The Cynic

The problem with giving these terrorists an open trial is that it means compromising our intelligence networks, which are essential in the war against terrorism. The best way forward in my opinion is to go ahead with military tribunals with civilian oversight as quickly as possible as holding these terrorists without due process allows Al Qaueda and their snivelling leftist fellow travellers to score propaganda points against us.

On advice from the admin I am moving my comments to the debate forum.

Our motivations or desires are primarily emotional, we act to satisfy certain conflicting desires. Our thinking or reason is used to make decisions in order to satisfy these wants. We cannot decide what we want to desire, these motivations are therefore innate. In other words the prime motivator of human action is emotion. Objectivism as penned by Ayn Rand claims that man is born as a blank state and any emotions he feels are as a result of a philosophy he implicitly or explicitly accepts. In a sense Objectivists are claiming that the mind is master over emotions so that for instance an individual is in complete control of his sexuality, for example by this standard homosexuality is simply a result of embracing irational ideas. Certainly if a man could choose his sexuality it would be in his interests to have a sexuality in synch with the majority of the members of society. Philosophy deals with abstract principles, history deals with concrete facts. How can something so remote as philosophy really guide the actions of individual concrete decisions? I come back to one contested historical event amongst Objectivists of Lincoln's decision to use force to prevent the South from seceeding. Of what worth would a philosophy of Objectivism be in explaining his actions as his response to south seceeding. One can from a moral standpoint justify the use of force against the South and justify the non-use of force. If you wanted to know why Lincoln made that decision that day one would be better looking at Lincoln's personality (which was partly innate) and the circumstances he faced (which were not neccessarily a result of concious moral design) rather than consult a philosopher. The Objectivist historical meta-narrative that all events in history can be traced back to bearded men in philosophy departments is a false short cut to knowledge. An Objectivist certainly may enter the history profession but it will not be long before he comes across facts which do not fit into the nice and neat Objectivist meta-narrative. Then he has to make a decision become a real historian concerned with facts or a mere propagandist interested in spinning historical truth to suit his ideological prejudices.

and presumably he will assert that philosophy is the most/sole important thing governing human affairs and that human action is entirely the product of ideas. Certainly looking at the nature of this (Big O!) Objectivist's articles he doesn't seem to focus upon much apart from the history of philosophy, the implicit assumption being that is what 'proper' historians should really be concerned about.

Employers sometimes rely on intelligence testing to help select from a range of candidates. On its own an IQ test would be a pretty poor method of selection but combined with an interview and a C.V. it can create a better evaluation of the candidate. I've taken 2 online IQ tests, one gave me an IQ of 130 the other and IQ of 90! Go figure.

I disagree human nature is atleast partly innate. We all possess certain desires and predispositions which exist prior to any ideas we choose to accept. These are the key motivating factors governing human affairs, to argue otherwise is to suggest that a newborn baby which has had no opportunity to absorb any ideas is born with no desires and consequently no emotions. I challenge you to go to a delivery ward and prove me wrong. I also add the further point that the objectivist claim that human behaviour is purely the product of ideas is merely an assertion without any evidence to back up its claims. My claim that human nature is at least partly innate is something that is backed up by the revelant scientists of human behaviour who's scholarship has been rigorously scrutinised in peer review journals. Philosopher's are neccessarily speculators of history because they are not engaged in the real practice of history but rather trying to support their own ideological system. Marxism and Objectivist schools of history are a case in point, at root is their belief (and I claim a utopian one) that man is essentially good but has been corrupted by external influences, for how else could one explain the horrific events which have occurred with alarming regularity throughout human history. For the marxists it is the prevailing social and economic conditions, for obectivisits it is simply the result of accepting wrong ideas. If you want a theory of history you ask a historian not an objectivist, similarily if you want a theory of celestial bodies you ask Galileo and not the catholic church. There are several books written by historians on the theory of history I suggest anyone interested should consult them.

The problem with a theory of history based on a philosophy (in this case objectivism but you could also include marxism in this category) is that the principles upon which such a theory is based is so vague and abstract it is pretty much worthless in explaining concrete events in history. For instance in a separate thread some objectivists claim that slavery was the prime cause of the American civil war, all other issues are merely subsidary to it. But this doesn't answer the question of why Lincoln fought a war to hold onto the South and free the slaves when an equally valid option was simply to let the slave states leave and use that oportunity to repeal the fugitive slave act to encourage all the slaves in the south to escape to the north to freedom and bring an end to the institution that way. History is caused by human actions and human behaviour is not simply the product of philosophical ideas. Philosophers explanations of the causes of historical events are just speculations with no basis in fact. Only a historian trained in the profession who has immersed himself in the facts can draw a reliable conclusion in the very complex nature of human events.

