stansfield123

Okay, but if I may for a second direct your attention to this "cultural revolution" at present time ... you'll note that it's off the rails: the "gay rights" movement has become a tool to suppress free speech and freedom of religion, to destroy women's sports, and, even worse, justify sex change operations on minors. Perhaps, if society was a bit more suspicious of "cultural revolutions", and placed a bit more value on 2-3000 year old religions (and 2-300 year old constitutions too, of course) ... we could've repelled those discriminatory laws without going overboard? edit: Just to clarify where I'm coming from: I agree with you that the gay rights movement is part of a cultural revolution. But I disagree with your description of it. I think it was never motivated by any classical humanist/individualist principles. It was always the same thing it is today: part of a larger neo-marxist movement. A movement which isn't aimed at producing social freedoms, it is aimed at wiping out EVERYTHING, and replacing it with totalitarianism. Those social restrictions on homosexuality it happened to wipe out just happen to be part of EVERYTHING. And, as you can see, having wiped those restrictions out, it is now busying itself with replacing them with restrictions and horrors of its own.

That theory explains how Scientology came about. It doesn't explain old religions. It's incredibly simplistic, and never how things worked. The Jews never lived in isolation. Judaism isn't the product of one tribe, it's the product of a variety of inter-connected cultures, going back many centuries. Same is true for all other religions. Judaism is the product of a process of evolution: it consists of fundamental values, myths and stories which survived the test of time. Its values, myths and stories weren't chosen by any elite group, they were chosen by populations. Different populations, in different cultures, over many generations. Same is true for all old religions, not just Judaism. Not only are they not the product of any elite group, they're not even the product of a single culture or age. A major religion is the distillation of not just one culture, but many. And it is the result of a process of cultural evolution which is fairly similar to biological revolution. Culture produced by such evolution is almost as much a reflection of reality as our biology is. Our bodies are the way they are for objective reasons, and, to a great extent (admittedly, far less perfectly), our cultures, including our religions, are the way they are for objective reasons as well. Don't call it "divine revelation". Call it religion. That's what we're talking about: religion. We're all in agreement here that there's no God. So calling anything "divine revelation" is just gratuitous mockery. Religious ideas did succeed through a process fairly similar to "plain Darwinian evolution". Yes. And, once you admit that, you can't then turn around and say "However, if you root your ideas in divine revelation, the correctness of those ideas cannot be checked and is just a matter of chance.". That's a contradiction: Darwinian evolution isn't an arbitrary process. It's not rooted in "divine revelation". On the contrary, it's a process that works sublimely well. The products of Darwinian evolution far surpass any technological achievement we have. A human being is a far more impressive mechanism than the most advanced computer or the fastest race car in the world. So let's not dismiss evolutionary processes as inferior to rational thought just yet. They work far slower, so, obviously, we shouldn't just sit around and wait for our culture to evolve through blind trial and error, we should use reason to make progress. But we also shouldn't mock what such processes produced over thousands of years as "divine revelation". It's not divine revelation, it's evolutionary revelation. Which means it's based in reality. Yes ... and with varied results. Communism, for example, is an attempt to deliberately base conclusions on reality. The reason why it's a really poor attempt is because it's an attempt to start from scratch. To dismiss thousands of years of human history as "superstition" (and various other cheap labels), and just come up with a totalitarian ideology that explains everything. All on its own. That can't be done. I think the reason why Objectivism is nothing like Communism is precisely because it doesn't just dismiss what we already have. It embraces it, and builds on it.

There can't be "agreement with Judeo-Christian culture", because Judeo-Christian culture doesn't speak with a single voice. The Bible, for instance, is not a single voice, it's hundreds, if not thousands, of different voices. And the rest of it is even more spread out ... with extreme, yet quite inconsequential voices usually louder than the mainstream. So that's not a good standard to judge the culture by. At least, not in isolation. That's why I'm suggesting that we look at outcomes, rather than try to make sense of the multitude of voices within the traditional/conservative western culture. The outcomes can tell us what the mainstream believes, deep down. What's behind all those different voices. If the vast majority of Christians act in a selfish manner ... doesn't that mean they believe in the parts of the Bible that preach selfishness, rather than the parts that preach altruism?

