Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Thesweetscience

Regulars
  • Content Count

    26
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Thesweetscience

  • Rank
    Junior Member

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Not Specified
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Real Name
    Bobby Dobbs
  • Occupation
    Matchmaker
  1. I just scrolled down into the various topics. It did not occur to me to do a "search" I was unfamiliar with that feature. I will be using it often from now on. Thanks again Bobby
  2. Thanks, this should clear a lot of things up. I appreciate you taking the time to gather these links. Bobby
  3. That was without a doubt the most educational thing I have read so far in this forum. I thank you very much for taking the time to write it. I can definately see your points and I agree with you. Let me just clarify that I do not currently believe in god. But, I had said that I reserve the right to believe in the possibility of his existence if the data changes. Your analogy about the elephants completely explained to me the problem with that line of thinking. Thanks again! Bobby
  4. In reading Peikoff I came across a passage that I think it appropriate. This is not verbatim but. "Something is either true, arbitrary or it is false". I believe that I accused the Bush administration of "misleading" or being "dishonest". If they made a claim and that claim turned out to be false, was that not misleading? Was it not dishonest? Bobby
  5. I have not reviewed any posts other than those dealing with election 2004. Could you please provide me with some links that I can study? Bobby
  6. I believe that the specific examples I gave are "real evidence". "These al Qaeda affiliates, based in Baghdad, now coordinate the movement of people, money and supplies into and throughout Iraq for his network, and they've been operating freely in the capital for more than eight months," said U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell in his presentation to the U.N. Security Council. George Tenet said, "Iraq has, in the past, provided training in document forgery and bomb-making to al Qaeda. It has also provided training in poisons and gases to two al Qaeda associates" According to the 9/11 report there was no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda. According to a Harris poll in late April, a plurality of Americans, 49 percent to 36 percent, believe "clear evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda has been found." Why do Americans believe it? I think the answer is in the way in which this war was "sold". These aren't leftist assumptions. This is objective reality. Bobby
  7. The term "War on Terrorism" is problematic for me in this arguement. It didn't really apply to Iraq until we attacked it. The terrorists have made Iraq a front for the war, but it wasn't that way prior to the day we invaded. Saddam Hussein although a despot, had a secular government. Bin Laden himself criticized him on many occassion. The only thing in common between Bin Laden and Hussein was a mutual hatred of the United States. I wholeheartedly believe that taking action against Afghanistan was justified. And I believe we must protect ourselves against terrorists. But, I do not believe those arguements apply to Iraq, unless you wish to accept the premise that Iraq was involved in 9/11 and was an imminent threat to the US. Bobby
  8. I chose this topic because from what I "knew" about Objectivism it seemed that the war was wrong. After reading a few posts here I noticed that many here favored the war. I want to know where my breakdown in thinking is. I mean dishonesty in its most common sense. I think they(the Bush administration) knew that Iraq wasn't involved in 9/11. Yet they used subjectivism and implied that they were. As for WMDs, that is more debatable, did they know or didn't they? But, in this case there were inspectors on the ground in Iraq so it seems that the initiation of force was unwarranted.
  9. [MODERATOR'S NOTE: Thesweetscience is very new to Objectivism. I have placed this thread in the Basic Questions section as a reminder to viewers that his questions should be approached accordingly. The main issue here is how to solve philosophical problems. The main issue here is not to rehash pro's and con's of the war in Iraq, a subject treated voluminously in other threads. I will drop posts that do not address the central issue here: How a person new to Objectivism should go about applying the little he knows to particular problems.] I am a student of Objectivism so forgive me for not knowing the answers to these questions. But, from what I have read about Objectivism the war seems to contradict Ayn Rand's principles for the following reasons. 1. Ayn Rand was against the initiation of the use of force. 2. The war is altruistic, we are sacrificing ourselved for the sake of others who do not share our values or our principles. An Islamic government is sure to be installed. 3. The dishonesty used by our leaders to sell the war to us. Primarily I am referring to the way it was implied that somehow Iraq was involved in 9/11. But, this could also be expanded to the WMD myth. Please point out the flaws in my reasoning. Bobby
  10. Yes. It was Ayn Rand who taught me that....not someone else..Oh and that's Miss Rand to you!
  11. Are you really a physics professor? Because your reading comprehension seems to be lacking. There is no contradiction between those two statements. I really have no desire to have any type of discussion or dialogue with you. Why can't you stop worrying so much about me and what I think? I have been directed by others here to the source of the information I need and do appreciate it. You have implied that I am "an enemy of Objectivism". I may be an enemy of Speicher but not Objectivism. Few things are more dear to me than Ayn Rand. But I do have lots of reading to do to catch up. Bobby
  12. I disagree with that characterization of what I said. What I have said and keep saying is that I don't believe that certain people will listen to the concept of Objectivism if you tell them they can't believe in God. Therefore it should be in Chapter 3 instead of Chapter 1 for CERTAIN PEOPLE. Since I don't going around trying to "convert" anyone. The only practical experience I have is watching the growth of my wife who would have never read Atlas Shrugged had she known the author was an atheist. And today she wants to learn as much as she can about Rand and Objectivism. I know I am right about this in certain situations. I do acknowledge being wrong about an Objectivists potential to believe in God. I was given wrong information by someone who should have known better. But, I am still not to the point where I understand why. Bobby
  13. That I need to do. I will do that as soon as possible. I want to understand. I hope it makes sense to me. Bobby
×
×
  • Create New...