LandonWalsh

Among the many....

I am an objectivist to the core and nearly worship Rand fundamentally. However I have a HUGE problem with her on this one.

*** Mod's note: Merged with earlier topic. - sN *** Are there any quotes made by Rand on Israel? I've herd the Objectivist leadership talk about it but i've yet to here anything from the lady herself.

I've been promoting Schiff in every way, every chance I get. This is the only guy I've seen in the political spectrum for the last 100 years that has been even close to the objectivist principles. He's got $100 dollars from me. And will get more after my next paycheck. Help this guy out!!

Too late, he unfriended me. After this discussion: Tom- "The Objective is to spread Objectivism and our view of limited government and respect for individual rights. Rand would love us were she alive today. I don't know and don't care what ARI thinks. I work in the political realm. They work in the Rand Realm." Landon- "Wasn't it Ayn herself that said that Politics was the effect and not the cause? That the problem of our day is a philosophical one? From what i've gathered from history. Political parties are rather easy to corrupt. The mere nature of the party detail inclusivity which requires compromise which is against the ideals of objectivism. If compromise was not made, then you would have to have a closed platform not available for change. That would limit the party to a few thousand people, and what is the point of a few thousand is a majority ruled system? And who is to say I would agree with another objectivists platform?" Besides you apparently don't know Rand that well: "Ayn Rand Answers: The Best of Her Q&A" Q: Is it not time for an Objectivist politician? ARand: It certainly is not. For whom would he speak? One cannot run an educational campaign and a political campaign simultaneously. In fifty years, it might be time for an Objectivist politician; but by the time it’s possible, he practically wouldn’t be necessary. The country’s public opinion would continue in the direction of freedom and reason. Therefore, Objectivists should go to the classroom, and correct the situation there." Tom: Rand was wrong. Rand would agree with what I am doing if she were alive today. Click here to join the guys disapproval group>> http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=121889493714

Tom! I've been to one of your protests. Know a Kassie dill? Ive got friends that way.

Oh my. That blog post made me gag. I'm tempted to start a group called "objectivists against that tom stevens guy" I'm sure it will have more members than his party. Who does he think he is? http://objectivistparty.us/6464.html I had more members in one of my political groups as a libertarian than he has in his party! Doesn't he know selling the idea of a party to objectivists is like selling junk bonds to an austrian economist.

*** Mod's note: Merged with an earlier topic. - sN *** What is with this guy Tom Stevens who says he is heading up an "objectivist party" I've had him on my facebook for a while and I always get this funny feeling when I see him pop up. Wasn't it Ayn herself that said that Politics was the effect and not the cause? That the problem of our day is a philosophical one? From what i've gathered from history. Political parties are rather easy to corrupt. The mere nature of the party detail inclusivity which requires compromise which is against the ideals of objectivism. If compromise was not made, then you would have to have a closed platform not available for change. That would limit the party to a few thousand people, and what is the point of a few thousand is a majority ruled system? And who is to say I would agree with another objectivists platform? Personally I think its crap. I wonder if the ARI has made a statement on it. Im sure if they have they disapprove. As do I. I think its crap.

I don't think they understand that if they cut off the internet then they will suffer the consequence of millions of lazy rioting teenagers that now with nothing to do... Will burn the state. lol

Really? lol... I'm from fayetteville Arkansas and im on there all the time. I got my Ninja 650r from craigslist, my job, and apartment. All good deals. I'm about to sell my 2007 cobalt for 7k on there. Never see the Nigerian scams.

Use Craigslist. Thats all I have to say.

Two years prior to the writing of that essay I was a supporter of communism. So I feel as if I have inside information on the intellectual thoughts of each group. It lets me know how right Rand was. Btw, this was written in Comp 1 and it was a very conservative teacher that had us write these essays after reading Tocqueville. Now I am going to UofA in Arkansas and will be getting my doctorate in Philosophy. Hopefully will be teaching it in 4 years as well. If the economy is still in one peice by then I want to start my own private school system (K-12) that focuses on the Objectivist philosophy. I not only think that the objectivist philosophy is the only to live life, but I think that the principles in that philosophy will make them better students and better achievers than can be seen anywhere in the world. The title of this topic is supposed to say "One of the most disgusting pieces of literary trash ever written. Was Written by ME!!!"

