Is this offensive?

[XXplorher]

I acknowledge your point but offer the addition that because of the special relationship, i. E., the virtually complete trust of a child for the parent and the virtually incomprehensible idea that the child's parent would tell them anything wrong or erroneous, it makes the process of recovery from an irrational indoctrination more challenging.

I find that an assumption on your part, senior.

Again, it would depend on the child - and the relationship they, and their parents, manufacture as time goes on (I realize that sounds robotic). I’m speaking from experience here. And I think it’s healthy I’m am, and was, able to differentiate what *I* find rational, vs. what *they* do. Others may question my willingness to question what my parents ‘indoctrinate’ (particularly since I’ve been doing it from a relatively young age).
Personally, I think it has everything to do with why I don’t fall into the very trappings you’re recognizing should be avoided. I’ve never been blind. And I won’t be led that way by mere words. I use my own ability to reason… ehem, as Ayn Rand did coming from her situation, yes? (Not that I’m anything close to her clarity and dynamic. I’m just using her association cuz I’m sure you’re aware of it.)
In fact, it MAY be even easier for the child to disagree based on the parents degree of hypocrisy. Es possible, no?

Reason, people. Use your ability to REASON. That’s what separates you from the animals.

-Actually, UncleBill - you went on to prove my point there…
I just noticed we registered at the same time, same city – so it’s good that we disagree SOME, eh. Lest we be accused of a coincidental ‘duality’ association. Oh, and on that note - to simply ‘vote Libertarian’ (as your sig suggests)…. Isn’t that a trapping as well?


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

 

[CelestialBody]

UncleBill

 

[able]

ok this may be a bit late in the forum but what exactly is an african american? you see i grew up in africa so i am probably more african than the majority of so called african americans if people have a problem with the assignment it is probably just a political thing rascism is a two way thing, these people are black big deal, are they american? or are they african? they cant be both bye the way i am white zambian and proud of it why cant these people just be the same

 

[Marxist]

If you must, say American Negro or American Black or even Black when speaking of the descendants of American slaves.

You're right, Africa is a continent with a whole lot of different colored and non colored people and I wouldn't want you to be confused with peoples you don't want to be associated with.

 

[La Huesera]

Why must ANYONE be called anything but American?? I am from Germany linage, and I don't want to be called German American.. I refuse to call anyone anything but American. If someone was born here.. thats what they are! The American people that were killed in the Twin Towers were not German Americans..or Asian Americans..or African Americans..they were Americans. Not once have I heard a news report that.. 1203 German Americans were killed..or 392 Asian Americans were killed... etc. We are Americans.. and I for one am proud to be!

 

[Mischka]

...non colored people...

Albinos?

Marxist, you may consider throwing racial epithets at people to be part of "a silly word game," but such words have distinct - and derogatory - meanings. (And I was under the same impression as Uncle Bill and Miles as to the origin of that word. The word was around well before the Teamsters.) I personally abhor anyone calling anyone a word that has such negative connotations, no matter the purported context. Some may consider it acceptable to call someone of their own race one of those names (hence Uncle Kracker, I suppose), but it repulses me. Substituting racial epithets for a person's name reduces that person to a stereotype, a base element. Judging a person by the content of their character also means respecting that the person is an individual, not merely the object of a word game.

Originally posted by Uncle Bill
Interesting that such a percentage would deny these figures as their leaders (albeit self-appointed and self-declared) when the black voting population in the past several elections have voted 85%-90% Democrat and this is the party affiliation of these so-called leaders. But I'm sure you can explain that disparity, too.

Jerry Falwell and Pat Buchanan are Republicans. Interesting that a similar percentage of white males would deny these figures as their leaders (albeit self-appointed and self-declared) when the white male voting population in the past several elections has been overwhelmingly Republican and this is the party affiliation of these so-called leaders. I mean, logically speaking, every self-appointed power-hungry leader casts his shadow on every person sharing his skin tone, gender, or religious affiliation.

 

[Laurel]

You don't know how you met me,
you don't know why you can't turn around and say good-bye.
All you know is when I'm with you, I make you free,
and swim through your veins like a fish in the sea, I'm singin'

Follow me, everything is all right.
I'll be the one to tuck you in at night,
and if you want to leave, I can guarantee
you won't find nobody else like me.

I'm not worried 'bout the ring you wear,
cause as long as no one knows, then nobody could care.
You're feelin' guilty, and I'm well aware,
but you don't look ashamed, and baby, I'm not scared.
I'm singin'

Follow me, everything is all right.
I'll be the one to tuck you in at night,
and if you want to leave, I can guarantee
you won't find nobody else like me.

Won't give you money, I can't give you the sky.
You're better off if you don't ask why.
I'm not the reason that you go astray
and it will be all right if you don't ask me to stay.

Follow me, everything is all right.
I'll be the one to tuck you in at night,
and if you want to leave, I can guarantee
you won't find nobody else like me.

 

[Unclebill]

I dont know what you're culturala heritage is but I'm gonna take a shot in the dark and say you are closer to you "American" roots than you are to your own ancestors. ?

You are most probably correct. As a child I was told that my ancestry was Irish, Scot and English. Even as a young child (prepubescent), my interest in it was never more than cursory. As I've grown older, it holds even less interest or importance in my life. Similarly, my children have never expressed any particular interest in their heritage either. And that may very well be that since they grew up with a parent to whom it was of no importance, concluded that it was of no importance to them.

From my memory of my upbringing, it was never of any real importance in my household either so it may be Pavlovian.

I can understand your position that you are more comfortable living in the environment in which you were raised. But the culture of your childhood/youth (as is most of the world) far different from the culture of America. Most other cultures are more controlled by religion (or government which in the most rigidly collectivist states is more religion than anything else). And the transition from a very controlled culture to a very free one is quite a change and the adaptive process can be very protracted depending on the person.

