DallasCowboys

Plus in hindsight obviously slavery is wrong but we have to keep it in context of the time period. Only Northern Radicals found slavery morally wrong. So to suggest slavery was the reason for the civil war is incorrect. We went to war because Lincoln wanted to keep the Union at any cost. He even said “I would save the Union. … If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it. … What I do about Slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save this Union.”

And Egypt doesn't have to right to subject women under Sharia law but they do. My point is it wasn't our fight. They were an independent nation and should have been treated as such.

studiodekadent- In my opinion Levine is slipping further and further away from the person he was when the first Bioshock was made. I too have spoken to Levine and honestly he wasn't the nicest guy. I have always been a big fan of the first Bioshock and I agree I don't find it to be a critique on Objectivism, it actually annoys me when people say that. Just because it is a separate society where smart people conjugated doesn't make it Galt's Gulch. What the characters in rapture do is so far from what Rand stood for. I didn't even bother playing Burial at Sea because I knew he wasn't the same person and Infinite wasn't my favorite game because even though I am an objectivist the game takes unnecessary shots at religion making it seem as if someone who is religious is off the hinges, as Comstock is. I do agree there could be people like that but it personally just annoyed me but your point is fair.I think Levine found it easiest to take shots at objectivists. I agree I think fame got to him a little bit and he was willing to do whatever the people wanted too get recognition.

BaalChatzaf- all your points make sense and are true. However, I think you are making the kidnappings of Northern Blacks and them being brought into slavery bigger then it was. We didn't go to war over kidnappings in the North. And with regard to Western Territories, shouldn't the people there have the right to decide whether or not they wanted slavery?

I have personally studied Fort Sumter, All the south wanted was the North to leave Fort Sumter, as your description says. The north knew in advance they would be attacked if they hadn't left. The South declared independence from the Union, why should we force them to stay? The south was leaving the Union and asking to be left alone. What right did the North have to attack what was a independent nation from themselves. The government shouldn't have the power to stop a state from leaving the union. My question doesn't ramble what so ever. I simply asked why the north had the right to attack an independent nation? My point was slavery isn't a justification because other places also have people whose rights are suppressed and we don't just attack them. I was curious what the objectivist stance would be on such an issue, if whether or not it was right to attack the South? David C.

I am currently in a civil war and reconstruction class and as a class we make it seem like the north attacking the south after they left the union was the right thing to do. My question is, was it, from an objectivist stance. Why should we attack nations we don't agree with, and that's what the confederacy was a new nation , and they hadn't used "guns" on us so why go to war with them? And yes obviously slavery is bad but so is genocide in Darfur and nobody says we should go to war there. There is also no women's rights under sharia law and yet we don't attack those places. Hope that makes sense,Thanks, David C.

Wait this isn't a Marxist forum? Hahaha

Hey guys, I am confused on what's the difference between the two? It seems they both hold a lot of similar ideals. Sorry this isn't about Objectivism which this section asks for, but I couldn't think of other spot to place it. Thanks, David C.

SoAMadDeathWish- your comment made me laugh in a good way, not sure if it was supposed to but it did. Reidy- no the shirts aren't pirate editions, I checked, thanks for the tip David C.

What do you mean by pirate editions? Thanks David C.

Reidy- it being drunk driving is irrelevant, what if someone who is on drugs stabs me because he thinks I am a cupcake (that was my attempt at a joke), either way it doesn't matter. I agree you can't be entirely safe, but I can be safe from people who try to harm me on purpose who are not on drugs by shooting them, fighting them, or simply put I could defend myself. I can't just shoot someone who is drunk because they don't have control over their will and they will return to being functional, A murderer who wants to hurt me is a murderer who wants to hurt me by their own rationality. I agree with exactly what you said whYNOT, my problem is what if you can't see the signs or stop the person in time. And A is A, danger is danger, my problem is if someone wants to do danger to themselves that's their funeral weather or not it was on purpose or not, but them hurting themselves can lead to my death regardless if it was on purpose or not.

