John Tate

There is also analyzing every situation with the premise that the Government probably did it and filtering out all the facts that stand against that notion and accepting all the ones that do. That is the essence of the conspiracy loon. I have friends that have become so distant from reality in the midst of last years torrent of "New World Order" films and the Zeitgeist movement that they should probably be put into a psychiatric hospital. Only that would simply convince them that they are hospitalized for dissent.

Another friend I had who gradually became a conspiracy nut was surprising because of his intelligence but I can see why. The guy never had many friends and not much of a social life. When he started getting into "truth" movements he started finding groups with people that would accept his critical attitude. Soon enough he had friends and he is bound to be a conspiracy nut for life. Ah, what life was like before social networking.

From an MSN conversation with an old highschool friend. I am Australian and the town we were raised in was recently ravaged by bushfires (translation into American: wild fires).

John says: I might start my own conspiracy theory that Rudd was out lighting the fires for the lulz and subculture dollahs

Trevor says: yeah i was starting to think it was government persons starting them

John says: hahaha well you will be the type of moron my conspiracy will cash in on.

The guy is into the whole "9/11 was an inside job" movement. His comment kinda was funny in how it shows the bent logic of these conspiracy nuts whom in assessing a bunch of fires immediately blame the Government. Funnily enough these type of people always think more government is an appropriate solution.

What I sarcastically propose doing is nothing less than what Alex Jones actually does. Why profit from stupidity via religion when you can do it via ignorance in general?

Share your encounters with conspiracy nuts and their LOLgic here for us all to laugh at.

John, you object to being seen as a member of a collective, a tribe; but are you not hiding what is part of your identity because of the collective judgments of other people? If some idiots think all gay men fit the stereotype you describe, that's their problem. Why do you care what idiots think? Why should you live a lie in order to pacify idiots?

If you were Jewish, would you think it appropriate to hide that fact because of the rising anti-Semitism in the world -- thus winning the good will of people who would hate you if they knew the truth? If you were black and could pass as white, would you lie about who you were in order to please white racists who believe all blacks are criminals? I hope your self-esteem will be stronger than your fears.

Many courageous gay men and women have fought -- and some have died -- in order to make it possible for gays to come out of their closets. It would be a sad commentary on their efforts if you failed to take advantage of their achievement.

Barbara

I understand what you mean. The point is I can try to find guys all I want, all I find are people who fit that stereotype. I don't see much of an achievement being made, being gay is still incredibly controversial and most people even those who seem most tolerant, make a big deal about homosexuality. Actually, the worst perpetrators of treating gays differently seem to be those who call themselves open to it. If I state I am gay and those people hear, they will place me high up on a pedestal simply for being gay. There is nothing really that special about it to me, its just a preference.

Though my rant was perhaps slightly exaggerated. My friends know my preference and in some places I don't get any unwarranted attention from it.

If being Jewish and letting people know I was Jewish resulted in loads of Jewish people and others against antisemitism giving me special treatment, and generally getting in my way, I would avoid the problem and abstain from making it obvious I'm Jewish. I'm not worried about discrimination, I am worried about the opposite. When I was younger, I made my sexuality blatantly obvious to those around me for a brief time when I was young and it resulted in having lots of "friends" who respected me simply because I was different.

That is a problem with gay rights since its inception, it hasn't demanded rights so much as recognition as if homosexuality is some great achievement and talking about it is some great triumph.

In response to everyone else:

Personally all I really could want of the world is for things like homosexuality not to be given a very big deal. Much like multiculturalism is inverted racism, the insane obsession with homosexuality these days in culture in a positive light is pretty much inverted homophobia. Perhaps it should be called homomania.

There is nothing exciting about gay people, and yep, we are people. In any social situation though, being gay is either exalted or shunned. The biggest cause of this are the attention whores who present their sexual preferences as something we should give a shit about.

Moonlight Sonata by Beethoven. Tchaikovsky is also a favorite.

I hear a light background buzz myself.

This guy is badass. Wish I could play piano.

And now I just read my own post I can't help but thinking of Chris Rock's "Black People vs Niggers."

I'm homosexual, I rarely say anything about this anymore, and I rarely bother. Thanks to gay pride movements I don't plan on being open about my sexuality for a good fifty years. Maybe longer. Why is this you might wonder? Apart from it being nobodies business, when I have said anything about my sexuality, I get the most annoying responses possible. Often people don't even believe me about my sexual preferences simply because I don't fit the stereotype of a collective gay man. When I meet other gay men, apart from on occasion, they also tend to bind themselves to a tribe that literally has tribal makeup and a uniform, along with a tribal tradition of being promiscuous. Fuck those faggots, I would rather beat off till the end of my days than know a single one of them.

