Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Should God be replaced? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Greg or e who wrote (28122)	2/24/2010 7:11:48 PM
From: Solon	2 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 28931

"I quoted her accurately and then challenged her statement directly." Like Hell, you did! You quoted Rand as saying: "a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities" And then you stumbled your own opinion into it as though it were hers: "Atheist majorities have every right to vote away anything and everything THEY DETERMINE TO BE IN THEIR BEST INTERESTS because minority rights are nothing but a function of the political process in the first place." I am sure you know that Rand has a rational and well articulated reason for stating what she stated and that she is the last person to believe that "rights are nothing but a process of the political process". Saying that "Atheist majorities...in the first place" is not Rand challenging herself because that statement is as far removed from her belief system as you are from the sky people. And if you are pretending it is YOU challenging Rand's well publicized OBJECTIVIST beliefs, then you failed miserably because you give no grounds for believing that rights are "nothing but a process of the political process". Now if you had said that legal rights always expressed the Will of the tribal leadership or the State then your comment would be understandable. But you know full well that RAND does not believe that rights are "nothing but a process of the political process". Her "rational self interest" has NOTHING to do with the myriad legal rights that clutter human societies. "Your own incessant moral outrage at others when you claim there is no transcendent moral standard is another prime example of just that." The fact that there are no transcendent moral standards (the idea is ludicrous, after all) does not weigh against people encouraging a moral society constructed on human rights, responsibilities, and accountability. "I immediately saw the arbitrary and unfounded basis for Rand's claim that there are moral oughts and absolute rights derived solely from what is" You saw nothing of the sort. That is your ignorance speaking... "Molecules in motion do not have rights and neither do they have free will" Now you are just talking stupid! We are talking about the rights of people--NOT THE "rights" of molecules. Why don't you talk about the rights of toes or e coli since they are a part of humans?? I knew you would go stupid on me sooner rather than later. "Majority rule and might makes right is the only "rational" position an atheist has open to them." More incredible stupidity! The position you have just so clumsily tossed forward is based on instinctive relationships and it avoids any connection to morality. Rational coexistence means just that and I am sorry to have to sketch such simple ideas out for you: Rational interrelationships use REASON as the assessment of moral value...NOT FORCE.