a right to marry who they want" we need to ask- are there any boundaries on that?
    If there are boundaries what are they?

    As a gay individual I use to get very offended by people asking the question "so can people marry their pets then?" "people can have 5 wives?" "can they marry children?" and so forth.
    But being objective means that I don't get to just look at this as a gay individual. Being objective means I have to get outside of that.
    That many are being ignorant or snarky or just plain dumb when they ask these questions does not mean that they don't need answering.
    If marriage is to be redefined then part of that is asking tough uncomfortable questions.

    I also disagree with another assertion in this topic that people being against gay marriage are basing that on religion. While many, and certainly often the most vocal, anti-gay activists are often religious I've known plenty of atheists and agnostics that are anti-gay.
  23. Like
    SapereAude reacted to Grames in Gender as an anti-concept   
    That is not correct because the airy intellectual considerations of gender manifest at street level in the form of taking offense and filing lawsuits over male and female restrooms, as if that was some kind of racial apartheid.

    I'm glad intellectualammo brought up the trespass point because I neglected to treat private property rights in dealing with this issue. Failing to cooperate with the owners terms for the use of his property is a form of trespass. On airplanes the restrooms are not set aside for males and females but where there is high foot traffic such as in movie theaters it makes sense to segregate the men from the women because the men are so much faster at stand up urinals. The owner of the facility should have the right to operate the facility according to his best judgement.
  24. Like
    SapereAude got a reaction from JASKN in North Carolina’s Despicable Amendment   
    Dear God has it ever.
    I've spent the last 24 hours with liberal straight white males telling me how I should feel about Obama's endorsement of gay marriage and how grateful I should be.
    The term useful idiots becomes more apt by the minute.
  25. Like
    SapereAude got a reaction from JASKN in On Transgender / Transsexualism   
    IntellectualAmmo,

    That picture really should come with a warning you know.
    I can't unsee that.
×
×
  • Create New...