Yeah! Ding dong the Ted is Dead! The Ted is Dead! The Ted is Dead! Hahahahaha! Good riddance you motherfucker.

Even with children, the only time I find it acceptable to strike a person is after I've been struck. I would never raise a hand to my child when I am trying to get him to do something. However if he make it a physical matter I wouldnt waste a second in slapping him into next week.

This was written in 2007 at NorthArk. I was so sick reading this. I'm posting this to show everyone that YES I am wrong sometimes, however I correct my mistakes. The fact that I made this obvious of a mistake, this big of a mistake is so shocking to me. It really makes me understand how destructive the altruist philosophy is to the mind. Furthermore, this proves the mindset of the altruist that so many collectivist deny when talking about their portrayal in Atlas Shrugged. Also a good example of why Ayn Rand hated libertarians. "Corey Landon Walsh Dr. Terrill's class 2007 Individualism in a Democracy There is much to be said for individualism. It is an ideal that has a colossal impact on the human condition. It stresses human independence and the importance of individual self-reliance and liberty. If people did not care for themselves, there would be no need for freedom. Choice would be an unpopular idea, and submission a blessing. However, the fact that individuality stresses liberty is undoubtedly a paradox, since it is individuality that prevents the success of liberty in a democracy. The philosophy of liberty is based on the principle of self-ownership, and free choice, while individualism is based on self-interest. Although, it isn't individualism that destroys democratic nations, but the selfishness created through individualism that, separates man from his fellow countryman, Isolates him into groups, and imposes laws that benefit self; eventually tearing apart the fabric of liberty and destroying everything democracies stand for. It is egoism that first puts an emphasis on "self". It not only makes "every man forget his ancestors, but it hides his descendants and separates his contemporaries from him."(P462) And in dismissing his brother, his father and his children, he loses purpose for himself and concern for any other. Soon man's selfishness makes him forget that he does not have claim on another man's life, liberty or property. Nor is he in the position to use a group to impose on any other man or group. But it is this fear of man's fellow man, and his unnatural ability to impose and enslave, that forces people to think even more of themselves, and to cower in fear of his fellow man. Although, the individual may be an important part of a democratic society, the lone man can hardly change things for himself, by himself. Often an ideal is expressed that caters to a select few individuals. The group then separates itself from the whole society, taking in some and alienating others. Priorities shift very quickly, and soon being human doesn't matter, nor does being an American, or being free. The goal of the democracy is to give equal choice and opportunity, but the goal of the individual groups within the democracy is to acquire benefits for the group only. And when everyone in the democracy is separate, everyone in the democracy can be exploited. The groups bring these problems on themselves. They lobby to restrict business, personal prosperity, free speech, and freedom of choice, many times in the name of security or personal beliefs. These groups elect officials from their group, ignoring candidates from other groups based on their principle instead of talents. Group-think keeps people from thinking freely and laws are enacted that slowly enslave all countrymen, no matter what group. Furthermore, the group separation of a democratic nation and the group-think caused from it allows for the population to be tactically exploited. "Divide and conquer" Politicians use this to win elections in the democracy. They cater to the group ideals, and the people fall for it. When tragic events occur, the selfishness and need for security is exploited to give politicians more power and the individual less liberty. Unfortunately, this is the inevitable course of things. Selfishness isolates, confines, controls, and conquers men. It turns him against one another, and corrupts liberty. And even though it would seem that liberty and individualism were related. It is a kinship that unequivocally ends with individualism being the most dangerous enemy to freedom. So no longer is the democratic nation a nation of liberty, but a nation of individuals all fighting for their selfish needs." :dough: :dough:

The Cave and the Theory of Forms are often sited as a examples of subjective epistemology and with good reason. The Theory of Forms itself declares that knowledge is perception based and not reality based. Plato talked about the ideal perception of forms were " impossible to know. " To substantiate his claims he uses the "human perception" argument to support his early version of epistemology subjectivism. Plato had postulated that we know Forms through remembrance. Memory instead of abstractions. Sensation instead of percepts. Which would place us on the epistemological level of beasts... I didn't even mention anything outside of plato's theory of forms usage in the cave. There are also the obvious violations of logical allegory that can be seen once you compare the cave to reality. Reality itself do not show us some things and not others, we have the unlimited spectrum of knowledge at our fingertips through developing abstractions through the law of identity. How else are we to gauge any knowledge when all sensory information is in question, and if sensory information is not in question but our ability to develop abstractions due to men discovering "forms through remembrance" how are we to judge right or wrong, real or not real. Remember, optical illusions, are errors in the conceptual identification of what is seen, not in the seeing itself. Plato was the one building straw men. Or should I say a straw cave.

