14

Checking my premises

Posted by $ jbrenner 8 years, 8 months ago to The Gulch: General
229 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

I was unsure as to whether I would title this, "Unlearning what I have learned" or "Checking my premises", because in it, I have done both. A couple of recent posts by AmericanGreatness and Eudaimonia, along with a couple of posts from 1-2 weeks ago are relevant.

I have long thought that the US military was an agent for liberation from totalitarian regimes. Now should I think they are mere pawns of their political masters, most often performing altruism to societies that do not appreciate their presence?

I had long thought that having a strong military meant having a strong national defense. After seeing 67 out of 70 purposeful attempts by TSA employees to evade TSA screening in a "test" of TSA security, I know differently. Moreover, the strong military and even the border agents were unable to protect us from an invasion of illegal immigrants because the one holding the leash kept the military and border agents on so tight a leash that they were unable to do what used to be their job.

I had long thought (because I had thought that the US military was an agent for liberation from totalitarian regimes) that the US had the "moral high ground". I still think that abortion is not the best moral decision and have been criticized (perhaps rightly) within the Gulch for that opinion. Moreover, I see a commentator (sorry, but I forget whom) on FoxNews suggest that America has lost the "moral high ground" in light of the Planned Parenthood situation (The commentator said that Muslims must consider us barbarous for having so many abortions. The term barbarous ironically is derived from the Barbary Pirates in Libya.).

I'm just checking my premises.


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • 11
    Posted by Zenphamy 8 years, 8 months ago
    Jim, I think that is one of the keys to an Objectivist life. None of us can be successful in our lives without 'checking those premises' as they arise in our personal, private, and business lives. Even as one studies and lives Objectivism and might think they have it all down pat, if he is honest with himself he will encounter situations that make him look or at least re-look at his premises. New information, new evidence, new questions will always and forever rise. For myself, that's the joy of life. One can never say truthfully that all questions are answered or that all premises are completely understood.

    Life is change.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by philosophercat 8 years, 7 months ago
      What no objective principles? No absolute truths? How about the laws of thermodynamics or "Life is a process of self sustained self generated action." Everything just a probability waiting on an unknown next bit of information to extend the infinite regress to ignorance? Lordy how the skeptics do roam. If you think about it you will see that even using language between Gulcher's requires principles such as the theory of information transfer. IT doesn't control the content but if you want to be understood you will need principles both philosophic and scientific.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by conscious1978 8 years, 7 months ago
        Cat, check your premises. ;) Saying all questions are not answered is not saying some haven't been answered. :)
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ 8 years, 7 months ago
          Many questions have been answered, and some haven't. There are absolute truths, but there are some things that I may never master. I will endeavor to do so nonetheless.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by ewv 8 years, 7 months ago
            There is far too much knowledge available to day for anyone to master all of it. You should not "endeavor to do so nonetheless"; it is futile. Neither could anyone ever have infinite knowledge of 'everything', which would be impossible ominscience, an 'infinite' consciousness without identity.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ 8 years, 7 months ago
              Understanding how to build things from the atomic scale up and then doing so will take up much of the rest of my life. I supplement that with what I learn from the Gulch.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by philosophercat 8 years, 7 months ago
          You cant check your premises without granting you have premises, a means of checking them, and that you and the external source of information which caused you to query both exist. So yes check your premises but remember you are long way down the philosophical path before you can actuallyy do it. The better you know the principles and requirements for checking your premises the faster and easier it is. Good luck.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Abaco 8 years, 7 months ago
    jbrenner, I appreciate your commentary here.

    Over the past decade I have really been checking my premises. For me, it started with our response to 9/11. The American people were all behind a military response to attack our attackers. I turned on the tv one night to see our first military action...dropping food on Afghanistan. This confused me. Next, we invaded Iraq. Confused again. Look at what our actions have done to the world over the past 14 years. A million dead in Iraq, per some reports. A million.

    Harvesting organs of 2nd trimester babies because you "want to buy a Lamborghini", in my opinion, exceeds what I would consider "rational self interest". Forcing medical treatment on people also is outside the bounds of rational self interest. These are just a couple recent examples.

    Frankly, I think the American people are being duped. The other night when the media exploded over Trump's comments regarding Mexico I blurted out, "If we were really at war with terrorism, we'd control our borders." It, to me, is starting to feel like we're living in a big Truman Show. The general public is so easily distracted over stories like a trophy hunter killing a lion...it doesn't bode well. I've had people that I know to be very intelligent and educated regurgitate obvious falsehoods and it always makes me stop and say, "What's going on here?" Like I said...Truman Show...duped.

    ...Yeah, it's always good to check our premises. Sorry for my early-morning ramblings...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 8 years, 8 months ago
    I, too, am conflicted. I come down to this-it is not moral to make another a slave. That is where I stand. I have been horrified by these videos, but I wonder about science and its importance. I think the govt should be out of it, and if it is your tissue, you are the one to contract (currently illegal). The government does not get to choose for me. I'd also try to educate those choosing abortion if they are willing. That fetus has greater value if born live-and if more females choosing abortion had information and ease of giving the baby up for adoption, surely most of us agree that is a viable opportunity for the pregnant female. Is PP putting a bunch of money into that? seems like they are not :( but I am no expert.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 8 years, 8 months ago
      After the last month, I think I would be willing to let Planned Parenthood do their thing and let those who want abortions have them. Although I would disagree with their decisions, it is ultimately their decision. What I vehemently disagree with is the cronyism, whether it be Planned Parenthood or Boeing (the big victor in the Export-Import Bank vote recently).
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ Abaco 8 years, 7 months ago
        I disagree with being forced to pay for what Planned Parenthood is doing (as pointed out in the recent videos). You either agree to subsidize the harvesting and marketing of human baby parts or you are a criminal. Where do we draw the line, anymore? At what point does one say, "Ah...you know...I don't feel as patriotic today."? Argh...
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ 8 years, 7 months ago
          One of my reasons for reading Objectivist fiction and non-fiction, primarily by Ayn Rand (but not exclusively), is to have a rational basis for knowing where to draw such lines.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by ewv 8 years, 7 months ago
            Draw what line? He wasn't clear about that.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ 8 years, 7 months ago
              You could interpret that in the limited sense regarding harvesting and marketing of human baby parts. I don't think that Abaco's point was that limited in this case, however, and it certainly wasn't in my echoing of his point. I was referring to the border between letting something that one finds objectionable slide because it really is none of one's business vs. taking action to ensure that society does not devolve into something so barbaric that it is not worth living in. For example, while you may be willing to tolerate abortion now, you probably won't like it in 30 years when looter statists start dictating that you and I be euthanized once we reach a certain age or lack of physical or mental ability "in order to make Medicare work for everyone". I am not arguing this point from a religionist perspective. I am arguing it from self-interest, and given how much time and money has been spent recently on my parents' lives, it is a particularly timely issue for me. When I get to their age, I would put the odds at > 50:50 that I would be euthanized were I in my parents' condition this year, were I not to leave America first. So the bottom line point is "At what point does defending the moral foundation of a culture become something in my best self interest?" If I do a little bit now, it might forever change an outcome that I do not want to see later, at which time the problem might no longer be correctable.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by ewv 8 years, 7 months ago
                The right of abortion is a consequence of the rights of the individual, not a moral foundation for euthanasia. The "looter statists" sacrificing individuals to the collective to "make Medicare work" or any equivalent are the opposite of morality and rights. Violating other people's rights because you find their actions objectionable supports the statists.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by $ Abaco 8 years, 7 months ago
                  People have the right to have abortions. I don't like being forced to pay for it, especially when those subsidized entities are saying they "want to buy a Lamborghini" with the profits of the harvested parts. My problem is that I'm being forced to pay for it. Talk about "statists"... (I wasn't clear). I also am opposed to forced medical treatment, especially on children. This has been tried by GOVERNMENTS before. It always ends poorly, not to mention that it flies in the face of Objectivism. To me, Objectivism really works. It keeps clarifying situations for me. (And, I'm probably less clear today. I worked until midnight, up at 5 this morning. I work a lot, feeding this mess. So far...)
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by ewv 8 years, 7 months ago
                    The PP person in the video did not say she "'wants to buy a Lamborghini' with the profits", she said that no one is doing that and there aren't profits, only reimbursements for costs. The organization who made the video and those publicizing it are distorting their own material to try to spread hysteria. (But that does not mean you should like paying for any of it in any government program.)
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by $ Abaco 8 years, 7 months ago
                      She did say that she wanted to get a good price and mentioned that she wants to buy a Lamborghini in the same statement. I can't imagine how she could have meant those two things weren't related. How about the video where the PP workers have the mangled aborted babies in a backlit dish, picking out the parts. I don't think they are doing a biopsy there. Even though I fully support a woman's right to choose, that gave me the willies. How about if all sales proceeds goes to the mother? Anybody have that discussion yet? Didn't think so.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by $ 8 years, 7 months ago
                      Those publicizing this are not distorting their own material. The entire set of unedited videos is available for download. They are doing it for the hysteria, however.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by ewv 8 years, 7 months ago
                        Their own characterization of their own videos is distorted despite the fact that anyone can download the hours of videos. Most people are seeing only the edited version, or briefer portions of those, as they are "interpreted" to attribute meaning which was not held by PP and is not even ambiguous in the full videos. This is in addition to the sensationalism of the whole affair in their rhetoric of "selling baby parts" and anti-conceptual appeals to pictures of fetuses with "fingers" and which "twitch when poked".
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by $ 8 years, 7 months ago
                          If a consumer of news wishes to see the edited version, that is their prerogative. Saying that an unedited video is distorted is beneath your usual level of debate.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by ewv 8 years, 7 months ago
                            Consumers of news are not about to spend hours watching the full videos. They are getting pieces deliberately selected that along with "interpretations" misrepresent PP's actual views and actions, all wrapped in hysterical sensationalism based on the religious anti-abortion rights ideology. That others could watch and analyze the whole thing, even though it is not practical for most, does not change what the PR campaign is doing.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by $ Abaco 8 years, 7 months ago
                          They have said that they are "distorting" their own videos? Really? Interesting. Well, maybe selling parts of fetuses and (as we are learning in the more recent release) the selling of whole, aborted babies is ok with taxpayer dollars. (heavy sarcasm, sorry)
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by ewv 8 years, 7 months ago
                            No they didn't say they were distorting it. It's what they did in both the selective editing and the interpretation they attributed to PP.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Posted by $ Abaco 8 years, 7 months ago
                              "Their own characterization of their own videos..." Now, I'm confused. I thought you mean that they admitted it. To me, the videos are pretty clear in showing that they are harvesting aborted babies and selling the parts for profit, even positioning the babies for better harvest. Perhaps that's all just made up. I admit that it could be a bunch of malarky.
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                              • Posted by ewv 8 years, 7 months ago
                                They aren't "babies" and it isn't done for profit. The interviews are real, but the excerpts were carefully selected portions that could be "interpreted" to be mean what they want to portray it as in contradiction with the rest, in order to make the whole PR package inflammatory. Their whole "case" rests only on a prior anti-abortion belief.
                                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                • Posted by khalling 8 years, 7 months ago
                                  I disagree. The conversations were so carefully worded as to avoid what was really being discussed. I am not a doctor, but am familiar with some procedures used and have some idea of the research being done. A fully intact "cadaver" must be "delivered." If it isn't directly inducing labor, then I'd be curious to know what the procedure that can deliver a dead fetus, fully intact and untainted by chemical is. To your second point about profit. Most non-profits provide services and/or products for a price above cost. The fact that they can legally sell your tissue to a third party but you cannot legally is part of the insidiousness here, and if made legal, might change the landscape for the better.
                                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                  • khalling replied 8 years, 7 months ago
                                  • ewv replied 8 years, 7 months ago
                                • Posted by $ Abaco 8 years, 7 months ago
                                  If not done for profit then why the negotiations? I'm genuinely curious about that. I've never seen negotiations like that on a T&M agreement (which are also done for profit, by the way). I find your take on this interesting. Why not just deliver the parts for free? Perhaps the PP people in these videos are just actors(?)
                                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                  • ewv replied 8 years, 7 months ago
                • Posted by $ 8 years, 7 months ago
                  I agree with you that the right of abortion is not the moral foundation for euthanasia in an Objectivist universe. However, that is not how the statists see it, and unfortunately we do not live in an Objectivist universe ... yet. The statists see euthanasia as a logical step, perhaps several steps down the road, after abortion rights. So I have to play chess and think many steps down the road in order to live in a world that is worth living in.

