Whatever else Lawrence believes in politics, this article is very limited in scope. It said that she objects to the Republican attack on the right of abortion and found Kim Davis' outburst in Kentucky politics embarrassing. That is not "damn stupid" and calling her that for these positions is not an argument. Religious conservatism is not the standard of discussion her.
Ayn Rand explained the right of abortion and rejection of religion and conservatism very well. The kind of religious dogmatism in this post implying that Ayn Rand must also be "damn stupid" for not being a religious conservative, without even an attempt at rational discussion, does not belong here.
But the religious militants are 'downvoting' it. They are anti-intellectual, anti-Ayn Rand dogmatists who don't belong here.
If you watch the videos of the rally with Huckabee where they waved their crosses with mindless hymns and chants you can see it could get a lot worse than pitchforks. Fortunately they are a small minority, even in Kentucky. At least some of them at the rally may ordinarily be normal, independent, hard working rural people, but the emotionalism and irrational sloganeering shows how easy it is to stampede people with mixed premises and lack of education on basic principles.
You criticize Christians as dogmatic, but dogmatically cling to Rand. The "damn stupid" comment had nothing to do with religion. It's a self-evident statement given her remarkably uninformed statements. I admit I could have given her the benefit of the doubt and written "damn stupid and/or ignorant".
Abortion is not a right. Recognizing that, what rights does Lawrence think are being denied women?
You are repetitiously dogmatic and appear to have no understanding of Ayn Rand's ideas and no interest in them. Ayn Rand explained her positions, she did not dogmatically assert them with religious-like slogans devoid of explanatory value. Likewise, you have been given explanations here which you repeatedly evade and ignore, substituting repetitious slogans and personal smears for discussion.
The right of a woman to have an abortion, at her own expense or that of someone who chooses to help her, if she chooses to not have a child, is absolute. It is her body and her life, not yours and not subject to your authoritarian religious injunctions demanding to interfere. Ayn Rand explained her own position on the right of abortion and rejection of religion, and both have been discussed on this forum extensively. Invoking or asserting the right of abortion is not "remarkably uninformed", not "ignorant", and not "damned stupid". It simply conflicts with and ignores as irrelevant your religious injunctions, which are arbitrary subjective impositions based on faith, not the "self evident". Please refer to Ayn Rand's article "Faith and Force" in her anthology Philosophy: Who Needs It.
You have not said why you are here. Presumably there is some good in you which has not shown up in your writing, and you were attracted to some aspect of Ayn Rand. If so, you should try to understand her philosophy, what made possible the characteristics you like, and how it made works such as Atlas Shrugged possible -- instead of assuming that the religious conservative baggage you brought with you is the basis of thought and discussion. It you want to try to understand and discuss her philosophy, and how and why it is so radically different from the intellectual status quo and its tradition, you will find a lot of help here, but this is not a place to push dogmatic religious politics, which are fundamentally antagonistic to Ayn Rand's philosophy of reason, and not the place for your snide comments attacking those who expect better than repetitious appeals to religion and snide personal attacks. Religious premises are not the basis of rational discussion
Lol Jennifer: be advised, BOTH parties are controlled by Council On Foreign Relations since 1933. Yes, the got their first president ~ Hoover, a repub in first, but then their total puppet, FDR would sent political shockwaves through this nation that we are still seeing unfold today. Dem, Repub...doesn't matter in the end. Either way, the CFR will get their puppet in no matter what.
Maybe she'll consider switching back, after (being a high paid actress) she's endlessly taxed to provide "free" college, medical care, etc., etc. to all those Demo voters.
Then again, why do entertainers feel that the public really gives a damn about their opinions, anyway?
Another example of the kind of what we call "bumper sticker thinking" (if such can be called thought). Adolf Hitler, who was more observant of mass thinking than he's been given credit for, advised that people can be more easily led by the use of simple, incendiary phrases, repetitively infused into their daily life. "Women's Rights" has become synonymous with abortion on demand, as has "women's health." There is an order of magnitude more free clinics that offer much more in the way of real health services for women than Planned Parenthood clinics, which are primarily abortion mills.
Such mindless, phrase-based reflexive outbursts become so much of the liberal's very person that they are immune to logic. They see any resistance to these branded in positions as personally threatening. They see first amendment rights applying only to those with "correct mindsets." Opposing views are deemed as the same as physically violent threats, and therefore criminal and worthy of suppression and punishment.
