Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Location
    Pennsylvania, USA

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
  • Real Name
  • Copyright
  • School or University
    Graduated (BA)
  • Occupation
    Music Teacher

dark_unicorn's Achievements


Member (4/7)



  1. This is correct, the abuse is a consequence of a belief being inacted, while the religion being taught is the belief itself. The difference lay between the cause and the consequence. However, the use of force is tied to a person's epistemology, hense the abuse stems from the religious belief, as it is used as an implementation. What I am suggesting is that certain religious traditions will inevitably lead to abuse, because they're tied not merely to an evasion of rational thought, but to a blatant hostility to it. Speaking as a person who practices a religion, one that has been tied to abuse in some of it's variant forms, I do not think that the teaching of "faith" in itself will neccesitate abuse. But I can assert with full confidence that the Islamic form of teaching religion that I mentioned before (which may not apply to every Muslim, but would definately apply to every one making war with the United States and Israel) is, in itself, child abuse. There is nothing more abusive than teaching a kid that their own death, resulting in the death's of others, is their only purpose in life. There is little difference between this and pulling a gun out and offing your own kid for renouncing the religion (which I would suspect does happen in some middle eastern countries).
  2. I am personally hoping that they actually try to carry out their verdict, so everyone can see once and for all how absurd the concept of international law, as it is currently defined, is in practice. I want to see the German government actually try to send an extradition request, or better yet, try to send agents to try and snatch Rumsfeld from his home in the dead of night. Unfortunately, as any imasculated government, the Germans most probably do not have the will to actually try this. This nonsense of trials for political leaders during wars is actually a bit comical. I may be inspired to write a satire over what these persons are trying to do.
  3. I see, I scanned over the info on the link rather quickly and missed the fact that he was paraphrasing someone else. In that case, I can feel a measure of sympathy of the person whose viewpoint is being articulated by Dawkins. @Kufa - Moose is pretty much correct, although I myself would obviously fall into the other 10% category, as my parents are not of the same denomination as me. It is very rare that a person is strong willed enough to think differently from what they are taught. I'd recommend picking up a copy of Ayn Rand's "The New Left: The Anti-Industrial Revolution" and read the section regarding progressive pre-schools, it pretty much explains how early influences can fully destroy a child's independent identity.
  4. I can think of no better excuse to get out of the UN after this, and also to launch a full condemnation of the EU. However, I'd actually like to see Germany try to come over here and take Rumsfeld by force, as I doubt they actually have the will to try. This reminds me of the witch hunt that Europe had for Pinochet after he helped liberate Chile, utterly disgusting.
  5. I don't think the issue would specifically be that children would not learn to think for themselves, but the fact that the contradiction between what the child believes and what may be rammed down his throat. Parents often resort to irrational punishment systems and suppression of a child's indepedent social development with some of their religious teachings. Furthermore, a radical Evangelist/Catholic woman forcing her daughter to wash her privates with laundry detergent because she touches herself at age 13 IS child abuse, and I speak from experience as I have known girls who have had this done to them. It is not merely the teaching of religion, but what it can potentially result in physically. I am not sure I fully agree with Dawkins, but he does make some good points.
  6. He very well might have had the authority to have wiped out all of the bad guys in Iraq, but unfortunately we have a population that would consider that to be politically incorrect, his powerlessness underscores the poison of multiculturalism, and more generally speaking altruism. He himself may have been an altruist to some degree and probably did not make a connection between Saddam Hussein and citizens in Tikrit, Fallujah, or Mosul who helped him obtain and consolidate power. Republicans, by nature, are pragmatists and thus they can't distinguish between a supporter of tyranny and a victim of it unless that person has a gun in their hand and is shooting down our soldiers. I actually had a debate with a member of my band on this subject, who happens to be a registered Democrat, and he went on and on about how it was wrong to judge other cultures because they weren't like us. I went into a rather graphic description of what a woman goes through when she gets a female circumcision and he had nothing to respond to it with, I trully think he had never been told what actually goes on in many of these countries, and how nonsensical Rousseau's concept of the Noble Savage actually is. The reason why our foreign policy is so weak willed is because the population in this country is ignorant of what goes on in the world, they assume that everyone lives the same way we do. I'm not making excuses for Rumsfeld, he didn't do what needed to be done, but I think the problem we have is a good deal larger than what goes on in the Cabinet.
  7. Wow, the Michigan voters really surprised me on this one. But alas, the true lesson in all of this is the hypocrisy that is running rampant in academia. Numb-skulled stiffs like Mary Sue Coleman will pay lip service to democracy when it serves their purposes, but as soon as a voting majority does something they don't like, they resort to Stalinistic tactics to try and quash a fair and legal vote. If I ever had any doubt that there was a crystal clear dichotomy between rational thought and mulitculturalism, it vanished here and now.
