Zoso

Dude, that would totally rock. Imagine a whole army made up of people like Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff.

There's also no harm in leaving it as it is. I hope you're ready to renounce the Gregorian calendar. Because, if you don't, but you renounce the name "Christmas," you're being inconsistent. Here's another shocker: I'M LISTENING TO CHRISTMAS MUSIC RIGHT NOW! Religious Christmas music too...it's good music and it brings me pleasure to hear it.

It isn't wild speculation...it's very possible. Hillary is all but locked-in for the '08 Democratic nomination. The Republican spot will be between McCain and Giuliani. Here's hoping for Rudy.

I don't agree that it is justified. The fact is that the current system CAN be changed through nonviolent means. That doesn't mean that it necessarily will be, but it is possible. I'm thinking we're going to start seeing things go in the other direction (at least, as private property is concerned), once Bush gets to appoint a few SC Justices.

I'm bitter towards Christianity too. That doesn't mean that I'm going to immediately renounce anything that is Christian in origin. If you're going to make that argument, then you'd better quit using the Gregorian calendar. And Christmas wasn't even Christian in origin, to begin with. It's only tied in with altruism if you personally tie it in with altruism...just like it's only Christian if you personally tie it in with Christianity. Gift-giving is not altruistic by nature, unless you don't value the person to whom you are giving gifts. If I walk to the apartment across the parking lot to give a gift to someone that I don't care about, it is altruism. If I give my mother a Christmas present, it is not altruistic, because she is important to me and seeing her happy, in turn, makes me feel happy. Call it what you want, but it's not like you're accepting Christian values by calling it "Christmas."

There's no reason, other than bitter hostility, to rename Christmas. It's just the name of a holiday. It's not like anyone forces you to celebrate it in a religious way. I sure don't, but I refuse to call it anything other than Christmas.

75 views and not a single reply...this thread must really suck.

If the 2008 race is between Hillary and McCain I would not complain if someone started assassinating people. Bush vs. Kerry was bad enough. Can you imagine Hillary vs. McCain?

It wouldn't. Monkeys can learn to complete puzzles and work math problems, but that doesn't mean they have the ability to reason. They learn it by mimicking. Computers can mimick whatever you want them to, but it doesn't mean that they are conscious.

I'm sure this has been done before, but I'm new, so I'm doing it again. It is only a matter of time before America is attacked again. The next time might not be airplanes...I wouldn't be surprised if I woke up one morning and turned on the TV to find out that a nuclear bomb had gone off in Manhattan or LA. Loss of life will be severe and it will all but obliterate the American economy. I see two solutions to this situation. The first is total isolationism. Pull troops out of every foreign country and close all foreign embassies and consulates. Fortify our borders and use the military solely as a defense for U.S. soil. The other solution is abject destruction of the Islamic world. These people are not going to accept freedom. They will not accept individual rights. The only thing that they understand is death, and it may be up to us to give it to them. This half-ass way of fighting the war on Islam (that's right, I said it) is the worst thing we can be doing. George W. Bush is a fucking pussy. If you're gonna make the decision to go and fight a war, you fight a goddamn war. What happened ot the days when, when the United States went to war, it fucking went to war? We saved the world twice in the twentieth century because we were willing to do what needed to be done. We are on the verge of seeing the civilized world fall. As soon as the United States falls, the rest of Western civilization follows. Take your pick: isolationism or unconditional victory. This in-between shit just won't cut it. Am I off-base here?

According to Objectivism, under what circumstances are violent revolution permissible? In case you're wondering, I'm not planning to overthrow the government or anything...just something I've wondered about for a while.

Good post, and I couldn't agree more.

That's the kind of answer I was looking for. Thank you.

I read the quote on some website about the homosexuality debate. You're right, in that there was no context. I've looked for the article or book that the quote came from, and I've been unable to find it, although I have found various other website that mention it, so I have no reason to believe that it's a false quote. Maybe she said it in a speech or something. I agree that whether or not it's disgusting is a matter of personal opinion, but the "immoral" part seems to imply that it is related to ethical philosophy.

I read somewhere that Ayn Rand herself called homosexuality "disgusting and immoral." I've tried making sense of this, in the context of Objectivism, and I can't figure out how that fits with the rest of her philosophy. Anyone care to explain? [Moderator of "Basic Questions" Forum: On Jan. 23, 2005, I changed the title to reflect the (sometimes) orientation of this thread that distinguishes it somewhat from the much longer, never-ending "Homosexuality vs. Heterosexuality" topic.]

Well, there are a lot of anti-Masonic groups out there. Most Masons are Christian, yet there are plenty of Christians who consider the Masons to be anti-Christian, so I wanted a perspective of people who think like me. Are they anti-individualist, etc... The main reason I want to join them is because of the history.

Yes.

What should I have for breakfast tomorrow?

Grr...don't derail my thread plz. That's not the topic. I feel like a Mormon trying to convince people that he's a Christian.

That's why I mentioned the fact that I'm not an Objectivist. I say that I'm close because my ethics and politics are almost carbon copies of Ayn Rand's. My Deism stems entirely from my belief in the law of causality, and it has absolutely no effect on the rest of my personal philosophy. As for the Masons...I have no desire to learn all the secrets about the Pyramids (a la National Treasure) or any crap like that. I have a few Mason friends and, from what I know, it just seems like something I would enjoy.

First of all, forgive me for the flurry of threads that I'm starting. I just don't know anyone else, in real life, who thinks the way I do and I'm eager to get points of view from other students of Objectivism. What are your views on the "In God we trust" on our money? Or "under God" in the pledge of allegiance? Personally, I could go either way. I prefer a secular government, but it seems to me that those phrases are more an expression of our past, than they are an affirmation of belief in God. America's past has many Judeo-Christian elements, though I admit that America was not founded on Christianity. I prefer to leave the money and the pledge the way they are, for the same reason I am against the Declaration of Independence being banned from that school. Yes, it mentions God, but it's a statement of our heritage, not support for religion.

I am a Deist and have been giving some serious thought to joining the Freemasons, but I'd like some Objectivist viewpoints on the organization. I'm not exactly an Objectivist, but I'm pretty close, just to let you know.