If we do not understand how racism, a symptom of collectivism, is the enemy of, indeed, death of, the individual, on this, an Objectivist site, then none of us stand a chance of ever, ever, attaining a society in which we can live as free individuals. There is an evil stalking this forum, every bit as dangerous as that posed by the 'Muslim problem', a mob mentality that would fit individuals into mental straight jackets determined by a past and skin colour. A mob mentality that is the same evil as the mob it incessantly spews its hatred upon.

The taming of a one issue shrew: Judgement Day.

You have given me the impression that you are the kind of person who would turn his back on the enemy.

But note I'm not turning my back on you Sandi.

The case has been made,

The words are being laid.

Stay tuned, my two furry little friends,

judgement is coming ...

You ask Richard to stop facing the "muslim hordes" for two weeks, huh Mark? That doesn't come as any surprise. You have given me the impression that you are the kind of person who would turn his back on the enemy.

Sandi, of all the original ways to offend me, you have unforgivably chosen to bore me frigid.

If we do not understand how racism, a symptom of collectivism, is the enemy of, indeed, death of, the individual, on this, an Objectivist site, then none of us stand a chance of ever, ever, attaining a society in which we can live as free individuals. There is an evil stalking this forum, every bit as dangerous as that posed by the ‘Muslim problem’, a mob mentality that would fit individuals into mental straight jackets determined by a past and skin colour. A mob mentality that is the same evil as the mob it incessantly spews its hatred upon.

Because of this, the most important war in the world is being fought on these threads, the war for the individual against mob thuggery.

In the defense of the individual man, the individual woman, the black dogs of war, of course, now have to be unleashed.

Stay tuned ...

This Heroic Individualist advises Richard to stop his obsession with the Muslim hordes for two weeks and read Objectivism, so he can bring his individual self back to this forum and enjoin the noble fight against the stubborn, stupid, bigot, racist Sandi, so we can then all hold hands (in a rugged individualist manner) and fight the noble fight against the philosophy of Islam.

You ask Richard to stop facing the "muslim hordes" for two weeks, huh Mark? That doesn't come as any surprise. You have given me the impression that you are the kind of person who would turn his back on the enemy.

b)Your every post supporting Sandi in the entrenched, offensive collectivist, latterly racist, positions she not only stubbornly sticks to once pointed out, but continues to practice.

Leonard Peikoff hits the nail exactly on the head. And he doesn't line each individual up to check their views prior to a slam dunk.

"A war in self defence must be fought without self crippling restrictions placed upon our commanders and it must secure victory as quickly as possible regardless of how many civilians are caught in the line of fire or are deliberate targets of that fire. These innocents suffer and die because of the action of their OWN government in sponsoring the initiation of force against us. Their fate therefore is THEIR government’s MORAL responsibility NOT OURS."

-

You stated: If Obama's mums love life is mentioned, how does that reflect on Obama if you don't judge it to reflect on Obama? Indeed, how does it reflect on Obama whether you judge it or not?

Reading this again, let me make plain nothing in my argument had any desire to be judging Obama's mother for her love life, which is what you seem to imply here

Yes, because you say things like this:

 "And now via 'suggestive fact' (WTF!) we are to judge Obama based on the sex life of his mother."

My question to you, after that comment, is, who has suggested anything of the sort?

"At the heart of this is campaigning by smear."

 My question after that is, how is mentioning Obama's mum's love life, a smear? It's not a smear in my eyes. However, it is a relevant fact in the overall picture of the man. 

No, the point of this thread is that you and Sandi are judging another individual based on the love life of his mother.

Why do you say this? You don't know how the hell I judge him. That the love life of his mother is metioned has no bearing whatsoever on how I judge Obama. That's the point I was trying to make that you dont' seem to be able to get.  

At this stage we are simply engaging in smear, and refusing to acknowledge the primacy of the individual.

It seems to me that you are the one not acknowledging the individual here. You haven't afforded me the luxury of having my own mind. You've judged me on the basis of lack of offence at the mother's love life being mentioned and concluded from that that I judge Obama on the deeds of his mother. You are dead wrong on that score, and have no right to tell me what I do and do not think. The fact is, you simply don't know. 

The problem is, Richard, that you are all over the show on this, and do not give me a rational integrated argument, for you say also, quote: it is relevant information when judging Obama.

And it is relevant information for providing context for judgement. The more you see of his life as a whole, the more chance that this or that aspect of the man might make sense. In a lesser person than Obama, such and interest would just be plain voyeurism, or creepy, but with someone like Obama who's vying to be the most powerful man in the world, particularly in the context of the war with Islam, it matters, immensely. 

