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 5Forward one pageLast Page


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 20

Sunday, May 1, 2005 - 12:49pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I don't regard the differences between Bush and bin Laden as irrelevant, either morally or otherwise. As a matter of fact, I consider Bush the moral inferior of bin Laden. At least bin Laden is up-front about his desire to enslave or kill me. Bush wants to blow smoke up my ass and pretend he's trying to protect me, while in actuality he and his organization do the former and threaten to do the latter should I resist.

This is precisely the type of context-vapourising relativistic statement that caused me to unsubscribe from the FND email list. Western governments are far from perfect but at least on occasion do behave legitimately (as when they seek to protect their citizens from terrorism). Terrorists on the other hand are completely illegitimate.

MH


Post 21

Sunday, May 1, 2005 - 2:01pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
disturbing.

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 22

Sunday, May 1, 2005 - 3:34pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
What utter bollocks. I'm an atheist Objectivist, and I'd kill bin Laden with my bare hands if the opportunity presented itself.

Apparently Dawkins thinks my motivation is more important than my actions.

Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 23

Sunday, May 1, 2005 - 3:40pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"As a matter of fact, I consider Bush the moral inferior of bin Laden. At least bin Laden is up-front about his desire to enslave or kill me. Bush wants to blow smoke up my ass and pretend he's trying to protect me, while in actuality he and his organization do the former and threaten to do the latter should I resist."

I feel kind of dirty defending Bush - I consider him extremely bad, easily the worst president in my conscious lifetime - but you're really stretching here to try to paint him as worse than bin Laden. Think of it this way: if either Bush had Osama's motives or bin Laden had W's means, we'd already be dead.


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 24

Monday, May 2, 2005 - 4:18amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I mainly put it up because it quite interestingly looked like Dawkins might have cribbed his notes from the work a writer you may have heard of. I think her name was "Ayn Rand."

Mr Knapp, if you think that Rand would have opposed violence in favour of "discussion" in the face of a mass murderer like Bin Laden, you are sorely mistaken. 

I also believe she would have been disgusted with anyone who could state that they consider Bush to be morally inferior to Bin Laden.


Post 25

Monday, May 2, 2005 - 7:15amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Quoth Tim Sturm:

"Mr Knapp, if you think that Rand would have opposed violence in favour of 'discussion' in the face of a mass murderer like Bin Laden, you are sorely mistaken."

I don't think any such thing -- and it would require an act of willful misinterpretation to claim that I do.

Dawkins didn't advocate "'discussion' in the face of a mass murderer like bin Laden." He didn't suggest that Bush should be "discussing" things with bin Laden. He simply noted that both Bush and bin Laden operate on the basis of faith rather than reason, and considers that to be an explanation for their other similarities, such as their shared predilection for murder.

"I also believe she would have been disgusted with anyone who could state that they consider Bush to be morally inferior to Bin Laden."

She might have. Nobody's perfect. My assessment of Bush as morally inferior is admittedly based on limited, perhaps non-essential differences. They're both nutjobs and they're both murderers. I give Bush extra points for being a liar (he pretends he's trying to protect Americans; bin Laden has made no bones about his intentions) and a coward (Bush weaseled out of Vietnam and then even deserted his stateside Air National Guard billet; bin Laden risked his own skin in Afghanistan).

Tom Knapp

Post 26

Monday, May 2, 2005 - 8:15amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
David wrote:

discern whether someone's ideas result from irrationality or just error of knowledge

I don't believe it would be possible, with certainty, to do that.  A wrong action resulting from either irrationality or error of knowledge would look the same.  Deduction would not determine the cause, it would take an interview with the person to know for sure.

Isn't irrationality itself an error of knowledge?


Post 27

Monday, May 2, 2005 - 8:24amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mr. Knapp,

You can not separate examples of government offense against liberty, from government itself.  Your basic premise has to be that all government is evil, which is absurd on its face.  Without that, your arguments fall apart.


Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Post 28

Monday, May 2, 2005 - 8:33amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Tom,

I am trying to keep a balanced view on all things concerning dissenting views of our presence in Iraq, etc. I will even hold that the rich and powerful will do whatever they can to try to stay that way.

But your views on Bush being morally inferior to Bid Laden and a nutcase crossed a line. I cannot go there, dude.

You are talking about the President of the United States of America, damn it, the most moral country this world has ever seen. Ever.

To accept your views, one would have to believe that the citizens of this moral giant of a country are smart enough to keep it productively wealthy but stupid enough to elect a "nutcase." You have stepped outside the bounds of rational discourse - simply on empirical evidence alone.

Have you forgotten Bin Laden's express statement that he is a worshipper of death? That death worship is what sets him and his followers off from the West? That is why they can prevail?

I see this all the time - bad premises leading to bad conclusions. You are one of those who hold that non-initian of force is an inherent human right (from some kind of noumenal realm), not a right derived from any living-on-earth ethics or morality. The rest easily follows. That you can hold a death worshipper a morally superior being shows that morality is not really an issue with you. The "inherent" right is.

