Talk to the Rand

Richard Goode's picture
Submitted by Richard Goode on Sat, 2007-12-15 02:26

The man who refuses to judge, who neither agrees nor disagrees, who declares that there are no absolutes and believes that he escapes responsibility, is the man responsible for all the blood that is now spilled in the world.

One must never fail to pronounce moral judgment.

But to pronounce moral judgment is an enormous responsibility. To be a judge, one must possess an unimpeachable character; one need not be omniscient or infallible, and it is not an issue of errors of knowledge; one needs an unbreached integrity, that is, the absence of any indulgence in conscious, willful evil. Just as a judge in a court of law may err, when the evidence is inconclusive, but may not evade the evidence available, nor accept bribes, nor allow any personal feeling, emotion, desire or fear to obstruct his mind's judgment of the facts of reality—so every rational person must maintain an equally strict and solemn integrity in the courtroom within his own mind, where the responsibility is more awesome than in a public tribunal, because he, the judge, is the only one to know when he has been impeached.

[The virtue of Rationality] means one's acceptance of the responsibility of forming one's own judgments and of living by the work of one's own mind (which is the virtue of Independence). It means that one must never sacrifice one's convictions to the opinions or wishes of others (which is the virtue of Integrity)—that one must never attempt to fake reality in any manner (which is the virtue of Honesty)...

A rational process is a moral process. You may make an error at any step of it, with nothing to protect you but your own severity, or you may try to cheat, to fake the evidence and evade the effort of the quest—but if devotion to truth is the hallmark of morality, then there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.

The Ayn Rand Lexicon


( categories: )

HWH

Leonid's picture

Thank you. I also want to add that "A moral code is a system of teleological measurement which grades the choices and actions open to man, according to the degree to which they achieve or frustrate the code’s standard of value. The standard is the end, to which man’s actions are the means." ( Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, 42) We don't know what was Monsoor's standard of value.

Leonid

sharon's picture

Yeah, good going. It is the only argument you are winning. Smiling

Good going Leonid

HWH's picture

Keep it up

Hilton

Reed

Leonid's picture

"If your life is the standard of good then jumping on a grenade cannot be good."
That depends what you mean by life. We are talking here about life of specific organism-human being. His life depends on free unbridled use of his mind. He cannot exist as brainless creature, for example as slave in concentration camp. In such a case jumping on grenade would be good and proper for him. However your example belongs to so called " life-boat ethics", emergency.
Emergency situations cannot be basis for ethics, since by their very nature they are temporary, unnatural.
"An emergency is an unchosen, unexpected event, limited in time, that creates conditions under which human survival is impossible...In an emergency situation, men’s primary goal is to combat the disaster, escape the danger and restore normal conditions...It is only in emergency situations that one should volunteer to help strangers, if it is in one’s power. For instance, a man who values human life and is caught in a shipwreck, should help to save his fellow passengers (though not at the expense of his own life). " (“The Ethics of Emergencies,” The Virtue of Selfishness, 47). In your example Michael A. Monsoor sacrificed his life in order to safe lives of his teammates which means he valued their lives more than his own. Was that morally justified? Only late Monsoor knows.

To live or to perish

reed's picture

1. If your life is the standard of good then jumping on a grenade cannot be good.
2. Sometimes jumping on a grenade is good.
therefore
3. Your life is not the standard of good.

Reed

Leonid's picture

"Perhaps objective morality is not founded in reason but is instead a self-evident fact observable by introspection."

No. Objective morality is founded in objective fact that man is living organism and as such he's always facing the alternative: to live or to perish. If he wants to live he has to use his mind, his only tool of survival. If he doesn't want to live, he doesn't need any morality.

Leonid - Free Will is

reed's picture

Leonid -
Free Will is self-evident fact easily observable by introspection. It doesn't have anything to do with beliefs.
Richard might consider that objective morality is not founded in reason but is instead a self-evident fact observable by introspection.

Free Will

Leonid's picture

Free Will is self-evident fact easily observable by introspection. It doesn't have anything to do with beliefs.

Of all the questions you've been asked, Goode

Jameson's picture

that's the one you cherry pick?

I'll say it again, Dick: you're a coward.

Mindy -

reed's picture

Not every two statements written one above the other makes a syllogism!
I don't even know how to make a syllogism with two statements.

Richard made 2 assertions in this form...
1) X.
2) Belief in X is not founded in reason.

For Richard's assertions X was the existence of objective moral facts.
For my example X is the existence of "free will".

(Even contradictions require formal structure to be proved to have been posited.)
A contradiction in the same form would be...
1) A.
2) Not A.

Ellen - So far, I've only

reed's picture

Ellen -
So far, I've only seen the "stolen concept fallacy" idea applied invalidly.

Do you think belief in free will is founded in reason" ?


As for putting the cart before the horse - it shouldn't be a problem. It reminds me of some software I've worked on.

Go free will

Kasper's picture

We have things in our nature that play a role in determining the course of decision making in our lives. Having the "hots" or being attracted to someone is not just a matter of values and beliefs. Pheromones, environmental and physiological factors play a role for sure. That does not negate the fact that you make choices and possess the ability to make choices.

If you were a PHD then you should by now know how to be critical with information. How certain data play and where they lie.

False dichotomies

Richard Goode's picture

You are either irrational and therefore mystical superstitious idiots that have no argument at all or you are rational and vouch for reason, individualism and an ethic of self-interest.

Let me ask you: Do you think human beings have free-will, or are you a determinist?

Keep 'em coming.

Of course he's a determinist

gregster's picture

his god has everything in hand, altogether with a false sense of free will..

Here we go.

Kasper's picture

"The belief in free will is not founded in reason"

"The belief in objective ethics is not founded in reason"

The problem is that the underlying belief of both of the above statements aren't founded in reason. This is because reason is the only tool of validifying anything. The belief in ethics or free will, if not validified in reason, can't be validifed in anything at all....... It follows then there is no free will and therefore there are no objective ethics. Which means ethics are as valid as the next guys. Which means hitler was just as noble as any producer, life affirming and noble hero

Surely you plebs must realise that there is no place for you to sit on the fucking fence. Either you are against validity in general and therefor reason or you are pro it, and there for pro reason.

Reason is your only currency available - as demonstrated in any philosophical position that attempts to defend anything whatsoever - whether you are for it or against it, you have to use it to present your case.

Give up your fucking non-sense, grab your balls and make your god damn fucking decision you fucking cowards!!!!!! You only have two choices available.

