The Sailor

Oops, I apologist for the error, I did mean Flux, looked at the msg below my reply for addressee without looking at the msg. I was referencing my reply in general terms as it applied to Flux's initial question. Of course I agree with most of what you said. The only exception being majority rules, if that were true, slavery would still be legal, women would not have the right to vote, most of our wars in the last century would not have happened, and Al Gore would have been our President in 2000..

David, you ask that as if you believe you live in free society. We live in a democracy, where we are free to elect the people who will lead us, and make our laws. The government can do, and do, as they wish based on these laws. I not saying it is a bad system, but majority does not rule, the elected official rules. So to answer your question, no one elected police officers, people did elect judges and magistrates to enforce our laws, that were created by other elected officials. So if an elected official authorizes a police officer to come into your home and take what he wants, don't vote for him next time, and get some other elected official to change the law, that is how it works. On a side note: the patriot act should scare you, because for the first time in our history, a non-elected official can now spy on you, enter your home, question you, detain you, and all the time, never require an elected officials permission to do so. So be happy that at least in your scenareo a magistrate was involved, you may not agree with him, but at least he was elected, and hopes to get elected again. If you believe you live in free society, then go out tonight and paint your house purple with pink polkadots, see how long it takes for city officials to shut you down.

I usually do not post, because I am not an Objectivist, nor am religious by nature, but I feel compelled to add to the discussion, for what it is worth! Why must evolution and religious fantasy be mutually exclusive. For the sake of argument, is it not possible, if GOD does exist, that he or she chooses to begin life in the form stated in evolution. If your using the bible as your sole reference, this is not possible, but who is to say the bible, as viewed today is correct. It has been translated so many times over the years, from it's beginning, in a language, no body fully understands today. How do we know that maybe, as long has we are talking fantasy, that the bible was not the scientific book of the day, of all the known facts during that period of time. Science is not static, it is always evolving, has new facts are learned, I can't say the same for religion, any religion, they seem to remain static in thier belief. In this light Childofgod, your living your life, based on old science. I believe science to be the search for GOD, I don't believe in GOD yet, because there is no proof, science will provide it, someday, one way or the other. Will not be in my life time, or your or your childrens, etc.. I don't believe Objectivist disbelieves in GOD so much as, they are just not concerned with the question, for the above reason. There is no proof of his existence. Evolution does have some proof, according to our current knowledge, but I do not see where it flatly refrets any possibility of GOD, it doesn't go back that far, it simply provides a plausible explaination for a brief period of time. Just my opinion.

What do I think? Not that it matters, or will change anything. However I do not believe Rumfield should fired or the military leaders. Unless it can be proved that a specific order came down to do those acts, they are not responsible. Do I think an investigation is required? Yes I do, and personnel found guilty should be punished. Here is what I do know. I am a military man. In the military you are told, not only what to do, but how to do it. In the absence of specific orders, do nothing. Why? because coming up with your own actions, screw things up, as we are now seeing. The military can not operate as a democracy, we are there to preserve democracy, not practice it. If these soldiers acted on their own, they need to be punished, they are not good soldiers. If they were ordered to do so, leave them only, they did their job. If the order was given without specific training on the how to do it. That is poor leadership, that also, should be punished. Supposely the order was to keep the prisoners awake at all cost, to brake them down. If were given that the order, the first words out of my mouth, would have been, how do you I do that? If I disobey an order, I am responsible for the outcome. If I follow an order, they are responsible for the outcome. The only time I can disobey an order and not violate the preceeding rule, is if that order clearly violates the rules on engagement, all soilders are taught the rules of engagement.

WGD check out site, http://www.lewrockwell.com/cummings/cummings11.html Do some research on this matter, and I believe you will see my point to be correct. We (as in the U.S. CIA specifically) created this mess over there. Can we ever really know, probably not. You are dealing with secret organizations, by definition you're not going to have all the facts. Provide some points that illustrate my contention are wrong. I am not so rigid as to continue to belief beyond proof.

My favorite show on Penn & Teller Bullshit was the one on Environmentalist. You got to love this one. They had this young gal there at the Environmentalist rally with a clipboard claming she was wanting signatures to ban hydrogen oxide, she said it is every where and people are consuming it, the government isn't doing anything about it.. .hahaha. I love it, she got hundred of signature on that thing. Banning WATER. All these people heard was ban and government in the same sentence, and signed it, with no idea of what it was... Then they had this tree hugger lady, trying to safe a tree from being cut down. What was her plan, she bought some lumber (where did she think this came from) and built a tree house, on the tree, using nails to attach it to the tree. Then lived on it until someone would give up on cutting the tree down.

