Rational Thought in an Irrational World Comments - Brought to you by JoeUser

Dr Guy on Does Anyone Actually Listen to Music Anymore?

Dr Guy — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 05:57:39 -0400

I have partial hearing loss. It seems to be in the mid-range, so yes, I do listen to the music more than the lyrics. And get the lyrics wrong half the time when I do listen to them!

But long before I noticed any loss of hearing, I have always loved Symphony more than OPera, and thus music more than lyrics. A song can suck word wise, but if it has a good tune, I like it.

But I do try to find the lyrics when I really like a song. At least then I know they are talking about Redmen, and not Redrum.

SanChonino on Does Anyone Actually Listen to Music Anymore?

SanChonino — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 05:57:39 -0400

And if you ask someone to listen to a song, they comment on the melody not the words. The meaning is a song is the words, the point is the words. The melody is the vehicle by which the meaning is delivered, but it isn't the point.

I disagree vehemently. Ofttimes, it is the melody that carries the message, and the words are useless and perfunctory.

What about instrumental music? Are you for some reason saying it has no meaning? Because its meaning is more broad, more encompassing, more visceral and real than music with words could ever be, because it's not contained - no, constrained - by lyrical contrivance.

To say that the lyrics are the message, the music is naught but a vehicle is foolhardy.

And while music is a trivial thing,

To say that music is trivial is also something I'd disagree with. Music is essential to everyday life - without it, life loses much of its splendor, and most of its meaning.

There's so much more to 'engage your brain' than what you see. Open your eyes, man. They're wired shut by your own musical ignorance.

lulapilgrim on “When there is no wrong and no right...

lulapilgrim — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 05:57:39 -0400

Group agenda created religion to keep these non-group individuals at bay and to try to encourage, some through love and some through fear, not to go the individual route.

Christianity, specifically Catholicism, the fulfillment of Biblical Judaism, is the only revealed religion by God. I would agree that all the others are man-made. As far as going the individual route, each person's life journey on earth is an individual endeavor. It's a time of testing, of probation. We have freedom to reject God's wisdom, but there is a price to pay. Yes, no man is an island. We mustbe a part of the rest of humanity and in all we do work in this regard for the greater good. God has provided three spheres of authority of which He is to be the Head, Christ the King and Lord of Lords....the family, the Church and the government.

Today the fate of the world hangs in the balance. Whether the human species survives its own continual growth in size will be determined by whether or not we can ever see all of us as one group - The Earth Group. The thing that is most responsible for keeping that from happening is organized religion.

WEll we are all part of the human race...and as such we are on this earth for a very short time considering we are eternal souls with eternal destinies. It's not so much that we all become one group it's more that we are able to get along with one another...for that to happen we will have to change our tune and love one another...It's love that makes the world keep going round. That's a tough order as is transforming the world because we are all affected by the Fall. It's not impossible though...for the grace of God is available to everyone toenable him to transcend the "spirit of the world". Our view in this life is that of the rear of a tapestry. The view from the front is yet to be seen by us.

In the experiences of life thrugh which each individual passes, one can observe that there are indeed moral values which exist. A set of objective principles is therefore essential, to enable human beings to discern truth. The late Pope John Paul difined love as being a disposition toward goodness, thus truth and love are inseperable realities. Man can only fully realize himself by seeking to conform to absolute principles. In this way the person becomestruly free to love his fellow man.

lulapilgrim on “When there is no wrong and no right...

lulapilgrim — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 05:57:39 -0400

OCK POSTS:

These comments about the nature of evil are very interesting. Evil is a mystery that has long puzzled mankind...and various belief systems have proposed different ideas about it. This is the first time I've read an explanation that it originatedin the evolutionary struggle for existence. It won't surprise you that I disagree.

Christianity, paticularly Catholicism, offers a clearer understanding of evil, sin, suffering and death. To me, evil is always a lack of something, the absence of due good. Evil has no positive existence...it's a privation of good. We know from revelation that Evil is a reality. We also know that God never permits physical evil unless some good can come from it...this indeed is a mystery to our very limited human comprehension.

On evil one of the best books I'veever read is by a Jesuit, Fr. Benedetto, Fundamentals in the Philosophy of God. He draws an important division with respect to evil...moral evil is sin that is a deliberate violation of God's moral law...it's defined as the absence or lack of conformity that should be present between human conduct and the rule of norm of what that conduct ought to be. Physical evil is a defect or privation of a perfection in a beingmarring its natural integrity or in the exerciseof its normal activities or in both. Physical evil consists in the pain (suffering) bodily or mental.

Sin and not suffering is the prime analog of evil. Sin or moral evil isthe only real total evil in the universe. Sin can never be willed positively, not even as a means to a good end. Physical evil can be positively willed by God as a morally good means to a good end.

OckhamsRazor on “When there is no wrong and no right...

OckhamsRazor — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 05:57:39 -0400

Lula, Evil is a subjective notion of the majority of the tribe who sees the survival of an individual (a thief) as endangering the the survival of the group. Good is the same thing the other way around. It is the subjective notion of individuals of the group mentality that the good of the group individual only comes about by each individual's willingness to be a part of the survival of the whole group.

"Evil" would get bred out of most species because most species aren't nearly as flexible as humans. We have lots of survival tools, and most animals have relatively few. But for humans, "evil" is as useful a method of an individual surviving as "good" is for a group surviving.

In public, the majority writes the law and the history, and the group holds this power by force. Meaning, where an individual may get away with stealing, he'll never get away with sneaking in and rewriting the history books. Group agenda created religion to keep these non-group individuals at bay and to try to encourage, some through love and some through fear, not to go the individual route.

At this point, so far along in the history of the species, much of what we see as good and evil is merely indoctrinated. This is why we have the cliche "The apple never falls far from the tree." "All for one" people breed other "all for one" people (for the greater part) and "me me me" people indoctrinate other "me me me" people (again for the most part - there are outliers on both sides.)