You are either irrational and therefore mystical superstitious idiots that have no argument at all or you are rational and vouch for reason, individualism and an ethic of self-interest.

Reed.

sharon's picture

To focus on this for now:

I said: There is no "free-will" without "reason".

You said: The argument that you don't make but I think you are alluding to is the same form as 3.

3, being:

>> 3) X is Y (where X includes concept Z and Y includes concept Z). This is NOT a self contradictory statement. This form appears to be what you (and others) confuse with the stolen concept fallacy - not just in this thread.

Let me ask you: Do you think human beings have free-will, or are you a determinist?

Stolen Concept Fallacy

reed's picture

Sharon-
1) X is not X. This is a self contradictory statement.
2) X is Y (where X is dependent on the truth of concept Z and Y is dependent on the falsehood of concept Z). This is also self contradictory. AFAIK this is what objectivists call the "stolen concept fallacy".
3) X is Y (where X includes concept Z and Y includes concept Z). This is NOT a self contradictory statement. This form appears to be what you (and others) confuse with the stolen concept fallacy - not just in this thread.

There is no "free-will" without "reason".
The argument that you don't make but I think you are alluding to is the same form as 3.

The statement "Belief in free will is not founded in reason" is not dependent on the truth of the concept "free will" and the falsehood of the concept "reason". The statement is not dependent on any two contradictory concepts.

You cannot not assert--or know--about "objective moral facts" without the use of reason.
It sounds like you are suggesting that all assertions are knowledge claims and therefore necessarily founded in reason and/or that "not founded in" is equivalent to "absent of".

Sharon

Ellen Stuttle's picture

The sentence to which I was referring is this one:

"Wrong. You cannot not assert--or know--about "objective moral facts" without the use of reason."

I didn't want to quote it, so as to let you edit it -- then I'd have deleted the PS. Now the glitch is on permanent record, though you can still delete the misplaced "not" in the original post, unless someone else prevents the correction by hitting "reply." Eye

Ellen

Ellen

sharon's picture

We do have free-will and we don’t have any choice about it. ;]

Curb your enthusiasm.

Ptgymatic's picture

Not every two statements written one above the other makes a syllogism!

(Even contradictions require formal structure to be proved to have been posited.)

Oh, really, Reed?

Ellen Stuttle's picture

Reed:

"Richard's statements are the same form as...

There is free will.
Belief in free will is not founded in reason.

There's no contradiction."

As Sharon indicated, there's a thorough "stolen concept." Although the term "free will" is legitimately problematic, without the possibility of genuine assessment of alternatives, there isn't "reason." It's not that reason is required to tell us there is genuine assessment. It's that the latter is necessary for there to be the former. Colloquially, you have the cart and horse backward.

Ellen

PS: Sharon, you have a misplaced negative, an extra not ("cannot not").

Reed has an arugment?

sharon's picture

No, he does not.

"There are objective moral facts.
Belief in objective moral facts is not founded in reason."

Wrong. You cannot not assert--or know--about "objective moral facts" without the use of reason.

"There is free will.
Belief in free will is not founded in reason."

Wrong. There is no "free-will" without "reason".

Richard's statements

reed's picture

Richard's statements are the same form as...

There is free will.
Belief in free will is not founded in reason.

There's no contradiction.

Richard's statements rephrased...

There are objective moral facts.
Belief in objective moral facts is not founded in reason.

Again, no contradiction.

***Am I to understand that

AShortt's picture

***Am I to understand that you guys are seriously arguing about faith? But this is preposterous! Faith and mind are incompatible and no amount of argument can change the true believer. From other hand “what is accepted without evidence should be dismissed without evidence"-so there is no place for any rational discourse. Suffice to consider the concept of transubstantiation, the Roman Catholic doctrine that, during the Mass, the bread and wine of the Eucharist changes in substance to the body and blood of Jesus Christ in order to understand that religion is a form of delusion and requires clinical, not philosophical approach. For the comprehensive discussion of this matter I recommend "The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason” by Sam Harris. In spite his inclinations to altruism, Eastern mysticism and reductionism in philosophy of mind, he brilliantly treats the topic of religion.*** - Leonid

This is basically what I said but my post is refused? What am I missing here?

Very good, Ellen

Jameson's picture

Of course, she can't tell us what that other something is that ethics might be guided by any more than Dick can.

AR anticipating Richard Goode

Ellen Stuttle's picture

I don't know if this description is true of "most" philosophers, but I've been thinking of it the last couple days as perfectly synopsizing Richard:

"Most philosophers have now decided to declare that reason has failed, that ethics is outside the power of reason, that no rational ethics can ever be defined, that in the field of ethics - in the choice of his values, of his actions, of his pursuits, of his life’s goals - man must be guided by something other than reason.” (P. 15).

-- "The Objectivist Ethics," VOS, Signet paperback Centennial Edition, ISBN 0-451-16393-1, pg. 15.

Ellen

Somebody show Leonid

Ptgymatic's picture

...which way is up.

Mindy

Mindy, Lindsay, Sharon

Leonid's picture

Am I to understand that you guys are seriously arguing about faith? But this is preposterous! Faith and mind are incompatible and no amount of argument can change the true believer. From other hand “what is accepted without evidence should be dismissed without evidence"-so there is no place for any rational discourse. Suffice to consider the concept of transubstantiation, the Roman Catholic doctrine that, during the Mass, the bread and wine of the Eucharist changes in substance to the body and blood of Jesus Christ in order to understand that religion is a form of delusion and requires clinical, not philosophical approach. For the comprehensive discussion of this matter I recommend "The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason” by Sam Harris. In spite his inclinations to altruism, Eastern mysticism and reductionism in philosophy of mind, he brilliantly treats the topic of religion.

Richard

Leonid's picture

"(M) There are objective moral facts.

(E) There is no good reason to believe in objective moral facts.

The two statements above (which I've labeled 'M' and 'E' for ease of reference) do not contradict each other."

This is not your original statement.

Your original statement is:

"A) There is no good reason to believe that God exists.
(B) If there is no good reason to believe that God exists, then there is no good reason to believe in objective moral values.
Therefore, (C) there is no good reason to believe in objective moral values."

1. (M) does contradict (E) since you confirm existence of objective moral facts and the same time deny them.
Consider similar statement:
P1 " there is (X);
P2 there is no reason to believe that (X).
P1 IS the reason for justified belief that (X). So (M) not only contradicts (E), but the whole proposition is blatant violation of Identity Law. (X) is and isn't the same time and in the same respect.