                  I couldn't agree more that the statists' sacrificing individuals to the collective to make Medicare work is the opposite of morality and rights. And I also agree that violating other people's rights in the short term would be a violation of the non-interference principle.

                  But my question still stands, "At what point does defending the moral foundation of a culture become something in my best self interest?" I think that doing so in America's case has been a lost cause for at least the last 15 years and perhaps the last 100 years, so at this point, the question is purely hypothetical.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by ewv 8 years, 7 months ago
                    The statists will continue to try all kinds of atrocities. You can't head that off by denying people rights to actions like abortion because the statists irrationally exploit it for something else. That only adds to their injustice. The right of abortion is not a frivolous one-way question with implications only for fetuses. The whole point of it is the rights of the women who choose not to bear a child.

                    Defending a proper moral foundation of a culture is always in your self interest. You live in it. It's never a hypothetical question.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by $ 8 years, 7 months ago
                      That presumes that the moral foundation of a culture is close enough to consistent with one's values to be worth defending. The alternative is to establish one's own Gulch in some faraway place, which looks like a better option all the time.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by ewv 8 years, 7 months ago
                        Obviously it would have been hopeless to culturally reform the Soviet Union, the Nazis, etc. We are talking about this country. When it goes completely there will be no place worth emigrating to. Nothing is far enough away. We are still constrained to one planet. None of this is an excuse to violate the right of abortion as if this is no more than a chess game under unprincipled Pragmatism.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by $ 8 years, 7 months ago
                          Then it truly is time to shrug permanently. I made lots of money in the 1990s, but given the culture in the US since 2000, I have gained virtually nothing on retirement. I have long been quite close to being able to fully shrug. This country is most definitely not worth trying to save at this point.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by ewv 8 years, 7 months ago
                            Civilization is always worth saving. How much personal effort any individual chooses to devote to it is up to him. No one can blame you if you decide to live out your life restricted to personal interests as far away from the rest as you can get.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Posted by khalling 8 years, 7 months ago
                              wait a minute. If you have read any of j's posts, you would know that he is a builder and an idea person. This comment does not accurately reflect j or his thoughts on shrugging. But I agree that civilization is worth saving. and I have shrugged. so what is your point here?
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                              • Posted by conscious1978 8 years, 7 months ago
                                kh, I see no criticism, here; but instead, a respect for Jim's personal choices.
                                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                • Posted by khalling 8 years, 7 months ago
                                  first, he states that civilization is worth saving. That implies that those who consider shrugging are running away from civilization, which he says is fine for j to do. I don't think I missed anything there. J has made it clear that he is NOT interested in "running as far away from people as he can." He has made it clear that he wishes to build a community, that he looks for solutions for the future.
                                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                  • jbrenner replied 8 years, 7 months ago
                                  • conscious1978 replied 8 years, 7 months ago
                                  • ewv replied 8 years, 7 months ago
    • Posted by teri-amborn 8 years, 7 months ago
      I agree.
      Ayn Rand said: "An informed society is a free society."
      The same goes for an individual.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by philosophercat 8 years, 7 months ago
        Please cite this quote..it would make sense if it was reversed "A free society is an informed society."
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 8 years, 7 months ago
          Here is the actual statement and the full context:

          "The professional intellectual is the field agent of the army whose commander-in-chief is the philosopher. The intellectual carries the application of philosophical principles to every field of human endeavor. He sets a society's course by transmitting ideas from the "ivory tower" of the philosopher to the university professor—to the writer—to the artist—to the newspaperman—to the politician—to the movie maker—to the night-club singer—to the man in the street. The intellectual's specific professions are in the field of the sciences that study man, the so-called "humanities," but for that very reason his influence extends to all other professions. Those who deal with the sciences studying nature have to rely on the intellectual for philosophical guidance and information: for moral values, for social theories, for political premises, for psychological tenets and, above all, for the principles of epistemology, that crucial branch of philosophy which studies man's means of knowledge sad makes an other sciences possible, The intellectual is the eyes, ears and voice of a free society: it is his job to observe the events of the world, to evaluate their meaning and to inform the men in all the other fields. A free society has to be an informed society..." [italics in original, bold added].

          Ayn Rand, For the New Intellectual, title essay.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ 8 years, 7 months ago
            Thank you for that education. I have read some, but not all, of AR's non-fiction. That is one I have yet to read.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 8 years, 7 months ago
              Aside from the long title essay it consists of the more philosophical excerpts from the four novels.

              From the Preface:

              [This book] "contains the main philosophical passages from my novels and presents the outline of a new philosophical system. The full system is implicit in these excerpts (particularly in Galt's speech), but its fundamentals are indicated only in the widest terms and require a detailed, systematic presentation in a philosophical treatise. I am working on such a treatise at present; it will deal predominantly with the issue which is barely touched upon in Galt's speech: epistemology, and will present a new theory of the nature, source and validation of concepts. This work will require several years; until then, I offer the present book as a lead or a summary for those who wish to acquire an integrated view of existence. They may regard it as a basic outline; it will give them the guidance they need, but only if they think through and understand the exact meaning and the full implications of these excerpts"
              ...

              "For those who may be interested in the chronological development of my thinking, I have included excerpts from all four of my novels. They may observe the progression from a political theme in "We the Living to a metaphysical theme in Atlas Shrugged.

              "These excerpts are necessarily condensed summaries, because the full statement of the subjects involved is presented, in each novel, by means of the events of the story. The events are the concretes and the particulars, of which the speeches are the abstract summations. When I say that these excerpts are merely an outline, I do not mean to imply that my full system is still to be defined or discovered; I had to define it before I could start writing Atlas Shrugged. Galt's speech is its briefest summary."

              "Until I complete the presentation of my philosophy in a fully detailed form, this present book may serve as an outline or a program or a manifesto."

              "For reasons which are made clear in the following pages, the name I have chosen for my philosophy is Objectivism.

              AYN RAND
              October, 1960

              She never wrote the "presentation in a fully detailed form" for her philosophy in detailed, "systematic presentation in a philosophical treatise." But she did publish one part of the planned "detailed, systematic presentation in a philosophical treatise" she described above including "dealing with ... epistemology [to] present a new theory of the nature, source and validation of concepts" in her Introduction to Objectivism Epistemology. IOE was almost exclusively on the nature of concepts. (including the nature of the axiomatic concepts). The 2nd edition includes two appendices, one with Leonard Peikoff's essay on propositions, "The Analytic Synthetic Dichotomy", and the other with about a third of the workshops on epistemology she conducted to answer serious, detailed questions from a small group.

              Leonard Peikoff's recorded lecture course on Objectivism from the 1970s systematically covers the whole scope of her philosophy in far more detail than had previously been presented, and Ayn Rand was present for some of the question periods. Leonard Peikoff's own detailed treatise Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand is based on that lecture series. It begins with the metaphysical basis and the reasons for it, and the epistemology, but only summarizes the nature of concepts covered in detail in IOE.

              For those interested in Ayn Rand's philosophy, this tells you the most serious, systematic accounts to read and listen to -- along with many other essays not as technical, but very important, like "Philosophy: Who Needs It?", "Causality Versus Duty", "Metaphysical Versus the Man Made", and many more. Also crucial is Leonard Peikoff's lecture series on the History of Western Philosophy, which explains the historical development of the major philosophical positions, how they were connected and influenced one another, and how they differ from Objectivism.

              Re-reading Galt's speech after going through this shows how much of the significance you missed in Galt's speech without it, and more fully what Ayn Rand meant when she wrote, "The full system is implicit in these excerpts (particularly in Galt's speech), but its fundamentals are indicated only in the widest terms".
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by coaldigger 8 years, 7 months ago
    I think we will always have to check our premises as our experiences change with society. I firmly believe that the only justifiable purpose of government is to protect individual rights. Abortion is problematic to me because the fetus is in the process of becoming an individual and at some point its rights need to be protected as well. I also think that the mother has rights and do not know where to draw the line (rape, incest, deformity?). I do not think abortion is a legitimate birth control method and with every passing day of the pregnancy it troubles me more as an ethical issue. How long does she need to make a decision to revoke the result of a decision she previously made? I heard someone on TV say that it is not considered to be an individual until it leaves the hospital. I think just drawing a line of compromise does damage to the ethical fiber of society and leads to Planned Parenthood making jokes about the value of fetus parts adding up to a Lamborghini. My callous side says that if these people don't want their babies, let them kill them because I don't want them either but I can't rationally justify that position with my belief that government should protect individual rights.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 8 years, 7 months ago
      It is dealing with the issue of when a fetus, or one of my tissue engineering specimens, can be considered alive that has sparked much of this examination of premises. When my colleagues and I see both cellular proliferation and differentiation in our tissue engineered specimens, we declare success. As Gene Wilder in Young Frankenstein would have said, "It's aLIIIIIIVE!", and yet in the Objectivist sense, I could say that it exists (although some in this forum would likely debate that), but that it does not have consciousness. I can agree with that. However, I have been in a debate with several Gulchers recently that would challenge even existence for such a tissue engineered specimen. I am trying to resolve a contradiction between what I know is biologically alive and what people who probably are more steeped in Objectivist philosophy than I am think. I do not think I am in disagreement with Ayn Rand on this subject, but I am most definitely in disagreement with some Gulchers. I will disagree with them politely.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ewv 8 years, 7 months ago
        Ayn Rand did not say cells are not alive, or that animals are not conscious, or a fetus does not develop a consciousness. None of it is the basis of morality and rights.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by BrettRocketSci 8 years, 7 months ago
          Those a true and relevant points, ewv. We need to focus on the rational source of individual rights, and the relevant characteristics of what it means to be an individual person. Abortion is a question of actual vs potential.
          Jim, I appreciate and salute you for asking questions and checking your premises too. Ive had to do the same many times. The common issue and theme I see is that (in the US at least) we've been raised and taught to assume many things are a certain way (e.g. The military is a proper function of government and defends our rights and country from foreign threats). But what if the government abuses it's power and authority with the military? Too many Objectivists (and Americans for that matter) have let their patriotism and defense of a military become separated from the reality of what is happening. It's very difficult to acknowledge the facts and trust your own judgment when so many voices and premises assume otherwise.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 8 years, 7 months ago
    Hello Jbrenner,
    I would call this page, anatomy of a great blog. :)
    Some excellent comments here. We must always check our premises as we acquire new input... lest we be nothing more than blind ideologues.
    Regards,
    O.A.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 8 years, 7 months ago
      Thanks, O.A. One of my hopes in this thread was to show that I am capable of being convinced of the errors in some of my premises, and hopefully get everyone else to examine his/her own premises as well.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by philosophercat 8 years, 7 months ago
    One, Barbarian is the ancient Greek term for anyone who did not speak Greek
    Two: As a veteran I can tell you each member swears an oath to defend the US against its enemies and to defend the US Constitution. After that we just take orders all issued directly by or in the name of the CIC commander in chief. So we are an arm of the policy of the POTUS subject to the Will of Congress as permitted by statute and th Constitution. We are not for freeing individuals from tyrants. That is the task of the oppressed if they can achieve that level of defense of their sovereignty. A strong military is to be used as Colin Powel expressed and as General Sherman made clear only when you are prepared to smash and grind the opposition to death. The reason is we soldiers do not like to be used casually by pragmatic presidents for political gains.