In fact, other gay people behaving like a tribe have made being gay completely unbearable. When I think about Ayn Rand's few comments on the subject, I can't blame her for finding homosexuality disgusting. The tribal faggots are disgusting, and worse for me, all that there is to see. Their behavior consists of making their sexual preferences as obvious as possible while holding that their sexual preferences don't matter or define who they are. Despite saying that sexual preferences don't define who they are, they commonly stick a "scene" and dress the same, act the same, aspire to do the same stupid bullshit in terms of jobs.

This certainly doesn't apply everyone that is homosexual, just for those that are seen and they are seen because of the manner these faggots behave.

The fact is, I don't face any threat of violence from rednecks and bigots simply because I don't behave like a total faggot and talk like a woman. Most people who I do end up telling don't even believe it simply because I am not some neat and tidy wanker obsessed with manicures and other bullshit. Gays are not overly hygenic, faggots are. I'm sick of the stereotype! I bite my nails, and I work from home so I shower every second day just because I can. I don't have loads of female friends. I don't eat well, nor do I work out.

Note: my use of the word 'faggot' is warranted. The only people who care about such things are members of the collective homosexual trend that deserve to be offended. The only way a mere word can be offensive is if idiots let it bother them anyway.

John, you're trying a little too hard and forcing your arguments. For instance, "Her morality demands ...." When morality does that, someone has their hands on your throat.

--Brant

Nice strawman, it should be obvious that isn't what I mean.

central banking run by an incompetent

I would like to add that central banking cannot be run competently. Not that I am a fan of Greenspan, just that central banking is flawed.

There has been a lengthy debate over moral standards here that I have looked at. It seems a bunch of moral relativists don't believe they can exist physically or scientifically. Indeed, morality does exist physically. To say it does not is to say our consciousness is powerless to act on the physical world - and by that implication to say morality has no physical evidence is to negate consciousness. Any action by rational beings must be chosen consciously, and those conscious choices to be moral must simply allow for other beings to be selfish in Ayn Rand's philosophy. That is where others come into the picture of the philosophy.

There is no special exemption for John Galt, there is no exception from morality in Objectivism for anyone. If you think Galt has an exemption in Atlas Shrugged because he doesn't behave altruistically, you are not understanding the literature at all and you are assuming morality is altruism. Objectivist morality as a standard is based around the observable fact that we think independently, exist as separate entities, and possess a rational faculty. We exist independently, so we are a self. We exist as separate entities, so we must think for ourselves. We posses a rational faculty (the mind, dummy) so we can look after ourselves. There are billions all with these three qualities. So if a code morality demands I don't think for myself, and demands I look after others it demands I renounce my minds responsibility over my own life as a moral rule. Selfishness in Ayn Rand's philosophy is an Objective principle based around the fact we are individuals, the fact that we have a self.

Her moral code demands people live with purpose and sustain their own lives. Her moral code standard is the self. Altruism and any philosophy that demands collectivism and sacrifice as moral, demands we are tied to arbitrary groups (arbitrary because a group exists out of individuals conscious decisions to belong or make those belong - groups are not natural but essentially man-made in that they are consciously decided). The individual however is an objective fact, which exists through nature. Psychological science generally tends to point in the direction of individuals, and one could say Ayn Rand's standard of morality is the only one that has a scientific basis.

When selfishness is said to be her philosophy, it indeed is. Where do others come into this? Others must also be able to exist selfishly which demands a code for living: morality. We must respect others rights to be a self, and protect our own right to be a self (ie: self-defense).

John Tate

I know Rand advocated that wealth was due to production. Speculating on property is not production (unless you spent a fair amount of effort restoring property that was bought), and trading stocks I don't think can be considered production (unless you bought stocks for the purpose of funding a company/product that you believed in). So did Rand believe in speculation? Do you have any specific quotes from Rand showing approval/disapproval of the kind of wealth generated from Wall Street? Did Rand herself involve herself in any kind of speculation?

I don't understand this comment at all. Especially regarding stocks, if I buy stocks because I am going to profit from them it helps fund a company or product no matter how little/much I believe in it. Being an avid iPhone fan doesn't magically make someones investment in Apple more productive than someone who dislikes the iPhone. Both know a lot of people do like Apple products and both help the productive process for a profit.