Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

John Tate

Newbies
  • Posts

    12
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Previous Fields

  • Sexual orientation
    No Answer
  • Relationship status
    Single
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Country
    Australia
  • Biography/Intro
    I am a programmer and an Objectivist.
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted
  • Real Name
    John Tate

John Tate's Achievements

Novice

Novice (2/7)

-5

Reputation

  1. Do you really think the world is quite as bad as Atlas Shrugged? The major missing ingredient is the existence of a true Jed Starnes and hopefully the world will never see such an attempt. What is going on today at General Motors and such is not quite the same as it is through the expropriation of their property and not its exercise as a right. Inventors are still widely considered to have earned their wealth. The looters code does not include them but its selective application is typically in the case that someone has not earned it. In fact I've noticed even some Objectivists around the net in general themselves can go a bit further than attacking Bill Gates' philanthropy to attacking his value. His value by driving competition between hardware companies is easily one of the main reasons we have such affordable and powerful computers. Anybody old enough should know what the difference has become - even Apple were not able to resist the hardware prices that Microsoft and Gates' business model have created. On the subject of software companies the closest thing to a Jed Starnes like shop is the open source model. Before I found Objectivism I wasted the better part of a decade on this crap. That doesn't make me John Galt however as I never immediately stopped in the revulsion of what I would see. What did I see? A world where a programmer cannot turn it into food, a world where the second-hand tech support guru had less value than the developer... A world with no respect for its motor. A pretty frustrating experience I assure you. And of course, there is a reason I am here trying to help people understand Objectivism - and it is not a love of teaching or an outgoing personality. In fact as a programmer I do not have access to anything that resembles sensible patents. I cannot patent a whole invention, but I can patent a dozen or so cogs of each one - each cog or widget being something relatively simple. Ayn Rand's defense of patents does not defend this existing system which seems more about cluttering world trade by having each country run as inept a patent office as is possible rather than protecting the greatest ideas of programmers. Those ideas are of such a level of complexity that the watered down patent system provides developers with nothing at all at least in the area of inventions. On top of that I have morons like Yaron Brook saying that all is well in this area - and he is easily the most lackluster defender of my rights I've ever seen.
  2. Civ4 is good because the free market exists in it has a civic and has the greatest virtues. Typically I win by staying ahead in science and trading my technology for immense sums of gold. I dislike the game economy and no longer have the time to play it. It gives the leader regardless of civic choices too much control over the economy and I imagine since this game was written by a worshipper of Statism - a highly unrealistic view of command. Still this game entertained me through my youth. The last strategy game I can remember with realistic economics, finite gold, and generally sensible price mechanisms has got to be Age of Empires II.
  3. I'd rather see Hellen Keller vs Steven Hawking.
  4. I'll apologize but I am starting to realize a great many people are taking the wrong approach to learn Objectivism. Rather than doing it directly they are doing it on the Internet. They need to read the source material. I see too much of it on Facebook, perhaps I've assumed too much of it here. --- Generally the response is simple: do not just walk past discussions of sexuality by hedonists of any sort. Often when people talk about sex, it is not good. Typically discussions are disconnected from ethics because these people without selfishness have nowhere to turn for ethics - and thus sex is downsized in ordinary discussions. These people are also the people who try to take on pedophiles but are quite powerless to do so. They share the axiom of hedonism with the pedophiles. I've even seen these well-meaning sexologists (for lack of a better word) convinced by their opponents because of the shared axiom. We must question the axiom, "sex is just sex," for that is what allows the ethical dichotomy. Also often little more is made in terms of ethical claims than arguments from intimidation, that is: "I like to fuck kids," "You are an awful person," "Why," "Because you are an awful person," It doesn't really change anybody. The collectivist axioms people hold become problematic as well. Rather than pedophilia just being considered a sexual vise that it is - instead pedophilia is considered an incurable disease. People attack pedophiles as if they are viruses and not human beings. This only convinces them that the solution (selfish sexual ethics) does not exist and that the problem is of a different nature than it really is. I think I'd know - I had similar problems I had never acted on. Unexpectingly my emotional radar, as we so call it, simply stopped responding that way. That and like many I simply grew up and got over the girls from my early teens. I think perhaps that is why so many ask a question that to me seems obvious. Perhaps many of you are treating an evil system of value judgment as something impossible, biological, and unbreakable. That is a premise I simply don't share with you all. I believe Ayn Rand accidentally "cured" me. If homosexuals thought they could bitch about repression - they have no idea.