    Finally let it be obvious that without a consistent strong moral code in the mind of POTUS the military and our lives and sacred oath will be misused. The solution is not in policy but in a morality of self interest far beyond pragmatism and altruism.

    We who volunteer to defend you deserve that you clean up your pragmatic irrational lives and get a moral code of reason, we deserve nothing less for defending your right to be irrational.
    Semper Fi
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 8 years, 7 months ago
      Thanks for the education on barbarian. I was already corrected on that by Mike Marotta.

      Freeing individuals from tyrants was a goal of several presidents in the recent past. That should not be an objective for the military, but unfortunately it has been. If I were in charge of the military, wars would be rare, but swift and extremely destructive to the opposition with no nation building in the aftermath. I know that creates a vacuum, and that is the biggest reason why (even moreso than Objectivist philosophy) that I think wars should be exceedingly rare. There definitely has not been a war since WW2 for which the "compelling national interest" has been sufficiently compelling.

      I couldn't agree more with your last two paragraphs.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by dwlievert 8 years, 7 months ago
    JB: I once had a brief conversation with Branden. I started by thanking him. I did so because, while Rand awakened me at 19 to much of "life," of which I had remained cynically oblivious, he had awakened me to "me."

    What I was referring to was when I picked up The Fountainhead, after finishing Atlas Shrugged, my newly-awakened enthusiasm and passion became tempered. It then quickly turned to despondency. For you see, while I professed to admire the character of Roark, I found myself emotionally identifying with Keating. Shortly after that realization, I began an, at times, an agonizing process of self-awareness and discovery, wherein I struggled to align my emotions to my professed values.

    It has been quite a journey - one in which Branden's "The Psychology of Self-Esteem," was instrumental.

    We then morphed into a few brief exchanges about NBI and related subjects. I was then motivated to comment to him as follows: Isn't it sad that Ayn never found anyone in life of sufficient capability to motivate her to question her premises, much as she incessantly admonished others to do? He gazed at me intently and asked "what do you mean?" I then asked; "surely, knowing what you now understand, you would have responded differently than you did when presented with her behavior in the early fifties? He then curtly responded, "did you read my book?! I indicated that I had read all of his books. His look and manner indicated that the conversation was now over! I thanked him again and returned to my business.

    My life has been, tentatively at first, but over the years now automatic, one in which I am constantly checking my premises. I do so because of one of Rand's cardinal tenets in her epistemology. Specifically, Reason is man's only absolute. All others are contextual absolutes. When understanding such a perspective, all rational questions become relevant, all answers tentative - respectful of the only absolute, that of reason's remorseless status as such.

    Always enjoy your posts.

    Dave
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 8 years, 7 months ago
      In my professional life, I have identified more with Rearden, partly because of my materials science background, but moreso because the tumblers are still clicking into place for me. Like Rearden there have been a few things that needed some refining in my life.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by conscious1978 8 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I didn't read it that way. You have 'shrugged', in that you made a personal choice to live somewhere else. And, as a matter of personal choice, you still fight for civilization (defined in the best sense) publicly, in many ways.

    Whether you, Jim, ewv, or I defend civilization publicly, or privately, in this country, or outside it, is up to us; and the amount of time we devote to it is our choice.

    (...I need to take a break; I'm getting a little commatose. :) )
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jlc 8 years, 7 months ago
    This is heartening, jbrenner. I too use the Gulch to test my premises - one of the major advantages of being here.

    Specifically addressing your initial post: I find that you are not clearly delineating the difference between 'a tool' and 'the use to which the tool is put'. Like a knife, the military can be used properly or misused abysmally. I have a lot of respect for the military per se, but the threshold for disobeying commands is specific for ethics - it does not extend to policy.

    Jan
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by johnpe1 8 years, 7 months ago
      I got lucky, Jan, and was able to retire before two policies
      which I disliked took effect -- universal DNA sampling
      and the change to "Navy-type" uniforms. . the former was
      a bait-and-switch of the first order (compulsory DNA sampling
      was added to their side of the contract unilaterally),
      and the second required that a full set of new uniforms
      be purchased. . I got outta there. -- j
      .
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 8 years, 7 months ago
    The US military still does protect against totalitarians, to the extent it is allowed to. Like the rest of the government it is very mixed. There was nothing wrong with attacking Hussein in Iraq. There was a lot wrong with doing nothing about Iran and turning the Iraq war into "nation building" and the rest of the 'turn the other cheek' strategy. But fighting with one hand behind our back didn't start there, it was practiced on a large scale in Vietnam and also in Korea. WWII was the last war really fought. None of this is a criticism of the soldiers trying to defend the country and it isn't a reason to turn against the military; they don't like it either (other than some political generals).
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 8 years, 8 months ago
    The United States has not been invaded since the War of 1812. Ayn Rand was less than sanguine about World War II, as were many people who were silenced after Pearl Harbor. Whether and to what extent the United States antagonized Japan in the years leading up that is another issue. Chiang Kai-shek was a fascist who courted Mussolini and Hitler for support. They only chose Japan as the more likely winner and more likely to keep America at bay in the Pacific. But, see, of course, General Billy Mitchell's prognostications during the 1922 Naval Summit. My point is only that you will be hard-pressed to find a pure example of the military actually defending us from invasion (except for 1812).

    The more basic problem- your premises - is that a mixed economy is not an isolated structure, but a consequence of mixed philosophical premises. You cite the military. I could cite the police. We all could go on and on about the courts. But "army, police, and courts of law" remain the essential functions of a republic, based on the principles of Objectivism.

    There is no easy answer. That is why Ayn Rand said that it is moral to take a job with the government if the government is doing something that would be proper in a purely capitalist system. I think she mentioned teaching the piano.

    Just a note: Barbarian comes from "ba-ba" the sound of the foreign language to Greek ears. From that "barber" refers to their long beards and hair. The Romans went back and forth on cropping close and letting it grow. Contrast portraits of Hadrian with Septimus Severus with Gordian I. "The Barbary Coast" also referred to San Francisco's red light district: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 8 years, 8 months ago
      Thanks for the education on barbarians.

      Regarding the mixed philosophical premises, you are not the first to say so about my premises. I have been moving more toward Objectivism, but am not totally there yet. I am not, and have never been, in favor of using the military to achieve any of the objectives associated with all wars since World War 2. For the US to survive, the military must be cut substantially, along with all federal spending, because the two greatest threats to US security are financial and from computer hacking (or both simultaneously).

      The War of 1812 is one of my favorite historical subjects. Andrew Jackson proved his worth then, and when he took on Nicholas Biddle to eliminate a precursor to the Federal Reserve. Andrew Jackson is the only Democrat in the last 200 years I would have supported.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 8 years, 7 months ago
        I did not mean that your premises are mixed. I should have put that in quotes - The more basic problem - your "premises" - is that a mixed … - because I was referring the mixed premises of the wider society.

        "And then conquer we must, when our cause it is just, and this be our motto, In God is Our Trust."
        That is one step beyond defending your home from the war's desolation.

        Jackson, too, is a mixed bag. We are supposed to hate central banks but the "pet banks" that Jackson chose were not a consistently moral solution. In fact, they were an example of his political strategy: to the victor go the spoils. That is no way to run a government. A government based on rational principles needs a permanent, independent bureaucracy.

        Jackson defied the Supreme Court. Chief Justice Marshall chose discretion over valor and let the injustice against the Cherokee Nation be carried out. What choice did he have? He could have called on the federal marshals. He could enlarged their force and over-powered the White House guards and arrested Jackson. Where would that have led? Perhaps he should have, but alternate histories are problematic.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by jabuttrick 8 years, 7 months ago
          The United States Marshalls Service is funded by Congress, not the Supreme Court. So Chief Justice Marshall could not have "expanded" the federal marshals as you suggest.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ 8 years, 7 months ago
          Certainly society's premises are mixed, but my premises are mixed as well, as a couple of Objectivists are ready to remind me. They get closer to those of Objectivism periodically, but steadily.

          Jackson, like all presidents, are not perfect. Your point is well taken.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ewv 8 years, 7 months ago
        No, you are not "there". But "becoming and not there yet" is the wrong way to think of it. The goal is to understand, not to "become". When you understand and act accordingly, you are whatever that is, just as you are whatever you are during any process. Understanding a philosophy enough to know what it is and that it is right and what you want is not like deciding to "become" and engineer or a scientist.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ 8 years, 7 months ago
          As you say, I am not "there", and I probably never will be. Perhaps you are correct regarding whether it is "the wrong way to think of it", but I think not as I will demonstrate at the end of my response.

          The definition of life is a foundational principle for any philosophy. I agree with Ayn Rand's definitions for existence and for consciousness, and with the rights that follow from such definitions. I understand Ayn Rand's definition for life, and I can agree that it creates a philosophical contradiction when one assigns rights to beings without sentience, particularly when those rights would be in contradiction with the life and rights of someone without whom this whole argument would be moot.

          Fetuses or tissue-engineered specimens can reasonably be said to not have rights. We are not in disagreement about that either, at least until they reach the point of consciousness.

          You and I are at a fundamental disagreement, albeit politely, because you have chosen the definition of life based upon Rand's Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology rather than the completely objective definition based on direct observables that all biologists and most people who have studied biology accept. I am not saying that Rand's definition is wrong. It is perfectly fine for the assignment of rights, but just because a being is unconscious or not sentient does not mean that being is not alive. It exists. It simply is not conscious or not sentient.

          We will continue to disagree because my philosophy is based upon direct observables whenever possible. I know I have had disagreements with you and others as to whether philosophy trumps science. When someone publishes a scientific paper, he/she makes observations. Those observations form the basis for interpretations and applications. When science can establish a directly observable fact, that can serve as a pillar upon which philosophy can be based. As for me, I will base everything on raw data as much as possible. If the philosophy (or the theory in the case of science) is consistent with the raw data, I will choose to accept the philosophy. You have argued that I should understand the philosophy first. If Ayn Rand is correct, then if I logically connect my direct observables together, then I should come to the same conclusion, and with what are, in my mind, minor exceptions, I have. This actually strengthens Rand's conclusions, rather than weakens them. If someone can come to the same conclusions with a somewhat different set of premises, that validates the conclusions even more because they can be achieved from the mathematicians would consider two different initial guesses. The answer would then be considered rigorous in the mathematical sense.

