Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    middle east

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Relationship status
  • Sexual orientation
  • Copyright
  • Occupation

SkyTrooper's Achievements


Member (4/7)



  1. Lost in the "security vs. liberty" debate, is the alternative of abandoning the Fortress America defense in favor of bringing the fight to the enemy. If we fought a real war against radical Islam, signal intelligence would be something that could be limited in scope and targeted to support offensive operations.
  2. Obama loves the birth certificate issue because anyone who takes the bait of buying into the conspiracy immediately brands themselves as a wack job. I think it's fair really, since a 30 second Google search shows there is no credance to the whole thing. Obama held off so long releasing the certificate so that viable rivals would undermine their own campaigns. "Birthers" are not taken seriously in the public discourse and agreeing with Birther ideas only serves to discredit other, legitimate complaints about the President. If you believe in the Birther nonsense, please don't describe yourself in public as Objectivist or as liking Ayn Rand, since all you do is make it that much harder for the rest of us to get rational ideas taken seriously.
  3. Help me respond to this econ professor: His claim: There are "natural monopolies". For example, electric utilities (owners of the power lines at least) can not all run wires to your house. It is reasonable for only one utility to run the wires and therefore they hold a natural monopoly over the delivery of electricity. The production of electricity can therefore be competitive, but not the delivery. You can't have ten sets of wires strung across the city and sticking out of your house. As a consequence, the monopolist can charge as high rates as they like within the range where substitutes would become practical (ie. where you would buy your own generator). Therefore, natural monopolies must have their prices set by the state/ closely regulated. I have all Ayn Rand's fiction and non-fiction if you'd just like to point me to where this has already been addressed by her. Thanks.
  4. A good distinction to make is between love and infatuation. Love is the identification of your highest values in another. Infatuation is the (temporary) projection of your values onto another based on a few positive traits you've observed. You mention her wit, sense of life, etc., but are you sure you arn't projecting some of that based on her looks-- the "halo effect"? There are 3.4 billion women on the planet and I'm guessing this special girl is not as special as you think (unless she reads OPAR *and* models). Keeping that in mind should help you regain a proper relationship to reality. Of course, maybe she is that great (my gf is : ) ), so I'd reccomend asking her out if the context is appropriate. IF THE CONTEXT IS APPROPRIATE (she doesn't work for you, isn't a minor, you are both single, etc, etc). By all means, find out if you are right for each other. Whether it works out or not, failing to sleep with any particular woman doesn't prove the universe is hostile to your existence (malevolent). If anything, the existence of these creatures proves the benevolent universe. Remember that only the concept of failure makes the possiblity of success possible. Can you even project a world where every cupid-struck joe get's the first dream girl to cross his path?
  5. Most Negative Plato Jesus Christ The Prophet Mohammed Ibn Ghazali Timur Kant Marx Lenin Hitler FDR Most Positive Aristotle Avincina Thomas Aquinas John Locke Thomas Paine Thomas Jefferson George Washington W.T. Sherman Abraham Lincoln Ayn Rand I list Plato ahead of Jesus because Jesus didn't really innovate anything.. Christianity is just Platonism stripped of the positive Greek aspects. Christianity did take down the Roman Empire and cause untold destruction, so I list him second. Likewise with Mohammed: not an innovator, but still very bad. Ibn Ghazali deserves a special place in hell for ending the "Golden Age of Islam" which was the Aristotolian tradition rescued by Avincina. If Ghazali hadn't done that the Middle East would probably have produced the John Lockes and Thomas Jeffersons, instead of depending on the west to miraculously save itself from the Dark Ages. Thomas Aquinas deserves credit for ending the Dark Ages, and the rest should be self-explanatory.