Obviously it legitimately refers to rights to actions that males but not females can take, such as the right to abortion. But those who don't understand the concept 'rights' go beyond that, either denying the rights or turning them into 'entitlements', with both sides of that false alternative tying it to much other baggage of different kinds.;
Ayn Rand was a strong supporter of the First Amendment right of freedom of speech as absolutely essential to a free and civilized society. So are most of the rest of us on this forum.
you are correct and i agree with you. it is just that over my lifetime so actors have demonstrated that they should not comment on political activities because it does show how stupid they are. what i said is just advise to this particular person. as an aside speak for your self!
"Should never be allowed to speak" is very different. They can say what they want but most of them should not be elevated in significance of their ideas just because they are celebrities. Lawrence in particular may or may not be any better, but she was not wrong on this issue as described by the article. It certainly did not show her to be "damn stupid", which in this case is just religionist dogma that has no credibility either and which is driving people away from tea party reform by its association. Lawrence may be one of those turned away from even considering it because of this nonsense. I don't know what 'speak for yourself' as an 'aside' is supposed to mean.
Agreed. What I think wiggys meant is that people should not give weight to celebrities' opinions on subjects in which there is no reason to believe they are educated or experienced.
Either version will do :-) Perhaps Wiggys engaged in over exaggerated hyperbole out of frustration, but the explicit phrase "should never be allowed to speak" is unambiguous. This is supposed to be a forum for Ayn Rand's philosophy of reason.
Instead of working to return the RP to an inclusive, people centric, rights centric party, it's easier to throw in the towel and throw in with the looters and moochers. Or... Why be a producer and add to humanity and society when I can take and sluff off and be a whiner?...
I can only hope that she, like I, grows out of the commie moocher lie and decides to work to make things better, rather than demand her just handouts alongside her adopted socialist moochmates. She's obviously hanging out with the wrong crowd.
Unlike her character - this is a sign of weakness, not strength, and of being a sheep, not a hero. Or better... Mocking the Mockingjay..
I don't see that Susanne said that Lawrence is a commie-moocher, just that she had thrown in with them. There is also the consideration that it is very fashionable to be a Democrat, and that if you are a Republican the Industry does not like you. (The basis for the 'sheep' comment.)
Since Lawrence's objections actually had reasons behind them - Women's rights and access to Birth Control - I think it is possible that if she realizes that there is an alternative to the D/R dichotomy, she may choose a third path. Her characterization of the Religious Right is unfortunately accurate. There are a lot of people who fit the depiction she gives of narrow-minded bible-thumpers who are ready to lynch anyone who does not agree with them. She does not see that this is also true of liberals, though their form of lynching might be more in line with brainwashing...
I do not agree with her but I think she might someday wake up to the fact that she does not have to conform to either standard.
I must respectfully disagree with your assertion that the "religious right" are intolerant. The left owns the franchise intolerance today. The entire PC industry is a product of, and stoked by, modern liberals. It's the left that demand we bend to their will.
The "religious right" are under assault and simply standing up for the right to not be forced to pay for abortions, support gay marriage, or whatever the pap of the day is.
Ironically, the "religious right" is the group advocating for freedom, liberty, and smaller government (Constitutionalists), while being accused of being narrow-minded and dogmatic by the truly narrow-minded on the left who seek to make us all conform to their view of what's best for us (what we should eat, drive, smoke, forced purchase of health insurance, etc.)... quite the case-study in projection.
As far as lynching, the actual lynchings (literal hangings) were done by Democrats. The KKK, Jim Crow laws, and segregated South were all Democrat organizations/laws. It took Republicans to abolish these horrific Democrat institutions.
We can disagree, if you like, but I would actually agree with you that the left is intolerant, but just add that they do not 'own' intolerance. Unfortunately, intolerance is not a rationed substance; there is plenty to go around. The right is intolerant too, and they often do not support women's rights and gay rights.
The religious right is intolerant in both thought and action, demanding that its faith be taken intellectually serious and demanding to impose it in law. There is long 2000 year history of both in religion. The intolerance of the religious right and of the left is a false alternative.They are in a power struggle to impose what each believes is important.
