Zone1 Who Is Destroying The World?

[norwegen]

There is room for objectivist thinking in my religion. I've been mixing the two for decades.

You're not a true Randian Objectivist, then. Nor am I. But if for the most part you are, then you're cool with me.

 

[fncceo]

You're not a true Randian Objectivist, then. Nor am I. But if for the most part you are, then you're cool with me.

There is much in this universe that we cannot reasonably perceive at our current state of technology. It is impossible to reasonably explain that which you cannot perceive. That which I cannot explain using reason (with the limited tools at my disposal) doesn't really enter in to my daily decision-making. It is merely an exercise in speculation.

I don't know how The Universe (or possibly many Universes) formed, I don't know their ultimate fate. If I wanted to speculate along these lines, it isn't impossible to speculate the existence of a higher power. Speculation doesn't lead to a practical theory.

Here is what I know about G-d.

Praying to him/her might have meditative value, but it's pretty clear he/she doesn't answer (I can presume that he/she doesn't hear or has bigger plans).

G-d doesn't interfere in the affairs of men on this planet, so believing he will damn the wicked or reward the just isn't of much value.

I do know that my faith has a 4,000-year-old tradition of custom and literature dedicated not to prepare one for life in the next world, but for trying to make the best out of our lives here in this world. Judaism, as opposed to other faiths, speculates about a next life, but puts nearly zero emphasis on what it might be.

Jews, for the most part, don't condemn ideas that contradict scripture, they are nearly-always willing to discuss new ideas (with the possible exception of human or zombie deities and human sacrifice).

 

[Indeependent]

Cite scripture.

You are aware that Jews have to maintain the infrastructure, care for the sick and handicapped give a minimum amount of charity and pay a fair wage not determined by flooding the nation with foreigners.
I suggest you read Atlas Shrugged and if you accept her view of society, I feel sad for you.

 

[norwegen]

There is much in this universe that we cannot reasonably perceive at our current state of technology. It is impossible to reasonably explain that which you cannot perceive. That which I cannot explain using reason (with the limited tools at my disposal) doesn't really enter in to my daily decision-making. It is merely an exercise in speculation.

I don't know how The Universe (or possibly many Universes) formed, I don't know their ultimate fate. If I wanted to speculate along these lines, it isn't impossible to speculate the existence of a higher power. Speculation doesn't lead to a practical theory.

Here is what I know about G-d.

Praying to him/her might have meditative value, but it's pretty clear he/she doesn't answer (I can presume that he/she doesn't hear or has bigger plans).

G-d doesn't interfere in the affairs of men on this planet, so believing he will damn the wicked or reward the just isn't of much value.

I do know that my faith has a 4,000-year-old tradition of custom and literature dedicated not to preparing one for life in the next world, but for trying to make the best out of our lives here in this world. Judaism, as opposed to other faiths, speculates about a next life, but puts nearly zero emphasis on what it might be.

Jews, for the most part, don't condemn ideas that contradict scripture, they are nearly-always willing to discuss new ideas (with the possible exception of human or zombie dieties and human sacrifice).

Pretty good assessment.

However, I would say that the Christian mythos submits that God indeed has intervened in humanity, Christianity being a major world religion, probably the major world religion. For two thousand years, their missionary impulses have been unsurpassed.

I think Christianity confused Ayn Rand, as did religion in general, and so she simply had no room for it.

ETA: And Objectivism has merits with or without religion.

 

[Indeependent]

Pretty good assessment.

However, I would say that the Christian mythos submits that God indeed has intervened in humanity, Christianity being a major world religion, probably the major world religion. For two thousand years, their missionary impulses have been unsurpassed.

I think Christianity confused Ayn Rand, as did religion in general, and so she simply had no room for it.

She was too busy worshipping herself.
You should watch her interviews on YouTube; she was a selfish bitch.

 

[fncceo]

You are aware that Jews have to maintain the infrastructure, care for the sick and handicapped give a minimum amount of charity and pay a fair wage not determined by flooding the nation with foreigners.
I suggest you read Atlas Shrugged and if you accept her view of society, I feel sad for you.

Yes, and in a Libertarian society, infrastructure is maintained, and paid for by those who use it as they use it, not indiscriminately by the commonweal. In her book, "Atlas Shrugged", the heroes all builders, of great engines and vast railroads. One of Dagney Taggart's first acts upon joining Galt's libertarian community is to propose a railroad, for the residents to pay to use. "To do things for others, you first have to be a person who can do" -- "The Fountainhead"

Rand never suggested that caring for the sick or any form of altruism is wrong, or even not in line with her philosophy. Her view on charity is guided by the prime philosophy, that no man is entitled to demand the works, ideas, or even the love of another, not matter how great their need. Such works and deed can be requested, they can even be freely given, but they cannot be demanded. When you demand service without compensation, you are engaging in slavery. Rand felt that slavery, in any form, is the greatest evil. In scripture, Maimonides describes the highest level of charity not in dispensing alms, but in assisting people gain the ability to care for themselves. Not a self-serving act of throwing alms at the poor, but of making an investment in the betterment of society.

