basimpson22

Well, personally, I hesitate in using any label, such as objectivist, to describe myself. Many labels have stigmas associated with them for various groups of people. Also, I believe that in many instances labels may prevent people from getting to really know one another. Labels may put up barriers between individuals. For example, labeling yourself democrat or republican, christian or atheist. It seems that often times a labels purpose is to allow for automatic dissociation. I think a huge mistake that can be made is to be intolerant or dismissive of people who label themselves differently. At the end of the day we're all still, well, "people". Labels are often extremely misrepresentative(something else that doesn't allow us to really get to know someone). Anyways, thats my bit.

I'm not arguing that Obama is a good president by any standard. I actually detest the guy but aren't you "appealing to a legal technicality" by making an issue of where he was born?

From 1985? Tell him, Mr. Cochran: Alright, alright, I know the answer. I haven't seen that one, actually. Is it better than the "Holiday Special"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endor_%28Star_Wars%29 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7v6OapFp9w Yes, its much better than the holiday special, in my opinion.

Thank you Michael. I just came across this. Its almost been a month since you put it up. Yes, I was taught that M3 no longer exist in my Money and Banking course last semester.

Well, this is something that really irritates me, a real pet peeve of mine. I was taught in driver's ed that the driver to the right has the right-of-way when two or more drivers reach a four way stop at the same time. I try to go by this rule. However, here in Tennessee, it seems that people like playing the game of who can wait the longest. People seem to take it as a moral victory. "I let you go first, so I'm one with the universe" Anyways, If you out wait them they get really irritated. Today on my way to work I encountered this scenario. We approach at the same time and she is to my right so I'm like, ok I'll wait for them. The driver doesn't budge. I wasn't about to budge either cause I was in no hurry and I was tired of letting these people win they're stupid little game. Luckily for me I had just bought three slices of supreme pizza. I commenced to slowly pick up my pizza with both hands and give the other driver a pizza-toast and as I put the pizza in my mouth I slowly began to chew. I must've looked like ray charles on the piano, with my eyes closed, head weaving side-to-side, wearing the biggest f*ing smile. I got the best of her. She buckled and begrudgingly passed through the intersection. Victory was mine. Anyways, that's my bit. Does anyone else ever encounter four-way-stop frustration?

Uh--you're actually George Lucas? --Brant slow on the uptake Lol, no. I'm not George Lucas. The creature in my avatar, however, is a character in a George Lucas production.

Ok, here's the hint that should conclude our guessing game. He is actually a George Lucas creation.

I found this piece in one of J.B.'s links. Newspaper editorial from the Daily News Record: A staple of modern libertarian thinking in some ways codified into the law, Objectivism is radically anti-Christian, denies the natural and moral law and assumes that man exists solely as an individual whose highest goal is satisfying his cupidity and concupiscence. It suggests that mankind is a collection of aimless atoms that bounce off of each other occasionally, but otherwise bear no selfless reciprocal duties or imperatives. Indeed, Rand thought selfishness was a virtue. Such an ideology denies reality. For one thing, history teaches us that mankind everywhere has always lived under some political authority. As well, men and women are not just individuals, but members of families, communities and towns who work and live together. The natural and moral law, as well as revelation, commands them to be good members of society and to love one another as they love themselves. The law commands this not because a neighbor demands it, but because God expects it as a matter of charity and justice, although he leaves men free to disobey him. Rand vigorously and viciously rejected these simple Christian injunctions. Objectivism, then, is objectively evil, the merits of Rand’s arguments about collectivism regardless. [..] I put this propagandist article up to see it be ripped apart by my fellow OL'ers.

The Dark Crystal is a good guess. This character comes from the same decade. Dark Crystal's debut was in 1982 and this character's debut was 1985.

Hint: He lives on another planet in another galaxy

I'm sorry I haven't gotten back to you yet, Philip. No, its nothing from "Where the Wild Things Are". Admirable guess though.

I concede.

Aristocrates, When people consistently post garbage, they are trying to get attention. I merely provide a proper platform for it. Believe it or not, when I started doing it that way, it cut waaaaaaaaay down on the consistent garbage being posted. Trolls only like it when they can spoil stuff in public for productive folks. They hate it when their efforts go into a special troll corner and they can't spoil anything. Often, they just go away and seek easier targets. Here is a non-solicited piece of advice in communicating with people you say you respect. (This isn't based on your last post, except maybe to a light extent, but on several others I have seen you make.) Don't start out by telling them what they think and what they have to do. Tend more to your own thinking and acts, then trade ideas and observations on that basis. You will find that you can even disagree well that way and go into long discussions. This is, of course, if you want to gain their respect. If you don't mind being blown off, keep being gratuitously sassy and bossy. Michael I'm not on a quest for your respect. Its funny you know, you say,"Don't start by telling them what they think and what they have to do" and in the next sentence you tell me how I should handle things.... I've noticed on a few threads members calling you hypocritical. Well, where there's smoke, there's fire, MSK.

Jimmy Carter? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! It is a close resemblance!