The religious right is not just objecting to paying for abortions and "supporting" gay marriage, it is demanding to impose its positions by force of law, including a long and sordid history of banning both abortion and contraception.
You said what I think so well. I have some really fundamentalist friends who do not believe in gay marriage or abortion rights. Believe me when I say that none of them would ever advocate that the left doesn't have the right to their ideas or deny them free speech. There is no one more intolerant than the left, especially those on college campuses. Of course the exception to this is Hillsdale College.
Zacka tacka tacka tacka Zow... (Sorry, asked siri what did the fox say...)
Exactly. My contention was it's easyer to become a sheep and bleat with them tan to stand as a lone wolf (like her character did) and make both a stand and a difference.
Apparently she's been hanging out with the wrong crowd, some pretty unsavory characters. I just hope eventually she realizes she need not be a sheep of the flock. And I hope it doesn't take her until she's in her 40's...
Your point being? I'm sorry, but I don't quite understand this obsession on my comment on watching a smart young woman fall down the same stinking rathole of false belief as I did when about her age.
You made a ridiculous statement accusing Lawerence of being a "commie moocher" and "adopted socialist moochmates" allegedly based on an article that only reported she is fed up with the Republican attacks on the right of abortion and support for the nutty Kim Davis. Please contemplate the real meaning of communism and socialism. Objecting to this rhetoric is not an "obsession".
I was a card carrying commmunist for years. No joke, really. And... how does Kim Davis or her sexual proclivities fit in? This seems more like an ad hominem attack than anything based on fact... like a troll trying to stir a pot. As such... good bye.
Right first letter. The Constitutionalists must take back their rightful place as the center of political discourse to trim not only the ship of state but the waters on which she floats.
The center of the left is not the center. Republicans are the right wing of the left. Demos are the left wing of the left.
I swear sometimes I think stupidity is a prerequisite foe being an actress. I don't begrudge her a penny of the massive amounts of money she earns- it's a semi-free market; but I sure wish she had a brain if she is going to express an opinion.
I forever wonder why conservatives don't push back on this "war on women" pap with a simple question: why would we intentionally seek to alienate over 50% of electorate? How do we benefit from that?
The real question should be to Hillary: Mrs. Clinton, how can we look at you with a straight face regarding women's advocacy when you were in charge of the bimbo-eruption squad? How could you allow women's reputations to be dragged through the mud when you knew that claims about your husband were true?
Before the last two elections I wouldn't have thought so, but I'm beginning to wonder. The women in my life would never fall for this nonsense, but there seems to be millions who do.
I don't mind wealth at all when earned by producers. I do mind when it comes from Washington, which is only possible by taking from producers by force and then distributing on the basis of favors.
It's so wrong that I don't really even understand it. It's like saying, "I don't like the Democrats because I can't stand a party that wants to lower taxes."
She takes the coercive, irrational intrusion of the religious right very seriously, apparently to the point that she would rather pay higher taxes than put up with it. She has a lot of company as the religious right corrupts and undermines the tea party revolt by fanatically injecting religion into it.
She takes the coercive, irrational intrusion of the religious right very seriously, apparently to the point that she would rather pay higher taxes than put up with it. She has a lot of company as the religious right corrupts and undermines the tea party revolt by fanatically injecting religion into it.
It takes that exact kind of stupid to be a successful actor/actress out in Hollywood! Those who have any political intelligence either hide it or keep their mouths shut!
No 'Mind' no conscience...it's not one's 'Choice' to kill a baby that was, all but knowingly, willfully made just cause they feeeeeeeeeel like it or the ole woh is me syndrome.
Rape is one thing, but accountability is another. Not to mention, The repubs did not create nor endorse the "War on Women" like all else these days...it's a 'Progressive invention...going waaaaaay back in history.
Oh, the truth is out...PP doesn't do anything remotely nice unless it's in their best interest; which is to be rich at tax payer and illegal body parts selling expense. and screw those that really need a helping hand.
I've just read a PC celebrity speak demo that gets commie-toon conformists ahead in Hollywood and invited to all the posh cocktail parties. I liked that part about an abortion mill offering "reproductive services to women."