          Rand herself said that we must all come to these conclusions for ourselves. The conclusions cannot come first. The raw data must come first.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by conscious1978 8 years, 7 months ago
            "...philosophy always trumps science" probably wasn't my best turn of a phrase. But, my point was that science without rational philosophy results in things like "The State Science Institute".

            There is always philosophy underlying science, and as 'ewv' mentions, it explains how we know, what we know.

            http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts...
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by khalling 8 years, 7 months ago
              I would add that science not only has a metaphysics and epistemology but also an Ethics. If you want to see what happens when Science ignores its philosophical basis, one need look no farther than global warming "science."
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by conscious1978 8 years, 7 months ago
                It's a shame that we have to qualify what kind of "science" we're talking about because some have tried to corrupt and steal the concept to describe their piss poor thinking or lies.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ blarman 8 years, 7 months ago
              Pure science is not to prejudicially eliminate any premise until there is evidence to eliminate it from consideration. Pure science is to posit any possibility and then seek for evidence which either corroborates or discredits. Pure science is to seek the understanding of the universe. Pure science admits - as did Albert Einstein - that the root of knowledge comes in knowing what we do not know. And then we work from there.

              Philosophy affects how we use that science. Philosophy is what leads us to ignore certain conclusions in favor of our own biases, or to use science in furtherance of our philosophy, as did the State Science Institute.

              Science is the what/how, philosophy is the why.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by conscious1978 8 years, 7 months ago
                A quote from Philosophy: Who Needs It explains my point.

                "Since man is not omniscient or infallible, you have to discover what you can claim as knowledge and how to prove the validity of your conclusions. Does man acquire knowledge by a process of reason—or by sudden revelation from a supernatural power? Is reason a faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses—or is it fed by innate ideas, implanted in man’s mind before he was born? Is reason competent to perceive reality—or does man possess some other cognitive faculty which is superior to reason? Can man achieve certainty—or is he doomed to perpetual doubt? The extent of your self-confidence—and of your success—will be different, according to which set of answers you accept."


                The dichotomy in your last sentence is clarified with this quote from Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology.

                .... Two questions are involved in his every conclusion, conviction, decision, choice or claim: What do I know?—and: How do I know it?

                It is the task of epistemology to provide the answer to the “How?”—which then enables the special sciences to provide the answers to the “What?”

                In the history of philosophy—with some very rare exceptions—epistemological theories have consisted of attempts to escape one or the other of the two fundamental questions which cannot be escaped. Men have been taught either that knowledge is impossible (skepticism) or that it is available without effort (mysticism). These two positions appear to be antagonists, but are, in fact, two variants on the same theme, two sides of the same fraudulent coin: the attempt to escape the responsibility of rational cognition and the absolutism of reality—the attempt to assert the primacy of consciousness over existence.
                " (bold emphasis added)

                Engaging in any 'science' already presumes an epistemological consideration of "what".
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by $ blarman 8 years, 7 months ago
                  The false premise in the first paragraph is in presuming to know all about the process of reason and intelligence and consciousness in the first place. The false dichotomy is the presentation of knowledge acquisition as an either/or type of proposition. Why not both? Reason is a process by which information is taken and judged for its utility, observation is the process of obtaining that information in the first place. The argument as it is penned attempts to limit observation unjustifiably, with the result being a limit on reason by virtue of a limitation of observational inputs. I don't accept a limitation on observation. As we would say in computer terms: garbage in, garbage out.

                  "Two questions are involved in his every conclusion, conviction, decision, choice or claim: What do I know?—and: How do I know it?"

                  I completely agree with this. My wording in the previous question was to emphasize that there is knowledge, and then there is what we do with it. I was not trying to argue epistemiology. My apologies if my wording was such that it implied a conflict.

                  "Men have been taught either that knowledge is impossible (skepticism) or that it is available without effort (mysticism)."

                  And I agree that this represents another false dichotomy because it denies a third option: that work and effort may also result in knowledge. The arguments as presented attempt to pit science against religion again based on the false presumption in the former paragraph. By removing the artificial confrontation, we also eliminate the perceived necessity for opposition.

                  "Since man is not omniscient or infallible..."

                  I hold that this realization is precisely the key. We are all subject to imperfections and mistakes in judgement, etc. It is a common affliction of man that stems mainly from a lack of perfect knowledge. It is precisely when we presume to know something that we get ourselves into trouble - especially when we can not substantiate those premises with proof. On the other hand, we should not simply ignore the proof we have either, nor should we reject the assertions of those who claim to have proof. Independent verification - preferably personal verification - is the best policy, wouldn't you agree?
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by ewv 8 years, 7 months ago
                    There is no "false premise" in the quote from Philosophy: Who Needs It. Ayn Rand did not say that we know "all" that could ever be known about "reason and intelligence and consciousness". Omniscience is neither required nor possible. We know more than enough to reject faith as invalid without having to be omniscient. Faith is the opposite of reason. It rejects the requirement to validate knowledge, which validation is known to be required precisely because thinking is not infallible.

                    From "Faith and Force: The Destroyers of the Modern World” in Philosophy: Who Needs It: "Reason integrates man’s perceptions by means of forming abstractions or conceptions, thus raising man’s knowledge from the perceptual level, which he shares with animals, to the conceptual level, which he alone can reach. The method which reason employs in this process is logic—and logic is the art of non-contradictory identification."

                    The false premise is Blarman's own assertion: "Reason is a process by which information is taken and judged for its utility, observation is the process of obtaining that information in the first place."

                    "Taken" from where and how? "Reason is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses." Perceptual information is provided through the physical senses as the source of perceptions about the world in contrast to claims to faith as a 'source'. Reliance on reason does not "limit observation unjustifiably"; the faculty of imagination is not a form of observation. Fantasy is not a tool of cognition.

                    The concept reason includes reliance on the senses as the only direct source of information about the world from which to form abstractions logically employed in thinking, it is not a way of "processing" anything anyone feels like with verbal manipulations undertaken without regard to source and meaning in reality -- which is the method of rationalism practiced constantly in academic and religious arguments and seen here frequently in opposing Ayn Rand's philosophy.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by conscious1978 8 years, 7 months ago
                    Your reply is confusing. However, I think the premises of your thoughts are best expressed in your last paragraph. You are trying to argue from the position of skepticism and mysticism at the same time. You reject certainty on the one hand, then claim it for an unidentified "proof" on the other.

                    Assertions of "proof" require evidence within a rational observation of existence. A major premise to be checked is whether one is positing an idea as knowledge which presumes a leap of faith in its 'logic'.

                    I disagree with your concept of knowledge and how we can acquire it. The human mind has the ability to believe anything is true. It's a characteristic in the nature of our consciousness, and cause for the necessity of using reason to identify and integrate our perceptions.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by ewv 8 years, 7 months ago
                Science does not accept arbitrary "premises". Science is not obligated to run around in a frenzy trying to disprove every piece of mystic nonsense presented to it. The rejection of that approach is not "bias".

                As explained many times, philosophy -- specifically a rational epistemology -- is fundamental to the basis of scientific knowledge and all other intellectual activity. http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts... The role of philosophy in science is not just how we use it.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by $ blarman 8 years, 7 months ago
                  So the question you have to ask - and precisely what jbrenner is doing - is are you questioning your premises honestly. That is a rhetorical question: only the individual can answer it and it only matters to the individual.

                  I base my findings exactly the same way he does - on my observations and experiences. When someone presents a theory which contradicts what I have personally experienced and observed, I have to immediately take that point of view as being on the opposing side of the evidence I have. What I continually see from you is an attempt to discount what I have seen and experienced as if somehow that personal evidence holds no value. To me, that is as anti-scientific and biased as one can get.

                  You are not at all required to accept what I have seen and experienced. But you are not permitted to claim that what I have experienced and detected with my own senses is somehow subject to your interpretation or philosophical leanings. Anyone with either decency or courtesy would not only engage in civil discourse on the matter to seek the truth, but would also not be duplicitous about simultaneously demanding evidence and then discounting it when it doesn't fit their preconceptions.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by ewv 8 years, 7 months ago
                    You have not detected religious duties from science and observation. You have no evidence for it. Faith is the opposite of reason. You can believe whatever you want to but this is a forum for Ayn Rand's philosophy of reason.

                    Your false personal attacks of "duplicity", "eugenics", "nazism", etc. are inappropriate and do not belong here, just as your repeated proselytizing of religion in antagonism to Ayn Rand's philosophy does not belong here.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by $ 8 years, 7 months ago
                      I'm not going to disagree with what you just wrote, but I have to agree with blarman's observation regarding your quick rejection of any anecdotal evidence, including much that is not religious in nature (ex. your quick rejection of the documentation in the psychology literature regarding psychological effects after abortion), from others that is contrary to yours. A scientist examines all data and subjects it to appropriate testing before accepting that data or rejecting it.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by ewv 8 years, 7 months ago
                        Anecdotal evidence is not a scientific claim. A scientist does not and cannot possibly examine everything claimed by anyone to be "evidence", regardless of arbitrariness, lack of explanation or context, or what he already knows. We don't go back repeatedly "re-examining" variations on what we know to be false, like endless claims for religion.

                        Blarman has no evidence at all for his religious claims attacking abortion as immoral, let alone his latest bizarre round of accusations of "duplicity", "eugenics", "nazism", "black holocaust", etc., none of which belong here or in any civilized discussion at all.

                        I didn't reject out of hand that there can be psychological effects after abortion. That is not what I said. The claims made did not provide any scientific explanation of causes in relation to prior ethical beliefs. The anti-abortion crowd is never concerned with psychological effects of being forced to bear an unwanted child.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by $ 8 years, 7 months ago
                          Being forced to bear an unwanted child is undeniably a sacrifice with more than just psychological ramifications. Some members of the anti-abortion crowd are quite concerned with psychological and non-psychological effects of being forced to bear unwanted children. They start their own practices that have to compete against the federally subsidized Planned Parenthood.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by ewv 8 years, 7 months ago
                            The religious crowd is trying to ban abortion, not provide competing services to PP.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Posted by $ 8 years, 7 months ago
                              Once again, I have a friend who is an exception to your generalization. Sure, she counsels those who are debating between abortion or not, in favor of adoption. She and I have had a rather lengthy discussion on the psychological effects of bearing unwanted children for adoption, of having abortions, and of raising unwanted children toward adulthood.
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                              • Posted by ewv 8 years, 7 months ago
                                Counseling for adoption is not non-subsidized competition to PP in performing abortions and does not change the fact that the religious anti-abortion movement is trying to ban it.
                                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by $ 8 years, 7 months ago
                          Anecdotal evidence is not equal to a scientific claim, of course, but when someone makes a claim, scientifically or philosophically, that is inconsistent with the anecdotal evidence, one must either reject the anecdotal evidence as statistically insignificant, influenced by some sort of bias, not directly relevant, or collected under a different set of conditions, or one must re-examine the scientific or philosophical claim. At a minimum, contrary anecdotal evidence must be cause for one to check premises.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by ewv 8 years, 7 months ago
                            No, it isn't. The arbitrary is cognitively worthless. It isn't evidence at all. No one can possibly run around rechecking premises in the name of an "open mind" in response to every claim in the name of "anecdotal evidence" opposing what one already knows to be true.

