Objectivism Q&A

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for surrealnumber5
surrealnumber5

23044

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#51 surrealnumber5
Member since 2008 • 23044 Posts
[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"][QUOTE="MakeMeaSammitch"]

should charity be illegal? Or is it silly do if it is?

Ace6301
oh god, why would charity be illegal, now if you mean taxes that is not charity char·i·ty [ chárrtee ] 1organization providing charity: an organization that collects money and other voluntary contributions of help for people in need 2provision of help: the voluntary provision of money, materials, or help to people in need 3material help: money, materials, or help voluntarily given to people in need the common theme is voluntary(-ily)

Because altruistic actions are the root of all evil or some such and helping people is what causes all suffering.

never thought about that..... it does not ring true, rejected. beep boop.
Avatar image for Laihendi
Laihendi

5872

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#52 Laihendi
Member since 2009 • 5872 Posts
how can ayn rand support mental servitude in the form of idea rights or intellectual property, something she was an ardent supporter of? and if it is an objective contradiction how can you hold her up on a pillar of virtue as the spokesperson of objectivism? thought is not finite, it is infinitely reproducible, how can one hold title over it? how can you objectively rationalize indenturing current and future generations by artificially limiting their intellectual breath? surrealnumber5
Copyright laws are immoral, and that is the only serious issue that Ayn Rand was wrong about. I will remind people that I am not inclined to answer questions that do not seem to be motivated by a desire to learn about Objectivism (an example being sammitch's question of whether I have played Bioshock).
Avatar image for MakeMeaSammitch
MakeMeaSammitch

4889

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#53 MakeMeaSammitch
Member since 2012 • 4889 Posts

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]how can ayn rand support mental servitude in the form of idea rights or intellectual property, something she was an ardent supporter of? and if it is an objective contradiction how can you hold her up on a pillar of virtue as the spokesperson of objectivism? thought is not finite, it is infinitely reproducible, how can one hold title over it? how can you objectively rationalize indenturing current and future generations by artificially limiting their intellectual breath? Laihendi
Copyright laws are immoral, and that is the only serious issue that Ayn Rand was wrong about. I will remind people that I am not inclined to answer questions that do not seem to be motivated by a desire to learn about Objectivism (an example being sammitch's question of whether I have played Bioshock).

that game is basically any rand under water. 

It's relavent.

Avatar image for MakeMeaSammitch
MakeMeaSammitch

4889

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#54 MakeMeaSammitch
Member since 2012 • 4889 Posts

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] Copyright laws are immoral, and that is the only serious issue that Ayn Rand was wrong about. I will remind people that I am not inclined to answer questions that do not seem to be motivated by a desire to learn about Objectivism (an example being sammitch's question of whether I have played Bioshock).Ace6301
Bioshock concerns itself with Objectivism and Rand though. Also Sammich I asked him that before and he said no he hadn't nor does he intend to. Shame really. I'd love to see him either missing the point or rating it a 1.0.
I am so glad i did not go on my long rant about "objectivits" collectivizingsurrealnumber5
I am also glad that you did not do that.

but it's so good :'(

Avatar image for deactivated-5b1e62582e305
deactivated-5b1e62582e305

30778

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#55 deactivated-5b1e62582e305
Member since 2004 • 30778 Posts

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]how can ayn rand support mental servitude in the form of idea rights or intellectual property, something she was an ardent supporter of? and if it is an objective contradiction how can you hold her up on a pillar of virtue as the spokesperson of objectivism? thought is not finite, it is infinitely reproducible, how can one hold title over it? how can you objectively rationalize indenturing current and future generations by artificially limiting their intellectual breath? Laihendi
Copyright laws are immoral, and that is the only serious issue that Ayn Rand was wrong about. I will remind people that I am not inclined to answer questions that do not seem to be motivated by a desire to learn about Objectivism (an example being sammitch's question of whether I have played Bioshock).

What's immoral about copyright laws? Copyright laws prevent theft of intellectual property.

Avatar image for hoola
hoola

6422

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#56 hoola
Member since 2004 • 6422 Posts

Yes, do you honestly think it is any more plausible to have a purely objectivist society than a communist one?