Individuals are treated differently depending on their appearance and how one is treated by the world greatly effects one's self-esteem, therefore plastic surgery has the potential to vastly improve someone's quality of life. One thing that should be said against is that it is not a panacea a great many people hold completely unrealistic attitudes to beauty because they live in a culture where their visual senses are bombarded by extremely attractive people (who in real life without a professional stylist and an airbrusher seem much more plain) so they end up buying into a media induced myth that they are ugly when objectively it is not the case. Each individual ultimately has to balance the cost of cosmetic surgery against the realistic benefits. I understand that some short men pay up to a hundred thousands dollars and endure months of excruciating pain to stretch their legs so that they can gain a few extra inches in height because they think it will revolutonise their work/love life which I find crazy.

Others may shrug but they also withdrew their sanction as well. Yet Mal due to the nature of his profession constantly deals with evil men - making them richer in the process. There are plenty of other occupations that Mal could have chosen - he is a man of ability after all yet he chooses to be a petty thief. Granted if Joss Whedon cast Mal as a foreman of a clay pit it would have been a pretty dull show! Obviously in a twisted universe an objectivist would be morally twisted beyond all recognition. Rather than criticising the malevolent universe that Joss Whedon has created and his attempt to instal noble qualities on a gang of whores, thieves and murderers, everybody seems to want to excuse all that because they see likeable qualities in Mal. I apologise if it was misinterpreted as an ad homin. However I do reiterate Mal is being held up as a virtuous man, even though he pistol whips bank clerks and robs hospitals.

I was simply comparing the Alliance to the 'Evil Empire' of Star Wars mode and the fact that on the surface the Alliance seems very liberal...but scratch the surface. This I think is what passes for most western government with regards to the climate of free speech and tolerance of disenters. I thought we were talking about the series in general. Well thats what Ayn Rand did with one of her close circle of friends who remained a Christian. She gave the Christian 6 months to see the light and then when enlightenment wasn't forthcoming ostracised her. I've never said objectivists should shun people who hold different opinions but merely point to Ayn Rand as an example of an objectivist who probably wouldn't be seen dead in a plague pit with the crew of Serenity. The difference I think why I have trouble seeing Mal as an objectivist is that he is not an idealist. Presumably he was when he was fighting for the Independents. Now though he has has completely turned his back on trying to change the world for the better and although he still has a moral code he is pretty much resigned to the fate of the 'verse'. Which is probably why he accepts priests and hookers - he doesn't feel its his job to change them so he lets them do their own thing as long as they don't get in the way. An Objectivist I think would want to fight the Alliance, Mal just wants to avoid it as best he can. Well I don't minimise it, I just felt the series the series would have been better without it - If I wanted a simple goody veruses baddy film watch Star Wars or Flash Gordon. Personally I think such shows are childish. I don't need dumbing down and that is why I thought the film (in comparison to the series) was a bit weak, I felt I was being bludgeoned over the head with the 'evilness' of the Alliance for the benefit of the 12 year olds who might be watching in the cinema. I mean its a television programme and Joss Whedon can bend the laws of physics and nature if he likes and whilst it will make a great show, it is not reality so I think making comparisons between the real world (which objectivism is supposed to be concerned about) and science-fiction a bit pointless. I mean come on - 500 years into the future and they extract clay using indentured servants! The crew of Serenity are a bunch of criminals and assorted low-lifes but Joss Whedon manages to weave *his* universe in such a way as to make the crew moral. This is post-modernism, this is relativism. I think your simply trying to rationalise why you like the film.