Well then this has answered my question, which I have had for many years, as to whether I live up to Objectivism. I am in total disagreement with Ayn Rand as there is NO moral right of abortion aka murder. No human has the "right" to take the life of another human. That right comes into play only in a defensive posture when ones own life is threatened by another. Which is the right to life given by our humanity not by a supernatural being. An embryo is NOT a potential, it is a "growing" human being and is apart from the woman body. It is shielded by the womb separate and distinct from the host Mother. At the time of conception IT IS a human as it cannot grow to be anything other than a human. So when someone says as FoundingFathers says "How can a person be this damn stupid?" The question can only be answered by looking at the persons family, peers and environmental input. Abortion is not "women's healthcare" nor is it "women's basic rights" it is bullshit and murder. And if that means I am referring to Ayn Rand as stupid on this point then so be it. She had her opinions on the subject of abortion and they conflict with mine. SHE was a human NOT a GOD or supernatural being. There is much that I agree with her on but this is not one.
What about a pregnant woman's right to her own body? The risks involved in pregnancy and childbirth? And the endless responsibility and cost of raising a child? It seems to me that it's the potential mother's "right to life" that's at stake here.
Even if adoption is the outcome of an unwanted pregnancy, what about those medical risks?
Do many people know that approximately 35% of early pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion (miscarriage)? Is Mother Nature then guilty of infanticide?
I think of unwanted pregnancy as nine months of cruel and unusual punishment, followed by 18 years of involuntary servitude.
All for the glorification of an unviable fetus?
I do agree that after viability is likely (not the 20 weeks they talk about now, more like 24) the issue becomes murkier.
Life with the extremely high likelihood of serious physical and/or neurological difficulties raises other questions. Of course, if the parents are willing and able to assume all physical, emotional, and monetary costs of such disabilities, that's one thing....
I have relatives who have chosen to accept such costs, albeit with government assistance.
As I explained, at conception, it is no longer the woman's body alone. Her body is now being shared with a being whose DNA is human. The same DNA that will be carried for the life of the being.
Your stats are faulty, as the rate of miscarriage is about 2%. Do some research. A miscarriage is when naturally a baby becomes unsustainable in the womb and dies. Abortion is when something, a pair of surgical scissors, is introduced to killed the baby. Miscarriage in no way equals abortion. That is simply reaching for an excuse to validate the action.
If the pregnancy isn't the desired outcome then the woman should refrain from the practice that makes the outcome. And generally a Mother doesn't look on raising her child as servitude. That sounds more like Planned Parenthood BS.
Unviable fetus?????? Why then when a woman is murdered who is pregnant is the perp charged with a double homicide??? Another stupid invalid argument.
As for viability, the DNA of the human at conception is the same DNA as the human will have at death 60, 70 , or 80 years later. Your argument is invalid.
As I stated above, if a woman does not want a pregnancy then she must refrain from the activity that can create that outcome. Anything else is murder for her selfish convenience. If I don't want a tree growing in my driveway I don't plant one. Therefore a woman shouldn't allow it to be planted nor should a man plant something he doesn't want.
Well, then, men should also refrain from sex, unless their express intent is to become fathers. Only the intent of parenthood can justify the act of sex, then. Or at least dually unprotected sex.
So, DNA has precedence over a living, breathing, conscious being? Who may have been the victim of rape, incest, or contraceptive failure? Do you consider the use of spermicides murder? Or barrier forms of contraception?
If a woman does not want to have, or raise, a child, and is forced to do so against her will, is this not involuntary servitude?
I happen to believe that all children should be wanted and planned for, and that they deserve a decent start in life. When these criteria are not met, one can see the negative consequences to society.
I see that you equate sex without parental intent as murder. At least on the part of women.
This is very simple. If you don't want a baby don't do that thing that will make the baby. Anything else is irresponsible behavior. And abortion blames and executes the baby for being created in an act it had nothing to do with.
I have given my opinion on all you state. To continue to kick this horse is not productive. And it probably hurts the horse. But I suppose if killing a baby is not an issue neither is hurting a horse.
Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! I couldn't agree more with your comments.
Rand was a great intellect, but she was not infallible. Some in the forum seem to react to any straying from Rand as blasphemy, rather than an opportunity to engage in reasoned debate.
I am not an Objectivist, and don't regard her as infallible. But I expect argument with her to involve logic and evidence, and I haven't seen either in your posts on this subject, FF..