No, of course we shouldn't eradicate North Korea. North Korea is a communist state. We can trust them to act the way communists usually act: with self-preservation as their principal goal. We can also trust them to remain an isolationist state, with a very limited sphere of influence, and very little ambition to expand that sphere of influence. Just as we can trust Iran to act the way Islamists usually act. To reach out to every point on the planet, and commit increasingly larger scale and more horrific acts of mass murder. Hence, the different treatment: we have no reason to go to war with North Korea, we have very good reason to go to war with Iran. Of course not. And, frankly, if you can't be bothered to understand that I'm not suggesting to "get rid of all the evil in the world", you're not worth talking to. I assume that, like most people with even a modest degree of rationality and an IQ above ~80, you make decisions after you consider all your options. For instance, when deciding to go shopping, you weigh the consequences of both the action (you might catch a cold, you might get hit by a car, etc.), and inaction (you'll starve to death). So why are you being stupider than your usual self, in this conversation? Why are you failing to keep this conversation at your usual level of intelligence and rationality, by considering both the consequences of action and inaction?

There's no overreaction. The reaction, in response to the invasion of Southern Israel, by forces from Gaza, on October 7, is quite appropriate. Israel was attacked militarily, and it is therefor waging war against the political entity which attacked it: Gaza. As for the war crimes which were committed during the attack ... for that, there is a definite under-reaction. The reaction should've been much stronger, both on Israel's part, and on the part of western countries who's citizens were murdered, and are STILL being held hostage. The reaction should've been twofold: full blown war against Iran, led by the US (and fully backed by Europe, Japan, Australia, Canada etc.), and a demand that nations who harbor Hamas leadership (most notably, Qatar) arrest them, and put them on trial for war crimes. Because the only point of the concept of "war crimes" is to have a deterrent against them. War crimes warrant a response that's by an order of magnitude stronger than the response to a mere invasion, using tactics within the laws which govern war. Mainly because "Palestinians" aren't a separate ethnicity or religious group. They're Arabs by ethnicity, and Muslim by religion. They're "Palestinians" the way someone living in NY is a New-Yorker. It's a non-essential attribute. Makes no real difference whether an American is from NY or NJ, and it makes no real difference whether an Arab Muslim is from Gaza, the West Bank, or Kuweit. So killing all the so-called Palestinians wouldn't help at all. If they were a small, separate nation and religion, without external support, then, obviously, all this would be a moot point ... because none of this would be happening. There would be no war. Palestinians would've long been assimilated into western civilization. Just another western nation, living in peace, next to Israel. Israel, along with all the rest of western civilization, isn't at war with "Palestinians", it's at war with totalitarian Islam ... who, in turn, make up a large chunk of Muslims. In the Arab world, in particular, they make up a MAJORITY.

delete please

I can't agree with that. When people's reasoning is rooted in "the greater good", we see dramatically different outcomes. We see the Dark Ages, we see the Holocaust, we see the Soviet Union, we see Hamas and 9/11. We don't see people living the same as we do. When people live like we do, it has to be because their reasoning is quite similar to ours, no? Not exactly the same, not as explicit, but with reasonably accurate (so ... logical) methods of drawing conclusions from observable reality.

That's just the thing though: "God's rules and values" don't come from this fictional God. They come from men. A long list of men, who refined those rules over the centuries. And the reason why Objectivist values are so similar to "God's rules" is because Rand's work is in fact rooted in 10K years of recorded history. 10k years of iterative improvements. Trial and error. Not a linear process of improvement, by and stretch of the imagination. There have been many setbacks, many dead ends, many dark ages along the way. But then the old was re-discovered, and improved upon again. And "God's rules" (Judeo-Christian beliefs, rituals and traditions) are one of the most important bits of that history. I don't see how Objectivism could exist, in its current form, without that 10K recorded history ... including Judaism and Christianity. Yeah, this is the distinction I'm challenging: "God's rules" are the result of men observing reality and reaching conclusions about it. Not in a perfectly organized, 100% logical manner, but the source is exactly the same (reality ... what other source could there be?), and the methodology used is roughly the same. If it wasn't, the outcomes wouldn't be the same either. Judging an idea based on the outcomes it produces is the ultimate test of it, after all. Furthermore: Objectivist values aren't something Rand came up with from scratch. The reason why Rand's ideas and "God's rules" are similar, and produce similar outcomes, is because they are closely related. That's an excellent example of a very different outcome. Clearly, the result of a very different methodology. The Christian Dark Ages were one of those many setbacks I mentioned above. But western Christians stopped burning people at the stake. Now, they live roughly like us. Their methodology is producing roughly the same results as ours ... because it's roughly the same methodology: their beliefs are the result of looking at reality and drawing mostly logical conclusions about it. Just like we do. They are clinging to illogical ideas too, to some extent, but, obviously, not enough to make a significant difference. If it was enough, their outcomes would be significantly different too, just as they were back in the Dark Ages. [edit] Re David's comment: I should probably try to explaing the whole "10K years of history" thing. I'm using 10K very roughly, and somewhat arbitrarily, in reference to the start of settled human life (as a result of agriculture). I suppose I could talk about 200K years, or even 1 million years, of human history, but that seems off, because a. we don't know much about it, and b. the little we know suggests that it was roughly the same, for the first 190K years: an often nomadic, hunter-gatherer life style. Alternatively, I could use 6K, to only talk about written history, but it makes more sense to draw the line with large-scale agriculture. That's where this process of cultural development started in earnest, imo. Writing was of course very important, as well, because it allowed people to rebound more easily from going down the wrong path (by re-discovering old wisdom). Probably second in importance to large scale agriculture, which, again, happened ~10K years ago.

