MisterSwig

My context is: the requirements for survival. Having reason is not enough, because reason has a mortal enemy, which is force. Force is banned from free societies, because it is the only thing a human can use to utterly defeat reason. You can have all the reason in the world, but someone can still come up and cut off your head or demand taxes under the threat of imprisonment. In this context, what is relevant to estimating the future? Well, I think it is relevant how successfully we are stopping the spread of the force-initiators. And if you look around, I don't think you'll like what you see. But that is another argument. In a semi-free society, also relevant is how successfully and quickly are we spreading reason and freedom. If you look around, I think this is a toss-up. But that is also another argument. I certainly wouldn't say that we have an "exponentially" growing number of Objectivists. What statistics are you using to back up that statement? Besides, we do not need an exponentially growing number of Objectivists to change the culture. We need a strong and powerful minority well-placed in certain segments of society, with a focus on Academia, where fundamental ideas are disseminated. But we need to face the fact that religion is trying to take over Academia, too. We may need more than brains to win this war, because religion has no qualms about using force to defeat reason.

I agree. But I also would not call "White" a "bad thinker." Such a statement is too general. I believe White has made an error in thinking about this issue, and this is why I argue with him. But I realize, from personal experience, that understanding Objectivist morality is not the easiest thing in the world to do. If "White" were a "bad thinker," I don't think he would even be discussing this issue. He'd probably still be stuck on some more fundamental aspect of the philosophy, such as whether Michael Moore really exists or whether we can, with certainty, know his weight.

White, I don't think this argument holds water. Public education has not corrupted the culture. A bad philosophy has. Public education is not the primary problem here. A bad philosophy can be taught anywhere, even in private schools. Now, in a mixed society like ours, all sorts of movies can be made, good and bad. This is the same society in which Chocolate, a pretty damn good movie, was made and became probably more successful and respected than Moore's movie ever will become. I think that The Passion was more corrupt than Fahrenheit 9/11. Does this give me the right to steal a copy of Mel Gibson's movie? After all, the corruption of all the private religious schools and churches in society made the movie possible, right? Wrong. Mel Gibson made the movie. Likewise, Moore made his movie. And, as far as I can tell, these two filmmakers did not steal from anyone to bring their vision to the screen. I grant you, the success of a movie has something to do with the culture. But the poor health of the culture is not a valid reason to steal someone's property. There is no valid reason to steal someone's property, unless perhaps a higher value, such as your life, were at stake.

If we all accept the fact that trolls probably will not go away any time soon, then it might be a good idea to have a visible warning to trolls on the forum somewhere. The warning could clearly define what a troll is and why we don't want them, and make it clear that true newbies who are genuinely interested in learning the philosophy are warmly welcome. Taking action against trolls might even be of promotional use. If I were a newbie, I would want to visit forums where trolls don't clutter up threads with crap.

I understood your point. Your point is lacking a proper context. If there is one good man against 1000 evil men, I wouldn't give the good man much chance of triumph, especially if both sides were nearly equal in weaponry. Human force is a factor which needs to be taken into consideration here. Evil men don't sit around and let good men flourish. They try to conquer and kill you. You can have all the truth in the world, but if you don't have the manpower, evil will snuff you out of existence.

Roark designed the building he destroyed, because it wasn't being built to his specifications. Moviegoers have no such claim, whatsoever, on Fahrenheit 9/11. The fact is that you are suggesting that people watch Michael Moore's movie without paying Michael Moore for the viewing. This is akin to buying a copy of Atlas Shrugged and putting it back on the shelf, while simultaneously stealing a copy of Bill Clinton's book. Maybe you want to read the President's book, but you don't want to give money to the lying bastard. So you rationalize the theft by purchasing something else from the bookstore, but not taking it. In such a case, you give away the only thing you were entitled to, and you steal something you had no right to. In the present case, you are suggesting that people purchase a viewing of a movie they will not watch and steal a viewing of Fahrenheit 9/11.

1. Thanks, but I wouldn't read an entire book on the topic. 2. I saw Moore's movie. I must have missed the part where he accusses Bush of knowing about 9/11 beforehand. I got the distinct impression that Moore thought Bush was too busy vacationing in Texas to know anything or care about a possible attack. Maybe he argues differently in his book, which wouldn't surprise me. Liberals tend to vomit up any absurd theory that comes to mind--without putting much thinking into it. 3. I've heard of the accusation. But I haven't heard any evidence to support it. Maybe you can brief us on the evidence. It is going to take a lot of hard evidence to convince me that our government knew that the enemy was going to fly planes into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and some other DC target, and nobody tried to stop it.

I don't think probability is a valid criteria for estimating the future. If you were in ancient Greece, would probability tell you that the Dark Ages were coming? If you were in the Dark Ages, would probability tell you that the Renaissance was coming? Again, people have free will. Men determine their own futures, individually and as societies. Men do not follow the laws of probability. I want good to prevail, therefore I promote the good and combat the evil, as best I can. And in this way I am filled with a sense of pride in myself and, in today's climate, a nervous hope for civilization. And that's it.

Tell that to the Founding Fathers! Or anyone fighting against evil. Evil left alone is evil left to conquer.

To my knowledge, only Paul Johnson was taken in Saudi Arabia. Nick Berg was taken in Iraq, and I believe the recent wave of hostages were also taken in Iraq.

What are these publications? Can you link to one?

Philosophically, I think this is a false dichotomy. These views do not take into consideration the reality of free will. I believe these views were originated to make evading reality easier. On one hand, a pessimist says that nothing you do will change the fact that ultimately evil will triumph. Therefore, a pessimist routinely dismisses the efforts of the good. On the other hand, an optimist says that nothing you do will change the fact that ultimately good will triumph. Therefore, an optimist is little concerned by the acts of evil. I don't accept either view, nor any watered-down version. I look at reality and evaluate it for what it is--good or bad. Then I deal with it and act accordingly.