The only rational way to determine what is "fair wage" or a "fair price" is to let a free and open market decide. If a man pays a higher price for his car than another simply because the dealer says, "I need the commission more", you would call that man a fool. What would you call an employer who pays more for his workers than others of the same skill simply because they demand more? What would you call a worker who voluntarily takes less than he believes he is worth? The price of labor (of anything actually) isn't dependent on the needs of the seller, it's dependent on the value.

As for flooding the nation with foreigners. Well, if you ask any Native American, this country has been flooded with foreigners since it's earliest beginnings. But, today, who is flooding the nation with foreigners? Is it libertarian business owners (of whom their are precious few) or are they politicians who seek to benefit politically from the act?

 

[fncceo]

I would say that the Christian mythos submits that God indeed has intervened in humanity

I am not now, nor have I ever been, a xtian.

 

[Indeependent]

Yes, and in a Libertarian society, infrastructure is maintained, and paid for by those who use it as they use it, not indiscriminately by the commonweal. In her book, "Atlas Shrugged", the heroes all builders, of great engines and vast railroads. One of Dagney Taggart's first acts upon joining Galt's libertarian community is to propose a railroad, for the residents to pay to use. "To do things for others, you first have to be a person who can do" -- "The Fountainhead"

Rand never suggested that caring for the sick or any form of altruism is wrong, or even not in line with her philosophy. Her view on charity is guided by the prime philosophy, that no man is entitled to demand the works, ideas, or even the love of another, not matter how great their need. Such works and deed can be requested, they can even be freely given, but they cannot be demanded. When you demand service without compensation, you are engaging in slavery. Rand felt that slavery, in any form, is the greatest evil. In scripture, Maimonides describes the highest level of charity not in dispensing alms, but in assisting people gain the ability to care for themselves. Not a self-serving act of throwing alms at the poor, but of making an investment in the betterment of society.

The only rational way to determine what is "fair wage" or a "fair price" is to let a free and open market decide. If a man pays a higher price for his car than another simply because the dealer says, "I need the commission more", you would call that man a fool. What would you call an employer who pays more for his workers than others of the same skill simply because they demand more? What would you call a worker who voluntarily takes less than he believes he is worth? The price of labor (of anything actually) isn't dependent on the needs of the seller, it's dependent on the value.

As for flooding the nation with foreigners. Well, if you ask any Native American, this country has been flooded with foreigners since it's earliest beginnings. But, today, who is flooding the nation with foreigners? Is it libertarian business owners (of whom their are precious few) or are they politicians who seek to benefit politically from the act?

I watched her interviews…
She was a self-centered piece of shit.
One idiot doesn’t excuse another idiot.

 

[fncceo]

She was a self-centered piece of shit.

What, precisely, is wrong with being self-centered? Why is caring for yourself less of a priority than caring for others? Why would that make you a piece of dung?

 

[Indeependent]

What, precisely, is wrong with being self-centered? Why is caring for yourself less of a priority than caring for others? Why would that make you a piece of dung?

that’s a sad post.
Being self-centered and fuck everyone else is a character trait in people I prefer not to deal with.
Everyone loves AR because they think she is a Conservative heroine.
She was the model for Dick Cheney.

 

[Circe]

Was every German evil or only one?

Every. The one you are thinking of is known to have never killed anyone at all. Ever. Even in WWI he was a courier. The people who are told to kill and then they go and do it are the real murderers.

 

[Circe]

Do not expect them to produce , when production is punished and looting rewarded.

This part of the quotation reminds me of the Los Angeles and San Francisco epidemic of organized shoplifting, that the police ignore.

And it spreads: we have a Best Buy in our county that has always had security guards going in and going out looking at everybody's stuff ---- but two people walked in there and walked out with two large boxes containing expensive Expresso machines. Just ignored the security and walked out! The thieves knew the guards were told to do nothing. As far as I know they got away with it: there was no follow-up story.

 

[norwegen]

that’s a sad post.
Being self-centered and fuck everyone else is a character trait in people I prefer not to deal with.
Everyone loves AR because they think she is a Conservative heroine.
She was the model for Dick Cheney.

Everyone is self-centered.

Everyone.

No one more so than welfare recipients who plunder public treasuries and everyone else on the left who demand that others alter their lifestyles to comply with theirs.

Ayn Rand may not have been a compelling fiction writer, but she understood human nature.

 

[BreezeWood]

There is much in this universe that we cannot reasonably perceive at our current state of technology. It is impossible to reasonably explain that which you cannot perceive. That which I cannot explain using reason (with the limited tools at my disposal) doesn't really enter in to my daily decision-making. It is merely an exercise in speculation.

I don't know how The Universe (or possibly many Universes) formed, I don't know their ultimate fate. If I wanted to speculate along these lines, it isn't impossible to speculate the existence of a higher power. Speculation doesn't lead to a practical theory.

Here is what I know about G-d.

Praying to him/her might have meditative value, but it's pretty clear he/she doesn't answer (I can presume that he/she doesn't hear or has bigger plans).

