Add Comment


All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by stevieg88 10 months, 3 weeks ago
    Well, regarding, mhubb's comment, Henry Ford was an avowed antisemite, and any positive comments about him must not lose sight of that salient fact.

    Also, the first automobile production line was invented by Ranson Olds, and not Henry Ford as many believe.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by CaptainKirk 10 months, 3 weeks ago
      Yes, and the idea of interchangeable parts was Thanks to Eli Whitney, of the Cotton Gin.
      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)...
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Commander 10 months, 3 weeks ago
    First, we separate business and abortion.
    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.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by FelixORiley 10 months, 3 weeks ago
    Yes, I have read many of Rand's works.
    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.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by 25n56il4 10 months, 3 weeks ago
    Pardon me but I think a man trying to understand anything about abortion equates to a woman trying to explain prostatitis!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ gharkness 10 months, 3 weeks ago
      Well, with very few exceptions (IVF, etc.) most babies didn't get in there without some "help" from the man. (Editing to add: even with IVF, unless it's a clone, a man has been VERY close to that new entity.) Just like you don't have to have actually contracted Covid to have an opinion about whether various treatments work, especially if you have studied the subject. People have all sorts of opinions about all sorts of things that they don't own. But as far as a baby is concerned most men DO have a good reason to have an opinion, especially if they have ever fathered a child.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ Dobrien 10 months, 3 weeks ago
        Hard to imagine a woman going through IVF and then aborting the result.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ gharkness 10 months, 3 weeks ago
          I was actually referring to whether a man had the right to an opinion about abortion -or not - because he doesn't "own" a uterus. I believe he does, especially when it comes to HIS wife or partner and/or HIS child, but also in general. He is a human being capable of understanding the issues. He is (or can be) involved in the creation of a human being, and as such is fully able to understand and have an opinion about abortion.

          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.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ Dobrien 10 months, 3 weeks ago
            I agree with you my friend. Personally , I have had experience with many who have Downs Syndrome.
            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.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ gharkness 10 months, 3 weeks ago
              I see we are on the same track, then. Yes, from all I have heard and read, children with Down's Syndrome are lovely to raise, and their lovingness makes the challenge much lower. I simply used that as an example, but there are others that are less appealing to deal with. Still: all humans IMO do have a right to an opinion about abortion. :-)
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ Dobrien 10 months, 3 weeks ago
                G , again we are on the right track. Certainly some abnormalities that do not result in a miscarriage are a reasonable consideration. In regards to Ayn’s Position on abortion, today many more things would likely need to be considered. Specifically the $ made for selling the parts of the aborted.
                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.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 10 months, 3 weeks ago
    I read most of her work, but I have to say that I do make up my own mind and live with the consequences. I would engage in abortion if I were a woman. It seems just like a low rent way out of self created problem. I am not anti business, but I do think they have to treat people fairly and NOT use government to get special privileges at the expense of others.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ kbillado 10 months, 3 weeks ago
    There seems to be a number of posts arguing against abortion and pro-abortion. But since humans first walked upright and became self aware, they knew what caused pregnancy even if they did not know how it worked. Now in this day and age would it not be better to prevent the pregnancy than to undergo what is invasive surgery. What planned parent hood does not do is teach women how not to get pregnant because it would hurt the baby killing business and the selling of fetal tissue for research.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by doubleJack 10 months, 3 weeks ago
    I haven't read all of her works. 'Atlas' and 'the fountainhead'. I enjoyed both. I didn't agree with everything she wrote, but did think most of it was prophesy ( and has been proved as such) of Obama's and Biden's administrations.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by teri-amborn 10 months, 3 weeks ago
    Personally I've read everything of Ayn's works that I could get my hands on. She was a remarkable thinker and a great devotee of reality and reason.

    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.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 10 months, 3 weeks ago
      Agreed. I think that is what was wrong with the Roe decision to start with and what is wrong with this new decision. Instead of looking to legal precedents and saying "we have to rule this way because that's what the law meant at X time in history" the courts should be looking at what we know scientifically and letting that inform their decisions. Sometimes the law literally is blind and blindness makes it stupid.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CaptainKirk 10 months, 3 weeks ago
    Not enough of her books. And I don't know her opinions on such things.

    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).
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  


  • Comment hidden. Undo