Joss Whedon modeled the Alliance of the US Federal government and the independents as the South (albeit without slavery). Personally what I find appealing about the series is that the Alliance (minus the secret government conspiracy) is not that much different from any contemporary western democracy. There is free speech and a parliament and yet it still manages to be oppressive. The character played by Jayne was pretty much no different from the bad guys he killed. The only difference is when he was working for Mal he had to operate by his rules. That didn't stop him trying to turn in the good doctor over to the alliance for the money. Doesn't sound like a man of moral integrity to me. Rand would said that sex was the highest celebration of values, I don't think she's approve of companions (especially since they enjoyed a government enforced monopoly on the sex trade!). As for Priests re:mysticism. Its of course hard to see the objectivism in the characters as its not an objectivist universe. For a start minus the Space Ships life is great deal more physical and the people materially poorer (indentured servitude exists). The alliance core planets seem to be very stratified fuedal societes, where aristocratic lineage matters as much as ability and anyone without a Sir behind his name cannot hope to amount to much unless they head out to the frontier planets. That said in the context of Joss Whedon's universe the characters do express admirable qualities but it is only true in Joss Whedon's universe. If Malcolm Reynolds really existed today he'd probably be part of the Mafia. Well what is the premise of the show? Joss Whedon explained it in a nutshell as a fusion of science fiction and the wild west. It is aftertall an entertainment program not a treaty on philosophy.

The United States should never have gone into Iraq in the first place, just as the US should never have sent ground troops into Vietnam, but the argument is academic its happened and we can't rewind time what matters is what we do now and I for one do not agree with leaving. Firstly the middle east sits upon vast reserves of oil which is the lifeblood of our economy, without which the western economies would collapse. It is therefore in America's interest to establish pro-western regimes. When I say pro-western I'm not very much concerned with their human rights records but whether or not they are hostile or not to western interests. Saddam's regime so long as it was applied with a mixture of carrots and sticks would have been a good client. (He was before the 1st Gulf War - was our proxy against Iran and ruthlessly suppressed any Islamic terrorists within his borders). Instead we opted for regime change and opened up a can of worms. Secondly and perhaps more importantly it will be seen around the world as a defeat for the west and will only encourage islamic radicalism among the muslim population within the west. And it is terrorists operating within our borders rather than some rogue tinpot regimes which may or may not be developing weapons of mass destruction that are the real threat to our security. They must not be given a morale boost by leaving in Iraq. Personally I think the most probable outcome if things continue as they are is a humiliating failure. The much touted Iraqi security forces who are supposed to hand over control will probably disintegrate once the coalition troops leave and the new regime which will emerge will be much more hostile to western interests. If the coalition is to prevail it will require new leadership one that is prepared to admit that the counter-insurgency cannot depend solely upon volunteer soldiers but must resort to conscription to rapidly expand the numbers of troops on the ground. It must then prepare the public for heavy casualties because these troops will have to leave their bases and aggressively patrol Iraq. Once the average Iraqi is confident that the Coalition is here to stay he will start to collaborate with it as most Iraqi are sure the Coalition will leave and they don't want to be tagged as collaborators when the local miltia come knocking at their door to settle a few scores.

Mal Reynolds is a thief and and a killer, who consorts with priests, hired thugs and call girls - is that an apt description of an objectivist? Firefly simply takes the best myths from the wild west and transplants it into science-fiction. Add Joss Whedon's gift for story telling and you have a great series. Mal no longer has a great cause but is simply concerned with living his own life on his own terms. He's an individualist distrustful of a distant central government which is restricting his freedom so he buys a ship and roams the frontier away from the reach of the alliance and the series is primarily about himself and his crew making a living out on the frontier where there is no government to fall back on and the only person you can depend on to get you out of trouble is yourself. This is probably why it appeals to objectivists.

Please tell me your joking that this is a great film. The acting was dire, the plot implausible and historiclly inaccurate and so riddled with anti-christian biogtry I found it nauseating (and no I'm not a christian just a student of the period and interested in fairness.) Good Acting? Guy of Lusignan, this character seems to have jumped straight out of a childrens pantomine twisting his evil moustache and plotting world domination. Good Christians?, There are none they are either weasely cowards (the priests) or violent psycopaths (Reynald of Catillion) The heroe's of the film (Balian, Tiberius) seem to be athiests helicoptered in from the 21t century. On the other hand there are plenty of good muslims (Saladin and his luietenant whoom Balian spared) both honourable and tollerant. Oh and don't get me started on this 'kingdom of conscience' nonesense or the idea that peace with the Moslems was a realistic option with the rise of Saladin and his calls for jihad against the crusader states. So mix the pantomine villians, the implausibility of athiestic knights, the not so subtle anti-christian bias and you get one revolting mess. The only thing worthy of praise is Edward Norton portrayl of the Lepper King and special effects (which could have been so much more)