How would God vote? Do the opposite.

You're welcome. I'll leave you alone now to contemplate the possible existence of the Easter Bunny and Harry Potter. Maybe one day you'll see how these ideas contradict reality.

I think she analyzed it, said it was wrong, and ignored it. I don't know if she analyzed the idea of the Prime Mover in writing. She probably had better things to do. After all, it's not as if America is consumed with a belief in a Prime Mover. Nowadays, they call it God.

"Aristotle established the right metaphysics by establishing the law of identity--which was all that was necessary (plus the identification of the fact that only concretes exist). But he destroyed his metaphysics by his cosmology--by the whole nonsense of the 'moving spheres,' 'the immovable mover,' teleology, etc." --Ayn Rand, Journals of Ayn Rand, p. 699

Nimble: Don't you see that this person is not interested in defining God? It is essential to his argument for skepticism that he not define God too precisely. If he were to do so, then that would clearly invalidate his crusade against certainty. This guy sounds exactly like a couple others on different threads. It is getting annoying, because they obviously have no respect for logic.

Of course, because you are a dogmatic skeptic. I bet I could name any imaginary being, and you would not, with certainty, deny its existence. Let's try! Do you deny the existence of: 1. Zeus 2. Virgin Mary 3. Ghosts 4. Zombies 5. Santa Claus 6. Easter Bunny 7. Harry Potter Well? Do they exist or not? If you say 'no', then I'm going to say: "Well, you see, there is this 'super-reality' where they actually do exist. Prove I'm wrong!"

1. Now that you've formulated the question differently, I think I see a problem with the entire line of thinking. The problem is that you cannot rationally decide whether to vote for a candidate unless you compare him to the other candidates. You cannot rationally decide how good a candidate must be before you can vote for him, because to vote rationally means to actually compare candidates and decide upon one, based on their differences. A rational vote is support for the greater good (lesser evil) between two or more candidates. You could not rationally decide to vote for somebody unless you could compare him to other candidates. If you were to attempt to judge a candidate, apart from the others, then why would you settle for anything less than the greatest good you could think of? If asked: Is Bush good enough to vote for? I would not know how to answer, because I would rather have an Objectivist president. I would probably ask: What are my other choices? So, I guess this means that the first question I formulated was invalid. It did not recognize the fact that essential to voting rationally is comparing two or more alternatives. In that case, I tend to agree with Daniel that the only reason to not vote is when you cannot tell the difference between the candidates. 2. I like the idea of having the option to vote "none of the above," but, now that I think about it, it may only be of value to me if I cannot distinguish which candidate is better. It would be more important to me to get the better candidate into office than to express my general dislike for the candidates. After all, saying that I don't like any of the candidates will not do much to change the culture or create better candidates for next election. Spreading the right ideas, however, will.

Wouldn't it be the other way around? The more polarized the candidates, the bigger the voter turnout? It seems to me that our current political leaders are not very polarized. They are basically altruistic welfare statists. Their differences arise from applying the same basic moral and political principles in slightly different ways. The conservatives would have you sacrifice to God, while the liberals would have you sacrifice to Society. Both, however, believe in altruism applied to politics. Now, imagine if an altruist/socialist went up against a real egoist/capitalist, wouldn't that bring out the voters? Assuming the egoist was eloquent and charismatic and had a chance of winning, don't you think this choice would strike at the heart a little more deeply? Don't you think people would realize that the outcome of this election could make a fundamental difference in their lives? I think such a strong and clear difference of principles would draw more people to the vote. That said, I do like the idea of spoiling your ballot. Although, I would prefer an option for "none of the above." I think this would have some value in allowing you to clearly record your disapproval of all candidates. Beyond that, I'm not sure what value it would have.

Yes, but you don't know why, exactly, Johnson put himself in that situation. And to call him a fool, I think you need to know why he did it. There may be very good reasons for why he lived and worked in Saudi Arabia. My point is that you are calling him a fool without knowing anything about the man, except that he was in Saudi Arabia. Do you think that is sufficient knowledge to judge him a fool? Thanks for your views on Islam. Essentially, I agree with you. I name militant Islam (or Islamic totalitarianism) as the enemy in this war, because I believe there are Islamic people who presently do not want to rule the world by force. They are trying to modernize and pacify the religion. And they are not a military threat to America. If you want to blame something for our current situation, I would blame fundamentalist Christianity. If we weren't so altruistic, America would have stopped the militant Islamic movement a long time ago.

That was not the only thing he was arguing. He was arguing that certainty, itself, is not possible. And he clearly revealed this sentiment in the end, stating, "I think every person's beliefs are meaningless." Do you believe, along with Bondo, that your beliefs are meaningless? Getting you to accept the idea that you cannot be certain about God's non-existence is merely a step toward getting you to reject the idea of certainty itself. Bondo never defined his vision of God, because he doesn't care about God. All he wants is for you to reject the idea of certainty. And if you let people like that run around, unchallenged, then you end up with more of their kind.

1. RadCap may have dismissed you. But I think you are funny. I guess you must think my beliefs are meaningless, too, since I agree with RadCap on this issue. I'd like to know how certain you are that our beliefs are meaningless. Are you 100% certain? Or might you be full of shit? Maybe we are making sense, and you are wrong. 2. I guess you are also calling me an egotistical, ignorant animal, since I side with RadCap. And since you seem very confident in your own assertions, I guess that makes you one, too. Welcome to the club, "dipshit"!

I didn't expect it to. But, hey, other people read this stuff. And it was the only tactic I could think of that you hadn't tried already.

It's refreshing to hear someone stand up for man's ability to achieve absolute certainty.