Mike11

I blame ObjectivismOnline.net for 87% of the troll I am today.

Originally I was going to simply PM MSK, then thought this should be public record so thought I should post here. I don't respect the forum the way other users here do. I've been burned in the past, repeatedly, so decided several years ago to simply practice a kind of Golden Rule - give unto others as you anticipate them giving unto to you. However I've almost always erred on the side of cynicism. On some threads I think I've made actual contributions to discussions because the posters involved seemed to counter my cynicism. However, as others have graphically seen I have too little restraint when dealing with those extreme cases that others seem to be able to take in stride. Further, I contributed nothing to the actual topic, merely vented the content of my Immense hatred for the poster. My intent was not to start the ensuing posts against Kolker nor was I trying to bait or encourage the moderators to ban my account. Such is the nature of my all too blind cynicism and anger at many who bring the internet to a lower standard. A standard which I have often pathologically tried to lower. Its like the behavior that drives a public, propagandizing misogynist after being ditched by his wife. I was going to remove the post in question but decided to keep it also on the public record.

Kolker, Kolker, Kolker. Its time someone just said this flat out. [note from admin: offensive dead mutilated baby picture removed. If you really must see it it is here at the bottom of the page.] Oh god, that hole in the skull is such a good place to pour my stream of race hatred into!!! Or wait? Is Sand Nigger kosher enough for you? I mean, us Jews want to live up to Hitler's standards for the tribe right? If racist genocide is fine on this forum but that ain't, ban me. I don't post here much anyway.

Objectivists, mainly of the ARI stripe, have this thing of equating "Business" with Love, Truth, Honor, Perfection etc. Most modern businesses are not honest and spend trillions in an advertising industry designed to deceive. There is nothing anti-objectivist in calling BS to most of modern "Capitalism", in that respect. As for the FDA...? Doesn't Someone have to provide some degree of protection for the consumer?

Methinx all 7 are found in a mid century American novel.

Thanks, its always good to know how much business can get away with. Rearden Metal! The steel which reduces the symptoms of "bridge fall apart", can assist in weight loss, premature balding and ... other premature things ... (clip of super hottie touched up by photoshop and completely out of your league). Warning can cause - Lymphoma, Acute Socialist Uprisings, STD's from gorgeous yet promiscuous rail road execs, and death. Rearden Metal not recommended for anything, some restrictions apply, Rearden Steel not responsible for damages caused by use or misuse of product in: * Alabama * Alaska * American Samoa * Arizona * Arkansas * California * Colorado * Connecticut * Delaware * District of Columbia * Florida * Georgia * Guam * Hawaii * Idaho * Illinois * Indiana * Iowa * Kansas * Kentucky * Louisiana * Maine * Maryland * Massachusetts * Michigan * Minnesota * Mississippi * Missouri * Montana * Nebraska * Nevada * New Hampshire * New Jersey * New Mexico * New York * North Carolina * North Dakota * Northern Marianas Islands * Ohio * Oklahoma * Oregon * Pennsylvania * Puerto Rico * Rhode Island * South Carolina * South Dakota * Tennessee * Texas * Utah * Vermont * Virginia * Virgin Islands * Washington * West Virginia * Wisconsin * Wyoming

Sweet! Thank you for making this list.

I will support McCain because he appears to be a killer. My kind of guy. We are surrounded by bloodthirsty thugs. We need a butcher-in-chief. Ba'al Chatzaf You remind of Danny from "The Believer". Not in that you resemble him but because of what you make me want to do. A few years in a camp give you a permanent hard on for genocide there Robert? Actually no, you remind me more of Dov from Exodus. Making up for something? Something you feel you may have enjoyed a little too much?

Look, I know this isn't the right forum to say this and I'm insulting everyone here but I have to say, Doesn't he remind you of a young Lenny Peikoff?

Looks like most of the ARI mindset is there - utter historical ignorance, black and white thinking, Nietzchean Underman resentment, being a dork.

