- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
Also, the first automobile production line was invented by Ranson Olds, and not Henry Ford as many believe.
But it came from Gunsmithing. Back in the day, every gun was made UNIQUE. A trigger from one gun would NOT work with most other guns.
Whitney, seeing the insanity of this, and realizing that 20 broken guns could MAYBE net you 1 gun.
Realized that if the parts were made to the same standard... Then 20 broken guns could become 10-16 working guns.
Furthermore, this feature alone would literally cause gun purchasers to FLOCK to standardized parts.
Ford was a PoS of a person. Awarded awards by the NAZIs... (National Socialists for those thinking Hitler was RIGHT wing, LMAO. Ignorant people!). And he built tanks for them... While Standard Oil (and Shell, I think) provided the fuel additive for his plane fuel and rocket fuel. IF THESE 2 companies would have withheld this from the Nazis... The war could have NEVER been fought. Hitler had to IMPORT these chemicals! (Conveniently left out of our education about the war)...
Objectivism holds: Values and, subsequently morality, are solely based upon mortality.
That which is [for] life, by nature and nurture is good. That which is against life is evil.
Life has certain characteristics, defined by science [objectively] of which self-sustained metabolism and procreation are maxims [irrefutable]
Mutually agreed upon procreation for humans is [for] life. Hedonism and rape are irrespective of objectivity toward life.
A lack of respect toward life is evil.
Those who would practice hedonism (male and female) and rape (male) deserve no public support, yet I propose penalty, as vermin can overbreed resources.
In the instance of rape; female choice is optional. Abortion is anti the aggressor [male] life and the force that was initiated. Male life to be terminated as disease of cancer would. Do not let anti-life infect the culture. I will publicly support the child as long as the male is terminated.
In the instance of hedonism; choice of life, procreative couple to raise child. The choice of not to raise a child results in termination of the couple and public adoption of the child.
It's simple; no sport fucking no problems.
Institute this as policy and the potential of violation will drop to near zero. And a culture will ensue toward healthier relations.
While I believe in Laissez-Faire, I have traveled a slightly different path than Rand.
"Big Business"? Any exchange of value between two honest individuals is a good thing. "Money/value" is like electricity, it is only good when it is moving.
Abortion? This is a hard one. Apparently, Rand has a valid point in determining that every human being has a valid reason to exist and think. This is of course, non-debatable. But when does any being become living? Someone is not considered dead until their heart, not their brain, stops. Using that standard, does it not seem plausible that a yet-to-be-delivered human is not also alive when its heart begins beating, at about 7 weeks?
Is the delivery of a gestating human the lone action that places a stamp of HUMAN on its validity? Is the passage through a cervix the same as the passage through the "Pearly Gates"? (just had to). Would this then equate "Saint Peter" to "Margaret Sanger"? Who gets in (SP) or out (MS) and who goes on to "hell"
"Rand" helps clear my thinking. I rely on her rationale, but I retain the concept that the existence with a beating heart inside of a perfectly designed natural incubation chamber (mother's womb) is not also a human. Just at an age of seven weeks.
But to your comment - one could decide to abort an IVF pregnancy if the baby has an abnormality that the parents cannot deal with. For example: Down's syndrome. Some people would voluntarily choose to end a Down's Syndrome pregnancy, even if it were achieved by IVF.
While I am very much against abortion, that wasn't actually what I was arguing, but whether any man had a right to have an opinion about abortion. He does.
My BW nannied for a boy with Downs from 1yr old to 8 . He is an absolute Joy. That has been my experience with everyone of those loving humans that I have met. Now if a parent was considering aborting a leftist , I could understand the termination.
Adrenochrome for the deletes included. Waiting till just before birth provides a bigger stack of green for the murderers who do not provide alternate options to the (in many cases scared )mothers.
Having said that, she was also an advocate of science. The further that science has progressed from 1973 the more that we have learned about early developing life.
Ayn's advocacy of "tabula rasa" as how babies come into this world is being proven wrong scientifically.
In addition, many women who have had abortions have faced the emotional turmoil of the positives and negatives of such decisions and have had second thoughts about their actions. Sometimes hindsight is 20-20. Don't ignore those who have regrets. They have much to teach.
My suggestion is:
1) Follow the science when making new laws.
2) Tell her the truth and then let her decide.
It's ultimately up to the woman.
BUT the abortion issue is complicated as I posted elsewhere. Until we prosecute EVERY miscarriage as manslaughter, we are NOT on solid ground illegalizing it. Nature does NOT have a 100% success rate after conception. So, IMHO, that can NEVER be the line in the sand.
On the other hand, once the baby is truly viable outside the womb, we have issues. And my personal favorite is/was brainwave activity that we can easily confirm means we have an individual. (But I am ALL About Arguing out where I will learn and move. It took me 30yrs to get to that point).