Avatar image for rastotm
rastotm

1380

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#57 rastotm
Member since 2011 • 1380 Posts

What happens rational self-interest dictates that it's better for a person to be subjective? Believing only in their own little world and justifying unethical things with their subjective reasoning.
How would a society based on objectivism deal with these people?

Avatar image for Laihendi
Laihendi

5872

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#58 Laihendi
Member since 2009 • 5872 Posts

Hold on, so you're saying that autism doesn't exist but is actually just people who don't want to function normally and sometimes as an independent human being? There are people with autism who can't even speak, they don't chose to do so because it's too mainstream, they are literally incapable of coherent speech.metroidprime55
If you have a speech disorder then clearly that is a legitimate issue. Autism is just a term applied to a broad spectrum of people, from genius-savants, to normal people, to the severely mentally handicapped. The only unifying factor is that they all do not live according to the expectations established by the status quo. For some it is because they cannot, for others it is because they choose not to. Some people labeled as autistic have legitimate problems, but the term is used to apply to far too broad of a range of people for it to actually mean anything.
Why did Ayn Rand see homosexuals and the handicapped as sub human degenerates? Ace6301
The handicapped are by definition degenerates. If you disagree, then I recommend checking a dictionary.
to fall below a normal or desirable level in physical, mental, or moral qualities; deteriorateThe Dictionary
Ayn Rand's dislike of homosexuality was actually a dislike of lesbian homosexuality. Lesbian sex is irrational because the female body is not physically equipped to dominate another body, and moral sex requires an act of ownership performed by one person on another.

Avatar image for jethrovegas
jethrovegas

5103

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#59 jethrovegas
Member since 2007 • 5103 Posts
I'm going to avoid the discussion of Ayn Rand's philosophy; not up for that debate right now and I suspect most have made their minds. But I will say that Rand's prose is of a fine and unusual vintage, superior in craft, and much worthier than her characterisation. I have yet to see its style approximated elsewhere. If nothing else it could be said that she was a stylist of some interest. Those mocking her outright might consider that.
Avatar image for surrealnumber5
surrealnumber5

23044

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#60 surrealnumber5
Member since 2008 • 23044 Posts

Yes, do you honestly think it is any more plausible to have a purely objectivist society than a communist one?

hoola
see southpark episodes go god go and go god go 12, see how flawed science is as a social structure
Avatar image for MakeMeaSammitch
MakeMeaSammitch

4889

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#61 MakeMeaSammitch
Member since 2012 • 4889 Posts

What games do you play? 

Avatar image for Chemistian
Chemistian

635

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#62 Chemistian
Member since 2003 • 635 Posts
Just to play along... What is the "Objectivist" view on jury duty? Being as jury duty has been described as an obligation that can be imposed upon citizenry, does that mean it should be eliminated? For that matter, is there any kind of structured judicial system acceptable to the radical "freedom movement" being sold under the guise of libertarianism by this thought process?
Avatar image for MakeMeaSammitch
MakeMeaSammitch

4889

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#63 MakeMeaSammitch
Member since 2012 • 4889 Posts

Is south park objectionist?

Avatar image for Ace6301
Ace6301

21389

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#64 Ace6301
Member since 2005 • 21389 Posts
moral sex requires an act of ownership performed by one person on another.Laihendi
Kinky, not moral.
Avatar image for Guybrush_3
Guybrush_3

8308

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#65 Guybrush_3
Member since 2008 • 8308 Posts

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"]Do parents have the right to abuse their children?Laihendi
Any person has a right to do whatever he will with his property. An infant is incapable of conceptualizing ego, which means it does not exist as a sentient rational individual. It is incapable of conceptualizing life and freedom, which means that it is the property of whoever produced it (the parents). As a child grows intellectually and develops into a rational individual it becomes possible to abuse them, because only a sentient individual is capable of recognizing and, therefore, experiencing abuse. No one has a right to abuse anyone who is capable of being abused - so the answer is no.

Except that abuse as a new born can negatively affect a person throughout their life, stripping them of what is rightfully theirs (their body and mind) before they even had a chance to have it. You constantly complain about your parents' money being taxed as it will hurt your inheritance, which you claim is rightfully yours even though you haven't yet recieved it. How is that not worse?