Mathematically, groups have a far better chance of survival than individuals. The human species as a whole would have a FAR better chance of survival if it would see itself as one group, but as you know it doesn't. It doesn't because long ago this "one big group" was scattered all over into lots of smaller groups, and each of those groups have used their survival methods for years and will not give them up for the sake of becoming a part of a bigger group. That's where religion divides the Earth Group and indoctrination perpetuates it. It is rare (but not impossible due to outliers) to find a Christian indoctrinated child suddenly become an adherent of some other religion. In American society, it is easier for these outliers to occur, however, because America has become a "melting pot" which is another way of saying "many smaller groups becoming one bigger group." Finding a fundamentalist Muslim who suddenly decides to be Christian is, while still possible, less likely, because their group is not a melting pot and so the indoctrination is far less varied.

A group's collective decision of what makes survival of the group more likely is the source of religion. Religion was also a part of the survival of the human species because those groups which adopted an "all powerful figure" to keep the individuals in line (or give them a reason to be put to death or banished) maintained greater group integrity through the use of force or coercion.

Today the fate of the world hangs in the balance. Whether the human species survives its own continual growth in size will be determined by whether or not we can ever see all of us as one group - The Earth Group. The thing that is most responsible for keeping that from happening is organized religion.

I find it ironic, and almost pleasurable, that zealotry is now the "individual" and tolerance of differences a necessity.

lulapilgrim on “When there is no wrong and no right...

lulapilgrim — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 05:57:39 -0400

Religion, how evil can it get?

Again, let's define religion. By religion I mean that act of justice by which we render to God both privately as individuals and publicly as social beings the honor, gratitude, and obedience due Him and in the way prescribed by Him. There is only one true religion revealed by God...it started as Biblical Judaism and was fulfilled by Christ who established His Church and practice of Christianity. All the rest are knock-offs, heretical versions that mix truth and error.

Christianity itself isn't evil...but there are some evil people who call themselves Christians.

lulapilgrim on “When there is no wrong and no right...

lulapilgrim — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 05:57:39 -0400

Society (you and I) determins what is right and wrong.

Yes, this is true...but what IS right and wrong is based upon God's absolute law. God is the Creator and He gets to decide what is right and what is wrong. We are the created ones and we get to obey or reap the consequences.

lulapilgrim on “When there is no wrong and no right...

lulapilgrim — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 05:57:39 -0400

Especially your version of god (what ever version that is)

Yes, wasn't one of the Enlightenment's icons, Voltaire, who said something to the effect that in a good discussion, defining one's terms is important.

By God, I mean the Creator of all things, man included as well as the Maker of the laws that are manifest in nature and the moral (Natural Law) that is written upon man's heart that man is obligated to obey. God exists of Himself, and is Infinite in all Perfections. God had no beginning, He always was and always will be.

There's more, but you must get the idea by now.

lulapilgrim on “When there is no wrong and no right...

lulapilgrim — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 05:57:39 -0400

Now, why do you need a god to tell what is right, and what is wrong?

For true freedom and to prevent chaos in our life.

SomewhereInND on “When there is no wrong and no right...

SomewhereInND — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 05:57:39 -0400

Now, why do you need a god to tell what is right, and what is wrong?

Especially your version of god (what ever version that is)

Society (you and I) determins what is right and wrong.

Right/wrong changes drastically over very short periods of time. Slavery, womens rights, etc....

Ten years ago, who would have ever thought that an american president would publically advocate ANYTHING that could be considered torture?

God didn't change his mind on any of the above did he?

What about the people in the americas, before the europeans visited, did they have rules? Sure, there were societies that were violent, but don't call the kettle black....we managed to nearly kill them all.

Right and Wrong?????? Why is it the standard chirstian response of Invade,Bomb,Kill,Kill,Kill is considered right?

I have seen this argument (needing god to determine right/wrong) several times, it just makes my stomach turn. Religion, how evil can it get?

dynamaso on The Death of the English Language Part 9999

dynamaso — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 05:57:39 -0400

And the word ignorant: It is not an adjective people!

Below are a number of definitions of the word from different online sources. You will note these all have the word listed as an adjective.

Oxford Dictionary:
ignorant - adjective
1. lacking knowledge or awareness in general.
2. (often ignorant of) uninformed about or unaware of a specific subject or fact.
3. informal rude; discourteous.

— DERIVATIVES ignorantly adverb.

— ORIGIN from Latin ignorare ‘not know’

From Merriam-Webster:

ig·no·rant
Pronunciation: \ˈig-n(ə-)rənt\
Function: adjective
1 a: destitute of knowledge or education ; also : lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified b: resulting from or showing lack of knowledge or intelligence
2: unaware uninformed
— ig·no·rant·ly adverb
— ig·no·rant·ness noun

From OneLook Dictionary:

Quick definitions (ignorant)

adjective: lacking information or knowledge
adjective: lacking basic knowledge (Example: "How can someone that age be so ignorant?")
adjective: used of things; lacking sense or awareness (Example: "Ignorant hope")
adjective: ignorant of the fundamentals of a given art or branch of knowledge (Example: "Ignorant of quantum mechanics")
adjective: lacking general education or knowledge (Example: "An ignorant man")
adjective: lacking knowledge or skill

lulapilgrim on “When there is no wrong and no right...

lulapilgrim — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 05:57:39 -0400

John Galt writes:

The Atheist in the room is always by far the most moral, the most beneficial to do business with, and the most likely to act in such a way that improves their lives and yours in the process.

lula posts:

If not from God and His Laws, where does this fundamental basis for a truly moral life come from?

ASAXYGIRL POSTS:

No, the fundamental basis for a truly moral life doesn't come from rational thinking or logic. Even the thief while he is planning and committing the theft is rationally thinking. His logic is that he will get away with it.

How/on what does the atheist base the notion of right from wrong?

John Galt writes:

It’s ironic that people scream that atheists can’t possibly be moral people because they don’t believe in anything, while the exact opposite is true: They believe in their lives. In happiness. In improving their existence, and with it, the existence of others. They live their lives, for LIFE, not for death, or some promised afterlife. And as a result, they are the most moral people there are.

What is the meaning of life? Why are we here in the world?

ThinkAloud on “When there is no wrong and no right...