Not as much as I'd like anyway. The us-them puritanical thinking is largely built in. The fictional characters in AS for example support an us-them view and the ideas included in "Philophical Detection" led directly to "Fact and Value" in endorsing the distortion of and condemning of an opponent's view. Any attempt to separate Objectivism from the Body of Rand, in my eyes anyway, pretty well has to be an attack on the Objectivist philosophy if you want any break in areas ranging from music, american history, or sex.

A cultist would not call themselves out as such. Joel, INFP

Some of my favorite youtubers recently went to war - using the generater exlusively. http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=Ztgq_3uIKPM&watch_response is the most overtly funny http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=UkaiO4KSjfs&watch_response but this guy keeps a straight face

John Dailey, I agree, I don't want to bring up the irrelevant and trivial to the discussion but since your question seems to be, "I'm not sure about anatomy but Something must justify male sexual supremacy" and I disagree that "Male Hero and Female Worshiper" is even a valid thing to say, universally, I thought I would make those comments. Of course I'm no even sure if that is what your question refers to. There is another thread on the Speicher forum that addresses the wider issue, specifically why men can not be "Heroine worshipers", it is the thread that gave rise to the "penetration" question originally - http://forums.4aynrandfans.com/index.php?s...c=2496&st=0 So, what exactly is it you wanted us to look at? The issue of whether there is a universal fact (descriptive or prescriptive) of one gender being dominant or simply what establishes said dominance? My position on the first question is a "No" so I have nothing to say about the second part. Much to say on the first part.

Hello, I have some deep thoughts from my shallow brain to share with you guys because I am in love with my own voice, so: And this is going to include some partially understood and badly phrased Post Modern ideas. You've been warned 1. It is problematic in human relationships to tell the truth in a constant way avoiding false statements, I say this for a few reasons. A ) Asking "Do I look fat in this dress?" is not the same as asking "What are 2 and 2?"; responding "No" is not the same as replying "5". Interpersonal communication entails a large degree of context, subtext, and multiple simultaneous meanings of which each participant is going to pick and choose portions of that meaning to respond to. In this example the question could mean anything from "Do I look fat in this dress?" to "Am I cuter than Sally?", you have to choose a level of meaning to respond to. Barbara Branden pointed to this earlier by talking about "Do you want to go to the ball game" versus "Are we still friends?" B ) It would follow from A that meaning of this kind - art, conversation, religion, emotion etc - is Never fully present in our mind. Take the guy wearing the dress in example A (Yes, its a guy now as I find it funnier that way), does he know the full scope of what he means when he asks if the dress makes him look fat? Think about it, when someone asks, "Do you love me?" or "How do you feel since your mother died?" does a fully complete meaning come to mind, or only some particular piece of meaning? If the guy in example A were met with the reply, "Yes, it does make you look fat." would he just see this as a physical statement or would the meaning of his first question suddenly shift into a more emotional gear and assume the entire exchange was about self esteem, love etc and forget the original question? We all had mothers, girlfriends or wives here, so admit it, you know how meanings can change even after the words are uttered. The idea of telling a perfect truth I find impossible to believe, simply because its not possible to begin with. 2. Art is a lie. Our society is very peculiar in intellectual history having opened up a whole context in which lying is not only permissible, it is encouraged, we just choose to see it as a special, privileged sphere, arbitrarily protected from laws of truth and falsehood - this sphere being "Art". There was a beautiful sequence on this in a movie called "Chosen" about 2 Jewish kids in WW2 New York but since I can't simply youtube the scene I have to make a coherent argument. A ) Art has been seen by many as inherently dishonest as it attacks our ability to reason; emotion has been seen as a sphere open to lies, reason as open to the truth. For example, in the West Plato saw its power as corruption clearly and advocated certain arts be wipe out completely, with other, milder ones strict slaves to state ideology (Link ). Other cultures like Islam and Judaism made similar observations. Anyone advocating absolute honesty would have to address the problem of art's power to spread lies and the very meaning of being completely honest whilst trying to reduce another's critical faculty. Can music with a negative message be endorsed simply for its musical component for example? B ) Much of art is about falsehoods, about stating lies. John Galt and Wesely Mooch for example did not exist yet Rand used these lies with huge amounts of emotional rhetoric to state her philosophical claims, is this not a lie? What about story telling, "I had a friend with your problem and this is how he pulled through it." If the content referred to in the metaphor is true and real, is it still a lie? Is there something inherently dishonest in using a story? For a good example of this moral question of story telling I highly recommend the one or two people stil reading this to watch the following - http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=FT234Vo0rrE&...feature=related In this example we see a demo of story telling geared specifically at undermining another's rational faculty to send a clear message to another, this kind of dishonesty is after all, what all artistic parables have been built for. If Art is still essentially honest than how is saying "I'll go to the ball game some other time" or "I don't mind your singing", a lie? On to the Nazis and Anne Frank. 1) In Objectivist ethics, unlike Kantian ethics, honesty (to others) is not a virtue in itself but flows rather for what is needed for man's survival "Qua Man". Outside the Hallowed Halls of Oism 99% of philosophers agree that honesty is not an absolute, universal virtue. If you can tell a lie that will make Hitler blow his brains out it is immoral Not to do so.