Jerry Falwell and Pat Buchanan are Republicans. Interesting that a similar percentage of white males would deny these figures as their leaders (albeit self-appointed and self-declared) when the white male voting population in the past several elections has been overwhelmingly Republican and this is the party affiliation of these so-called leaders. I mean, logically speaking, every self-appointed power-hungry leader casts his shadow on every person sharing his skin tone, gender, or religious affiliation.

The significant difference in the figure we cite is that in the group you choose to cite, that overwhelming majority was on the order of 60%, i. e., slightly over half; hardly what one would consider approaching unanimity while among the black voting populace the percentage is nearer 90% which is a virtually unanimous bloc of voters for the specified trait.

One might conclude a significant statistical distinction between the two groups. Likewise, the self-appointed leaders you cite are unlikely to represent a significant portion of the population with which you associate them since a segment of those voters are Jewish, Atheist, Catholic, etc., and are less likely to be constituents of these so-called leaders. Whereas, in the case I cite, 100% of the constituency are black Americans and whether or not they admit or claim these figures as their leaders, do vote in accordance with the so-called leadership.

You might find the linked article interesting since it is tangentially related to this particular facet of the discussion.
http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/01/election.html

Originally posted by Laurel
Follow me, everything is all right.
I'll be the one to tuck you in at night,
and if you want to leave, I can guarantee
you won't find nobody else like me.

Absolutely! Truer word were never uttered, my dear!

 

[Phoenix]

How dare you hijack this thread with cogent analysis. Go away, I was enjoying being the only openly Negroid character and getting attacked for keeping it real.

Sorry mon ami but I was here first and plus I was the first to name C Beezy (Celestial Body) as my favorite pornstar. Nothing personal but you are the far from being the first to catch heat for keeping it real round here. But good news is at least you can be number two and where were you when they practically riducled me away from the GB a while back?? lol


Plus beside being Lit's token black male I am also Lit's token misunderstood genius. HHaarrah for dirty politics (why the hell did I just type all of this. hmmm) ( Note to self: Lay off the Vicadin fo real)

 

[Phoenix]

This is a mentality that I cannot grasp. While your genetic heritage may provide certain intellectual and physical potentials, they are nothing more than potential until and unless you put this potential to use. The motivation and determination and persistence to initiate, sustain and succeed is yours and yours alone. You either do or you don't achieve the physical or intellectual ends supported by whatever potential your genetic history has given you.

While your upbringing may orient you to a greater or lesser degree to succeed, it does not in and of itself provide the motivation and determination. That you must provide.

I do not denigrate a desire to know of one's heritage. I just do not give the credence that it is the primary reason one should live and succeed and I cannot understand the mentality that accepts that idea.

While it may not intended as such, the literal implication of your statement is that without knowledge of your heritage, you would have no incentive to continue living. That I find truly irrational and quite sad.

Your life is yours and is an end in itself as pronounced in the Declaration of Independence (unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness). I can only marvel that you seem to see life as so worthless and depressing that the only thing making it worth living is knowledge of your ancestry (such is the implication of your statement).

From my perspective, the accident of my heritage is merely a fact of history. While it provides me certain potentials for success, it does not provide the measure of my achievements. That is entirely the product of my endeavors in life and knowledge of that history is essentially irrelevant to any success I achieve.

First of I want to say that my heritage has nothing to do with my potential. My potential is based on my abilities and not my race, creed ,religion or family background. Everything I got in this world is from going out every day and busting my ass and doing some things I am ashamed to admit doing. So off the bat I never said my heritage is the reason I accomplished anything. I never said my heritage was a factor in my personal ambitions, determination or motivation. My heart my mind and past history are to plame for those things.

What I meant is my heritage while not responsible for personality has a definite influence on it. I am among the lucky people who had the opportunity to go back to thier parents homeland and get in touch with my roots and for me to sit here and say that those expiriences did not affect me would make me a fraud not just to myself but a fraud to all those who came before me and fraud to my anscestor and those who took the time to tell me about them.

Not I will be the first to tell you that I enjoy talking about my West Indian culture because in a country where people go out of their way to blend in and remain "PC" people tend to be afraid to share their heritage and history for fear of offending or alienating others and personally I chose to not acknowledge those fears and if I have to alienate to educate so be it. I do not care if people dislike me as long as the have concrete reason to do so.

Without knowledge of my heritage I would live on but at the same time I would not be the person I am today. There is an old saying that goes " You do not know where you are going. Unless you know where you have been." This means without knowledge of my family history I would be lacking knowledge of where my family is from and what they had to and sacrafice for my current existance now.

While you read in my previous post that my intend was to express my life would be hallow without knowledge of my anscetry. To an extent my life would possible travel a similar path however that path would could possibly be rougher to travel without the knowledge of where I am from and who perceded me. At times I have used the knowledge of what my ancestors of what my ancestors have gone through to motivate me at times where I felt lethargic and wanted to give in to the temptation to slack off because I know about thier sacrafices and losses that helped put me in the position I am today. My father gave a solid job in Barbados to come to this country and ended working 2 jobs to support his family because he knew that his children would have a better opportunity to make something of themselves. It is that kind of sacrafice that makes me work a lil harder, study a lil longer and keep going even when my body is screaming for me to stop. And I hope that when my children here about what my father did they will have the same motivation and their children would have the same effect. I know that it is unrealistic to expect that kind of thing to happen but if there is one thing I realized when I was younger is that without hope there is no chance for success.

Heritage is not about success it is about know your roots and the cloth you are cut from. It is about knowing what your forbearers when through for you and yours. A lot of things your ancestors did probably still have an influence in your life right now even if you do not know it.

 

[Marxist]

Why must ANYONE be called anything but American?? I am from Germany linage, and I don't want to be called German American.. I refuse to call anyone anything but American. If someone was born here.. thats what they are! The American people that were killed in the Twin Towers were not German Americans..or Asian Americans..or African Americans..they were Americans. Not once have I heard a news report that.. 1203 German Americans were killed..or 392 Asian Americans were killed... etc. We are Americans.. and I for one am proud to be!