Reidy- I agree with you, but this is not deliberate endangerment. You can't take a healthy amount of cocaine, once you take it your control over yourself is gone. The same is true for several other drugs. So you are, against your will, endangering people. And even if it was deliberate endangerment how could you possible protect yourself against it. If someone has a gun, I can shoot them back, I can't shoot someone who is driving drunk or should I if I feel endangered? Thanks, David C.

I totally agree, I don't think anybody can decide. It's the perfect example of being stuck between a rock and hard place, either we have someone control drugs or we have people at risk to people who abuse drugs. My belief is that like Milton Freidman believed,which is, if all drugs became legal less people would use them, at first there would be a surge in use but slowly it would die down. My only other problem is what about drugs that effect you when even being near them like smoking, I don't have to be smoking to get the effects if I am around someone who is. My question of course only pertains to public establishments as I believe private areas should choose to allow what they want.

Thank You, I thought the book was hard to read and yet I find this decision infinitely more difficult

Ok, so I finished Atlas Shrugged last night and I have been looking since for a good Atlas Shrugged shirt and I simply can't decide. Out of these ones which two do you guys think are the best? I figured this would be the best place to ask. 1. http://www.idakoos.com/tshirt/proud-objectivist,896177?traffic_src=Google&utm_medium=CSE&utm_source=google&gclid=CO7-kP-ug74CFa47OgodPwIAXw 2. http://www.zazzle.com/atlas_shrugged_ragnar_danneskjold_t_shirt-235842949893029021 3. http://www.zazzle.com/atlas_shrugged_ragnar_danneskjold_logo_tee_shirts-235317933705122153 4. http://www.zazzle.com/atlas_shrugged_john_galts_pledge_shirts-235084586739706114 5. http://www.zazzle.com/rearden_steel-235381903139573442 6. http://www.zazzle.com/atlas_shrugged_tshirt-235802521891808160 Thanks, David C.

I agree if you want to live such a life it is your choice. My problem lies in if someone wants to do drugs can't they end up hurting me. Such as the man who does crack than gets behind a wheel of a car and crashes into me? Thanks, David C.

I understand the whole Stadler story arc, but so many pages were taken up on project X and the way it wrapped up felt rushed to me but hey we all got our view points, thanks for the comment Thanks, David C.

I was watching Sex Slaves on MSNBC (I know am weird, haha) and this question shot into my head, What is the objectivist stance be on both issues? I guessing it would be both should be legal, but would be regarded as immoral. Thanks, David C.

I just finished the book and all I can say is wow. I was close to tears when poor Eddie was stuck on the dead comet train. I just wanted to know what your guys and gals opinion on project X was? To me it felt super out of place and didn't do anything for the novel, I feel like it was there so the bridge would blow up. Thanks, David C.

Hey thanks Selene, I don't use the search because I like specific answers to questions I have but still thanks for the suggestion, and I agree with point you made on Dewey, he brought in a ton of ideas that greatly hurt the education system.

Stephen thanks a bunch David C.

Reidy- I definitely form my own opinions, regardless of what it pertains to, history, ethics, anything. This is what I like about Rand philosophy she never tells you just to believe it which I don't, a philosophy has to be logical to me for me to understand it, and with regard to history it has to factually proven by me or someone I believe speaks in facts and logic and reason. And yes Stephen we read a chapter or two from one of Dewey's books. I didn't think Dewey supported the individual from the readings it just didn't add up, that's why I was confused when my professor told me he was support in support of it, my professor said that Dewey believed that by supporting society and individualism in Dewey's eyes were a balancing act in constant motion, but to me that's a contradiction, and we all know those don't exist. Thanks both of you, David C.

Another question on top of this, what is the difference between Dewey and Pragmatism and Kant and Pragmatism?

Can someone explain to me the similarities and differences between Dewey and Rand, just basic differences, my problem lies in I have been learning Dewey in school. And most things he says make me wanna throw up but then my teacher says he believes in a single world as I think Rand does and my professor says that Dewey was in favor of individualism which of course I support, so can someone just explain this to me. Thanks, David C,

Thank you Selene that actually really cleared up things, don't read that as sarcastic because it could should that way, I do mean it. It was his guilt that made him sign it away, not their threat to expose him. Man this book makes me think of a ton of questions. Thanks Again, David C.