2. Your original statement is contradiction as well.

P1 there is no (G)
P2 If no (G), then no (M) which means that (G) is precondition of (M), its objective source.
But if P1 is true then P2 is false. Non-entity cannot be precondition of anything. Therefore P1 and P2 contradict each other. Check your premises.

3." Whatever your problem is, it's no excuse for your abhorrent torrent of abuse."
My posts don't include any abuses. Your posts, however, are abuse of logic and common sense.

Why the pretense of a debate?

Ptgymatic's picture

We know what can and can't be argued for the existence of God. All the classic best efforts, and their refutations. Science cannot in any way support the supernatural. Rosie is a "believer," she chooses faith in order to be redeemed, by her own statement.

Some high-powered intellectual who would be worth showing up just might warrant the effort. But what is this? Aren't you engaging in rational debate someone who has already said she eschews reason? Sure, she'll also seem to use and accept reason, when it suits her, but who has no actual appreciation of or commitment to reason, by her own admission...how can this be a proper engagement for your attention and effort? Her purposes are to seem reasonable, and to engage you, involve you, "join" you, and win your sanction in the process.

How decidedly and publicly does an individual have to repudiate facts, thought, and reason before you turn your back on them? Judge.

Mindy

Sharon ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Don't count on it. I have more balls than Richard Goode.

All is forgiven for that KASS observation. Even though Goode, like Goebbels, has noebbels at all. Enjoy your debate. I'm sure the rest of us will.

He heh

gregster's picture

I like the idea of an all female bout. For some (un)reason. Smiling Good luck to each, and Rosie must realise the handicap of unreason, I'd say the equivalent of 10kg on a decent nag. In the meantime, I'm accelerating my oft promised treatise on all that jesus shit.

Indeed, Sharon

Jameson's picture

Like the fairer of the R&R mystics, you have never shied from a stand-up fight. Smiling

Jameson

sharon's picture

"...could you gals set the ring up on another thread?"

Yes, that is the plan. It was stated.

"I'd like to keep the lines open incase Dick finds his balls and returns to finish this one."

Don't count on it. I have more balls than Richard Goode.

I'm looking forward to the featherweight bout

Jameson's picture

as much as the next man, but could you gals set the ring up on another thread?

I'd like to keep the lines open incase Dick finds his balls and returns to finish this one.

Thanks.

The great debate.

sharon's picture

Rosie and Jeff:

This is not rocket science. It’s just a matter of science…and philosophy.

The subject matter is simple: we will discuss (debate) the existence or non-existence of God.
Therefore, Rosie, you will, as best as you can—sources and quotes welcomed—present your case for the existence of such a being. You decide how best to present your case.

I, as the atheist, will take the negative stand.

"I was suggesting you try to present why we should accept the Bible as a source of moral guidance or authority in ethical issues."

If we are to behold the bible as a valid ethical source, we must deal with the subject of the existence of God. My God (pun intended) the entire edifice of the bible rests on the existence of this Supreme Being, does it not? (If not, then that changes the conversation all together).

This is not for the purpose of establishing what original thoughts we all have—or don’t have-- on the subject. We all will present our case, as we see fit, and we will put our best foot forward in the search for truth.

Today’s Phnom Penh Post

PhilipD's picture

Today’s Phnom Penh Post

Duch craved acceptance

THE man who ran Tuol Sleng is a largely unfeeling perfectionist who has often displayed "an absence of guilt" for the deaths of some 16,000 prisoners at the torture facility, two expert witnesses told the Khmer Rouge tribunal Monday.

Nevertheless, Kaing Guek Eav, alias Duch, has recently adopted a "more personal view" of the Khmer Rouge years, speaking of them as less of an observer and more as a participant who regrets his actions, said Francoise Sironi-Guilbaud, a psychologist and lecturer who has written about torturers and their motives.

… Duch did not suffer from a mental disorder.

… Duch's desire for praise and a sense of belonging fed his singular focus on performing well and pleasing his superiors.

His dispassionate nature predates his membership in the Communist Party of Kampuchea (CPK), she said, noting that he had been attracted to stoicism as a student, a doctrine that she said "claims indifference in the face of anything that can have an effect on emotions".

Referring to the conversion, Sironi-Guilbaud said God and Jesus represented "new masters whom he will serve with the same amount of zeal as his previous masters".

Inmates in S-21 were

PhilipD's picture

Inmates in S-21 were bleed-to-death by ‘cutting open their arms, their backs and their penises.’

‘They used a pump,’ one guard remembered. ‘That went on until there was no blood left in them and they could scarcely breathe. You could just hear a wheezing sound, and see the whites of their eyes rolling as if they’d had a fit. When they were through, the corpses were thrown into a pit.’

Man in charge, Rosie? As you know that was your pin-up boy, Duch, who, according to you is heading to heaven, by virtue of God’s ‘grace,’ that love that ‘stoops down.’ You vicious, sick bitch. And what a rotten definition of love.

Tell me, why didn’t God stop the slaughter? Was he enjoying it? If so then God is a sick bastard. Or couldn’t he stop it? If so then God is powerless. Which is it?

Well ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Hats off to Rosie for having the diligence of her convictions, at least. Perhaps she could persuade Goode to attempt a coherent defence of his claim that Objectivism is "bat-shit crazy." Something that is more than a syllogism containing false premises.

Go Right Ahead

Jeff Perren's picture

"So the premise: That the Bible is the authority on all ethical issues. Support this statement.
Is this OK?" [Rosie] That should be interesting (in the same sense that a study of psychopathology is).

As to finding "modern scientific evidence etc that did not refute, and positively supported, the truth of the Bible" that will be more than interesting. It will be a bloody miracle if you can pull it off. Evil

Jeff and Sharon

Rosie's picture

My understanding is that we were not going to bother with philosophical arguments from pre 19th century. That has all been done as you say. My understanding was that we were going to look at modern scientific evidence etc that did not refute, and positively supported, the truth of the Bible.

This amounts to the same thing as you ask since the truth of the Bible has to be accepted before the ethics of Christianity can be a source of authority.

We better get the subject matter agreed before I begin the blog - although I have already begun my reading...

So the premise: That the Bible is the authority on all ethical issues. Support this statement.
Is this OK?

Perhaps this is all over my

AShortt's picture

Perhaps this is all over my head but I think the point here is: For there to be an objective morality there needs to be a God?