Police officer: So what did the mugger look like?
La Huesera: He was short, dark, had curly hair, glasses, a beret.
P. O.: So you're saying he was an African American, about 5'....
LH: Well I don't know, he was an American that's for sure, he used a Louisville Slugger...
P.O.: But what was his race, ethnicity? Was he Black or White? Dark like a Jew or an Arab? (slowly) Did he sound like he was from continental Africa or Brooklyn? L.A. or Atlanta? Was he an aborigine or a Javan? Maa'm help us out here!
LH: "I refuse to call anyone but American. If someone was born here...that's what they are!" Now go get the bastard!

Despite the hype, everyone needs definitions. They are merely subdivision of that great species Americanus. Some origins are apparent, like Italian Americans. Others need to be grouped, American Negro or American Indian, because their origins tend to be more nebulous. A.N. because we are an amalgamation of races only found in the Americas, not Africa. A.I. because they are aboriginal to the land. Why is everyone scared of def.? Are they afraid they might not get included?

 

[Guest]

marxiist you missed the point i dont give a flying @$£k what colour they are, are they american or what that goes for anybody from anywhere in the world if you were born in a particular country or grew up there then that is where you are from not the place where your decendants came from how far back would you like to go, i have scottish, irish and english in my blood so where the hell do i come from? what is my background? see what i mean i am zambian i have white skin and thats it!

 

[Marxist]

You said it yourself: You're Zambian. If you decide to form a group of like minded people who share similar experiences and culture, you might want to call yourselves the Zambian American Association or Cabal or whatever. What's wrong with that? Or maybe you could crash an Irish, Scotch, or whatever party? Don't limit yourself.

Are you wondering if you're an African American? I guess so, but Africa is continent on which whites are a minority, so it might not be best to describe yourself as such.

Listen, when I travelled to Europe and had to use the phone people automatically thought I was White when I said I was American. So Fucking What? I'm a minority.

And go register.

 

[miles]

He would probably call that group friends.

 

[CelestialBody]

 

[La Huesera]

Police officer: So what did the mugger look like?
La Huesera: He was short, dark, had curly hair, glasses, a beret.
P. O.: So you're saying he was an African American, about 5'....
LH: Well I don't know, he was an American that's for sure, he used a Louisville Slugger...
P.O.: But what was his race, ethnicity? Was he Black or White? Dark like a Jew or an Arab? (slowly) Did he sound like he was from continental Africa or Brooklyn? L.A. or Atlanta? Was he an aborigine or a Javan? Maa'm help us out here!
LH: "I refuse to call anyone but American. If someone was born here...that's what they are!" Now go get the bastard!

Despite the hype, everyone needs definitions. They are merely subdivision of that great species Americanus. Some origins are apparent, like Italian Americans. Others need to be grouped, American Negro or American Indian, because their origins tend to be more nebulous. A.N. because we are an amalgamation of races only found in the Americas, not Africa. A.I. because they are aboriginal to the land. Why is everyone scared of def.? Are they afraid they might not get included?

I understand that there must be words to discribe... does not take a rocket scientist to know that.. most three year olds can pick out a blue ball apposed to a red ball. The conversation that you discribe could also have went something a little like this..
Police Officer: So what did the mugger look like?
La Huesera: He was a BLACK male, dark complextion, short, curly hair, glasses and he wore a beret.

Or it could also have been...
PO: So what did the mugger look like?
LH: He was a WHITE male, dark complextion, tall, staight hair, no glasses and a baseball cap.

I just discribed the "mugger" twice without titles such as African American or Asian American or Europen American...so nice try, but you have still to convince me that those titles are needed. Seems to me that when people start putting a title on themselves, its to segregate themselves from something or someone.... is that not what some cultures have been fighting against for centuries?

 

[Unclebill]

Originally posted by Phoenix
First of I want to say that my heritage has nothing to do with my potential. My potential is based on my abilities and not my race, creed ,religion or family background. Everything I got in this world is from going out every day and busting my ass and doing some things I am ashamed to admit doing.

I disagree with your opening statement. Your genetics do provide at least part of your potential, i. e., unrealized achievements. Physical size and strength, dexterity, raw intellect, physical well-being, etc., are all influenced by genetics. A five-foot tall 300 lb. man is never going to be an NBA all-star as an example.

But your following statement merely affirms my point that it is your effort, initiative and tenacity that provide your successes. Even if you use certain things from your learned heritage (which in fact may be no more than legend), that is a tool of your choice to use for your own betterment and achievement.

But I doubt that without it you would be unable to achieve what you have. From your post, it seems you are motivated and determined to achieve and succeed and without the heritage you know, I'm willing to wager that you would find other inspirations from which to draw to achieve what you have.

The human spirit is an amazingly strong and resilient resource.

Originally posted by Phoenix
I do not know how I would live if I did not have my culture because it is as much a part of me as my skin color and my personality

And it was this particular phrase from your original post to which I responded. Taken by itself, it conveys such dire hopelessness that I find it genuinely sad. In light of your further response, it seems apparent that you conveyed more by this than intended.

 

[Phoenix]

I disagree with your opening statement. Your genetics do provide at least part of your potential, i. e., unrealized achievements. Physical size and strength, dexterity, raw intellect, physical well-being, etc., are all influenced by genetics. A five-foot tall 300 lb. man is never going to be an NBA all-star as an example.

Good point but you also forget sometimes genetics can be a bit of roll of the dice so to speak because at the same time that 7-0 NBA All-Star was born and raised to a father and mother who on their best day barely crack the 6-1 range (Example Shaquille O'Neale parents are both under 6-2 yet Shaq is jaw dropping 7-2)

Even if the tool of my heritage are just legend and hersay the fact of the matter is they inspired me to go out and aspire to be better than I already am. It is the spirit of such tales of ancestry that make people like me spend everyday trying to be better than we were yesterday. Maybe if I did not have the connection I have with my family history I would draw inspiration from other things but truth be told in the places I have seen and grew up in inspirational things were few and far in between. Even at my lowest possible times I gained inspiration from watching my late 70 year old grandfather lose his eyesight yet continue to fight on and live his life on his own terms. Things like is what keeps me going not tales of riches and possibe success. It is watching people like my grandfather continue to fight in times of sacrafice and struggle that empowers me and drives everyday not the material things (even though I admit that the spoils of labor are great to have).