 So on my second interpretation, that you are saying on the one hand the mother's love life has nothing to do with judging Obama,

And it doesn't. It has to do with providing context for his life. 

then you are contradicting yourself directly,

I'm not contradicting myself at all, because I haven't said that he's to be judged by the deeds of his mother. 

because then you are saying that it 'is important'.

Important in providing a context on which to make judgements. 

 and given you are not an Objectivist

You irritate me. You have no evidence on whether I am an Objectivist or not. You are constantly jumping to unwarranted conclusions. I asked you on what basis you say I'm not an objectivist, and you haven't answered. In fact, there are many questions you haven't answered. Can I conclude from that that you are a genocidal maniac? 

(how can you be by not censoring the collectivist Sandi?),

So that's your evidence? The logic of that being that all other people on this site are not Objectivists either, seeing as they are not censoring Sandi. 

 this will be difficult for you.

Not in the slightest.

"A call for me to collectivise myself': what the hell does that mean please? Because I have no idea.

To think in collective terms.

Jesus wept.

Right, I'm getting into some serious deadline issues work-wise, so until next weekend, I'm going to be severely curtailing my activities here, however, in the meantime.

You stated: If Obama's mums love life is mentioned, how does that reflect on Obama if you don't judge it to reflect on Obama? Indeed, how does it reflect on Obama whether you judge it or not?

I have to admit I have to spend too much of my time trying to make sense of some of the things you say. Reading this again, let me make plain nothing in my argument had any desire to be judging Obama's mother for her love life, which is what you seem to imply here (because this has nothing to do with this thread, I assumed you could not be meaning this). No, the point of this thread is that you and Sandi are judging another individual based on the love life of his mother. I can also read your above phrase to say that how does the mother's love life reflect on how we judge the son: on that I agree, indeed, that is my point, we can't. Right? At this stage we are simply engaging in smear, and refusing to acknowledge the primacy of the individual.

The problem is, Richard, that you are all over the show on this, and do not give me a rational integrated argument, for you say also, quote: it is relevant information when judging Obama. Given the importance of Obama it's important to judge the man in as full a context as possible. Details about his family life and upbringing, including the relationships of his mother, all add the broader picture. But back to my question. How is that evidence that I am not an Objectivist?

So on my second interpretation, that you are saying on the one hand the mother's love life has nothing to do with judging Obama, then you are contradicting yourself directly, because then you are saying that it 'is important'.

Or if you are meaning my initial interpretation above of what you may be saying, that I am somehow eschewing this to a judgment on the mother, then, well, you're certifiably insane, as that has nothing to do with anything I've said in this thread, nor the horrid point that Sandi is trying to get to.

In summary, can you please start expressing yourself much more clearly: note, this of course connotes having the ability to have a pronounceable position that is non-contradictory, and given you are not an Objectivist (how can you be by not censoring the collectivist Sandi?), this will be difficult for you.

And in ending, let me give you an example of unclear expression on your behalf; you say:

You seem horrified that his mum's love life has been mentioned, as if it's somehow a call for you to collectivise yourself.

'A call for me to collectivise myself': what the hell does that mean please? Because I have no idea.

Not agreeing with your judgement, Mark, doesn't make me a racist. I asked you to please produce specific instances of my racism and bigotry.

To your other concern. And you reach this conclusion [that Richard W is not an objectivist], how? The words from your very own mouth, of course - ergo:

 You are whoever you are, and you'll judge by your standards, whether that's by objective standards or otherwise.

I'm making a statement about your free will. How is that evidence that I'm not an objectivist? 

And turning the lonely eye back to the stubborn Sandi, in relation to your words here, Richard, if his mums love life is not supposed to be used to judge Obama, then why enter it as the centre piece on a thread which sets out to judge Obama? uhH

Who entered it as a center piece? You've made it into a center piece in your own mind. However, that aside, it is relevant information when judging Obama. Given the importance of Obama it's important to judge the man in as full a context as possible. Details about his family life and upbringing, including the relationships of his mother, all add the broader picture. But back to my question. How is that evidence that I am not an Objectivist? 

Although with delight I see from your very last sentence (bold) you're onto it, finally - the very point I've been making here;

No, not the very point you've been making here, because I mean something entirely different. I'm pointing your freewill. You seem horrified that his mum's love life has been mentioned, as if it's somehow a call for you to collectivise yourself. It's nothing of the sort, but even if it was, it wouldn't make any difference. It would just be someone elses judgement.

the problem is I suspect it was a fluke as you do not seem to understand how that sentence contradicts your stance in every other post to this thread. Read over.

