Osama bin Laden

Perhaps, but not if I were an objectivist

Andy, you can join the discussion about what constitutes an Objectivist, or we can start a new thread on that subject if you want. "Objectivist" does not necessarily mean "objective" about everything, as in "fair and impartial." It has more to do with the metaphysical view that reality is independent of our perception of it, not influenced by our wishes or whims, and the epistemological view that we discover rather than create it. There is talk about logic, egoism, and capitalism in the over-all philosophical system, but it does not mean "objective" in the way that an umpire or a mindless machine is passionless and impersonal, without favoring one side or other of a contest or conflict.

bis bald,

Nick

Post 21

Saturday, September 2, 2006 - 10:48pm

Andrew,

I got a good laugh at your argument that America supported "resistance" when it supported Osama directly. As if the CIA was blindly throwing around money with no idea where it was going, without knowing who a figurehead within the resistance was. The massacres dropped on Japan aren't any better then what Bin Laden has inspired, but The United States is responsible for both on certain levels.

Post 22

Sunday, September 3, 2006 - 6:16am

Nick -

""Objectivist" does not necessarily mean "objective" about everything"

No, but it does mean it about objective morality. I don't see how an Objectivist following in Rand's tradition would be able to justify sparing the lives of Japanese citizens. 90,000 people in Tokyo died in one night because of firebombs; Was this immoral too? What about the blockade of Japan by the US navy?

"The massacres dropped on Japan aren't any better then what Bin Laden has inspired, but The United States is responsible for both on certain levels."

Filth. I will not debate with you any more.

Andy

Post 23

Sunday, September 3, 2006 - 7:50am

Andrew, I am not filth, but you are gutter trash. You're also a fledgeling want-to-be post modern pseudo intellectual. (I hate flame wars.)

Post 24

Sunday, September 3, 2006 - 4:02pm

it does not mean "objective" in the way that an umpire or a mindless machine is passionless and impersonal, without favoring one side or other of a contest or conflict.

Having passion about a subject does not make impartiality in judgment impossible. Neither does having close personal connections with someone directly affected by the subject.

A person can desperately hope for a given idea/hypothesis to be correct, yet still admit when it is proven wrong. A person can also realize when intense connection to an issue might make him/her inclined to block challenging thoughts (which can be perceived as threatening), and still go on to concentrate on being as objective as possible. For me, it helps to consider the source of the emotion I feel.

The ability to be impartial about an issue that is "close to oneself" can require intense discipline, but it does not require the blocking of emotion. On that note, have you read any of Nathaniel Branden's work?

Post 25

Sunday, September 3, 2006 - 5:00pm

As I said already, I think this should be a different thread. We are departing from the topic of Osama bin Laden. And, yes, I've read much of Nathanel Branden's work. Which title do you think is relevant to this topic?

BTW, I do not think I am being irrational or unobjective about my position on the bombing of Japan. I don't want to throw a flame here, but I think Andy's position is close to that of the Bigot at the Bar, except that bigot is probably more sophisticated.

http://rebirthofreason.com/Forum/Dissent/0072.shtml

bis bald,

Nick

Post 26

Sunday, September 3, 2006 - 7:40pm

We are departing from the topic of Osama bin Laden.

Well, I don't know much about bin Laden, other than what you posted. It was an informative post, but I don't know what you wanted to discuss regarding him.

And, yes, I've read much of Nathanel Branden's work. Which title do you think is relevant to this topic?

None directly relevant to a biography of bin Laden...but he talks in Six Pillars about feeling passionately about an issue yet remaining unbiased--that's why I asked.

I read the Bigot at the Bar thing, and Andy's posts seem to be far more thoughtful, rational and eloquent than the Bigot. Andy hasn't said anything racist in this thread. He did say that he thought your view was biased due to your heritage, and while I don't see how he drew that conclusion based on your previous posts, I don't think it constitutes bigotry. What is the similarity that you perceive?

As far as Pearl Harbor and the a-bombs go, Pearl Harbor was in '41. The A-bombs came in '45, after we had already been in the war with Japan for several years. They were not revenge for Pearl Harbor; they were a means of ending the war. If I recall correctly, we warned Japan multiple times that we had a weapon of mass destruction that we would use if they did not surrender. There were a number of other factors that played into whether dropping the a-bomb was moral. For one, more lives would have been lost, had we not dropped the bomb. I myself do not know if it was the right decision--I haven't considered all (or close to all) of the facts.

Post 27

Sunday, September 3, 2006 - 8:20pm

If you want to start another thread, do so. I'm not going to continue responding on this thread to issues which have nothing to do with the lead post.

bis bald,

Nick

Post 28

Wednesday, September 6, 2006 - 1:50pm

Mr Otani -

Liking my position to that of "The Bigot At The Bar" is ridiculous. I'm not basing this on race or another collectivist ideal, nor am I basing this on the immoral idea of "proportionality", which you obviously seem to be. My position is one that a free nation has the right to defend itself against an aggressor by any means which stop the casualties to it's own populace. Sacraficing the men and women of America in order to ACCOMODATE THE NEEDS OF THE JAPANESE (Which, let's not fool ourselves, is what you're advocating!) is an evil ideal, that the right must be sacraficed to help the wrong, is an evil idea, and totally against the tenets of an Objectivistic morality.

