Objectivism 101

David,

I am having a good time!....especially when I think of those Mossad boys touring the bookshops of South Queensland with that photo of your bookshelf.

...or they may be narrowing their search to Brisbane taxi drivers...

The really interesting thing is that JJ's and DH's own forum is a rather pathetic affair. It was set up in May 2004 but only has 2185 posts total -- roughly 546 posts a year (A2K probably gets that many in less than a week). Of those, JJ and DH account for 1035, or about 47% of all the posts on the forum. Truly, theirs is not a discussion forum, it's more of a dialogue forum, a mutual admiration society where JJ and DH can lovingly stroke their own and each other's tumescent egos. But these are two enormous chimps in one very small tree, so they need to go elsewhere and groom each other where they can be seen and admired by more than just the usual bunch of monkeys.



No doubt there is an element of repressed sexual longing here, sublimated in a complex victimization fantasy. Rather than confess to each other their desires, JJ and DH redirect their repressed passions into hatred for Jews, a group which neither cares for them nor very much cares about them. Sad, really, when you think of it. I'm sure if they could develop some social skills, maybe meet some people in real life, they wouldn't feel this compulsive need to infest other discussion fora with their vicious spew. Perhaps if they could meet in person they could find true contentment -- maybe even marry and breed lots of little anti-Semites. It could be their very own Lebensborn project.

David,

It is funny how Jeooo is back making another appearance in this thread only to try to slander us after he spent time away trying to do a close examination on the both of us, due to he's Jewish fixation. That is demonstrating the "Kill the Messenger because you can't refute the message" anti-Christ Jewish Mentality.


He still can't articulate the difference between right from wrong, because he is so intrenched in the Jewish "might makes right" criminal mentality.


Exposing a Jew on this thread, is as easy as dragging a quarter through the Warsaw ghettos, because they love to expose themselves (notice his references to sex) like a pervert flasher. They are two-bit political whores at their core.

JJ,

Speaking of sex, David has gone off to play on the " TV nudity thread". As his faithful lap dog hadn't you better go and join him ?

JJ, It's beyond me how stoopid and pathetic these guys are, but between the brainwashing by the big name philosophers and the probability that some of these guys are Jews, it must be considered as normal for this day and age.

Monkey see monkey do

One thought just struck me: perhaps JJ is incapable of expressing her repressed sexual desire for DH because she is, in fact, nothing more than a somewhat sophisticated computer program, devised to string random words and phrases together to form rambling, nonsensical posts. But no, I cannot imagine such a terrible thing -- it would surely break DH's mighty heart.

Still, JJ's rather limited vocabulary of jargon and clichés lends itself quite easily to that classic game of corporate America: Buzzword Bingo! The game is simple: in a five-by-five grid (like a bingo card), place a buzzword or phrase in each box. When one of the words or phrases is mentioned in a meeting or a speech, cross off the box. Five boxes in a row -- horizontal, vertical, or diagonal -- wins, but the person must yell out "bingo!" in order be recognized as the winner (or, in this case, you must submit a post that says "bingo!").

Here are 25 buzzwords or phrases. Put them in any order on your bingo card ("Jew" is definitely going to be my center square -- that's almost like a free space).

might makes right
criminal mentality
collectivist mentality
paradigm
collectivism
Jew
Jewish
Judaism
sock puppet
whore(s)
objectively establish(ed)
objective reality
objective axiom
god said
bible thumping
crime(s) against humanity
tyrant
head banger(s)
wailing wall
dogma
sociopathic
right from wrong
the laws of nature
brain dead
kill the messenger

Now, all we have to do is wait for JJ to respond, and the game starts. OK, ready? Then let's play "JJ's Buzzword Bingo!"

All seriousness aside, the issue of objectivist ethics is worth debating (just not with JJ or DH). Ayn Rand said that "Objectivist ethics holds man's life as the standard of value -- and his own life as the ethical purpose of every individual man" (emphasis in original). Rights, then, derive from this central ethical premise. "The right to life is the source of all rights," says Rand, "and the right to property is their only implementation."

But where does this "right" come from? According to Rand, "[t]he source of man's rights is not divine law or congressional law, but the law of identity. A is A -- and Man is Man." To explain that rather obscure formulation, Rand states that humans, by their very nature, seek their own self-interest, i.e. their own preservation. Humans, in other words, are, by definition, "self-interested animals," and because they should (rationally) desire their own self-interests they are entitled to act in their own self-interest. "The fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do," says Rand (claiming thereby to have solved the "is/ought" problem). And so, by virtue of their humanity, humans are entitled to the right to live.

The problem with basing a system of ethics on the "law of identity," of course, is that this "law" is anything but law-like. Most humans may indeed be self-interested, but some aren't, and some are at some times and aren't at other times. A soldier may fight savagely to save himself and then in the next moment dive on a live grenade to save his comrades. For Rand, that may be just an isolated exception to the "law," but such exceptions pose a rather difficult problem for an ethical system that relies upon the "is" of self-preservation to provide the foundation of the "ought" of self-interest, especially when altruistic actions that defy the "law" of self-interest are typically viewed as praiseworthy rather than blameworthy.

