Very true.

Well, Lenin did say: "The capitalists will sell us the rope by which we'll hang them."

Interesting information, however, NONE of that industrialization would have been possible if it weren't for the direct intervention by American interests in 1927. Gary Allen even references Prof. Sutton's ground-breaking work in his book "None Dare Call It A Conspiracy". The Soviet Union is a product of America, via American $$, American minds and technology. If it weren't for the factories being built in the first place, the Bolshevik Revolution would have fallen flat on its face by 1928. Both Prof. Sutton and Gary Allen explain this (especially Prof. Sutton) at great lengths using documents archived by our own State Department to prove this.

I agree that, obviously the Soviets would have been able to figure out how to improve the technology they stole, that's not my concern or argument.

My case is that without the direct monetary injection by traitors like John D. Rockefeller and his Chase Manhattan Bank: the American and European-Financed Bolshevik revolution and Stalin would have never happened and the wonders of Soviet technology wouldn't even be discussed.

I strongly encourage you to read either Prof. Sutton or the book by Gary Allen for more information. I would provide some specific examples, but I have stuff packed...getting ready to move.

‘Sjatkins’ that sounded good at first but it is a self-refuting request. To request “objective evidence” from a man who already stated he believes in “Jesus who is God” is a self-refuting request because from his statement we logically infer he believes in the Bible.
The definition of “objective” when used as an adjective includes both “not influenced by personal feelings” and “based on facts” (ref. Dictionary.com).
To the Christian, the entire Bible taken in context as a whole, is the absolute moral standard. Yet the Bible defines itself as being the “absolute fact” of an “entirely personal Creator.” Thus, the request is self-refuting.
Based on both Silverman’s and the other guy’s testimonies in that clip, it is impossible to have “objective morality” because both their definitions are based upon personal feelings. Likewise, ‘jtrikakis’ can’t show you objective evidence when he believes in a personal Creator. I suspect, by definition, he meant God is totally "just" in all He does.
Based on the objective data in this blog, I can’t determine if ‘sjatkins’ responded negatively to ‘jtrikaikis’ comment for saying God is "objective" or for meaning God is "just."
Regardless, “bull” is short for a vulgarity – we’re all in the Gultch together, let’s be allies. On that note, ‘jtrikaikis’, it is apparent you have strong beliefs, maybe that’s a reason to show/share them with ‘sjatkins’ in a private blog thingy (obviously I don’t do much social media).

Yes, an example of a very different strongly held sense of morals is a good demonstration of the subjectivity of morality. Care to explain why you think it makes no sense?
We make a subjective choice to base our morality on objective reality and reason. That is still our subjective choice. Do you think you have no choice about what things you value most?

What do you mean by abstractions? Our morality is based on our values.

well, I did not ask for asuicide-but that is the AR example you alluded to

Most "debates" I've seen between Christianity and atheism make unwarranted assumptions about what the atheist believes (other than no god). A common example is to assume that Communism is the (only) atheist position. I don't think this method is valid no matter who employs it. In the end, before you can soundly argue either for or against somebody else's morality, I believe you really need to find its axioms (and the theorems it uses to infer other things from them) and support or attack that structure.

Naturally, it can be somewhat futile to attempt this if the other guy doesn't want to explain his reasoning.

I have not read the referenced work, but do know the history of the period well. I would argue that the above is a very unfair assessment. The Soviets have purchased, leased and stolen any technology that they could, but they also paid for it, mostly in natural resources - lumber, ores, foodstuffs and fuel. To claim that Stalin had no part in the Soviet industrialization is like claiming that Reagan had no part in the US revival. He was a murderer, a despot, killed more of his own citizens than the Nazis, but he was certainly responsible for the industrialization programs and the buildup of the most powerful military machine in the world at that time, at least in terms of technology (the abysmal leadership of the Soviet forces is another story). Now, given that Soviet military technology was years ahead of anyone else's, it is difficult to say that it was built by someone else who did not have that technology, wouldn't it? For example, the T34 had a 500 hp diesel engine - the most powerful competitors barely had 200 hp gas engines; it's armor was impenetrable by anything but the very heaviest cannons (when as British and US tanks at the time would light up from hand-held rifles and German tanks were tin boxes) and had over twice the speed of the competitors. And the Soviets had more T34's (and thousands of other types) in 1941 than Germany had all of all types (which were all vastly inferior) combined. The Soviet aircraft were on-par with the German machines, but the Soviets had at least 10 times as many. We can go on, but I think that the point should be clear - the Soviet military technology superseded their competitors in almost all areas (except for the navy, of course, having a mostly land-based mentality). Where the Soviets failed miserably is in the personnel department, and on every level there, but the technology was very advanced and built there.

