Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

WGD

Regulars
  • Content Count

    120
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About WGD

  • Rank
    Member

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Not Specified
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  1. Ariana- "I genuinely believe he would not hamper an honest discussion of your thesis--or even allow it to be hampered by other toc members." I think that's the point Michelle made in post #43. Kelley doesn't really take ideas seriously so it will be a waste of her time.
  2. Ariana, is this your friendly, generous, and benevolent side. If your going to attack someone at least quote them and not some third party. The reason toc allows references to ARI and not the reverse is the same reason the intelligent design people mix in real science--and you know it.
  3. WGD

    Global Warming

    Poor use of math makes up most of the "growth" in these global warming charts. Go to www.newsweekly.com.au/articles/2004nov20_c.html
  4. Ayn Rand put the Kent Lansing statements in context. It's about creative genius fighting against mediocrity and in the end it must triumph. "There were many wealthy men involved and the corporation was ruled by a numerous board." "Wealthy men"- meaning not their primary occupation or they got their money from inheritance and "numerous board" - top heavy, more of a social group. Then Roark says about groups: "I can get along with people--when they're alone. I can do nothing with them in groups." Then the Kent quotes above. What the board members says brings it home. "...how're you going to vote, do the big boys approve of him or not." "I'm not going to decide till I know who's voted for or against." "I don't like Roark's face--he doesn't look co-operative." " I know, I feel it, Roark's the kind that don't fit in. He's not a regular fellow." "Why? I don't know why. I just don't like it, and that's that. Haven't I got a right to an opinion of my own?" In the end "At the end of July, Roark signed a contract to build the Aquitania." And When Ayn Rand created the Foundation for the New Intellectual in the sixties, it had a board.
  5. Your right Sparrow, I missed it at logbook. But that makes it 10X worse. First TOC white washes the religious nature of the whole event. [see post above]Then it uses phases like "true individualists are not slaves to irrational whims" and "Hudgins talk met with positive reactions...exhibiting the wide appeal of Objectivist principles." What speech questioned "Christian morals" as irrational whims? Who made the case for Objectivist principles? Read Hudgins statements here: www.atlasusa.org/reports/event/04_slc2_Hudgins.php It reads like a George W Bush speech. You wouldn't know Objectivism was atheistic.
  6. I wonder why the Objectivist Center didn't announce Hudgins as a speaker at this event???? On August 13/14th the Atlas Economic Research Foundation held the "Communicating the Ideal of Liberty" which had Hudgins as a panel member. www.atlasusa.org The keynote speaker was Foster Friess: "putting a human face on economic liberalism." <"In our society, I think we too often see the disease of envy," he said. "We have to get rid of this disease in America if we want to get ahead. People with an excess of money should use their money to be a steward for God, he said. Friess said the fact that he is a successful businessman who is a Christian helps him to realize he is a channel to bring God's help to the needy people of the world. "I'm excited to make money to help other people," he said. "It's not my money but the Lord's money." Missionaries for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints were a major reason the [Atlas] held workshops in Salt Lake City> The keynote speech on day two? "The culture and religious foundations of Private Property". <> is from the Deseret Morning News for 8-15-2004
  7. I wondered that too after reading his op-ed "The human spirit of Christmas." Diana Hsieh gave that as an example in her "A public statement on the Objectivist Center" www.dianahsieh.com/toc/statement.html [it]"repeatedly appeals to Christian ideas in such a way that a person unfamiliar with Objectivism would never guess that the philosophy is atheistic, let alone that it wholly rejects the Christian moral ideal. The basic approach to ideas in the op-ed is not only misleading and condescending, but also contrary to the Objectivist rejection of appeasement. Also on her blog: www.dianahsieh.com/blog "Ed Hudgins' op-eds are a paradigm case of bad publicity for Objectivism: they are tepid, weak, confused, contrary to Objectivist principles, appeasing, and so on. People reading them unfamiliar with Objectivism would come away with a totally wrong idea of the philosophy-- thanks to its supposed defenders at TOC. TOC is not merely ineffective in its work to spread Objectivism, but actively destructive. They are all about bad publicity for the philosophy."
  8. Hudgins worked at the religious/conservative Heritage Foundation before CATO. If you look at TOC's "tax returns"(990s) they almost went bankrupt in 2002. They couldn't even pay their AMEX card on time. Since then they have been raising money just to get above water. They were even using money raised in fund raising to pay for part of the the summer event. So if you contributed to TOC since 2002, you've funded other peoples vacations.
  9. Razanne The perfect gift for all muslim girls. http://onlineislamicstore.com/razmusdol.html
  10. What? They both are using the same facts. They are not disagreeing with each others arguments. Their conclusions are different because of what they think "a president"(Bush or Kerry) can do to effect things happening in a culture.
  11. So if Kerry becomes President he'll stab America in the back?
  12. You want a thoughtful dicussion of ideas, as long as they agree with you, or you start with ad hominems?
  13. The WWII example is from an article from, I think, Victor Davis Hanson comparing past occupations. I'll have to check his site or NRO for which one. But I'm sure you know what happened to Patton. The Civil War info is from April 1865 by Jay Winik.
  14. This is a very good lecture concerning the evil of the "just war theory." But he makes some historical mistakes about occupations. US troops were killed in insurgencies after WWII. The attacks died out as the US handed more power(non-military) over to locals(also fear the Americans would go home and let the USSR take over). Robert E. Lee stopped a guerrilla war from starting because of how Grant and Sherman treating him and his troops at appomattox and the plans to let the south back into the Union. Lee pledged to Grant " his whole efforts to pacifying the country and bringing the people back to the Union." Jefferson Davis and most of the military was planning a guerrilla war. Lee's word stopped them. This was after Sherman pretty much won the war with his march to the sea. Also the Russians in Afghanistan and Chechnya and the French in Algeria proves the the "fist in the face" form of occupation does not work.
×
×
  • Create New...