You're both right.

A couple groups Mr. Thomas did not mention here are scientists and mathematicians. The industrial revolution was not possible until the science was in place for the engineers, inventors, manufacturers, etc. to do their work. Before all else, science (time-binding) is what makes man different from animals and if we are going to prescribe a doctrine of appropriate human behaviour then we should be looking at scientific behaviour as a model as well, not simply commerce, trading, production, etc. The goal, in Objectivism, for ethics is human survival, hence the virtue of productiveness. In the intro to "Philosophy Who needs It?" Rand is gave a speech to Westpoint about an astronaut stranded on an alien world and what he needs to do first to survive is to have a correct philosophical orientation, "Why don't I just evade the issue of where I am? Why don't I just give up?". This issue of philosophy comes first in the chain of considerations for man's survival, you need to know why you work before you work. As for science, I can't think of any smoking gun quotes but I got the distinct impression from Rand (reading Atlas) that technological science is the highest form of productive labor, making other labour easier and using our highest faculties. She also seemed to imply in this book that there is no "science for science's sake" without some technological spin off. I hope that helps.

I'll get back to you in a day or two with a delightfully bizarre post referencing Australian-Islamic relations, WW2, and the Star Wars Trilogy.... Well, one out of three ain't bad.

So in other words I need another book. Thanks Robert.

Hello, I'm reading Brian Greene's "The Fabric of the Cosmos" and am having a hard time understanding the contancy of the speed of light. If I was in a race with a car going twice my speed it stands to reason I am moving at half its speed. But If I am moving at half the speed of light, the difference between me and the particle of light is still the full speed of light?? Now I know that the combined velocity of movement through space and time must be the speed of light and therefore I am not investing ALL my energy moving thru space alone while light moves entirely through space, with a 0 on moving through time. I know that must have something to do with it but I've been thinking about this for months and can't get it. Anyone care to help the blind man?

