I have decided to do no more commenting or blogging until my exams are over much later in the year. I will just put some key points on the record. Christianity is not a "someone else will do it for me religion" It is not responsible for the problems in south Auckland. Altruism is not a negative value nor anti freedom. Altruism actually allows one to have a purpose and success in life without worrying about having happiness or success but still achieving it. This is also not contrary to the put your own oxygen mask on first in the aeroplane philosophy. As I am aware, most altruists (maybe not Gandhi) eat an ensure there own survival to be able to do their work.
Please comment on and discuss my posts, I will return to the discussion later in the year.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
God to be prosecuted under EFA
On Tuesday, labour party president Mike Williams lodged a complaint with the electoral commision claiming that Jesus was a conservative and that the bible encouraged a vote for national. John Key disputed this and claimed that the bible says that It would be harder for a rich man to get into heaven than for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle. "Labour wants no-one to be rich" he said. However the electoral commission spokesman Wallace smith said yesterday "We have contacted god and he admitted that his publication encourages a vote for the Libertarianz party. He told us that he is all for freedom of choice."
Inside sources say that there have been significant internal ructions within the Libertarianz pary. While key members of the party who are objectivists wish to renounce God's support, a lone Christian in the libertarianz party is threatening to start a breakaway "Jesus for Freedom" Party.
Rodney Hide this morning however disputed the claim that God supported Liberarianz. Mr Hide said "the bible clearly wants us to have the guts to do whats right, and therefore is clearly in favour of ACT".
Blogger and commenter on "NOT PC" Comrade MOT also cited the prayer made popular by alcoholics anonymous "GOD, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, Courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference." Comrade explains that "this clearly shows that God supports Act over Libz."
Note: God Loves you, and bitter and twisted atheists should grow up.
Inside sources say that there have been significant internal ructions within the Libertarianz pary. While key members of the party who are objectivists wish to renounce God's support, a lone Christian in the libertarianz party is threatening to start a breakaway "Jesus for Freedom" Party.
Rodney Hide this morning however disputed the claim that God supported Liberarianz. Mr Hide said "the bible clearly wants us to have the guts to do whats right, and therefore is clearly in favour of ACT".
Blogger and commenter on "NOT PC" Comrade MOT also cited the prayer made popular by alcoholics anonymous "GOD, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, Courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference." Comrade explains that "this clearly shows that God supports Act over Libz."
Note: God Loves you, and bitter and twisted atheists should grow up.
Saturday, October 6, 2007
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
Objectivism
May be I am showing my ignorance, however, I have a question for objectivists. Why do people have a right to liberty? If existance just exists, how can you manufacture right and wrong? If I am an indevidual, why not just do the best for my self, sure be nice to people for my own benifit, but what does it matter if I hurt another person? If another person feels pain what does that matter? what is the difference between a person feeling pain and an animal (that supposedly has no rights) feeling pain? why should we care?
Now I dont feel this way, I believe in being kind to one another etc. But why do objectivists feel that in the world there is a "God Given" (even though they dont believe in god) set of rights that some have(born people) and others (Animals, foetuses) dont have? Why with an indevidualistic attitude does it do them any good to pedal this stuff when the're never going to get their way? Why when some libertarains dont even care if animals suffer pain, care whether the guy down the street should be allowed to take heroin for example?
I understand liberal values, but I dont understand this sort of absolutism, how can atheists have such absolutism? I believe that a foetus is person, however does it really matter if it is aborted.
As I have stated I dont particularly approve of abortion but I dont see it as an outrage like murder, but if I were libertarian I should because I believe it is a person.
To explain why I feel that a foetus is a person and not part of the mother, geography or location does not define indeviduals. Biologist would be outraged if you said that a lichen was one organism (although the initialy were classified that way). They would be horrified If you said that a parasite the same organism. Thats like saying that a protein from an E. coli, is not an E. coli protein, but a human protein from the E. coli cells.
Now I dont feel this way, I believe in being kind to one another etc. But why do objectivists feel that in the world there is a "God Given" (even though they dont believe in god) set of rights that some have(born people) and others (Animals, foetuses) dont have? Why with an indevidualistic attitude does it do them any good to pedal this stuff when the're never going to get their way? Why when some libertarains dont even care if animals suffer pain, care whether the guy down the street should be allowed to take heroin for example?
I understand liberal values, but I dont understand this sort of absolutism, how can atheists have such absolutism? I believe that a foetus is person, however does it really matter if it is aborted.
As I have stated I dont particularly approve of abortion but I dont see it as an outrage like murder, but if I were libertarian I should because I believe it is a person.
To explain why I feel that a foetus is a person and not part of the mother, geography or location does not define indeviduals. Biologist would be outraged if you said that a lichen was one organism (although the initialy were classified that way). They would be horrified If you said that a parasite the same organism. Thats like saying that a protein from an E. coli, is not an E. coli protein, but a human protein from the E. coli cells.
Monday, October 1, 2007
Back from the dead and Bigger than ever
Due to time constraints, I had stopped blogging for a while, and really should be doing more constructive things that writing this post. However during my procrastinations I have been viting and posting on some other blogs. "Not PC" has noticed me and wants to know what people think about where I should be on his side bar. As did Trevor Loudon in noticing my question that actualy relates to Not PC's ideas on Altruism and Objectivism.
