Amy Coney Barret

[Peter]

What's spooky is the next gen voters. How can they be so ignorant of history to support a Progressive? 

[Jules Troy]

Yo Jonathan, there are womunz out there that will gladly take your money up front and you can do all kinds of things to their vagayjays and you don’t even have to buy them dinner, or talk to them or worry about Roe vs. Wade!  Probly better you don’t talk to them because then you probably won’t be able to pay em enough to play with their ladybits..

[Jonathan]

Speaking of which, I'm surprised that legalization of prostitution isn't an issue now like pot is. It seems that it would be the next step. Um, then again, with lefty influence, I guess it's not surprising that trying to normalize pederasty is the bigger push.

J

[Jules Troy]

I’m sure there would be more than a few priests that would rejoice if that happened..

[Jonathan]

No. That doesn't happen any more. I just heard church representives say so on the news.

[Jules Troy]

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5b72c95de4b0bdd0620cc685/amp

[caroljane]

On 7/11/2018 at 1:16 PM, Peter said:

What's spooky is the next gen voters. How can they be so ignorant of history to support a Progressive? 

They could be knowledgeable enough in real history, as to support no one else.

[Jonathan]

5 hours ago, Jules Troy said:

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5b72c95de4b0bdd0620cc685/amp

That's a coverup, which is different from molestation. Sure, coverups of past molestations are happening, but the church's position is that the molestations themselves are no longer happening. Just the coverups.

J

[Jonathan]

2 hours ago, caroljane said:

They could be knowledgeable enough in real history, as to support no one else.

Heh. "Real history," eh? Hahahaha!

Please, do share this "real history" with us.

J

[Peter]

Back to basics. Communism, socialism, progressivism, totalitarianism, absolute monarchies, and dynasties, (etc.,) are incompatible with little “o”, objectivism, big “O”, Objectivism, the United States’ Constitution and I have no doubt it is incompatible with your Canadian constitution and the entire British Empire. Our big experiment with a truly progressive state and control of our citizen’s lives might have been under President Franklin D. Roosevelt, after the Great Depression. A lot of those controls were unconstitutional and Un-American. And they are gone, hopefully for good.

What would Canadians need to change to be “true progressives” Carol? What is the most or least state control you would be happy living under? Peter   

From: RogerEBissell To: atlantis Subject: Re: ATL: Re: Objectivism???? Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 19:25:08 EST. Nathaniel Branden wrote: >The more I read the postings on this list, as I have been doing lately, the more I wonder why anyone would think this is "an Objectivist list." An "Objectivist" who does not agree that rationality is volitional is not an Objectivist. An "Objectivist" who does not think there are such things as natural rights is not an Objectivist. An "Objectivist" who preaches racism is not an Objectivist. None of these issues are marginal to Objectivism but reflect essential principles. And if this is not supposed to be, in some serious sense, an Objectivist list--what is it supposed to be? (I warned myself that it was a mistake to start reading these postings again, but I wouldn't listen.)

Greg Johnson commented: >Is Nathan conducting another purge? Old habits die hard!

Greg, that's way over the top. I think it's a legitimate question, but I also think that it's too easy to pick one's own pet list of views that can qualify one as being or not being an Objectivist.

Nathaniel has pointed out (correctly, in my opinion, but I will argue that point elsewhere) that the Objectivist metaphysics as Rand viewed it is "minimalist." Well, I think that in terms of what should qualify a person as "Objectivist" should also be termed most generally and succinctly.

For instance, in "About the Author" in the appendix to ~Atlas Shrugged~, Rand said "My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute." Do you agree with that? Then you agree with Rand's statement of the essence of her philosophy. Are you then an Objectivist?

Or, at the sales conference at Random House, preceding the publication of ~Atlas Shrugged~, Rand presented the essence of her philosophy "while standing on one foot."

She said: Metaphysics: Objective Reality ("Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed" or "Wishing won't make it so.")

2. Epistemology: Reason ("You can't have your cake and eat it, too.")

3. Ethics: Self-Interest ("Man is an end in himself.")

4. Politics: Capitalism ("Give me liberty or give me death.")

Do you agree with these principles? If so, are you then an Objectivist? Later, in 1962, in her column "Introducing Objectivism," Rand gave "the briefest summary" of her philosophy:

1. Reality exists as an objective absolute--facts are facts, independent of man's feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.

2. Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses) is man's only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival. 3. Man--every man--is an end in himself, not the means t the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own ~rational~ self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life. 4. The ideal political-economic system is ~laissez-faire~ capitalism. it is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as ~traders~, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. it is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and ~no man may initiate the use of physical force against others~. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man's rights; it uses physical force ~only~ in retaliation and ~only~ against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.

Do you agree with this summary? If so, are you then an Objectivist?

Finally, in "Brief Summary" (1971), Rand said: "If one recognizes the supremacy of reason and applies it consistently, all the rest [e.g., capitalism and egoism] follows. This--the supremacy of reason--was, is and will be the primary concern of my work, and the essence of Objectivism."