                            Scientists searching for new facts to determine in more detail the range of validity for scientific knowledge are not springing "anecdotal evidence". Blarman is no scientist and has nothing to offer in his attacks on Ayn Rand's philosophy.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Posted by $ 8 years, 7 months ago
                              Up until now, I have not downvoted you on this post. It really takes me a lot to downvote, but you are getting close to earning a downvote. You have just rejected anecdotal evidence a priori as arbitrary.
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                              • Posted by ewv 8 years, 7 months ago
                                You stated "At a minimum, contrary anecdotal evidence must be cause for one to check premises." I reject as arbitrary your use of anecdotal evidence as a principle to demand reconsidering what we already know to be true. The burden of proof is on he who makes the assertion to show why it is relevant and serious.
                                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by ewv 8 years, 7 months ago
            Morality and rights do not come from "sentience" and "consciousness" and Ayn Rand did not say that only human beings are conscious.

            There is no issue of philosophy "trumping" the physical and biological sciences. They are different fields of subject matter.

            There can be no science of "direct observables" of "raw data" without conceptualization and principles, which require an epistemology.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ 8 years, 7 months ago
              The comment about philosophy trumping science came from conscious1978, who just admitted that wasn't his best turn of phrase. I have chosen to let that disagreement rest.

              The origin of rights for a human derives from man's freedom and ability to act on his/her own judgment. It is not guaranteed that a sentient life form will have the ability to act on his/her own judgment, and in the case of human life, infants (let alone fetuses) lack a complete ability to act on their own judgment. If they did, parenting would be unnecessary. However, at the point of sentience, even a fetus is taking self-generated actions, albeit quite limited, to further its own life. Do some limited rights start at the point when a fetus is taking self-generated actions to further its own life? You would argue that those rights should be secondary to the rights of the mother, who is providing all that is necessary for the fetus to maintain its life. I do agree that the rights of the mother are primary. At what point does a young life form get rights? I am going to argue with you that the point of birth is a terrible time for assignment of all rights from an Objectivist standpoint, although some rights might reasonably be assigned then. An infant is completely incapable of taking enough self-generated actions to sustain its own life. If one uses the Objectivist definition for assignment of rights, then one only achieves that at some point in adulthood, if even then. Would you argue that killing of a child under one or two would be moral, because that child is still dependent on its mother? I think not. Consequently I will argue that the decision regarding the date at which abortion is moral but infanticide is immoral is not entirely objective.

              I concede the point that an epistemology is required to converted direct observables of raw data into science.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by ewv 8 years, 7 months ago
                The nature of the "dependency" of a child on its parents is radically different than the biologically parasitical dependency of a fetus in a pre-birth environment in which thinking and choosing is irrelevant to life. Rights are not based on "self generated action", which all life does.

                The rights of the woman are not just "primary", they are absolute. The fetus is not a moral being and has no rights. It does not have conflicting rights secondary to someone else, which would be an impossible contradiction. There are no conflicting rights.

                Rights for children are limited because of their lack of capacity. It doesn't mean they don't have rights. At the time of birth the child begins to directly perceive the external world and mentally process it with his faculty of reason, along with the complete break of biological parasitism. The newborn infant is still helpless to use its mind to live, but that is the beginning of the process. Identifying that fact is not subjective.

                This is not a matter of rationalistically deducing principles somehow intrinsic to reality. Intrinsicism and subjectivism are a false alternative. The facts are in reality but not the abstract principles we live by. We can only objectively identify and conceptualize facts, then formulate abstract principles, then formulate a codification into law. At any stage of knowledge there are always options to a sensible formulation and there will always be borderline cases (like measuring the precise point of "birth"). At that point the objectivity of law means settling on some formulation so that everyone knows what it is.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by $ blarman 8 years, 7 months ago
                  The problem with this is that you are ignoring the original choice: the choice to have sex and risk pregnancy in the first place. You want to place the burden of choice sometime after that period, when the appropriate time is actually prior to the act of sex. Pregnancy is not an act of sheer will, but a result of union of sperm and egg. Cause -> effect. If you don't want the effect, the only sure way to avoid it is to eliminate the cause. To try and shift the moment of choice to sometime after sex is merely an attempt to circumvent the repercussions of the original choice. One is trying to undo what can not be undone because one does not want to take responsibility for the consequences of action. One who is grounded in reality recognizes cause and effect and acts accordingly.

                  I would also point out that the right to life is not a limited right. It can not be. It either is, or is not. Thus the criticality of determining when that binary condition is fulfilled and the right granted. To make the right to life into a "gradual" right is in and of itself a fallacy of reason. One is then arguing that life is not valuable because it is life, but because of some subjective quality of utility, which is by definition individual and highly subjective.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by ewv 8 years, 7 months ago
                    Rights begin at birth in accordance with nature of human beings. A fetus, embryo, zygote, egg, sperm or cell has no rights. They are not human beings. They have the potential to become a person.

                    Rights are not based on "utility". This is an Ayn Rand forum.

                    Relgioun has no business telling anyone they have no choice after sex. The choice to have sex is not the same as a choice to have children. It may or may not be. Procreation is not the only purpose of sex. That is religious dogma. This is an Ayn Rand forum.

                    Women who have abortions are taking responsibility for the consequences for their action. They have to go out of their way to have an abortion. That is not "trying to undo what can not be undone". It is done all the time and is effective because we understand cause and effect and know what to do to prevent the effect you demand. There are no religious duties. This is an Ayn Rand forum.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by $ 8 years, 7 months ago
                      I can agree with the last part, about women taking responsibility after the act, only if they pay for their own services, rather than having them subsidized. The majority of abortions are subsidized, and as usual, those who need the abortions are being shielded from the full effect of their actions. We understand cause and effect, but those who need the abortions ... don't. "No one gets to this place by faking reality in any way whatsoever." - John Galt
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by ewv 8 years, 7 months ago
                        Yes, there is no question that none of it should be government-subsidized. I responded to the false claim that taking responsibility means abortions should be banned.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by $ 8 years, 7 months ago
                  You view the relationship between the mother and the fetus as parasitic. I know at least one other person in this forum who agrees with you. I suppose that it could be viewed as a parasite if the mother does not want the fetus to be alive. Otherwise the relationship is more commensalistic than parasitic.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 8 years, 7 months ago
      The vast majority of Americans were opposed to entering WWII before Pearl Harbor. But they were not silenced after the attack, they knew at that point that it was necessary.

      What they didn't know was the extent of Roosevelt's behind the scenes maneuvering to get into it. But Roosevelt wasn't antagonizing Japan because he wanted a war. Japan was already antagonistic, as illustrated by its atrocities in China. Roosevelt expected war with Japan, but wasn't relishing it as war for its own sake in the manner of a Hitler. He could have avoided it by withdrawing from Asia but did not want to abandon legitimate interests there and at least correctly saw that the growing Japanese empire was the evil. Secretly anticipating war with Japan in that context, he was only careful to avoid being the initiator; he wanted it to be clear that Japan was the attacker against the US.

      He knew that Japan would attack but did not know where and was expecting it to be somewhere in the far east, not Hawaii. The Japanese codes had been broken but encrypted messages revealing Pearl Harbor were languishing in the bureaucracy.

      Roosevelt's everlasting legacy of irresponsibility was in not being prepared for a major war he knew was coming and did not try to avoid, setting us up for the travesty of the Pearl Harbor attack wiping out most of the fleet. If the Japanese had started farther in the east without Hawaii, Roosevelt would have been just as unprepared.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ 8 years, 7 months ago
        Very correctly stated. This was one of the examples I was thinking of when I suggested that perhaps the military were mere pawns of their political masters.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 8 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    as well, by law if a woman goes into labor and the fetus is born live the hospital has to resuscitate the baby. Why is it that when that happens in an abortion procedure, there is no obligation to do that? It's a double standard that should be addressed
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ 8 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Honestly, I am thinking about just leaving. It would be nice to have a community of likeminded individuals to join me, but I don't need anyone. What I have said recently is that America is no longer worth saving. I asked the question earlier about where one draws the line between defending a society from decay vs. the non-interventionist principle. ewv is correct in saying that there is no logical way to defend intervening in any one individual action that one is not directly involved in. Yet that decision either condemns one to either accept whatever society decays into or to move somewhere else and start over. As the former is unacceptable to me, when I have the financial wherewithal to shrug, I will shrug. I may or may not have others come join me. Truly sad.

    And with that my extended "month in Atlantis" is up. I need to get back to my shrug job.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by jimjamesjames 8 years, 7 months ago
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 8 years, 7 months ago
      Certainly most, if not all, wars are bankers' wars. As the Ferengi Rules of Acquisition state, "War is good for business."
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ewv 8 years, 7 months ago
        Wars are caused by statism, not bankers. Wars are destructive, they are not good for the economy. A few cash in like any kind of government cronyism; that is not the source of the power to start wars and is not its appeal to most who go along with them, whether for aggression or self defense. See Ayn Rand's "The Roots of War".
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ 8 years, 7 months ago
          I can't even make a joke without your taking me seriously, followed by condemnation.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by ewv 8 years, 7 months ago
            You said "Certainly most, if not all, wars are bankers' wars." Ferengies were intended to mock business. What were the joke and the condemnation? I didn't watch the video.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ 8 years, 7 months ago
              Regarding the bankers and wars, if you have not done so already, read The Creature from Jekyll Island. It is hard to tell the difference between the bankers and the statists because most of those in political power and virtually all of those high up in the bureaucracy are there at the whim of the bankers.

              The video basically said that all wars are bankers' wars. The joke was in using the Ferengi rule of acquisition in the first place. War is only good for those in the defense industry and the politicians they control through cronyism. Condemnation was probably too strong a word, but condescension isn't.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by ewv 8 years, 7 months ago
                Those kind of crony bankers are statists. They are not "the bankers". Statist ideology causes wars, not finance. Some 'bankers' cash in on it. They help pull the strings in an already statist system. They are not the cause. This is not "condescending".
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by $ 8 years, 7 months ago
                  The bankers created the statist system. JP Morgan, Rockefeller, and their descendants essentially established statism in the US.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • -1
                    Posted by ewv 8 years, 7 months ago
                    The statism and collectivism in this country is a direct result of the dominant philosophy accepted by the population, not a Bilderberger Illuminati conspiracy.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by $ 8 years, 7 months ago
                      Are you sure? JP Morgan and Rockefeller dominated the newspapers sufficiently during that era to elect their own president (McKinley). While both Morgan and Rockefeller started out as Gulch-worthy producers, from 1896 on, they used their government control to institute a desire for statism, as is well-documented particularly with regard to Rockefeller's brothers and heirs.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by Zenphamy 8 years, 7 months ago
                        j; The truth is much harder to face. A quote to think about:
                        "The fact is that the average man’s is 9/10ths imaginary, exactly like his love of sense, justice, and truth. He is not actually happy when free; he's uncomfortable, a bit alarmed, and intolerably lonely. Liberty is not a thing for the great masses of men. It is the exclusive possession of a small and disreputable minority like knowledge, courage, and honor. It takes a special sort of man to understand and enjoy liberty—and he is usually an outlaw in democratic societies." (Henry Louis Mencken)
                        And:
                        “The government consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office. Their principal device to that end is to search out groups who pant and pine for something they can’t get and to promise to give it to them. Nine times out of ten that promise is worth nothing. The tenth time is made good by looting A to satisfy B. In other words, government is a broker in pillage, and every election is sort of an advance auction sale of stolen goods.” —H. L. Mencken, On Politics, a posthumous collection of essays published in 1956
                        -------------------------------------------------
                        Yes, there were then and are now men ready to take, even aching to take and plotting to do so, but the true evil is those that, out of physical fear or fear for today, tell the others to go ahead and take from me, if you leave me a little, I won't complain. And the last quote:
                        “There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action.” ~ Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by ewv 8 years, 7 months ago
                        John Birch Society conspiracy theories against "bankers" and "the Rockefellers" are very old and ignored for good reason. They hold an anti-intellectual "evil men" theory of history, disregarding the role of fundamental ideas.

