I guess you need to be a bit more descriptive about whom you're speaking. I thought that you were talking about me, and responded as such. Who's r? rozar? rlewellen?

Here's my logical reason - Because it is offensive to some. That should be enough.

If Scott doesn't think that this type of commentary has reached the same level that caused the previous censure, then there is not a common standard being applied.

She's been incredibly rude and obnoxious today. Seems to think that this is her private domain and any that don't bow to her sensibilities ought to be censored or excluded. Very counter Gulch like.

I am quite aware of that part. I hope free speech is virtuous, because you did use it eloquently.

You yourself claim that Objecitivism supports globalism. The right of property ONLY does not support the need for regulations that would remove that 7 year old from the market or introduce illegals into the market, You do not own that market but would exploit by doing so. I really don't think you should use what is not yours to better your profits and put a higher burden on the population. Is it really such a burden to go out of business if you don't make a profit? If you can't make a profit in a country don't sell to that country or take from it either, That is capitalism.

Yes, I do not give any quarter to humans seeking to live off of me.

As for the efficacy or efficiency of the entity caring for the animals, that just goes to which you might choose to support. But the basic function of caring for unclaimed animals, or for those temporarily lost, is a worthwhile activity, in my opinion. So, whether they use "guilt" or other means to derive their funding is merely a matter of tactics.

If you think this is spam, read the whole thing again. It's a refutation of khallings citation of Rands straw-man argument.

Men with power cannot and should not be trusted with that power. Tell me that Obama is trustworthy.

It's not that man's "depraved". It's that, some men want the unearned, and have no problem with obtaining it at the expense of others. You can call that depraved, you can call that evil... I prefer calling it evolution in action.

And "men are weak, fallible, non-omniscient ". She does fine up to there... but the "depraved" part is her own invention that she sticks in there to make her straw-man argument.

That whole quote is just... gibberish to justify her philosophy and exorcize her demons.

Man IS weak, fallible and non-omniscient. Don't blame God; blame evolution.

If you can't see the significance of Burnham's commentary... I can't help you see it. But if I have to choose between the teachings of Machiavelli and Rand? It's not much of a contest.

Fortunately, I don't have to choose.

Do you know real objectivists? Do you follow them to see if they are making a profit off of their labors or the labor of others?

It would be fraud for you to give value for none received. However, it is not fraud for those who receive value in return.
Just because you do not identify belief in a deity as rational does not mean that it isn't. I can't comprehend the quark, doesn't mean that it is any less real.

I reject your assertion that the religious lack internal validation. I certainly do not. I live for myself and my family. I live a certain moral code because I believe that there is a greater power that created all of the universe and to whom I will one day need to account for the conduct of my life.

There is a difference in living one's life for another and conducting one's life in a manner that is moral and ethical. That is not really any different whether one is an Objectivist or a deist. The difference is in that the Objectivist relies on everyone else ascribing to the same moral code with no reason to do so.

Those of faith rely on the belief that one will account for one's actions, which goes to support the moral code.

ooh, someone downvoted "free will".

Things are getting nasty in the gulch.

This is a touchy topic for me. I know of parents who would work their kids literally to death for their own selfish benefit... these parents are *not* Objectivist, just sociopaths.

On the other hand, I grew up, and so did you, around family farms where everyone pitched in, and also watched out for one another, especially "the little ones". And in my own case, no government bureaucrat in the history of bureaucracy would ever keep such a weather eye on my health and safety like my own father did while working for him.

You should be sent to coventry. What no equal rights? You must apologize now.

So I'm at 0, and Robbie's at -1... why?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Burn...

"Machiavelli's name does not rank in the noble company of scientists. In the common opinion of men, his name itself has become a term of reproach and dishonor...
"Why should this be? If our reference is to the views that Machiavelli in fact held, that he stated plainly, openly, and clearly in his writings, there is in the common opinion no truth at all... It is true that he has taught tyrants, from almost his own days - Thomas Cromwell, for example, the lowborn Chancellor whom Henry VIII brought in to replace Thomas More when More refused to make his conscience a tool of his master's interests, was said to have a copy of Machiavelli always in his pocket; and in our time Mussolini wrote a college thesis on Machiavelli. But knowledge has a disturbing neutrality in this respect. We do not blame the research analyst who has solved the chemical mysteries of a poison because a murderer made use of his treatise...
“We are, I think, and not only from the fate of Machiavelli's reputation, forced to conclude that men do not really want to know about themselves... Perhaps the full disclosure of what we really are and how we act is too violent a medicine.
“In any case, whatever may be the desires of most men, it is most certainly against the interests of the powerful that the truth should be known about political behavior. If the political truths stated by Machiavelli were widely known, the success of tyranny would become much less likely. If men understood as much of the mechanism of rule and privilege as Machiavelli understood, the would no longer be deceived into accepting that rule and privilege, and they would know what steps to take to overcome them.
“Therefore the powerful and their spokesmen – all the 'official' thinkers, the lawyers and philosophers and preachers and demagogues – must defame Machiavelli.
Machiavelli says that rulers lie and break faith; this proves, they say, that he libels human nature. Machiavelli says that ambitious men struggle for power; he is apologizing for the opposition, the enemy, and trying to confuse you about us, who wish to lead you for your own good and welfare. Machiavelli says that you must keep strict watch over officials and subordinate them to the law; he is encouraging subversion and the loss of national unity. Machiavelli says that no man with power is to be trusted; you see that his aim is to smash all your faith and ideals.
Small wonder that the powerful – in public – denounce Machiavelli. The powerful have long practice and much skill in sizing up their opposition. They can recognize an enemy who will never compromise, even when that enemy is so abstract as a body of ideas.”

James Burnham, “The Machiavellians”
(which I believe he wrote in 1943...)

I am an American. I love my country and all the countries around the world. Each country has beauty, I see it in the eyes of their children, and their arts. I do not see it in the people that would take away all of their hope via a philosophy that would ignore them if they didn't provide a function for profit, or tear people away from their culture for profit. We are debating a philosophy.

That would be "insightful"

Well... he IS!

Semi-off-off-topic. Anybody else notice the seemingly high percentage of Catholics at Fox News?

You keep dinging me just because you don't like the message. That's against the spirit of the system. kh asked a question, I answered it. That adds to the discussion. Just because you disagree or don't like it doesn't make it SPAM.

She's been this way ever since we butted heads over Christianity the other day.