Derek McGowan

One officer I spoke to said that they wouldn't prefer the put you to sleep device because it only works up to 100 yards while the criminals' gun has a longer reach! I was like "HUh...how does that make a...."

yeah, most of them keep making reference to getting ambushed

Currently reading Einstein's Theories of Relativity and Gravitation by J. Malcolm Bird It is about a competition that was held to see who could explain relativity to the general population in 3000 words or less. I'm about half way through it and there has only been about 3 mathematical statements and they have been used purely as analogies. I'm loving the book so far. It explains everything very systematically starting with how humans think (Greek philosophers) and each chapter builds on the next where, in plain English, you almost have no choice but to agree with ALL of the conclusions. It is available to read for free online

So my part time job is retail. Halloween is a huge season for us. Several of the our franchise stores (I'm a floating manager) have off duty police as security during this month. I worked at one of those stores the final week of October. The thoughts of police shootings, whether they were mistaken or justified, has been on my mind a bit lately and so I took the opportunity to discuss this whole body camera thing with the officers. I have a alternative idea that I wanted to hear there thoughts on. Since incapacitating the criminal is the major factor and not exactly how you do it, I asked what about a law that says officers leave there guns in the vehicles unless they know they are walking into a hold-up or some other known situation where a gun is a absolute must. At all other times the officers would carry tasers. I was told that the officers can never know what they are walking into, a. and b. the idea is to always have either a balance of force with the criminal element or an upper hand. Those points make sense to me, fine..... even though I still can't see how a taser is less powerful than a gun when the taser will still incapacitate the same as (and probably more so) than a gun since shooting someone with a gun in the arm will not bring them down but shooting them in the arm with a taser will (?) None of the officers were comfortable with taking a taser into the field against those who potentially have guns. But fine, I said. What about this. ....and this was where I got all Sci-Fi, like I'm prone to do..... What if the department gave you a device that will allow you to put a person to sleep, instantly, with but a glance and a thought. This device would be genetically encoded to you, so it couldn't be taken from you, it would work from point blank to 100 yards. You could take down multiple people. No recharge time. No medical repercussions to the officer or to the receiver. Would you be comfortable with taking that into the field versus a gun? I asked 5 officers on different days. Granted, that is hardly a sample size at all, but there were black and white officers. One was a female, one was on the K-9 unit. So there was some variety. Not a single one was comfortable with this. They all felt safer with their gun. So then I said that if it is about a balance of power, who would you consider to have more power if you (the officer) had the gun and the criminal had the put-you-to-sleep-at-a-distance device... They All Said the Criminal!! I just don't get it....

Yes I know I'm two days late.... Remember, remember, the fifth of November

I don't really see how asking someone "How you doing?" is harassment. She may get asked all the time and it may get annoying but isn't that the way you start a conversation? If a nice guy (someone she was attracted to) wanted to meet her in the library or on the parent's bench at the playground, what would he say differently as a starter?

I cant agree when he was very explicit on the desired outcome- the expressed collapse of society. He saw a society or at least he saw where it was going (in the meeting at the car manufactures) , he said it was wrong and wanted to bring it down. He then took concrete steps to accomplish that goal, knowing full well (they even talked about the death destruction and danger that would take place while at the gulch) what it would lead to. I can only believe that he did it on purpose

Rand viewed altruism as the moral duty to sacrifice one's one interests and happiness for the interests and happiness of others. I may choose to undergo a personal inconvenience rather than harming others, without doing so from a sense of duty. I may even view the welfare and happiness of others as an essential part of my own happiness. Such possibilities do not qualify as "altruism" in Rand's sense. Linked below is the first part of my Cato series on Rand and altruism in which I discuss this issue in detail. For a pertinent discussion of the issue you have raised, see Part 4 , which discusses Rand's correspondence with John Hospers. Another important factor is how fundamental moral principles function psychologically and the role they play in decision making. I discuss that issue here. Ghs thanks for links

Its been a whole year

Someone please define altruism for me. and if it is putting others before you, explain how it is not putting others before you if you self quarantine yourself for life... I'm only re-asking because we have begun talking about the negative side of exposing people and we haven't touched the negative side of self quarantine. Their is no negative side of self quarantine? Or does the positive of everyone else's life out balance the positive of your own

Right, that's why I said that the action may be either good or bad but it was the fact that he didn't care about others that she looked up to. I'll admit, I got some details wrong but it seems the fact still remains, you may call the infecting of the world wrong, the infector may say that he doesn't care about your morals. Also, why wouldn't someone have family as a fundamental ethic? Even if the family dies because of the infection, don't forget that because of the infector's actions, they (the family) also got to spend their last days with him and if they value family as much as he, they actually might be grateful..... maybe not Lets also not forget the whole Dagny and the guard thread. She was willing to kill in order to reach one of her fundamental values (Galt) Why can't out infector be willing to kill in order to reach his?

