Poelse

Have you heard of this new, student Objectivist publication, The Undercurrent? It looks like a great outlet for non-journalists and students. They've got a website up now: the-undercurrent dot com

Montesquieu, I'm surprised you can judge the ideas, work, and influence of this one man from having read two short opinion pieces. I had barely even heard of Alfred Kinsey prior to the release of this recent film. And a friend of mine--a highly educated graduate student with long-standing interests in psychology and philosophy--hadn't heard of him ever. I'm not saying your evaluation of Kinsey is wrong. I don't know. But don't you think making such a judgment of him deserves more research on your part?

You lame-o's all suck at this game. 'CAUSE I WIN! FIRST KANTIAN! 1. Kant (100%) Click here for info 2. Prescriptivism (100%) Click here for info 3. Jean-Paul Sartre (88%) Click here for info 4. Jeremy Bentham (88%) Click here for info 5. John Stuart Mill (88%) Click here for info 6. Ockham (82%) Click here for info 7. Ayn Rand (58%) Click here for info 8. Aristotle (52%) Click here for info 9. David Hume (52%) Click here for info 10. Epicureans (52%) Click here for info 11. Nietzsche (52%) Click here for info 12. Stoics (52%) Click here for info 13. Thomas Hobbes (52%) Click here for info 14. Spinoza (47%) Click here for info 15. Aquinas (23%) Click here for info 16. Plato (17%) Click here for info 17. Cynics (0%) Click here for info 18. Nel Noddings (0%) Click here for info 19. St. Augustine (0%) Click here for info The questions are awful -- nearly every one of them offer false alternatives of some kind or another.

But the grammar rules (and orthographic rules, for that matter) of Croatian are irrelevant when using English (you seem to only sort of acknowledge this). As an aside: There are many competing views among speakers of your language as to what the language is, which writing system should be used, which grammatical variations should be standard, etc. -- as many competing views as they are competing tribes, I'm sure (the one is so often merely the effect of the other). If you are familiar with Objectivism, you have probably contemplated individualism as a broad solution to your country's history of tribalism and warfare. I wonder, have you considered English as one particular solution to this problem of linguistic bickering? I hope you'll study English further, and won't be discouraged by mistakes. (By the way, some advice for learning English spelling rules is simply to pay attention to how they are used, when you read. And avoid the writings of E.E. Cummings!).

Or maybe the pro-Bush Objectivists are just more vocal, because they are completely on the defensive. Or maybe the pro-Bush Objectivists are just more voluminous in their posts, because all they do is stare at concretes. But the point is moot.

In other words, no, you do not seriously maintain what you said. Sure, Iraq was a threat. And perhaps there was even a possible justification for crushing Iraq first. Perhaps, because that is debatable. But it would have at least involved: first of all, actually crushing Iraq -- which has not been done (nor is there any reason to believe it ever will be). And then, taking military action against Iran -- similarly crushing them and imposing an American system of government and western values. And don't forget: North Korea was and continues to be a greater threat than Iraq, on the grounds that that country already possessed weapons of mass destruction. Who denies this? But our soldiers have died for nothing: they've died senselessly, fighting the wrong battle -- wrong, because it is fought for the wrong reasons, and fought with their arms tied behind their backs. If Iraq were approached in the manner I suggested above, that is, a manner which would have dealt it an uncompromising, crushing defeat, and treated it as the more minor threat it was (compared to Iran and North Korea) , then I would say that those soldiers killed, would not die in vain. Certainly context is relevant here, in terms of just how uncompromising Pres. Bush could be. For example: however immoral it may be for even *one* soldier to lose his life as a result of some political hand-wringing over 'civilian casualties', it would not necessarily invalidate an entire war. But the reasons for the 1000+ who have actually died, are so far beyond a situation like that, I don't even consider it up for debate. No, to the extent that it is even a coherent statement, it's not warranted. It's psychologizing. Perhaps you'd like to reveal which of my statements you consider "partisan lingo", why, and by what means you know that I'm 'picking up' such lingo and simply 'talking points of the side I support'. Even if Kerry truly would do nothing (which is impossible to entertain), how would that be any worse than what Bush would do? Which is precisely what you say he would do: he would kill some terrorists. Maybe he'll even kill some members of governments somewhere, like he did with some of the Baathists, and some of the Taliban. So what? Half-hearted actions do not a war make. You suggest that World War II would have made me squeamish, as if you're some kind of hawk. But World War II is exactly what I'm calling for: the complete, uncompromising destruction of our most lethal enemies and imposition of our system of government and our values. Without any regard for civilian casualties, or the freedom and wealth of the population. Nothing less will diminish the threat of Islamic fundamentalism. With either candidate, Islamic fundamentalism will continue to exist in a significant way (and as I've referenced previously, there is even reason to believe Bush's half-hearted actions may actually embolden terrorists more than doing nothing at all). Why then, do so many on this forum go on supporting Bush?