ThinkAloud — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 05:57:39 -0400

Religion calls for the sacrifice of your life to God. But the contradiction is that to if you sacrifice your life to God, you’ll be dead! -- Or a hypocrite because you didn’t take it literally and thus took half measures to ensure that you will continue to live while sacrificing

So you’re either dead, and with it society (and ironically the ones that are sacrificed first are the ones that are most valuable to the continued existence of society), or you’re a hypocrite because you didn’t take it literally and saved some small part of you for yourself.

You reach that kind of conclusion when you concentrate totally on self. You become self-obsessed and self-absorbed. You dont think about what is around you.

That is why you misrepresent what both God and Society say. Neither God nor Society ask people to "Sacrifice Themselves". Both ask that people act and behave according to certain moral codes. Death is not up to the individual. It is like Birth. The If and the When for both are not determined by the self. God determines that. The proofs of this simple fact are all around you, but self-obsession makes it impossible for you to see.

A Woman can take all the best fool-proof birth-control measures that exist and still she gets pregnant and give birth to a human being. And people get tossed in the ocean by a sinking ship or exploding aircraft and still some live and some die for no obvious reasons whatsoever. In fact some of the dead are much better swimmers and more healthy than some of the survivors.

If Science is a realible source of information, and I believe it is, then Societies as we currently know them developed out of a state very similar to what you are recommending. They were living with "their lives" as the only Value to be preserved .... well, according to science that wasn't very conducive to self-progress or self-preservation and by trial and error (or evolution if you will) they came up with Co-operation and living for more than one-self. the group's value proved more beneficial for the self and again it progressed to tribes then to societies with rules of conduct and a way of living with the sense of partnership with others for the benefit of self and of ALL.

Regardless of the origin of the moral codes guiding the development of those rules of conduct (i.e. is it God or trial/error/eveolution) is not important. what is important is that those moral codes exist for the benefit of both self and of All. without them, the ancient ancestors found that both of the self and the society get hurt and disappear. none of the moral codes of any society or religion say "self" is the only Value to be cherished.

Going back tens of thousands of years is not really a good idea at all. Is it?

we dont have to reinvent the wheel. do we? what a shame that some would like to try that. But it is their life after all ... they better watch for their "self" though. that road back is not in its best interest.

asaxygirl on “When there is no wrong and no right...

asaxygirl — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 05:57:39 -0400

Rational thinking. Logic. The atheist wouldn't steal because stealing is wrong. Period. To take from another, to cause harm to another is wrong. We are cognizant, thinking beings...well, some of us are. I do not need a book, written by men to tell me what is right and wrong. If you do, have at it. I choose to think. Am I atheist? Some would argue I am because I am Buddhist...nontheistic. I am also a scientist and there are many atheists in the scientific community. They are some of the most moral, kind, compassionate and sincere people you would ever hope to meet in your lifetime.

lulapilgrim on “When there is no wrong and no right...

lulapilgrim — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 05:57:39 -0400

This is the fundamental basis for a truly moral life.

If not from God and His Laws, where does this fundamental basis for a truly moral life come from?

lulapilgrim on “When there is no wrong and no right...

lulapilgrim — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 05:57:39 -0400

There is wrong and there is right. There is good and there is evil....

I agree. I navigate my life's path according to the Ten Commandments and the teachings of the Catholic Church which are taken from Scripture and Apostolic Tradition.

The Atheist in the room is always by far the most moral, the most beneficial to do business with, and the most likely to act in such a way that improves their lives and yours in the process.

So where does the Atheist get his moral standards and ethical codes of conduct and principles of causality from? For example, the athiest in the room would not steal for...so for the atheist why is stealing is wrong

lulapilgrim on “When there is no wrong and no right...

lulapilgrim — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 05:57:39 -0400

Your life is your highest value, act upon it with care and intelligence always choosing the path that will improve your life, and increase your happiness LONG TERM without physically harming another or their property.

How do you reconcile this with the life in the womb, a position that you and I were once in and allowed to come to term by our mothers?

cactoblasta on The Death of the English Language Part 9999

cactoblasta — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 05:57:39 -0400

They're using it to me a bastard, a stubborn person, or someone that doesn't agree with them and is not nice about it. Hence if you take me in the CONTEXT of what I said you'll get the meaning.

Give me some conversation examples and I'll believe you, but I've never heard it used without the assumption the ignorant person is ignorant of something in particular.

eg some schmo makes a racist comment, the rejoinder might be, 'you're just ignorant.'
You don't need to say 'you're just ignorant of race relations/difference/whatever'; it's implied.

cactoblasta on The Death of the English Language Part 9999

cactoblasta — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 05:57:39 -0400

The flight will still take place, just at a different date! That's postponing something, not cancelling it!

Not necessarily. There may already have been a flight on that different date, in which case the earlier flight was cancelled and its passengers moved to the new flight. It's only a postponed flight if the plane wouldn't have left at that later time anyway. And with most air travel I'd be surprised if that was the case.

You can't just BE ignorant in general

Ignorant is usually used to imply ignorance of a specific thing anyway. There's the connotation when it's used generally (ie to say "he's ignorant") that in actual fact he's ignorant of whatever we're talking about or whatever is important to us.

The subtext lets us know which.

Zoologist03 on The Death of the English Language Part 9999

Zoologist03 — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 05:57:39 -0400

Ignorant isn't an adjective? Hmm...

ig·no·rant

–adjective

1.	lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned: an ignorant man.

2.	lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact: ignorant of quantum physics.

3.	uninformed; unaware.

4.	due to or showing lack of knowledge or training: an ignorant statement.

~Zoo

ThinkAloud on "Reasonism" - For those that failed to fully understand Rand

ThinkAloud — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 05:57:39 -0400

is left-handedness normal?

if not, should lefties be treated?

let me remind you that it was not me who said homosexuality has a genetic reason. My comment was taking that assumption to its logical conclusion.

More to your question, left-handedness is not a defect in the genetic sequence as they assume in the case of homosexuality. it is a result of activity strength in the left side or the rigth side of the brain . The nature of the two conditions are not the same. being left or right handed doesnt make any difference. a left-handed person function as well as a right-handed person just using a different hand. A Gay person doesnt function as a man or as a woman. it is an in-between condition. not the case with left or right handedness.