Guys, I'm sorry, I need to start doing posts that make sense, I assure, this was my last Rant, against a rant. I find Pipes to be engaged in a dishonest, partisan attack here and this is why - 1. What can not be placed under the label "Fascist" using Pipes' definition? 2. Given the common root of the Marxists and Fascists is Hegel why does he use the term "Fascism" as the source of the Left? 3. The extent to which the target, Liberals, fit this definition is exaggerated. 4. Why does Pipes label "left" movements as Fascist when aspects of the rightwing can equally be included? 1. To a Libertarian the far Right and Left are the same, both encouraging Statism. That said this article takes Fascism as a word and applies it so far I think I could use it to describe Innocent XIII's move for Papal supremacy in the middle ages as Fascist, it would meet the criteria of - "A statist ideology, fascism uses politics as the tool to transform society from atomized individuals into an organic whole. It does so by exalting the state over the individual, expert knowledge over democracy, enforced consensus over debate, and socialism over capitalism." What is not covered here? Has there ever been a totalistic ideology and corresponding organizational frame work that did not do this? Fascism, which is defined by the Wiki (a definition confirmed by the operation of the Italians and Nazis) as follows: The article by Pipes however is much, much looser encompassing Soviet style Communism, the modern Welfare State and several other things. What is the common denominater here? What could these movements have in common? The first ting I thought of was pretty simple, that being all Libertarians tend to group all Big ZGovernment movements as the same in terms of the liberty/repression scale. The second was that Pipes is correct in seeing an underlying trend, at least between Leninists and Fascists but simply mistakes the latter to be the origin of the former. A better case can be made for Hegel. 2. In order for the article to have attacked both Fascists and Communists it would have to address their common root, or rather largest common root, Hegel, though "Hegelian Legacy: Liberalism" isn't as flashy. It is from Hegel we get the idea of the Self as part of the historical Organism, an organism with the State at its top. Here is some stuff from the Wiki article on Hegel - Even than though Hegel merely inspired Fascism and Marxism; both movements attacked Hegel even as they drew off him. 3. Pipes lays out the following as meeting his definition as fascist: Words have meanings. The term "Welfare State", with its aspects of helping the poor members of society, public education and public Health Care is not Fascism, its not Totalitarionism either. Its that simple. 4. This is where Pipes exposes himself as the propagandist he is most clearly. In America today there is a powerful, religious, war praising movement, of which Pipes is a part - the neo-con/Christian Right. At least this movement is as right wing statist as the New Deal/Hillary line is leftist. Recent moves to have America defined as a "Christian Nation" in the guise of a national religious education week, attacks on gay rights, perpetual calls to kill our muslim enemies, the teaching of Creationism - all of these escape Pipes' notice but surely they are anti-individualist movements who follow "A statist ideology, (using) politics as the tool to transform society from atomized individuals into an organic whole. It does so by exalting the state over the individual, expert knowledge over democracy, enforced consensus over debate, and socialism over capitalism." as much as the "left" he attacks. Why the blindspot? To me the only logical explanation is, for the same reason Stalinists liked to focus on the American Jim Crow laws. A propagandistic distraction. Nothing more. Pipes wanted the Glamor of the Holocaust, the murder of tens of thousands of political opponents, the elimination of the Vote and the Fuhrer Princip to spice up his petty myopic partisan smear.

If you thought it was thought provoking, excellant. As for Speicher, its been a year and a half and the arguement we had did center on male/female supremacy, as you can tell I don't hold the view of male dominance and that was our dispute. I thought it was on the anatomical details, I may have been wrong. Eventually howevr, due to this view, I got the boot.