So objective morality as in existing like a tree or written in the stars?

That’s silly.

Without humans there is no such thing in the sense of personal or group (morality). Morality is entirely dependent on the existence of humans. The entire issue of morality is based on defining what a human is. The only real question is individual verses group moral judgements.

Trying to shoehorn God into the desire for objective morality is manipulative.

First sign of manipulation (you all could have and should have stopped him here) - There ARE good reasons for believing in God. Great minds and billions of folks down through time have believed (and written reams about) so one may want to examine the belief to some extent. Our history is heavily steeped in said belief it has had a massive impact on the development of western civilization.

Goode is trying to catch Objectivists with their desire for refutation of the existence of God. I have mentioned before this is a real problem. ‘Belief’ is the primary mistake and problem, no one can defend ‘knowing’ there is a God instead they believe. This belief isn’t objective unless you accept feelings as objective proof. Belief (in this case in God) isn’t even reasonable or rational where it is left closed off to further examination or held as good enough to make truly serious decisions based upon.

You cannot prove or refute anything involved with the fantasy of God it is a trap. It is one of the biggest gaffs of all time because it is absolutely impossible to refute and appeals on all levels to ones emotions. The idea of God is a delusion nothing more, all you can do is demand proof as delusions are fundamentally and completely unsupportable. You will get only faith/belief and that is not objective proof.

Those who believe don’t require objective proof and thus the debate is not about God but Objectivism. Those who consider themselves Objectivists should know that the definition of God is NOT self refuting as it purports to be beyond such rules of physical law. Extrapolate out from any definition of God and you can easily create horrific twisted notions of reality and anti reality which should awaken heart stopping fear from superstitious believers. The whole notion of pure good is illogical and nonsensical in and of itself. Just a cursory examination of any definition of God shows it to be a huge nothing, a massive messy ball of emotionalism and childish wishful thinking. You cannot prove that something which doesn't exist...doesn't exist you can only show that there is no objective evidence. A severe or total lack of proof is not proof of the non existence of something.

When you hear of or see the word God come into things just move on or ask for a definition then extrapolate. Accepting supernatural beliefs is wrought with self destruction and self torture, the hope is you could show them why they might want to be rational and logical rather than self tormented. The other approach is to steadfastly demand proof of the definition then discuss proof. Attempt to refute let alone belittle the notion of God and you make yourself an even bigger fool than the true believers.

This entire thread makes Objectivists appear to be hateful, closed minded, emotionally obsessive egg heads who over use their thesaurus.

Close, But Not Quite

Jeff Perren's picture

Sharon suggested a thread in which you present arguments attempting to show that your god exists (if I understood your conversation correctly). Hume dispensed with all of those centuries ago (including the current favorite of the Intelligent Designer) and nothing you present (or she offers) is likely to be anything new.

I was suggesting something different. I was suggesting you try to present why we should accept the Bible as a source of moral guidance or authority in ethical issues. I grant you it will ultimately be unsatisfactory, because it's starting midstream. But it's likely to be more educational about why Christians believe as they do.

Jeff

Rosie's picture

The reason I have been saying "The Bible says X" is because I have only ever been defending a Christian perspective on things. Sharon has asked for what you suggest - a reason based argument as to why we should accept the Bible as an authority - and I am getting around to doing this. Clearly it will have to be pretty well written and requires some thought as to the structure. As you have said, I have alluded to it but have not, as yet, really sat down and put something well constructed together. I will do so. It does occur to me though that others have written such books and they may be much better than anything I can write so I shall act on your consent to cut and paste where appropriate.

Thank you for the handy hint about not losing posts. After my experience I had resolved to write it on a document and then just paste it on to SOLO but thank you for your thoughtfulness anyway. Smiling

Linz

Rosie's picture

M) There are objective moral facts.
(E) There is no good reason to believe in objective moral facts.
The two statements above (which I've labeled 'M' and 'E' for ease of reference) do not contradict each other.

If you look up "Objectivity" in Wikipedia and also have knowledge of "scientific virtues" which is the measure of "good reason", then they are not contradictory. You have to really know your stuff when arguing philosophy.

However, people argue the law without understanding the tools of the law.

And people argue Christianity without understanding of the tenets of Christianity!

Biblical Authority vs Evidence-Based Reasoning

Jeff Perren's picture

As near as I can tell, every answer Ms. Purchas offers on any moral question comes down to "The [Christian] Bible says X, therefore X is the proper answer."

So far as I've seen, and I've read every post I'm pretty sure, nowhere has there ever been given any reason whatsoever that we should accept the [Christian] Bible as an authority on any ethical question. (I acknowledge I have seen a few vague and unsubstantiated assertions - when they haven't been gross misunderstandings - about archeology, physics, and the like regarding historical or physical events.)

At the risk of committing the fallacy of poisoning the well, I'm willing to bet no such reason, or any number of them, could be compelling to any reader who based his or her reasoning on evidence and logic. But it would be at least amusing, if not enlightening, to see some of them stated.

By all means, in the interests of time, feel free to copy and paste a few from C.S. Lewis, or whomever you wish. It's always a pleasure to read good writers, even when they're wrong.

P.S. Here's how to avoid losing posts (since any number of things can cause them to disappear before being posted): (1) Hit CTRL-A often and copy into a text editor, or (2) compose in an editor first, then paste into the posting window just before the final SAVE.

Mr Duck and Jameson, Linz

Rosie's picture

Firstly, Mr Duck, I am very sorry to read of the horrible murder of your step sister. That must have been dreadful for your family and, in particular, your step mother. Sad I have never said that my view is that a murderer may walk free however.

To this end I had written a really thorough "treatise" about the sin of premeditated murder (which is punishable by death as recorded in the Bible) and God's place in earthly justice (man-made law) vs spiritual justice which seems to be the essence of the confusion on this thread. Unfortunately I pushed Control W instead of Shift W as I was amending it and lost the whole thing. It had taken me so long that I walked away from the computer, crestfallen, not to return to it until today.

In short, though, (and Jameson will be pleased that the error means that at this stage I can only give the snappy short version!) God decrees that man is accountable when he takes another human's life. He goes further to say that an animal is accountable when it takes a human life. (Genesis 9:5,6) This is because man is created in God's image. God gives the state laws and sets these down in Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers (mainly). The state are expected to deal with man's offences accordingly. I.e., it is not for the individual to take in to his own hands. St Thomas of Aquinas called this set of laws from the Bible "natural law". He and others said all man-made laws must be measured against this code. This has pretty much been the case in Christian legal systems. There are a few (recent) exceptions which are open to argument e.g. homosexuality and prostitution.

