Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Cmac19

  • Rank
    Junior Member
  • Birthday 07/22/1990

Previous Fields

  • Country
  • State (US/Canadian)
  • Interested in meeting
    People in the Toronto area for social or romantic relationships.
  • Relationship status
  • Sexual orientation
  • Real Name
    Colin MacDonald
  • Copyright
  • Biography/Intro
    19 Year old law student from Toronto Ontario interested in Philosophy, Law, Economics, Mixed Martial Arts, Brazilian Ju Jistu, Baseball, Football, Swimming, Art, Music, Guitar, Parties.. Etc.
  • School or University
    Ryerson University
  • Occupation

Contact Methods

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Toronto, Ontario
  • Interests
    Philosophy, Law, Economics, Mixed Martial Arts, Brazilian Ju Jistu, Baseball, Football, Swimming, Art, Music, Guitar, Parties.. Etc.
  1. This is really disturbing... but not even a little surprising. Goodbye capitalism, hello socialist dictatorship. Invest in bullets
  2. Actually she did address this issue in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. She writes that punitive damages applied to civil court cases as well as fines given to criminals would be more than enough to fund the necessarily small number of services needed in a rational society
  3. Is the idea of citizenship charges a legitimate plan? I have heard arguments before that the government cannot own any property and therefore it is immoral for them to charge us simply to live here, however, is it necessarily immoral for the government to charge us for the provision of services in the same way a business does? The laws of supply and demand still apply to government services (ie higher crime rate = a higher demand for court services) however no Objectivist would ever claim that businesses should be supported by donation. Is it possible to run all government agencies through sys
  4. Cmac19

    Criminal-acts or not?

    I would have to disagree Mindy.. In the "extreme case" as David defined it the innocent other is unknowingly about to cause your death. He is not morally guilty but he is nevertheless a very real threat to your life. There are many possible scenario's in which this sort of reasoning may apply. The idea that "I can't get away, and I can't stop him without causing him serious harm or death" is both sound and moral. The individual does not intend to kill the innocent victim, however the harm he intends to inflict is the only way of preserving his own life.. In David's hypothetical it's important
  5. The idea behind the Dawkins quote is actually quite frightening, even if just because it's so plausible. Hopefully, if such technology ever does become available, it will be done intelligently and safely... although in the current trend of technology that doesn't seem likely
  6. First of all the idea of restorative justice is not new at all... Secondly it is entirely opposed to the ideas of Objectivism and the fundamental principles of justice. Restorative justice assumes that the focus of justice should be on rehabilitating the offender because there is something wrong with that person. This almost always takes the form of deterministic beliefs which blame society or the raising of the offender rather than the offender themselves. The bottom line is that offenders are rational agents with free will just like the rest of us and are just making poor decisions based on
  7. Zac it's pretty clear you're just arguing for the sake of arguing at this point... Numerous people have made it entirely clear what the true definition of collectivism is and that nothing that falls under that correct definition is morally acceptable according to Objectivism. Nothing that you have said has even come close to proving that collectivism can be good or necessary... If you have any legitimate points to make feel free. Aside from that your arguments so far have been irrelevant and poorly devised.
  8. it's also possible that your father is a good physicist, and that he is perfectly capable of understanding logic, but that he makes a conscious or unconscious decision not to apply logic to the other area's of his life. I have seen many examples of people like this around me as I watch brilliant mathematicians, or brilliant architects tell me that that sort of logic has no place in philosophy, or politics, or interactions with other people. What I believe is that these people are perfectly capable of understanding and applying logic, and that at some point in their life they actually did try t
  9. Cmac19


    The difference between the fetus and the newborn is the context of its environment, but i'll go over that when i answer your third question. The fact that a newborn can perform identification is fairly self evident. I don't really think it's necessary to claim that a baby can identify things, as soon as they are out of the womb they reach for their mother and begin breast feeding... if you really need proof of this point just go to a maternity ward. A newborn has a context for its sensations because it is aware of its environment. It can feel the cold, it can see the lights and
  10. Cmac19


    While I agree with your argument for the separate nature of a person (I will definitely include this as part of my argument next time) I fail to see how a fetus not being cut off from sensations = a conceptual consciousness. Also I would like some references to this data that fetus' can perform identifications as I believe this to be impossible. The fetus does not have any context for its sensations, although it certainly does feel and hear things, and therefore it cannot possibly perform identifications. Identification absent of all context is impossible
  11. Cmac19


    I wrote a reply to the issue of abortion for a paper recently that I feel accurately reflects the foundations of Objectivism and answers the question nicely, please feel free to point out any flaws in my reasoning. The issue of abortion is essentially the issue of personhood, if the fetus is not a person then it has no rights. If the fetus has no rights than it cannot possibly be immoral to destroy it. (I use the term personhood because the argument that the fetus has rights because it is human is speciesist and irrational) The only objective, defining characteristic of personhood is the ra
  12. Take a logic course in school, or read a book on introductory logic.. It helped me out immensely
  13. Actually this I disagree with.. Letters and words are just symbols and philosophy deals entirely in words.. Symbols are just a way of representing an idea, just like a word.. Just like creating a name for the philosophy (which is a symbol) there is nothing wrong with creating a symbol that is non verbal to convey the exact same message.
  14. Excellent response... Not enough people are actually willing to simply point out the fallacies and leave it at that.. but really, that's all you need to do. Once you've pointed out that someone's logic is faulty then the discussion is over.. either change your reasoning or give up
  15. I agree, I would say self-absorbed but even that could be taken as an important feature.. I would say skip the self-interest part and just go on about how irrational or stupid they're being
  • Create New...