ethan_a_dawe

Members
  • Content Count

    76
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About ethan_a_dawe

  • Rank
    $$
  1. Verbal aggression? He condones real-life physical aggression and you censor me for verbal aggression? Disgusting. Shayne Hopefully this will get through... Shayne simply refuses to acknowledge that the idea of 'choice' becomes very murky when we deal with addictions/mental illness. He lashes out at someone who doesn't approve of crack dealers. He needs to try to understand why some might legitimately see the sale of highly addictive and dangerous drugs as predatory and worthy of legal prevention efforts. Bob Bob needs to recognize that the choice issue was decided when the person chose to
  2. No, it isn't. Okay Michael, I'll head out. Some day you may publish your treatise and I'll read it then and give it it's due. I assure you that I look forward to it. Despite your claims, you haven't shown me anything to prove your point. I honestly wanted to give your ideas a hearing after the nasty turn it took on RoR. I spend a great deal of time thinking about things, and have gone rounds in my head and with people about Objectivism as I learned and integrated. That will never stop. I will always be willing to listen to a challenge, as that's the only way to learn and understand. I'll ref
  3. "Bilbo, the ring is still in your pocket."
  4. You can throw in OPAR if you like (use the Index), but that's Peikoff, not Rand. Still, he claims to represent Objectivism, so it is instructive. Now, all you do is compare one against the other. Give it a try. You apparently represent that IOPD mess and find no problem at all with it. At least you frequently advocate in defense of the author. Please correct me if I am wrong. But if you do the donkey-work, you will see that some of the things are OK in the IOPD, but some of them are really out there and are totally misrepresentative of Rand's ideas. This is from a guy who says he speaks in Ra
  5. :no: Michael, I don't mean to suggest that I know what you are thinking. When I say "you must think" I mean that is my conclusion based on what you have said. Of course your answer was not an answer, just a smoke screen. Now below your answer to Ellen is just that as well. You haven't answered my question, which is just asking you to define and prove what you have said on this thread. My suggestion to you is that you stop looking for the smart-ass teacher responses and start actually proving something. So far we have baseless assertions. I want to know what your theory is! Stop telling me how
  6. By all means, keep piling. I'm not buying it. You must think we are all jargon spewers who haven't integrated what Rand said. I disagree. Ethan
  7. Define: What is a right to life? What is a right? You have taken this phrase, "right to life" and made a lot of it. I don't see the contradiction that you are talking about. You say people here don't understand what you're saying or twist it. All of us? I'm not known for being particularly stupid, and I don't think the others posting here are either. Are we all just narrow minded or dogmatic? You have made statements that things are a not as we would say. You say we are wrong. You say that you are figuring this out. If you are figuring it out, then I don't think you know that Rand was wrong
  8. Michael, For someone who doesn't like government, and doesn't like being told what to do, you seem strangely willing to support a law for punishing people who don't do what you think should be done. :logik: In any case, I look forward to seeing the final conclusions you draw in your investigations. Once you have it all together and thought out I'll read it and discuss it then. I assume we'll see it here sometime?
  9. I would act to save Hank by pushing the button. But..... 1) No he is not legally required to act. 2) Yes, he could be charged for assaulting Wesley. 3) If the judge ruled thus and confirmed that his ruling was based on thinking Wesly should have acted then it would be open to appeal. What if Wesley went to hit the big red button and accidently hit one that casued a bunch of other workers to be injured or killed? Then he get's to court and say's he tried to do the right thing but was in error or confused? What if he claims that but the judge thinks he did it becasue he hated Hank and the other
  10. I was under the impression that you had concluded that babies had a right to life that required action by those able no matter how related. Is that not true? What I mean is, you have argued against others here and asserted that something is so. Now, if you just have a hypothesis that that is the case, that's one thing. That's fine. If you start telling other people they are wrong and that you don't accept their view I would assume that you had a conclusion or proof. Maybe not. You say you're still working this out. But you also claim others are blanking things out and are insistent that a chil
  11. Ethan, That's totally backwards. You don't start with a conclusion. On a metaphysical level there are no rights for anyone or anything. There is only existence. Philosophically, rights pertain to the branch of politics. The concept of rights rests on metaphysics, not the other way around. This is very indicative of the problem with understanding I have experienced on this issue. You appear to be debating to win some kind of pre-determined position or arguing to arrive at some kind of pre-determined conclusion—or expecting me to do the same. I'm on another wave-length entirely. When I start fro
  12. Ethan, You haven't been reading me correctly. I have been constructing the definition from the ground up and I have stated clearly I do not have the answer. And I have essentially been asking you these questions. All I get is recycled jargon, not concepts. I reject recycled jargon. This is too important. Michael This is a repeat of my post #96 which seems to have gotten overlooked in the debate......... Okay, let's throw away Rand's comments and all that has come before this and start fresh with what you've said. You have stated clearly a conclusion that the child has a right to life. If you
  13. I agree Jeff, great post.
  14. Ethan, You haven't been reading me correctly. I have been constructing the definition from the ground up and I have stated clearly I do not have the answer. And I have essentially been asking you these questions. All I get is recycled jargon, not concepts. I reject recycled jargon. This is too important. Michael Okay, let's throw away Rand's comments and all that has come before this and start fresh with what you've said. You have stated clearly a conclusion that the child has a right to life. If you are building this from the ground up, and have come to this conclusion, the process of buildi
  15. Michael, Rand was talking about positive and negative rights. You can't quote her and then claim she meant some other type of rights. You have specifically quoted her on the childs "right to life." What do you mean by a right then? What is your definition? The negative rights in Objectivism are just identification of what we are as human beings. What is it in our nature that puts an obligation for our well-being onto another? Furthermore, if you were right, and babies had this right that causes obligations, then we WOULD be obliged to deal with all the unwanted babies of the world, wouldn't we