Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Lakeside

  1. My apologies on the gender-confusion. I think that I'm not explaining something that is very obvious, but am having difficulty with the wording. Some of you seem to think, or at least a very express, that this is a violence-ridden home. It is not. I don't necessarily agree with some of the methods that many of you have talked about. I don't damn them by any means. I certainly don't speak to you folks in the manner that you speak to me, though many of you exalt liberal methods that produce questionable results. Yes, I've spanked my son twice in his life. There are two (2) offenses with get a belt. No confusion, no question. If you think that's wrong, I'm ok with that.
  2. Ok, Brioan0918 was the first post and is a moderator. I assume you know each other somewhat. It was the easiest reference at hand for someone you know being forced into (and concurrently ) out of, well, anything, by the whim of others. It was nothing in regard to his post. Though it had the tone reserved for a judge. Bluecherry - I was referencing the site that was posted. In the website (birthornot.com), they documented multiple attempts to thwart their work, many by those employed by us (the constituents of this country).
  3. Wow! I am genuinely appalled by your responses! For a group of people who claim to be champions of individual rights, about the masses not having a say in the life of the individual, this is poor form. First and foremost, none of us have the right to make a judgement (not to mention a consistently hateful one) about their lives, at all. And the fact that you are so quickly and willing to desire the seizer of the rights of others, is odd. Secondly, what do you think socialized medicine will do? Place decisions of that magnitude in the hands of random others. The response, both here and on the site that was given, are from many of the same people who are demanding that we, as a nation, face this in our daily lives. "Mr. Brian0918, you need open heart surgery, and a kidney transplant." "Oh, my! When will you schedule me?!" "I'm sorry Brian0918, but your not going to be able to receive this procedure. Your application for the surgery has been denied. It's too expensive for your group." "Well gosh golly! I wish there was a place that had private doctors so I could get a loan from the bank (one available method right now) so I could pay a doctor who isn't overloaded by the State. And I still can't believe that two people I consider incompetent, would allow the decision of living or not to be decided by random people!" (Nothing personal Brian0918) Lastly, let's get real. A man and woman, who've been married for 10 years, with 2 miscarriages, are not going to leave this decision up to random people. Given the responses that I've read on the site that was posted, it'll most likely end up being around 50-50. Also, a woman with multiple miscarriages is more likely to continue to have them. That is a fact, known especially by women in general.
  4. This will be simplistic as well, but I have a few questions about your work place before I'd answer. What is your occupation? How long have been doing it? If you don't desire to do your best, what are you counting on?
  5. Honestly - How hard is this? I, an American citizen, at not point, ever, under any condition, will be tried by anything other than the United States Constitution, and to that which it pertains. I don't care what they do in Germany, Israel, China, New Zealand, or the tribes of humanoids that inhabit the area at the bottom of the Congo. Nor any other countries laws that may exist outside of the boarders of this country. Also, I'm well aware of the differences between referencing and subjugating. I will not have our courts even consider anything other than the Laws of THIS country.
  6. Eiuol - Why object to physical punishment? What evidence do you have to support that doctrine? All the present evidence, within statistics as well as interacting with those who were raised that way show that it produces people that I will not allow my son to be. As far as the corner with the arms up, that's something else. You have time-out and whatever other strategies you may employ in the rearing of your children. I have mine. Besides, my 8 year old reads at a Junior level, is trying to get the concept of geometry, is well mannered and well spoken. The results speak for themselves. Blue - Why would I consider an environment for him that's less than desirable? He has a desirable environment and, as much as a child can grasp it, he understands that. Also, yes, one can change the situation in which a child is raised. Be a productive and active parent (I know it over simplifies, but you understand). I didn't always have what I would consider a "proper" environment to raise him, I went and earned it; i.e. went out and made it happen. SN - it's not that I focused solely on that, but what, other than your opinion, can you present to me that would convince me that I am wrong (in spite of the results at present). You seem to "know" that it's relatively ineffective. How? But, as to the original query, raising children with Objective values is one of the greatest things you can do with them. I have no source of evidence other than my own results (both in myself and him).