ThinkAloud on Non-Contradiction in Everyday Life

ThinkAloud — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 05:57:39 -0400

It is much more logical to understand that there is no beginning or end to reality in time. It is not a finite scale. It changes nature, but there is no chicken or egg. Only with this understanding do you not have a contradiction. So either we ARE God as part of reality (and this is a contradiction if you think about it anyhow), in which case, it's pointless to worship yourself, or God doesn't exist

Have you read "The Fabric of the Cosmos" by Brian Green? please read it when you get a chance. It explains how there is an underlying reality and a begining at the base of what we see. It is not infinite universe, it is finite.

And is that what science say? you see a chicken and an egg and you say they dont exist? or they dont matter? That is not science, that is philosophy may be. we cant ignore what we see as objects in order to avoid admitting something we might not understand. it is more logical to say there is a creator for those chicken and/or egg than to say that they dont exist. We can see them and touch them and use them .... how then can we scientifically say they dont exist. what kind of understanding is that? may be it is a philosophical one but not scientific one. You dont deny the existence of things in front of you in order to avoid contradictions. That is self-delusion. Change your assumptions not objects in front of you to avoid contardictions.

ThinkAloud on Non-Contradiction in Everyday Life

ThinkAloud — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 05:57:39 -0400

It is only when rational thought based on science starts to take over in even a small way and God and religion gets pushed back and volentary ignorance is no longer a way of life, that man rises up out of the slop heap and becomes something more than a dirty animal wollowing in his own filth. This isn't conincidence and it is the message of history if you bother to read it - Even though it isn't canonized by your Church that doesn't want you to think.

You couldn't be more wrong. You talking about science and what is the first thing you do? adopt as a fact many incorrect assumptions.

Not only that, you judging religions based on what their followers do and not on what they say themselves.

You certainly correct in what you mentioned about all those attrocities committed in the name of religions. But they are just that. In the name of them not according to them.

If science is what you rely on in arriving at these concepts you mentioned, then you are not following what you yourself preach. Science says that this universe had a begining and points to an end to it. so saying it is timeless and has no end or begining contradicts science.

Science also points to a cause for this begining. Nothing we know NOW can justify saying that it self-existed. nothing does that according to the universe's natural laws. even those laws themselves cant just materialize out of no where. There must be a cause for the universe and its Natural Laws.

And yes, before the supposed begining(Big Bang) we cant discuss anything. so our reality , that is our Universe and its Laws, must have a Creator. how did this Creator do it or how He himself existed is beyond this universe and beyond our scope of knowledge or thinking capabilities.

I agree with you regarding the distortions that you find in the Bible. However that doesnt mean that the basic message is not valid. the distortions are due to translations, wrong or distorted accounts of what happened, and yes political manipulations. Still that doesnt mean that the basic message and its authentic texts are fictionalized. I realize it takes a lot of reading and thinking to separate the fiction from the facts. but it could be done and is done by many millions of people.

This reality that we all see is in fact, according to Relativity, just an illusion. Particles that we see as solid objects could be seen by others somewhere as something else completely. so this reality IS a relative reality. But it must have a cause that made it that way. That cause is where the illlusions end and true reality IS. That is where life comes from. Life is not an object, it is not a material that we can say it even existed by itself (which we cant according to science)so where did that come from? it must have an origin. what is that origin? we cant even define life. what is life? not only that, we cant even define things that we use and handle very professionally like Energy. What is Energy?

that is why i said science itself points to a Creator.

Mere reading without contemplation and reflection means little if anything at all.

kingbee on "Reasonism" - For those that failed to fully understand Rand

kingbee — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 05:57:39 -0400

since it is a genetic defect it is not "normal" and the behavior resulting from it is not "normal" and should be treated?

is left-handedness normal?

if not, should lefties be treated?

ThinkAloud on "Reasonism" - For those that failed to fully understand Rand

ThinkAloud — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 05:57:39 -0400

Just as the deaf person can choose to have implants now, a large numbe do not

You really believe it is "their choice" not to have them?

are you saying they like being deaf and choose not to have them?

Is that what you call logical?

I never heard of anyone who has a problem due to birth defect and is not desperately seeking treatment. Have you heard of or know of any?

ThinkAloud on Non-Contradiction in Everyday Life

ThinkAloud — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 05:57:39 -0400

We’ve all heard the line, that if you pray to God, that God will hear your payers and answer you. It simply isn’t trueReligion seeks to ignore the Law of Identity by suggesting that an all powerful being is watching over us and can change the nature of the universe at any time they wish

Is that what you know and understand about God and Religion?

I am afraid that your are sadly mistaken if that is what you think God and religion are all about.

I firmly believe in those four-laws of nature. If i didnt, the above two statemnets would have convinced me that you are not correct.

I suggest that you read more about what God and Religion say before you make such statements.

Only casual knowledge leads to the false contradiction between God/Religion and those four basic laws.

In fact those Basic Laws point convincingly to their Creator (i.e. God) and His system (i.e. Religion).

One of God's statements is this: "If it had been Created by anything other than God, You would have found contradiction abound in it". The "IT" is the Universe and Its Natural Laws.

SeraphVeritas on "Reasonism" - For those that failed to fully understand Rand

SeraphVeritas — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 05:57:39 -0400

Hello. I will be giving the Reasonist response in this comment. For some parts I will skip forward to respond to specific points, and then return to address the entire section as a whole. All unlabeled quotations are taken directly from the blog post.

""Reasonism" is the name of their belief system, and it's clearly based on the immature understandings of Rand that one would get from being able to read Terry Goodkind's works, but not fully understanding the works of Ayn Rand or more specifically her non-fiction works."

Personally, I have read most of the major non-fictions (ItOE, VoS, TRM, FTNI, and P:WNI ; none of the bookstores near me seem to ever have C:TUI or TNL:TAR in stock, so I will probably have to order them), and am currently reading The Voice of Reason. I do not consider myself to have had any problem understanding Miss Rand, nor have any of the Objectivists that frequent our message boards identified problems in my understanding of Rand. I am more than willing to discuss aspects of Miss Rand's works with you to demonstrate my understanding. The overgeneralization and the ad hominem are fun, though.