Avatar image for surrealnumber5
surrealnumber5

23044

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#66 surrealnumber5
Member since 2008 • 23044 Posts

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] You completely missed the point of those episodes then. -Sun_Tzu-
not really, the point was that their would always be trivial conflicts, it does not matter the society, also that the wii is great, at least in japan *puffles*

No the point was that ideology is the root of conflict, not that there would always be conflicts. That was why there was that whole speech about "-ism's" at the end.

how i interpret fiction, not a class i care about, but really anything can be an ism so i am still right it just depends on your scope and really you are just picking this fight to jingle your jollies

Avatar image for Laihendi
Laihendi

5872

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#67 Laihendi
Member since 2009 • 5872 Posts
[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="PannicAtack"]Do parents have the right to abuse their children?PannicAtack
Any person has a right to do whatever he will with his property. An infant is incapable of conceptualizing ego, which means it does not exist as a sentient rational individual. It is incapable of conceptualizing life and freedom, which means that it is the property of whoever produced it (the parents). As a child grows intellectually and develops into a rational individual it becomes possible to abuse them, because only a sentient individual is capable of recognizing and, therefore, experiencing abuse. No one has a right to abuse anyone who is capable of being abused - so the answer is no.

So what's the cut-off age, exactly? When they start being able to talk? When they start going to school? What about the implications of the way that their treatment would affect physical and cognitive development that carry over into years when they develop an ego?

A person is fully developed as a person when he recognizes that it is only rational to live for his own sake. When you ask a person who he lives for and his answer is that he lives for his own sake, and when you ask him what he lives for and is answer is that he lives to seek happiness, that is when he is no longer a child, but is a man. That is when the ego has been successfully developed. There is no specific age. Of course, the methods used by parents to raise a child may help or hinder their development as a person. The failure to parent effectively would result in the failure of the child to develop into an individual - the failure for that person to ever come into existence.
Avatar image for MakeMeaSammitch
MakeMeaSammitch

4889

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#68 MakeMeaSammitch
Member since 2012 • 4889 Posts

I honestly might bookmark this thread.

Avatar image for one_plum
one_plum

6825

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#69 one_plum
Member since 2009 • 6825 Posts

have you played bioshock?

MakeMeaSammitch

This.

Avatar image for coolbeans90
coolbeans90

21305

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#70 coolbeans90
Member since 2009 • 21305 Posts

On a scale of 1-10, how important is it that we defend the rights of parents to rape and murder their children?

Avatar image for Ace6301
Ace6301

21389

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#71 Ace6301
Member since 2005 • 21389 Posts
[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="PannicAtack"][QUOTE="Laihendi"] Any person has a right to do whatever he will with his property. An infant is incapable of conceptualizing ego, which means it does not exist as a sentient rational individual. It is incapable of conceptualizing life and freedom, which means that it is the property of whoever produced it (the parents). As a child grows intellectually and develops into a rational individual it becomes possible to abuse them, because only a sentient individual is capable of recognizing and, therefore, experiencing abuse. No one has a right to abuse anyone who is capable of being abused - so the answer is no.

So what's the cut-off age, exactly? When they start being able to talk? When they start going to school? What about the implications of the way that their treatment would affect physical and cognitive development that carry over into years when they develop an ego?

A person is fully developed as a person when he recognizes that it is only rational to live for his own sake. When you ask a person who he lives for and his answer is that he lives for his own sake, and when you ask him what he lives for and is answer is that he lives to seek happiness, that is when he is no longer a child, but is a man. That is when the ego has been successfully developed. There is no specific age. Of course, the methods used by parents to raise a child may help or hinder their development as a person. The failure to parent effectively would result in the failure of the child to develop into an individual - the failure for that person to ever come into existence.

Under this definition all military, police, journalists...well really anyone with any dangerous aspect to their job must be referred to as children. No man who respects himself above all else and lives only to seek happiness would do those jobs for the meager earnings they offer.
Avatar image for MakeMeaSammitch
MakeMeaSammitch

4889

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#72 MakeMeaSammitch
Member since 2012 • 4889 Posts

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"]

Speaking of missing the point...