                        That doesn't mean that ideas implement themselves. Some particular people have to act. That has included some Rockefellers (notably in the viro movement, but also other areas), but many many more, all following bad ideas while the public accepted them.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 7 months ago
    You got it right. So here's the answer to another issue. High Speed Pursuits. I was surprised no one caught it even with hints.

    The incidents of deaths caused by or related to high speeds pursuits has decreased in the last thirty years.

    the figures provided were one a day or 365. the population in 1985 was 240 million +/- Currently thirty years later the time framed provided it's approaching 320 million. 365 per year was provided as the current figure. If the 365 stated is true then as a percentage of population (and by the way a percentage of traffic related deaths) the number of deaths would have increased to keep pace

    Someone must be doing something right to decrease those incidents. Either that or the information is invalid.

    That does not decrease the importance of the problem but it does leave us with no valid figures to gauge the extent of the problem a problem shared with the government who for at least 20 years has ignored the problem. Not to put to fine a point on the problem.. But as some one said not a problem with google.

    As for the Trump comment I live south of the border because i am far safer than living north of the border. Media hype to the contrary. The percentage of US citizens (about one million) who live south of the border being killed is less than the US national average and one fourth that of Houston Texas.)

    Just one of the advantages.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by LibertyBelle 8 years, 7 months ago
    jbrenner, I think you are being honest in asking these questions. As to me, I think that once a fetus gets brain waves, it has become a human be-
    ing, even if it wasn't one at conception. Besides, the proper function of government is to protect
    man from force (including fraud) and violence,(and to punish same)
    and how do government-provided abortions come under that category? So why should the
    government subsidize it? (Unless it were to re-
    move a fetus that was there as a result of rape,
    which rape the government had failed in its duty
    to prevent). Ayn Rand, who was in favor of the
    right to have an abortion, in "The Age
    of Envy" denounced the idea of a woman being
    "liberated" from the consequences of her own
    chosen sex life, "such consequences to be born
    by others..." and mentioned government-fin-
    anced abortions.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 8 years, 7 months ago
      I have not yet read "The Age of Envy". We are certainly still in it.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ewv 8 years, 7 months ago
        She opposed the "Women's Lib" movement demanding "free abortions and free day-nurseries" just like she opposed all such subsidies. It had nothing to do with the right of abortion.

        Subsidies for abortions are a side issue in the current hysteria over Planned Parenthood being spread by those who want to ban abortions no matter who pays for them.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ 8 years, 7 months ago
          Subsidies for abortions are far from a side issue in the Planned Parenthood debate. Do you remember Sandra Fluke from February of 2012? The expectation is that producers are to pay not only for abortions, but even the relatively small costs of contraceptives. This became a requirement for all insurance providers as part of Obamacare.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by ewv 8 years, 7 months ago
            Government subsides for abortion and contraception are secondary to the religious opposition across the board. They want abortion, and for many, contraception, shunned and banned as immoral. The Senate bill against PP didn't even cut funding, it only shifted it to other organizations. Bush's religious attack on scientific stem cell research took the same approach. This is not an uprising against government subsidies.

            There can be no question that these organizations should not be getting government funding, but the same is true of countless other subsidies taxpayers are forced to pay for regardless of their opposition to all kinds of subsidized activities. The current hysteria over PP is based entirely on the attack on abortion as such. They aren't showing inflammatory videos of money changing hands.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 8 years, 7 months ago
    With regards to abortion, if one accepts it, one is admitting a caucus of slippery slope arguments.

    One: the definition of sentience or personhood. The policy of abortion necessitates that a point in time be designated as the point at which sentience is achieved by a human being. That no definitive point can be arrived at should trouble any policy maker. This is critical because if we assert the existence of "basic" or "fundamental" human rights, we must establish a criteria under which those rights may be exercised, recognized, and protected.

    Two: the rights of the mother. The policy of abortion necessitates that the mother be given coercive control to the point of termination of life over another potential human being based on above.

    Three: the subjective nature of One (above). If we only value life which has reached some arbitrary point, can we really say that life itself has value? This leads directly into the notion of eugenicism, racial cleansing, etc.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by philosophercat 8 years, 7 months ago
      Surely thou jest? Sentience as you use the term needs to be defined. Chimps have both live and still births. When is the dead fetus sentient? When is the live birth sentient. Are only humans sentient? In fact there is no difference between any mammals baby as to sentience and viability. Human babies are different only after birth and after cognitive development in the presence of adult humans. We are the source of language for our children and that is the basis of thought and at last sentience. All insects are quiet sentient IE aware and volitional as to making a living by being productive in a fast changing world and adapting their skills to its changes; to build shelters travel to new locations and engage in all sorts of behaviors. Your hidden premise is you believe humans are gods children and we are not as there is no god only faithful followers. We are natural beings naturally evolved with the same basic tools and functions as all mammals except we can talk about it. Gradually we are learning that all species alive today evolved the maximum communication skills possible to their body types. All mammal babies are aware and sentient and ready for their parents to start teaching them how to survive on their own. The first lesson is how to find food as mom cant feed you forever. SO mom not the baby is the value. And she has the necessary right to act in her interest with regard to the pregnancy. Believing in god forces you to fight science and adopt politics of coercion, .which you claim you oppose. A baby acquires rights when the umbilical cord is cut, until then all life is a gift of the mother.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ blarman 8 years, 7 months ago
        "Sentience as you use the term needs to be defined."

        That is precisely the argument as it stands, yes. One can hold that sentience and self-will are present from the beginning, or sometime after. It is the nebulous nature of the "sometime after" that abortion proponents must objectify and substantiate.

        The rest of your argument is an attempt to discredit an argument I have not made. What one should remember, however, is that it does nothing to substantiate your own view on the matter, and that is what is under the microscope at this point.

        You posit that it is only "when the umbilical cord is cut". Do you have any scientific evidence to support this? Is a change in environment all that is necessary to endow sentience and human rights?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by philosophercat 8 years, 7 months ago
          Since you have neither stated a position nor defined your terms let me ask you the key question...How do you know God invests the two strands of DNA with a soul at conception?. Can you show the science that supports your position. Can you define sentience such that it applies only to humans and if so at what time in development does it occur? If by sentience you mean thought then thought comes only after language. If you mean sensory awareness then it is possessed by all mammal fetuses during pregnancy. The key to the umbilical cord is it is obvious that the only means of support is the mothers body, blood, and organs. Please take a moment and define your terms then see what science supports your position. As I understand it god is your only hope.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ 8 years, 7 months ago
        Sentience is an unclear definition, but so is the definition of when a life form's ability to generate a sufficient number of self-generated actions that Rand uses. An infant is incapable of a sufficient number of self-generated actions outside the womb to sustain its own life. For that matter, some adults are incapable of that many self-generated actions.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 8 years, 7 months ago
          "Sentience" is not unclear. It means conscious awareness at the perceptual level, which has nothing to do with morality and rights. Neither do self-generated actions, which are characteristic of all life.

          The development of limited rights over time concomitant with developing abilities beginning with the birth of a human being has nothing to do with abortion.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by khalling 8 years, 7 months ago
            I seriously wish you'd play occasionally
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 8 years, 7 months ago
              What does that mean?
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by khalling 8 years, 7 months ago
                yes
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by ewv 8 years, 7 months ago
                  ???
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by khalling 8 years, 7 months ago
                    why does everything have to be so literal with you? lighten up
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by philosophercat 8 years, 7 months ago
                      Hannah Arendt said as a Jew she knew when to flee Germany because "Philosophy had become political." What freedom requires is understanding when the very basis of individual rights are being challenged by people who want to use government for religious purposes. If you cant see the attack on reason, science, and human discourse then he wins. Hannah Arendt also said civilization depends on the ability of people to enter into "political space" as a private discussion between individuals which is only possible if they use reason. So when a religious person uses anti-reason and no one speaks out because they try and keep it light. That's why the "lights" are going out.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by khalling 8 years, 7 months ago
                        oh, I see it. A person can only take so much and then they shut down. If there was occasional banter and a build up of goodwill between the debaters, one can come back another day. If you think the religionists on the site are the biggest problem, I would suggest you check out the property right eroders. The anti-proper govt promoters. The Christians are not your big worry. Defund PP. Yes, big assault on your freedoms
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by philosophercat 8 years, 7 months ago
                          The common thread in your list of enemies of freedom is a fear of reason and a desire to get control of government. Those of us who are advocates of individual sovereignty know it can only come when individuals takes pride their individual use of reason and respect and admire that in others. You defund PP because it is not the proper role of government but that comes from a principle of individual rights which are rationally based. Religious people suspend reason because what they believe is sustained only by faith. When the two conflict out come the guns and we see it in this thread. The essence of Objectivism is the concept of objectivity which requires the integration of ones cognitive skills with the hierarchical body of knowledge and one tests the truth or falsity of propositions by how well they are integrated and reducible to observation. Religion requires that be broken and un-integrated. Religion cannot find the boundary and fears the free truth seeking human mind. So I do worry about people who claim to have read and accepted some or all of Ayn Rand and still hold onto god. They cannot tell where the dividing line is and abortion is just one of the places the conflict comes up. The definition of rights is another.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by $ 8 years, 7 months ago
                            Methinks you and ewv protest too much.

                            I think that you think that I am making religious-based arguments. I have not done so in this thread (or any other time in the last month or so at least), and neither has blarman made a religious argument in this thread.

                            The reason for the argument is that Objectivism has made the assignment of rights at birth based on that life form's ability to generate enough action on its own to sustain itself. An infant clearly cannot, and a fetus cannot either, of course. By that logic, then no rights should be assigned to that life form until MUCH later in life. You act as if I think that rights should be assigned in utero. In utero, at conception, cells exist, but they are "potential life", as ewv is quick to point out. At that point, the life form cannot have any rights. At some point in utero, the life form starts to generate some actions to sustain itself. Certainly by age four or so, humans generate enough actions to sustain themselves, other than earning cash for food, shelter, etc. At that point, it is probably reasonable to assign children some modest rights. In between, there is a gradient in the number of self-generated actions that the entity takes to sustain itself. One can reasonably argue that it is not until birth that a life form should have any rights. ewv stated multiple times that sentience cannot be used as the point for assignment of rights on the basis that it would create a contradiction. That is a reasonable statement, because prior to sentience, the life form is not capable of making conscious decisions to sustain its own life. Thus, one can reasonably conclude that the lower limit must be greater than the point of sentience.

                            Personally, as an engineer, I am trained to be conservative, and so I error on the side of caution and avoid the potential ethical dilemma by not participating in abortions. Thus I would not personally get involved in an abortion after the age of sentience, whatever that is. However, that says nothing regarding whether I (or blarman or any of the other Christians on this web site) regarding whether we would use force to impose those views on others. I certainly would not, and you have taken far too much offense to what has been a completely rational debate.