Unless I'm missing an incredibly subtle part of your argument, please explain why America should have appeased the Japanese, regardless of American deaths?

Andy.

Post 29

Wednesday, September 6, 2006 - 4:51pm

You're right Andrew they shouldn't have appeased the Japanese. And any deaths that occur in a war the responsibility for them fall squarely on the shoulders of the people who started the war, not to those who are defending or retaliating against an initiation of force. America was responding in retaliation, any deaths that befall from US weapons in WW2 was the fault of Germany and Japan only. This includes all deaths from American and enemy military, all civilian deaths from American or Japanese/German weapons, all deaths from any corollary effects of the war such as disease or famine. Any friendly fire deaths from American weapons also the responsibility of those who made America have to go to war, i.e. Japan/Germany. Consider that if you don't want to go to war, but if someone forces you, then you must retaliate to insure your survival. You never wanted war in the first place but if forced to, you must respond so that you may live. And since friendly fire is an inevitable, unavoidable consequence of war, obviously the initiators of that war are responsible for even those deaths. As Rand puts it, morality is about the set of choices that man has before him, not some imagined choices that are not within his grasp. What choice does a free people have against a totalitarian thug that has threatened their safety? It's a choice of either condemning a free nation to become enslaved to a dictatorial master, or to retaliate to insure their freedom. And retaliation has it's unintended and unavoidable deaths. But there is hardly a better choice. And to choose to become sacrificial cattle by appeasing totalitarian thugs is immoral.

Post 30

Sunday, October 1, 2006 - 10:58am

I saw Flight 93 and United 93, back to back, two movies about the same event. Flight 93 came out first and got less publicity. United 93 just came out now on DVD and is getting advertised a lot. Both movies, I think, are very good.

Both movies used unknown, non-stars, to preserve the realistic feeling that these were normal people, people we all know. We got to see, in both movies, how events on 9/11 unfolded, how people were slow to believe just what was happening until they saw the second plane, on television, hit the second tower. Then, people started receiving telephone calls from relatives still in the air, reporting the highjacking.

The movie Flight 93 focused more on the families on the ground. We saw a mother taking care of her children while watching the Trade Center tragedy on television. It was a nice day and a safe, domestic setting, contrasting with all the violence in other places. This pulled at our heart-strings. It was dramatic.

The movie United 93 focused more on the technical side. The main Air Traffic Control guy played himself and showed us exactly how he found out about the situation and dealt with it, from �Let me know when you have more certain information. Keep me informed,� to �Ground all aircraft and send back international flights. No more planes in the air over the U.S. until further notice.�

We didn�t see the surviving families in the movie part of United 93, but we did meet them, the real families, in the Bonus Features of the DVD.

Some people say it is still too early for these movies, that the events were too tragic and too close. This underscores how safe we are in the US, how detached we feel from troubled countries. Because of us, innocent people in other places are being routinely bombed and killed. Yes, it is more personal when it happens to us, but we should remember how other people feel also.

Bis bald,

Nick

Post 31

Sunday, October 1, 2006 - 1:58pm

There is no heroism in supporting or condoning acts of violence toward civilian targets; period and end of story.

-- Bridget

Post 32

Saturday, October 7, 2006 - 10:25am

Some people say it is still too early for these movies, that the events were too tragic and too close. This underscores how safe we are in the US, how detached we feel from troubled countries. Because of us, innocent people in other places are being routinely bombed and killed.

Not because of us; because of the people we are fighting. It is they, not we, who are responsible for their deaths. If terrorists attack us and then take refuge among innocent people, we have every right to defend ourselves by retaliating against them, even if other innocents are killed in the process. It is the terrorists are responsible for their deaths by giving us no alternative but to defend ourselves. This does not mean that we have the right to kill innocent people unnecessarily, but it does mean that we have a right to do what is necessary to defend ourselves even to the extent of inflicting collateral damage on innocent civilians.

- Bill

Post 33

Saturday, October 7, 2006 - 10:41am

Some people could interpret that it was we who drew first blood in Iraq. If this is true, would that mean that Iraq would be justified in dropping bombs in the U.S., claiming they are military targets? Some people think the U.S. drew first blood in North Vietnam, since the Gulf of Tonklin affair was a mistake. If this is true, would it mean North Vietnam would be justified in bombng the U.S.?

Are all Muslims and people of Arab descent evil? Is it evil to discriminate against them all indiscrinately, as Japanese people were discriminated against on the West Coast during WWII?

bis bald,

Nick

Post 34

Saturday, October 7, 2006 - 2:23pm

Yeah, but the threat posed by Saddam and his minions was already there. The fact that we actually drew first blood doesn't mean we were the aggressors. If a guy is preparing to shoot you when he gets the chance, you have every right to take him out before he acts on it.

Nevertheless, invading Iraq was probably not the best use of our limited resources. Iran poses a more serious threat.

- Bill

Post 35

Saturday, October 7, 2006 - 6:22pm