MrSeagull
-
Posts
24 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by MrSeagull
-
-
This is what I know about the Tea Party:
a) Believes in god
Seems to want to limit Federal government but is very much ok with it on state level.c) Says that they do not want to get involved in social issues. But they obviously do want to on state level.
d) Basically conservative and anti-gay.
Then I would have to say that you knowledge is flawed. I am an active member of the Tea Party, and atheist, and an Objectivist(in training.) What I saw in these protests was a mostly genuine push by the right against bigger government. I consider this a step in the right direction.
As it stands now, you're going to find a wide assortment of viewpoints in the Tea Party - From fighters for economic freedom, to borderline anarchists. Of course, you'll find the type that support big government, when it comes to faith-based legislation, mixed in, but they do not define the whole of the movement.
From your last few posts, I really can't help but feel you're actively searching for villains to point a finger at.
-
I'm still somewhat green in regards to this philosophy, of which I've chosen to now live by. If it helps at all, one of the reasons I argue against animal rights is that it opens the door to dangerous controls.
What rights would they have? If they have a right to freedom, then we cannot morally own them as pets, or for labor. If they have a right to their property, then we cannot morally evict them from property we purchase for development.
If they have a right to their life, then we cannot morally kill them for sustenance or clothing. Then, how far are we willing to go to protect animals from violating the rights of other animals? Some might say that, because they lack reason and survive on instinct, they are incapable of respecting rights, so it's okay for them to violate rights of other animals (or even humans, according to PETA). It's that reasoning why I say animals do not have rights, and we as humans do, because we possess a rational mind.
Here is an example on an Objectivist stance on Human Rights:
-
After reading all the posts by the so-called convervatives I am now really conviced. The thing is the more I read the more I realize that according to Objectivism homosexuality is immoral. This is really sad 'cause I very much consider myself a Capitalist.
I think it is best that most gay men and woman stay far away from Objectivism.
I can't really see how you're coming to this conclusion, unless you're baseing is off of the users here trying to rationalize Rand's view of the immorality of homosexuality. Even in those cases, they're attempting to state that she was wrong based off of false information. I've never seen anywhere that Objectivisim is incompatable with being homosexual or hetrosexual.
Now, if you're baseing it off that I don't support the notion of "gay rights" - That's not because I think gays should have no rights, but that I don't think any sort of "______ rights" are valid unless it's "Individual rights." To assign any group rights is at the expense of other's rights. Instead of trying to give rights to people based off their sexual orientation (or gender/race/hair style) efforts should be focused on stopping the violation of individual rights.
-
Well, I suppose it's somewhat of a compulsion for me - When I see someone misrepresent or demean something important to me I feel compelled to challenge them. As I stated above, it feels like some people see their view as justified when it’s unchallenged.
I will say this – I’m beginning to develop a personal enjoyment from walking away from these discussions knowing my reason stood unchallenged by anything other than logical fallacies.
On the subject of the more recent discussion, I decided to walk away, as the opposing voice was degrading into attacks and insults.
-
For some reason, I stopped getting email notifications on this topic.
Thank you all for your input, I find it very helpful and educational. I guess the reason why I participate in these seemingly less-than meaningful discussions is a mix of pride and stubbornness, mixed in with a bit of idealism – That untruths will be seen as true by others without a challenge.
I’ve lately delved into a discussion with a separate individual on that same page. This person seems to come from the premise that existence without force is impossible, that theft is necessary to provide for basic needs. Here is a sample…
Refraining from the use of all force is impossible if you want to stay alive. I suppose I have come to this conclusion because I don't believe that anyone deserves any particular birthrights more than anyone else does; therefore keeping and using them is the arbitrary application of force on everyone else. This creates situations in which free will is gray if you think about the real-world consequences of exchanges rather than simply ignoring them as 'irrelevant.' How would you ever have an inkling that, for example, improving your own situation was possible if all you had ever seen was other people trying and failing at it? Under Objectivism, are you supposed to eschew learning from your own observations of the world you live in?I would provide the long, convulted discussion in whole, but I would prefer to avoid posting a gigantic wall of text. I’m standing my ground in this discussion, and now the person is degrading into strawmen and ad hom attacks.
-
I can't seem to find any info on this that comes from a nuetral stand - I support protection of intellectual property, but I can't help but resist giving the government this much power.
-
Yes, all forms of religion were banned in Rapture.
"Christianity - Belief in the Christian God and Christ as the savior of humanity. This is more of an underground cult in Rapture, as it is officially banned."
-
There were also failings in Ryan's foundation when he created Rapture. The three major failings in its creation was the prohibition of religion (Don't get me wrong, I'm an atheist, but prohibition creates black markets, which helped Fontain gain power,) complete isolationism (inflating black market opportunities,) and his emphasis on the "White collar" individuals. Ryan seemed to put little emphasis on dedicated, yet unskilled, labor, which also helped Fontain/Atlas gain power.
