S-E

My first gripe with ayn rand

Recommended Posts

On 12/3/2018 at 2:19 PM, S-E said:

Peter do you believe that is a true picture you have painted of the average Arab?  I’m not going to argue with  you, I just want to clarify that you see them as a bunch of savages who are after Jewish blood.

 Are you being literal, or are you exaggerating for effect?

I was just quoting old letters and may not agree with particular points. However, I will defend Israel, the last and farthest outpost of America. Who shares our objective, Western values? Israel.  What would John Galt do? What would Ayn Rand do? Would she stand next to Francisco and John Galt on the borders of Israel with a gun in each hand, shooting the terrorists? Yes she would. The quote at the end reminds me of "Give me liberty, or give me death."  Peter

Some quotes from the speeches of Benjamin Netanyahu: Israel is the last and farthest outpost of America . . . . You don't have to read Robert Frost to know. You have to live life to know that the difficult path is usually the one less traveled, but it will make all the difference for the future of my country, the security of the Middle East and the peace of the world, the peace, we all desire . . . . . And I wish I could promise you, Elie, that the lessons of history have been learned. I can only urge the leaders of the world not to repeat the mistakes of the past . . . . We are no longer scattered among the nations, powerless to defend ourselves. We restored our sovereignty in our ancient home. And the soldiers who defend our home have boundless courage. For the first time in 100 generations, we, the Jewish people, can defend ourselves. This is why -- this is why, as a prime minister of Israel, I can promise you one more thing: Even if Israel has to stand alone, Israel will stand. end quote 

And I am edited this to add, watch the movie, "Laurence of Arabia' for an interesting historical presentation of Arabia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you mean by  ''our objective, Western values'' 

Conscription?      is that an objective, Western value? dose a state that endorses conscription deserve standing as a moral state?

 

and yes the article I liked is actually pro Israeli, but by my judgment it is biased, and quite morally offensive.                                                                                                                             

 

 

''I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine'' except for Ayn Ran.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe this is a wider question the the Israeli/Palestine one.

 The question I'll put to you now is,  should one defend the lesser of two evils?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, S-E said:

what do you mean by  ''our objective, Western values'' 

conscription?      is that an objective, Western value?

 

Yes, that what he meant. And, yes, conscription is indeed an objective Western value. Conscription is cool. Everyone loves it.

 

4 minutes ago, S-E said:

dose a state that endorses conscription deserve standing as a moral state?

If anyone, or any group of anyones, disagrees with us on any single issue, then they are immoral, deserve no standing whatsoever, and deserve immediate death.

 

5 minutes ago, S-E said:

...but by my judgment it is biased, and quite morally offensive.                                                                                                                             

Oh, no! You've been offended?! How horrific!

 

6 minutes ago, S-E said:

''I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine''

You left out Rand. You swear by your life and your love of it that you will never live for the sake of another man, except for Ayn Rand. You'll live for her sake.

J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, S-E said:

Maybe this is a wider question the the Israeli/Palestine one.

The question I'll put to you now is,  should one defend the lesser of two evils?

Um, context?

If we have a choice between siding with Hitler or siding with a pretty decent guy who once stole a pack of gum, we might want to not treat the two as being the same in kind and only different in mere degrees.

J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jonathan said:

 

You left out Rand. You swear by your life and your love of it that you will never live for the sake of another man, except for Ayn Rand. You'll live for her sake.

J

How did I let that happen, how inconsiderate of me, Ive  Corrected it.

Thanks you for pointing that out Jonathan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Jonathan said:

Um, context?

If we have a choice between siding with Hitler or siding with a pretty decent guy who once stole a pack of gum, we might want to not treat the two as being the same in kind and only different in mere degrees.

J

You just escalated that context war.

Yes, But were not talk about pieces of gum, we're talking thousands of human lives. If you have decided that Israeli is the ''lesser evil'' shouldn't you support them for the virtues, while condemning them for there vices?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, S-E said:

You just escalated that context war.

Yes, But were not talk about pieces of gum, we're talking thousands of human lives. If you have decided that Israeli is the ''lesser evil'' shouldn't you support them for the virtues, while condemning them for there vices?

Who is not condemning them for their vices?

J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, S-E said:

How did I let that happen, how inconsiderate of me, Ive  Corrected it.

Thanks you for pointing that out Jonathan.

You're very welcome.
J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This will be interesting.

Will all the supporters of the Israeli state name one thing they think the Israeli government is wrong about, and they should improve.

or do you feel its perfect just the way it is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, S-E said:

This will be interesting.

Will all the supporters of the Israeli state name one thing they think the Israeli government is wrong about, and they should improve.

or do you feel its perfect just the way it is?

I don't know. Who are "supporters of the Israeli state"? What does that mean?

J

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Jonathan said:

I don't know. Who are "supporters of the Israeli state"? What does that mean?

J

 

Ok. Sorry, I was unclear,  I was using the wrong word, what I meant was people who self identify as supporters of the current Israeli government policy. 