The NT adds to the laws of the OT but focuses on the nature of man in relation to these laws. Murder is still dealt with in the same way (death) but JC takes it further to look at man's spirit in relation to murder and condemns unrighteous anger also since this is antecedent to murder and condemns this kind of anger equally. So the post in which Linz swaps the adulterous woman for Adolf Hitler would not be analogous in terms of earthly justice. The only time it could be relevant (and only Jesus/God would have the say) is in terms of spiritual law and salvation if Hitler had confessed his sin and asked for forgiveness from God. This would occur only at his earthly death. Which brings me to Kaing Guek Eav.

I thought this article about Kaing Guek Eav may be interesting to read. It concerns spiritual justice and God's grace (not earthly justice) and I think is a fair account. The man himself has been put to trial by the state, of course. (see Wikipedia under his name for what happened to him during this process.)

The Zimbabwean woman's case is distinguishable in that she, as an individual, was asked by the state for her want for retribution. She responded with what is unlikely to be found in most humans: God's grace.

Rosie's Apologetics for Unalloyed Filth ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Rosie, it's fitting that the only time there's a semi-sincere attempt to explain and justify Goode's points, it comes from you, not him, given his total lack of sincerity and addiction to cryptic word-games. You do as good a job as can be expected, but given the dirty material you have to work with, it's nothing like good enough.

Let's start at the top:

1.These statements are not contradictory, Linz, Glenn, Hilton, Mindy and whoever else who cannot reason with the subject matter already provided to you....listen:
There's no good reason to believe morality is objective.
This means that faith is required.
[With faith] one can believe in objective morality.
Get it?

Yes, darling, of course we get it, and always did. Faith can transcend contradiction and negate syllogisms, according to faith-mongers, witch-doctors and PhD pomowankers. That doesn't alter the fact that it's contradiction, so why pretend that it does? Why not just come out and say, yes it's a contradiction but my faith enables me to overlook it?! You know, like Tertullian: "It's absurd, therefore I believe it." That would be the honest way. But Richard Riddler-Wriggler, PHD, put it this way:

(M) There are objective moral facts.
(E) There is no good reason to believe in objective moral facts.
The two statements above (which I've labeled 'M' and 'E' for ease of reference) do not contradict each other.

Note, he didn't say, they do contradict each other but one can overcome the contradiction via faith; he says they don't contradict each other. As I already explained, a healthy soul as opposed to a sick slimy pomo-fuck wouldn't dream of saying one can make statements purporting to be objectively true without good reason.

2. Linz, from out of the blue, posts from Leviticus about homosexuality. (I mean the reference was in my post responding to the homophobia of the Bible but it had not been mentioned outside that and not developed at all so apparently out of the blue.) Richard responds to this with Ayn Rand's comment - she also takes a dim view of homosexuality.
And someone says, "Oho! a decoy from Richard!" "Oho! He doesn't agree with it though." (A presumption and direct implication being that he lies.)
Yet again the great reasoners have missed the point! The point was to illustrate that if X can overlook views of Ayn Rand about Y and follow Ayn Rand, then X should be able to overlook views of the Bible about Y and follow the Bible - both views of which do not support X.

Out of the blue? Riddler-Wriggler had taken to posting bits of Matthew and John, without comment or explanation, about the virtue of non-judgement. I assumed Wriggler-Riddler was implying we should view these passages favourably, which is why I responded with Leviticus. Very unsubtle of you not to get that, Rosie. So then he posts Rand on homosex, omitting the fact that I have very publicly disagreed with her (and won the battle) and that Rand, unlike Leviticus, believed in freedom for homosexuals, not death. (There was also the little matter of RR-W following up the "judge not" texts, when challenged, to say they didn't apply to Hitler, without explaining why. More bad faith.) Now if Richard Riddler-Wriggler wants to communicate that he's a Christian who doesn't necessarily agree with everything in the Bible, why doesn't he just say so?

Rosie, I've said pretty much from the get-go that Richard Riddler-Wriggler is a wannabe clever-dick smart-ass who snickers behind his sleeve and wanks over his imagined "subtlety." But his efforts here do not bespeak subtlety—merely smarm and silliness. The way is open for him at any time to have a serious philosophical discussion, as indeed you have attempted to do on behalf of Christianity, and show what he's made of. To do that he should pay heed to that part of the SOLO Credo that says, "Say what you mean and mean what you say." Goode the faith-monger needs to become a good-faith-monger!

Incidentally, re "misguided insults": I'm very proud of the folk here whose blood has boiled and have expressed their contempt openly. It's only in the sick world of convention and Brandroidism that the only thing for which contempt may be expressed is the expression of contempt for the contemptible.

"And he likes Slayer" (again as if this proves a state of being evil -

Indeed it does. Not just likes, needs a "good pounding" from them regularly.

were you aware that Hitler despised the modern music of the time but loved the romantic music which he called pure?!).

He liked Wagner, dear, which is not the same thing.

Russian and Jewish composers and performers were excoriated, though apparently it's true that Hitler secretly knew their true worth and clandestinely enjoyed them.

What if you knew that a genre of music was connected to a major positive turning point in someone's life but it was the type of music you do not like or understand. Would you say that person was evil for liking that music? Or would you understand the reason and love them all the more for their loyalty and relationship with it? Linz, you have already said that to judge one singer over another is ostensive - and that is no objective measure. It is ostensive too to say, "This music here is associated with a particularly memorable turn-around time of my life - that music there is not. Hence I have pleasant associations from it and therefore like it."

Knock yourself out! But grow up as well. I still love the music that introduced me to music but I love a hell of a lot more too.

Your greatest attribute, Glenn,

Rosie's picture

Your greatest attribute, Glenn, is a really good sense of humour! Smiling

You do make me chuckle.

However, the artiste needs a rep with an audio tour.

For you guys, it would seem so!
But note it is not the artiste but the viewer who needs it!

Dang!

Jameson's picture

Wish I didn't have to go to a meeting!!

This reminds me of an explanation by an owner of a pomo-art gallery.

"His threads and their titles almost always contain references that you miss... Like the "IOF may not" post - highlighting the poor grammatical sentence structure of Ayn Rand, Like the "Piled higher and Deeper" post - a self-effacing and acronym-type reference to his Ph.D. All lost on you. "Don't look to me for Answers" - a line from a song..."