This notice has inspired me to restart posting.
As to where I should go on PC's side bar? Well I have Identitiy issues myself, on a very libertarian day I would find my self on the libertarian end of Team Blue, aligned with Trevor Louden who is a non objectivist, Libertarian who believes in working with non libertarians to move in a more liberal direction. On a highly conservative day, I would find my self more aligned with more conservative former members of the ACT Party, Stephen Franks and Muriel Newman.
The reason for my uncertainty is that from a utilitarian perspective It is dificult to know whats best without trying all the options. From a more philisophical perspective, I have a theory that philosophy gets you no where. (Not that I nessicarily consider my self utilitarian)
Dispite my last statement I will be no doubt commenting on philisophical issues and maybe even elaborating on that comment.
This notice has inspired me to restart posting.
As to where I should go on PC's side bar? Well I have Identitiy issues myself, on a very libertarian day I would find my self on the libertarian end of Team Blue, aligned with Trevor Louden who is a non objectivist, Libertarian who believes in working with non libertarians to move in a more liberal direction. On a highly conservative day, I would find my self more aligned with more conservative former members of the ACT Party, Stephen Franks and Muriel Newman.
The reason for my uncertainty is that from a utilitarian perspective It is dificult to know whats best without trying all the options. From a more philisophical perspective, I have a theory that philosophy gets you no where. (Not that I nessicarily consider my self utilitarian)
Dispite my last statement I will be no doubt commenting on philisophical issues and maybe even elaborating on that comment.
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
Visit Malaysia
Thank you to evoexplorer who was the first commenter on this blog!
I hope this great role model will set an example to more of you! We need someargument/discussion on the issures I have raised!
I hope this great role model will set an example to more of you! We need someargument/discussion on the issures I have raised!
Libertarianism
A certain leftist wrote a piece about how libertarianism is flawed. I largely disagree with such sentiments as would Libertarians such as Trevor Loudon, and the Libertarianz party.
I do however see some issues with libertarianism. None of these issues completely rule out libertarinsim as being a good idea, but highlight aspects of libertariansm that I feel are ignored or areas in which there is not one policy that is more libertarian that another. Some of issues are not realy excusive to libertarianism, but are not solved by "applying libertarian principles".
I will do a series on these issues.
First up will be "Animals and abortion"
Considering a large number of Libertarains (but not all of course) are athiest. Where do the get the idea that any one species is greater than another. Sure it may be "more liberal" to let people do what they like to animals, but what about the freedom and rights of animals, therefore it would be possible in a libertarian country to ban animal testing, 1080 poison, traps that are painful to animals, as well as the running of the bulls(if the country becoming libertarain were spain). Would it even be unlibertarian to ban meat and make vegertarianism compulsary?
Abortion also is another one, it seems liberal to be pro-abortion. I disagree entirely I think that it is much more libertarian to protect the rights of the child. Hence in a libertarian country we could have abortion banned.
To side track a little, due to this point I don't feel that abortion is a womans right, I dont however think that it is an extreme travisty and equivelent to murder. I dont think embreonic stem cell research should be banned, potential medical applications are just too important to be too philisophical.
moving a little from libertarianism: I feel that it should be a crime for a mother to cause foetal alcohol syndrome or foetal alcohol effects to a child or consume any drugs or alcohol while pregnant.
This is due not to the rights of the foetus but the rights of the child once it is born, it has a right to be born in good health if it is born.
making such harm caused to foetuses criminal would make abortions much more common, while I don't have an extreme issue with abortion, I wouldnt like to cause a large scale increace. Making abortion illegal too would make illegal abortions common.
I do however see some issues with libertarianism. None of these issues completely rule out libertarinsim as being a good idea, but highlight aspects of libertariansm that I feel are ignored or areas in which there is not one policy that is more libertarian that another. Some of issues are not realy excusive to libertarianism, but are not solved by "applying libertarian principles".
I will do a series on these issues.
First up will be "Animals and abortion"
Considering a large number of Libertarains (but not all of course) are athiest. Where do the get the idea that any one species is greater than another. Sure it may be "more liberal" to let people do what they like to animals, but what about the freedom and rights of animals, therefore it would be possible in a libertarian country to ban animal testing, 1080 poison, traps that are painful to animals, as well as the running of the bulls(if the country becoming libertarain were spain). Would it even be unlibertarian to ban meat and make vegertarianism compulsary?
Abortion also is another one, it seems liberal to be pro-abortion. I disagree entirely I think that it is much more libertarian to protect the rights of the child. Hence in a libertarian country we could have abortion banned.
To side track a little, due to this point I don't feel that abortion is a womans right, I dont however think that it is an extreme travisty and equivelent to murder. I dont think embreonic stem cell research should be banned, potential medical applications are just too important to be too philisophical.
moving a little from libertarianism: I feel that it should be a crime for a mother to cause foetal alcohol syndrome or foetal alcohol effects to a child or consume any drugs or alcohol while pregnant.
This is due not to the rights of the foetus but the rights of the child once it is born, it has a right to be born in good health if it is born.
making such harm caused to foetuses criminal would make abortions much more common, while I don't have an extreme issue with abortion, I wouldnt like to cause a large scale increace. Making abortion illegal too would make illegal abortions common.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)