I'm being accused of context-dropping? Why not read what I wrote: "...thank God, too,because Iraq was such a more imminent threat than Iran or North Korea....(Yes, that's sarcasm)." Do you seriously maintain that it was only possible to realize that Iraq was not the more imminent threat, after invading it? And that Bush publicly acknowledges such a thing? Okay. Better suppress our outrage that they've died for nothing. After all, it was probably just this once that Bush will wage a feeble, losing war (on Iraq and Afghanistan). No doubt you have plenty of reason to believe he'll be different with Iran and North Korea? This is completely unwarranted and insulting. Yes, better to tie our soldiers' hands in Iraq, and keep all the terrorists embroiled over there. After all, what's 1000+ dead? It's not like 3,000. And as you say, all of them are embroiled in it. Well... maybe not all. Maybe there's one or two who aren't in Iraq, and still have time to plot to blow up the Sear Tower or something. But everyone knows it takes at least 19 of them to blow up a building.

It is not sufficient to argue for Bush by pointing out Kerry's leftist positions. No one here is disputing that Kerry is a leftist, with everything that implies. The argument concerns whether the leftist Kerry will invite more danger and destruction than the conservative Bush. For every significant god-awful leftist position of Kerry's, Bush has on his record something equal or worse. This has been argued articulately for many weeks now, both on this forum (see e.g. "Here Come the Christians"), in NoumenalSelf's essays, in Dr. Lewis' op-eds, on the HBL, in Dr. Peikoff's 'DIM Hypothesis' course... To all of you who continue to maintain that Kerry is the greater threat to freedom: have you examined these arguments (above) carefully? Do you dispute the nature of integration and the role of epistemology in shaping a culture? Can you defend the position that compromised, half-hearted actions are not wrong actions, and that besides, it is better to do something wrong than to not do anything at all? Because nothing less will do.

Pericles, I really think you're missing Prof. Lewis' argument. You say you do not share the values of the conservatives; you were merely planning on voting for Bush, for his foreign policy. "Bush has made his re-election foreign policy platform about continuing an offensive war against terrorism", as you say. (emphasis mine). That's just Dr. Lewis' point. As he says, "The Platonic view demands tough talk--the expression of a principle--followed by compromise, the application of the principle. This has had horrendous consequences." You ask, "If Bush says he will wage war offensively against terrorism, how do you expect this will play out?" That Bush says he will wage war offensively against terrorism, is not a recent development. Remember this? How about this? How has this played out? 1,000+ dead in Iraq -- thank God, too, because Iraq was such a more imminent threat than Iran or North Korea, and now there's no way for terrorists to train, hide, or attack us there, given how we have so utterly crushed the insurgency and humiliated the population. (Yes, that's sarcasm). And lest we forget, I remind you that Afghanistan is an Islamic Republic, and bin Laden and the Taliban remain uncrushed. God help us if Bush goes after Iran or North Korea. Given how he fights a war, it would be a disaster. What's more, I think NoumenalSelf has provided a persuasive argument that such half-hearted military actions actually embolden terrorists, rather than demoralize them. Read it here. (You'll have to read down till at least the tenth paragraph). Militant Islam is here to stay -- for now. If you want to see it eradicated, to paraphrase Dr. Peikoff, "Now is the time to become a philosophic hero, and speak out, on whatever scale open to you." And vote for the less destructive of the two candidates -- if you can discern who that is. You can guess where I stand.