Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

ooghost1oo

Regulars
  • Posts

    20
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://EddiePatin.com
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Colorado
  • Interests
    Objectivism, Capitalism, Freedom, Guns, and Beer.

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Colorado
  • Relationship status
    Married
  • Sexual orientation
    Straight
  • Real Name
    Eddie Patin
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted

ooghost1oo's Achievements

Novice

Novice (2/7)

0

Reputation

  1. Everything happens for a reason, because everything is part of God's plan, dont ya know...
  2. Being obligated to pay taxes is wrong. Of course, if there is a service provided by the government which you actually WANT, you should be able to selectively and voluntarily pay taxes to support that service. However, try not paying taxes, even though it's wrong and some people claim to have ways around it, and you'll be CRUSHED if they ever find you out. The fact of the matter is that, wrong or not, the government nearly holds the full monopoly on force, and happily puts a gun to your head, threatening you with force if you don't give in to their demands. The only way taxation will ever become as it should be is if the government is reined in to an absolute minimum.
  3. Force begets force. Verbal / Psychological (what the hell is THAT supposed to mean?) 'attacks' are not force. People don't have the skin to put up with 'psychological abuse' anymore. To anyone who gives it any weight, grow a damned backbone. And if the attacker ever physically (force) attacks you, DESTROY him. (Or call the police if you're a wimp.)
  4. Honestly, Russ, my perspective, which began as the first time I committed my thoughts to 'paper', has gradually evolved over the course of this 'argument' and during the time I've spent digging up references. My opinion stated before on 'natural selection' is merely my opinion, as much as I still believe it, but it's unimportant to my point because it has nothing to do with rights or freedom, the unintended consequences, which is what this is all about. I still believe what I said, for the reasons I've fleshed out through the course, but it doesn't matter. Plus, I don't really care individually about the theoretical adopted kids who could be adversely affected by being raised by gay parents. The point is: gay marriage being legalized will come with it the stipulations against discrimination based on sexual orientation. And anti-discrimination laws is what produces the unintended consequences, not the individual freedoms they try to produce. I'd rather the law stay out of it, too. In fact, the smaller the gov't involvement in EVERYTHING, the better. And I'd rather Christians didn't have their stupid, homophobic beliefs in their stupid bible. BUT ... I respect their right to those beliefs, and I argue for their right to uphold those beliefs in their institutions. You people who label me as a right-wing fanatic, or 'rationalizing a judeo-christian political view behind a veil of practicality' sound like damned liberal parrots. Like you have NO idea the point I'm trying to make, and you don't understand Rand's outlook on Radical Capitalism, her idea of minimal government, and her respect for the rights of the individual. But as things are, making anti-discriminary laws to go around previous laws, will only lead to people using the law to strong-arm their beliefs on people who believe otherwise. And unless specific measures are put in place to protect churches from discrimination suits, this legislation will quash freedom. It would be different if states allowed gays to get married at the courthouse only, bypassing the problem, but then there will still be gays who want to get married at their church (as rare as they may be), and if that church isn't one of those 'moderate' churches, one party or another is going to suffer. Like the photographer who had to pay damages of $6000-something just because she refused to associate her business with something she believed was wrong. I know Objectivists have to be full of a lot of variety of independent minds, but it's amazing to me that you so-called Objectivists that are arguing against my 'smokescreen right-wing hate speech' don't grasp this fundamental issue. Amazing. How brainwashed you are. Homophobe ... you fool. I don't give a damn about gays. I just care about anti-discrimination laws, which only end up being abused to run over the rights of another. Pseudo-reason. I really wonder how much point there is debating on forums where there will always be some of you who just don't get it, and just sit around jacking each other off and making yourself feel smart.
  5. Bam. Here is a court example of a gay couple suing a wedding photographer for refusing to photograph their gay marriage: http://www.law.georgetown.edu/moralvaluesp...ographycase.pdf If any of you don't see how this same bullshit can be applied to a righteous couple suing a church for discrimination, once such marriage is declared legal, you're refusing to accept reality. This is a hideous abuse of law and a front on individual rights, for individuals and businesses. While Jack Ethan may say that a gay couple would never want to be married in a church, THAT is a generalization, and you can never say what other people may or may not do. But making laws based on discrimination like this opens the doors for abusing other people rights to run their businesses THEIR way (like churches, like that poor photographer), because there will ALWAYS be people who will take advantage of the system and make mockery of justice. Unintended consequences. You may say that the photographer didn't have a right to refuse service to the gay couple because she was against gay marriage. Wrong. No one has the right to dictate to a business how that business is run, who they can or cannot serve, and so on. If you don't understand that, then you are no Objectivist.
