Danneskjold

Robert,

That reminded me of my sig.

Apparently Dodger hasn't seen the new version of Romeo and Juliet with Leonardo DeCaprio as Romeo. Possibly the worst remake of Romeo and Juliet I've ever seen. Truly horrible.

I really hope that the movie holds at least a candle to the book.

I'm giong to see it and if it's true at all to the ideas I'm going to drag as many friends as possible into that theater.

Judge Judy is truly crap. Has anyone ever seen her find in favor of the defense?

I don't have a problem with a good, intelligent rant against Christianity. I clicked on the thread, in fact, hoping for a list or recording of a good number of contradictions with good explanations. Had it been that I would have had a very different outlook on it.

On the other hand, Robert, you said that you believe in Catholicism because of the sense of life correct? Or did I misread? If that's so, I'd like to hear why you would follow a set of beliefs based on that. I follow Objectivism, first and foremost, because I think that the fundamentals are true. The sense of life is a great bonus.

Dodger, I realize that this is in the past and I don't have time to read of whether or not you apologized for it because I have homework to do. So, here's what I think:

I posted this here simply because I was angry, and I wanted to get something out of my system. I generalized as well. I do not want anyone to take anything I said as gospel, simply because it was merely a way for me to shred my bitter mood.

The contradiction you pointed out was a pretty non-essential one anyway.

Robert:

If you are going to challenge me, at least put up a better fight.

Are you joking? What did you say throughout your entire post other than that it has contradictions and then pointed out a small one?

Thanks for the dose of sanity, Victor: That one can be opposed to the Bible without sounding like an incoherently silly schizophrenic. You are always an honorable poster on these boards.

Yes, Victor's post was very good, and I admired him for taking such a stance. I also admired him for not getting angry because I decided to lash out and relieve some of my anger.

You chose to lash out, people chose to lash out at you.

By the way, friend Dodger, I would suggest to you that I am not a Catholic based upon the Bible, but based upon a glorious sense-of-life projected by many Biblical and canonized heroes, including the Saint of Reason, Thomas Aquinas.

For the same reason I am an enthusiastic admirer of Ayn Rand's novels. You know what I figured out, once I did some growing up? It was this: That I admired Rand not because I agreed with the letter of Objectivism, but because of the glorious sense-of-life projected by her larger-than-life heroes. Tell you what: If you really want to sabotage Objectivism, in the next printing of "Atlas Shrugged," replace Galt's speech with your incoherent drivel. And then, watch the results! This is too absurd to even contemplate Ayn Rand writing anything remotely approaching what you just wrote.

I was fine with this until you insulted me. Please, take your childish 'Stupid kid' accusations elseware--I will not tolerate it. If you dont like the way I say something, fine, but you do not have to start a flame war.

Can you not tell that you insulted him? I'm somewhere between atheist and agnostic AND I'm younger than you and I still thought your post was crap. Besides, he didn't even say "Stupid kid" or mention your age in that part of the post. Now you're going to talk about not starting a flame war? What do you call your entire opening post?

Listen, pal, I know you think you're just among "your own kind," so you can spew crap like this, sort of like white guys making n*gger jokes when there are no blacks around.

But, you're also responsible for your words. And, based upon the juvenile "gotcha" nature of your rant, I'd place your age at about 15 or so. But the proper word isn't "asshole." It's "bigot."

I'm 17. I'll have to ask you to not label me, or judge me based on one post that I made that I have already defined as anger driven.

You earned that label. Plain and simple.

Sheep? I'll show you a whole lotta sheep! Me and a whole slew of Army troops and Marines, my buddies going back 25 years. Come by the American Legion hall where we honor God and Country and dare call any of us "sheep"! While I'm no hero, I know a hell of a lot of guys who've been in harm's way, who've been in firefights, who've been in foxholes up to their knees in rain and their own filth. The vast majority of whom are quite religious in their own way, and don't take any crap from anyone. You'd last about five seconds, because you'd be preaching your unsolicited judgmental garbage on a good number of men who would just as soon bounce your hide out onto the street.

Wow. What pisses you off so much about me? Is it that I decided not to care what anyone thought? Is it that I was honest?

What's even funnier, you have already deemed me unworthy of debating, when I, even though I was angry in my rant, am willing to listen to you and reconsider my position and how I handle situations.

However, I do not respond well to posts that completely insult me. You have just lost your credibility by approaching this matter thanatonically. You had a goal in mind, and it was to completely bash me for my post.

Seems like you're the one who needs to grow up.

Are you joking? Didn't he just offer to debate you above? Didn't your post completely insult him? Isn't that obvious? Doesn't it occur to you that he doesn't give two cents in hell that you don't care what people think of you, but that he just thought you were ignorant either way?

Go back and actually READ that screed of yours. It is chock full of the manic, intolerant, rush to judgment brand of Objectivism that's better flushed down the commode and sanitized thereafter with a good helping of Pine Sol.

I've read it. Im happy with what I wrote. It was an effective way for me to relieve myself, and better yet, Victor responded in an admirable way. He saw this rant for what it was and did not act thanatonically--rather, he acted the opposite. You chose otherwise.

