Bruno
-
Posts
12 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Bruno
-
-
I wonder what they would do if prince Harry had wore the communist symbol instead.
-
It appears as if all of this hoopla about NIJamesHughes being 19 is now irrelevant. If he entered his birth date correctly, the boy turns 20 today. Happy Birthday James, and you may want to be careful about recording tonights "activities" in your on-line journal. If the past is any indication, those things may be held against you.
What you are ironically criticizing is called moral judgment, using past behavior to back up the claims. It is entirely proper to do so (to pass moral judgment).
(edited for minor correction)
-
reference?
What do you mean by reference? If you mean textual reference, then I recommend you the reading of "The Virtue of Selfishness"; there is an article about this.
If you mean evidence, then I say: look around you! Have you ever seen a non-human volitional animal?
I eat animals because:
1) They don't have rights;
2) Some of them have a really good taste.
-
Considering that your parents have paid taxes all their lives, I think the cost of attending the university has long been extracted by the government. Therefore I don't think it would be immoral to study there.Ayn Rand wrote an article on this very topic. In short, since you already paid for it via taxes, you don't have to feel bad. Just don't accept or repeat any bad ideas and don't advocate "free" school. If anyone asks, tell them you are against the idea.
Obviously, there's more to it, but that's the simple version.
Thank you for your answers. In fact, I had already some basic understanding on the issue, but I was in fear of rationalization. Can this line of thought be aplied to most other forms of government-provided services?
P.S. Why don't you try for the US?I certainly want to. But my planning is to get a degree and make some good money here, first. Although I'm a nice "middle class" citizen, with much more acquisitive power than the vast majority of brazilians, and with access to goods such as computers, cable tv, dsl connection, etc., the costs of traveling overseas and paying for living and education is prohibitive. The difference between the exchange rates of the dollar and the "real" (brazilian currency) is high, and worse yet, the "real" buying capacity is many times lower. Which means I have to make tons of "reais" here before dreaming with sweet green dollars.
Of course, I could just move to the US and get a job at a McDonalds. Who knows.
-
Now I can't vote for South America because the bulletin board system keep saying I've already voted before... and it ended up for Europe!
-
Hi,
(I read some time ago a thread where there was a discussion going on about a similar subject; however, it did not specifically adress this issue, and I'm really in doubt regarding it. So, I'm sorry if I'm being redundant.)
I'm currently taking the entrance exams for a federal university (located where I live, Porto Alegre - Brazil). It is maintened and controlled by the state and is "free" (meaning no costs). It is a very good and reputable university, and the fact that I don't have to pay anything to study there is a major attraction; also, there are 43000 people taking the exams, and only 10% of those will be alllowed in.
My question is: is it immoral to study there, knowing that it is a completely state-controlled university and the costs are paid by everyone else? Or is morality out of this issue, as I'm being offered no choice but to pay taxes, to being with?
Thanks for your time.
-
Why not simply divide into the main continents? The way you did is not accurate at all; in example, I live in Brazil: not south europe nor spanish america (I chose this option, though), as Brazil colonization was carried out by the portuguese.
That's my opinion: use the common geographical division. Maybe separate the USA, as the majority is from there.
-
I don't know about the problem of anti-americanism in Europe, but I do know about it here in Latin America (I'm from Brazil).
There is a widespread, subtle feeling of anti-americanism in the mainstream media, and among most part of the population. I can't say for sure what are the main reasons for it, but I have some thoughts on the issue: envy of the american progress and a wrong understanding on the causes of such progress, mainly undermined by a REALLY spread marxist indoctrination, especially in universities (as a student of Economics, I witness this everyday; further more, our president is from leftist Worker's Party). Also, there is a sense of nationalism, irrational fears ("USA wants to invade the Amazon forest!").
There is also the problem in Venezuela, ruled by leftist populist dictator Hugo Chavez. Watch out too for a growing alliance between Brazil, Venezuela and China.
There are two good books on the issue of anti-americanism: first, Anti-Americanism, by Jean-François Revel; and second, Guide to the Perfect Latin-American Idiot, whose authors I don't remember right now.
(Yes, I'm looking forward to get the hell out of here).
-
1. Ayn Rand (100%)
2. Aristotle (70%)
3. Stoics (67%)
4. Nietzsche (61%)
5. Kant (61%)
6. Epicureans (59%)
7. Aquinas (54%)
8. John Stuart Mill (53%)
9. Spinoza (52%)
10. David Hume (49%)
11. Plato (45%)
12. Jeremy Bentham (43%)
13. Jean-Paul Sartre (42%)
14. Prescriptivism (42%)
15. Thomas Hobbes (40%)
16. St. Augustine (40%)
17. Cynics (39%)
18. Ockham (34%)
19. Nel Noddings (6%)
I liked my results.
-
I'm a full-time student of Economics, struggling against all the marxist indocrination. Believe me, it's everywhere, on every class. But I managed to find some Ludwig von Mises books lost in the library...
-
As to the original question "is it moral to own a casino" (not a direct quote), it certainly IS...so long as the participants are not made to gamble by force or by fraud.
I agree. In my view, a person has to know her chances, meaning that she must know the probabilties of winning at slots, or roulette, or anything else. In this case, shouldn't there be laws regarding adulteration of slots machines, for example, as fraud (the person is being lied about her odds of winning) is a kind of iniciation of force? Or should this be treated as general fraud, with no regulations regarding this specific subject?
Sorry about my english, I hope you can understand what I mean.
Abortion
in Ethics
Posted
So, to you, rights are relative. If a woman chooses to have sex, then she cannot have an abortion; but, if she is forced to have sex, then she can have an abortion. For the same reason, then, the fetus of the first case does have a right to life, and the other one does not. Is there any rational explanation for this?