"This is a very common problem, because while Terry Goodkind writes at a grade 8 level (tested using the Ontario standard from reading level), Rand's non-fiction on the basis of Objectivism is written at 2nd or 3rd year university and the more you dive into it, the harder it gets to read."

I am not familiar with the Ontario standard form reading level (and a quick google search yields no valid results). I am, however, a 3rd year university student, and, again, contrary to your generalizations about me, I do not have trouble reading Rand (ItOE was somewhat difficult, though, and required slower reading).

"A man's values should (and are not if they believe in God) reflect is joy of life and his purpose to constantly improve his life."

This is not a coherent sentence. Is 'is' supposed to be 'his'?

"Because it is a mistake of birth, not a choice, just as surely as having black skin is a mistake of birth and is completely irrelivent to the quality of a man."

I use the term "accident of birth" as opposed to "mistake of birth". It tends to avoid problems such as those in other comments.

Sexuality clearly is a choice, by the way. Homosexual men choose to live closeted, heterosexual lives all the time. The base level physical attractions are, lets say, 'largely' genetic. Like taste buds (except much more complex - the purpose of using the taste example is to simplify it). You cant choose what kind of taste buds you will have - whether you will prefer the taste of vanilla or chocolate. But if you wanted to you could eat chocolate even though you hate the taste. So yes, there is choice involved.

"Rand said that it was evil. Her reason was that it doesn't propogate the species."

I have yet to see anyone else offer what Miss Rand's reasoning behind her statement was - so this position is new to me. How did you get this information about Miss Rand's thoughts? I fail to see how Miss Rand could have held such a position, though, given that she held (rightly, and consistently) that there is no moral requirement to propogate the species. If you dont have to propogate the species to be good, then why would you need to be able to procreate with your partner for your relationship to be good? And, of course, she did not have any children of her own. Would she have said that she was evil, because she didnt propogate the species? I think not. (And yet, apparently, I am the one who doesnt understand Objectivism.)

"The capacity to procreate is merely a potential which man is not obligated to actualize. The choice to have children or not is morally optional." - Ayn Rand, Of Living Death

(As a small aside: another quotation from the same essay
"To clasify the unique emotion of romantic love as a form of friendship is to obliterate it: the two emotional categories are mutually exclusive. The feeling of friendship is asexual; it can be experienced toward a member of one's own sex." - Ayn Rand, Of Living Death
Did anyone else have a 'WTF!?' moment when reading this?)

The following is a response to the main body of the blog. I am going to eliminate all but the first few words of each paragraph for the sake of shortening this comment.

""What one man values is amoral. How a man interacts with others is either moral or immoral."

What they're saying is...

A man's values should...

Their suggestion that...

Of course all...

But because they can't just say..."

Firstly, I am not going to try to defend that quotation. It is invalid - it does not reflect the beliefs of Reasonists. It is not wording that I support. The origin of such words is the distinction that we draw between morality in scenarios between men (the principle of which is that men should not infringe on the rights of other men) and in scenarios of a man's own values (the principle of which is that men should pursue their own rationally-determined interests). Once more, though - that is not our position. This is a straw man through context dropping, though much of the fault belongs with those who use such wording. I have personally pointed out the problem involved in such wording to individuals (who have responded along the lines of "Oooooh, um, oops."), and, as far as I know, it is not used any more.

Secondly, I will point out briefly that to DISAGREE with Ayn Rand is not to FAIL TO UNDERSTAND Ayn Rand. Even if that were specifically our position, it would reflect a DISAGREEMENT, not a failure to understand.

Thirdly, I will provide you with the correct Reasonist position on ethics.

I do not simply accept Rand's definition of ethics as "a code of values to guide man's choices and actions" (AR, VoS) - I accept a more broad definition of ethics as dealing with all of good and evil. This means that ethics involves both man's values (himself personally) and his interactions with other men (others). Whereas Objectivism places the ethics-politics dividing line in between the individual and multiple individuals, we leave the study of good and evil (for individuals and for their interactions (ie multiple individuals)) within the realm of ethics. Non-infringement (not infringing on the rights of others; roughly analagous to, but arrived at differently than, non-initiation of force) is thus an ethical concept upon which political principals (such as economy and government) are built. Reasonists do not reject Rand's theory of values - we accept life as the standard of value, reason, purpose and self-esteem as core values, etc. What we do not accept is the way Rand applied her philosophy to make judgements about others' values - it is to each man for himself to evaluate his values, not for any individual to dictate to another (aside from direct, core values) what they should or should not value (and I am not suggesting that Objectivism necessarily does so). Again, I do not reject the basic premises of Rand's ethics - what I reject is the idea that that is all there is to ethics, as well as Rand's applied ethics (or, as the case may be, Rand's failure to correctly apply her own philoosphy, which may or may not have been based on her own lack of information).

"This is the problem (if you can call it that) with Objectivism: It's hard. It takes huge effort to understand it fully and to apply it carefully. (just like reason is not automatic, it is a choice) You have to put effort in, but too often people assume something that isn't true because they're lazy and don't fully define the issue and look at the facts in question before jumping off a bridge."

Sounds like what you have done in regards to myself and my fellows.

"And because it's comfortable to not have to judge other's actions and their values that got them there, others will embrace this half-belief system and harm themselves in the process."

This isnt a coherent sentence, either.

I am most certainly in favor of moral judgement. I wholeheartedly approve of the principle of "judge - and prepare to be judged" (AR). I judge you to be unworthy of the alias you use.

For those interested, our website is http://www.reasonslight.com
Please join us at our forums if you wish to discuss this (or any issue) with us.

ThinkAloud on "Reasonism" - For those that failed to fully understand Rand

ThinkAloud — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 05:57:39 -0400

She was wrong, because she believed the scientific statements of the time that said that homosexuality is societal and a choice and not genetic or as we're finding out, directly related to the amount of testosterone in the mother's womb and the mother's immune system attacking the foreign substance (XY instead of XX).

Objectivism: It's hard. It takes huge effort to understand it fully and to apply it carefully. (just like reason is not automatic, it is a choice) You have to put effort in, but too often people assume something that isn't true because they're lazy and don't fully define the issue and look at the facts in question before jumping off a bridge.