The threat isn't the tunnels, it's the enemy hiding in them. And the mission is to kill or capture the enemy. The tunnels are being demolished to drive them to the surface, where they can be killed or captured by Israel's mechanized divisions. And you know all this.

This oft' repeated cliche just isn't true. Armies fighting on behalf of free societies have a long history of accurately reporting the situation on the ground, up the chain of command. That's probably the main source of their superiority over even equally or over-matched opponents: they have a far clearer picture of the battlefield as a result of this policy of honesty. It's why Ukraine is fighting back the Russians, for example. And once that happens within the ranks of an army, the truth is impossible to hide, because journalists (and, these days, even ordinary citizens, thanks to social media) have access to information at every level of that chain of command. So, even if the IDF spokesman sitting atop that chain wished to lie, he couldn't. His info would be contradicted by those below him. The IDF is, by far, the most reliable source of information about Gaza. No other source even comes close.

This is political philosophy. Political philosophy is for interactions among people who hold a degree of civilization. Not always perfect, but SOME civilization. For example, political philosophy has a small place when fighting an entity like Nazi Germany ... because even they were civilized enough to surrender, when the enemy closed in all around them. So, even in that case, the western allies demonstrating their willingness to adhere to the laws of war, had a benefit: it caused the Nazis and Japan to prefer to western forces, rather than continue the fight and end up occupied by Soviet forces which showed none of the restraint of America and Britain. Hamas doesn't even have that. Even the laws of war are pointless, in Gaza. They will never surrender, no matter how much proof Israel provides that they are restrained by the laws of war. That what the laws of war are FOR, btw: The laws of war aren't meant to make us feel good about our behavior during a war (they can only achieve that for someone who's actively evading the facts about war). They're meant to end wars more quickly, by giving people the option to surrender. Political philosophy has no business even being mentioned in a thread about fighting Hamas. The principles guiding the IDF, and anyone who supports their mission to eliminate Hamas, should be the far more concrete than that: strictly pertaining to practical methods of eliminating hostile forces similar to Hamas (forces less humane or principled than, for example, the Nazis). We have lots of examples, through history. It's just that modern mainstream culture refuses to understand why that history exists. The only thing it is willing to do is condemn without any understanding. To babble about "rights", when talking about people who acted against savages who had no regard at all for any notion of civilization. There's no point in discussing philosophical principles, without an understanding of where they come from and why they exist. Without that understanding, these principles are worse than useless. They're a hindrance rather than a benefit. Someone with no regard for philosophy will make better decisions than someone who follows philosophy without understanding the reason for it.

Of course it does. But this isn't a radical idea. This is just the age-old definition of a (true) intellectual. I'm suggesting that this is what Ayn Rand was, and what she urges us to be as well: a true intellectual. She was a great one, and greatness is certainly unusual ... but it doesn't mean radical. Radical doesn't mean great, radical means different. Usually, in a bad way. Radical usually means someone who isn't willing to learn from the lessons of history. I think Objectivism is great, but not that different. I think it's mostly the result of a 10K year long process of incremental improvement. It's not a radical kind of greatness, it's a traditional kind of greatness. You say "imitate". But is it possible to produce good outcomes through mere imitation? Without the core ideas being present on some level, within that person living a good life? People who never read Rand do have good lives, all around us, do they not? Are those lives not the product of good ideas? The same kinds of good ideas that we hold? If let's say a Mormon or (religious) Jewish neighbor lives a life similar to yours, doesn't that mean his life is based on similar ideas to yours? Perhaps less clearly, but those ideas are still a part of him, and are still the cause of his way of life, are they not? It's not just imitation: surely there are degrees of clarity and understanding, not just "imitation vs. understanding"?