This is an aspect of Objectivism I believe to be Rand interpreting her own psychology as philosophical truth. This post is going to contain graphic depictions of "deviant" sexuality. MSK can delete it, but its the only way I can think of to prove a point. Seriously, if MSK deems this post as too risque he can feel free to do so without hard feelings of any kind. This post is long, wondering and typed to late and edited 4 times. In fairness to you here is my outline - 1. Rand clearly had a personal thing for Bondage which spilled into her philosophy. 2. The law of averages, men of average being stronger than women, does not apply to individual sexuality anymore than to individual wage. 3. Even if it did, women still have a fair shot as being in the dominant role. 4. You can not define the ideal "Man" or "Woman" that others must measure up to without straw manning. 5. LGBT relationships need not have the same binary power relationship. 6. Not all sexual acts need be based on biological gender, in some extreme cases the gender can be switched with no primary effect. 7. Sex is a wide open concept, no more definable in practice than something like reading or playing. Human sexual relationships are determined by the individuals themselves though and not by some Collective (heh) like gender. Rand in stating her view simply read her own sexuality as a universal human truth. Here is where I think her own sexuality lay - Rand was heavily interested in bondage-like (I mean bondage flat out actually, the bondage-like was a pre-emptive dodge) ideas and imagery, always with the man in the Dominant role. There is the notorious Fountainhead sequence which, while clearly not Rape, contained all the material of softcore D/s fiction and has been an inspiration to many in the community. That continued in Atlas when Dagny says something like "The chain gave her the most feminine of aspects - that of a woman Bound". She also, as we all know, made a series of statements about how she likes to worship male heroes and would not like to run for President as a woman. Here are some reasons why she can not say this universally - 1. Many Objectivists and misogynists make the argument that men, on average, are stronger than women and are therefore the naturally dominant players. Assuming across the board Every male stronger than a female, sex is not the same as beating someone up. Different act, different important anatomy. If the "stronger" is the one having the most desirable characteristics in a certain situation than Cate Blanchett, not David Lettermen is the one calling the shots in bed. This is furthered if you look at sex as something that seeks psychological value aswell, the one who initiates sex could be the male or female, the one most incontrol psychologically could be either or. However one sex is not superior across the board, it is only as an average. A woman can be stronger than the person they have sex with. Saying that the man, because of the averages, is stronger and therefore more dominant, is counter to Objectivist ethics. I don't expect to be paid ludicrous amounts of money, control the media, secretly manipulate the American government and rule the World just because I'm Jewish - I am treated in accordance with my own, individual, merit. 2. An increasing number of women are pursuing and succeeding at the tops of corporate ladders and a woman is running for President, the idea of female "Hero Worship" as an inevitable part of being female is dead. An increasing number of men are also staying at home, earning less than women etc. If we define women and men based on actual living women and men Heroism and Hero Worship (in sex or everyday life) are not based on biology, any attempt to link the 2 is bad straw manning. The arguments would look like this: 1. Ayn Rand was a sub. 2. Ayn Rand was a woman. 3. This dominatrix is also a woman. 4. Therefore all women, according to their essential characteristics, are subs... err, "Women Qua Women" Or, 1. Women Qua Women kneel to worship John Galt's Divine ... 2. Hillary does not. 3. Therefore Hillary is not a woman. Or, 1. Women Qua Women must kneel to to worship John Galt's Divine ... 2. Hillary does not. 3. Therefore Hillary must be punished for not being a women. 3. Not all sexual activity is even hetero, physical activity. Human sexuality runs a wide spectrum. First there are gays, lesbians, transexuals, hermaphrodites, furs and others who do operate within the same dichotomy as heteros, how can these "Metaphysical" claims be made about them? These are fringe issues but relevant ones, as time goes on and the male/female divide gets more dated and mutated these cases will become more the center. I can see a few counters to this: 1. "In a gay or lesbian relationship one often plays the "male" the other plays the "female" proving the dichotomy must continue to exist". There is no necessary reason for this and it is not found in all same sex couples. All this proves is a residual hetero fad. This also does not help when dealing with transexual or hermaphroditic relationships. What is is called when one plays the dominant role, has female secondary traits, male primary ones, yet self identifies as a female? Okay, looks like I only saw one. Also there are fetishes which do not even involve bodily interaction the same way. Some people are wired to require pain, mind games, ropes, even balloons. As the act, and more importantly, psychological involvement becomes less and less contingent on the players specific biology how can a universal biologically determined power relationship be applicable, desirable, or even arrived at? I can imagine a counter that goes something like "These fetishes are not natural and diviate from behavior appropriate for Qua Qua Qua" but such an objection fails for the syllogisms offered earlier about things being Qua anything in this context. As an example take the most shocking and disturbing - Pain and Humiliation, BDS&M. One could say that Sex Qua Sex is about excersizing our highest virtues, values and emotions, something antithetical to this fetish. 1. It need not be against our values, consider the virtue trust is amplified here far more than in "Sex Qua Sex" and can therefore be seen as superior. Also, we watch disturbing stories about the Holocaust, relive past pain and other dark, "negative" things for understanding of ourselves and others, how is this fundementally different? An S&M person could say 1 Sex is about trust and self knowledge. 2. There is no trust or knowledge gained in the Missionary Poistion. 3. Therefore the Missionary Position is not Sex Qua Sex. 2. Why does sexuality, or all sexual acts have to be about "The highest romantic good"? It is a human act like any other and can be done for a multitude of reasons and motives. I like using my eyes most to see the sunset but I sure as heck am not going to close them other times in protest to other uses, like reading a cereal box, as being "Lower". Why read fiction that is not romantic idealism? Does it make any sense to see all reading as the same? I need to stop posting here when its 3 am. Also, its ironic Speicher was mentioned, he banned me for bringing up "envelopment" as an alternative to "penetration", something about my being a Dirty Subjectivist.