Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Rhona Hindler

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Rhona Hindler

  1. The right to life is determined by an ability to conceptualize and reify one's environment. It follows that the mentally retarded and psychologically ill would still have that right, as neither condition precludes sapience. Someone in a Persistent Vegetative State with no hope of recovery wouldn't have an inalienable right to life because their state of being precludes sapience. More than likely, they would subsist on the mercy and will of their guardian, or on the charity of others. Ending such a person's life without the expressed permission of their guardian would be immoral.
  2. Amazingly, that vague spout of nonsense conveys a complete misunderstanding of even elementary Objectivist principles.
  3. By definition, a delusion is any type of false notion. By definition, a hallucination is a delusion that would appear perceptible. Obviously, these are very broad definitions which could be interpreted to mean seeing things from the corner of one's eye, hearing subtle sounds, or just thinking anything falsifiable; however, the distinction's applied to one's mental status, and how well it corresponds to reality. In this case, "seeing" jet-pack toting panda bear-tigers does not correspond to reality; believing that a twenty-thousand year old insect instructs you to kill people and consume their flesh does not correspond to reality, either. When applying such examples as these for evaluation of one's mental status, the psychiatrist must assess how consistent are these thoughts. One could hardly call a Scientologist insane just because, however, a "Scientologist" instructed by Xenu to blow-up a hospital filled with blasphemers almost certainly is. I think the issue some have with Psychiatry, Psychology, and other mental academics is that there isn't a really concrete line between what's normal, and what isn't: What defines a normal train of thought? As opposed to abnormal? Is one insane because of one hallucination, or several, or chronic ones over periods of years? These are all valid inquiries, true, but the trick is--being redundant--to evaluate how consistently these thoughts are applied.
  4. Or more generally, it could simply be a rejection of reality. Most people are mentally conservative. That is, most individuals cling to ideas they find favorable, and deny, to varying degrees, subversive ideas. And, when ingrained from birth the nobleness of government, that sharing--for its own sake--is a virtue, and that individuals owe society in some form, is it really a surprise that such a large faction of people would become "Leftist?" Of course, Hollywood, historical depictions of labor unions, corporations, and the like don't certainly improve the situation.
  5. It is not morally wrong of you to "mosh" if you expect to gain something of value from the activity. Obviously, if you're simply engaging for the sake of engaging, or you feel compelled, then it would be morally wrong. However, I don't think it's particularly prudent of you to jump into a barely-conscious crowd with the intent of aggregation.
  6. I suppose the proper answer to this question would involve extremity of action. In fact, context does matter when assessing a situation and deciding whether or not to apply a given conclusion. If she endorses simple (conservative) democrat policies, not true Socialism, then retribution a la death isn't a justified course of action. If, however, she endorses containment units, oppression through expression in all forms life, artificial population control methods, etc., then I'd argue that death might be preferable. Now, if the subtext of your question were, "Why should certain punishments exist," I'd be happy to discuss.
  7. I disagree, partially. Albeit taught in a non-rigorous manner, if these children were exposed to public education, they would at least learn something, anything. Among others, skills necessary to survive in this modern day. As you observed, they probably are receiving some education from their parents, but how much, and how comprehensive? Ideally they would attend a magnate school.
  8. Late response here. This is probably the most ineffective method of instructing children. Schooling as a service primary function should be to equip future adults with the tools necessary to obtain a job, provide a solid, rational philosophical background, and enforce some amount of socialization (it isn't particularly prudent to attach social zombies to your institution). Period. Foregoing the former two in favor of just socialization produces nothing of value to society. What good is someone if they can only run a "democratic society?" Further adding to the absurdity, the officials of this abomination of logic claim "remarkable success" from their methods. Not success in traditional subjects--Math, English/Language, Science, History/Social Sciences--but in some dubious, ambiguous concept. If this continues, which it probably will seeing as how these "new-age" methods are being increasingly proliferated throughout the media, these children will be mental stumps: incapable of reasoning in the traditional subjects, incapable of determining the benefits from the negatives from a given situation, and unable to determine a background. This is far worse than any "education" that even the worst of public schools could provide.
  9. As the poster above me stated, you're conflating idiocy with wisdom, not intelligence (or lack thereof). Stop it. You enjoy bloviating (not spelled incorrectly) about the most irrelevant of topics, don't you? "We" are not in the "same boat." "You" are simply projecting your own educational inadequacies unto "us." I recommend that if "you" feel dismayed by "your" educational attainment, "you" do something about it. Don't convey this upon "everyone", conflate fact with assumption, and be on your merry way. Further, politics present adequate solutions to political problems, especially ones facing an entire globe.
  10. There's hardly a reason to. Random nonsense. Again, there is very little discussion to be had. You summarized the topic nicely, "The crisis in the lower grades K-12 comes from the lack of competition." That's almost self-explanatory: If you remove the incentive for higher-performing teaches to remain consistent via across-the-board salaries, and if you remove the incentive for higher-performing students to remain active and diligent in their studies via "NCLB," and if you remove the incentive for individual schools to teach not strictly to tests via standardized testing, then, why exactly would you expect competition, or incentive, to exist among those parties? None of which requires the elucidation of this thread. A better topic would ruminate about the merits of instantaneous vs incremental instrumentation of privatized schooling, not simply highlight a well-known, and equally regurgitated issue.
  11. I don't understand what the topic of discussion is. Are we, the readers, simply here to agree with your assessment of the public-schooling system? That is, what form of debate could derive from anything you just said?
  • Create New...