Do you agree with this statement about the supremacy of reason? Then you agree with Rand on the essence of Objectivism. Are you then an Objectivist?

The preceding gives more than enough guidance for us to judge other list members as to whether they are Objectivist -- at least in their basic orientation, if not in every application. Revisit, then, Nathaniel's comments (including the one in a separate post about whether Rand's view on a woman President was part of Objectivism):

1. rationality as volitional -- that appears ~nowhere~ in any of the statements of the essence of Objectivism, though it is a position argued by many Objectivists (and others). I would maintain that rationality includes the self-aware monitoring and directing of one's mental processes, while also maintaining that, in any given situation, one ~could not~ have done otherwise than one did in that situation. Others, such as Bill Dwyer, Gayle Dean, Dennis May, etc. also hold some variant of this view, sometimes known as "soft determinism" or "compatibilism." Is free will or volition compatible with determinism? I think the jury is still out on that question, and that any attempt to limit Objectivism to those holding the incompatibilist position is premature at best.

2. natural rights -- this is a key principle of Objectivism. I agree with Nathaniel that one cannot be an Objectivist and reject this position. However, if someone could logically prove that rights are incompatible with egoism or rational self-interest, that would be a very important development. Some have argued such a view on this list (the "prudent predator", etc.), but I have found their arguments unconvincing and Bill Dwyer's (and others') rebuttals to be headed in the right direction. The best (though very technical) argument for the compatibility of egoism and rights is by Eric Mack. He first set this out years ago in John Hospers' journal, ~The Personalist~ (in the early 1970s, I think).

3. anti-racism -- again, I think that this is solidly Objectivist. It would take a miracle, in my opinion, for anyone to convince me that racism is compatible with the basic principles of Objectivism. Rand's essay in ~The Virtue of Selfishness~ is still the best statement on the subject.

4. woman President -- Rand's claim that a woman could not rationally want to be President is, in my opinion, one of her lamest assertions. I think that she generalized her own sexual and gender psychology, defining away the rationality of any woman/women who felt and thought otherwise.

Now, for any of the above to be argued or rebutted, in terms of the foundational principles of Objectivism, a person has to use logic and facts. Any "good faith" attempt to do so ought to be accepted by others on the list, since we are, after all, trying to be "new intellectuals" here, not Attilas or Witch Doctors. The supremacy of reason -- that's supposedly what governs us here!

So, ~volitional~ reason? reason ~without rights~? Rational ~racism~? rational ~women Presidents~? Fine, let's discuss, and let's refrain from suggesting that those disagreeing with us on those issues is, by that very fact, irrational and thus not an Objectivist or welcome on an Objectivist discussion list. Best to all, Roger Bissell

[william.scherk]

On 7/7/2018 at 5:17 PM, william.scherk said:

Just because some might believe that a conservative majority of the nine will lead to reversals of, say, gay marriage rights, or Roe v Wade, and also rule against protections for LGBT folks ... just because someone has a grand narrative of Christian Resurgence, it doesn't make it much more likely, does it?  End-days hucksters like Trump-before-Tribulation Jim Bakker notwithstanding.

From Dara Sherif at The Root -- Alabama: Where You Can Be Forced to Give Birth After Being Raped and Maybe Have to Parent the Child With Your Rapist

On 7/9/2018 at 12:41 PM, caroljane said:

On 7/8/2018 at 8:57 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I'm always amused by people who think Christians will try to abolish gays, abortions and so on. They so very worry their pretty little hearts about theocracy and theocratic dictatorships.

Last century, the leaders who--in reality, not just in theory--tried to do that were Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc. And they didn't just try to abolish rights. They abolished the people who wanted those rights. They killed as many as they could get away with.

Not a Christian among those leaders.

Almost right.

Pretty little hearts ...

This guy is going to have an interesting retirement ...

‘Freaks:’ Tennessee preacher-cop calls for execution of LGBTQ people during sermon

 

[Peter]

That guy is a Christian Nazi. He should stay away from the holy smoke if he wants to be a rational holder of public office. I despise people who want to wed their religion to public law. Even with a powerful Episcopalian entity in England, there was some separation of church and state going back to earlier times, which was reinforced in the U.S. Constitution. Back then, you couldn't be an atheist without being lynched or booed in the mid to late 1700's but you could be a Deist. And the more intelligent of the West's leaders and intelligentsia called themselves Deists.       

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

23 minutes ago, Peter said:

That guy is a Christian Nazi.

Peter,

To William he's mainstream Christian.

I didn't even watch the video.

I did look on YouTube, though. He has 2,254 views, down-voted by a massive majority and most all of the comments are negative.

And knowing YT, this video will be toast before too long.

Wow, what a threat...

Michael

[Jon Letendre]

3 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Peter,

To William he's mainstream Christian.

I didn't even watch the video.

I did look on YouTube, though. He has 2,254 views, down-voted by a massive majority and most all of the comments are negative.

And knowing YT, this video will be toast before too long.

Wow, what a threat...

Michael

And Billy presents that as mainstream Christianity because he is a bigot.