johny118

These sources (apart from the official website) are complete rubbish. Maybe you should read books written by people with university degrees instead of websites written by Joe Bloggs. I find it difficult to understand why anyone could not like the British Monarchy. Although I can understand why you disagree with the way part of it is funded, you only have to look at pictures like those below, to see why most British people love the Monarchy: Just as a beautiful woman is valued BECAUSE she is beautiful, the Royals are valued BECAUSE they are royalty.

Ok, so far the thread has centred on what a true Objectivist thinks and believes. But what about things upon which a person has no control over? For example, a person who was abused as a child might grow up to be a really nervous adult. He/she might encounter Objectivism and find a new guiding principle to their lives. However, lets say they never really shake off their nervous disposition that was created in their childhood. Can they really be called an Objectivist? Or another example. Say a person is really fat, short and ugly. They might agree with Objectivism, but how many doctors or lawyers, or millionaires (ie very rational and productive people) do you know who are short, fat and ugly? I guess I am alluding to a principle that would say that most of our lives are beyond our control and are dictated by genes and childhood. I am basically saying that a true Objectivist is born and not made. I am trying to figure out whether I really believe this. I am not sure and eagerly await responses!

The Queen has absolutely NOTHING to do with how Great Britain is run! She is there for show in order to liven things up a little and impress the tourists! Plus, the electorate chooses the Prime Minister not the Queen! How blatantly wrong do you have to be before you stop talking such rubbish!?

After my first question about global warming, I am wondering what the Objectivist position on the war in Iraq is. I have read some of the previous threads but am not satisfied at all by the answers. My own position is that it was not justified. Politicians blatantly lied about WMD; Saddam posed no threat to anyone but his own people. So the question becomes: is it justified to invade a country to liberate the people from an evil dictator? It is not. It is nothing more than altruism to spend billions of dollars and thousands of lives in order to liberate another country. Those two points summarise my argument. Saddam was no threat plus it is not worth the lives and billions of dollars to liberate the Iraqi people. What do you think? This leads me onto my real question. I don’t understand why Objectivists don’t agree on the Iraq war. The use of reason should only lead to one right answer – there can’t be two contradictory right answers.

Wow. What can I say? I’m shocked and amazed. I knew that you guys would probably argue that the scientists were politically motivated, but I never imagined to what extent. The biggest shock for me I think is the bloody UN, with its stupid IPCC faking a consensus. The next most irritating thing is the BBC and most of the media. They report as if man made global warming is fact. And the third most irritating thing is Tony Blair who seems to be jumping on the bandwagon in order to gain votes and keep petrol tax so high. Thanks guys for a complete eye opener!

I honestly have no idea what you are talking about. Why are we talking about bombs and flu viruses? If thats what wacky environmentalists are talking about can't we just ignore them?

Ok, just read some of the previous threads. Am even more confused now! The thing is though, the majority of scientists support the view that the Earth is warming and that man is a chief cause with horrible consequences to come. As we are not climate scientists we should listen to the majority of scientists, as we do not have the facts to make an informed judgement. Now I am not saying that the majority is always right. If I were a climate scientist, I would listen to the consensus but if I found that the majority consensus was wrong, I would make it my mission in life to convince every scientist of their error. The truth cannot fail to come out. But as a person with absolutely zero knowledge of climate science, how can I listen to the minority of scientists who say that man has not caused global warming, when the majority say that man has? If that minority cannot persuade their own peer group, how can they persuade me?

Hey people, What is the objectivist position on global warming? I am assuming that objectivism says that global warming is either untrue, or if it is true the market will sort it out with higher oil prices, cleaner technology etc. Environmental scientists repeatedly tell us that global warming is real and that man is not acting fast enough Globto halt carbon emissions. Their predictions for the world are very depressing if man continues with it carbon emissions at the current rate. So my second question, (assuming that I am right about the objectivist position on global warming) is how can objectivism be so anti-science? I used to think that mans role in global warming is negligible, that the warming we see is attributable to natural cycles. Yet in a recent conversation with a friend who studies environmental science, I was demolished in an argument. You see, scientists have looked at ice formed millions of years ago and can see what temperatures were like back then. They know that we are now in a warming period that is unprecedented and cannot possibly be attributed to a natural cycle. I actually hope that you guys can prove me wrong, but I don't think you will be able to. The best I think you will be able to do is to say that the science done today is politically motivated. From, A rational person who is beginning to doubt that capitalism can save the world (please prove me wrong!) (Edited thread title to something less catchy but more descriptive of the topic . - softwareNerd)