                            Is the choice of one's birth a reasonable time to start assigning rights to the new entity? Probably. It raises the least contradictions, but it certainly is not the only choice for which one can live a non-contradictory life. Living a non-contradictory life is paramount, regardless of what anyone else, including Ayn Rand, says.

                            Both of you have assigned a religious basis to my decision. I have not. I have rationally made decisions based on what I can live with and what I cannot live with, according to my moral code.

                            As to philosophercat's point regarding miscarriages, some "potential life" was not meant to be. My wife and I have gone through a couple miscarriages at 4 to 6 months of gestation. It was emotionally hard on my wife, but in the end, it was a "potential life".

                            We were also told by our OB doctor that we should abort our 2nd daughter because of a high probability that she would have birth defects using the same argument made by eugenicists. She is going to college next week, with no long term effects. The "pressure" exhibited by the "religious right" is far from the only such pressure. I am quite sure that our doctor's recommendation is far from an isolated incident.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Posted by philosophercat 8 years, 7 months ago
                              My comments are for Blarman not you and I apologize for the confusing tags. J you have no idea what constitutes a religious argument. . Blarman makes no statements other than as a Christian. and he believes everything he says is consistent with his Christian beliefs whatever they are. He is consistent if secretive about his values. He invited me to a private thread to discuss theism which ended with a plea from him that I give up my reason so I could experience god. He holds that god puts a soul into two strands of DNA whenever they come together. He cannot show that this happens and why between that moment and birth mother nature gets rid of a high percentage of fetuses and their souls through ectopic pregnancies, miscarriages, and still births. The problem of evil is nothing compared to why god would waste all those souls. You are mistaken in assuming you can decide that "some life is potential life" that is not the Christian view those are souls and the fetus is irrelevant. But nature can decide which souls are to be wasted? Nature can decide to override gods intentions? Or is god just an assembly line sticking souls into any old DNA? The Christian problem is it will not reduce its concepts to observation, it requires they be accepted on faith as true from some one else. So Blarman asks for the science but cannot even define his terms as Objectivism requires by reducing them to observation. The premise you have to check is which of the concepts you hold true cannot be reduced to reality and observation and are held only by faith received from an authority you accepted without justification. As an engineer try to keep in mind that life began some 4 billion years ago and evolved to life as h sapiens about 200,000 years ago with very high mortality rates. The idea of of a christian god is only 2100 years or so, thus a recent invention. How comes it to explain that which already existed? What on earth is the holy ghost? How did man fall and yet evolve...it is all faith versus reason and yes it is time to check your premises. What Ayn Rand added was to check your remises you need to reduce them to observation in reality discarding those which cannot be reduced and integrating the rest. Then contradictions disappear and the "human understanding" and peace so admired by Locke settle into your self made soul.
                              I too have been through lost pregnancies and hope you never do again. .
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Posted by ewv 8 years, 7 months ago
                              Objectivism has not "made the assignment of rights at birth based on that life form's ability to generate enough action on its own to sustain itself." This has been explained to you many times and you continue to ignore it. You do not understand the basis of morality and rights. As explained many times, "sentience" is not the base of morality or rights.

                              The arbitrary attribution of "rights" as intrinsic in a fetus (or earlier) most certainly is a religious argument. Rationalistic verbal manipulation in the manner of Medieval Scholasticism also reeks of the religious tradition, whether or not it is dressed up in the garb of claimed science and "engineering". Reason and rationality do not mean "consistently" manipulating floating abstractions.

                              Doctors giving advice based on statistics to not have a child is not "eugenics". Rambling "conservatism" and its consequences of outrageous accusations is not "rational debate".

                              You do not even remotely understand Ayn Rand's philosophy and should stop the repeated misrepresentations and opposition to it along with personal attacks on those who defend it. You can believe what you want but it doesn't belong here.
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Posted by RevJay4 8 years, 7 months ago
                              JBrenner, your post gave me a headache, thank you.
                              The statement "I have rationally made decisions based on what I can live with and what I cannot live with, according to my moral code", really gave me fits over how I make decisions. It is through my own moral code I am guided in the decision-making process. I guess I just never thought about it in that way. The only part of the process which may be somewhat considered "religious" is the phrase "harm no others". But, it is part of my moral code and helps me make decisions everyday.
                              As to your last part of the post re: your 2nd daughter. Beautiful, man, just beautiful. Never know what the future has in store for any of us. Surprises are abundant and around every corner as we meander on.
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                              • Posted by $ 8 years, 7 months ago
                                "Harm no others", while it could be considered religious, is conceptually part of the Objectivist code as well as the Hippocratic oath. If someone is going to consider that based in religion, then that person and I are going to have a hard time agreeing on much of anything.
                                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                • Posted by ewv 8 years, 7 months ago
                                  "Harm no others" is not an Objectivist principle. It is a vague slogan that leaves out what kind of "harm" and "how". No one can live while altruistically limiting himself to do nothing that someone will consider "harm".
                                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                  • jbrenner replied 8 years, 7 months ago
                        • Posted by ewv 8 years, 7 months ago
                          There is no goodwill in moral denunciation and violating the rights of a woman to have an abortion. The irrationality of the religious influence is deadly serious. There is nothing wrong with treating it seriously on this forum. Those who don't see the consequences of irrational ideas, especially within a contemporary political movement, do not have to discuss it or read it. It doesn't mean that the threat to property rights is not serious.

                          In the "Wreckage of the Consensus" Ayn Rand wrote:

                          "'The most immoral contradiction—in the chaos of today's anti-ideological groups—is that of the so-called 'conserve-tires,' who posture as defenders of individual rights, particularly property rights, but uphold and advocate the draft. By what infernal evasion can they hope to justify the proposition that creatures who have no right to life, have the right to a bank account?"

                          The same is true of the anti-abortionist attack on the rights of a woman not to have a child she does not want.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by khalling 8 years, 7 months ago
                            I completely agree that there is nothing wrong with addressing this issuehead on. But where in this thread has anyone advocated making abortion illegal? They would like a definition for when life begins and I think that's a rational place to start a discussion on human life. Defunding PP is something you would agree with. My point is at least the people in this thread celebrate human life. However, they miss the slave and you own yourself arguments over the emotional argument of killing a fetus. You said earlier that you see the Sanger argument as a canard. I disagree. The underlying philosophy of PP is anti-human. Yes, get your birth control here and get a papsmear-but DO NOT have a baby. You know the planet has too many humans on it as it is and we are doing our part in population control. That is clear-else in the name of female reproductive services why do they not represent pre-natal care? hmm?
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by ewv 8 years, 7 months ago
                      Blarman is using a fundamentally wrong criteria for the requirements of having rights. "Sentient" means conscious at the perceptual level. Denying a woman's right of abortion is a serious matter.

                      You don't tell someone who has been falsely smeared as "eugenics", "racial cleansing", "nazis", and "The Black Holocaust" to "lighten up".
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ewv 8 years, 7 months ago
        No he's not jesting. He is a serious confused religionist who is bound to find "slippery slopes" everywhere there are non-believers in the dogma, which he refuses to stop inappropriately pushing on this forum for Ayn Rand's philosophy of reason.

        He doesn't understand the concept of 'sentient', the meaning of human being, the difference between the potential and the actual, the source of moral principles, and much more. With that as a starting point it's no wonder that he sees "slipping" into "eugenicism", "racial cleansing", "nazis", and "The Black Holocaust" everywhere -- and demands a religious version of the Moratorium on Brains to stop all activity "interfering" with everything from conception on.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 8 years, 7 months ago
      Rights do not originate or depend on "sentience", potential human beings don't have rights, a woman already has a right to her own body and does not require "being given coercive control over a potential human being", rights are not "arbitrary"or "subjective", and a woman's right to her own body has nothing to do with "eugenicism"or "racial cleansing".
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ blarman 8 years, 7 months ago
        Margaret Sanger (founder of Planned Parenthood) institutionalized abortion with the stated intent to eradicate blacks and others she deemed "unfit" (see http://www.lifenews.com/2013/03/11/10.... Her own statements expose her intent of racial cleansing and eugenics. Sanger admired Adolf Hitler for doing the same thing in his campaign to wipe out the Jews and others not fit for his own "master race". She was also heralded by the Ku Klux Klan for her work. Sanger did not push abortion as a "women's rights" issue but rather as a social policy aimed at government-sponsored population control. Dispute these facts at your own peril.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by philosophercat 8 years, 7 months ago
          Mother nature practices abortion with every still birth or discharged fetus. Its how evolution protects the mother so she can have additional children which might survive. Humans have been getting rid of unwanted pregnancies since the first conquering army left the raped women of the village. Removal of fetuses is natural and without it no species would survive. Of course that doesn't matter if we are god's creation and our purpose on earth is the next life.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 8 years, 7 months ago
          It has nothing to do with the current battle for the right of abortion. Neither do the forced abortions in China.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ 8 years, 7 months ago
            You claim that "it (blarman's bringing up Sanger as PP's founder) has nothing to do with the current battle for the right of abortion". Sanger was the founder of Planned Parenthood and made her intent almost as well known as Ayn Rand made Objectivism known. Divorcing Planned Parenthood from its founder, Margaret Sanger, would be as difficult as divorcing Objectivism from Ayn Rand. Such a divorce would be a denial that A = A.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 8 years, 7 months ago
              The rights of abortion are not based on and have nothing to do with eugenics and no one else is trying to connect them aside from religionist smear propaganda. Even Planned Parenthood doesn't do that. Objectivism is the name of the philosophy of Ayn Rand. That is why you can't divorce them. Crude rationalizations that are so bad they make our ears wilt are not saved by repeating "A is A".
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ 8 years, 7 months ago
                Don't be so sure. My wife's OB doctor employed a eugenics argument to try to convince us that we should abort our 2nd child.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by ewv 8 years, 7 months ago
                  If that is what he literally did, then go to a different doctor. Eugenics and Margaret Sanger have nothing to do with the fight to maintain the right of abortion. It is based on the rights and freedom of the individual to not be sacrificed to an unborn potential, not "eugenics". Blarman's accusations of "eugenics", "nazism", "racial cleansing", a "black holocaust", etc. and your endorsement of it are disgusting.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by khalling 8 years, 7 months ago
                    that is indeed the roots of PP. do not deny reality. The evidence is overwhelming. You need only look to Sanger's own writing and the employing of black preachers to aid in her goals of "educating" black females. That aside, the philosophy of PP today is anti-human. Keep women on birth control (that's why the papsmears are free) and we are working at reducing the world population. I can post evidence of this but you can find it as well-the head of Girl Scouts America was a former PP exec who has spoken earnestly about this very thing and indoctrinated the GS with it. It is one reason I removed my lifetime membership from the org. Don't act like there is not an agenda at PP. There is and you are either naive or don't want to see it. Why else is it that under female reproductive care you can get birth control pill but not pre-natal vitamins?
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ blarman 8 years, 7 months ago
            You certainly have the right to believe whatever you wish. I take the woman and the movement she started at her word and intent - especially when those currently leading the organization (not to mention many others like Hillary Clinton) still venerate her.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 8 years, 7 months ago
              The popular opposition to bans on abortion and contraception, except for those related to Ayn Rand's ideas, are strikingly non-philosophical and non-ideological. It is not based on Sanger and most people no longer pay attention to the feminazis on the fringe for anything. Ayn Rand praised Betty Friedan at the beginning, but denounced the "Women's Lib" movement as part of the rest of the New Leftists. Opposition to religious 'social controls' on abortion, etc.is pro individual freedom and cannot be packaged with Nazis eugenics and racism. It's worse, and more offensive, than John Birch conspiracy theories.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ 8 years, 7 months ago
                With regard to Planned Parenthood, Blarman won this round quite convincingly. Just because PP does not acknowledge its founder publicly as much as it used to does not mean that they have denounced her.