The human spirit is an amazingly strong and resilient resource.

This is so true but alot of the time the sources of that spirit arises from inspiration because inspiration spawns the spirit of creativity. My ancestry inspires me just like music would inspire others. I see myself as a man with slightly above average creativity, average talent, average physical, average intelligence but it is heart and ambition that makes me different.

Now that line from my original quote that bothers you is what seems to be main point however it is a difference of what you see in it and what I see in it. While you think it conveys conveys such dire hopelessness that you find it genuinely sad. I though of it as just a statement expressing my love of my heritage and what it has done to make me the man I am today. My heritage is a part of me it is a part of my drive and inspiration and that is something that I can not deny because such a denial would be a slap in the face to all those people who fought so hard in the past so I would have a future.

 

[Marxist]

I just discribed the "mugger" twice without titles such as African American or Asian American or Europen American...so nice try, but you have still to convince me that those titles are needed. Seems to me that when people start putting a title on themselves, its to segregate themselves from something or someone.... is that not what some cultures have been fighting against for centuries?

So if the mugger had been a pitch black, darker than miles davis at midnight Indian American (not an American Indian) how would you have described him? What would you said to help the police understand that when you say Black you don't mean American Negro? Because it's been my experience that police have a pretty good idea of what American Negroes or blacks look like (I've only been pulled over 3x without a ticket in the past year, but that's a different argument.) And they wouldn't think of picking up Ragiv instead of Raheem (formerly Roger).

I get your point, but trying to go around saying the PC thing harms all causes involved.

 

[XXplorher]

Why must ANYONE be called anything but American??

Good point! Why don’t I refer to myself as Scottish/French American? Cuzzzzz – I don’t feel the need to, that’s why. 'American' says it fine for me, eh.


-Laurel – are those lyrics meant to refer to America? I’m not familiar with it.

I acknowledge the infinite number of variable at play. It was a generalized statement although not specifically so stated.

Then why did you go into this specific?:

"i. E., the virtually complete trust of a child for the parent and the virtually incomprehensible idea that the child's parent would tell them anything wrong or erroneous, it makes the process of recovery from an irrational indoctrination more challenging."

Hmm……. Beginning to wonder if you’re one of those who must simply be correct at all times. Regardless if it’s accurate or not. You’re here to appear benevolent? That would certainly alter my opinion of your posts.

I presume you're using trappings in the context of symbolic.

No. I meant to simply declare ‘vote Libertarian’ – can very well fall into the trap of what I believed you to be discouraging. That being – associating yourself with a certain ‘pronouncement/ideal’ and blindly sticking with it regardless of the person using that tag to speak. Isn’t that the same as ‘I need to always associate myself with my black history and heritage.’ Or ‘I always vote Democratic, cuz I’m black and that’s what we should do’. Or ‘Listen to me, I’m Jessie Jackson and I declare myself your voice.’ Or ‘Don’t think for yourself, just follow my lead.’
Rather than – ‘I am an individual who makes his own determinations and philosophies.’ ?

Personally, I’m a Republican. I generally agree with their philosophy (though there are many staples they have I FIRMLY disagree with). Regardless, when I vote – I look at the individual. Not their party.
That’s what I was saying.

BTW, ‘Objectivism’: I respect ‘Roark’ tremendously. But I don’t want to be him. I don’t agree with his ‘idea’ completely (including his mostly stale persona ( I won’t let them take my daily joy), concrete self-absorption, and failure to consider others. I personally feel I owe those around me, due to those who earned before me. I want to make a difference, not simply for myself (note: haven’t finished Atlas Shrugged yet. Her ‘slave’ point hasn’t been finalized yet). I’m not so arrogant as to think it’s all about me. Nor should it be. And I certainly respect Ayn Rand, tremendously! But I find it a bit hypocritical for her to later form a philosophy used to recruit, teach, and lead others with. High hopes maybe. But I believe her point, in fiction, was to encourage self-thinking and action. Rather than ‘following’. I believe that’s how I go about my own life, eh.
That also falls in line with my disagreement to simply ‘vote Libertarian’. I understand your generalization. But wouldn’t it be more appropriate to say ‘objectively vote with your own mind’? To me – there’s a major difference there.


This is good brain excersize. Thanks.

 

[XXplorher]

This is a seriously healthy discussion. I can breathe again!

I do not care if people dislike me as long as the have concrete reason to do so.

Yummy!!

At times I have used the knowledge of what my ancestors of what my ancestors have gone through to motivate me at times where I felt lethargic and wanted to give in to the temptation to slack off because I know about thier sacrafices and losses that helped put me in the position I am today.

Yumyum – more good eatin!!

Notice that Phoenix’s remarks were hella different from Marxist. Who had nothing to say but ‘I’m angry. And I want to hold on to that – and hold people responsible’. Very, very different. Phoenix is making use of his/her past for future success.


Party on...

 

[Unclebill]

No. I meant to simply declare 'vote Libertarian' ? can very well fall into the trap of what I believed you to be discouraging. That being ? associating yourself with a certain 'pronouncement/ideal' and blindly sticking with it regardless of the person using that tag to speak. Isn't that the same as 'I need to always associate myself with my black history and heritage.' Or 'I always vote Democratic, cuz I'm black and that's what we should do'. Or 'Listen to me, I'm Jessie Jackson and I declare myself your voice.' Or 'Don't think for yourself, just follow my lead.'
Rather than ? 'I am an individual who makes his own determinations and philosophies.' ?

Were it only Vote Libertarian as taken out of the context I would agree. But it says "Reclaim your freedom - vote Libertarian " which is more to the point in that the former portion restores and protects my freedom as well as yours by such a vote. There is not a vote for any other political party that is certain to do so. Voting with Democrats, Greens, Socialists, Communists, Peace & Freedom, and various other of the collectivist politicians including a number of Republicans does precisely the opposite.

