Inspector

This is a distorted way of looking at it. Charging his mother is a terrible idea. This is not Hank Rearden who is supporting his parasitic family - this is a young man whose family is supporting him. He would be a hypocrite and an ingrate to approach the matter from that angle. Instead of trying to pigeon-hole this into some piece of fiction or preconceived romantic notion of producers and parasites, how about we actually keep the frickin context of what's happening? Just because this is a more personal topic does not eliminate the purpose of this forum - which is to provide quality, well-thought-out answers about and applications of Objectivism, not the knee-jerk reactions of everyone who cares to chime in. Think before posting, people! Have you actually been in this situation or something quite similar? Have you dealt successfully with people like this? Do you really think your advice is valuable, or are you just guessing based on a vague notion? I've seen other forums fall apart because mass numbers of decidedly non-experts felt absolutely free to just blurt out their random opinions on anything and everything. Let's not do that here please.

I've heard from other people who have visited China, and I think you're being way too generous and optimistic about the situation. For starters, I think you're underestimating the fact that you mostly saw what they let you see.

Double bingo. You have to remember what side your bread is buttered on.

What you mean is that the vigilante in your view ought to be subject to the evaluation of a court of law, inasmuch as the court would have to decide if his actions were in fact just. I think the others are acting like you're saying that the vigilante would not be arrestable, whereas it seems to me that you are saying he would be - just that he might ultimately be acquitted. Please correct me if I have you wrong here... (or confirm if I have you right)

Yeah, like I said you can't really call it the sole fundamental cause. If I were to sum the fundamental cause of WWII, I would say Germany's dominant philosophy, plus the appeasement of the West. That's cutting to the heart a bit more than saying that the fundamental cause was failure to enforce the treaty. I mean, I see where you're going there and you have a point, it's just I'd amend it thusly.

I disagree that it is the fundamental cause, although it certainly is a proximate cause. The fundamental cause was the German philosophy at the time. But, yeah, if it were actually enforced then that would have certainly set the Nazis back a bit. At the time of Chamberlain, they were a lot of bark and not a whole lot of bite.

Seriously, kill the Russia thing. It's not something you'll have the room to support.

But that's really his problem, isn't it? Don't let it frustrate you. He just needs a reminder of who is helping who. "Oi! I'll help you when I'm good and ready and if you don't like it, then maybe you would like it better if I didn't help at all? No? I didn't think so. Now shut your gob and wait your bloody turn!" Yeah I've dealt with that too. Just get used to repeating yourself and being a little bit rude, since that's the only thing that gets through. Don't worry about it, because a mentality that will forget things so easily won't hold a grudge either. Guilt her, too. Remind her about her discussion and how she promised to respect you. And what's she doing breaking her promises? Nothing and I mean nothing will make this type remember, but at least you can bat them off with that every now and then. Just remember - their foolishness is their own. It's not yours and you're under no obligation to care about it. Just think of yourself as some kind of police negotiator who deals with crazy people. If you simply think of them as mad instead of working yourself up about how they ought to know better, then you'll be less stressed. And eventually, you'll be out of there anyhow. Helps to remember that.

D'kian: All good advice, I am sure. But more fundamentally, I think the best advice is: Just don't go to any country whose system of laws is not rooted in the principles underlying the Magna Carta and the U.S. Constitution, where there is not one law for all people guaranteeing fundamental personal liberties and due process. It's not worth it.

I think, and someone can correct me if I'm wrong, that what they are saying is that living under law is an individual right. Which is to say, it is a requirement for man's life in a social context.

Remind yourself that for your mom, you're doing it for all she does for you. And tell her that when you help your brother that you're also doing that for her since he's too useless to ever return the favor. Then just ignore their requests when you're busy with anything important. Their mindset is ultimately their business, and while you want it to improve because you care about them, they'll only change if they want to. So fixing that is really no more your business than fixing their internet. In other words, try to do it while you still live with them, but don't drive yourself crazy with it. And once you move out, it becomes up to them. Start reminding them that you won't be around forever to help them with these things and that when you move out, you won't make special trips. Get them used to the idea. That's how I'd try to cope if I were in your shoes, anyhow.

I hear that there are areas of Brazil that, if you travel to them, you will be kidnapped. Is this true?

I think your thesis is too scattered and too ambitious. If you want to prove that the entry into world war I was not in US interests, then do that. If you want to prove that the Soviets should have been attacked preemptively, then do that. But both at once in a 5 page paper? I just don't see it. At most, you'd end up with a journalism piece that doesn't really have the room to prove anything; just to assert a bunch of things.

I'm not actually claiming that; I was just making inquiries. Well, it looks like you're not convinced of my point. But at least we're all clear on each others' meaning now. While that is indeed your question, it doesn't follow from my statement which you quoted, since my wording was "self-defense" and not "retaliation."

This issue is actually covered explicitly by the article.

Okay, I actually have made a mistake here. Re-reading David's posts, here is the full context of his reply: I actually believed his statement of the claim of context without checking it thoroughly and I regret posting hastily enough to have done that. No, David is not from context actually saying "Initiate." He is clearly saying that it is not ever moral to use force - whether one is initiating, retaliating, or acting in self-defense. He says that at best it is amoral. This is wrong, and that is precisely what I've been trying to get him to see - that neither Don, Rand, or Objectivism agree with his statement. Using force in self-defense is a moral requirement. It is therefore moral and not amoral at best.

