8/21/2006

Quench Your Conspiracy Thirst!!!

Have You Seen The Light Of Unalienable Cola?




A current post at ontheborderline.net by Chris the Admin says they have seen the word unalienable many times on the OTBL blog. It exists in the second paragraph of the United States Declaration of Independence.

We are often confronted with extremely serious OTBL quotes like this one currently posted by the OTBL admin Chris:

"But what does it mean? The concept of Man’s rights being unalienable is based solely upon the belief of their Divine origin. Without this belief, there is no moral basis for any claim that they are unalienable or for any claim to the great benefits flowing from this concept. Man has no power to alienate–to dispose of, by surrender, barter or gift any of his God-given rights. This is the meaning of “unalienable.”"

And the OTBL'ers base much of their worldview and ideas of reality from the fictional characters of Ayn Rand's novels who are atheists. I repeat, the words of fictional characters who are atheists.

Of course, our neighbors over at OTBL pick and choose what helps support their philosophy of individual selfishness. Contemplate who the words of Ayn Rand square with the "God-given" quote above:

"They claim that they perceive a mode of being superior to your existence on this earth. The mystics of spirit call it 'another dimension,' which consists of denying dimensions. The mystics of muscle call it 'the future,' which consists of denying the present. To exist is to possess identity. What identity are they able to give to their superior realm? They keep telling you what it is not, but never tell you what it is. All their identifications consist of negating: God is that which no human mind can know, they say—and proceed to demand that you consider it knowledge—God is non-man, heaven is non-earth, soul is non-body, virtue is non-profit, A is non-A, perception is non-sensory, knowledge is non-reason. Their definitions are not acts of defining, but of wiping out."
Ayn Rand,
Atlas Shrugged
---
Well of course, Ayn is writing a book of fiction. Surely she's not suggesting there is no God! That she is an atheist!!!

"I am an intransigent atheist, but not a militant one. This means that I am an uncompromising advocate of reason and that I am fighting for reason, not against religion. I must also mention that I do respect religion in its philosophical aspects, in the sense that it represents an early form of philosophy."

Ayn Rand
Letters of Ayn Rand
March 20, 1965
---

OTBL admin Chris loves to do these hard hitting posts. He's the no-compromiser who believes there is no middle ground. In fact, in a post has has rerun a couple of times he says this:

"Go along to get along. Find the common ground. The world is not black and white, it is gray. Compromise. Be moderate. We have heard all these phrases before. Well I think a moderate is nothing more than someone who does not understand or is too afraid to stand up for what they believe in. So how do we find middle ground? We can’t."

In the same post, Chris the OTBL admin adds:

"You believe that it is OK for someone to kill their baby anytime before it is born. I believe that this should only occur under extenuating circumstances."

Chris seems to be waffling a bit on the "extenuating circumstances" phrase. It actually shows there's a step toward middle ground.

But alas, as an admitted sheep in Ayn Rand's flock, I truly wonder what Chris would say to his beloved Ayn Rand if she were to come out of the grave and post this on his blog:

"An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn).

"Abortion is a moral right—which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body?"

Ayn Rand
"Of Living Death"
The Objectivist
October 1968
---
The beautiful thing about hypocrisy, is that it allows us the ability to talk out of both sides of our philosophical mouths.

23 comments:

Cato said...

You do not have to accept things wholly to believe in most of it do you? I would wager nearly all Catholics are cafeteria Catholics, for example.

So someone can say they think something or someone has alot of good ideas and they can still reject some of them. I for one do not reject Rand's stance on God. For example, her critique on Original Sin is hard to refute.

AndyRand said...

I should never blog before my 2nd cup of coffee. This should have been posted here: I'm deleting the other that on the wrong thread. CATO:
care to do the same?

--------------------------
phaedrus:

On this one you've hit the nail on it's proverbial head. I actually find my self agreeing with Chris when he says:
"The concept of Man’s rights being unalienable is based solely upon the belief of their Divine origin. Without this belief, there is no moral basis for any claim that they are unalienable or for any claim to the great benefits flowing from this concept."
If there is no Supreme Being, then all moral systems are humanly devised and stand pretty much on an even setting and as such could be considered having equal moral authority. So the Marxists and the Randists are alike in this way.

But phaedrus, you are on the money when you expose the hypocrisy of making a statement of God given rights, then turning around and using the philosophy of Aynie Randers to support their other collection of misguided moral precepts.
If you want to find more of what the
real Randers believe, go to http://capitalism.org/faq/abortion.htm
where you'll see the Headline:
Abortion is pro-life; anti-abortion is anti-life

I think even "pro-choice" advocates would find this statement ridiculous and offensive.
So how can the borderliners reconcile these contradictory beliefs??????????