Watching this made me a little sick to my stomach, but I felt like I should share it with you guys anyway.

I've not wrote much lately... I wrote one after reading anthem one day... No relation to the story. Proud Mediocrity Four homeruns and then a Fifth, their hometeam smiles are just a myth. Faster kept the bases run. In the end its me who won. My Pride, my effort, I gave my best. Not much is said for all the Rest. But what is this? We're all good batters? Its not who wins that really matters? Then what's the use of all my work? I think, then find there is no perk. You did not need to hold me down Those words have kept me on the ground. Down with me my justice lies. For you've belittled my only prize.

Nowhere but up I can barely lift a pen, To say the very least. With helplessness taking over, I'll drink until deceased. No word or oath or creed, Can help me so today. I'll just drink till I see bottom, And err improve the day. For if I had the choice, I'd choose the later grave. Sweet peace and humble sleep, With agony I would wave. But I am not near brave, Brave enough to choose. So I'll chug the whisky down, And hope that I will lose. ----------------------------------------- White Flags Exhausted, lost, and drowned in apathy I sit upon a cliff With my heart in my hand Questioning whether or not If I am enough a man To hold onto my heart Or toss it away To stay who I am Or untruthfully decay ------------------------------ LIFE Life is confusing not perusing inside the box outside the box relevancy of none he gave his only son or did he or did he simply do you care do you dare insanity is in definition to repeat ones actions and expect differentiation so the order required for association is but the repetition you make me do what i make me do it's my choice yet you have a voice back in the box back with the stones and rocks so quietly I abide yet i feel the hate inside I wait til the choice is mine but at the end you'll still deny. the order of society in life will peradventure take my mind so i have no choice you've taken it away with your booming voice i asked and you said nay so i will leave the box and go my merry way take thine eyes and look the away life is confusing not perusing ------------------------------ You hide your love away A symbol to all that’s gone in the darkness you decay and never find the dawn Everyday is like a day in prison, Where you hope for some relief Where there is one, and only one vision, Far away from all the grief But however long I’ve been standing I have always been by Holding onto your hand forever When you’re not holding mine You’ve tossed away your love Afraid to hit the floor But you’ve been crawling on the ground Forgetting our love was more We're in this Hell together Trapped beneath the fear For its You and I forever And never shedding a tear

*** Mod's note: Merged thread with an earlier thread. - sN *** I just got this crazy comment on one of my online debates and I'm not sure what to make of it... What the hell is he talking about? Not that his argument is anything but intimidation. "So what happened to the William Hickman/Ayn Rand link I posted on your page? Did you have a hard time RATIONALizing why the Holy Rand called a sociopathic child murderer a "beautiful soul"? It's all fun and games to poke and prod at people's beliefs until your OWN come into question? For anyone who doesn't know what I'm talking about: Corey's hero/leader Ayn Rand wrote about and idolized a kidnapper & vicious murderer of a 12 year old girl named William Hickman. Here's a link to the article...(which Corey deleted from his profile without comment) http://michaelprescott.net/hickman.htm A very interesting read, it gives a lot of insight into the private mind of Ayn Rand...and, through Hickman, it illustrates the danger inherent in her "what is good for me, is right" philosophy. Everything is broken. A follower is a follower...bicker away..."

Well so far one reply has helped me out... =P

I've heard these arguments over and over: "reason is merely faith" "Not everyone has the SAME reality" "You see Religion is based off of the same "Reasoning" Plato was trying to validate with Allegory of A Cave. It is the never ending search for that fabled 0.0000000000001% that can't be proven to even exist but still exists "" I am pretty good at holding my own, but I find it the hardest to fight this argument and I am not sure how to approach it. Any ideas?