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: Solon who wrote (28248)	3/10/2010 3:28:18 AM
From: Greg or e	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

<<<"Denouncing and calling someone evil (as both you and Rand have done) because they do not conform to your arbitrarily derived moral construct is to use force.">>> "I have never called someone evil because they did not conform." <<<To your arbitrarily derived moral construct? You certainly have and it is dishonest for you to deny it.>>> Message 26369256 ................................... "You are a liar, greg or e. I have NEVER called anyone evil because they failed to conform. In fact, I find non-conformity to be admirable." You are so full of it. You clip my statement so as to change the context, equivocate on the word "conform" and then call me a liar for supposedly accusing you of that which you dishonestly equivocated. I even corrected you and re qualified my statement once but you just ignored it. You are a dishonest person and it shows up in every one of your posts. All one needs to do is read the words contained in the header of this thread to see you do exactly what I said you did. Namely; call people evil because they do not conform to your supposedly objective (but which are really "your arbitrarily derived moral construct") moral standards. "He evaluates all matters in accordance with his feelings, and gives no heed to objective values or ideas. Some follow this God literally, and use him to determine and to justify their own actions. Thus, we see His most ardent followers displaying intolerance, hate, jealousy, spitefulness, insecurity, and other attributes of evil and of weakness. It is for this reason that I ask: Should God be replaced? Is it time for a new CEO? Is it time to discover a God based on acceptance and love...rather than on fear? Can the human race advance beyond the killing fields, while it yet mires itself in emulating the evil traits of its many anthropomorphic Gods?" siliconinvestor.com 11:33:20 AM ........................... As to your phony complaint that I abused you by quoting two sentences in close proximity to one another about the same issue with the standard ellipse's to denote the gap: you're just whining. Here it is in it's entirety only I will add the subject of both sentences in bolded parentheses. The quote was perfectly legitimate as were my following observation and questions. ........................................................ It's hardly meaningless to ask if you are an Objectivist when that is the subject at hand and you are defending that position. "the answer is, NO. (I AM NOT A RANDIAN OBJECTIVIST) ... I think this (RAND"S OBJECTIVIST POSITION) is the most logical view of the matter at this point in time." Forgive me for noting that you are more than a little confused. You are not an Objectivist even though you believe that Objectivism is "the most logical view of the matter at this point in time"? What irrational urge prevents you from being an Objectivist? Message 26369256