I'll have to look into this. I actually dont know the difference at the current time and according to the philosophy

I feel like you are justifying. I could say many things(none of which would make much sense but to me, neither did your response here) such as I have a virus sure but it wasn't me who transmitted it to the people across the globe, it was the virus that did it, or it was the people who got it from me who did it. Or I could bring up again the fact that Galt purposely wanted to collapse a system and which he knew would lead to death. So you could defend him, as in my example, by saying, sure he knew exactly what it would do but he really only convinced a few to leave the society so his actions are really confined to the negotiations between him and those people. Francisco was explicitly out to destroy the finances, and thus the lives, of those he felt were parasites. Ragnar's actions directly led to death by lack of resources. If I have a system of irrigation set up and you, knowing that irrigation needs water, decide to dam the river before it gets to my land, somehow you would be innocent of "actively interfering" in my life?

Jesus

I hope Baal was just joking

Oh I know, I just wanted to start there and see how far down the line I could take it

No. Galt purposely stopped the engine of the world (he planned and took steps) in order to collapse a system knowing that it would lead to mass starvation and general upheaval Also, what if the individual convinced themselves that the virus wasn't contagious? What if it was JTS, just back from Alpha Centuri, where the locals told him that he had this infection and it would kill everyone if he went back but he said "Aw thats just a hoax" Would he be guilty of purposely infereing in others lives?

Does this mean that even the transmitting of a common cold to others could be interpreted as an infringement on others rights? Should you be able to sue a co-worker who knew they were sick and yet still came to work? Can you sue if someone infected you with AIDS and they knew they had it? With Ebola? With Chicken Pox? With Pink eye?

What if his lifelong principles don't include a care for the human race long term? Where is it proven that to be rational, you must care about the long term prospects of the general population? If that is a fact, we have a whole nother thread to come!

Wouldn't this mean that Galt's and more likely Francisco's actions would be categorized as wrong, because according to you, they purposely set out to ruin others, they didn't care whether they were innocent or not

I feel that it is problematic for you to decide who is good based on what you would do or what you would like to see done. If this individual truly sees their own satisfaction above lives of the general population then, while the results may be bad for the human race, that is what they should do.... or at least that's what I've gotten from the philosophy. Remember that Rand looked up to that serial killer guy, not because the deaths he caused were good or bad for the human race but because he didn't care what happened to others in general

So JTS, you didn't explicitly answer the question, is the virus itself a hoax or is just that all the alarm raised over them is unwarranted? Also, what does this have to do with my initial post?

The more Im watching this show, the more I find myself attracted to Halle Berry. I don't know if it is because I'm getting older so I see her beauty more/ my tastes evolved or if, since she was always older than me, since I'm older now, older people are just more my speed now. Either way, she was just okay to me ten years ago but now, she is steadily moving up through the ranks!

Ebola got me thinking... But lets take this to a sci-fi extreme shall we Suppose you contracted a radically contagious, 100% kill rate, rapid death (5 days) alien infection while on your daily duty patrolling the kuiper belt. Knowing it is the end of your life, you would love to spend it with your loved ones back on Earth. But then you also know that if you return to Earth the disease would rapidly spread to 90% or more of the worlds population. Are you being altruistic (evil) if you decide to not go back to Earth, depriving yourself of your loved ones company in your final days for the sake of strangers? Or maybe you are being patriotic (however that may fit into Objectivist philosophy)? Remember that while the philosophy is based on rational selfishness, the rational part only prevents people from doing what they like because of the consequences to oneself. There are no consequences to oneself if you are going to die anyway in 5 days. And what does you dead self care if everyone else dies after you, because of you? If Objectivism had a religious/after-life/eternity in hell component then there would indeed be consequences and it wouldn't be rational to infect others, but it doesn't..... and the selfish part is satisfied with you being able to see those you love in your final days. Allow me to state for the record that I personally do not believe in altruism at all. To me, all behavior is selfish at its core, whether the act makes you feel good or it prevents you from feeling guilt/bad. ps. this is a thought experiment, let's not have any technicalities brought up like "how would the disease reach 90% of the population," or "how would one get back to Earth from the Kuiper belt in 5 days," or "how would one even know that this infection is highly contagious or that there is no cure if this is the first time anyone has contracted it" I don't want to hear any of that sh.... carry on

Geez Wolf, Sorry to have offended your sensibilities... ps. yes, many died during construction of the underworld city