Rand attempts to get around this problem by arguing that, while people might sometimes not be self-interested, they should be. In other words, humans do not always act in their own self-interest, but they would if they were always rational. "[M]an's self-interest cannot be determined by blind desires or random whims, but must be discovered and achieved by the guidance of rational principles," states Rand, and "[t]his is why the Objectivist ethics is a morality of rational self-interest -- or of rational selfishness" (emphasis in original). People might act altruistically (i.e. solely for the benefit of others), but they wouldn't if they were being rational about it.

For Rand, the injection of rationality into the argument makes her ethics objective, but instead it only masks the factual problems inherent in her "law of rationality." If the proposition "people are self-interested" isn't true, then saying "people would be self-interested if they were rational" doesn't make it any truer. "Rationality," in this case, is just another way of saying "acting in one's self-interest," which makes Rand's formulation a sort of bootstrapping argument. It's rather like saying "people would agree with me if they were rational," and then defining rationality as "being in agreement with me."

Joefromthezoo

How do you determine right from wrong?

You also forget that people own themselves, and they can choose to kill themselves at anytime, however, if we're going to live together, we need a system that takes into account what man is, and also doesn't discriminate against anyone, otherwise they'd have every right to reject the immoral imposition.

An idiot has no say in ethics as ethics are a body of knowledge that can only be formed by those with at least half a brain......LOL, have you any idea of stupid I think your type is, arguing that ethics are subjective when that very attitude can have you killed or violated.

JJ.

Joefromthezoo has been asigned to this message board{and perhaps others}.....his goal is to disrupt genuine truthseekers and advocate the plague of subjective ethics aka might makes right aka George Bush is hero.

Jeooo,

You can attack me all you want with all your lies but it will never change the fact that I have exposed Judaism as creating a sick vile pediaphilic degenerate sadistic manipulative egotistical paranoid parasitic communal Jewish race supremacist criminal mentality, to which you have, because your only recourse is to attack me, demonstrating your own Jewish mentality.

Keep demonstrating the truth of Judaism.

Here is a good example of subjective morality that the Jewish criminal mentality manifests that Joefromthezoo is defending.

According to the Talmud, it is Jewish Law that pediphila is ok in the minds of a Jew.







It is Jewish LAW to practice genital mutilation on a child that can NOT give their consent. If you are JEW, you are a child MOLESTER. Plan and simple.


According to prison society the lowest form of human existence is a child molester aka Jew. I would agree.

JJ.

Very interesting!

Please provide the court statistics for Jews versus Non-Jews on paedophilia. The figures from "Christian Sects", the Catholic priesthood and "Hillbillies" are likely to be significant don't you think ?

As I understand it 99% of people calling themselves Jews have never read "the Mishnah" and many are opposed to circumcision on purely religious grounds believing it, like the many non-Jews who have it done, to be based on medical considerations. It seems to me that its origins lie with ancient fertility rites, and that one of the reaons Pauline Christianity "took off" amongst gentiles was that Paul was offering them "the benefits" of Judaism without the need for circumcision.

fresco,

You are approaching the question from the wrong direction.

Judaism is only a dogma that originated the concept of race "one is born a Jew". The only problem is, the concept of race is false, so to considered oneself a Jew, one only has to believe in the dogma. The dogma condones pedophilia, so anyone that considers them self a Jew, is complicit in the crime of pedophilia, just like the driver of the get way car is complicit in the crime, as a partner of a bank robbery.

100% of the people who are guilty of the crime of pedophilia, are the people who actually commit pedophilia, and the people who condone pedophilia, by believing in a dogma that condones pedophilia.

fresco,

Here is another shocker for you.

Only in the context of Judaism, is there the concept of race, "born a Jew". Also, only in the context of Judaism, is the idea of "God's chosen people", race supremacy. Therefore, to be a race supremacist, one has to be a Jew.

Nazism is only regurgitated Judaism, of race supremacy for world domination. A Nazi is only a Neo-Jew. When one defends Judaism by attacking Nazism, they are only fûcking with their own mind. If one hates Nazism, it only stands to reason one should hate Judaism; and visa versa. Don't loose sight of who originated this vomit and that it should be relegated to the heap pile of human garbage.

These high level truthseekers only have nice things to say about Judaism, although you could probably find them rubbishing Christianity elsewhere,..... but no, we must be very tolerant of Judaism, and considering most of them are big fans of subjective ethics, they may even be stupid enough to tolerate all religions.

JJ.

So lets get this straight....you are for example claiming that the statistically high proportion of "Jewish" lawyers, judges and doctors in the US are either "guilty of the crime of pedophilia " or "condone it".

GROW UP!

Just because I call myself "British" It doesn't mean I condone the multitude of historical "faults" ascribed to British colonialism etc. I take what I want from "the label" and if it doesn't suit me I can either protest democratically, or leave. And a recent string of documentaries seem to show that is not much different from what happens in Israel. Many of the population appear to be totally secular.

This post was funnier in the original German.

It's pretty damned bizarre in English . . .