It doesn't contradict anything I've said before, not in the slightest. Now, please produce specific examples of my racism and bigotry.

I challenge you to produce one instance of racism or bigotry from me.

Unfortunately for you two pieces of evidence, one alarming, the other damning.

a) Look at how many times on this thread you had to be dragged screaming and hissy fitting to point blank rejection of such accusations. Although all ultimately declared, I'll give you that.

However, then, sadly:

b)Your every post supporting Sandi in the entrenched, offensive collectivist, latterly racist, positions she not only stubbornly sticks to once pointed out, but continues to practice.

There's loyalty to a stubbornly racist, collectivist friend, who is perhaps too stubborn (read stupid) to know better, and I’ll take the word of those who have met her on this for now, but then there is the promotion of the same offences by yourself when that friend proves too stubborn even to sit and dine when brought to the table of the facts of reality, over and over again, and yet you continue to offer that support. I put it to you a true friend would not seek to prop up the evil charade, if that be what it is, a friend would seek to show her where she is being a genocidal maniac, a racist, or a bigot, and thus to correct the tragic flaw that has her too often on the path of tyrants.

Richard W, what are friends for?

To your other concern.

And you reach this conclusion [that Richard W is not an objectivist], how?

The words from your very own mouth, of course - ergo:

You are whoever you are, and you'll judge by your standards, whether that's by objective standards or otherwise.

And:

You can judge it whatever way you want. If Obama's mums love life is mentioned, how does that reflect on Obama if you don't judge it to reflect on Obama? Indeed, how does it reflect on Obama whether you judge it or not?

And turning the lonely eye back to the stubborn Sandi, in relation to your words here, Richard, if his mums love life is not supposed to be used to judge Obama, then why enter it as the centre piece on a thread which sets out to judge Obama? Huh?

Although with delight I see from your very last sentence (bold) you're onto it, finally - the very point I've been making here; the problem is I suspect it was a fluke as you do not seem to understand how that sentence contradicts your stance in every other post to this thread. Read over.

And you reach this conclusion, how?

P.S. I challenge you to produce one instance of racism or bigotry from me.

Finally we find Richard W is not an Objectivist, thus explaining why he has the unfortunate propensity to become both a racist and a bigot from time to time. He does not have the Objectivist toolkit to help himself.

This Heroic Individualist advises Richard to stop his obsession with the Muslim hordes for two weeks and read Objectivism, so he can bring his individual self back to this forum and enjoin the noble fight against the stubborn, stupid, bigot, racist Sandi, so we can then all hold hands (in a rugged individualist manner) and fight the noble fight against the philosophy of Islam.

You remind me of Mr Logical man from Viz Magazine. I don't care whether you're an objectivist or not. You are whoever you are, and you'll judge by your standards, whether that's by objective standards or otherwise. My point being that if someone mentions the love life of Obama's mum, you are the judge of that bit of info, not whoever made the comment.

You can judge it whatever way you want.

Not if you're an Objectivist: you can only judge according to the facts of reality, and people according to their true selves.

Are you an Objectivist Richard W?

Reports from the trenches.

You can judge it whatever way you want. If Obama's mums love life is mentioned, how does that reflect on Obama if you don't judge it to reflect on Obama? Indeed, how does it reflect on Obama whether you judge it or not?

There is no individualism within the doctrine of islam.

I absolutely agree Sandi, this is just one of the reasons why it is an abhorrent philosophy. But again, it must be asked: 'because there is no individualism within the doctrine of Islam, does this a) justify genocide as a solution to the Muslim problem, as you didn't deny on that other thread, and b) permit us to adopt a collectivist mindset and judge them according to identity, not as individuals by themselves, for themselves?

There is no individualism within the doctrine of islam.

After his father left, Obama’s mother married another Moslem. Again, this is a suggestive fact. Obviously, we can’t choose who we fall in love with – but Obama’s mother appears to have had, especially for the day, rather exotic taste. It makes one wonder what circles she was running with.

And now via 'suggestive fact' (WTF!) we are to judge Obama based on the sex life of his mother.

At the heart of this is campaigning by smear.

Do you, Sandi, want to be judged on the sex lives of your blood relatives?

I don't deny on some points in this post that relate to the person of Obama, where you stick to Obama, some worthwhile points are made in your scatter gun hit and miss method, but the price is too high, for you, and the sources you are quoting, are working this from within a racist framework of pure smear. You are tying the life of an individual to a deterministic path based on blood relation, and denying that individual the autonomy of an independent mind.

Not good enough.

A campaign based on the facts of reality, viewing people 'true to themselves', sticks to just that, the facts of reality, not 'suggestive facts' from racist minds.