That's because he had no reason to be offended by it.

Get your head out of your duffel bag, son! Ever occur to you that, if Objectivism is about anything at all, first and foremost it's about thinking for yourself? I know it is incomprehensible to you, but thinking for yourself is NOT treating the Bible OR "Atlas Shrugged" as REVEALED TRUTH, which is exactly what you're doing. Neither is thinking for yourself letting Ayn Rand, Lenny Peikoff or anybody else sit as a board of censorship insie your head. ("Oh, gosh, I can't be religious, because Rand said that means I'm not guided by free will, but dancing on the strings of a puppet master deity.") It takes ZERO guts or brains to come aboard this forum and parrot what Ayn Rand or anyone else in the "Movement" says.

You deserve a hard slap to the face. You ONCE AGAIN have drawn conclusions about me and assumed you know my character, philosophy, and my life by ONE POST.

I have been a Christian for the majority of my life. I was a Christian when I read Atlas Shrugged. The book did not alter my faith in any way, but what it did do was tell me one thing: check my premises.

After I read the book I simply started looking inward at myself, questioning my beliefs and values.

It is through these actions that I came to my conclusions, and the indirect influence of others around me.

Obviously, I pissed you off and you decided to take that anger and use it in a NEGATIVE WAY!!!

Anger is neutral until it is given actions associated with it. You have taken a negative path and decided to flame me, insult me, and judge me.

However, you cannot accuse me of doing the same of Christianity. I have been a Christian almost all my life, and I have a very firm grasp of the knowledge and teachings Christianity represents. My decision to change was made alone, and by my own logic. NOT by Ayn Rand and NOT by anyone else.

He didn't judge you too quickly. He made a logical conclusion based on what he saw.

Grow up! Your manner of expression is not welcome here by me. Tell you what: You get the guts to be religious AND write for Objectivist publications. I would no sooner renounce my deepest-held beliefs just because of who cuts my paychecks than, say, Martin Luther, Thomas a Becket, Jeanne d'Arc, or Howard Roark would have.

Your manner of expression is not welcome here by me, either. At least, not until you redeem yourself and regain your credibility that you just forfeited.

This has to be a joke.

Either that, or take your shtick to the Focus On the Family folks and see if they put you on the payroll. Is the picture coming in any clearer now?

Yes, the picture is coming clearer. The picture is that you have assumed and have been thanatonic in your post.

You obviously already hold some sort of superiority complex, at least when it comes to me.

Please, throw it away.

So, I request that you get yourself an attitude adjustment because I know the Bible pretty well, too, and can make mince meat in no time out of your non-sequiturs and ad hominem attacks. Don't get in a pissing match with a skunk.

I urge you to appeal to your mature reason instead of your inner child's emotions.

If you are so sure that you are much more intelligent than I am, and you are justified in basing your beliefs of me on assumptions, then far be it for me to tell you that you are wrong.

Now then.

Please dont miss this part:

I am willing to declare anything I say wrong. I am willing to comprimise. I am willing to lose. However, in order for me to admit any form of defeat, YOU have to do a better job of proving me wrong. Personal attacks of this matter do nothing but stir my temper. All you have to do is detach yourself from the outcome of this post and cooperate in a rational, logical manner. If you want to prove me wrong , or do anything at all, then do it with an open mind, and do not be so quick to judge. Do not start flame wars, and do not insult me. You have the chance to regain your credibility but only you can do it. You have to be willing to cooperate.

If you compromise, assuming that one of you is correct initially, then you will be wrong either way. In any case, you started the flame war, you started the being judgmental (declaring all Christians sheep). He was justified, you're just being blind to your own faults. Last I checked those who are delusional are as illogical as those who are Christian.

SOP= Standard Operating Procedure.

Shooter, FREAKING AMAZING. I'm writing a movie review on it journalism right now. Everyone should see it. Just not if you don't like blood, lots of that.

Acronyms I know from the military: FUBAR and SOP.

The flaw in testing is obviuos to anyone who looks. I don't even care to talk about it. In Oregon the colleges don't even look at our state's standardized test (CIM for Certificate of Initial Mastery and CAM for Certificate of Advanced Mastery). Finally they are saying that they are going to get rid of it altogether, but who knows how long that's going to take.

As far as standardized tests that are actually looked at by colleges go, assuming there are any, if a student can't get up for a test that has actual bearing on their future then the student needs to get their priorities straight.

Take myself for example. I could not care less about eighty percent of what I'm learning right now. I can write well enough to sound at least competent already, my current math course is inapplicable to any future that I care for, and the only class I'm getting a C in is spanish because my teacher hates me, literally. In spite of me not caring I still pull honor roll grades and do well on standardized testing for the simple reason that I know I won't get into a D1 higher up baseball college without the grades. People who get bad grades then complain about how inapplicable the classes are need to get their priorities straight.

Sanjaya is a girly man was more the point I was trying to get across.

If you think he's attractive then you might be a lesbian.