What can I say, I was using the word state and the concept government policy interchangeably, but you can see how it happened 🙂 policy's are made by governments that are sometimes named right after the word state (for example) ''the state of Israel'' that's what happened.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have some sympathy for the time lapse argument of history. “Wait a sec. That was a long time ago and things are different now.” Slavery happened a long time ago in America but it ceased in 1865. Americans remember and will never repeat that mistake. Wait until the first sentient robot is developed. Laws will be passed, by golly. The internment of Japanese Americans happened in 1941 but it quickly ceased. No Japanese American’s were treasonous. Yet many may have had concerns about the land of their ancestors where relatives were still living. How could they not? Of course, we were leery of Muslims after 9/11 and some dumbasses even tried to persecute Sikhs, but we did not put American citizens in jail or internment camps because of their religion. Illegal aliens? Ditto. People with AIDS or other diseases who might be contagious? Ditto. Just don’t cough around me.  Legitimate asylum? Yup, but I agree with our President. No borders? No country.

Americans are some of the best people on this earth. And we barely have to try to keep that distinction. It is part of our nature.           

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/20/2018 at 11:25 PM, S-E said:

What do you mean by  ''our objective, Western values'' 

Conscription?      is that an objective, Western value? dose a state that endorses conscription deserve standing as a moral state?

 

and yes the article I liked is actually pro Israeli, but by my judgment it is biased, and quite morally offensive.                                                                                                                             

 

 

''I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine'' except for Ayn Ran.

 

There's seldom even a pretence at innocent lack of knowledge any more: The facts of the situation there have become too plain to evade any longer. About every time I hear a "moral" argument against Israel (especially from the Left, Left-libertarian and very rarely, from Christians) I wait for the tacit or stated follow-on - "Why does Israel have the right to exist?" (Unasked of any other nation existing).

 Conscription is immoral and you don't have conscription in your country. Bully for you! Holding to a floating principle, i.e., one which disposes of context and reality, works against anyone's rational self-interest - and then, is "immoral". A principle serves its owner, not the reverse.

Perhaps your country is bordered by other long-time peaceable countries or by oceans? Perhaps it has a large enough population to ensure a sizable, voluntary, standing military force? Or it's population centers are not a stone's throw from belligerent neighbors on all sides wishing to kill citizens, and planning for the country's downfall? 

IOW, a country which has the luxuries of peace, isolation, location, distance and numbers - so, allowing the intervening time in which a goverment may carefully consider taking defensive/retaliatory action against aggressors. But not one which stays constantly at war readiness, at the very best of times in a low level state of emergency, and evidently from the past has had to be.

Perhaps moral skeptics of Israel's legitimacy will feel justified/pleased if it became a vassal state of Iran? From some I've heard, I can bet my boots on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Peter said:

I have some sympathy for the time lapse argument of history. “Wait a sec. That was a long time ago and things are different now.” Slavery happened a long time ago in America but it ceased in 1865. Americans remember and will never repeat that mistake. Wait until the first sentient robot is developed. Laws will be passed, by golly. The internment of Japanese Americans happened in 1941 but it quickly ceased. No Japanese American’s were treasonous. Yet many may have had concerns about the land of their ancestors where relatives were still living. How could they not? Of course, we were leery of Muslims after 9/11 and some dumbasses even tried to persecute Sikhs, but we did not put American citizens in jail or internment camps because of their religion. Illegal aliens? Ditto. People with AIDS or other diseases who might be contagious? Ditto. Just don’t cough around me.  Legitimate asylum? Yup, but I agree with our President. No borders? No country.

 

 

Americans are some of the best people on this earth. And we barely have to try to keep that distinction. It is part of our nature.           

 

 

Slavery ended in 1865? That's a naïve statement. It wasn't even a "mistake" to begin with unless it was an Arab/Muslim mistake. It was historical inertia powered by pre-industrial economics. To call this monstrosity a mere mistake begs the question of whose mistake? The white man's?

The difference between Muslims and Japanese is wider than the Pacific. It's 1500 years of on again off again conflict, mostly on.

---Brant

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our only competition is ourselves. Not any foreign country or even the Muslim degenerate religion. This means it's imperative that we beat the left into metaphorical pulp.

--Brant

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brant,

And I would go easy on the metaphorical.

:) 

My real problem is elitists who don't believe in freedom for all except as a verbal smokescreen for them to bolster their power over others. They are on the left and right.

However, at the hoi polloi level, the left does get awfully crazy, even in the mainstream at times (just look at the goddam PC culture right now). The fringe right is just as bad, but the mainstream is saner than the mainstream left.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Peter said:

Slavery happened a long time ago in America but it ceased in 1865. Americans remember and will never repeat that mistake..  

No, they'll repeat it. They'll just do it a little differently next time. The defining characteristic of those assigned to the status of less-than-human will likely be something other than race this time. It's bad to enslave based on race, but virtuous to do so based on X. X might be ability, productivity, intelligence, "privilege," adherence to a specific ideology or religion, gender, sexual preference, etc.

J

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Americans will not repeat the enslavement of people. The war on human trafficking is evidence as is a President who is upholding The Constitution. Old joke. Who was the best black president ever? Morgan Freeman.  I think there is a strong majority of Americans who are against privilege, kick backs. preferential treatment and elitism of all types, except in sports venues. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

Slavery ended in 1865? That's a naïve statement. It wasn't even a "mistake" to begin with unless it was an Arab/Muslim mistake. It was historical inertia powered by pre-industrial economics. To call this monstrosity a mere mistake begs the question of whose mistake? The white man's?

The difference between Muslims and Japanese is wider than the Pacific. It's 1500 years of on again off again conflict, mostly on.

---Brant

Thank you, Brant.

I have seen credible estimates there are more slaves alive right now than ever have been in human history. The rights orgs have some pretty crazy heart-wrenching estimates on numbers of sex and household slaves, in just Saudi alone, for example. Girls and boys for sale in Libya, openly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now