Personally, I'm a Republican. I generally agree with their philosophy (though there are many staples they have I FIRMLY disagree with). Regardless, when I vote ? I look at the individual. Not their party.
That?s what I was saying.

The Republicans are more likely to adhere to Constitutional limitation on government than are any other party (except Libertarian) but they still maintain certain ideas that are contrary to the principles of freedom and individual responsibility addressed by the founders in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Federalist Papers which is why I no longer vote for their candidates. But note that despite Constitution limits, the Republicans (Conservatives) still vote to sustain the welfare state (Great Society) of LBJ, the Socialist Security of FDR, the War on Drugs, the War on Private Enterprise (anti-trust laws) and a host of other laws and programs in direct violation of the very Constitutional restraints they purport to "Conserve". And most recently of note the effort started by Chuckie Schumer of NY and then pursued by the Bush administration to obviate Bayer's patent rights to Cipro (the anthrax treatment drug of choice) despite the wide availability of other drugs which are equally effective in said treatment.

As an example to the contrary, look at the California state government which has been in the hands of liberal (collectivist) Democrats for decades. The electricity crisis during which costs to the consumer have risen threefold in the past two years as a result of their corruption and pandering to any and every pressure group and selling out the populace for their political careers is testimony to the political aims of the Democrats. They have created and act to maintain an environment which is hostile to business and consumer alike. These people either have no understanding of economic fundamentals or are determined to destroy what economic freedom exists in California. They create a crisis by their inept, incompetent attempts to legislate economics in accordance with their collectivist ideology and when it brings about the all too predictable disaster, lie and blame it on free enterprise which their legislation eliminated or thwarted by dictatorial fiat.

And Susan Davis lied about her part in the California electricity deregulation fiasco thusly and was rewarded by the fools in her district to a seat in Congress; truly a testimony to the Peter Principle. Were it not for the damage these assholes do to my freedom and economic well-being and that of my progeny, I would say these stupid bastards who elect these criminal assholes deserve the screwing they select for themselves. But unfortunately, the innocent among us are sold down the river by these same idiot thugs and the crooks they elect.

And despite popular vote to the contrary (the ballot initiative process) to enact term limitations and to deny public funds to people illegally in California, the state government politicians have taken every possible action to thwart and overturn the public objection to and rejection of the overwhelmingly socialist establishment the politicians have constructed and to break their Democrat politicians' stranglehold on the political process in California.

They have even crafted a new state law to overturn the term limits imposed by voters in a ballot referendum because the Democrat legislators in Sacramento have decided that the voters "really didn't understand what they were voting for"! Have you ever heard of anything so arrogant and condescending? This is Clintonesque to the ultimate!

And now the idiots in Sacramento are voting to give illegal immigrants in California resident tuition rates at state colleges and universities. But American citizens from another state, legal residents, must pay full tuition. This is the type of criminal thug mentality running the state government of California under the guise of Democrat politicians. And that collectivist thug idiot, Gray Davis, in the governor's office is very likely to sign it if he hasn't already.

What these thugs are doing in short is economically punishing law abiding American citizens and rewarding illegal immigrants for breaking the law. What is the message this sends to anyone with minimal reasoning capacity?

And the public collectively is stupid enough to keep electing these assholes to office.

BTW, 'Objectivism': I respect 'Roark' tremendously. But I don?t want to be him. I don?t agree with his 'idea' completely (including his mostly stale persona ( I won?t let them take my daily joy), concrete self-absorption, and failure to consider others. I personally feel I owe those around me, due to those who earned before me. I want to make a difference, not simply for myself (note: haven?t finished Atlas Shrugged yet. Her 'slave' point hasn't been finalized yet). I?m not so arrogant as to think it's all about me. Nor should it be. And I certainly respect Ayn Rand, tremendously! But I find it a bit hypocritical for her to later form a philosophy used to recruit, teach, and lead others with. High hopes maybe. But I believe her point, in fiction, was to encourage self-thinking and action. Rather than 'following'. I believe that?s how I go about my own life, eh.

The idea embodied in Roark is not a failure to consider others. It is the idea that each man's life is his, it is an end in itself, and if the idea of freedom means anything, it is that the existence of one's life does not carry any innate obligation to others except to respect their right to their life and freedom. It is the rejection of the idea of some innate obligation to one's fellow man beyond respect for his equal rights.

You note that you feel you owe those around you. That in itself is fine; that's your emotional response to some stimulus. But emotion is not a cognitive mechanism, it is a response mechanism. When you substitute it for the cognitive means of your mind, you then obviate the cognitive mechanism which is the means of survival, i. e., your ability to think objectively, to deal with reality.

It is the substitution of emotion for cognition against which Ayn Rand railed in her philosophical works. It is the elevation of emotion as somehow superior to reason that is what lies at the root of success in garnering acceptance and support of collectivist ideas.

While it is tragic and emotionally stirring that children are starving in numerous places around the world, that does not obviate the fact that in most of these places, living conditions are what they are as the result of governments, religions and generationally embedded ignorance, hatred and prejudice. And all the sorrow one feels for the innocent children born into this environment will not correct the problem.

The solution is not more or a different variant of collectivism and the attendant strife which that embodies. The solution is the banishment of the irrational, the oppressive, the mentality that one person is somehow innately superior to another (a collectivist tenet) merely by virtue of existence and to affirm the rights and freedom of each individual unless and until they demonstrated through criminal behavior that they are unfit to live among free men in a free society.

And her philosophy came before the books, not after. I think that will become apparent when you read the monologue beginning, "This is John Galt speaking" In Atlas Shrugged. Her fictional works are a concretization of the abstraction of her philosophical ideas, the illustration of how those ideas would interplay in a society, the types of people who would advocate each philosophical mindset, and their responses to the types of problems and challenges that arise, how they would attempt to deal with them and the most logical results of those varying approaches and attitudes.