  7. Sophia - that was how I was raised. I see no reason to change it when it works as intended. You seem to be responding in the manner that you think I use him like a little punching bag. That, simply, is not accurate. As far as going over the rules and consequences with him, they are on the wall, carved in wood. Also, you write as if this is a common occurrence. It's been needed twice in his life. Also, for your second part. It's not that we don't ever disagree, it's that when one comes up, we talk about it later. Granted, our disagreements typically revolve around where to vacation (camping or beach, Europe or Bahamas, and the like). As far as day-to-day living, I am beyond fortunate in that I chose well. Mrs Lien - You have no children, you should have stopped there. Perhaps next you could teach us Korean. It may sound rude, but I know better than to weigh in on situations and conditions with which I am unfamiliar. As far as doing things together and having fun, we have plenty of that. Between where we go and the activities we do here, there's no lack of options, only a lack of time. He hits the world in roughly 3,000 days. He rarely misbehaves, not out of fear, but because it's not the way for him to accomplish what he's trying to do. Software Nerd - First off, "want" to spank is not the case, at all. And you (all) seem to miss the scope of it. Between "violent" homes and wanting to spank and all that, you obviously know very little about abusive homes (neither do I). And no, physical punishment is not life's answer to lying, but it is the answer to it in my home. It's very rare for a conflict to occur here, rare enough that the last "conflict" at all was 22 Jan of this year.
  8. Only two actions warrant a spanking, and he knows what those two are. And "lashes," that may be the wrong word. Belt, on behind. It's how I was raised and I turned out well above average. Also, another crucial thing. He never see's his mom and I argue, or disagree, ever. I didn't realize that this wasn't "normal" for most people. In my upbringing, I never, once, at all, saw my parents disagree. An argument? Never. That's how I raise him.
  9. I am an American citizen. In no way, under any conditions, will I be held accountable to Islamic Law. Thankfully, I'm an Oklahoma resident. I do not want it considered, at all, in any form, if my actions within the boarders of this country are ever scrutinized in that arena.
  10. I was raised with two offenses that required the belt. Lying and theft. I earned all 7 spanking/lashings that I received. He's earned the two. I know that Dr. Spock and many liberals think that by sparing the rod you spare the child, but that is not so. There are consequences in life, and he's learning that early on. Also, with strict, objective consequences, very few ever have to be severe. And lastly, with an objective, self-interest oriented mindset, he'll hit the world with few competitors in whatever he endeavors to do. He certainly won't have to compete with drunkards, the unmotivated, nor men who wear pink panties, get up on stripper poles, and "express" themselves.
  11. First and foremost, using Objectivism to raise your children is nothing but stellar. Not only for the positive benefits, but for the consequences and repercussions. One part that sticks out most in your thread is the abolishing of all government agencies, with exception to national defense. What few seem to take from that is that can ONLY happen if every citizen understands that the use of force is unacceptable. So long as men wish to live on terms other then being men, the judicial, the DoC, as well as the Police and other such services are required. As for dealing with unruly children, we have a board of rules and consequences in plain view. There is no misunderstanding, no misinterpretation. There is also no leniency. As two quick examples: Lying - 5 belt lashes (Only had to do twice, he's 8). Being disrespectful - Arms up in corner for as many minutes as you are years old. (Happens semi-frequently) These are only a handful of examples. Also, when he uses logic and reason (not automatic, but something I teach him), I may be swayed on a decision: Me: "Go do your homework" Him: "My friends are all playing baseball until 6pm. Then they too are going to go and do their homework. May I join them and do my homework then?" Me: "As long as your back at 6:15." Him: "Yes sir" By starting him off early to use logic and reason, instead of tears and whining, our conflicts are very few. I hope this doesn't change.
  12. That sounds eerily familiar. Having yet to face that actual real world (not to discredit your previous employment), your going to have a few more beatings in the way of realizations of those around you. They, who drown their lives in liquor and the pursuit of the mindless, will, at the drop of a hat, demand that you pay for the deficit of their lives. Not because your as sorry as they, but because you are all that they are not. This is one of the biggest reasons I became self-employeed. I've earned a lovely lifestyle for myself, and no one else's. Though I am charitable (Operation SMILE, Breast Cancer research, mainly), when it was demanded that I slave away in a kitchen (was a chef) so that I could satisfy the needs of those who wouldn't/couldn't do what I do, I refused. I wish you the best, and just know this; no matter where you go, there will be those who desire the unearned (materially and spiritually), but there are those who understand value-for-value. Seek them out.
