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.

14 comments:

Andy Rand 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..............

Andy Rand 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.

Andy Rand 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.

Anonymous 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.

Andy Rand said...

666,

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

Andy Rand 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.

Anonymous 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?

Andy Rand 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.

Andy Rand 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.

Andy Rand 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.

Andy Rand 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):-)

Andy Rand 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.

Andy Rand said...

CATO:

You said: In regards to Randists..

"They are wrong".

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