  6. I don't follow where you ever went there... Never said it was. Don't care. I'm treating the church, in this case, as a private business. This is so pointless... Why indeed? That's the whole point. And what happens when the government gets involved? One party or another loses their freedoms. Their rights. They're strong-armed into doing something they don't want to do. But, you'll see. What was originally intended to provide 'equal rights' to gay folks will have the unintended consequences of lawsuits that will put judges in the position to contradict the law OR step on the rights of the church. It's not much of a jump--it's foresight. You'll see.
  7. You definitely have the right to provide your OWN health care, if you can. A proper right is something that doesn't require the providing of someone else. You have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (if you're an American). All three of those things are wholly dependent on YOU. It doesn't affect anyone else. But you can't claim the right to something that would need someone else to provide whatever you need--that's impinging on another's freedom. You don't have the right to hamburgers. No one needs to give you hamburgers. There is no free lunch. You don't have the right to an education--that's your own responsibility. You don't have the right to health care. No one is under compulsion to treat you. There are no entitlements--be responsible for your own life.
  8. Because the church, like any business, has the right to run their business their OWN way. Not to be told how they'll do it. Individuals do NOT have the right to another person's goods and services. The church is in the right in this case. It's all about VOLUNTARY exchange--by mutual consent--not compulsory. Just like Rearden refusing to sell Readen metal to the companies he didn't want to do business with. It's his right. See? I looked and looked, but couldn't find (within a reasonable amount of time) any references to court cases (yet) about a gay couple suing a church for discrimination in a gay marriage state. I'm sure it's out there, but even if it's not--just wait. Think about the days of Affirmative Action with black people suing companies for not hiring them (for one reason or another) by playing the race card. Wait and see what happens when Bob and Gary, or any other gay couple with an equality bug up their asses try to sue a church for discriminating against them. Wait and see what happens in this ridiculous time of frivolous lawsuits. Read between the lines. Do individuals have a RIGHT to the services of another? If you think they do, you certainly don't belong HERE...
  9. BS. It's not 'right wing propaganda'. It's FACT. Something called 'Unintended Consequences'. It's what happens when legislatures are so quick to make laws based on fads of political correctness and the winds of the daily public controversies that they don't stop and think of the further effects of those laws. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States December 20, 1999: The Vermont Supreme Court holds that exclusion of same-sex couples from benefits and protections incident to marriage under state law violated the common-benefits clause of the Vermont Constitution. September 10, 2008: HB436, a bill that seeks to "eliminates the exclusion of same gender couples from marriage", is submitted to the New Hampshire House of Representatives. On October 10, 2008, the Connecticut Supreme Court overturned the state's civil-unions statute (2005), as unconstitutionally discriminating against same-sex couples, and required the state to recognize same-sex marriages. Look at this: Gay Bob and Gay Gary are two Christians (even though they're gay) that go to the "First Methodist Church" of Podunk, Vermont. They want to get married at their church, but their pastor refuses. Instead of just getting married at the courthouse, they make a big thing out of it, because they don't see anything wrong with it, and they want to get married in their church just like everybody else. So they sue the "First Methodist Church" for discrimination, because their state recognizes gay marriage as legal. And they win, because the law is on their side. So now, the church is ordered to wed Bob and Gary, but the pastor and his organization doesn't want to because they firmly believe it wrong, evil, immoral, against the bible, etc ad nauseam. So now the church is being forced to do something they firmly believe against doing, under threat of force by the state. You don't see a problem with that? Here's how it should go, if it ever does: June 3, 2009: The New Hampshire General Court passes new HB73, which includes protections for religious institutions, as required by Gov. John Lynch to secure his signature on HB436, a bill legalizing same-sex marriage. Gov. Lynch signs both bills the same day. It's about freedom, the rights of the individual, and the rights of the church, as a business. Not gay marriage.
  10. Oh, what a tiff I've caused. I don't have 'data' about a non-gay child being raised gay. But it seems like common sense to me--my lack of hard evidence won't change my mind, and it shouldn't change yours. It's evident reality. I will point out children raised in abusive households that have developed PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder), with which I have experience. You can google it yourself for support if you're interested in the truth. Kids raised in abusive relationships have a real tough time with normal relationships as adults, because they've been conditioned to accept a crazy, abusive, stressful, dramafied environment as 'the norm'. If they ever get into a normal relationship that is peaceful, they're apt to sabotage it themselves by creating drama out of thin air, abusing their spouse, etc., because a 'normal' environment is uncomfortable and scary for them. They seek to create the abnormal environment they understand as normal to cope. The same premise applies. I wouldn't deny gays goods and services--I don't care. But if I were a Christian minister, and they wanted me to marry them, I would, because being gay is something Christians consider wrong and it would be wrong to marry them, according to their beliefs. Say what you will about their beliefs (I'm not fond of Christians), BUT ... it is THEIR beliefs, and they have a RIGHT to it. We here are radical Capitalists, who uphold the rights of the individual on high. I can't believe you guys don't see this. Get out of your politically correct boxes.