Go for it, dude. I'm on the other side. And I will back that up with everything I have.

Michael

Edit - The following is a statement from another recent post of mine, but it is pertinent: Political rights derive from ethics and morality. Not the other way around.

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 5/02, 9:46am)


Post 29

Monday, May 2, 2005 - 8:37amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Robert Davison said:  “Your basic premise has to be that all government is evil, which is absurd on its face.”

 

Oh, why do you consider that absurd?

 

“Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.”  – Thomas Paine

 

- B.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

www.loveisearned.com

Instant Messenger:

AOL:  brilovett, MSN:  blovett@gsb.uchicago.edu, Yahoo:  bm_lovett

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 


Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Post 30

Monday, May 2, 2005 - 10:17amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael,

"But your views on Bush being morally inferior to Bid Laden and a nutcase crossed a line. I cannot go there, dude.

"You are talking about the President of the United States of America, damn it, the most moral country this world has ever seen. Ever."

That is one major reason why Bush is morally inferior to bin Laden. Bin Laden is operating externally to subvert a more moral system. He's an overt enemy. Bush, however, is acting internally to do so.

Who was morally inferior: Cornwallis, who openly took the field against the American colonies, or Benedict Arnold, who betrayed them from within?

Who was morally inferior: A KGB officer operating on behalf of Moscow against the US -- a country he considered the enemy of his own -- or John Walker, a sailor in the US Navy who sold out his shipmates?

Who is morally inferior: An enemy who openly proclaims his goals and his hostility to you, or an enemy who worms his way into a position of power to pursue those same goals and that same hostility on the pretense that he is on your side?

"To accept you views, one would have to believe that the citizens of this moral giant of a country are smart enough to keep it productively wealthy but stupid enough to elect a 'nutcase.' You have stepped outside the bounds of rational discourse - simply on empirical evidence alone."

Not really. One only has to believe that an electoral preponderance of the citizens of this moral giant of a country are gullible.

Those, by the way, would be the same citizens who elected FDR to the presidency four times.

And who elected LBJ over Barry Goldwater.

And who elected Bill Clinton twice.

Prosecution rests.

"Have you forgotten Bin Laden's express statement that he is a worshipper of death? That death worship is what sets him and his followers off from the West? That is why they can prevail?"

I've not forgotten any of bin Laden's statements. They are overt statements of the philosophy he and Bush share. Bush's equivalent statements are somewhat more subtle, as befits his character -- he declines to overtly declare his values. The odd thing, however, is that much of Objectivism has been dedicated to discerning underlying values -- such as the worship of death that is inherent and implicit in the altruism which Bush openly advocates. You should probably give Galt's speech a good read.

"You are one of those who hold that non-initian of force is an inherent human right (from some kind of noumenal realm), not a right derived from any living-on-earth ethics or morality."

You must have me mixed up with someone else, as your assertion concerning my beliefs is 180 degrees off course.

"I'm on the other side. And I will back that up with everything I have."

That's your call to make. If you wish to oppose reason, America and the good, no one can stop you. I am not, however, obligated to pretend that you are doing otherwise.

Regards,
Tom

Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 31

Monday, May 2, 2005 - 11:31amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Besides declaring George W. Bush to be a traitor equal to Benedict Arnold and John Walker, Knapp now adds (post 30), in defense of his astounding claim that Bush is "morally inferior" to terrorist kingpin bin Laden:
Who is morally inferior: An enemy who openly proclaims his goals and his hostility to you, or an enemy who worms his way into a position of power to pursue those same goals and that same hostility on the pretense that he is on your side?

Oh. I see... Now we are to believe that President Bush has, for decades, cunningly pursued his devious political career in order to secretly enact "the same goals" as bin Laden -- diabolically motivated by the "same hostility" toward Americans as is bin Laden.


Folks, I believe we have now officially left Earth orbit, and the gravitational pull of reason, and have found ourselves suddenly transported by Mr. Knapp to the dark side of the moon.

As for me, I'm returning to Earth now. Over and out.


Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 32

Monday, May 2, 2005 - 11:32amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
You know, Thomas,

1. You can pretend that Bush only has pure evil as his motivation and any good that comes through is merely a ruse to fool people with.

2. You can pretend that the people of the USA (especially the electorate) are mostly gullible (and I am sure you have NO DOUBT as to who would be best person to enlighten all of these fools).

3. You can pretend that FDR, LBJ and Bill Clinton completely wrecked our country.

4. You can pretend that the morality of death worship should be treated on par with the morality of life on earth.

5. You can pretend that Bush and others in power ONLY advocate Altruism.

6. You can pretend that having performed military service empowers one with moral authority.

7. You can pretend that hostile governments will never attack us because they simply want to.

8. You can pretend that being overly aggressive and package-dealing concepts (and even leaders) is a substitute for a sound arguments.