  8. Hmmm, interesting viewpoint regarding teaching religion to children put forth by Dawkins. I think that in many respects he is correct, although obviously I would take a more specific approach regarding how to scutinize the way in which religion is taught and what the actual effects of it tend to be. During ARI's campaign in defense of free speech by showing and debating the Mohammed pictures drawn by those Danish Artists that are probably still in hiding, Yaron Brook said something about the difference between free speech and insightment of violence. We do have laws against, for example, a mob boss pushing the button on one of his enemies. It falls under the umbrella of insighting violence through vocal commands, and it does not qualify as protected speech. I would maybe advance the possibility that if there is a direct and credible threat to the safety of other individuals from the child being indoctrinated, that I could maybe support criminalizing the Mosques that spew out all of this "Death to America" garbage. Granted, not every religion neccesarily sends people out to kill, so this law would not cover every theist in question. But I can definitely say without any uncertainty that what some people do to their kids in the way that they dull their minds and rob them of intellectual curiousity is definitely child abuse. There is something to be said for the arguement that you can't criminalize speech, so I guess my question would be does teaching children to hate others due to religion, or to teach racism based on it, qualify as insightment or does there have to be a specific order given out to kill a particular person before it qualifies as such?
  9. Fair enough, when it comes to discussing things I am something of a perfectionist and when something goes wrong, the first thing I do is make sure that it wasn't me who made the mistake. I do need to do a better job of emphasizing my view on an issue before I go into a rant, and that was what I was apologizing for. I can understand how you might have thought that I was a religious conservative, as I have not gone into to much length about my religious views, mostly because I didn't desire to unintentionally contradict the purpose of this forum. Anyhow, it's water under the bridge, I look forward to further discussions on this topic. Getting back to the original topic, I am beginning to resent the Pennsylvania Democrats so much I'm wondering if one day I might just pack up and move to Kentucky or perhaps Idaho. This state's private medical practices are being raped and plundered to no end by a cabaul of looting Trial Lawyers, all of whom live in Philadelphia and rule like Kings from a fortified fortress. Within 10 years we will likely have a state run health care system, and I'll be leaving here faster than you can say Atlas Shrugged. No Democrat will be getting my vote unless they have taken absolutely no money from those looting jackals.
  10. I've watched some of Rumsfeld's press conferences, he would literally poke holes in their illogical/pragmatic lines of questioning, it was a breathe of fresh air from the endless supply of Cabinet people who would either accept the premises of the media or try to match their illogic with bromides. However, what Rumsfeld did in those interviews is probably something that many people with his credentials in military expertize could do, all you need to do is not care what people think of you and keep to the facts. Rumsfeld is getting old, and no one is probably more happy about his exodus than he is. Many people hated him for what he tried to do for us, as they hate anyone who attempts to defend what we have, regardless of the fact that his failures were many. I'm not going to be leaving much blame on him, he did his best, which is more than I can say for any pinko democrat who has ever held that position.
  11. @softwarenerd: I accept your apology, and I hope you will accept mine, my first response to you did not address your comments regarding the issue of reason in politics. Had I addressed that first, this could well have been avoided. When I first came to this site, I was given the impression by those whom disagree with Objectivism that this site was a propaganda outlet and that all of you were cultists. Everything that I have encountered here contradicts that, I have observed a variety of informed opinions, and have seen no one here who can be labeled as a dogmatist. Leonard Peikoff is a brilliant man, and I have admired much of what he has done, particularly his eloquent dissent over what was done to Elian Gonzales during the Clinton Administration. There is much that I still have to learn about the Ayn Rand Institute, particularly the way in which the various leaders form their opinions and how they maintain unity while simultaneously disagree on issues such as politics. You could say I am a deist, although I don't know how many deists there are in the Catholic Church, most of them were Protestants. My faith has only ever applied to one thing, and that is to the existence of a creator, a benevolent consciousness that animates and moves. I am well prepared for the eventual truth that I may discover this to be an error. Well, seeing as I have now twice broken my word not to post here again, I think I may want to back pedal on that before I become too much like today's typical politician.