So, you've stated that in To Kill a Mockingbird, you believe that Tom Robinson was guilty all along. Given that this pretty much completely contradicts the story's central themes (i.e. innocence killed by ignorance and malice), then what exactly do you think the point of the book/film was?

Laihendi

I do not recall there being a point to any of it. It is just a bunch of subjectivist pseudo-philosophy.
What's immoral about copyright laws? Copyright laws prevent theft of intellectual property.Aljosa23
Copyright laws are a restriction of the exchange of ideas. It is a violation of the mind, and of the expression of the mind. Ideas are immaterial and therefore cannot be owned as property. Plagiarism is obviously a potential issue, but that should be addressed at a private level between writers/employers, teachers/students, etc. A writer who plagiarizes should be fired, his books should not be bought, and so on. Employers and institutions that do not want plagiarism (which rationally would be all of them) should have a strict anti-plagiarism policy that will allow them to dismiss those who violate it.

I am done answering questions tonight. I will answer more tomorrow.

that doesn't make sense though. Look at offbrand drugs. They're chemical copies of name brand drugs, but people still buy them en masse.

I think you over estimate how much people care.

Avatar image for surrealnumber5
surrealnumber5

23044

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#73 surrealnumber5
Member since 2008 • 23044 Posts

On a scale of 1-10, how important is it that we defend the rights of parents to rape and murder their children?

coolbeans90

On a scale of 1-10, how important is it that we defend the rights of government to rape and murder their children?

coolbeans90
difference? i dont see one.
Avatar image for -Sun_Tzu-
-Sun_Tzu-

17384

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#74 -Sun_Tzu-
Member since 2007 • 17384 Posts
[QUOTE="hoola"]

Yes, do you honestly think it is any more plausible to have a purely objectivist society than a communist one?

surrealnumber5
see southpark episodes go god go and go god go 12, see how flawed science is as a social structure

You completely missed the point of those episodes then.
Avatar image for PannicAtack
PannicAtack

21040

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#75 PannicAtack
Member since 2006 • 21040 Posts
[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="PannicAtack"][QUOTE="Laihendi"] Any person has a right to do whatever he will with his property. An infant is incapable of conceptualizing ego, which means it does not exist as a sentient rational individual. It is incapable of conceptualizing life and freedom, which means that it is the property of whoever produced it (the parents). As a child grows intellectually and develops into a rational individual it becomes possible to abuse them, because only a sentient individual is capable of recognizing and, therefore, experiencing abuse. No one has a right to abuse anyone who is capable of being abused - so the answer is no.

So what's the cut-off age, exactly? When they start being able to talk? When they start going to school? What about the implications of the way that their treatment would affect physical and cognitive development that carry over into years when they develop an ego?

A person is fully developed as a person when he recognizes that it is only rational to live for his own sake. When you ask a person who he lives for and his answer is that he lives for his own sake, and when you ask him what he lives for and is answer is that he lives to seek happiness, that is when he is no longer a child, but is a man. That is when the ego has been successfully developed. There is no specific age. Of course, the methods used by parents to raise a child may help or hinder their development as a person. The failure to parent effectively would result in the failure of the child to develop into an individual - the failure for that person to ever come into existence.

Aaaaaaand that doesn't really answer any of my questions in any meaningful way. Just a bunch of vagues.
Avatar image for Ace6301
Ace6301

21389

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#76 Ace6301
Member since 2005 • 21389 Posts
[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="PannicAtack"] So what's the cut-off age, exactly? When they start being able to talk? When they start going to school? What about the implications of the way that their treatment would affect physical and cognitive development that carry over into years when they develop an ego?

A person is fully developed as a person when he recognizes that it is only rational to live for his own sake. When you ask a person who he lives for and his answer is that he lives for his own sake, and when you ask him what he lives for and is answer is that he lives to seek happiness, that is when he is no longer a child, but is a man. That is when the ego has been successfully developed. There is no specific age. Of course, the methods used by parents to raise a child may help or hinder their development as a person. The failure to parent effectively would result in the failure of the child to develop into an individual - the failure for that person to ever come into existence.