  5. I'm tired of repeating myself and yes I can be a bit confusing, I jokingly call it Alan Greenspan disease. Arcane writings and speakings seem to be a second-nature of mine . If that isn't clear enough, I am suggesting that people take sexuality more seriously. You can end up with worse things than Lillian Rearden as a result of just floating along with the mainstream culture. In fact its becoming a pretty big part of culture to assume sometimes that these people thrown in the slammer for borderline jailbait have actually had something nice. It's not good for anyone - except by one standard: altruism. By that standard the "selfish" behavior is considered by typical way of the intellectual package deal. Much like say, Madoff is considered Selfish, and many assholes caught up in the intellectual package deal of selfishness would like to be him also many people think these people have actually experienced something "good" for them. To state and repeat the bleeding obvious (excuse the Brittishism) there is certainly more to lose than just capitalism in the mess that is todays culture. Because people have more anonimity we are beginning to see what many people really have to say. Wherever that level of protection exists problems like I'm describing become more apparent. What can we do? I should just refuse to answer. I am beginning to see that, having read all of Ayn Rand's non-fiction that many of you are not taking a serious effort to be Objectivists and should cease using the title. The first essay was and is merely a request for comments and people with similar experiences. I don't think I am quite so confusing - merely I expect my readers to actually understand Objectivism. What should we do? The same thing suggested by Objectivism you do about everything else: think, speak, and reason with people on all the issues. I know some of you must understand Objectivism quite well, and I am a little obscure but a question like that to me borders on the ridiculous. Especially now that I've not said what we should do once but twice and I imagine a third time. Maybe some of you people need rotes however because you are clearly just reading Wikipedia, and the Lexicon which I am beginning to think should cost cash money like HBL, TOS, and everything else that should only be used by people who have already familiarized themselves with the material. Edit: Why not try thinking for yourselves. What should YOU do? If you do not care, I am going to report your posts. If that isn't good enough, I am going to report this forum - then its first mention ever in "Todays Culture" at the ARI can be a negative one. I am really starting to wonder if this place is what it says it is or is worth even a dime. Edit 2: By coming along and saying you "dont care" (where the normal reaction is to do what I expected of just about everyone, to ignore it) you are by axiom actually caring. This is really dumb, and a lot of you evidently don't know a damn thing about Objectivist Epistomology nor practice it. Please stop wasting my time and yours.
  6. Nihilist's rarely fully integrate what it requires because consciously this is basically not possible. Most people who claim this title that I know reject it in the axioms behind other knowledge they are using to exist. Were anyone not to do this they would suffer until deaths end. Yet by surviving in reality and communicating in it they accept the existence of reality - they just refuse to give it much thought. To me it is just an evasion of the effort required to develop a moral code which comes from reality and a conscious effort to avoid the conscious effort of having values. Yet, as axioms, they have values: they like to eat, have sex, and so on like everybody else. I believe Ayn Rand's works as has been said are all arguments which negate such philosophical laze as Nihilism. Peikoff I think explains it better in OPAR, I can't remember the exact words. To express these Nihilist ideas they must do so in reality, and simply by the act of communicating they accept existence as an axiom. So my refutation is like this: "We cannot know the real world," "Yet you are expecting me to know it, to understand what you are saying, and thus you accept it anyway as an axiom."
  7. I can easily on a chat community pretend to be a young teenage male and as we all probably know its very easy for a girl to be groomed so can men. Just the grooming is of a different sort. Also the more common anecdotal example I can provide is that young men looking for pornography would look for girls their own age. This comes from child porn sources and lands them smack in the midst of the kind of indoctrination I am speaking of.
  8. I agree with them as well because it is the problem I am finding that these things are done by people who are trying to hide as well. Our culture isn't so backward that if people were caught doing this they would be in trouble. I remember my own childhood, at twenty-three now I remember at about thirteen the usual stuff Chris Hansen goes after. I had just gotten the Internet and was always good with programming. Net Nanny was the first thing to go. This girl talked to me of 18 and years later it occurred to me it probably wasn't a girl. I'll state that I was sexually abused and that man was dealt with by the law many years previous to that. He tried to teach me his code, I don't think he was homosexual at all. His focus was girls, he tried to make mine that way as well. I've been over this for so long I've not read it in a while but there is a quarterly journal called MaleSurvivor and I might be able to find the evidence you are looking for. These days I've noticed young people are not just targeted for sex, they are targeted to be taught a pedophile code in the stage of intellectual development where they are angry with society. It is basically offered as a form of simple rebellion. There is something legal for Americans to have a peek at but not me myself as an Australian known as lolicon a type of manga. This material can become somewhat addictive (for lack of a better word) when a young enough person has access to it while it is still normal to possibly like those girls, say at about 10-14. In my experience with some 18 year old guys I know they've had a lot of trouble and shame because of what pedophiles have dragged them into. Basically what I am saying is just like you see things on Dateline and such of what these people do to try and get sex they also try to do it to continue their traditions and repeat their early motivations to fresh lots of young men. This is like feminism, feminists target young girls as an audience for their irrational philosophy with different results of course. We don't see that one everyday either - we can go read about it. The very reason I am at a forum is because my desire at least is to get to these youth first before they do. It's not seemed like a huge problem, just a happening, until now as I take a younger friends word on it on just how effective it is on young men. Regarding feminism, in a sense it is a counter-culture to that irrational trend. Feminists have indoctrinated girls for decades and pedophiles have used the resulting attributes that become of these women as a case for those they are trying to indoctrinate to be pedophiles. Is it really hard to imagine happening? I know that isn't what you want to hear - but this is kept out of our sight with quite a bit of effort. Were it organized the term conspiracy would be appropriate and occasionally it is. On the most part however this is just a subject of informal chats online that occur spontaneously between boys and bad men. Often because boys cannot even swear without trouble they hardly understand, they don't speak of it for the same reasons I didn't speak of it when being molestered. Sexual taboos are why I used the term onslaught, because that exact situation has them attempting this indoctrination unopposed and unnoticed. I am surprised not far more others have had similar experiences online lately as to see this content casually wherever anonymity is protected. I do wonder what the world will look like in thirty years when maybe onslaught will be a term those of you skeptical accept as well.