I rather enjoyed both Bioshock games, though it seems that the creators are trying to put forth a message against “extremes.” The first game is lassie-faire capitalism (though they presented more of a parody than model,) collectivism in the second game, and (what appears to be) jingoism in the third.
-
Sadly, I missed the majority of these streams, is there a place I can watch recordings?
-
Hah, I love that.
-
"You didn't have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory and hire someone to protect against this because of the work the rest of us did."
She should have continued: "And here I am to lead those marauding bands."
I thought the same thing when I heard that sentance, my thought was that the maurading band would be the government.
-
I have to say, the contents of this speech and the reactions in the comments are frightening.
-
FTC Ready To Subpoena Google, Report Says
SAN FRANCISCO -- The U.S. Federal Trade Commission is prepared to serve Google Inc. with subpoenas as part of a probe into alleged antitrust behavior of the Internet search giant, the Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday. The article, which cited unnamed sources "familiar with the matter," said the commission is getting ready to send formal demands for information to Google "within days," which may be followed by requests to other companies who have had dealings with Google. Representatives for both Google and the FTC could not be immediately reached for comment. Google shares were down 1.8% to $478 in late-morning trades on Thursday. -
I posted an editorial on Deviant Art on this subject. I just had to stand up and say something about it, I was so angry. Any constructive criticism on the article? Or even just praise of it. Any ideas on where else I can post it where it will have a better effect?
http://news.deviantart.com/article/150569/
You have my sympathy, DA isn't the best bastion of capitalism. It's really sad, because in a communist society, artist are usually the first on the chopping block.
-
Wow. Over what period of time did this transformation take place? The Tea Party hasn't been around all that long, so you've made some fairly rapid changes in your views. I'm curious, why are you no longer a Libertarian?
It's been a few years, but in truth I was never really a "true" republican. I was always left-of-center on social issues and right on economic. Originally I was enticed into Libertarianism because of the aspect of personal freedom on all fronts, but I was severely turned off by the anarchists. I never really took the step to official switch to the libertarian party.
I would have to say that the past four or so years have been politically confusing for me, and after reading Atlas Shrugged, I finally found something I can whole heartedly embrace without reservation. I realized the faults with the previous parties, especially the veiled collectivist leanings of both Libertarian and Republican policies.
-
Just to trow my two cents into the subject of the Tea Party; I went from being a Republican, to a Tea Party Member (Like to think I still am one) to Libertarian, then to a student of Objectivism. I agree that the forming of Tea Party was an emotional response, but one that can lead to the rational conclusions of Objectivism.
Can't be too bad, can it?
-
Silly arguing on YT = pointless
Just make your pithy comment, if you have one, and leave it at that. Don't worry so much about arguing, worry about knowing. I mean this guy is just name-calling and giving you bigoted assertions and apparently thinks "closed system" means something other than what it means. The internet is full of such people. What's the point in dealing at all? Pick your battles, man.
Yes, normally I would feel that way, but I see this as an attempt to cut my teeth when it comes to arguing my views. So far I'm feeling rather confident that my stance is set firm in reason, but I am always willing to learn from mistakes.
-
I would like to request a sort of critique from those who are more seasoned in Objectivism then I am. I'm at an early stage of learning myself. I'm attempting to reason with a fellow by the name of TheCrookedTimber on a Youtube post about the new Atlas Shrugged movie.
Here, the fellow is likening Objectivism as a brainwashing cult. I'm trying to defeat his argument with reason, but I'd like to know if my approach is flawed. I have a feeling I'll be seeing alot of his type in the future, and I'm always willing to learn of mistakes I'm making.
For the benefit of those who don't wish to wade through the comments section...
@ChaosDynamics I don't hate Rand. I hate her ideas. But it isn't only because I disagree with her. There are plenty of right-wing libertarian thinkers whose work I respect: Murray Rothbard, for instance. What I hate about Rand's ideas (it cannot be properly dignified with the label "philosophy") is its contempt for the poor and weak, its absolute moral indifference to the suffering of others, and the fact that she claimed to be atheist but demanded to be treated as a demi-god.
TheCrookedTimber3 days ago
@ChaosDynamics As for the notion of brainwashing -- have you seen or listened to Leonard Peikoff, or anyone from the Ayn Rand Institute? That is the text book definition of a brainwashed fucking cult. Even Michael Shermer, who is both an atheist and a libertarian, wrote a piece on why Objectivism is a cult. To be a Randian or an Objectivist is to be brainwashed, no less than a Muslim or Christian or Hare Krishna. In the world of philosophy, politics, and literature, Rand is a FAILURE.
TheCrookedTimber3 days ago
@TheCrookedTimber It's hard for me to approach any of your points rationally because they are formed in a rickety foundation of irrationality.
