Invictus

Perhaps you should read my post again. I spoke of rapid technological advancements occuring before "the rise of the backward Confucian philosophy". Not before the birth of Confucius himself, who, in his time, was not well known. The rapid technological advancements I spoke of include the printing press and gunpowder. Confucius' philosphy concentrated on the past of this world. Not the present, nor the future. From the source: This is simply not true.

Are you serious? The ideas of Confucius had devastatingly adverse effects on China. The rise of the backward Confucian philosophy coincided with a total halt to the rapid technological advancements that China had experienced in the centuries before the establishment of Confucianism. Confucius' assertion that the views of a wise man remained forever right totally destroyed the Chinese thirst for knowledge and innovation.

Individuals who attempt to twist Objectivism in the manner of TOC aren’t tolerated on the Capitalist Paradise boards. Not because of the actual positions they take but because they are lying by associating themselves with Objectivism. I must note that the forum was never intended as a place where everyone agrees with each other on every issue that comes under discussion. It is first and foremost a place to discuss capitalism, not necessarily Objectivism. There is already a quality Objectivist-only forum (this one) and I felt no need to create another. However, I have ensured that all of the administrator’s are Objectivists. Non-Objectivist advocates of unrestricted capitalism are generally welcome, but never put on the administrator staff. http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/ This website (that inspector linked to) includes a “reading list” section that links to articles by Kelly and Swan. Also, under the “links” section you will find the URL’s of both the ARI and TOC.

From browsing through Bob Woodward’s "Maestro", I gathered the following: Greenspan was a close friend/associate of Rand but never an Objectivist. Rand admired him for his intelligence, quick-mind and economic insights but they debated various issues. I think it was Branden who gave him the nickname "Undertaker", because he maintained that his existence was not absolutely certain. Although he eventually admitted that he did exist. He frequently attended social functions and appeared to Rand a little preoccupied with his status among the elite.

I liked The Office.

More quotes: "She [Rand] disapproved of Ronald Reagan, whom she considered a typical conservative in his attempt to link politics and religion; she had refused to vote for him." (From The Passion of Ayn Rand, by Barbara Branden) "Dear Mr. Vandersteel: Thanks very much for pamphlet. Am an admirer of Ayn Rand but hadn't seen this study. Sincerely, Ronald Reagan" (From Reagan: A life in letters)

Regarding Goldwater, this is from Rand's Play Boy interview in 1964 http://www.ellensplace.net/ar_pboy.html

I am starting to see what you mean. All Marxists are now to be either banned or restrcited.

Some of our top posters are Marxists. Any one else going to join and help set things straight?

I went to high school with that guy. He spends most of his time playing computer games... a typical armchair activist. I have given him a warning.

Thanks Praxus! It looks great. Nice choice of quote as well. BlackSabbath, Thankyou for joining. I am reluctant to ban anyone at these early stages but sometime in the future I may restrict the Marxists to the Anti-Capitalism section of the site.

Correct.

http://www.capitalistparadise.tk Just made. Needs members. Please Join. Hope you don't mind the shameless advertisement.

Haha I just watched him singing "Can You Feel The Love Tonight" on his website. No one could possibly take him seriously.

Those with a hard stomach can view the video here. Then you are as stupid as George W. Bush.

Err...Hi.

RadCap I hope then that we can put this sordid little affair behind us. I apoplogise for any offensive comments I may have made prior to this post. MisterSwig I suggest politicians stop pulling the military's chain and let them do whatever they think is necessary to achieve the given objective.

What did you all think of Scott's other film, Black Hawk Down?

How so?

RadCap, Let’s just make things clear. I think the United States should invade Iran. I think my country (Australia) should offer assistance. I think the U.S. government should do whatever it can to ensure the security of Americans. I do not think that killing everyone in Iran is necessary to ensure the security of Americans. It is for this reason alone that it would be unjustified. If, for some reason, killing everyone one in Iran were necessary to defend Americans then it would be justified. But it is not necessary, and probably never will be. I apologise for not clarifying this earlier. I never said this. If I did it was not my intention to give this message. This is not what I meant. My message was that an individual’s origin does not determine his worth. Why would I support war on Iraq, North Korea, Iran and various other states if I thought it was immoral? You do not kill the innocent unless there is cause to do so. I don’t think a country should kill, without cause, citizens of an enemy nation. If in the process of killing enemy soldiers and government figures civilians should die, or if killing civilians would enhance the security of a defending country, then it would be justified. I do not dispute this. I dispute the idea that killing everyone in Iran is necessary to defend America. I found it here: http://www.aynrand.org/medialink/arwarquotes.html

What are these? It is true that the primary obligation of the American government is to defend its people and it thus has an obligation, as well as a right, to invade Iran. But this does not means that Iranians have no right to life. Read The "Inexplicable personality alchemy", an article Rand wrote about dissenters within the Soviet Union.

Find me a quote from The Objectivist Ethics that justifies one nation moving into another and killing everyone in it. The Iranian Government has no right to exist but the Iranian people do.

G.I. Jane is the only Demi Moore film I can remember seeing. It was about five years ago and I don't recall much beyond the dreadful marine haircut she gets.

You have deliberately misquoted me! My actual words were, "nor can you say that any one American is of greater worth than any one Iranian". By this I meant quite clearly that the idea that the worth of an individual can be measured by the circumstances of their birth and the characteristics of their ancestors, rather than by their own personal attributes, is absurd. It has never been even remotely proven that occurrences of people with potentially superior abilities are greater among one particular group than they are among others. But even if this were the case it would reveal nothing about a particular person. A brilliant individual would not be made any less brilliant if the number of mediocre individuals that may come from the same race were high. Similarly, the achievements of particular members of a race say nothing about whether a different member will reach similar heights. Ancestors, genes and chemistry are no way to judge the worth of a person. People can only be objectively judged as independent and sovereign beings that are in absolute control of their own lives. Groups, races, collectives and even families are non-factors - the individual is all that matters.

Amorparatodavida seems to have disappeared.