[EDIT: I have actually re-read David's statements, and most of this post does not actually apply. I am leaving it up, however, as it does highlight something that I wish David would stop doing - even if that isn't exactly what happened here. For details, please see my second post, below this one.] I don't think context excuses speaking imprecisely. That and the "It is never moral to use force against a person." statement that you made did cause several posters including myself to begin questioning those statements as they stand, and the thing is that you made absolutely zero efforts to clarify or explicitly delimit your statements. You just expected, as you seem to expect now, that it is self-evident that despite the obvious meaning of your statements on their face, that everyone will know from context that you didn't mean them in the way that they stand on their face. This despite at least three objections in this thread in which the objector is most decidedly not knowing that you meant them that way. See, you do this a lot. I don't know if you think it's clever or what, but it's just irritating. When someone misunderstands you in a way that you can see and grasp, you should seek to correct the understanding, not to continue forward on the idea that they ought to have understood you and that it isn't your job to clarify and to, in a mocking way, continue forward with the discussion without correcting their misunderstanding - just letting them keep assuming that you meant what they thought. Like that will accomplish anything productive. Now, see, unlike the other posters, I am not working under the assumption that you meant what you said. I could tell from context and from your other posts on this board that you likely did not mean what you said. But that does not change the fact that you did say it. Those words have a specific meaning: "It is never moral to use force against a person." If you want to say something else, then you shouldn't use those exact words, even if from your context some people can tell that you don't mean what you say. After all, if I were to make a statement condemning "selfishness" or encouraging "sacrifice," can this be excused if you can tell from context that I actually mean unprincipled, short-range predatory thinking in the former case, or the trade of a lesser value for a greater value in the latter case? No, because one ought to say what one means. And if someone asks me if I meant what I said, it wouldn't be proper to chastise him for not paying attention to the context. The proper response would be for me to say, "I am sorry - no, I shouldn't have said 'sacrifice' when I meant trade." So, David, what I am looking to hear from you is: "I am sorry - I shouldn't have said 'It is never moral to use force against a person' when I meant, 'It is never moral to initiate force against a person,' and I shouldn't have said, 'There is no context that you can add that ever makes using force against another person moral,' when I meant 'There is no context that you can add that ever makes initiating force against another person moral.'" But it's up to you whether you will say that or not, and if not then really don't bother replying.

No, you misunderstand my question. My question had nothing to do with vigilante force. You said: David: you did not say "vigilante," there. You said "force." There is NO context that EVER making using ANY force against another person moral. That is what I am focusing on. I am trying to determine if you meant that or if you misspoke. Because using force against another person in self-defense is not a vigilante act and is most definitely moral. Don said that according to Ayn Rand it is in fact a moral imperative. So right there is a context that I can add that makes, as you said, using force against another person moral. As for Roark's trial, it seems that it is precisely what your opponents here are talking about. He took the law into his own hands to reclaim his property. He was then exonerated at trial. Or did you have an alternate explanation for what happened? (I don't mean that facetiously)

That's really a separate discussion which would be way off topic here. If not conquest, then some other form of sexual mock-struggle. As I believe I have shown, the term "masochism" can refer only to the enjoyment of pain intrinsically. If there's something else going on, then what you have there isn't "masochism," as such. So while you have said so far that you are arguing for "masochism," you really aren't. And neither is Sieur Bertrand. (at least not in any argument he has presented so far)

I don't see as to how the argument you've presented so far supports that statement. So far, I see you saying that you can enjoy certain pain because you understand that it is tied to athletic growth. That isn't pain in itself. The other idea is that athleticism releases endorphins - which again isn't the pain itself. (The same can be said for capsaicin, by the way) It seems to me that you're making the same argument as Sieur Bertrand. Note that I didn't say that there was anything wrong with enjoying some pain as connected to sexual conquest - I said the problem was with the idea of enjoying pain in itself. Which is something that neither of your arguments support. In response to its cause. To do so intrinsically would be hedonism.

Oh, my, yes. He actually answers this exact question and in very much the same way you do. I'm sure you'd be amused at another listen, as you are very much on the same page.

You didn't answer the question. You said: David: you did not say "initiating," there. You said "using." There is NO context that EVER making USING force against another person moral. That is what I am focusing on. I am trying to determine if you meant that or if you misspoke. Because using force against another person in self-defense is most definitely moral. Don said that according to Ayn Rand it is in fact a moral imperative. So right there is a context that I can add that makes, as you said, using force against another person moral. And also what did you think of the outcome of Roark's trial?

Dan, I was wondering if you've listened to Dr. Peikoff's Love, Sex, and Romance lecture, where he makes basically the same argument?

So you disagree with Don, then: Out of curiosity, then, what do you think of the outcome of Roark's trial?

Exactly, and the same can be said for everything else good that can come with pain: growth, correction of an error, triumph in a struggle, etc. The point isn't the pain itself, and the central idea of masochism - that pain itself is a positive - is a mistake. Exactly - Sieur Bertrand seems to be equivocating pain with the ability to feel pain. They are two very different things.