Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


ttime last won the day on January 29 2012

ttime had the most liked content!

About ttime

  • Rank
    Junior Member
  • Birthday 11/30/1990

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
  • Chat Nick
  • Interested in meeting
  • Relationship status
  • Sexual orientation
  • Real Name
  • Copyright
  • Biography/Intro
    I love my life.
  • School or University
    UC Davis
  • Occupation

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Interests
    Composing music, listening to music, reading, philosophizing, watching movies, playing video games, playing racquetball, DJing.

Recent Profile Visitors

6015 profile views
  1. You're the best! Happy birthday! :)

  2. Diana, I was wondering, why do you continue to respond to Thomas Miovas's injudicious remarks about your views and statements? Is it because you think that to fail to do so would be to imply that what he is saying is accurate? But surely you don't think that is true - and yet I can't imagine Thomas having much sway over would-be followers of your blog either. Why isn't the right thing to do in this case to completely ignore him? You have yourself just said that he is dishonest, so why does he or his thread still warrant your attention?
  3. Can we be friends? :)

  4. At about 1:40. I'm actually no longer sure what is going on in the beginning with the use of the term 'moral', since his conclusion focuses solely on the legal aspect. I'll have to listen to it a couple more times.
  5. How does it not fit a legal context? Why are you trying to change the context to a moral one? Of course it's of consequence. But I'm saying that physical assault and rape, while being correlated, are two different phenomena. Someone who strangles someone or beats them up is guilty of that crime regardless of whether or not they committed rape at the same time.
  6. Why does he need to reestablish the context of his answer in the middle of it when the question was about a legal issue? Peikoff obviously considers rape to be immoral, so I don't see why it would be necessary for him to make such a statement. Rape may involve physical harm. It also may not. State v Rusk is actually an excellent example of rape without any real physical harm; the harm was predominantly psychological.
  7. It's important to maintain the context of his answer. I think it's pretty clear that he is talking about a legal context: that is, a woman should not be able to legally claim she has been the victim of rape when she declines at the last second after having presented a large amount of evidence that she did consent (if this were the case, it would be much too easy for women to claim that they had been raped arbitrarily in order to punish their former boyfriends or for some other reasons). Cases such as State v. Rusk (http://wings.buffalo.../web/mdrusk.htm) are evidence that it's not always easy
  8. The following is my experience of it. But I should mention that I am relatively young and haven't been in that many relationships nor am I presenting this as a philosophic defense of a specific construal of the concept of love. I am overcome with a desire to see her happy - but not just by any means. I want to see her happy in part by recognizing who I am and what I have achieved and deriving pleasure from that. I also experience a sense that when I am with her every aspect of my life has somehow been enhanced all at once. I think that's because I have someone with whom I feel I can share
  9. You're really great! :)

  10. Allow me to take this a bit further and play devil's advocate for a moment. Why is it rational to care about what happens after you die? After all, you have no control over it one way or another, and you will not be there to experience the happiness or suffering that takes place in that time. Is it possible that it's a psychological aspect of humans that we have emotional attachments beyond when they are necessary or useful, and this would be an example of that? Tristan
  11. 1. I'm not sure that it's always the case that heroin or meth is immediately addictive in the way that you imply. I think that might be the case with some people, but it depends on the dose of course and probably the person's constitution and predispositions. In any case, even if they were, that's not a reason to make those drugs illegal. It is a reason, I think, to make it illegal to sell them to minors, since we cannot assume that their rational faculties are fully developed such that they could make such a decision. You seem to imply that it is self-destructive for adults to take these drug
  • Create New...