I understand not liking the style of music etc. Personally I didn't really expect it to be your style. You listen to Manson, Eminem, and I'm sure a wide variety of other types, and there's nothing wrong with that, it's just not the style the American Idol people are going for.

This was such a great book. Although I have not lived nor can I sufficiently remember a long enough time span to have experienced what they were talking about, I certainly got the gist of it. So how does one go about making society less fearful? Sounds like another process that has to start with the populace not responding to what the uppers say, or chastizing them for saying it.

Ya, Victor, I just remember reading that whole "Looking for a real live John Galt" thing or something along those lines at one time or another.

The thing is that I've never seen an anti-knife or anti-weapon policy keep anything out of my school. In 8th grade some of my friends got in a knife fight at school, this year somebody was threatening to come at one of my football team's offensive linemen with brass knucks cause of a girl, once again at school, and I know of on school grounds sales of brass knucks as well as anything else.

I started re-reading Atlas Shrugged up to the part where the John Galt Line was just finished and then I lent the book out to a friend. Re-reading the book was incredible. After you know the ending and have already read it you see how absolutely perfectly every part of the book fits together. I caught a lot of the stuff I had missed the first time through (especially since I read it the first time through in five days so half the time I was reading it was three in the morning).

Happy belated birthday.

Naw, you just hit on her at first sight.

He's a cutie pie if you like Keating types. I don't see how you can say that the people on that show are "rather mediocre". I can see what you mean with some but definitely not all. I'd really like to hear you defend that blanket statement about them being mediocre.

Never seen a big businessman with enough social pull to work towards a social goal that is against common social flow and have any sort of noticeable effect. However, I hope you do.

I'm with you guys about how Objectivism needs to be taught. Formalized training? Just read the books and participate in the community a bit.

Elizabeth, it's been proven over and over again that more guns means less crime. That may not stop the occasional school shooting but it will save more lives. What would you rather stop? The hundreds if not thousands saved from murder if they could own a gun? Or the few dozen lost to school shootings and the like?

Criminals who approach their crime from a rational perspective far outweigh those who approach it irrationally. Even with the ones who approach it irrationally, the proliferation of guns will stop their crime before the fatality count hits three, let alone thirty. There has been at least one instance where during a school shooting a teacher stopped it using his own handgun causing the shooter to drop his gun at which point he was mauled be the students.

More guns, less crime. More guns, shorter crime sprees.

I think the acts of heroism stand equal for all the reasons you listed and because you could also argue that the 300 Spartans at Thermopylae defended freedom as much as did the minutemen. The 300 Spartans (and a few thousand friends) stood up to a Persian empire. Sparta was not the bastion of freedom that the movie 300[/] made it out to be, but Athens was very much free (as far as the times went at the very least). The minuteman's intent was to defend freedom though.

On the other hand, I very much appreciate the point that you are making and join you in paying respects to the people who fought for my freedom. America is the greatest country in the world, we have them to thank for that.

Late salutations, I've been busy with baseball season. It occurred to me that we should have switched starting display names. Mine was Danneskjold. Danneskjold (if I remember correctly) shared your interest in science (majored in physics). I, on the other hand, would be proud to be a Dodger (think baseball).

In any case, welcome.

Don't get too cocky, Dodger, took me less than that.

As far as what I meant by top down education in Objectivism not working, I meant teaching Objectivism (literally or by example) from a position of authority in a democratic society. When you're in authority in America your ass is constantly on the line. You can't hold onto your ideals and stay by them while expecting to stay in a position of authority (government or social). Too many people disagree and will react too quickly and you'll be gone. Any type of Objectivist movement has to be bottom up. People have to agree with it, then figures of authority can get into it.

I'd have a hard time seeing Objectivism accepted from the top down. It's a bottom-up philosophy to the core. It has to start with people adhering to it just like every other philosophy in a democracy in order to gain power. Rand said you can't educate people while running a campaign and she was right. There's too much criticism and intentional misdirection on the part of opponents. People only react to the first thing, not the explanation. So a top-down education of Objectivist ideals would end up getting misconstrued by its opponents. Let's face it, there's plenty to misconstrue. Also, there's not much room the educate about Objectivism between campaigns, seeing as politicians are always campaigning for their next run.

This is a thread about crap so I have to go and add some I hate. When I say I hate it I MEAN I hate it.

Sanjaya, the funny looking guy on American Idol needs to get booted before he kills the show. If that guy wins I will have less faith in American Idol and people in general than I already do. I have actually used Sanjaya in a debate with a friend as an example of how just because they're the majority doesn't make them right. I think that American Idol needs to switch it so that instead of voting FOR people you vote AGAINST them like every other elimination tv show. You'd get less people going "OOO I REALLY LIKE THIS PERSON" and "OOO I REALLY LIKE THIS PERSON TOO" and then choosing one randomly and having a really good person get eliminated because they were barely worse than someone and some poppy boy band wannabe gets bumped to the next round.

That country song he sung was possibly the worst I have ever heard. Simon was right, we heard better stuff back at the beginning of the show. I only watch the show because my parents do while I'm in the living room in the first place, but when I see that guy pop up on the screen week after week it REALLY frustrates me.