I'm not sure what textbook you're getting your definition of "Brainwashing," but no follower of Rand (who's truly following her philosophy) will ever force anyone to conform to their thinking. If someone cannot come to the same conclusion as us through sound reasoning, then so be it.
TheMrSeagull1 day ago
@TheMrSeagull I actually didn't make any "points," as such. This isn't an essay. Its a fucking comments box. I was stating my view. But you're clearly ignorant about some definitions here: cult, for example, and brainwashed. The Ayn Rand Institute and Objectivism is a cult. Leonard Peikoff, Rand's executor and intellectual heir, has stated that Objectvism is a "closed philosophical system.' In other words, no room for dissent, critical thinking or, ironically, individualism. Its a fucking cult!
TheCrookedTimber20 hours ago
@TheCrookedTimber Sorry, but your premesis is well beyond reason. Your argument is is seemingly based off of the opinions of others and a casual glance. Head over to the objectivismonline forums and take a look at the discussions there, then formulate your opinion on the "cult"
TheMrSeagull16 hours ago
@TheMrSeagull My opinion is drawn from my own experience with Objectivism, reading the works of Rand and her disciples. It is not my opinion that Peikoff wrote "Objectivism is a closed philosophical system," which is just another way of saying, "Accept it without critical, independent thought." Its no different from divine revelation in other cults. The dear leader has spoken, and heretics must be purged. Ask Nathaniel Branden and David Kelley about objectivist excommunications. Its a cult!
TheCrookedTimber16 hours ago
@TheCrookedTimber You are completely and totally wrong. If a person doesn't come to an objectivist point of view without critical thinking, then they don't belong. It's about the individual, not herd mentality.
This is an illogical argument anyhow, you're attacking Objectism by what you see as it's mentality to others, not on its principles.
What it all comes down to is this: I will live my life as I see fit, niether sacrificing others for me, nor myself for others.
TheMrSeagull5 hours ago
@TheMrSeagull You can ignore the history of this cult and its founder all you like, but the facts are the facts. Both Rand and her disciples simply state their case (without proper philosophical argumentation, which is why she is ignored by academic philosophers), and then declare that anyone who disagrees with them is irrational and dishonest. This is the supreme irony of Objectivism: it claims to be both individualistic and atheistic, yet in every characteristic it is identical to a cult.
TheCrookedTimber3 hours ago
@TheCrookedTimber Again, you are wrong. You formulate your "facts" on opnions, nothing more. Find me proof of your claims, reason-base proof.
If my way of life is based on reason, and you cannot refute them on reason, then you -are- being "irrational and dishonest."
TheMrSeagull8 minutes ago
Thanks ahead of time.
-
Forgive me for the 2nd post, I felt the need to add this because he may soon block me as he has done to others, but can't seem to find a way to edit the previous post.
• I wish to live my life as I see fit, neither sacrificing others to me, nor sacrificing myself others. Is this a problem?TheMrSeagull9 hours ago
• @TheMrSeagull Apart from the fact you're a hypocritical leech who feeds on the works of others, no. Either stop being a lying cunt or stop using EVERYTHING paid for with taxes - footpaths, roads, hospital, schools, energy to name a few.
AngryAussie
• @AngryAussie Not suprised, higly irrational strawman argument. Instead of attacking me, attack my logic. I will not allow others to sacrifice for me, nor sacrifice myself for others. Refute that, or continue to evade it, your choice.
TheMrSeagull3 minutes ago
It seems the best way to argue with these types is to provide a single form of logic. They will stumble over themselves to prove how illogical and unreasonable they are.
-
Wow, this guy is a clown.Not a single bit of logic in his arguments.
-
After seeing the comments, I really feel that some in the Libertarian movement may be forever lost. Such irrational, hate-filled tirades.
-
I too am unable to fathom the fascination some people have with this concept, for similar reasons. I suspect that the main attraction is that it's not the Federal Reserve Note, a/k/a "fern"
Right, it reminds me of the Libertarian tendancy to fight for "Freedom of Ideas" which is more of a fight agaisnt intellectual property.
-
I recently saw this video from reason.tv about Bitcoin, some sort of P2P online currency as a substitute of our current monetary system (USA).
While I like the fact that it's privatly controlled, I can't get past that it's not based off of any type of commodity. I'm new to Objectivism, so please forgive me if I'm making a mistake somwhere, but this almost has a collectivist bend to it. With actual gold, if everyone stops using it, I still have gold I could sell or trade. This seems like it suffers from some of the flaws the current American system.
Vote For Donald Trump
in Political Philosophy
Posted
I was liking what I read up until he stated that pharmaceutical companies were a public service and "Remove barriers to entry into free markets for drug providers that offer safe, reliable and cheaper products."
That's pretty much straight-up Teddy Roosevelt progressivism - You're free as long as you serve the public good.