  11. BTW, get a clue. No church is forced by law to marry anyone. Uh ... get a clue. What do you think the legislation is trying to do? Regulations to ban discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation in the provision of goods, facilities and services, premises, and education. What do you think would happen if a gay couple who went to some Christian church wanted their church to marry them and the church said 'no'? They could file for discrimination, they'd win, and the church would be ordered to marry them or lose their tax-exempt status. More regulation. More control. More loss of rights and freedom. It's not about gays getting married--it's about forcing a business (the church) to do something that they don't want to do, even though it's their right not to, and being shut down if they don't comply. Unintended consequences. Think before you retort. Homosexuality can be passed from parent to adopted child? An adopted child would definitely be predisposed to at least 'trying out' being gay, because that's what he/she considers normal from the way they were raised. I don't particularly care about the individual adopted kids, but it would be sad that they'd be forced into that situation by circumstance. Remember--I don't have a problem with gays being gay and sticking to themselves. But I do acknowledge that being gay is either an abnormality (which normal kids shouldn't be subjected to learning is 'normal') or the result of failure at social mating behavior.
  12. Cigarettes will kill you. Too much of any one chemical will give you cancer of some sort of another. But, what do I care? Smoke 'em if you got 'em. It's your freedom. Nothing wrong with tattoos, if you accept the responsibility of their permanence. I have four tattoos. In retrospect, I still love two of them. I could do without the other two, but I don't regret it, because I accepted their reality when I got them. Here's the thing with homos. There's nothing wrong or scary about it--it's their freedom. Conservative fears are based on Christian beliefs and their Christian ... prudishness. Of course, homosexuality is also real natural selection in action. The majority of gays are either defective human beings, in their hormone levels or production (for some reason or another), OR are people who have given up on pursuing the opposite sex. If gays are allowed to be married, however, it bypasses that 'natural selection' by allowing them to artificially reproduce through adoption. That may or may not be important, according to Objectivist values. We are intended to make nature adapt to US, after all. Gay marriage does present an issue with freedom and individual rights, however. People don't have 'a right to get married'. That's a religious institution. And by forcing churches to marry gays through law, that impinges upon the right of the church, who may not want to do it because it's against their tenets. And a church refusing law-imposed gay marriage, by standing up for their beliefs, would be stripped of their tax-exempt status, and 'go out of business'. Now, I don't give a damn about a church's 'tenets'. I despise organized religion. But I do care about their RIGHT to have their religion. And gay marriage is wrong because it steps on the rights of the church where a theoretical gay couple may demand to be married. If gays get married in a courthouse, outside of religious influence that would otherwise deny them, then the only issue is that of bypassing natural selection. Which I think is wrong, but that's a personal opinion. Which doesn't threaten liberty in any way, so I wouldn't stand in their way.
  13. The whole 'chicken or the egg' thing, I think. Altruism was the obvious response--I was hoping you'd suggest something more and less cliche on an objectivist forum. Of course Altruism breeds fear of a world that is incompatible with altruistic views. But does altruism precede the fear? I bet fear comes before altruism, else they wouldn't have gone off looking for the altruism (an excuse to be weak) in the first place.
  14. Um ... Power? Insecurity? Fear? Surely you don't mean simply 'altruism'? I think it's fear. The lack of confidence to stand by their own convictions and let others live and let live. The conservatives fear death and the unknown and require their faith in god (along with their legally-bound adherence to his 'principals') and can't stand by while people live outside of their code. The liberals/socialists are cowards and fear standing on their own without the support of their peers (legally mandated). They all fear standing alone, confident, among other free men who stand alone. Even the evil tyrants on top do what they do out of fear, so afraid of everyone else or a reality that isn't the way they want it that they have to shape their sphere of control in a way that makes them more 'secure'.