If you have followed your own advice you would have reached a completely different (and objective)conclusion.

If it is a genetic quirk in the womb, like any other birth defect wouldnt you say that it should be treated?

not only that, wouldnt you say that since it is a genetic defect it is not "normal" and the behavior resulting from it is not "normal" and should be treated?

If homosexuals understand what they are saying they should be seeking treatments not trying to make people accept the results of a genetic defect as "normal". Actually they should be upset if society didnt provide that treatment for them like it does for say Autism or many other afflictions resulting from genetic defects.

Abe Cubbage on "Reasonism" - For those that failed to fully understand Rand

Abe Cubbage — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 05:57:39 -0400

Using "mistake" was a poor word choice, however the context it was used in makes it clear that he was not saying that it's a bad thing to be black or gay.

toothache's revenge on "Reasonism" - For those that failed to fully understand Rand

toothache's revenge — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 05:57:39 -0400

yeah, i stared at that after i posted it. butt out. stupid.

Gene Nash on "Reasonism" - For those that failed to fully understand Rand

Gene Nash — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 05:57:39 -0400

And, yeah, I'm not even going to touch the "having black skin is a mistake" thing.

We'll just tiptoe around that one and on out of here.

Gene Nash on "Reasonism" - For those that failed to fully understand Rand

Gene Nash — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 05:57:39 -0400

this is how we are going to do it. butt out.

Gay people say, "This is how we do it -- butt out"? Or is that a parenthetical direction. "We do it like this, honey!" Stick butt out.

Am I the only one who found that ironically hilarious?

(Yes, I know he meant a different definition of "butt," but given the subject matter....)

toothache's revenge on "Reasonism" - For those that failed to fully understand Rand

toothache's revenge — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 05:57:39 -0400

[quote]"Because it is a mistake of birth, not a choice, just as surely as having black skin is a mistake of birth"

that is sort of a strange part of your blog. i (with fingers crossed) hope that it was entered wrong.

choosing to be gay does say something about one's character. what it say's is anyone's guess. but no matter what you do or don't do in life, its your choice. it's called personal responsibility. no-one here can judge someones life to be good or evil, its not our place, but why hide behind something like "i had no part in this, i was born this way." if that is the case, shouldn't we be dumping money into finding the cure, instead of funding the parade?

i would be able to get behind the gay movement if they could get over "being born gay", choose it, own it, and take what comes with it.

i believe that "normal people" would be less offended by gay people if they weren't trying to make us accept them. why should we have to think of homosexuality as a normal thing, and some folks are just born that way? if they said, this is how we are going to do it. butt out. i at least would just say, huh, okay.

stubbyfinger on "Reasonism" - For those that failed to fully understand Rand

stubbyfinger — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 05:57:39 -0400

"Because it is a mistake of birth, not a choice, just as surely as having black skin is a mistake of birth"

If I was you I would delete that sentence and my post before this blog turns ugly.

Furry Canary on The Root of All Evil

Furry Canary — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 05:57:39 -0400

'While Rand danced around the root of all evils, to my knowledge she never said it. It needs to be said because only in the knowledge of the great lie can one understand all of the other little lies that go with it and thus understand all of those things that seem to make no sense. Only in the understanding of the lie and the only solution to the cause can one free themselves from the enslavement that the lie causes. Only by understanding the great lie, can human beings ever be Free.'
Yes, but you don't say it either. What, in your opinion, is the root of all evil? Society? Socialism? Selflessness? Suppression of the ego?

'Objectivists understand this concept innately.'
How can you claim this, and yet elsewhere admit that 'I just couldn’t get it. Then, while watching Lost (A very thinly veiled Objectivist show, only slight more veiled than 24) it became clear.'
So ... is it innate, or did you have a Road to Damascus experience while watching the television? It can't be both.

'Sarah ... you desperately need to read this.'
But why do you care? Shouldn't you be busy living your life for you? After all, 'It is the only thing that matters.' Apparently.

Noumenon72 on The Only Way to Win The War In Iraq and the War On Terror

Noumenon72 — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 05:57:39 -0400

(double post)

Noumenon72 on The Only Way to Win The War In Iraq and the War On Terror

Noumenon72 — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 05:57:39 -0400

If WWII had been fought like this war (and Vietnam for that matter) has been fought, we would have lost and would have all been Germans by now.

Note that the Germans fought World War II in Russia exactly the way you want -- no mercy for the civilians, burn the whole town for one act of resistance, no innocents among the untermensch. They lost anyway, and saying it came back to bite them in the ass would be a wild understatement.

Cikomyr on Stephane Dion A Criminal In France!!!

Cikomyr — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 05:57:39 -0400

if Canada doesn't have this law itself, then it should. Immediately

under what moral bases?

It's not like we are at war with France. Or even potentialy rival on a National Security point of view.

I mean, the whole "people should renounce on their dual citizenship" argument is stupid. Simply stupid, to quote Dr Freeman in M*A*S*H:

"Flagg: Dr Freeman, I can blow the whistle about you. You never signed your oath of allegiance

Freeman: I have a question.. Do you think that if I was a commi spy, I'd think for a second not signing it?"

The point being, if you require from people that they renounce on dual citizen ship in order to get sensitive jobs, those you try to keep out will automaticly comply.

You gain nothing out of it, except a few political points in the French-Haters (and God there are a lot of them in Canada)

ThinkAloud on The Only Way to Win The War In Iraq and the War On Terror

ThinkAloud — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 05:57:39 -0400

The current government does NOT kowtow to our whims or wishes

Neither poll was taken by any American orginazation. Both polls were done by European news organizations not Amer

What world you two guys live in. The fantasy world is a great place for both of you to be in. Happy fantasy.

you two talking as if you are in a diferent universe. the Europeans pollosters are trusted by Iraqis? ooh yes i forgot they opposed the invasion. like Italy, spain, poland, Britain ... oh yes Britain. very trusted by Iraqis.

Happy fantasy guys.

We are in deep trouble than what i thought. with thinking like that .... how can we ever do anything right.

no wonder the world is laughing at us. Thank you guys for that.

yes yes i know. you dont care what the world thinks. of course why should we care about that?