Under this definition all military, police, journalists...well really anyone with any dangerous aspect to their job must be referred to as children. No man who respects himself above all else and lives only to seek happiness would do those jobs for the meager earnings they offer.

Kind of sad Lai didn't respond to this and probably never will.
Avatar image for surrealnumber5
surrealnumber5

23044

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#77 surrealnumber5
Member since 2008 • 23044 Posts
[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"][QUOTE="hoola"]

Yes, do you honestly think it is any more plausible to have a purely objectivist society than a communist one?

-Sun_Tzu-
see southpark episodes go god go and go god go 12, see how flawed science is as a social structure

You completely missed the point of those episodes then.

not really, the point was that their would always be trivial conflicts, it does not matter the society, also that the wii is great, at least in japan *puffles*
Avatar image for -Sun_Tzu-
-Sun_Tzu-

17384

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#78 -Sun_Tzu-
Member since 2007 • 17384 Posts
[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] see southpark episodes go god go and go god go 12, see how flawed science is as a social structure

You completely missed the point of those episodes then.

not really, the point was that their would always be trivial conflicts, it does not matter the society, also that the wii is great, at least in japan *puffles*

No the point was that ideology is the root of conflict, not that there would always be conflicts. That was why there was that whole speech about "-ism's" at the end.
Avatar image for coolbeans90
coolbeans90

21305

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#79 coolbeans90
Member since 2009 • 21305 Posts

iirc they abolished ALL the isms

and something about still fighting over hawaii b/c greedy bastards

but its been a while

Avatar image for PannicAtack
PannicAtack

21040

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#80 PannicAtack
Member since 2006 • 21040 Posts

iirc they abolished ALL the isms

and something about still fighting over hawaii b/c greedy bastards

but its been a while

coolbeans90
They didn't "abolish" them so much as "not fight over them."
Avatar image for lostrib
lostrib

49999

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#81 lostrib
Member since 2009 • 49999 Posts

So does objectivism make you an insufferable douche, or did being an insufferable douche lead you to objectivism?

Avatar image for MakeMeaSammitch
MakeMeaSammitch

4889

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#82 MakeMeaSammitch
Member since 2012 • 4889 Posts

So does objectivism make you an insufferable douche, or did being an insufferable douche lead you to objectivism?

lostrib

probably both.

Avatar image for Slashless
Slashless

9534

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 88

User Lists: 0

#83 Slashless
Member since 2011 • 9534 Posts

The only thing I remember from that episode is Dawkins f*cking Garrison

;(

Avatar image for lostrib
lostrib

49999

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#84 lostrib
Member since 2009 • 49999 Posts

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

So does objectivism make you an insufferable douche, or did being an insufferable douche lead you to objectivism?

MakeMeaSammitch

probably both.

Hmm the chicken or the egg of insufferable douchiness

Avatar image for Ace6301
Ace6301

21389

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#85 Ace6301
Member since 2005 • 21389 Posts

So does objectivism make you an insufferable douche, or did being an insufferable douche lead you to objectivism?

lostrib
I think a douche (most often a teenager as teenagers tend to be douches by nature) will seek out reasons to justify his doucheyness and upon finding objectivism will either become an insufferable douche or realize how horrible being a douche sounds to bystanders and correct his douchey ways. There is of course grey area there like anything though. I mean I read it, hated it and yet many would still say I'm a douche. So ymmv on that.
Avatar image for lostrib
lostrib

49999

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#86 lostrib
Member since 2009 • 49999 Posts

Anyone else think lai probably has a sex/torture dungeon in the basement of his parents house, with ample room for ron paul and elijah wood?

Avatar image for surrealnumber5
surrealnumber5

23044

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#87 surrealnumber5
Member since 2008 • 23044 Posts
[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="surrealnumber5"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] You completely missed the point of those episodes then.

not really, the point was that their would always be trivial conflicts, it does not matter the society, also that the wii is great, at least in japan *puffles*

No the point was that ideology is the root of conflict, not that there would always be conflicts. That was why there was that whole speech about "-ism's" at the end.

how is that any different from what i said, everyone will always have their own ideology....... thus trivial conflict
Avatar image for surrealnumber5
surrealnumber5

23044

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#88 surrealnumber5
Member since 2008 • 23044 Posts

iirc they abolished ALL the isms

and something about still fighting over hawaii b/c greedy bastards

but its been a while

coolbeans90
yes they did, and still trivial conflict, the trivial point was the moral i got.
Avatar image for Sandulf29
Sandulf29

14330

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#89 Sandulf29
Member since 2010 • 14330 Posts
Are feelings a good thing? Do they help human beings progress and evolve?
Avatar image for theone86
theone86

22669

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#90 theone86
Member since 2003 • 22669 Posts

We all know that if Southpark said it then it must be true.

