Kukyona

You are dropping the context here, RadCap is making an assessment of MasterScowler principles and comments. If RadCap would have called him a thug in another setting it could very well be rude and uncalled for. In the circumstances it was merely a matter of identification. Are you suggesting that RadCap keep all moral judgments to himself? I think RadCap was being very friendly in his refutation of MasterScowler. <sarcasm>Perhaps in hind-sight we should start using tags. </sarcasm> If I do or say something very stupid, like replying to your post despite it being very off topic, go right ahead. I am very weak willed it seems.

Aggressive? I think it was totally called for, as it is an accurate description of MasterScowler's position. Sometimes people don't like hearing the truth, does that mean we should start lying to make them feel OK. Will lying make more people interested in Objectivism? Wouldn't that make us hypocritical? What would you have liked RadCap to have called him? Is there a P.C. translation for 'thug'? Perhaps 'a differently principled and immorally abled user of force' would have been a better choice?

I never claimed to be part of this group, or that I even support such an idea, just merely pointing out concrete evidence contrary to your statements. Also, as someone has mentioned, we have no idea if these are even true students of Objectivism, Objectivishists or just liars... the last two being nearly the same thing with the exception of errors in knowledge.

Free State Objectivists: http://www.galtfans.com/

I can't speak for him, but off hand I would think it was d for Dolev, 18 for his age, 0586 for the month and year he was born.

That seems to be some sort of a fallacy, seeing as one can not know in any realistic way which gas came from which source. I think Halley meant more direct purchases, such as the people that actually bought oil from Iraq while Saddam was in power. However, if one had actually knowledge that the gas they were purchasing did for certain come from Iraq while Saddam was in power, well... that is definetly immoral.

I think it is the other way around... Objectivists deny the right of the government to exist because it initiates force against it's citizens. However, no one is obligated to help them. I don't think thats the same as saying they forfeit their right to life. I think someone is definetly immoral if they do support them... I do not think choosing life over fighting the goverment is 'passively supporting' the government.

As the saying goes, 'a picture is worth a thousand words.' Did you even view the page? That picture is available all over the internet, rotten.com just happens to have collected a lot of useful information on the subject. http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/dprk/facilit...k-dmsp-dark.jpg http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/dp...k-dmsp-dark.jpg http://www.heraldmag.org/03mj_10pic.jpg http://www.buddycom.com/entertain/veejay/nk/nklights.jpg http://search.csmonitor.com/durable/2000/0...mimg/0615p7.jpg http://rthornley.tripod.com/photos/science_photos.htm http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/49259ma...arth_nightm.jpe