Paladin77 on The Only Way to Win The War In Iraq and the War On Terror

Paladin77 — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 05:57:39 -0400

Are you accusing the United Nations of manipulating the series of elections in Iraq or Afghanistan? If so what proof do you have? You see no matter how much you mistrust the American government, the UN is not a puppet of the United States of America and the UN certified the elections. If that was faked by the US then why was the UN so hostile to the goals of the US? In short your arguments don’t hold water.

Be serious please. We are not in the security council here. there we can present that as we presented the proof of mobile biological wepons labs. ok?

That Information was provided by Germany and France two countries that officials were being paid by Saddam to hinder our actions in the UN. The people in charge of those programs have admitted they had such things but don't know where Saddam sent them or if they are functioning today.

What we have is photo evidence that seemed to back up the intelligence provided by two nations that had mixed loyalties.

ooh yes, the polls that shows we are wanted there. If you were an iraqi and were asked by an american polloster,

Neither poll was taken by any American orginazation. Both polls were done by European news organizations not American.

drmiler on The Only Way to Win The War In Iraq and the War On Terror

drmiler — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 05:57:39 -0400

you really must be kidding. isn't that what ALL occupiers do? get a puppet government elected and pretend that they are there by the approval of an elected government. c'mon now. whom you think are kidding? when Saddam Hussein got elected by 100% of the people he had a more credible claim to his authority than you pretend that we have. Fake elections are as valid as elections "Under Occupation".

"You're" the one that must be kidding! Your "so-called" puppet government is far from it. Do you understand the term? Here let me help:

The term puppet state has two distinct but related meanings. First, it refers to a state whose government depends on a foreign power for its existence and which closely follows the will of that foreign power in key policy issues (sometimes economic, sometimes strategic). Such a government is also known as a puppet regime. In this respect, puppet state is one of many terms that describe the subordination of one state to another in the international system. Second, the term refers to a state that has been created by the intervention of an external power in territory under the sovereignty of another state. In this respect, a puppet state is a secessionist state enabled and supported by an external power.

Under these definitions, a puppet state either lacks democratic legitimacy (because its policies are determined elsewhere) or it lacks sovereign legality (because it was created in breach of the rules of sovereign succession). For these reason, the term puppet state can be useful if applied only in the modern world, that is the world in which states are presumed to be a reflection of the will of their people and in which war has been outlawed as means of formal territorial acquisition. For subordinate relations in pre-modern times, the terms vassal state and tributary state are preferable.

The US does NOT determine their internal policies! Never has, never will. The current Iraqi government was chosen by the Iraqi people, NOT the US. The candidates were chosen by the PEOPLE, and voted for by the PEOPLE! Or did you forget the purple fingers? "If" it were a "puppet government" like you say, then the violence would have been over. The current government does NOT kowtow to our whims or wishes. Best you do some more reading.

ThinkAloud on The Only Way to Win The War In Iraq and the War On Terror

ThinkAloud — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 05:57:39 -0400

Yes, we invaded Iraq, the war was over in 6 weeks and the occupation began. A year later they had their own government freely elected by the people

you really must be kidding. isnt that what ALL occupiers do? get a puppet government elected and pretend that they are there by the approval of an elected government. comon now. whom you think are kidding? when saddam hussain got elected by 100% of the people he had a more cridible claim to his authority than you pretend that we have. Fake elections are as valid as elections "Under Occupation".

Be serious please. We are not in the security council here. there we can present that as we presented the proof of mobile biological wepons labs. ok?

We are wanted there? by the elected government? of course we are. who else would protect them. The script is known, very well known. An occupation, puppet government, occupation continues, till a coup that topples the government and starts kicking the occupiers out. Read it in all the histories of all occupations. USSR invasion and occpation of Afghanistan was the last episode.

ooh yes, the polls that shows we are wanted there. If you were an iraqi and were asked by an american polloster, would you say no? and same goes for people who are interviewed on TV, they can really say no we dont want the americans here? how suicidal you think they are? they will blow theselves to kill our troops but not for nothing.

Phil Osborn on The Only Way to Win The War In Iraq and the War On Terror

Phil Osborn — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 05:57:39 -0400

I note that a similar situation, perhaps not quite so violent, but certainly having that potential, existed under the Roman Empire, which kept expanding as other countries or factions within those countries kept pleading for Rome's military assistance to settle their problems with the nasty neighbors or native troublemakers.

So you ended up with Yugoslavia under Tito, or Iraq under Saddam, a lid kept on the mess by shear brute force majure, but how long could it last?

Then, along came the Christians, who created a social/moral/ethical/legal umbrella that offered a place to anyone, regardless of ethnic heritage or past personal history. ALL were brothers under Christ and required by adherence to the Faith to renounce vendettas and forgive their neighbors.

Now I'm an athiest, but I note that the then non-Christian Roman authorities, after a time of paranoid reaction to the rise of a new and incomprehensible POWER, suddenly realized the potential for their own benefit and jumped on board with both feet.

Well, we can't expect the Muslims to convert to Christianity, and Christianity doesn't have that good a long term record anyway, but, noting that it did bring an era of relative peace for a while, why not analyze why and how it worked and see if we can come up with a secular, rational, replacement that doesn't rely upon mysticism, altruism or anything but hard-nosed good sense and self-interest.

As a first candidate, I suggest an explicit social contract, in which all signatories agree in writing and on record on the Net, that they will resolve their differences with all other signatories by means of some kind of rational binding arbitration, if nothing else will serve, or a common law jury trial, or whatever other method is agreed to by all the parties, but still under the authority of the mutually binding contract. Businesses who had signed on could offer a small discount for people who were signatories, once they realized that it might mean reduced costs in terms of expensive, unreliable, often corrupt state systems for dispute resolution.

It could snowball, and then, instead of stewing about some slight until it escalates into imagining that your neighbors are plotting to blow you up - and maybe they are as preemption! - you could walk over and talk to them and say, listen, do we have a real dispute, or are we just both being paranoid and feeding a stupid problem with our fear? If we do have a dispute, then I'm a signatory, so lets agree on mediation or arbitration. I want my local Imman to mediate for me. Do you want to do this? You choose your mediator and then they can choose someone they both agree on to judge the case discretely and with wisdom.