G-d doesn't interfere in the affairs of men on this planet, so believing he will damn the wicked or reward the just isn't of much value.

I do know that my faith has a 4,000-year-old tradition of custom and literature dedicated not to prepare one for life in the next world, but for trying to make the best out of our lives here in this world. Judaism, as opposed to other faiths, speculates about a next life, but puts nearly zero emphasis on what it might be.

Jews, for the most part, don't condemn ideas that contradict scripture, they are nearly-always willing to discuss new ideas (with the possible exception of human or zombie deities and human sacrifice).

- physiology as an equation covers greater than 5 football fields ... managed by its spiritual content.

every cell of an organism has the same information including for its reproduction, no need to kneel - what is essential is purity for spiritual life in the everlasting. as warranted by the forces of the metaphysical.

 

[BlackSand]

As I stated, and you proved by "your words"............you are 99% progressive, atheist/agnostic.....and 1% BS. You can't hide from your own "ID", it reveals things that you do not know you are revealing......such as always attempting to declare others wrong and the best you can come up with a pretense that wants others to assume you are conservative yet deny the freedoms rooted in our founding documents which demonstrates you to be anything but conservative.

Only progressives state they are never wrong........conservatives admit to making mistakes, as this is how one learns wisdom.

I once knew a liberal who thought he once made a mistake..........turns out he was not wrong.......only mistaken.


A liberal...aka, progressive........will look like a cat attempting to cover up its what it has deficated when confronted with his/her own lack of logic. I find it very difficult to accept that you have never used the words of another to learn.......you learn innately based upon your own private thoughts. I call Bull Shit on this most illogical and untrue statement.

You can't practice "republicanism" as defined in the US Constitution (Article 4 Section 4, Clause 1).........and deny the history actual of the founding principles of this republic.

FYI: there is no such animal as a NeoConservative.......its a buzz word, oxymoronic in nature coming from the Latin........"neo" meaning NEW and Convervative pertainting to the old status quo. Its impossible to be both. Rhino might come to mind.

As was also stated previously...........study the law of the excluded middle and comprehend just how ignorant this basic logical truth makes your posts appear. Its impossible to be that which you claim to be. Example: Hitler claimed to be a Christian. When in reality he was a socialist pagan that worshiped and attempted to serve the occult. There is no truth in the middle, either something is true or its negate (opposite) is true.........shadows of truth exist only in the mind. In reality you must deal with absolutes. Anything that stands on the dividing line of life's highways long enough will eventually be run down by truth or its negation.

.

I am not atheist/agnostic nor progressive, and not even close, so just stop ... You have been wrong consistently.
I do think it is funny how smart you think you are though ...

.​

 

[fncceo]

Being self-centered and fuck everyone else is a character trait in people I prefer not to deal with.

Two things ... First, I don't know why anyone would equate being self-centered with f'ck everyone else.

F'ing someone is a deliberate act. You can either seduce them into the act or force them into the act. It is either the highest physical expression of love or the most vile physical expression of violence. But, f'ing someone can never be a thoughtless act.

When I say that I'm self-centered, I mean precisely that. The reason for every decision I make rests upon what I believe will make me happy. That could be learning to play a musical instrument (or practicing to play that which I can better), building a table from scratch, or giving away my money to a cause. Regardless of which one I choose, my decision will be based on what makes me happy and not a desire to f anyone.

Second, I'm glad you know what character traits in people you choose to avoid. I'm glad you think that much of yourself to recognize that dealing with people with whom you don't share common values is something you prefer to avoid. I'm glad if you use that knowledge about yourself to make yourself happier.

 

[alang1216]

Every. The one you are thinking of is known to have never killed anyone at all. Ever. Even in WWI he was a courier. The people who are told to kill and then they go and do it are the real murderers.

Tough standard! America invaded both Iraq and Afghanistan and killed many. Is every American evil or just the soldiers that, at least in their minds, fought for their country?

 

[ding]

Except that Hitler had his own philosophy about altruism.

That very well may be true but with respect to Rand's philosophy it doesn't matter. Besides everyone who has ever done evil has done evil for their own good, not for the sake of doing evil. So he wouldn't be the first person to do wrong and rationalize he was doing good.

 

[Circe]

Tough standard! America invaded both Iraq and Afghanistan and killed many. Is every American evil or just the soldiers that, at least in their minds, fought for their country?

Murderers are the people who kill, aggressively. Not defense. They just run around killing people. The elders who send them out to kill are not the ones killing. The citizens who are minding their own business, not killing anyone in Vietnam or anywhere else, are not the ones killing.

The ones killing are the ones who kill, and perhaps they need to exercise better judgement about whose orders and what orders they follow. Our Vietnam, Germany's WWI and II, yeah, like that.

 

[Circe]

That very well may be true but with respect to Rand's philosophy it doesn't matter. Besides everyone who has ever done evil has done evil for their own good, not for the sake of doing evil. So he wouldn't be the first person to do wrong and rationalize he was doing good.

100% do wrong while saying it's all right and good.