Invoking the supernatural to attack Ayn Rand as a "damned stupid murderer" is not "reasoned debate" and rejecting it is not "reacting to straying from Rand as blashpemy".
Your words not mine. I do not suffer from any "authoritarian religious injunctions" but still hold the opinion that Ms. Rand is wrong on abortion for the reasons I have stated. Implying that my comments are an "attack" on Rand and claiming I said the words "damned stupid murderer" are in no way a "reasoned debate" either.
Ayn Rand explained the right of abortion and rejection of religion and conservatism very well. The kind of religious dogmatism in this post implying that Ayn Rand must also be "damn stupid" for not being a religious conservative, without even an attempt at rational discussion, does not belong here.
I love her comment about the Kentuckians brandishing their "crosses as if they were pitchforks." It's perfect.
If you watch the videos of the rally with Huckabee where they waved their crosses with mindless hymns and chants you can see it could get a lot worse than pitchforks. Fortunately they are a small minority, even in Kentucky. At least some of them at the rally may ordinarily be normal, independent, hard working rural people, but the emotionalism and irrational sloganeering shows how easy it is to stampede people with mixed premises and lack of education on basic principles.
Abortion is not a right. Recognizing that, what rights does Lawrence think are being denied women?
The right of a woman to have an abortion, at her own expense or that of someone who chooses to help her, if she chooses to not have a child, is absolute. It is her body and her life, not yours and not subject to your authoritarian religious injunctions demanding to interfere. Ayn Rand explained her own position on the right of abortion and rejection of religion, and both have been discussed on this forum extensively. Invoking or asserting the right of abortion is not "remarkably uninformed", not "ignorant", and not "damned stupid". It simply conflicts with and ignores as irrelevant your religious injunctions, which are arbitrary subjective impositions based on faith, not the "self evident". Please refer to Ayn Rand's article "Faith and Force" in her anthology Philosophy: Who Needs It.
You have not said why you are here. Presumably there is some good in you which has not shown up in your writing, and you were attracted to some aspect of Ayn Rand. If so, you should try to understand her philosophy, what made possible the characteristics you like, and how it made works such as Atlas Shrugged possible -- instead of assuming that the religious conservative baggage you brought with you is the basis of thought and discussion. It you want to try to understand and discuss her philosophy, and how and why it is so radically different from the intellectual status quo and its tradition, you will find a lot of help here, but this is not a place to push dogmatic religious politics, which are fundamentally antagonistic to Ayn Rand's philosophy of reason, and not the place for your snide comments attacking those who expect better than repetitious appeals to religion and snide personal attacks. Religious premises are not the basis of rational discussion
Then again, why do entertainers feel that the public really gives a damn about their opinions, anyway?
Such mindless, phrase-based reflexive outbursts become so much of the liberal's very person that they are immune to logic. They see any resistance to these branded in positions as personally threatening. They see first amendment rights applying only to those with "correct mindsets." Opposing views are deemed as the same as physically violent threats, and therefore criminal and worthy of suppression and punishment.
I can only hope that she, like I, grows out of the commie moocher lie and decides to work to make things better, rather than demand her just handouts alongside her adopted socialist moochmates. She's obviously hanging out with the wrong crowd.
Unlike her character - this is a sign of weakness, not strength, and of being a sheep, not a hero. Or better... Mocking the Mockingjay..
Since Lawrence's objections actually had reasons behind them - Women's rights and access to Birth Control - I think it is possible that if she realizes that there is an alternative to the D/R dichotomy, she may choose a third path. Her characterization of the Religious Right is unfortunately accurate. There are a lot of people who fit the depiction she gives of narrow-minded bible-thumpers who are ready to lynch anyone who does not agree with them. She does not see that this is also true of liberals, though their form of lynching might be more in line with brainwashing...
I do not agree with her but I think she might someday wake up to the fact that she does not have to conform to either standard.
Jan
The "religious right" are under assault and simply standing up for the right to not be forced to pay for abortions, support gay marriage, or whatever the pap of the day is.
Ironically, the "religious right" is the group advocating for freedom, liberty, and smaller government (Constitutionalists), while being accused of being narrow-minded and dogmatic by the truly narrow-minded on the left who seek to make us all conform to their view of what's best for us (what we should eat, drive, smoke, forced purchase of health insurance, etc.)... quite the case-study in projection.