Agreed. Lots of syllables. Not so much wisdom here. It is wholly unnecessary to assert an argument based on relative perception to establish one need not take morality from a book.

Regarding the economy of the USSR, you really need to read Professor Antony Sutton's work on who financed the USSR's industry from the '20's onward: Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development (in three volumes)

Stalin built nothing. American engineers and LOTS of Rockefeller $$ did for Stalin.

The question is: WHY were we NOT taught this in high school?

I didn't have a suicide in mind, when one stops valuing his life; more like taking a bullet to protect the one you love. Or, if you want to get into moral issues that are really difficult to resolve, think of "Sophie's Choice" - which would you pick to live - your son or your daughter? And can one remain sane after that?
In the previous comment, I didn't clearly or correctly express my thoughts - AR did not justify the means to reach an end. She considered the real end, the fruitful and healthy continuation of the species as the measure of morality. So my comment didn't sound right. And perhaps it still doesn't. The point I'm trying to formulate is that often our only defensible measures of morality are subjective.

Cherry picking things people say are moral, whether they are or not, as an example of how morality cannot be objective makes no sense as an argument. Care to try again? Actually I did "surrender" what I thought was the case and basis of values when I encountered objectivism and later other ethical philosophy and thought it through. That most people will not think it through or go through the hard letting go sometimes involved is also not a valid argument that no objective ethics is possible.

Bull. Show me the objective evidence.

No. Rational ethics are based upon the relevant facts of reality - the nature of human beings and what our prime means of survival and thriving are. Objectivism soundly rejects the notion that morality, that is any remotely rational and effective ethical system, is or can be subjective.

That something is based on abstractions does not at all mean it is subjective!

That is a consequentialist argument not one from objective (based in reality) ethics. And a hypothetical is thrown in for further confusion.

Many comments here are claiming that, because we in the Gulch build our morality by applying reason to objective reality, we have developed an "objective morality".

But as we all know, today there are (for example) many who think it is highly moral to increase tax on some people to support others on welfare etc, and they will defend those values against any amount of reason we put up.

Surely that defines morality as subjective. More than that, by claiming ours is "objective", we are just causing their position to be more entrenched. It might give us a short hit of superiority, but it does not help change other's sense of values. If their first hurdle to start thinking about our self-responsible morality is to completely surrender, it won't happen, people never do that, do you?

yes. However that is personal sacrifice for another individual-never a group. Groups are floating abstractions. Let me find you her words on this.
"Individualism regards man—every man—as an independent, sovereign entity who possesses an inalienable right to his own life, a right derived from his nature as a rational being. Individualism holds that a civilized society, or any form of association, cooperation or peaceful coexistence among men, can be achieved only on the basis of the recognition of individual rights—and that a group, as such, has no rights other than the individual rights of its members."

still looking. The example was-if my death would allow the person I most loved live, I might -however, the choice was bounded by if this person died-my life would lose purpose and meaning to such an extent that I would no longer want to live. There were strict boundaries. If personal unhappiness can not be overcome, and one is miserable, what choices are at hand. There is an interesting Cohen piece on this. hold on-found it. This is about Robin William's suicide: http://atlassociety.org/commentary/comme...

I like the Socrates method of discussing the extremes...
AR talked about this, and perhaps I need to review it, since it is unclear to me - self-sacrifice (literally) for a person that you love. Yes or no?

This is a fascinating discussion. Any argument between Christianity and Atheism always expands to fill the void that exists between the two in every facet of life. These arguments never seem to have an end game in sight, since every argument has a counter argument that can't be resolved against a common morality. My personal concept of morality is subjective, based on my personal beliefs of reason, fair play, personal liberty and an inherent sense of good and evil. I realize that everyone has his/her own concept of morality which may differ greatly than mine. It's a fool's errand to argue, neither viewpoint will ever concede to the other.

absolutely understand. I'm grounding your exploration in Objectivism. and the Stalin example is a clear example of black and white. Can you give us another example then?

I'm sure that you can see that I am not arguing for moral acceptance of Stalin... I am trying to explore what is objective and what is subjective when it comes to morality. Not sure if the answer is always clear, as evidenced by the above video. Ayn Rand's moral perspectives make clear sense to me in most situations; however, there are those where one wants to question the black and white approach. I think it would be a benefit to many here to explore those situations, if for no other reason than to better understand the principles for ourselves.