Avatar image for applesxc47
applesxc47

10761

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#91 applesxc47
Member since 2008 • 10761 Posts

[QUOTE="MakeMeaSammitch"]

are you autistic?

Laihendi

Autism (in the sense of it being a disorder) does not exist. It is a label applied to individuals who refuse to conform to a society built on irrational traditions. The medical and psychological establishment of the status quo upholds the status quo by labeling anyone who does not conform to the status quo as being mentally impaired.

You really went full retard there, didn't you?

Avatar image for Mithrandir50
Mithrandir50

809

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#92 Mithrandir50
Member since 2013 • 809 Posts

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="PannicAtack"]Do parents have the right to abuse their children?Aljosa23

Any person has a right to do whatever he will with his property. An infant is incapable of conceptualizing ego, which means it does not exist as a sentient rational individual. It is incapable of conceptualizing life and freedom, which means that it is the property of whoever produced it (the parents). As a child grows intellectually and develops into a rational individual it becomes possible to abuse them, because only a sentient individual is capable of recognizing and, therefore, experiencing abuse. No one has a right to abuse anyone who is capable of being abused - so the answer is no.

You are a dipsh1t with no sense of reality

and its hilarious

This is a mean thing to say
Avatar image for deactivated-5b78379493e12
deactivated-5b78379493e12

15625

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 12

User Lists: 0

#93 deactivated-5b78379493e12
Member since 2005 • 15625 Posts

This is becoming rather sad. How can you run a question and answer thread when you aren't answering have the questions, and the answers that you provide don't make much sense.

I see this thread going on for 20 pages, and then getting locked when Lai ragequits again.

Avatar image for Mithrandir50
Mithrandir50

809

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#94 Mithrandir50
Member since 2013 • 809 Posts

This is becoming rather sad. How can you run a question and answer thread when you aren't answering have the questions, and the answers that you provide don't make much sense.

I see this thread going on for 20 pages, and then getting locked when Lai ragequits again.

jimkabrhel
mhm
Avatar image for Toph_Girl250
Toph_Girl250

48978

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#95 Toph_Girl250
Member since 2008 • 48978 Posts
Question: Is Lai Nuts? Answer: Yes.
Avatar image for Toph_Girl250
Toph_Girl250

48978

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#96 Toph_Girl250
Member since 2008 • 48978 Posts

Anyone else think lai probably has a sex/torture dungeon in the basement of his parents house, with ample room for ron paul and elijah wood?

lostrib
No one can top my awesome sex dungeon.
Avatar image for EmpCom
EmpCom

3451

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#97 EmpCom
Member since 2005 • 3451 Posts
Well at least this has taught me that crazy people like lai actually exist. Thank god lai you will never be anything more than a footnote in history
Avatar image for Toph_Girl250
Toph_Girl250

48978

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#98 Toph_Girl250
Member since 2008 • 48978 Posts
I get the feeling that it feels pretty likely Lai's face will get plastered in a picture dictionary, next to the definition of the word: Nutcase.
Avatar image for scoots9
scoots9

3505

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 19

User Lists: 0

#100 scoots9
Member since 2006 • 3505 Posts

[QUOTE="MakeMeaSammitch"]

are you autistic?

Laihendi

Autism (in the sense of it being a disorder) does not exist. It is a label applied to individuals who refuse to conform to a society built on irrational traditions. The medical and psychological establishment of the status quo upholds the status quo by labeling anyone who does not conform to the status quo as being mentally impaired.

There are severely autistic people who can't speak and spend all day hitting themselves. What about them?

 

What's wrong with altruism? As a minarchist, I see nothing wrong with helping others so long as it's voluntary.