Hear that, chaps? We're just not sophisticated enough to get the subtleties of the Evil Dr. Riddler!!

"Why would you call on Richard to defend me when I am defending myself perfectly well on all matters of substance?" ~ Rosie

However, the artiste needs a rep with an audio tour.

I just have to say

Rosie's picture

today you say there's no reason to believe morality can be objective. Yesterday morality was objective. Which is it, and why? (Misquote by the way - he never said morality can be objective.)

1.These statements are not contradictory, Linz, Glenn, Hilton, Mindy and whoever else who cannot reason with the subject matter already provided to you....listen:
There's no good reason to believe morality is objective.
This means that faith is required.
[With faith] one can believe in objective morality.

Get it?

I have noticed that Richard presumes you can think/reason and so doesn't make it easy for you. And why shouldn't he presume this when you hold it as your absolute? He leaves out things believing them to be obvious. His threads and their titles almost always contain references that you miss. Even simple things. Like when he posted the song that had the powdered toast man's lyrics on it. You missed that but responded, "ooh yuck song. Typical POMO stuff ". Rather than "oh, so that's where it comes from." Like the "IOF may not" post - highlighting the poor grammatical sentence structure of Ayn Rand, Like the "Piled higher and Deeper" post - a self-effacing and acronym-type reference to his Ph.D. All lost on you. "Don't look to me for Answers" - a line from a song, the list is endless but the times it is most irksome is when he writes something particularly subtle of substance (i.e., beyond the play with words and letters) and you not only miss the point, but get it wrong! and then come back with completely misguided insults.

And you think you are exposing him and thereby elevating your own position by letting him stay on SOLO! Au contraire, although he would not dream of thinking he was elevating himself. That would not be his intention.

You say he has abject bad faith. I say, No. It is you who have abject ill will.

2. Linz, from out of the blue, posts from Leviticus about homosexuality. (I mean the reference was in my post responding to the homophobia of the Bible but it had not been mentioned outside that and not developed at all so apparently out of the blue.) Richard responds to this with Ayn Rand's comment - she also takes a dim view of homosexuality.

And someone says, "Oho! a decoy from Richard!" "Oho! He doesn't agree with it though." (A presumption and direct implication being that he lies.)
Yet again the great reasoners have missed the point! The point was to illustrate that if X can overlook views of Ayn Rand about Y and follow Ayn Rand, then X should be able to overlook views of the Bible about Y and follow the Bible - both views of which do not support X.

"And he likes Slayer" (again as if this proves a state of being evil - were you aware that Hitler despised the modern music of the time but loved the romantic music which he called pure?!). What if you knew that a genre of music was connected to a major positive turning point in someone's life but it was the type of music you do not like or understand. Would you say that person was evil for liking that music? Or would you understand the reason and love them all the more for their loyalty and relationship with it? Linz, you have already said that to judge one singer over another is ostensive - and that is no objective measure. It is ostensive too to say, "This music here is associated with a particularly memorable turn-around time of my life - that music there is not. Hence I have pleasant associations from it and therefore like it."

When I said people define themselves by what they say, I meant it. People say far more about themselves when they talk of others than they do of the person they mean to be talking about.

I wouldn't say so, Sharon.

Ellen Stuttle's picture

Do you presume that because you're reading any particular thread, everyone else is, too? This is the first of the threads on which Richard Goode has posted more than an occasional remark which I've read.

Ellen

Praise the Lord, a revelation.

sharon's picture

"I have to agree with the prevailing opinion on the thread that (1) Richard Goode is playing sophistic word games; and (2) those types of games are rife in academic philosophy."

No shit. ;]

I saw this, weeks ago and said so. This is a news flash now, finally?

Goodian ethics

Ellen Stuttle's picture

Richard Goode:

(M) There are objective moral facts.
(E) There is no good reason to believe in objective moral facts.
The two statements above (which I've labeled 'M' and 'E' for ease of reference) do not contradict each other.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you [Glenn] think they do contradict each other. That seems to be your problem.

LP:

Of course they contradict each other. If E is true how can you possibly avow M?

If I've correctly followed Richard's arguments, I think by virtue of an implicit addition to (M):

There are objective moral facts if and only if God exists (and then he says there's no good reason to believe in God's existence).

I have to agree with the prevailing opinion on the thread that (1) Richard Goode is playing sophistic word games; and (2) those types of games are rife in academic philosophy.

Richard Goode to Glenn Jameson:

Whatever your problem is, it's no excuse for your abhorrent torrent of abuse.

Only too obvious question: By what standard do you assert the evaluations, Richard?

 

A claim which I haven't noticed anyone else calling you on was made in your post #76732:

According to Rand's agent-relative theory of value, the concept 'good' presupposes an answer to the question: good for whom? Thus, Objectivist ethics leads to contradictions such as

1. Freedom is good.*
2. Freedom isn't good.**

* Here the presupposed answer is someone for whom freedom is good.
** Here the presupposed answer is someone for whom freedom isn't good.

RIP Objectivist ethics.

You aren't correctly rendering Rand. She didn't equate the concept "good" with the concept "value." The passage to which you refer pertains to "value."

Ellen

Fascinating ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... to follow the Riddler's tangled web. He sunders metaphysics from epistemology by saying there are objective moral facts but there's no good reason for thinking morality can be objective. He's wrong on both counts, actually. Objective morality is not facts—that view is a type of intrinsicism—it's values derived from facts. And since we know the senses to be reliable and reason to be valid, there's every reason to believe such a morality is possible. As possible as it is necessary.

As illuminating as the disgusting answers that Goode chooses to provide are the disgusting answers he withholds!

Glenn, I'd suggest Camille prints out Riddler's twists and turns and takes them to philosophy class as a stellar instance of how corrupt the discipline has become. Except that I fear her teacher might agree with him!

Slam dunk, Lindsay

Jameson's picture

Camille is only 13 but I think she'd give the Riddler a run for his money. She knows to be rational is to use reason; she knows to be objective is to observe facts; she would argue that something cannot be both observable and beyond reason.

She also knows God doesn't exist. What about you, Goode?

[Mindy, before you experiment with cutting wit, perhaps you should learn how to spell your own pseudonym.]

Not the way I'd put it, but...

Ptgymatic's picture

that does the job. How much did Jameson pay you for taking the monkey off his back?