  6. Tyco, your stance towards Iran strikes me as extremely niave. This is a nation with a charter to expand Islam through violence. To quote the Iranian consitition, the Iranian military will "be responsible not only for guarding and preserving the frontiers of the country, but also for fulfilling the ideological mission of jihad in God's way; that is, extending the sovereignty of God's law throughout the world." Discounting US/NATO intel is fine (if you want to accept the intel community blame for the "Iraq WMD debacle" hook, line, and sinker), but accepting jihadist propaganda as your substitute for intel is something entirely different. As for "supposed" involvement in other conflicts, there is nothing supposed about it. That Iranians help kill American soldiers IS A FACT. We were capturing Iranian stamped AK-47s and other weapons with 2007 manufacturing markings in January of 2007. This is a matter of public record and unless the Mahdi Army is good at stealing from Iranian arms factories it means that Iran was shipping them in by the ton. With respect to the possibility of Iran passing a nuke to one of it's terrorist proxies, my assertion is only that it is possible, and that such a possiblity is unacceptable. Plausible deniability holds water because to get attacked by the US, an enemy can't do anything short of sending it's military to the white house to shoot into oval office. Despite our reputation as cowboys, our foreign policy record is entirely the opposite: the US consistently turns the other cheek. Our leadership is also so concrete bound that connecting the dots from one terrorist group to the country that funds, trains, and arms them has proven to be outside their cognitive capacity. The non-wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have done nothing but further discourage military responses to acts of war. This makes handing over a nuke to some terrorist group for an attack on the "Paper Tiger" an entirely plausible risk for a country whose leaders worship death anyway. If, inshallah, they get away with raining thermonuclear hell on their enemy without reprisal, they win. If Allah wills that they also get destroyed in the process, then they get eternal bliss with 72 virgins, and as far as they are concerned they still win. There is no way to predict if this is definitely what will happen if they get the bomb, but how can you be at all ok with this preventable scenario?
  7. Iranian Quds force (special forces) are very active but they know just how much they can get away with. It turns out they can get away with alot.. including the recent plot to assasinate a Saudi ambassador on US soil, and pushing weapons and training to insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan. There is some indication we even went head-to-head with them during the initial invasion of Iraq in 2003. The mullahs arn't stupid though, and even though they worship death, they wouldn't use nukes directly. As you note: it would mean the end of their regime. The real threat, as I said, is if they hand a nuclear weapon over to one of their many proxies. Iran is the largest state sponsor of terrorism. Hezbollah is essentially a huge shadow army that is armed, funded, and trained by Iran. The Mahdi Army is powerful militia and voting bloc in Iraq that takes it's orders from Iran. The Haqqani network in Afghanistan isn't Iranian controlled, but they get weapons from Iran. Iran has used it's proxies to attack both Israel and America before and has gotten away with it without much more than a slap on the wrist. If Iran got the bomb it could hand it over to the Mahdi Army to destroy whatever remains of US forces in Iraq and Kuwait. It could hand it over to the Haqqani network to destroy a major US target in Afghanistan. It could hand it over to Hezbollah to nuke Tel-Aviv. Hezbollah would probably also be the best canidate to smuggle the bomb into the US and take out a major US city, since they are the best organized and already make alot of money off the drug trade in South America. Your analogy to history fails because Iran is in a historically unique position to deliver a nuclear strike with plausible deniability (through proxies) and therefore without risk of retaliation.
  8. The fire bombing of Tokyo, leveling of Dresden, Sherman's march to the sea, Indian wars, etc. are all seen as equally bad as Hiroshima. If self-interest were seen as moral so would the first-use of nukes. If nukes wern't so taboo a good argument could be made tactically for their use in this situation, since open source info on the Anrak and Natanz facilities is that they are buried so deep that "none of our bunker busting bombs can reach them". Of course when the press reports that these facilities are untouchable they are ignoring the existence of our most powerful weapons. Realistically, I'm hoping that covert action (killing Iranian nuclear scientists, sabatoging the facilities, etc.) is able to continue to slow nuclear weapons development in Iran. I don't think this will work for very long, however.
  9. Most dangerous course of action: Iran builds the bomb, then hands it over to one of their many terrorist proxies (Hezbollah, Mahdi Army, etc). The terrorist proxy detonates the nuke in Tel-Aviv, a major US military base in the middle east, or a major US city. The US doesn't retaliate against Iran because Iran has plausible deniabiliy (it wasn't Revolutionary Guards, after all). We launch a police action against the terrorist proxy and build a lame memorial, possibly getting entangled in building sewers and bringing electricity to another underprivelaged country while we're at it.