You are correct that her idea was to encourage thinking for oneself. She opposed faith (in the sense of some mystical source of knowledge) as being destructive in the sense that it negated the questioning and objective reasoning process of man's mind. If you read her work, you'll never find where she asked anyone to believe her works, only that they evaluate them intellectually for validity. Too many people cannot or will not objectively analyze her ideas but rather rely on their emotional response.

I think much of that is because virtually every religion teaches that one has an innate obligation (for no reason other than that they are alive) to provide for others sometimes even at the expense of their own best interests. It is this premise and the premise of Original Sin (the idea that man is evil by virtue of his existence) that she rejected as irrational.

That also falls in line with my disagreement to simply 'vote Libertarian'. I understand your generalization. But wouldn?t it be more appropriate to say 'objectively vote with your own mind'? To me ? there?s a major difference there.

Not all who are Libertarian are Objectivist or even know what Objectivism is. I'd guess that even fewer of those non-Libertarians are so acquainted. To learn it's tenets and become conversant with it takes considerable effort and education and not everyone is willing to put forth the efforts necessary.

It is an awesome undertaking to presume full responsibility for one's life and one's choices, actions, achievements, successes and failures. Too many people are willing to accept the crutch offered by religion as the reason for their shortcomings rather than accept the responsibility for their poor or outright bad decisions and choices. It is so much easier to accept that it is God's will which alleviates one from the responsibility and accountability that is just and appropriate. Also the idea of "judge not lest ye be judged" is much easier to accept than the Objectivist tenet of "judge and stand prepared to be judged". The former obviates accountability while the latter invites it. Which is easier to embrace? Which is the more morally demanding?

But to vote Libertarian is to vote for a political group that does embrace the principles of freedom, individual rights and individual responsibilities addressed by our founders in their formulation of the Federal government and as fully philosophically stated and justified by Objectivism.

 

[XXplorher]

UNCLEBILL-
it says "Reclaim your freedom - vote Libertarian " which is more to the point in that the former portion restores and protects my freedom as well as yours by such a vote.

Why is that, exactly?
Before I continue this discussion (which I’m enjoying fully), I want to make it clear I’m not ‘arguing’ with you. I’m not ’telling’ you who to be, or what you ‘should’ be. I’m just trying to quantify you’re point, eh.

Why is it, exactly, that I can be certain to restore, and protect, my freedom - by always voting Libertarian?
This makes little sense to me.


UNCLEBILL-
There is not a vote for any other political party that is certain to do so.


No? How about the vote I used my own educated mind to determine? On an individual basis? Wouldn’t that be the REAL point in me voting? MY, PERSONAL, decision on who’s worthy of my vote?

Rather than simply voting for a represented ‘faction’?.

Oh – and I vote for capitalism. Not collectivism, nor objectivism.


UNCLEBILL-
The Republicans are more likely to adhere to Constitutional limitation on government than are any other party (except Libertarian) but they still maintain certain ideas that are contrary to the principles of freedom and individual responsibility addressed by the founders in the Declaration of Independence

Is there a reason to place this argument in this arena? Given that I clearly removed myself from ‘their’ complete ideals?

By the way – is there such a thing as a ‘good’ politician? The very fact someone wants to BE a politician – rules out their ability to make good decisions.

UNCLEBILL-
legislators in Sacramento have decided that the voters "really didn't understand what they were voting for"! Have you ever heard of anything so arrogant and condescending? This is Clintonesque to the ultimate!

Couldn’t agree with you more! That’s happened before (California auto insurance comes to mind). How exactly does a nation built on ‘the vote’ have votes vetoed on the basis of them termed as uneducated or ‘not intended’? Blows my mind. And guess what – they get away with it. Hell, Al Gore almost stole the country with such!
Very simply: count votes. Most votes wins. Now get your ‘judge’ the fuck OUT of the process.


UNCLEBILL-
if the idea of freedom means anything, it is that the existence of one's life does not carry any innate obligation to others except to respect their right to their life and freedom.

That’s ABSOLUTELY what was said by her. It’s very reasonable…. and I don’t completely agree with her.

I don’t feel obligated. Rather – I obligate mySELF. Cuz that’s what *I* want! Anyone who demands it from me won’t get a stitch. Did Roark feel no obligation to Wynand? I know that Wynand did. And I know she was trying to show that Roark did not. But he did (tell me he didn’t)………. This means, to me, that she couldn’t fully subscribe to her own theory (and I applaud her for it). We’re not robots, Unclebill. There’s no such thing as flawless.

‘Obligation’ – is determined by the provider.

Ayn Rand is brilliant.
There’s no doubt about that.
The reason I find her brilliant – is the very reason I disagree with some of what she ‘expects’


UNCLEBILL-
emotion is not a cognitive mechanism

What’s a cognitive mechanism?
Maybe this leads me back to another point…
I respect emotion. I find it highly important and necessary.
I WANT my emotion. And I’m counting on YOURS.

If NON-emotion is the means to survival….. why has man survived? Why did we make it to the moon? Why are you able to talk to me on this bulletin board? Why did those people feel the need to create those abilities? And why does Roark build houses? Hmm? As much as he’d like to deny it - he builds it so they’ll see it. Cuz THAT matters to him – emotionally.

I would note – your argument was very emotionally powered. No?

UNCLEBILL-
And her philosophy came before the books, not after. I think that will become apparent when you read the monologue beginning, "This is John Galt speaking" In Atlas Shrugged.

Huh? Her philosophy was formed before The Fountainhead. It wasn’t put into ‘practice’ (meaning distributed materials, etc) until AFTER Atlas Shrugged was published. Am I wrong?

UNCLEBILL-
fictional works are a concretization of the abstraction of her philosophical ideas, the illustration of how those ideas would interplay in a society, the types of people who would advocate each philosophical mindset, and their responses to the types of problems and challenges that arise, how they would attempt to deal with them and the most logical results of those varying approaches and attitudes.

Excellent description of her novels. Perfect. Really!

UNCLEBILL-
If you read her work, you'll never find where she asked anyone to believe her works, only that they evaluate them intellectually for validity.