As far as lynching, the actual lynchings (literal hangings) were done by Democrats. The KKK, Jim Crow laws, and segregated South were all Democrat organizations/laws. It took Republicans to abolish these horrific Democrat institutions.
Jan
The religious right is not just objecting to paying for abortions and "supporting" gay marriage, it is demanding to impose its positions by force of law, including a long and sordid history of banning both abortion and contraception.
Exactly. My contention was it's easyer to become a sheep and bleat with them tan to stand as a lone wolf (like her character did) and make both a stand and a difference.
Apparently she's been hanging out with the wrong crowd, some pretty unsavory characters. I just hope eventually she realizes she need not be a sheep of the flock. And I hope it doesn't take her until she's in her 40's...
and moochers. . JL didn't have to change party --
just alphabit. -- j
.
shoulda said alphabytes, instead. -- j
.
The center of the left is not the center.
Republicans are the right wing of the left. Demos are the left wing of the left.
The real question should be to Hillary: Mrs. Clinton, how can we look at you with a straight face regarding women's advocacy when you were in charge of the bimbo-eruption squad? How could you allow women's reputations to be dragged through the mud when you knew that claims about your husband were true?
How do you get to Carnegie Hall?
Rape is one thing, but accountability is another. Not to mention, The repubs did not create nor endorse the "War on Women" like all else these days...it's a 'Progressive invention...going waaaaaay back in history.
Oh, the truth is out...PP doesn't do anything remotely nice unless it's in their best interest; which is to be rich at tax payer and illegal body parts selling expense. and screw those that really need a helping hand.
for free" tome -- courtesy: ignoramus. . Santa Claus
is now parading openly as a D. -- j
.
I liked that part about an abortion mill offering "reproductive services to women."
Even if adoption is the outcome of an unwanted pregnancy, what about those medical risks?
Do many people know that approximately 35% of early pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion (miscarriage)? Is Mother Nature then guilty of infanticide?
I think of unwanted pregnancy as nine months of cruel and unusual punishment, followed by 18 years of involuntary servitude.
All for the glorification of an unviable fetus?
I do agree that after viability is likely (not the 20 weeks they talk about now, more like 24) the issue becomes murkier.
Life with the extremely high likelihood of serious physical and/or neurological difficulties raises other questions. Of course, if the parents are willing and able to assume all physical, emotional, and monetary costs of such disabilities, that's one thing....
I have relatives who have chosen to accept such costs, albeit with government assistance.
Your stats are faulty, as the rate of miscarriage is about 2%. Do some research. A miscarriage is when naturally a baby becomes unsustainable in the womb and dies. Abortion is when something, a pair of surgical scissors, is introduced to killed the baby. Miscarriage in no way equals abortion. That is simply reaching for an excuse to validate the action.
If the pregnancy isn't the desired outcome then the woman should refrain from the practice that makes the outcome. And generally a Mother doesn't look on raising her child as servitude. That sounds more like Planned Parenthood BS.
Unviable fetus?????? Why then when a woman is murdered who is pregnant is the perp charged with a double homicide??? Another stupid invalid argument.
As for viability, the DNA of the human at conception is the same DNA as the human will have at death 60, 70 , or 80 years later. Your argument is invalid.
As I stated above, if a woman does not want a pregnancy then she must refrain from the activity that can create that outcome. Anything else is murder for her selfish convenience. If I don't want a tree growing in my driveway I don't plant one. Therefore a woman shouldn't allow it to be planted nor should a man plant something he doesn't want.
So, DNA has precedence over a living, breathing, conscious being? Who may have been the victim of rape, incest, or contraceptive failure? Do you consider the use of spermicides murder? Or barrier forms of contraception?
If a woman does not want to have, or raise, a child, and is forced to do so against her will, is this not involuntary servitude?
I happen to believe that all children should be wanted and planned for, and that they deserve a decent start in life. When these criteria are not met, one can see the negative consequences to society.
I see that you equate sex without parental intent as murder. At least on the part of women.
I have given my opinion on all you state. To continue to kick this horse is not productive. And it probably hurts the horse. But I suppose if killing a baby is not an issue neither is hurting a horse.
Rand was a great intellect, but she was not infallible. Some in the forum seem to react to any straying from Rand as blasphemy, rather than an opportunity to engage in reasoned debate.