  9. I suggest you just take it at face value, which might not be much to you. It will not surprise me if some other individuals have seen some of the stuff around. Considering this is the Internet I can't really provide you with evidence of anything, at all. The place I studied has been removed so at the moment I am at a loss. I will see what I can find, in time, but at the moment I'll admit I don't have much. This is, in terms of numbers not that they should matter if that is how you are taking the word onslaught this is quite small. In terms of opposition nonetheless I can see it becoming a problem. By onslaught, I mean a paralyzed and hopeless good and a ridiculously potent evil in the making. I don't mean numbers, maybe you did not either.
  10. I never said that it was. My point being is that Feminism is one area of knowledge put in the faces of youth; and has been for a while. Now pedophilia is being promoted in a similar way on the Internet. Some examples, well, there is the culture surrounding imageboards and file sharing networks beyond pornography but in the area of indoctrination. Most of us take for granted our own knowledge of sexual ethics without really expressing it. Pedophile ethics spread with little opposition on the Internet. The closest example I can show legally is the stories and literature on www.asstr.org which is for erotic fiction. On top of that are the usual sources, Lolita by Vladamir Nobakov, and such. Generally though this is something I am sure other young men are experiencing simply in various conversations with adolescents. As a young man I run into this culture online and I am sure a lot of people do. I have started to realize that this faces little opposition. As for formal philosophical influences, pedophile ethics are generally inspired through altruism, hedonism, and moral relativism. Altruism, it is seen as helpful and that can be seen in just the court testimonies of pedophiles. Hedonism, sexuality is made out as an activity devoid of meaning anyway. Moral relativism, well just look at this vanity fair article.
  11. In the field of ethics there is this little discussed and ignored area known as sexual ethics. In discourse sexual ethics is today dominated by pedophiles, feminists, perverts, and “sexology.” In philosophy, feminism and pedophilia are typically influenced by the dominant ethical trend of altruism. Though thankfully, most of us have a sexual ethic based on the mores of society: consent and the ability to reason. In the bedroom however sexual ethics are not ignored, but seldom talked about as they are obvious to anyone through first-hand observations. So typically one might expect that wherever you are in the world sexual ethics are much the same and they typically are except where there is organized knowledge – typically only by religion. In the information age sexual ethics have however for many stopped merely being a case of simple inductions but a matter of great concern – unless you are not paying attention. As I write pedophiles try to teach boys their code, not the boys they target, but the boys (teenagers) whom try basically try and recruit. Typically for many sexuality has been for so long an unspoken area of knowledge – not any more. Not for these lads. That is why I am here. The onslaught of pedophilia on the Internet is a debasement of anyone targeted by these groups. Ayn Rand’s theory of sex makes the response to ones highest values – and the reversal of this for the psychology of young men and for what become second-hand responses will turn out to be devastating. Essentially, our young boys are being told not to pursue their highest values in sexuality which is almost a-priori, but to pursue childish girls most would describe as unappealing. This is unfortunately, something easy to make effective. A boy at 12 years old will quite naturally find girls around him, though often women, quite attractive and like various girls. These memories are with many of us for life. So pedophiles through not just words but imagery hold back the sexual development of adolescent men, by making it far more difficult than it has ever been for them to simply forget these girls and naturally move up in what ages they find attractive – and at say 16 rather than simply no-longer responding to a girl of say 12 – being passively reminded of them by these pedophiles (and their anonymous youngsters) combined with the alluring promise of easy sex. I am here talking purely about male adolescents, no sexism is implied. Girls too are obviously caught up in this, and unlike the hysteria of nineties television mixed signals appear to be sent out of what is weird and what is not. Worse still, the state seems to provide a perfect reverse psychology and if a girl is looking for rebellion it is easily found in older boys. This isn't so unnatural but in the information age this appears to be becoming seriously distorted in just how old they get. Contemporary culture however has absolutely nothing to say, as so much seems obvious, in response to the confused state of many of these perpetrators and victims. If you thought Capitalism was poorly defended, well, this isn’t a position defended at all by much other than the judicial system – not philosophy or ethics. It is becoming clear that an unstoppable and serious transformation is taking place due to the treatment of sexuality as debased, unimportant, and non-intellectual. Not only now does this ethos of culture as Ayn Rand and many others identified lead people down fruitless sexual avenues like it did in the past of shame and evasions but it is powerless to stop the onslaught of what is evidently becoming incredibly persuasive. Simply, the only way to fight the ideas promoted by pedophiles is with the idea that sexuality is a response to ones inner-most virtues and values. http://johntate.org/node/306
×
×
  • Create New...