  15. You'll see my hatred for liberalism in a lot of the articles and various other things I post, but 'liberalism' (in the way I define it: socialist leftism), is really the symptom of a bigger problem, and a bigger enemy. Supporters of Socialism are like naive activists--it's all about ideals to make humanity live in harmony with no one holding the low end of the stick. All those hippies, worshipers of of the murderer Che Guevara, brainwashed Obama Kool-aid drinkers, etc.; through their philosophically immature views on how the world should be, they open the gates for mankind's most terrible enemy: Tyranny. The antithesis to individual freedom (and radical capitalists, objectivists, and 'godless conservatives' like me) is the tyrant. The tyrant comes in many forms and different flavors, be it collective or fascist, but it all boils down to the same thing. Power, through the threat of force, to violate the freedoms of the individual. When I rail and fight against liberals, it's more to wake up the brainwashed sheep who just parrot the feel-good stuff they hear from the tyrants in power, than it is a battle against the liberals themselves. I've heard it said that this out-of-control government, to reach its desired level of power and conquer the people of this nation, is focused on dividing us and encouraging us to fight among ourselves. This is true. Conservatives are guilty of not seeing the ploy of the larger enemy, and focusing their resistance and resources on liberals. Liberals are guilty of being thoughtless tools with undeveloped, immature perspectives, who fight the conservatives with their silly bullshit and blindingly follow their powerful masters who control them with guilt to accomplish their sinister aims. Liberals, themselves, are not really the enemy. They're a symptom of a bigger disease. The followers, anyway. The masses (no brain, but a million mouths) are mostly harmless, except for when their masters rile them up to do (vote on) their bidding. As individuals, liberals will either 'grow out' of their views the more they face reality, or become total douche-bags who blather about liberal bullshit and aren't really taken seriously by normal people. The liberals in power, however--they are the real enemy. And not only the liberals. Many republicans and conservatives would cheerfully see this country turned into a police state. Bush proved to be an enemy to freedom with his 'war on terror' that allowed American citizens to be spied on without consent. Obama is an enemy to freedom because he's an idealistic collectivist, and he's doing as much as he can to make America a socialist nation. It's been said that, under a Republican administration, America is creeping toward tyranny, and under a Democratic administration, it's GALLOPING. The true enemy is a rampant government, left unchecked with too much power over its people. I've seen it said that conservative talk-show hosts (Hannity, Rush--I don't know about Glenn Beck) are boot-licking authority lovers. I love a lot of what they say to America, but I think that may be true. They unfailingly support the Republicans, even when Republicans try and steer the country to their own brand of tyranny. And liberals are just retarded. I can't ever take them seriously. Anyone with an ounce of brains who studies the world to better understand reality, knows that collectivism (ANY form of socialism, no matter how slight) is counter-productive to the progress and betterment of mankind (on a large or individual level). Collectivism has always failed where-ever it has been tried, because it is fundamentally flawed and can never work. Where-ever (or if-ever) it succeeds, the result will not be idealized socialism, but instead, a society controlled by the corrupted elite in power. Which is not their ideal. The problem is the corrupted elite in power. We should have never let the government get big enough to the point where it no longer feared the people. We'd better not let it get any worse. Conservatives out there: you've got to realize where the real threat is. Pelosi, Obama, Clinton, Reid, all the other liberals in power ... Yes, you know how they're a problem and you're fighting it in whatever way you can (if you are), and that's a good thing. Did you know that Obama, since he realized he couldn't just 'take' away peoples' guns without sparking a serious conflict, is working on a way to let the United Nations have some legal power here in the US that would circumnavigate the Constitution and allow them to extradite people that refuse to obey their gun laws? But, before you're so quick to follow and defend the Republicans, ask yourself if this law or that law or whatever they're doing is for or against your individual freedom? Consider no fear. No compromise. Does it violate your individual constitutional freedom or not? If so, then they are your enemy and not to be trusted. And liberals: just grow the fuck up. Read some Ayn Rand (one of the best-ever insights into Capitalism and philosophy). Study some history. Expand your mind, and pull your head out of the trees and the rosy emissions of your hybrid cars. Can you really have any respect for yourself if you rely on the efforts of anyone other than yourself? Respect reality, and get to know the nature of mankind--not what 'would be nice'. And grow a damned back-bone. Stop being so offended, and stop trying to be politically correct. The only and best political system that will ever allow mankind thrive and be happy is Capitalism. Unrestricted Capitalism. That's why America came out on top and has been the best ever since this nation was born. Because enjoying our individual freedoms and being free to follow our own paths is the only way to truly live, and the only way we can reach our real individual potential. Reality and logic will always point you in this way. The right way is always clear when you are honest with yourself. All you have to do is look, and allow yourself to see. We are a country that stands alone. But, someone who enjoys real freedom will always have the wolves at their door trying to take it away. And the wolves are all around us. The federal government is at the point now where it pretty-much does what it wants--and doesn't even care to hide it anymore. The pathetic thing is, though, what do we do about it? Watch? Talk? Pretend it isn't happening and play with our cell phones? I fight liberalism because I believe collectivism is evil and sucks the life out of man. But the tyrant is the greater enemy, and the corrupt will sit on the top of the socialist pile of bodies and damn us all.
×
×
  • Create New...