Goode

Lindsay Perigo's picture


(M) There are objective moral facts.
(E) There is no good reason to believe in objective moral facts.
The two statements above (which I've labeled 'M' and 'E' for ease of reference) do not contradict each other.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you think they do contradict each other. That seems to be your problem.

Of course they contradict each other. If E is true how can you possibly avow M?

One cannot with impunity state something as a fact without good reason to believe it to be true. You state as a fact that there is no good reason to believe in objective moral facts. Therefore you cannot then state as a fact that there are objective moral facts. The two propositions are mutually exclusive, and only a twisted philosophy graduate superciliously steeped in a raft of vicious dichotomies would try to get away with it.


Whatever your problem is, it's no excuse for your abhorrent torrent of abuse.

No "abuse" is abhorrent enough for you, you abhorrent torrent of pomo-effluence.

Jameson's Big Moment

Ptgymatic's picture

He has laid it out. The Gauntlet is thrown. It is a no-brainer. Answer the man with your razor-sharp logic, Jameson.

Mindy

Glenn

Richard Goode's picture

Rationality and objectivity are two different things.

See my preceding comment.

Perhaps you should sit in on your daughter's philosophy classes.

Contradiction upon contradiction

Jameson's picture

Goode yesterday: "In other words, ethics has no rational basis."
Goode today: "You won't find any thread on SOLO where I express the view that there's no objective basis for ethics."

The Riddler really has lost the plot.

No contradiction

Richard Goode's picture

(M) There are objective moral facts.

(E) There is no good reason to believe in objective moral facts.

The two statements above (which I've labeled 'M' and 'E' for ease of reference) do not contradict each other.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you think they do contradict each other. That seems to be your problem.

Whatever your problem is, it's no excuse for your abhorrent torrent of abuse.

Goode

Lindsay Perigo's picture

It's a further example of Perigo's dissembling depravity that he says I equate Rand's view with that of Leviticus when I do no such thing.

But you did. I posted Leviticus and you posted Rand, with no qualifier.

You won't find any thread on SOLO where I express the view that there's no objective basis for ethics. It's not my view.

But you've just said:

The conclusion of my dissertation is that there is no good reason to believe in objective moral values.
My argument, in a nutshell, is as follows.
(A) There is no good reason to believe that God exists.
(B) If there is no good reason to believe that God exists, then there is no good reason to believe in objective moral values.
Therefore, (C) there is no good reason to believe in objective moral values.
There is no good reason to believe in objective moral values. In other words, ethics has no rational basis.

I can't think of a more brazen liar than you, Goode. You are unalloyed filth.

No, Leonid

Richard Goode's picture

It's a further example of Goode's dissembling depravity that he equated Rand's view with that of Leviticus

It's a further example of Perigo's dissembling depravity that he says I equate Rand's view with that of Leviticus when I do no such thing.

Perigo likes to fit everything into his grandiose Randian fantasy template. If the facts don't fit into his GRFT he'll try to twist them until they do. If the facts are recalcitrant, he'll simply make stuff up.

his Monday view that there's no objective basis for ethics

Here's a perfect example of Perigo making stuff up. You won't find any thread on SOLO where I express the view that there's no objective basis for ethics. It's not my view.

To you I attribute that view and to Rosie

Kasper's picture

You have said that you believe that ethics has an objective basis. However everything you say, says the opposite. To substantiate ethics you need God and therefore you have a problem. Actually what is most apparent is that according to you ethics has no objective basis and is entirely arbitrary. You would not argue with us if you thought otherwise.

The ethos of christianity says exactly this: human impotent little minds should not presume to judge or try to understand God's mysterious ways. The very idea that you could judge God as being reprehensible for his actions or philosophy on love is a mark of arrogance so great that its condemnable. ( as far a christianity goes).

You maybe forgetting I have had 20 years on christianity and that I have taught it also.

You say one thing one minute then another thing the next. You never state a position and you never make a case of your own. You're a dishonest scummy little turd. A slimly little fuck.

Kasper

Richard Goode's picture

ethics is arbitrary by having no objective basis in reality,

To whom do you attribute this view?

as far as humans can possibly demonstrate because of their impotent little minds

Speak for yourself.

Yes Leonid

Lindsay Perigo's picture

It's a further example of Goode's dissembling depravity that he equated Rand's view with that of Leviticus, as though there were no distinction between "and they shall surely be put to death" and "and they shall surely be left free." And he won't even have the elementary honesty to admit it. Now he's belatedly said forgiveness shouldn't extend to Hitler (presumably disagreeing with Rosie on that matter). But it's still not clear why. If we take his Monday view that there's no objective basis for ethics, why shouldn't Hitler be forgiven? If we take his Tuesday view that ethics does have an objective basis, what is that basis that it would imply the non-forgiveness of Hitler?

He's a wriggler, our Dr Riddler!

"Christian love and forgiveness... for Adolf?"

Jameson's picture

Richie: "No, not for Adolf."

Rosie: "I can feel love for Hermann Goering."

So Christian love stoops to Hitler's designated successor but not beyond?

Point. (Kasper's Devils Advocate)

Kasper's picture

Goode:

"No, not for Adolf. The Nazis were bad. The Nazis were really bad."

But Adolf was an intellectual and a leader. He was trying to revolutionalize history and deal with the problem of the Jews. He was radical and considering the circumstances, Germany's poverty, he was rather genius in what he acheived. Adolf wasn't that bad. The people critisizing him are just a bunch of modern towns people who have freeloaded on the backs of soldiers for so long, that they don't realise the atrocities necessitated by war. Since ethics is arbitrary by having no objective basis in reality, as far as humans can possibly demonstrate because of their impotent little minds, then perhaps Hitler also could be forgiven. Your God is much bigger than our little peuny brains so who are we to judge? Who are we to condemn this act that your great god may not punish Hitler?

Linsday

Leonid's picture

"the male and female genitals are a natural fit for each other, and serve the evolutionary purpose of procreation of the species. It must be concluded, therefore, that nature has decreed that any use of the genitalia other than penile/vaginal penetration for purposes of procreation is unnatural, and therefore immoral. "

This opinion, if it exists, doesn't have any thing to do with Rand and Objectivism. Rand mentioned more than once that man is not stud horse and procreation is not duty.

Sharon

Leonid's picture

"This wasn’t Rand’s finest moment."

That was before age of political correctness and Rand said what she thought. The only flaw was that she never explained why she thought so. Nevertheless in the same very statement she said that she opposed any prosecution of homosexuals and she would fight in order to protect their rights. For some obscure reason some people often quote the first part of Rand's statement and forget the second. I wonder why?