                Opposition to religious social controls on abortion is pro individual freedom. On that we can agree.

                However, the packaging with eugenics and racism came right out of the mouth of Margaret Sanger herself.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ blarman 8 years, 7 months ago
                As I said before - you are welcome to draw your own conclusions on the matter. I presented the fundamental problems with the position and its total reliance on a slippery-slope argument. One can produce any manner of marketing slogans and packaging, but I'm not going to ignore the facts of its founding and the present day results. Nearly half of all abortions performed are on blacks, despite them representing a mere 13% of the population (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2...) Also cited is the fact that 79% of PP facilities are located in black communities and that there were more black babies aborted than born. You call it what you want, but with these facts in hand I don't believe anything has changed from Margaret Sanger's initial vision except the people carrying it out.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by ewv 8 years, 7 months ago
                  Planned Parenthood provides subsidized abortions in poor neighborhoods where in addition the residents are possibly less likely to responsibly use contraceptives. No one is forcing blacks to have abortions. The black population continues to increase. There is no evidence that those who support the right of abortion are "eugenicist", "racial cleansing", "nazis" carrying out a "black holocaust", which is an outrageous smear. Your accusations are offensive and disgusting.

                  The hysterical article you cited in another religious attack on abortion as "murder". You know very well that on this forum especially the right of abortion is defended as a woman's right to her own life not subject to religious duties to bear children. Rejection of individual freedom against religion is not a "slippery slope" and has nothing to do with Margaret Sanger nearly a century ago in the 1930s. Your religious anti-abortion arguments and smears are antithetical to the purpose of this forum and do not belong here -- or in any civilized discussion.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by $ 8 years, 7 months ago
                    Let us suppose that one wanted to achieve Sanger's objectives (I don't). One could achieve those objectives by setting up crack houses in certain neighborhoods. No one is forcing people to buy or consume the crack, but ...

                    There is no evidence that the vast majority of those who support the right of abortion support Sanger's objectives. OK, I'll concede that point. However, if I exchange value for value with someone, and the person being exchanged with gets to further a stated value (for example, Sanger's) that is inconsistent with my values, then I will take my business elsewhere. I wouldn't support Sanger and Planned Parenthood by that logic, even if I would think abortion by another provider was OK. Certainly Sanger spoke at a KKK rally and was quite clear about her eugenics goals regarding African Americans. Just to be clear, I am not extrapolating that to Objectivists who support abortion.

                    Sanger had already gone down the slippery slope from abortion (which could be reasonably defended by Objectivists) toward devaluing life in other ways such as eugenics and racial cleansing.

                    The step toward withholding care from the elderly is not a large step from there. By the way, by 1952, Sanger was a board member for the Euthanasia Society of America (see letterhead about halfway down this link).

                    http://www.lifenews.com/2014/04/02/ju...

                    Just be sure who you are exchanging values with.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by ewv 8 years, 7 months ago
                      Sanger did not "go down the slippery slope", she started at the bottom with all kinds of racism and statism. It has nothing to do with the right of abortion.

                      Planned Parenthood should not be getting government subsidies for anything, entirely independently of this latest hysteria.

                      It is not a "step" from abortion rights to killing the elderly through government rationing. The first is the right of the individual, the second a violation of rights.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 8 years, 7 months ago
    Your original premises are quite correct. The problem is that you once lived in a country that at the very least, embraced those same premises. However, during my lifetime and possibly yours, the country you now live in is no longer the same. It espouses all those things that caused you to need to check your premises. In the current political situation it could cause a rational person to think he/she's going mad. So many times I, and I think you also, have said, "Are they crazy? That can't possibly work." So obvious, yet to the brain-blind, not obvious at all.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by j_IR1776wg 8 years, 7 months ago
    Jim in the 1972 presidential election, the Marxists, having recently taken over the Democratic party, made their first attempt to put one of their own into the Oval office. Their chosen one, George McGovern, had as his major foreign policy agenda a plan to scrap the entire U.S. Navy both over water and underwater ships as a gesture to the USSR to show them we meant them no harm. He would have kept a few for the Coast Guard to control drug and other smuggling.
    You see the Socialists recognize what many of we Americans do not; viz. to destroy America it is not enough to control the schools, courts, borders, and Congress - they must also disarm us in the face of our enemies.
    The problem is not with your premises, rather a failure to take a clear-eyed look at the nature of our common enemy and his plan for our future..
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 8 years, 7 months ago
      I know who our common enemy is and his plan for the future. What I do not know is whether I can summon enough likeminded individuals to make a meaningful difference. I think not. However, I can summon some worthy likeminded individuals to a place worthy of their talents.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by j_IR1776wg 8 years, 7 months ago
        Galt's Gulch as created in Atlas Shrugged was a literary device - an other-worldly Atlantis. Collectivism's global reach will make a this-world Galt's Gulch impossible. No valley, no island protected by a force field can possibly exist for long. It would be found and destroyed.
        Revolutions are about ideas and not about numbers. They are won like football games on the field. We will never know how many minds we have brought over to Objectivism by these posts and comments. We must be as relentless as our enemies. Even more so.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 8 years, 7 months ago
          The Valley was a literary device, but most emphatically not "other worldly". It was intended to illustrate, in fiction, what it would be like in reality for people living in accordance with Ayn Rand's philosophy unencumbered by its opposite. But it was not intended as a strategy to reform the country or as a means to live in spite of it, and was not an exhortation for people to "strike" or escape to a 'utopia', which are impractical at best.

          An entirely different matter is that of individuals choosing where and how to live to try to minimize the worst of today's culture knowing that it is still always around you as a constant threat, especially if it dramatically continues to decline. That is a matter of individual survival, not seeking utopia societies in fictional isolation.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ 8 years, 7 months ago
          Such a valley or island would not necessarily be found and destroyed, if those there would small enough in number and significance to be "noticed" AND they did not wish to do transactions with the outside world.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by GaryL 8 years, 7 months ago
    I don't even know how to think on issues like planned parenthood and abortion. We are long past that stage in life but we both seem to agree that abortion is not in the realm of governmental function and should be left to the individual, their family and their God. Certainly no government financing of this procedure. Who am I to force my will upon anyone and if I don't play the game I have no right to make the rules. This should not be a dollar and cents question although I think I should have the right to withhold my tax dollars being used for that which I disagree with and that does include many other government expenditures such as foreign aid to countries and regimes that hate us. Would I loan my money to a close friend or family member for an abortion or to support their drug habit, NO! I do however believe that abortion is a necessary evil and can think of at least one individual that would have been an excellent candidate.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 8 years, 7 months ago
      If a fetus had "human rights" as the religionists claim, then it would be the function of the government to protect them. Their agitation demanding a ban on abortion any time after conception, often bans on preventing conception, and criminal investigations into Planned Parenthood are based on a false, mystical morality.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by GaryL 8 years, 7 months ago
        Those videos of PPH negotiating the sale of parts don't bother me in the least. My money supporting this activity does! Get the government out of the abortion business and let them be privately funded and I will have no involvement at all. I highly prefer to just mind my own business on issues I have no control over.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 8 years, 7 months ago
          There can be no question that government should not be subsidizing PP, but despite the hue and cry (including an attempted bill in Congress) over the funding, that is not what is driving the current hysteria, just it was not the root of Bush's religious policy against funding of stem cell research. The hype and inflammatory rhetoric is based on religious opposition to abortion http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts..., with demands that government conform and enforce it.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by jabuttrick 8 years, 7 months ago
      While I have in the past contributed money to Planned Parenthood and am pro-choice, I adamantly oppose government funding of the group. It doesn't make any difference to me that the government support is supposedly limited to non-abortion related activities. I would love to see a single politician take the same position. Anyone know of any who do?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ allosaur 8 years, 7 months ago
    I've always tried to follow my conscience.
    But now by age 68, I do have regrets to look back upon.
    The late great Baron von Richthofen (Snoopy's nemesis) once spoke of an "inner schweinehund" one must always overcome.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 8 years, 7 months ago
      There is no inherent drive for evil, even in Sopwith Camels. Evil is the absence of morality. You discover what it is and have the integrity to follow it or you don't. The primary evil is refusing to focus one's mind as circumstances require.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ allosaur 8 years, 7 months ago
        The absence of morality is pretty much how the left "means to an end" often operates.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 8 years, 7 months ago
          The left is not lacking an ethics, it is driven by a false ethics. It operates from the altruism and tribalism inherited from very old and very wrong philosophy and religion.

          Even the Pragmatism of the progressives, while denying principles on principle, is a parasitic philosophy relying on implicit, often unadmitted ideology in choosing goals and the standard of what "works".
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by jabuttrick 8 years, 7 months ago
      Since schweinehund literally means "pig dog" I'm not sure if this reflects a positive sense of self.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ allosaur 8 years, 7 months ago
        I think the baron equated "pig dog" to cowardice since he was speaking of fighter tactics back when a pilot's life expectancy was two weeks.
        Cowardice can lead to poor choices in life.
        An example would be fear of being belittled or disowned by one's peerage for being the reason to do something against one's conscience.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by strugatsky 8 years, 7 months ago
    The US military was never "an agent for liberation from totalitarian regimes." It is and has always been a tool of the US government. In the past, the US government has often chosen to act as an agent for liberation from totalitarian regimes (Korea, Berlin airlift, for example), sometimes successfully, but recently more often neither successfully, nor wisely (Iraq and others).
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 8 years, 7 months ago
    I think it would be helpful to note which portions of the Federal Bureaucracy actually fall under the umbrella of the "military". Not that I think you have necessarily mischaracterized any, but to verify where authority and responsibility ultimately lie.

    I think we can all agree that the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines constitute what most people think of as our active military dealing with armed conflict. The others you mention, however, are more police roles, such as the Coast Guard, Border Patrol, Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). That being said, ultimately ALL fall under the auspices of the President of the United States. If there are repeated failures of these institutions, one should rightly look to the Commander-in-Chief and upper echelons of authority for responsibility.

    Should we use our military to engage in "peacekeeping" across the globe? I don't believe we should unless invited. In Desert Storm, we were invited by Kuwait to defend them and push back against the aggression of the neighboring Iraqis led by Saddam Hussein. We had an interest in protecting not only trade but our allies in the region, so we were not only defending against aggression, but strengthening trade ties. I believe this can be justified.

    The more recent actions to overthrow regimes, however, I believe are not within a defensive role. Our recent actions to depose Saddam Hussein in Iraq, Bashar Assad in Libya, and Mohammed Morsi in Egypt lie outside our role as invited defenders. Further, it is highly questionable that the outcomes further our interests.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 8 years, 7 months ago
      Regarding peacekeeping around the globe, what I have realized over the past several years is that, not only should we go unless invited, we shouldn't go, period. I have always agreed with Washington (the President) in his rejection of foreign entanglements, but now I see just how little is in a country's national interest.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo