Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

ooghost1oo

Regulars
  • Content Count

    20
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About ooghost1oo

  • Rank
    Novice

Previous Fields

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

Contact Methods

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

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Colorado
  • Interests
    Objectivism, Capitalism, Freedom, Guns, and Beer.
  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
  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 individuall
  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
  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
  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 th
  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
  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 Constituti
  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, abu
  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 ri
  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 ... prudishnes
  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. Ev
  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 e
×
×
  • Create New...