humanities.philosophy.objectivism Google Group

Re: Moral Obligation

rum...@ix.netcom.com (Jim Klein) — Sun, 21 Mar 2010 15:50:19 UT

The construction is fine; it's the statement that's false.
Y'know, I can buy that argument with regard to offering
trade to the public, and especially as a Corporation, which
is just a bullshit "legal entity" anyway. That topic's been
discussed here, about why shielded liability is a simple
gimmick on the part of contrived "law" to pretend that

Rep. John Lewis shouts to Tea Party protesters: "You cracka muthafu**ers"

cbel...@bellsouth.net (Charles Bell) — Sun, 21 Mar 2010 15:07:47 UT

Listen right here as recorded distinctly and clearly . . .
[link]
[link]
al.html

Re: Moral Obligation

jepr...@gmail.com (James E. Prescott) — Sun, 21 Mar 2010 11:43:08 UT

I say your doing trading is properly construed as you
promising to abide by law, yes.
You say the construction is improper. But abiding by
the law was a condition of your doing trade, and you
chose to do trade while you were aware of this condition,
so your subsequent denial is simply not believable.

Re: Moral Obligation

jepr...@gmail.com (James E. Prescott) — Sun, 21 Mar 2010 10:20:58 UT

No, it isn't.
I'm trying.
I even said they were not equivalent. To repeat this,
if chosen meant exactly what moral means, I wouldn't
use moral in the first place.
No, by substituting chosen I thought I might avoid
confusion, and that's what I explained, writing:
For the sake of clarity, I even agreed to

humanities.philosophy.objectivism Administration FAQ, v1.37.01

tskir...@killfile.org (Tim Skirvin) — Sun, 21 Mar 2010 07:04:11 UT

Archive-name: objectivism/newsgroup-admin
Posting-Frequency: weekly
Last-modified: 2005/04/26
Version: 1.37.01
URL: [link]
humanities.philosophy.objectiv ism
Administration FAQ, v1.37.01
(Disclaimers: The author of this document is in no way liable for misuse

Obligation---End of the Road

rum...@ix.netcom.com (Jim Klein) — Sun, 21 Mar 2010 03:07:07 UT

This is classic collectivism, classic statism and a complete
rejection of everything Rand wrote about, especially in the
essays "Man's Rights" and "Collectivized 'Rights'" in VOS.
Philosophically it is /everything/ wrong with the world. It's
every excuse, every rationalization and every epistemological

Re: Moral Obligation

vonve...@cox.net (vonvegas) — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 23:18:41 UT

> On Mar 19, 5:20 pm, vonvegas
>
(snippage thruout)
>> You've again not responded to the many
>> issues/points/arguments raised in the unanswered
>> post.
>
> It's true I've not responded to each. Sorry.
I'll manage
> my own time.
Fine. And "managing" your own time is a
euphemism for your playing ostrich and not

Blown away

dan.d...@dsscompany.com (Dan) — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 20:59:32 UT

Sitting there shivering in the sun, with a look on his face which
portrays his fate, holding onto a ray of hope amongst the fields of
despair.
Another scream fills the air, another mother finds her baby.
He shakes his head and the thought that he had to ponder whether
getting up to lend a hand fills him with dread.

Re: Obectivism a misnomer?

acarm...@mail.com (acar) — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 17:06:31 UT

If the object of value is not objective it is subjective. That is
"double subective". :--)). You are a funny guy.
By the way, there are 23 errors in your post.

Re: Moral Obligation

rum...@ix.netcom.com (Jim Klein) — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 16:11:39 UT

But it does amount to that, your silly, subjective
"tolerable" notwithstanding.
You explicitly declare this, even in this very post,
while you dance around the point with all sorts of
contrived and fantastic definitions and conditions.
And as you note momentarily, my promise is supposedly
something you do. No contrived definition there, eh?

Re: Obectivism a misnomer?

rum...@ix.netcom.com (Jim Klein) — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 14:25:25 UT

In the blink of an eye, I caught at least 4 errors in these
mere 22 words. That ain't bad...you must practice quite a bit.
Arnold is confusing nothing on this issue.
Objectivism doesn't insist on anything.
Things other than "objective" entities, even as you mean it,
have value.
Values aren't entities.

Re: Moral Obligation

jepr...@gmail.com (James E. Prescott) — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 11:12:53 UT

It's true I've not responded to each. Sorry. I'll manage
my own time.
Doesn't follow, and I've explained why. If an action
can be evaluated as morally good or moral evil
(it is /not/ an amoral action like a volanco exploding
or a tiger eating a man), then the action must have
been chosen by the human actor. I've challenged you

Re: Moral Obligation

jepr...@gmail.com (James E. Prescott) — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 10:23:32 UT

A legal obligation is an actual obligation, of course,
but if you mean to assert that my position amounts
to saying that all legal obligations are moral
obligations, that simply is not true.
An obligation qualifies as a moral obligation if and
only if it is an obligation that you chose for yourself
by making a /promise/ to someone else.

What's so funny, Obama?

paulwhar...@comcast.net (Paul Wharton) — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 03:23:48 UT

In watching Obama's speeches, have you seen how he smirks when he
begins to talk about his anti-American, socialist ideology? He
usually follows this general pattern:
(1) Obama stumbles with his words to try to gain a blank check
generosity of support.
(2) Obama goes into his discussion of hard-core socialism with a

Re: Obectivism a misnomer?

acarm...@mail.com (acar) — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 02:26:32 UT

On Mar 19, 7:16 pm, Arnold Broese <arnold_broeseREM...@hotmail.c om>
wrote:
If you are arguing in a language other than Englsh it would help if at
some point you define the terms that you are using. If you use the
term "objective" to describe what English-speaking people mean by
"subjective" I am more likely to agree with you.