Yeah.
Now, what happened with that when she began to ‘teach’ it? I’m certain she still spread it around with the intent to enable. But – she never glorified anyone in her novels who had to ‘hear it from someone else’. Know what I mean? Wasn’t she aware that if she has to ‘tell’ someone to use their own mind – that it’s a lost cause? And wasn’t she ‘telling’, rather than ‘offering’?
I wouldn’t know, really. I wasn’t there.

Oh – and I responded to her novels very emotionally. I still think I understood it.

UNCLEBILL-
It is this premise and the premise of Original Sin (the idea that man is evil by virtue of his existence) that she rejected as irrational

Totally. That IS her main point. And – it’s bullshit. I agree with you and her, eh.

UNCLEBILL-
I'd guess that even fewer of those non-Libertarians are so acquainted. To learn it's tenets and become conversant with it takes considerable effort and education and not everyone is willing to put forth the efforts necessary

Hehehehehhehehe – well, I’m watching. ; )


UNCLEBILL-
It is an awesome undertaking to presume full responsibility for one's life and one's choices, actions, achievements, successes and failures.

These boots never claimed me a mountain – but I still climb, eh.

UNCLEBILL-
The solution is the banishment of the irrational,

That’s correct. That’s the solution. Expecting that?
(Hey, where’s *Lazer* in this discussion? I find her to possess clarity like I’ve rarely seen.)


Thanks for your intelligence,

Vote XXplorher

 

[Unclebill]

Originally posted by XXplorher
UNCLEBILL-
it says "Reclaim your freedom - vote Libertarian " which is more to the point in that the former portion restores and protects my freedom as well as yours by such a vote.

Why is that, exactly?

Because the core values of the Libertarian Party advocates and supports the ideas of individual rights and freedoms. The party platform is available at: http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/ should you choose to peruse it.

Originally posted by XXplorher
Why is it, exactly, that I can be certain to restore, and protect, my freedom - by always voting Libertarian?
This makes little sense to me.

Because the fundamental principle of the Libertarian is limited government, essentially, people of self-government, i. e., decision best left in the hands of the private individual are to be left there, not made by some central planner bureaucrat in Washington, the state capitol or City Hall. Government's only LEGITIMATE purpose is the protection of its citizens' rights.

Originally posted by XXplorher
UNCLEBILL-
There is not a vote for any other political party that is certain to do so.

No? How about the vote I used my own educated mind to determine? On an individual basis? Wouldn't that be the REAL point in me voting? MY, PERSONAL, decision on who's worthy of my vote?

Rather than simply voting for a represented 'faction'?.

Oh - and I vote for capitalism. Not collectivism, nor objectivism.

And how many of those for whom you cast your educated vote continue to support the Socialist Welfare state, the War on Drugs, the Social Security Ponzi scheme, the intrusion of government into private lives and affairs of its citizens, and a myriad of other atrocities including Civil Asset Forfeiture Laws?

If you value your freedom and individual rights and ascribe to the principles of individual responsibility, then I find your choice of candidates based on these criteria virtually limited to Libertarians. Granted you may find a few who belong to other parties, but generally these do not accept the full scope of the idea of individual liberty. For example, the Democrats largely hold strong objections to freedom of economic choices hence Social Security, the IRS, and numerous laws and regulations penalizing you if you make financial decision at variance with the enlightened political elite.

The Republicans seem to have a proclivity for wanting to stamp out certain personal choices like drug use, gambling, prostitution, etc., and they do receive significant support from various other parties in this pursuit.

And what political party supports capitalism besides the Libertarians? Because what we have in the US today is not capitalism. Capitalism is an economic system in which market forces determine the outcome. It does not include subsidies for either individuals or corporations. It does not permit stealing assets from one person or group to bestow gratuitously on another individual or group. It does not achieve certain economic behavior by fiat and coercion.

Originally posted by XXplorher
UNCLEBILL-
The Republicans are more likely to adhere to Constitutional limitation on government than are any other party (except Libertarian) but they still maintain certain ideas that are contrary to the principles of freedom and individual responsibility addressed by the founders in the Declaration of Independence

Is there a reason to place this argument in this arena? Given that I clearly removed myself from 'their' complete ideals?

By the way - is there such a thing as a 'good' politician? The very fact someone wants to BE a politician - rules out their ability to make good decisions.

On the off chance that someone else reads the post who doesn't/hasn't made the same exclusion.

In answer to your last question: Alan Cranston, FDR, LBJ: shall I go on?

I would take small exception to the statement about one who wants to BE a politician. Can we make that BE a CAREER politician? In line with the ideas of the founders, they envisioned citizen legislators who would serve one or two terms and return to their productive lives. They did not envision career politicians who would serve themselves generously at the public trough and impose overbearing burdens on the populace.

If you look at Libertarians running for office, their consistent offering is to reduce the expanse and intrusiveness of government. Granted, the Republicans campaign on that, too, but look at the results of electing a Republican Congress. Government has continued to grow in size, cost and abusiveness.

Originally posted by XXplorher
UNCLEBILL-
legislators in Sacramento have decided that the voters "really didn't understand what they were voting for"! Have you ever heard of anything so arrogant and condescending? This is Clintonesque to the ultimate!

Couldn't agree with you more! That's happened before (California auto insurance comes to mind). How exactly does a nation built on 'the vote' have votes vetoed on the basis of them termed as uneducated or 'not intended'? Blows my mind. And guess what - they get away with it. Hell, Al Gore almost stole the country with such!
Very simply: count votes. Most votes wins. Now get your 'judge' the fuck OUT of the process.

The problem is that you are expecting honor from career politicians. If they had any honor or principles, they wouldn't be career politicians; they would have productive roles in society.

Originally posted by XXplorher
UNCLEBILL-
if the idea of freedom means anything, it is that the existence of one's life does not carry any innate obligation to others except to respect their right to their life and freedom.

That's ABSOLUTELY what was said by her. It's very reasonable?. and I don't completely agree with her.