They Can't..............

AndyRand said...

Being a cafeteria Catholic, is a far cry from using the arguements of aethiests as the main support of your world veiw when you (OTBLers, and more specifically Chris )purport to be a believer.

CATO said:
"You do not have to accept things wholly to believe in most of it do you?"
The key to this statement is the "believe" as opposed to emperical proof. You cannot prove that your morals are absolutely correct, you
"believe" they are correct. This is an article of faith. You have "faith" in Reason, as others have faith in God.
Any moral system devised by man is no more superior to another moral system devised by man. One has no more moral authority than the other.
From a strictly human perspective, the Muslim world view is as valid as the Christian. I personally don't believe this since I do believe in a
Supreme Being.


Christianity and Objectivism are about as close as you can get to polar opposites.
I don't know Rand's argument against Original Sin. I'm guess it's something along the lines of rational being having the highest value in the food chain coupled with the rejection of a Supreme Being.
These are heavy topics, for casual blogging!!!!! They've been debated for Millennia, we won't resolve them here.
I don't know of any humans who are perfect with the exception of you CATO, so I guess I accept my human frailty and with it the concept of Original Sin.

Anonymous said...

Cato:

OTBL's Chris is the one talking about no middle ground. Obviously there is middle ground in what he's picking ancd choosing from the Ayn Rand cafeteria of ideas.

Or does it work like this:

"Hey, I really like Rand's idea about the individual not having to pay taxes. I'll believe that one."

"Oooh, I don't like the abortion idea. I won't include that one in my worldview."

I guess that would make on an ideological flip-flopper.

AndyRand said...

anon,

Don't we all pick and choose from our entree's from the moral cafeteria?
CATO does, by countering Aynie on abortion. I must if I would have stole those beans in the flood.
I think Chris's stand may be a little more extreme flip flopping though.

666 said...

Andy:

Of course we pick and choose. But if you are going to take you act to the public and preport to be a partisan pundit of philosophical, political extremist, you need to make sure the public face of your ducks are all in a row. Otherwise, the community watchdogs are going to point out that the fly is down on your self-proclaimed, airtight worldview.

AndyRand said...

666,

You have a knack for pointing out the airholes in the OTBL windbag.

Cato said...

I'll copy it and I suppose I can delete it over in the other thread. It was a response to you anyway.

Morals are devised from man's capacity to reason. Only reasonable beings have morals and thus rights, which stem from the reasoned right to life, can only be afforded to reasonable beings. This calls into question the severely mentally retarded (which is very very very rare), children, fetuses, and some of the very very old. Since they cannot reason, do they have rights? Rights do not come from above. They come from man. What a low and dispicable way to look at man to say that he has to get his rights from above. How could that be? Did God sayeth unto the House of Representatives, thou shalt giveth the people the right to free speech to be unhindered by your machinations? NO. It was reasoned by man. Are we in some postmodernist wet dream because of this? No.

Look around you there is nature. Everything around you is nature. You cannot sense supernatural (if there was any to sense) since it is beyond reason. We can see everything in nature. We can study it. We can determine things about it. If postmodernism was correct, planes would fall out of the sky without the aid of crazed Muslims. Morals are natural, not supernatural. That means that they are discoverable. That means that B cannot equal A and A has to be A. If A has to be A (which is irrefuatable regarding natural things) and morals are natural than there is only one course.

I think that all beings that can reason in one part of their life ought be afforded reasoned rights. In addition, I would ask government to afford them legal rights, which this government has done to some extent. As for fetuses, since I do not believe that infanticide nor the murder of very small children is a very good thing to do, I cannot support abortion. I view the child in the womb as a seperate entity. It was not conjured by the woman, it was created through an act with another human being.

Cato said...

666 --

Why do they have to have the exactly the same views on theings as someone who came before them? Perhaps they were wrong on certian things? I think you poke no "holes" in anything and offer little to discussions in general.

AndyRand said...

666,

Are you being fair to CATO?
He's the only one from the other side of the philosophical borderline brave enough to express his opinions here.

666 said...

Cato:

Since they don't appear to have ideas of their own, i.e., every thought has to be legitimzed via footnoting it to some previous "big thinker" for credibility, I think it's a corner they paint themsleves into.

