blackhorse

“If you saw two guys named Hambone and Flippy, which one would you think liked dolphins most? I'd say Flippy, wouldn't you? You'd be wrong though. It's Hambone.”---Jack Handey

I hear ya', Michael. Unfort, too many "Objectivsts" are notorious for exercsing nearly zero context, kindness, or even forgiveness. At the risk of sounding to crass, it is a rampant type of douchebaggery that is all too common within the movement's adherents.

Without his teleprompter Obama is an incoherent mumbling idiot.

Also, Obama shot himself in the foot (one of many times in the debate) when in his closing comments he mentioned Americans paying their "faire share".

The primary reason Ron Paul didn't do better than he did in the GOP primaries was his foreign policy.-it's naive and dangerous.

Tomato / tom-ah-to. It is a belief or system of beliefs defined by the dictionary definition of the word. Here's the rub, the Koran teaches conversion or death, this anti-human idea is not taught nor found in any of the other major world religions. I don't see how islam can seperate itself from this scripture seeing as it is in bold face type and has been forever. I geuss a group of semi-rationally minded muslims could release an edited copy of the Koran ommitting that part, but then that is asking for a fatwa. I see no realistic hope for Islam in general and the middle east in particular. It would have to undergo massive changes willfully at odds with current doctrine.-it's possible, but not in my lifetime.

Pope, you're either/or scenario above isn't that cut and dried in reality. The question not to forget is the 'WHY' in decision making. Emotions are not primary tools of cognition or for making rational decisions, they are the reward or consequence of a persons value system. Injecting heroin may feel good to someone, but rationally it is an unwise activity to engage in. I can make that destinction because reason lets me step outside of the emotional draw of my urge and appeal to logic. When I ask WHY of something I am able to ascertain a reason, reason is mans tool to make objective assessments of his situation divorced from his own person bias.

Islam has a standing doctrine that says to non-muslims; convert or die. There is no way around it. Freedom of religion only applies to those beliefs that do not actively seek or aspire to desrtoy a man's life, liberty, and property. Just as free speech does not apply to yelling "fire!" in movie theater, the same standard applies to religions, there is no freedom of religion where the religion in question espouses death or submission to non-believers. I stand with Geller 100%.

Obama, like the narcissis he is, kept looking down when Romney was addressing him. it's not just bad form, but a cardinal no-no in a debate.

Romney, RINO and all, delivered a smack down to Obama in last nights debate. It's over for the bg "O". In fact, if Obama was smart (which he isn't) he would try to get out of the last two debates to avoid further humiliation.

So where does Diana Hsieh fit into this mess? Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't she Peikoff's pitbull for a while?-and I believe she is, or was, running objectivismoffline. So after her middle finger to TAS in order to secure the good graces of Peikoff, it looks as though, now, her reasoning has come full circle to show both her and Peikoff's superciliousness.

As Peikoff would say of DIM ; you didn't know that.

Michael, such is the all too common follies of unbridled youthful passion untempered by reason. Hopefully he can steer himself towards a more even tempered rational approach to lively debate.

Is Diana running OO.net?- more app called ObjectivismOffline?

"I am profoundly opposed to the philosophy of hedonism. Hedonism is the doctrine which holds that the good is whatever gives you pleasure and, therefore, pleasure is the standard of morality. Objectivism holds that the good must be defined by a rational standard of value, that pleasure is not a first cause, but only a consequence, that only the pleasure which proceeds from a rational value judgment can be regarded as moral, that pleasure, as such, is not a guide to action nor a standard of morality. To say that pleasure should be the standard of morality simply means that whichever values you happen to have chosen, consciously or subconsciously, rationally or irrationally, are right and moral. This means that you are to be guided by chance feelings, emotions and whims, not by your mind. My philosophy is the opposite of hedonism. I hold that one cannot achieve happiness by random, arbitrary or subjective means. One can achieve happiness only on the basis of rational values. By rational values, I do not mean anything that a man may arbitrarily or blindly declare to be rational. It is the province of morality, of the science of ethics, to define for men what is a rational standard and what are the rational values to pursue."---Ayn Rand

"This is the fallacy inherent in hedonism—in any variant of ethical hedonism, personal or social, individual or collective. “Happiness” can properly be the purpose of ethics, but not the standard. The task of ethics is to define man’s proper code of values and thus to give him the means of achieving happiness. To declare, as the ethical hedonists do, that “the proper value is whatever gives you pleasure” is to declare that “the proper value is whatever you happen to value”—which is an act of intellectual and philosophical abdication, an act which merely proclaims the futility of ethics and invites all men to play it deuces wild."---Ayn Rand

When I first got introduced to Ayn Rand and Objectivist philosophy it was a rush. I was a young man breaking out of the "accepted paradigms", or thought, that dominated society. I learned the hard way that I needed to temper my fervor with context, civilty, and a thorough understanding of Objectivist tautology, Otherwise, I appeared, and actually was, a cocky know it all who, instead of warming people to myself and insights, turned everyone off around me with my "shoot from the hip" interactions.audiognostic, you seem to be advocating hedonism of sorts as opposed to rational happiness. When there are no rational values to guide men we have only arbitrary assertions. Hedonism both destroys man and destroys the society in which he lives.

I am amazed of the media blackout of him. He is the second most popular radio talk show host (Rush being #1).

I think that much of our consciousness and memories are not not just located within the physical mechanizations of the brain, but also in non-local space.

Here is a fascinating article...

Full link; http://www.fdavidpea...ays/nat-cog.htm

As a side note, there is a lot said in the early church about the "elders of israel", ie mormon church leaders/members, saving the US Constitution from destruction. Could Glenn Beck and Mitt Romney be those men? Church President John Taylor said, “When the people shall have torn to shreds the Constitution of the United States the Elders of Israel will be found holding it up to the nations of the earth and proclaiming liberty and equal rights to all men”.

http://www.latterdayconservative.com/quotes-about/elders-of-israel/

Selene, that video was both hilarious, frightening, and sad. At what point will the black culture embrace reason? WHY do 90% of blacks vote democrat?-it's like endorsing indentured servitude. Sad.

Wacka wacka!

but seriously,

I'm just saying that much of the Objectivist argument against Deity and different levels and/or dimenstions of reality in which consciencness may survive, are actually directed against the stereotypical god I mentioned above, as well as the bible thumping born again hell-fire and damnation beliefs they hold so dear (thanks to the edicts of medieval church clergy). But spirituality has moved light years beyond those archaic idea's and beliefs. Science and spirituality are melding of sorts. Have you ever heard of Jason Silva?

I think Savage's rage is justified, though it can be grating at times. He is truly downtrodden by what has happened to this country. He is an astute observer of events and WHY they happen.-very Objectivist in his approach to causes and effects. He does have a tendency to "burn bridges" of sorts with other popular radio talk show hosts, which is to his detriment. There is an old saying "You can catch more flies with honey than eith vinegar."

The U.N. belongs in Spain, or some other PC wretched socialist nation, NOT in the U.S.A. The John Birch Society used to be a commanding voice against the U.N., let's revive that sentiment.

"Detract not from others, neither be excessive in commanding."---George Washington