9. You can even pretend that you are advocating reason, the good and love of America by doing all this.

As you said, that is your call to make.

I have serious issues with all of this pretending. We disagree big-time. And that is even before we get to talking about rights, checks-and-balances, role of government and all the rest.

Michael


Post 33

Monday, May 2, 2005 - 6:44amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"Each believes that when he dies he is going to heaven."
 
That's one problem some atheists have: they think that the mere fact of believing in an "afterlife" makes you evil.

What makes Bin Laden an evil human is that he wants to destroy the West, which brings the torch of the basic values that make the world a better place. 

But, you know, atheism does not guarantee moral clarity.



Post 34

Monday, May 2, 2005 - 1:46pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Quoth Michael:

"We disagree big-time."

Really ... you think?

We might disagree less if you examined what I actually say/claim/advocate. Or maybe not -- but it's not like I've kept any secrets in that respect. Mr. Bidinotto even took the time to post links to some of it. But so long as you just make up things and then claim that I advocate or "pretend" them -- of the nine alleged pretenses you list, seven are things I've never "pretended" and two are irrefutable facts of life and therefore do not require pretense -- you'll probably get whatever results you're wanting to get.

Regards,
Tom Knapp

Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 35

Monday, May 2, 2005 - 2:26pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hi Robert. My reaction to Richard Dawkin's quotation was primarily positive, because I do think Bush and Bin Laden are morally equivalent. Since the US invasion of Iraq is illegitimate (non-defensive), the deaths that have resulted from American military action are wrongful.  Put less politely, they are murder. The number of such deaths run well over 1 million in Iraq alone.  During the US Gulf War, 100,000 Iraqi draftees fleeing Kuwait were killed by American bombardment, often as they fled in disorganized panic across the desert. The UN sanctions, imposed at the insistance of the USA to punish Iraqi's for Hussein's existence, cost the lives of well over 1 million adults and children over about 10 years, or so I have read. Civilian deaths in the Gulf War have been estimated at between 2,500 and 100,000.  I certainly do not claim to know what the true number is, and I doubt anyone else knows with probability. The most recent invasion has killed between 15,000 civilians to as high as 100,000, although what the number really is no one knows. Our military does not do body counts.

Moreover, you owe it to yourself to read "The New Pearl Harbor" which raises serious credible reasons to suspect Bush's complicity in the 9/11 attacks, just as his historical mentor FDR accomplished with Pearl Harbor. Kurt and others like to deride conspiracy theorists as delusional.  However, the official history of the 1960 presidential election is that JFK won the election legitimately. Conspiracy nuts contend he stole Cook County, Illinios, which threw the electoral college to the Dems.  Is such a conspiracy theory delusional? No. It depends on facts and evidence which can be reasonably established. I urge you to read the book. 


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 36

Monday, May 2, 2005 - 5:30pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Brian,

I write that about government, because government is a requirement.  Even Paine acknowledges this by calling it a NECESSARY evil.

The trick is to design a government that is moral.  Ayn Rand describes such a government i.e. a government that forbids the initiation of force and reserves to itself retaliatory force leavened by an objective body of law.


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 37

Monday, May 2, 2005 - 8:23pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Robert Davison said:  “I write that about government, because government is a requirement.”

 

I am not aware of any moral law that states government is a requirement.  I am also not aware of any government that is (or was) moral.  A “government that forbids the initiation of force and reserves to itself retaliatory force leavened by an objective body of law” does not exist and cannot exist.  Why?  Because co-called “objective law” will always be forced into interpretation by men with guns.  Men with guns have no reason to be objective.  There’s only one way to force a man with a gun to be objective – when his opponent (or his opponent’s delegate) has a gun.  Remember John Galt’s words:  “[f]orce and mind are opposites; morality ends where a gun begins.”

 

In other words, allow government to own guns and morality, by default, ends.  All of our Founding Fathers understood this (hence, the Second Amendment, which was SPECIFICALLY to hold back government from a man’s home/property).  If you don’t allow government to own guns, there is no other purpose of government.

 

The free market will always produce the better moral result – no matter what situation.

 

- B.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

www.loveisearned.com

Instant Messenger:

AOL:  brilovett, MSN:  blovett@gsb.uchicago.edu, Yahoo:  bm_lovett

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Post 38

Monday, May 2, 2005 - 8:26pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Brian, we've been through all this ad nauseum. For my own arguments for ltd. government and against anarchism, go here, then scroll down to the articles under the subheading, "Anarchism vs. Limited Government."


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 39

Tuesday, May 3, 2005 - 1:33amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Sir Robert: I want to compliment—nay, salute—you on your magnificent stand against Saddamy. You have rebutted the Saddamites every which way, leaving them nowhere to run. I still don't agree with you that we should surrender the term "libertarian" to them, since such a noble term does not deserve such ignoble standard-bearers, but in shredding what little credibility they may have begun with, you have done the cause of liberty proud. And in an exemplary polemical & literary manner. Bravo!

Linz

Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.