MSK! How have you been? Well, I wasn't referring to his piss post. I was referring to the one in this particular thread. I thought he made good points although he definitely could have taken a more objective approach. He said it smells like piss. Well, I think, as Tony pointed out, that he was making a silly reference to pissy attitudes. Also, I think we could learn from Tony. He admitted that his reply was a little anger-filled. He's been able to move on from his anger with RHS. And here we are(Tony and I) typing pleasant posts to one another void of rhetorical questions or name-calling. Maybe RHS is guilty of these kinds of tactics but I believe the senior members of OL should be well beyond resorting to these adolescent exercises. EDIT: I have respect for you as a founding member of OL and I can see where you are coming from. I understand the need to some extent, of filtering out the garbage. But you have to dispose of it in the proper way. Instead of burying the garbage it seems you'd rather sit it on a hilltop and light it on fire. EDIT: Who are you defending? "Objectivists" or yourself. I believe the defense of "Objectivists" would qualify as altruistic behavior.

Hey! Does anyone know the character in my avatar? LOL This one shouldn't be as hard although I found fewer pictures of him on the internet than the hookworm.

Mindless rants? Moi? No, not completely. Sometimes a little superfluous, and even slightly unfair, is all. Now, I enjoy good minds, and often marvel at the calibre Objectivism attracts. There are youngsters on the forums who are thinking deeply at an age I was interested only in girls. But, OTOH, I have personally known people whose good minds have far outstripped their character. Or, are not conscious of any bigger picture outside of their quite narrow subject range. Or, who have mastered logic, but are scarily irrational. Or, who use their superior mind as a club to beat others over the head. Haven't you found this, Aristocrates? Could be a 'mind-body split' in all those instances, but I reckon it is "Handsome is, as handsome does." Tony Well, mindless was directed more toward myself. Also, I thought mindless rants just sounded like a good way to put it. How mindless of me. Have I found this? Well, I'm cautious to say what I've found. There are numerous tactics on OL I've found absurd but naming them would be the same as naming the posters. I'm trying to practice a little diplomacy . I notice that you sorta rebuked RHS for his lack of diplomacy and RHS lacking diplomacy is a fair evaluation. I will say that I have really been crushed one time, by one of the great minds here on OL. He really is a great mind. I was eager about the subject of a certain thread he had posted and replied in an informal/conversational manner. Well, reading his response back was like hearing a great sighhhhh. I'm thinking well sorry for not spontaneously having the knowledge required for a PHD on the subject. So I guess my answer afterall is YES, I have found this.

Yes, must have been, Aristo. I haven't yet got the hang of importing posts (how about, "cross-threading" - could this be a new web-term? Ah, prob'ly not.) "The smell of urine is offensive" raised my ire. It was uncalled for, he'd been engaged quite politely, and I was likely in a bad temper that day. I remember all my rants - they still embarrass me. Thanks so much for bringing it up. Tony Ah yes, mindless rants are a regretful thing. I've had a couple of my own throughout my short history on OL. I'm even guilty of a little cross-threading as well. To RHS: you have a good mind superfly. If only you could present your ideas in a more objective fashion.

I really don't understand your attacks on RHS. He makes valid arguments. I didn't see any arguments against the content of his post. All I see are petty threats and ad hominems. Tony - was the post you quoted from this thread? I know MSK said he threw a post in the garbage pile....

Looks like the Predators are a sure bet for the playoffs. They obliterated a subpar Thrashers team last night 6-3. I'm hoping for a first round matchup with the Red Wings.

Yes, that's what I just said to someone five minutes ago about what's going on in Libya. As opposed to the case with Saddam, who was violating the terms of the 1991 Armistice, and firing on us daily, Qaddafi is breaking no agreemeny I am aware of. We legitimized him when he ponied up his weapons after 9/11. There is no cassus belli beyween him and us. There is no presidential authority. No imminent threat. No obvious good guy. No defined finite military objective. No congressional authorization. Yet watching Krauthammer on Brit Hume with Bret Baer, no principled clear cut objection from anyone. You warmongering bastard--sanctioning that "murderous war of aggression" against those innocent Iraqis!! Hang your head in shame--you, you. . . you Objectivist!!! (This is the Code Pink Low-lying webforum, isn't it?) You seem to be stuck on this Iraqi stuff. The Iraqi war is a perfectly legitimate capitalist venture. Of course any objectivist would support it. The cost of a life is just one part of the overhead. Well, a soldiers life but Iraqi lives are at no cost. You're a fucking idiot. You denounce pacifist, but who have you had to murder? Are you a soldier, man?

Did you get that from Watchmen? I think the person who told me that joke watched -The Watchmen-. (He said that the movie was very witty). Did that occur in the movie? Ba'al Chatzaf Yes, it did occur in the movie. Watchmen has to be one of my top 5 favorite movies. I believe you would really appreciate Dr. Manhattan. He is so brilliant that he finds it difficult to relate to humans. He is a physicist by the way and in the comic book is responsible for the shift to electric-powered vehicles. Anyways, here is the clip where Rorschach tells the Pagliacci joke. His old crime-fighting comrade, The Comedian, represents Pagliacci.

Did you get that from Watchmen?

Aristocrates, Well, that's intelligent. I'm done. Michael You fail to see the difference. Good guys bad guys wasn't my explanation but a question asked in hopes that you would acknowledge there aren't really good guys or bad guys, which you did and I was happy to see. But then you used that dichotomy to explain something even more complex. You don't think I could see the subtle derision? That's why I replied the way I did.

The aim wouldn't be a coup of the government but of the FED. The "good guys bad guys" dichotomy is a tremendous over-simplification of the situation. It's juvenile, really.