Here is an analogy to make my point. Let say you are a professional Boxer, associate him with the military. You have a manger, associate him the President and the White House. You have a trainer, associate him with the CIA, and Intelligence community. Now as a boxer, you do not choose where and when you fight, your manger takes care of that problem. prior to the fight, the trainer takes care of all the research needed on your upcoming opponent, and during an actual fight, gives some advise and new information you might not otherwise notice about your opponent. During the actual fight you're on your own, and you fight. Imagine a fight were the manager said, now while you're in there you are only allowed to defend yourself. I well tell you from the corner, when you can hit back, I'll tell you when to jab, when do an upper cut, when to goto the body,..etc... Let me know when that fight happens, I will go to the bank and empty out my account, because I want to put a BIG bet on your opponent.

The comparison between Vietnam and Iraq, I feel is not accurate. You must not forget, we never declare war in Vietnam, it was a police action. War was declared in Iraq. This is an important distinction, and the reason we got our hat handed to us, in Vietnam. Politician prevents the military from doing their job. The entire Vietnam War was run from the White House. You will notice that when we first Declared war on Iraq, the military was running the show. We went in, kicked there ASS, then the White House took by control with their cease fire crap. Now we are back in the police keeping mode. In so much as the fact, that the White House is back to running the show, that is the only similarity I see to Vietnam and Iraq. I can only imagine the frustration our military leaders must be feeling right now. While I do not agree with our reason for this war. Once the decision has been made, the White House needs to shut the hell up, get out the way, and let our military leaders and soldiers do their job.

Most people taking the test count 3 "F's" when the correct value is 6 "F's". The reason for this I read some where has to with the brains ability to filter out small words , less then three letters. Small words are used so often you automatically inject them yourself. Probably why even if someone who has bad grammar, like me, you can read sentence missing small words and still understand. (notice the "a" missing between the word "read" and "sentence". You might have noticed the "a" was missing, however, you probably still automatically when reading placed it back into the sentence.

I had to look around a little, but finally found this old business card I had, with a perception test on the back. Might be useful to your book. On it, was this statement: Now count the F's in the sentence. Count them only once and do not go back and count them again. Please also read the follow on post.

Bingo..ding..ding..ding..litlle light bublbs going on in my head losts of fireworks !!! Thank you, I made the connection, so the reality is Objectivism was and is, always there, whether someone perceived it (past, present or future) or not, however Rand revealed it/found it, therefore defined it. The identity of reality. Is this correct?

I'm not sure, mostly saying the bible full of contradictions. Some mention of moral issues.. references to stoning children, owning slaves..etc.. Mostly just flat out impossible actions listed in the bible, Noah Ark (10,000 species of animals) impossible scientifically to build anything that big. That type stuff. A lot of duality's, different accounts of the same event throughout the bible. My personal view is the Bible was just a good fiction book, that managed to stay on the best sellers list, for a really long time, and now irrational people look at it as if it is fact. Which I think was also the point Penn & Teller were making as well.

I was just watching Penn & Teller's HBO show BullShit. Tonight they did a show on the Bible. Showing many irrational and contradictory statement it contains. (For the benefit of anyone who has not seen the shows). Their shows are based on using rational explanation for current irrational beliefs . Two questions came to my mind, and I was hoping for thoughts of anyone interested in commenting. 1). Does anyone believe objectivist views are displayed on this show? (With the caveat; that I or anyone on these boards, probably do not know Penn or Teller personally. So this question is as it relates to the show only). 2). Is it possible for someone to function in life with objectivist views and not be aware of objectivism as a philosophy?

The shah was depose in 1979, and replaced by Ayatollah Khomeini (an Islamic fundamentalist), whose organization the "Iran Contra's", were responsible for the regime change. Iran-Contra involved a network of aides acting like a separate government and sold missiles to Iran to fund the Nicaraguan Contras, this where Oliver North came into the picture. These people later broke from Khomeini, forming a new agenda, moved to Afghanistan and became the Taliban, and Al-Queda. All of the above was funded by the CIA to de-stabilize the region. To what end? I only have one idea, and is purely my opinion. I do know that we could work with the Shah, and the Shah could care less about Iraq. If the CIA had some agenda concerning Iraq, even if Khomeini was impossible to work with, he hated Iraq. Maybe the CIA just screwed up, and did not realize that Khomeini could actually take power. But his taking power did lead to the Iran/Iraq war. possibly when Iran couldn't get the job done, then maybe that is why we had to get involved. I do not think it had anything to do with 9/11.

YES, we did sell them planes, I know this for a fact. We also sold planes, ships, and weapons to saudi arabia. We have sold weapon to just about everybody in the region. I consider this irrational behavior on our part.

I do not blame Americans for 9/11, I blame the CIA agenda and unknown members of the CIA, who happen to be America. I think these people have been allowed to play their little secret game and hidden agenda for far to long. It is causing serious problems now, and needs to stop. As to what else to do, I don't know. I said before, I do not have sufficient information. Would I go to war, maybe, but I do not think it would be against Iraq. If I held any one countries government responsible, it would be Saudi Arabia. The majority of the attackers were Saudi, Ben Linden is Saudi, most of the members of Al-Queda are Saudi. I am still unsure of this statement, but my immediate thought is, these people were living in the region long before oil was discovered, and they were not staving then. The wars in this region have been going on for thousands of years and are religious in nature, which is to say irrational by nature. What is the objectivist view of what should done about 9/11 ?