As with the goode and ancient Common Law, the major sanction would be outlawry, although in a dispute people would typically post bonds up front with the judge or court. You might win unjustly occasionally. You might lose unjustly on occasion. But it sure beats being blown up over nothing!

adnauseam on The Only Way to Win The War In Iraq and the War On Terror

adnauseam — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 05:57:39 -0400

As a South African living in the Middle East I am often blase about the war in Iraq. It does not get my blood going like some of my fellow Joeusers. It is the Middle East I live in, I'll grant you , but I live peacefully here. However, to put my two cents in, I'll say that even if you put a million troops into Iraq you will not stabilise that country. There are too many hidden agendas, too many interniscene disagreements, too many elements fighting peace.

The country is as hopeless as with Saddam and, now, without him. I think Bush is wasting his time unless he knows something we don't. The Arab agenda is volatile, quick-tempered, culturally different and anti-American. Furthermore, it is inflamed by Al Quaeda, Sunni-Shia differences (do not under-estimate this), and a perception that the USA and UK (amongst others), have not delivered the promised land!

This war is not like the Vietnam War at all. This is even more hopeless because there is not one enemy ---there are 3 or 4 or more.

Good article John. Keep them coming!

Paladin77 on The Only Way to Win The War In Iraq and the War On Terror

Paladin77 — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 05:57:39 -0400

OUR forces in Iraq are an invading forces regardless of who sent them or who is responsible for it. The people of Iraq have the right to resist that. that is a universal right.

Hate to break up your dream but you failed to notice one small little thing. Yes, we invaded Iraq, the war was over in 6 weeks and the occupation began. A year later they had their own government freely elected by the people. The elected officials invited us to stay until all the bad people trying to destroy the new leadership are gone. This means the occupation has been over since we were invited to stay. that was two or three years ago. The people trying to kill our troops are also trying to kill all the people that voted the leadership in power so it means the terrorist are in the minority. We are wanted there, and by the last poll taken of Iraqis we are wanted there by about 70% to 79% of the people. Two different polls were taken almost a month apart and the numbers hold true. We are wanted there but the people not just the politicians in power.

ThinkAloud on The Only Way to Win The War In Iraq and the War On Terror

ThinkAloud — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 05:57:39 -0400

One might assume that if one truly believed in Allah, then one would believe that Allah would never allow HIS holy site to be nuked, right? So, what a way to test ones faith - in two senses at once...

First we really cant assume anything about what "HE would do" in any given circumstances. He may allow it, you never know. didnt you hear that He sometimes acts in a mysterious way?

Second, this actually happened to His holy site in Mecca around the turn of the 6th century. Abraha, the King of Persia at the time, i think, decided to destroy that site since it was attracting merchants to Mecca away from his markets. He led a huge army spear -headed by a huge Elephant contingent that is capable of just flatenning anything in its path. They approached Mecca and the people there we scared of course and went to their Chief. that was Abul-Muttalib, the garndfather of prophet Mohammad. The man knew that they really had no chance against that army. he told his people, everyone takes all their possessions and stay in their homes and close their doors. They were very upset with their chief and said why are we going to do that? aren't we supposed to protect Allah's House? he answered: with what we have we can only defend and protect our houses, but HE can defend and protect His. and that was it.

When Abraha camped at the edge of Mecca for the night in preparation for the final assault in the morning, a huge scorching sand storm accompanied by huge flock of large birds attacked the camping army. There were no trace of them in the morning.

the incident was acctually used as the start of the Arabic Calender before it was replaced by the Islamic Calender after the death of the Prophet around the turn of the 7th Century

So, let us not push our luck. Testing Him is lethal.

Phil Osborn on The Only Way to Win The War In Iraq and the War On Terror

Phil Osborn — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 05:57:39 -0400

Would Allah allow Mecca to be nuked? If terrorists nuked a city in the U.K., U.S., France, India or Russia, in the name of Allah, then one possible response would be interesting - as a thought experiment at least. Suppose the country suffering the nuclear attack by the Jihadists announced that two days hence they planned to turn Mecca into a nasty radioactive crater, uninhabitable for the next ten thousand years. They were giving all the faithless the chance to get out. One might assume that if one truly believed in Allah, then one would believe that Allah would never allow HIS holy site to be nuked, right? So, what a way to test ones faith - in two senses at once...

drmiler on The Only Way to Win The War In Iraq and the War On Terror

drmiler — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 05:57:39 -0400

They are able to do it themselves and much better than we can ever do.

I dont know what kind of logic you using , but your arguements are very illogical.

And I don't know "what" logic "you" are using, but it's flawed nonetheless. If the Iraqis could have gotten rid of Saddam on their own? Man I don't know what you're smoking....but I want some.

Something else you guys don't seem to get. GW is no war criminal. Saddam was. "He's" the one that broke the peace accords. At that point we were free to resume hostilities against him.

ThinkAloud on The Only Way to Win The War In Iraq and the War On Terror

ThinkAloud — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 05:57:39 -0400

The fundamental difference between the Terrorists and the Americans is that the Americans acted to liberate Iraq

you must be kidding yourself. because that is not fooling anyone in the world.

WE are there to liberate them? from whom? from themselves?

and who exactly asked us to liberate them?

Wake up man,

ThinkAloud on The Only Way to Win The War In Iraq and the War On Terror

ThinkAloud — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 05:57:39 -0400

However, the soldiers on the ground had nothing to do with that man's actions, and did nothing to harm the Sunnis. The attacks by the Sunnis on the Americans is completely without cause and must be treated for what they are: Acts of terrorism against the men and women trying to help rebuild Iraq.

I dont know what world you occupy my friend. Actions and decisions of the government of any country, democratically elected or not, ARE the responsibility of the people of that country.

There is no two ways about it.

OUR forces in Iraq are an invading forces regardless of who sent them or who is responsible for it. The people of Iraq have the right to resist that. that is a universal right. just because a foolish president started it doesnt make it any less invasion that is rightfully resisted by any self-respecting people.

The people of Iraq did not invite us to rebuild their country. They are able to do it themselves and much better than we can ever do.

I dont know what kind of logic you using , but your arguements are very illogical.