windyfellow

My problem with Mr. Peikoff is the following: Peikoff endorsed John Kerry (while nevertheless thinking of Kerry as a "disgustingly bad" candidate) against George W. Bush (whom he called "apocalyptically bad"), on the basis of Bush's religiosity In advance of the 2006 elections, Peikoff recommended voting only for Democrats, to forestall what he sees is a rise in influence of the religious right, adding: 'Given the choice between a rotten, enfeebled, despairing killer [Democrats], and a rotten, ever stronger, and ambitious killer [Republicans], it is immoral to vote for the latter, and equally immoral to refrain from voting at all because "both are bad."' After I read this, I nearly fell out of my computer chair- how could Ayn Rand's supposed heir say something so irrational? How are the democrats weak and enfeebled compared to republicans? If anything they are stronger- they have a large quantity of people supporting them that will go to extremes most republicans wouldn't even think of! Even if he somehow explains why the democrats are weak, why does that justify voting for them? Republicans, at least, favor a move towards something a bit closer to our morals(though still far from it) I have read posts by some on these forums that say "religion is the new real problem, socialism is a dieing trend." Well, let me ask you, is it religion that used billions of taxpayer's dollars to bail out the failing mortgage companies? Is it religion that is causing our current crisis? NO! The real threat is the pure, unadulterated socialism ideal that is preached time after time by members of the democratic party. Sure, Bush isn't the greatest but I shudder to think of what Gore or Kerry would do with their power when we have a democratic congress in session. Thoughts? Comments? Rebuttals?

<=== that way for the Marxist forums.

that was the most painful thing I have ever read.

I had always had a particular way of thinking that I knew to be immoral and wrong, a voice in the back of my head if you will. When I discovered Rand's fiction I discovered for the first time something that gave a clear definition to my way of thinking that I had tried to repress for so long.

Wasn't it ultimately the interference of outside forces that contributed to Rapture's downfall? My memories are a bit fuzzy.

I dont think this is a question of what choice would be true to objectivist principles, but rather a question of personal preference. I believe that in the situation of the dying mother and the dog, one could lie or tell the truth and neither choice would go against living objectively.

While people here have had some great discussion about Bioshock, I think I've noticed something that hasn't been brought up yet (yell at me if it has). The Big Daddy+Little Sister relationship is a perfect example of objectivism being successful. The Big Daddy does not protect the Little Sister out of altruism, he does not do it because he feels bad for the creature that can not protect itself. Rather the Big Daddy does it because the Little Sister gives him something in return. Together they form an effective team, but they do it for their own interests. Tell me if i'm stating something obvious but I just thought this was interesting.