  13. This is unedited. Please continue to hold for the next available missionary. Agent [Kathryn] is ready to assist you. Kathryn: hello Me: Hello Me: How are you? Kathryn: How may we help you? Me: Oh, I'd like to talk about the concept of sacrifice. Agent [Whitney] has joined the chat. Kathryn: ? Me: Sacrifice, the giving of something of value for something that is not desired. Whitney: ok what has made you intrested in that Me: What do you mean? There is a lot of talk of sacrifice in The Book of Morman as well as the Bible. What I'd like to talk about is why sacrifice is required. Kathryn: You have read the book of mormon then? Me: Why must something that you cherish and value be sacrificed? Why not give up something that isn't valuable. Me: Parts mostly. I don't understand the talking frog or the stones in the hat deal. Whitney: we believe in giving our best. To show respect for the lord Kathryn: There was a friend of mine who just said something about sacrafice that I really liked. "sarifice is giving up something good for something even better. Kathryn: So for example we can sacrifice our time in school. Me: but, when sacrifices are made, they are of material things (livestock, produce, children in some cases). As far as material things are concerned, the only value it has is what is bestowed by the person sacrificing. Whitney: Very ture Me: Then your friend doesn't know what the word "sacrifice" means Whitney: by giving our best we show how much the lord means for us, when we do that, he sends us blessing. Me: but time for school is not a sacrifice to the person who wants to excel. But it is a sacrifice to a person who desires to be a mooching loafer. Me: Ok, but the lord loves us, yet commands that we sacrifice that which is most desired once it's achieved. I don't understand why. Kathryn: Have you prayed about it? Me: I don't pray, per-say Kathryn: What religious backgrond are you coming from? Me: Well, my father was raised in SLC (my grandfather opened the first night clubs in utah, they were in park city), my mother is roman catholic, yet my sister and I were raised in a Kingdom Hall. Once I got my license, I attended a Baptist church. Kathryn: If you would like we can call teach you more about prayer and how to recieve answers? Can we do that for you? Me: What is call teaching? Me: you call me? Kathryn: yes Kathryn: we can call set up a time and teach you more Me: teach me more about what? Kathryn: prayer Me: But what if it's not prayer I'm after? Kathryn: and how to recieve answers. Can we do thatfor you? Me: I'll consider it. But I'm after understanding. Whitney: well we have to go then, it's been great. Agent [Whitney] has left the chat. The chat session has ended. I'm glad I didn't let them call me.
  14. Once the world agrees with Obama, it doesn't matter what we think or say........we are wrong by default. SoftwareNerd....I'm looking for it...
  15. What I'm talking about is the attitude that "all taxation is immoral." While the issue certainly can cover federal employees (from the military on to the IRS to the local law enforcement official), I'd like to limit the discussion to just the principal of taxing in this modern world. Like I had said, I'm not going to defend this monstrous money-cyphoning organization, but the principals behind taxation for the proper purpose of government.
  16. No, WWI, The Great War. While no, it was not called the United Nations, the same organization had it's roots in the early 1900's. Yes, they do have a military. "Volunteer" armies from the countries that comprise the U.N. We (America), provide upwards of 70%+ of their military personnel, equipment, training, etc. As far as Canada, when 400+ decided to protest one of the G summits, the U.N. issued a proclamation (not sure if that's the right word) to the Toronto law enforcement. In essence, if local law enforcement didn't quell the riots, they would. I think you may be missing the point of the report. Spend an afternoon going over the UN micro-film that almost every public library carries (I've never had to wait for the projector). In the name of humanity, we're being told to sacrifice our security, accept privations (health care, increased taxes, ect.) and send our earnings to those who aren't able/willing to earn it themselves. That we have a debt to pay to every degenerate this globe can produce.
  17. I'm not sure who said it up there, but the Mosque may end up being built with tax dollars, in part. Now, does using public money to build on private property ring well? What about a building that many of the direct constituents do not want built?
  18. Yes historically. While the U.N. had a part in WWI, it wasn't until Korea that they tested the idea of sending "international forces" into a country for any reason. Now, U.N. Peacekeepers are common place. And, in an Age of Equality, "here" doesn't matter. The reason I posted it was because of the fact that foreign nationals are going to try and take part in the a law making and enforcing process. Or at least try and show that an individual state of the U.S. is directly subject to U.N. whims.
  19. That is true. But U.S. forces can, and have been in the past, detained on base for vague reasons. Though at present, my concerns lie with a small group of foreigners who are encroaching on any law making practice here. Also, for U.N. troops to come set up road blocks, do wide-scale sweeps, and "deal with" civilian riots (the Ukriane, Greece, and Canada to name a few from this year) is common place. If the U.N. decides that Arizona is violating the rights of criminals, historically speaking, they can place their own troops there.
  20. I'll be defending taxation. Not the grotesque absurdity that it is today, mind you. I'll be defending taxation for the proper purpose of government living in todays world, where modern freedom and security is at stake. I'm open to any reasonable argument. There is a specific person I'd like to talk to about this. DavidOddam (misspelled?) had written a statement saying "There's no question that all taxation is immoral." That's just not accurate. Anyone with something to say is welcome to post, but please, no "I agree with so and so statements" unless your adding to the subject matter.