For instance, I don't give a rip what anybody else says about abortion -- pro or con. I believe abortion is the worst for of birth control available and I am opposed to abortions. However, I don't think abortions should be outlawed. It is the decision of the individual. It's a decision the individual will have to live with.

Do you see any contridictions in my view?

Cato said...

I rather enjoy argument. If I would have ever posted on OBTL or really ever even really read it, I would get tired of it in about an hour. I am sure there is plenty I could argue with them with it wouldn't present itself right away and by time I get to arguing they'd cut me off. :P

AndyRand said...

Posting on the wrong post, further proof of my fallibility!

"Did God sayeth unto the House of Representatives, thou shalt giveth the people the right to free speech to be unhindered by your machinations?"

I believe some may have claimed Divine Inspiration?


"This calls into question the severely mentally retarded (which is very very very rare), children, fetuses, and some of the very very old. Since they cannot reason, do they have rights?"

This is not as rare as you proclaim.
I've seen instances where because of
neurological disease, intellectual ability decreases and personality changes ensue. This raises the thorny question of where does one's personhood reside? Rather than ask if these persons have rights, a better question is do they have value.

"As for fetuses, since I do not believe that infanticide nor the murder of very small children is a very good thing to do, I cannot support abortion."

Again you use the word "believe" and you depart from the Randists here. I thought there was but one Morality that could be deduced?
If you are so certain of the universality of your morality, why the disconnect with the Randist's on this issue? I concur with your belief on this issue.

Cato said...

No I don't 666, since I think people should be able to do herion but would never touch it myself. There are a host of things such as this. However, in regards to abortion, the individual I am concerned about is not the mother but rather the child, who's life is legally ended for committing no crime other than being at the wrong place at the wrong time. Also, until abortion is made illegal OR fathers have a "veto" if you will, I do not think any man should pay child support (this is of course, concedeing the idea that the state should be able to mandate such things which I am not arguing about) since it's "her body her choice" she should live with any and all decisions. If he has no say than he has no say and cannot be held culpable for his actions. Agree?

Cato said...

I apoligize andyrand. Subsitutute "know" for "believe." If you would have heard me speak it you would have known what I was implying by the word "believe" in my stressing of it; I was using it to be sarcastic (since we all know, aside from people like Peter Singer, that killing babies is not a good thing to do).

AndyRand said...

CATO:

"Also, until abortion is made illegal OR fathers have a "veto" if you will, I do not think any man should pay child support (this is of course, concedeing the idea that the state should be able to mandate such things which I am not arguing about) since it's "her body her choice" she should live with any and all decisions. If he has no say than he has no say and cannot be held culpable for his actions. Agree?"

From a broad perspective on the matter as principle, yes I agree. From a practical perspective, not entirely.
I understand you argument that if the choice is only the woman's then she should take total responsibility. The law lets them have their cake and eat it too. But
I can only agree because, as you say , fathers have no "veto" power in the issue. If it were not for that, both parties should share responsibilty.

AndyRand said...

CATO:

I don't think I can substitute,
"know" in this sentance.

"You do not have to accept things wholly to believe in most of it do you?

I think you are playing a linguistic game with me here.

Cato said...

No, you can't, but I was referring to the other sentace. In that sentance you are correct but that statement is nuetral in regards to what I know to be true.

AndyRand said...

Your are still stating your beliefs, not your emperical knowledge. You did not answer my other question about parting ways with Randists on the abortion issue either.
----------------------
Our dialogue was:
""As for fetuses, since I do not believe that infanticide nor the murder of very small children is a very good thing to do, I cannot support abortion."

Again you use the word "believe" and you depart from the Randists here. I thought there was but one Morality that could be deduced?
If you are so certain of the universality of your morality, why the disconnect with the Randist's on this issue? I concur with your belief on this issue."
---------------------------
Can't use "know" here either. (You know):-)

Cato said...

"As for fetuses, since I know that infanticide nor the murder of very small children is a very good thing to do, I cannot support abortion."


Yes I can.

My disconnect? They are wrong.

AndyRand said...

I think you meant:

As for fetuses, since I know that (neither) infanticide nor the murder of very small children is a very good thing to do, I cannot support abortion.

:-)

CATO: Sometimes you make me chuckle.

They are wrong...Because you say they are wrong....
Even though I agree with your result, I think you've taken a detour on the objectivist path to enlightenment.

AndyRand said...

CATO:

You said: In regards to Randists..

"They are wrong".

I couldn't agree with you more..
Now we are making progress...;-)

Josh said...

Wow I missed this one.

Cato and Andy spend too little time accumulating wealth, I can't keep up with them. ;-p