  12. I know I stated that I wouldn't post on this thread again to avoid further confusion, but I wish to address one thing as to avoid any further arguements I have stated that I am Pro-Choice, however, I have also often invoked Aquinas on other threads, just not this one. I think what softwarenerd was concerned about was the fact that my comment disagreeing with the separation of church and state arguement that Peikoff made for supporting Democrats, because given the fact that I was once a student for the Priesthood under the Dominican order and they, like most of the Catholic Holy Orders, oppose abortion. This information is on my account here for all to read, so it is naturally an issue that is fair game in discussion. My intention regarding my support for Santorum was to articulate my disapproval over several issues plaquing this country, as well as my own state. It is not merely my own money that is being threatened by the PA state government. In addition to being a private music teacher, I also work for my parent's dog breeding business part time. Governer Rendell plans on regulating the hell out of many businesses, including dog breeders. My family's business is well established already, we stand to gain alot from his plans as they will completely ruin our competition, and all of us opposed his re-election because of it. The value of the money we make is dependent on the trade that makes it possible, and no one in my family (myself included), are going to see that trade raped so we can become millionares. We make our money honestly, and I am not going to stand by and let myself or anyone else be looted by any government, be it religious or secular in nature. Furthermore, Bob Casey made it one of his promises to increase Medicare spending 10 fold of anything any Republican I know of would. This is done for one reason, to buy votes from the elderly, and it is done by looting their own grandchildrens' college savings. I swear I am so mad at the way politicians play off of the issue of Americanism in order to fool old people into taking free money, stolen from producing businesses, simply on the capricious reason that the recipient is old. Abortion is one issue, an important one, not to mention the fact that many members of the Christian Right and the Catholic Church oppose contraception. I caught a good deal of grief from fellow Catholics for my constant bashing of Pope Paul VI and his writings, particulary "Populorum Progressio" (Populorum Malefactum would be a more accurate title) and "Humanae Vitae" (or as Ayn Rand accurately put it, "Of Human Death"). I have studied history for the better part of my tenure as an adult, and I know full well what happens when any Church, or if all Churches become a government, I am not an opponent of the Separation of Church and State. If I was, I would not be carrying a Thomas Jefferson quote on my signature. I came to this site for one reason, to learn about Objectivism and also about myself in the process. I appreciate the kind words in my defense, but they are unnecessary, I was not fully clear on all of my views and softwarenerd reacted based on that. I will now cease my posts here. @softwarenerd: I wrote this before you had responded so I will add this simply to clarify things further. I own all of Aquinas' writings both in English and Latin, he is a philosophical hero of mine, but he is not the only one. I've seen flaws in his views, and I found some of the answers to these flaws in the works of many Enlightenment Philosophers, particularly Voltaire and Locke. This is how I happened upon Ayn Rand's writings and why I own and am currently re-reading several of her philosophical writings. God and faith are dear to me, but what I am seeking is the truth, and up until now I have found most of it in the symbiotic nature that Faith can have with Living happily when it is in harmony with reason. Had I lived in a different time, one may have used either the term "heretic" or "deist" to describe some of my views. No one has yet been able to convince me that faith is destructive, but many have made eloquent and accurate statements about the destructive nature of faith divorced from reason. I don't see the two as being mutually exclusive, they must always be in harmony with each other. I could be wrong and faith could well indeed be the antithesis of reason, but I have observed nothing to tell me that.
  13. Rumsfeld was one of the better Secretaries of State in regards of encouraging more spending in areas to help improve technological advances and overall planning, particularly considering the post-Vietnam environment still present in the government. However, his policy decisions are heavily dependent on Bush's lack of a will to get to the source of the problem. Ever since Jimmy Carter originally allowed these violent warlords to take control of Iran, no one has really had the stomach to suggest a more radical solution to the problem, one that will actually solve the problem permanently. Rumsfeld has ultimately been a failure, just as President Bush has been a failure. The President has been a supplicant of the UN and an Internationalist at heart, and that has been both his and Rummy's downfall.
  14. I am going to end this conversation as I think that my original post was ambiguous and may have spurred some unneccesary confusion on here. I will simply state for the record that I have consistently voted Pro-Choice for the better part of my time being able to do so. I was simply stating for the record that I was not going to be joining in on a move to punish myself financially simply because the national Republican Party is mostly Pro-Life. I did not wish to start an argument, and will now cease my posts here.
  15. You wouldn't be the first to consider me the enemy, I get that from alot of people, particularly some of my former Philosophy Profesors, no offense taken. However, it's not only money, it is the value of my productive labor, though be it in a material symbol rather than the work itself. It is no one's to take without my consent, lest they be a looter and a theif, I am not a man who purchases reproductive freedom at the price of chains and slavery. Furthermore, if we are to speak of philosophy where principles are held to be higher than pragmatic deception, you are essentially helping to perpetuate the notion that abortion is something to be ashamed of and that therefore you must support candidates whom articulate that guilt by way of decieving those whom disagree with them, rather than engage them in debate. But this is all for nothing, Bob Casey's religious convictions are known well to me, as are his father's. I'm not sure if you are familiar with Pennsylvania politics but Patrick Casey, Bob Casey's father was not allowed to speak at the Democratic Convention in 1992 because he refused to endorse the party's Pro-Choice stance. The values of the father are, more often than not, the values of the son. Let me throw some simple logic at you, both candidates oppose abortion rights, this is a matter of fact not a matter of opinion. If you wish to make an arguement that I am supporting a party that opposes abortion unanimously, I'll remind you that PA Republican Senator Arlen Specter (among several others I might add) has always been Pro-Choice and he has always gotten my vote. The truth is that Casey and Santorum cancel each other out on this issue, so it is off the table. Unless you have information that Casey is not actually Pro-Life, which would impress me greatly as no news outlets have stated this.
  • Create New...