Not having the information that the president has available, it would be difficult to say, but for starters, I would fire the Director of the CIA, and the FBI. If for no other reason then the Taliban used to be called "Freedom Fighter", remember that little thing a few years ago with Oliver North. Our CIA trained the Freedom fighter, and bank rolled them, to get rid of the Shaw of Iran, and de-stabilize the region. Then we left them hanging. My point being, the problem goes back further then 9/11. After the fall of the Shaw, I was in the Gulf, we sold the Iranians F-14 and trained their pilots, then every time they flew missions to Iraq, we warned Iraq they were coming. All in effort to de-stabilize that entire region. Why are we now surprised, that these people are pissed at us.

Yes I have, and if could, I would move there. Have to learn to speak, German, French, or Italian. I thought it was a lovely country. Unemployment is 1.9 %, inflation is .5%, what else could you want.....

No, I do not recall saying anything like that, and I have re-read my posts several times. I do not see how you made that connection. Yes I can. There is documented proof that 1).President Bush never served in a war zone. 2). Kerry, has both served in a war zone, and awarded several decorations for valor under fire. In my limited knowledge of objectivist views, I have learned, accurate statements are important. I was simply refining the posters statement, and maybe a little, because I don't like President Bush. I don't like Kerry much either, but at least I understand him. If I were to make a point. It would be that, Kerry, is less likely, to go to war, because of his personal, first hand knowledge of war, and it's consequences. Not being involved in a war, is important to me on a personal level, and one of the things, I look for in a President. I was involved in Vietnam, the Gulf War, and Bosnia. I can start explaining what it was like from now, until next year, and never provide an adequate understanding, to some one who has not been in a war zone.

What I mean by "repeating rhetoric", is that it serves no useful purpose to me. I can read a book, and the perceptions I apply to its meaning are mine. By simply repeating what you read, while I can appreciate a persons excellent memory, tells me nothing of their interpretation of it. What needs to be added, is why you believe it to be true, insights to you're thinking. This offers me an alternative view of the same information, and more knowledge. I'll have to single out some folks here, and I mean no insult to them. I use them for purely example purposes only. Hailey, my apologizes in advance. I hope you take this in the manner in which I offer it, as an observation from my perspective only. While I'm sure he is very intelligent, he offered me no clues, to how he thinks, and appeared to only defend objectivist views, by quotes from Rand. There are others that appear to operate this way. While Donditalia, also defended objectivist views, however, offered an insight into his thinking on the subject and answers. Only offering quotes or repeated statements, will offer insight to the person quoted, it offers no insight to the person you are communicating with, and everyone has experiences and intellect that are different from mine. This is the information I am interested in, not Rands. Rand is the base for the original philosophy. By listening to others people interpretation of the same information, the possibility of new insight exists. By reading the same sentence over and over, my interpretation is not likely to change.

It has been brought to my attention, I may have offended several posters with an earlier post. My apologies to all that took offense. As Dongitalia has pointed out, I need to choose my words more carefully. My intent is to spur debate, not offend. My attacks are meant to probe objectivist views, since any worth while philosophy can with stand such attack. It was my perception, correct or not, that I was receiving only rhetoric. Once again, I shall state, my intent is knowledge, debate is the route to truth. Devils advocate, is my way.

More specifically, irrational behavior as it applies to work. Most of our greatest achievements were done by people pursuing impossible tasks. Wright brother flying, Einstein theories, etc... pursuing objectives everyone presumed to be impossible. Would this be considered irrational.

Thank you Don, I agree with everything you said. I am still overcoming my life as a sailor, and it's exclusive use of profanity to solve all problems , while holding a beer. In hind site, I recognize my inability to understand fully, prior to reading Rand, before I posted. Just couldn't stop myself, I am very opinionated, by nature. However, I still don't believe anyone can follow one philosophy to the exclusion of all others, not even Rand herself, and she wrote it. People are just more complicated then that, maybe after I learn more, than my opinion will change. I do find it curious, that on most posts I have made, Hailey loves to comment negatively towards the post with little explanation, followed by you, and a detailed explanation in support. Just an observation, and a thank you, you're efforts are appreciated.

Is there ever a time for irrational behavior within the objectivist views?

Don't you mean, "his willingness to send others to defend America", he has never defended America. Kerry has defended America. I am a retired military man, and I can tell you, without question. Wars are not the result of WMD, dictator, or in-humanities to man. They are caused by economic, or more precisely, failed economic, the perception of impending failed economics and the lack of diplomatic solution. Switzerland constitution has been in effect some 800 years, declaring Neutrality in 1815. Has a country, in all that time, they have never had a war, never been invaded, and never taking part in a war. Why? because they have money in their banks from every country, no other country will allow an occupation from another country. ECONOMICS