  10. A religion may have a non-violent ethical stance, but it's epistemology is still one of faith (aka. anti-reason). Therefore, it's ethics will be undermined by it's epistemology. Even in trying to be consistent ethically, it can be shocking how quickly a non-violent ideology can become violent. For example, the ecology movement, which promotes non-violence towards "all of earths creations" has quickly developed into actual violence against humans in order to protect animal "rights" (ie. The Earth Liberation Front, the EPA). It just happens that the ethical code of Islam is the codification of the life of a tribal thug/criminal (Mohammed), and it's epistemological method is faith, which makes for a particularily nasty combination.
  11. ... also (and I'm sure this point has already been made) Islam is known by everyone to be based on faith. Faith and Force were proven by Ayn Rand to be inseperable corallary's. Bin Laden is only the most recent manifistation of this. Once the fact that faith leads to violence is accepted, no specific knowledge of Islam is needed for me to state that UBL is a consistent Muslim for slaughtering thousands of innocents.
  12. I've read the Quran, taken classes on Middle East Studies, read a compilation including every statement made by Osama bin Laden, and lived for over a year in Iraq. Your appeal to authority is specious. The oft quoted "sword verse" is just what came to mind. Here are some more examples of the Quran inciting violence: Cruetly in the Quran, Intolerance in the Quran. Also, if you can judge a religion by the actions of it's followers: List of pre-2001 Islamist Attacks. Not that other religions are neccesarily better, but at least Christianity has been emasculated by a Reformation and the Enlightenment.
  13. I don't care if they would be livid about it. I have worked with and am friends with many "moderate" Muslims, and I am glad they are inconsisent, but if they were following the Quran's guidance to "fight and slay the pagan's wherever you find them" we would not be friends. My definition of a Muslim is someone who "submits" to Allah through their adherance to the Quran and Hadith, but there are certainly people who call themselves Muslims but only follow their religion to a lesser degree. I was exagerating a bit when I said UBL is the most consistent Muslim ever. Timur, who converted hundreds of thousands to Islam by the sword during campaigns that spread rape, slaughter, and atrocities throughout the known world during the 14th century was more consistent. I remember reading that he conquered whole cities and then built walls out of the victims, living and dead.
  14. I was confused on this point too, but after reading Messages to the World: The Statements of Osama bin Laden I came to the conclusion that bin Laden was absolutely acting in accord with Islam. He knew more about Islam than any Imam, cited references in the Quran and the hadiths for every violent action he took, and given the premise he was operating on (that Mohammed was a super-natural figure and that the Quran, etc, accurately tell how one should live) his reasoning was consistent. "Moderate" clerics ignore the violent parts of the Quran, and often cite common-sense type guidance than sourcing from their holy books. Also remember that, unlike Christianity, there is a means of deconflicting contradictory passages in Islam: that which is written later is authoritative. The later verses are the more intolerant and violent. Osama bin Laden might very well be the most consistent muslim that ever lived.
  15. Thanks for the responses. I am definitely leaning towards LASIK due to the quick and painless recovery that everyone has mentioned. That is basically my reasoning as well. After getting LASIK, I won't be allowed to the Halo free-fall school (along with a few other schools) because the military is still studying the effect of the surgery under these conditions. Some of the Army's restictions on schools will probably be loosened as LASIK is studied better. The doctors have told me that I shouldn't SCUBA within 3 months following it but am good to go after that. PRK doesn't risk any complications under pressure, and the Army doesn't restrict what you can do after the surgery, because the cornea is not cut. I am an Infantry Officer in the Army, about to be assigned to an Air Assault unit (helicopter-borne infantry). The Army allows it, but if done through the service there is a bunch of paperwork and a 6 month waitlist. Also, I don't want Army Doctors to touch my eyes.
  • Create New...