About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Page 8Page 9Forward one pageLast Page


Post 160

Tuesday, April 11, 2006 - 5:55pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Must!... Save!... Starving!... Children!...

Children starvers are everywhere, ahhhhh!!! We must... imprison them... and... kill them for starving children!!!

Would anyone else like to share their story of how they were starved as a child when they were young?

Post 161

Tuesday, April 11, 2006 - 5:58pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Once my mom sent me to my room without dinner...

Post 162

Tuesday, April 11, 2006 - 7:09pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Just once?????/

Post 163

Tuesday, April 11, 2006 - 7:09pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thanks Teresa, for the hint.  I should have investigated that "legal notification" bit.   Interesting state of affairs.

Post 164

Tuesday, April 11, 2006 - 7:14pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Once...but I was really, really hungry...

Post 165

Tuesday, April 11, 2006 - 8:28pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
LMAO at Dean...

Post 166

Tuesday, April 11, 2006 - 8:40pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I never got that as a punishment.  I'm wondering how old Joe's parents are.... mine grew up during the Great Depression and honestly knew what it meant to go to bed without dinner at least twice a month. They'd never think to visit that on us.

I got starved from television and playing with my friends as punishment.  Food was always in abundance as I recall.


Post 167

Tuesday, April 11, 2006 - 9:33pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Well, we had to fast before going to communion, and I would sometimes faint in church, because my blood sugar dropped so low. My father would have to carry me out. I was pretty skinny and didn't have much reserve to go on. I was allowed no more than two small cookies after dinner, even though my dad worked for a cookie company.

Anyway, I can remember how incredible the food was when we'd go out to eat or to a friend's house for dinner.

I'll never forget the Wrights: Stella and Monte; God rest their corpulant souls! No, actually, it was only Monte and the kids; Stella was slim and attractive. But God, could she cook! And you could eat as much as you wanted, which is not something I was used to.

After dinner, we'd sit around and talk, and the adults would pour themselves drinks of scotch and whiskey and whatnot. Everyone had a liquor cabinet back then. This was in the late '40's and early '50s. And the men would light up cigars.

I still remember Monte, a large, robust man, who would talk about certain places he'd been and how good the "night life" was. I was 10, and had no idea what "night life" was, but that didn't stop Monte from telling me about it. Nice people!

Those days are gone forever!

- Bill



Post 168

Wednesday, April 12, 2006 - 6:38amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
LOL, Bill...

Everyone else's parents always seemed so much more "cooler" than our own!

The world is grateful you recovered from a Catholic upbringing. 


Post 169

Wednesday, April 12, 2006 - 10:00amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Yeah, communion sounded too much like communism. Plus it involved the transubstantiation thing - you know, eating the body of Christ. Only the priest got a chance to drink the blood. Yuk! Apparently, one human sacrifice wasn't enough. It had to be repeated for centuries thereafter, if only symbolically, except that it wasn't supposed to be symbolic. You really were eating and drinking the body and blood of that guy on the cross. Cannabilism is bad enough, but cannabilizing your own diety in the process of worshipping him was a bit much!

- Bill

Post 170

Wednesday, April 12, 2006 - 10:45amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Cannabilism is bad enough, but cannabilizing your own diety in the process of worshipping him was a bit much!

How did such a macabre tradition maintain is popularity for so long??  I seriously wonder why it was even written into the cannon. Any thoughts on that? Was it because the symbolism was thought to be so profound it would stay with people, or what??  I never understood the meaning of this Christian tradition, let alone it's common practice.  


Post 171

Wednesday, April 12, 2006 - 2:12pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Well, you know, people who practice religious rituals rarely think about the reasonableness of the practices, which are largely nonsense anyway. These are usually people who do what they're told from Day One. They're pretty conformist and will usually do what others in their culture are doing, simply because others are doing it. They don't think for themselves. If they did, they wouldn't be religious in the first place. So this doesn't entirely surprise me. Plus, the practice itself isn't ghoulish or macabre - only what it symbolizes - and people who buy into religious myth and superstition have already blanked out their minds enough to accept the abstract dogma as beyond their comprehension. "God works in mysterious ways," right? So, this is simply one more mystery for them to accept on faith.