Richard

Leonid's picture

"A) There is no good reason to believe that God exists.
(B) If there is no good reason to believe that God exists, then there is no good reason to believe in objective moral values.
Therefore, (C) there is no good reason to believe in objective moral values."

(B) is self-contradictory. Its first part contradicts the second. Objective means pertains to reality which God isn't . There is also no reason to believe in any cause-effect connection between God and any moral values, let alone objective. (B) is arbitrary statement. Therefore (C) is non sequitur.

Hitler: A Study in Tyranny

Richard Goode's picture

Christian love and forgiveness... for Adolf?

No, not for Adolf.

The Nazis were bad. The Nazis were really bad.

Finally a straight answer!!

Jameson's picture

Right, so mystical hocus pocus which demands the indiscriminate dishing out of love and forgiveness, trumps rationally-based anger and hatred for the specific scumbags who deserve it?

Oh boy. Oh boy, oh boy.

Worse and worse

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Christian love and forgiveness

... for Adolf?

trump Objectivist anger and hatred.

... against Adolf?

This is raw, unmitigated, unqualified, unabashed evil. Beyond reprehensible.

Shouldn't you be on O-Lying, Goode?

What say ye?

Richard Goode's picture

What say ye?

Christian love and forgiveness trump Objectivist anger and hatred.

Hahahaahaaa!!!

Jameson's picture

"When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the man, he said unto him, Adolf, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?

He said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto him, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more."

Brilliant!! Smiling Smiling Smiling Smiling

What say ye, Rosie? Richie?

Linz

HWH's picture

"But who cares? They're evil"

True, but most are small potatoes.

In the case of Goode however, he is a perfect example of those intellectuals who according to Rand had absconded and abandoned his post, and in a world that is crashing and burning due to these crucial guards being awol he is not only thoroughly evil, but as useless as the hind tit on a donkey.

What an absolute waste...an oxygen thief of note

Well ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Let them stay I say..we need all the practise we can get

I do, for exactly that reason. That's why I didn't get that "they get drummed out of town" thing.

To me their musical taste doesn't bother me half as much as it does you, but just as you cannot fathom why someone prefers a shit sandwich when there's Filet Mignon on the menu, so it is for me when one chooses a variant of mysticism/nihilism/skepticism or even anarchy over Miss Rands unparalleled genius.

It's the same difference! That's my point!

I think they like Slayer because they're evil rather than being evil because they like Slayer. But who cares? They're evil. I wish the whole world were reading these threads so they could see it, and act to avoid the pomofascist apocalypse before the barbarian curtain descends.

Linz

HWH's picture

All here at SOLO bring us joy, some by joining and others by flouncing, and as for the really thick skinned bastards without any scruples at all, well they all seem to like Slayer

To me their musical taste doesn't bother me half as much as it does you, but just as you cannot fathom why someone prefers a shit sandwich when there's Filet Mignon on the menu, so it is for me when one chooses a variant of mysticism/nihilism/skepticism or even anarchy over Miss Rands unparalleled genius.

Now did they like Slayer before they became anal or were they anal before liking Slayer?

Bottom line is (as per Hitchens on Fallwell) that should one give them an enema they could be buried in a matchbox.

Let them stay I say..we need all the practise we can get Smiling

Enslave. Imprison. Torture.

PhilipD's picture

Enslave. Imprison. Torture. Murder. Dump in a field.

Kaing Guek Eav or Duch as he is better known was the chief of Tuol Sleng prison and thus responsible for the brutal torture and murder of more than 15,000 innocent people. Rosie forgives and loves him.

Actually Duch must be something of a pin-up for her; he converted to Christianity some years ago.

I'm coming to the view ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... contrary to what I said last night, Goode is actually more evil than Campbell. Neither behaves with a skerrick of good faith, but Goode is more gleefully proud of the fact. Wotta truly ghastly specimen. Now, Hilton, do you see the connection between this kind of entity and its "musical" preferences? Do you still fault me for running such skunks out of town when I actually don't, but let them stay and spray their squirtings?

I think you'll find, Hilton

Jameson's picture

his original post was a decoy. There's not a scrap of evidence to suggest he actually believes what Rand wrote.

At least Rosie had the courage and integrity to declare her position—more than can be said of her cowardly custard pudding of a boyfriend.

As I thought

HWH's picture

He's tired of running and as a last resort decided to drop a decoy flare

Evading the history of this ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

The rationale on which such rationalistic deceit is based, when practised by anti-gay homosexual Objectivists, usually goes something like this: the male and female genitals are a natural fit for each other, and serve the evolutionary purpose of procreation of the species. It must be concluded, therefore, that nature has decreed that any use of the genitalia other than penile/vaginal penetration for purposes of procreation is unnatural, and therefore immoral. This is the "barnyard" view of sex so rightly decried by Ayn Rand in her attack on Pope Paul’s encyclical on birth control, except that God has been replaced by Nature as the legislator of it. According to this rationale, of course, much more than homosexuality is immoral — masturbation must be immoral, oral sex between male and female must be immoral, and sodomy between male and female must truly be the absolute pits. (The rationalists usually stop short of stating such fatuous extensions of their facile, floating "logic," for understandable reasons that have much to do with not wanting to become laughing stocks.)

—Lindsay Perigo on Rand's opinion of homosexuality, Romance and Rationalism.

Rand's second wrong

sharon's picture

"I regard [homosexuality] as immoral, and more than that, if you want my really sincere opinion, it's disgusting."

This wasn’t Rand’s finest moment.

Ford Hall Forum Lecture, 1971

Richard Goode's picture

"I regard [homosexuality] as immoral, and more than that, if you want my really sincere opinion, it's disgusting."

John 8: 1-11

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Jesus went unto the mount of Olives.

And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them.

And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a man taken in genocide; and when they had set him in the midst,
They say unto him, Master, this man was taken in genocide, in the very act.

Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be judged: but what sayest thou?

This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.

So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at him.

And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.

And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the man standing in the midst.

When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the man, he said unto him, Adolf, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?

He said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto him, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

He's not a POMO after all!!!

Jameson's picture

"My argument is of the form modus ponens."

He's a MOPO!!!!

Observe Evil Dr Riddler's M.O. in play

Jameson's picture

No stance on the scripture. No opinion on the Rand quote above it. The heckling chickenshit is on the run, refusing to stand his ground and be judged.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.