roscov6

If you choose to love someone, that person gains, not you. Love is the highest reward you can receive for your virtues. Sex is love’s finest form of expression. Sex is a mutually beneficial celebration of self esteem. These ideas were discovered by Ayn Rand. Do they help or hinder the discussion?

The whole history of the world is filled with people being persecuted because they disagreed. Objectivists disagree to an extreme degree. Objectivists even claim "I am, therefore, I'll think." This ultimate disagreement is done openly, and proudly. I call myself an Objectivist because I agree to disagree too, and I am, therefore, I'll think. When the Romans were in charge, anyone who disagreed was fed to the lions, and Hitler killed the disagreeable ones, and now, Islam persecutes. Yet, no one comes in the night to haul me off to the gulag, and I have no knowledge of anyone being shot because they claim that existence exists. Is this lack of persecution because the collectivists do not know what we are doing? If the altruists find out what we are doing, will they begin shooting Objectivists? None of Objectivism is hidden; it's all out in the open for anyone to see. When the Christians first got started, they had secrets, and tried to hide - is that why they were persecuted? Objectivists are open and transparent - is that why we are not persecuted? EDIT by Rationalcop: Moved to Basic Questions from About the Web Site.

It would be hard to find a judge in America who denies Christianity..........who would openly, and deliberately ridicule crucifiction, and sacrifice. Therefore, most American judges appear to embrace Christianity, which means to love the enemy. The enemy is crime. A particular judge might secretly feel that a particular criminal is a rotten person, and deserves extreme punishment, but the judge must keep up appearances, and release the criminal because there is no room in the jail, according to the law. The judge is merely following orders, and cannot be blamed. As long as he pretends to be a Christian, Heaven holds a place for him. Not to mention his place in society.

America's judges pity the guilty, and give them light sentences, or release them back into society, and this encourages some of the guilty to commit more crime. People guilty of crimes, along with those who pity them, are sick and weak, and should be culled from society, instead of living in society. Nietzsche had some words about bad people, and I have adapted his words to the following: The sick are the greatest danger for the well. The weak are the strong's undoing. What is to be dreaded by us more than any other doom is pity for the guilty. Those who pity the guilty are just as guilty as the guilty, and are born wrong, miscarried, and broken, and it is they who undermine the vitality of the race, poison our trust in life, and put humanity in question. Every look of the guilty, and the pity-ers, is a sigh - 'Would I were something else. I am sick and tired of what I am.' In this swamp soil of self contempt, every poisonous weed flourishes, and all so small, so secret, so dishonest, and so sweetly rotten. Here swarm the worms of sensitivity, and resentment; here the air smells odious with secrecy, with what is not to be acknowledged; here is woven endlessly the net of the meanest of conspiracies, the conspiracy of those who suffer against those who succeed, and are victorious; here the very aspect of victorious is hated - as if health, success, strength, pride were in themselves things vicious, for which one ought eventually to make bitter expiation. Oh, how these people would themselves like to inflict the expiation, how they thirst to be the hangmen! (Zur Genealogie der Moral, Dritte Abhandlung) Adapted from a quotation by William James. Actually, I think the judges who pity the guilty are more guilty than the guilty, because they are supposed to be our defense against crime, and their pity for the guilty is treason, as Ayn Rand said. The solution to the problem is to spread ARI Objectivism.

First I would have to know what you mean by "more or less a non issue," because I think it means you are using software, etc., without the owners' permission, which is a crime. Can you clarify for us?

I put GULLIBLE into a search box and got a website on financial planning and cheap phone calls. Anyway, thanks for the book review, and I will read Jonathan Gullible.

I agree with you that you were wrongfully injured, and that the dog owner is liable, but the NY law apparently considers the matter a civil one, and your only recourse is to sue. This is an injustice, and NY needs to correct the laws, because the incident, as you describe it, is clearly assault with a deadly weapon, and that is a crime in most states, and when a crime is committed, the guilty have to pay, and pay. All dogs bite. And this is not anything wrong against dogs, it is simply the nature of a dog. But knowing that dogs bite makes it illogical to have a dog as a pet - dogs should be recognized as the weapon they are, and used accordingly, and everyone has the right to bear arms (defend himself). The right to defend one's self does not allow anyone to endanger innocent bystanders, and reasonable care is used with firearms, and knives, and etc., therefore, the same reasonable care should be used with dogs which are used as a means of self defense......and this reasonable care apparently was not used by the dog owner whose dog bit you.

You don't think the death penalty applies, because???????? You must have a reason, and you would not express an arbitrary. I don't think dogs are 'murderous,' dogs bite, it is their nature - what dogs are, determines what they ought to do. If murder has occurred, it is the dog owner who is at fault.

Holding owners responsible. How would that work? Suppose the dog kills a small child. What is the dog owner's responsiblity in such a case? Ayn Rand said that the punishment should fit the crime - should the death penalty apply?