When I said "rule", I meant that YOU have a rule which you consciously set up, for yourself, to go against a cultural trend. Not that you go against a cultural rule. Frankly, I don't think popular rules mean much, because most people are neither rule followers, nor rule makers. Most people just follow their culture by default (by virtue of an absence of thinking about rules). Just to give a simple example of a rule I have: I noticed, in my youth, that many of my peers got into debt by spending on consumer goods. So I set up a rule for myself: never buy consumer goods on credit. Note that these other people, who got into debt, weren't following any societal rule. They were in fact not thinking about rules at all. They just sensed, intuitively, that it's culturally permitted to buy a big TV on credit, and they wanted to have a big TV. That was the extent of it. There's no societal rule for or against buying consumer goods on credit. I'm the only one with a rule, in this story. No one else has one. The reason why I ask is because Objectivism is considered, I would say by most, to be a counter-cultural movement. A "radical" belief system, which implies that it's radically different from other belief systems. Even Rand herself embraced the "radical" label. And I'm not as convinced that it is, in fact, that different. In fact, I think Objectivism is, first and foremost, a coherent synthesis of ~10K years of accumulated human knowledge. So, about as traditional as it gets. I think one of the ways to determine just how radical Oism is is precisely by asking Objectivists the above question. To see if people who live by Objectivism do actually live in a way that's radically different from the way everyone else lives. Because truly radical ideologies do produce a radically different life style. If I walked into an Amish community and asked this, they would have a long list of rules they live by, that make their lives fundamentally different from the lives of everyone else. Same if it was a radical marxist, a radical environmentalist, a neo-nazi, a radical whatever the Unabomber was, etc. Radical means different. And I'm struggling to see how Objectivists are different...myself included. We're (hopefully) a bit more deliberate in our actions and decision making, but does that actually produce a DIFFERENT LIFE? Doesn't seem like it does. Rand's life wasn't really different, was it? She lived like a typical successfully self employed woman of her time would live ...

I disagree completely. Furthermore, I think this is the exact crux of the issue: I love the idea of individual rights, but if a thug refuses to respect my rights, I refuse to respect theirs. You think that makes me and the thug equally immoral. I do not. In fact, I think that my position is the ONLY MORAL ONE. I think it's you and the thug who are equally immoral. I think someone who rejects your individual rights is immoral, and, if you still insist on treating this person as an entity with full rights: you are just as immoral. You are acting to promote and reward the same exact immorality that he lives by. The only moral, selfish thing to do is to stand up to people who reject individual rights. To stand up to totalitarian Islam, and to stand up to all of its proponents. P.S. The IDF, and Israeli intelligence, are actively seeking to collaborate with people in Gaza. They are giving anyone willing to stand against totalitarian Islam a chance not just to live, but to be greatly rewarded for it. That help may include financial reward, positions in a future, non-Islamist government, and even help escaping to a western country, in some cases. That is ALL anyone should ever do for a hostile population which overwhelmingly supports a totalitarian ideology. Nothing more. Doing anything more would be sacrificing the good, for the evil. Pure altruism. The notion that people who subscribe to the ideology of totalitarian Islam (as most so-called "Palestinians" do, especially those in Gaza) have rights, is insane. You're not though. Because it's not necessary. The Feds can dismantle any criminal/domestic terror group in the US by applying 0.01% of the full force they have at their disposal. Israel can't dismantle Hamas by doing the same. Israel must apply a lot more force than that. The last time the US government brought its full force to bear was in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Or, if nukes are off the table for rational reasons (hopefully it's obvious to all that these rational reasons do exist) ... well then the last time the US brought its full force to a battle, excluding nukes: was in Dresden ... which was actually more destructive than the atomic bombing of Hiroshima. None of those acts were war crimes, btw. And there's also virtually nothing Israel could do in Gaza, that's a war crime. Pretty much everything is a legal target. Hamas has its HQ under the biggest hospital in Gaza. So what could possibly be off limits? What could Israel possibly rule out as a Hamas stronghold?