- Bill

Post 172

Wednesday, April 12, 2006 - 4:09pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Local County Paper News:
Priest arrested for filling communion cups with his own blood, then teaching his junior choir to take the warm thick dark red fluid into their mouths, and swishing it around and under your tongue, through your teeth, and then swallowing it down. (joking)

Post 173

Wednesday, April 12, 2006 - 7:55pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Dean you scared me there for a minute... Sounded like a Steve Ditko villain

"HOW DARE YOU BE SO SELFISH AS TO DIE!"

---Landon


Post 174

Wednesday, April 12, 2006 - 10:35pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Sharon wrote:

"Ellen
Can you feel the big hug I'm sending out to you?  We are ever so grateful that we can have your personal cellphone number tatooed on H's hand. I have not heard of that movie; but I appreciate your taking the time to set the stage.  Unfortunately, those individuals in the movie weren't Objectivists.  So far you are the first.  Thank you, thank you, thank you.  I went to bed last night wondering if anyone would step up to the plate. 

"By the way, have we met before?  Perhaps the ones who know my posts, don't want to be seen with any of my family members.  It's me they don't want to help support.  The sins of the parents are visited on their grandchildren."



Slight problem. I don't consider myself an Objectivist. So I guess you're still waiting for the first Objectivist to offer. ;-)

We haven't met before, no. I've read a few of your posts on earlier threads; I'm aware that you're often in a "dissent" position on this list, but I know little about the details. I'd have likely "volunteered" in the scenario you described *whatever* I knew about you. I mean, even if I thought that you personally were some sort of terrible person (which I have no reason whatsoever to think you are), your daughter and granddaughter aren't you.

Ellen

___

Post 175

Wednesday, April 12, 2006 - 10:53pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael, you wrote (post 150):

"Just because I keep hearing a refrain that nobody would actually starve a child [...]."

Where are you hearing that refrain from? Has anyone who's responded regarding this topic on any of the lists you're on said that? (In case you think I did in the post immediately preceding yours, please reread my post.)

Ellen

___

Post 176

Wednesday, April 12, 2006 - 11:33pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ellen,

I'm basically done here, so I don't want to extend this.

No, you didn't state it. The "pure soul" of the Objectivist thing did prompt my thinking, though, since it implied that the problem was merely academic. The google hits prove otherwise (and if I wanted to devote the time to it, I could probably find some very damning cases.)

btw - Do you know of any Christian, Muslim or person of any religious denomination that would deny such help? Yet despite all this religion and philosophy, there are lots of mean people in the world who would (and even laugh about it). It appears that being mean is not the privilege of any one school of thought and has more to do with a dark side of human nature that gets out of balance. I don't think adopting Objectivism is a guarantee that a person will not be mean. Not by a long shot, especially in light of what I have seen online at times...

Michael


Post 177

Thursday, April 13, 2006 - 8:50amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"I'm basically done here, so I don't want to extend this."

HAHA -- He's been saying this for months now and yet he keeps extending the discussion.

- Jason


Post 178

Thursday, April 13, 2006 - 11:08amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The record changer only stops when the lid is down.....

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 179

Friday, April 14, 2006 - 12:30amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael wrote,
btw - Do you know of any Christian, Muslim or person of any religious denomination that would deny such help? Yet despite all this religion and philosophy, there are lots of mean people in the world who would (and even laugh about it). It appears that being mean is not the privilege of any one school of thought and has more to do with a dark side of human nature that gets out of balance. I don't think adopting Objectivism is a guarantee that a person will not be mean. Not by a long shot, especially in light of what I have seen online at times..."
Refusing to feed a child whom one is not responsible for does not constitute "starving" him or her. You cannot starve someone whom you're not responsible for supporting. Also, Objectivism does not "deny" a person the option of helping someone who needs it. What it does deny is that such help is morally or legally obligatory. Apparently, it is your feeling that one is morally required to help someone whose welfare one is not responsible for, provided only that the person needs it.

You are right about one thing, though: All major religions do hold that one has an altruistic obligation to help those in need - to sacrifice one's interests for the sake of others. Were you thinking that Objectivism would do well to add this kind of moral imperative to its code of ethics? Of course, you realize that to do so would all but eviscerate the Objectivist ethics.

- Bill
(Edited by William Dwyer
on 4/14, 12:32am)


Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Page 8Page 9Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.