I don't feel obligated. Rather - I obligate mySELF. Cuz that's what *I* want! Anyone who demands it from me won't get a stitch. Did Roark feel no obligation to Wynand? I know that Wynand did. And I know she was trying to show that Roark did not. But he did (tell me he didn't)???. This means, to me, that she couldn't fully subscribe to her own theory (and I applaud her for it). We're not robots, Unclebill. There's no such thing as flawless.

'Obligation' - is determined by the provider.

Ayn Rand is brilliant.
There's no doubt about that.
The reason I find her brilliant - is the very reason I disagree with some of what she 'expects'

I never expressed any objection to self-imposed obligations. I've done that many times. Any time you make a credit purchase, you are doing so. So how do you avoid paying various taxes since they ARE DEMANDED of you? And if you don't think they are serious about the demand, assert your property rights and see how long they are honored.

In a rational context, obligations are voluntary, i. e., taken voluntarily by the one required to satisfy the obligation. That is not the environment in which we live today in the US. By virtue of the fact that you earn an income which might be slightly more than adequate to provide for the needs of yourself and your family, your are coercively obligated by political fiat to "contribute" for the financial support of those who cannot or will not undertake responsibility for themselves.

Roark had no obligation to Wynand beyond the contractual one to build the house and the Wynand Building. On the personal level, Roark had an affinity of the kindred spirit sort, i. e., a friendship based on similar values. It was the affinity they shared based on each one's recognition in the other of a sharing of their basic perception of life, of humanity and valuing things from a similar perspective; having basic values in common.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by her not subscribing fully to her own theory. Since we differ in the perception above, perhaps that is why I fail to reach the same conclusion.

Originally posted by XXplorher
UNCLEBILL-
emotion is not a cognitive mechanism

What's a cognitive mechanism?
Maybe this leads me back to another point?
I respect emotion. I find it highly important and necessary.
I WANT my emotion. And I'm counting on YOURS.

If NON-emotion is the means to survival?.. why has man survived? Why did we make it to the moon? Why are you able to talk to me on this bulletin board? Why did those people feel the need to create those abilities? And why does Roark build houses? Hmm? As much as he'd like to deny it - he builds it so they'll see it. Cuz THAT matters to him - emotionally.

I would note - your argument was very emotionally powered. No?

A cognitive mechanism is the means by which you gather information, process it and integrate it into your cumulative base of knowledge; the means of learning. Emotion is a response mechanism. The sensation of joy or happiness in and of itself provides little information.

It informs you of your state of mind in a sense like a fever informs you of your state of physical health. Each can indicate a problem but neither cannot provide you with the solution to the problem.

To correct the problem requires your cognitive means to seek and acquire information, assess that information and to take the appropriate course of action. For example, in the physical realm, fever can be the result of many disease processes. Treatment is based on knowledge of the particular cause.

Similarly, an emotion, e. g., unhappiness can result from any number of things. It may be transitory or it may be persistent. In order to change it, one must determine the cause and then make changes which will bring about the desired result.

Granted, probably grossly oversimplified but I think you get the idea.

Was my argument emotionally powered? I don't perceive it so. Granted several of my political rants were rather emotionally charged but my arguments I thought adhered quite closely to the objective and considered. What the politicians are doing to me and my progeny does elicit an emotional response because that is very personal. However, in my presentation of ideas outside that particular sphere, I try to remain clearly dispassionate.

The reason is because I do not wish to appeal to the emotions of those who read my statements advocating certain political/philosophical ideas. I wish to appeal to their intellect. Anyone can offer an emotional appeal and get people aroused to follow. But those who follow the emotional appeal are not employing their mind as their means of guidance. And that is what I hope to do, to reach their faculty of reason, not so that they will follow me in an emotional fog, but so they will choose the same direction as I because their intellect guides them there.

Emotion was a tool effectively used by Adolf Hitler to accrue a great followership in Germany. And of course there are others throughout history with similar successes.

Originally posted by XXplorher
UNCLEBILL-
And her philosophy came before the books, not after. I think that will become apparent when you read the monologue beginning, "This is John Galt speaking" In Atlas Shrugged.

Huh? Her philosophy was formed before The Fountainhead. It wasn't put into 'practice' (meaning distributed materials, etc) until AFTER Atlas Shrugged was published. Am I wrong?

You may be correct. I don't know the timeline for publication of her various non-fiction works but I was under the impression that some of them were published before Atlas Shrugged. But please do not lend any serious credence to that impression. I'll leave construction of the publication timeline to someone who really wants to pursue that endeavor.

Originally posted by XXplorher
UNCLEBILL-
fictional works are a concretization of the abstraction of her philosophical ideas, the illustration of how those ideas would interplay in a society, the types of people who would advocate each philosophical mindset, and their responses to the types of problems and challenges that arise, how they would attempt to deal with them and the most logical results of those varying approaches and attitudes.

Excellent description of her novels. Perfect. Really!

Thanks. I try.

Originally posted by XXplorher
UNCLEBILL-
If you read her work, you'll never find where she asked anyone to believe her works, only that they evaluate them intellectually for validity.

Yeah.
Now, what happened with that when she began to 'teach' it? I'm certain she still spread it around with the intent to enable. But - she never glorified anyone in her novels who had to 'hear it from someone else'. Know what I mean? Wasn't she aware that if she has to 'tell' someone to use their own mind - that it's a lost cause? And wasn't she 'telling', rather than 'offering'?
I wouldn't know, really. I wasn't there.

Oh - and I responded to her novels very emotionally. I still think I understood it.

Considering the time frame of her philosophy's development, I expect that people still came out of high school and college with enough critical thinking skills to actually evaluate her work. It seemed to me that she offered her philosophical ideas and asked people to consider them and evaluate them on an intellectual basis.

Had she begun her public education efforts today, I fear she would find it a much greater challenge to find people with the true critical thinking skills her philosophy demands.

Originally posted by XXplorher
UNCLEBILL-
The solution is the banishment of the irrational,

That's correct. That's the solution. Expecting that?

Sadly, no.

 

[CelestialBody]

Unclebill,