  21. 11 May 10 - A group of U.N. experts published a report on the matter. Independent UN rights experts speak out against Arizona immigration law 11 May - A group of independent United Nations experts today expressed their serious concern over a new immigration law enacted in the state of Arizona, questioning whether the legislation is compatible with international human rights treaties which the United States has signed on to. “A disturbing pattern of legislative activity hostile to ethnic minorities and immigrants has been established with the adoption of an immigration law that may allow for police action targeting individuals on the basis of their perceived ethnic origin,” the experts warned. Migrant workers send home money to their families The new law requires that state law enforcement officers determine the immigration status of people based solely on a “reasonable suspicion” that they are in the US illegally, and arrest people without a warrant if officers have “probable cause” to believe they are illegal aliens. “The law may lead to detaining and subjecting to interrogation persons primarily on the basis of their perceived ethnic characteristics,” the UN experts stressed, with those who appear to be of Mexican, Latin American or indigenous origin at heightened risk of being targeted. In a press release issued in Geneva, the experts called into question the “vague standards and sweeping language” of the Arizona legislation, “which raise doubts about the law’s compatibility with relevant international human rights treaties to which the United States is a party.” The law specifically targets day labourers, criminalizing both undocumented migrants’ efforts to solicit work and people’s attempts to hire them. Under the law, being in the country illegally is punishable by up to six months in jail. The UN experts today pointed out that countries must respect and ensure the human rights of all people under their jurisdiction without discrimination. “Additionally,” they emphasized, “relevant international standards require that detention be used only as an exceptional measure, justified, narrowly tailored and proportional in each individual case, and that it be subject to judicial review.” Around the same time the law was adopted, legislation was passed prohibiting Arizona school programmes “designed primarily for pupils of a particular ethnic group” or that “advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals.” The state’s school superintendent, who promoted this legislation, has repeatedly said that the law is targeted at cutting out current ethnic studies programmes featuring the history, social dynamics and cultural patterns of Mexican-Americans. “Such law and attitude are at odds with the State’s responsibility to respect the right of everyone to have access to his or her own cultural and linguistic heritage and to participate in cultural life,” the UN experts underlined. “Everyone has the right to UN News Centre • www.un.org/news -8- UN Daily News 11 May 2010 seek and develop cultural knowledge and to know and understand his or her own culture and that of others through education and information.” While recognizing that States have the prerogative to control immigration and take steps to protect their borders, “these actions must be taken in accordance with fundamental principles of non-discrimination and human treatment,” they said. Further, the experts emphasized, “States are obligated to not only eradicate racial discrimination, but also to promote a social and political environment conducive to respect for ethnic and cultural diversity.” The experts signing onto today’s press release are: Jorge Bustamante, Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants; Githu Muigai, Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance; James Anaya, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people; Farida Shaheed, Independent Expert in the field of cultural rights; Vernor Muñoz, Special Rapporteur on the right to education; and Gay McDougall, Independent Expert on minority issues. Based on this report, among other considerations, representatives from Arizona will be answering to the U.N. on our policies to protect our own boarders. Currently, the U.N. is dealing with France on a similar matter; Gypsies. Seeing what they are doing there, it's no small leap for them to do the same, or something to the same affect, here. Another note to go with that. For the past 16-18 months, 36,000 or so U.N. troops have been quartered around the country following civilian riot control training. OK, for instance, is quartering round about 4,800. Their training was completed over a year ago.....
  22. On 5 Nov 10, it looks like Obama is going to take Arizona to the U.N. for human rights violations. Looks like we're not going to be aloud to defend our boarders. I've been watching how the U.N. is impeding on France for dealing with their gypsy problem. Anyone heard of this or have any thoughts?
  23. There is a very big difference between a Rearden Steel t-shirt and standing on the corner of a busy intersection hollering out lines from the book. My work takes me all over OK, and I frequently don what could be considered flair. But I don't force a conversation where one isn't welcome.
  24. Perhaps I didn't convey my target audience. Golfing friends, clients I've known for a while, some of my suppliers. I didn't mean to say that I try and explain reality to a woman in the produce isle complaining of the prices, or to a man in passing complaining that his job doesn't pay enough, and so forth. I must say though, with the exception of an Ethiopian minister who asked if I was Iraqi or Iranian, people of faith always come in and talk for awhile.
  25. I thought I was rather conservative in my approach.... Multiple t-shirts I wear while working (Rearden Steel, Taggart Transcontinential, d'Anconia Copper, Richard Halley School of Music). A few glasses at home. My business checks are made to Rearden Steel (I get asked if I'm Rearden or Steel). (My EIN is Readen Steel) I had read a number of posts regarding talking to people about it. One had said he just says "read Atlas Shrugged". Try premise-challenging questions instead. The ones where you see the other look off to the side and say "huh?" The look of an evasion that's finally dealt with is quite rewarding if they go that far.
  • Create New...