Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Vice Presidential candidate Sen. John Edwards
was caught visiting his mistress and secret love child at 2:40 this morning in a Los Angeles hotel by the NATIONAL ENQUIRER. The married ex-senator from North Carolina - whose wife Elizabeth continues to battle cancer -- met with his mistress, blonde divorcée Rielle Hunter, at the Beverly Hilton on Monday night, July 21 - and the NATIONAL ENQUIRER was there! He didn't leave until early the next morning.
I know that this is the Enquirer....but it isn't like the tabloids are always wrong on affairs. Let's see how this develops. I hope it isn't true. I prefer my scandals to be of the Republican variety.
57 Comments:
The National Enquirer does not generally fabricate stories, as is commonly believed. Like many publications, they sometimes get the facts wrong, but they do not totally invent news like Jason Blair of the NY Times did, for example. The article, which notes that an Enquirer reporter cornered Edwards and questioned the former Senator at 2am in the Beverly Hilton, is not something that they would have outright made up out of thin air. The caught Gary Hart in 1984, and now they have caught Edwards. I thought he would have been a great choice for Obama's VP. This story may sink him and send him home to NC once and for all.
posted by , at
7/23/2008 11:48 AM
Wayne, lets hope its not true. If it is, I wouldn't mind betting the Enquirer was paid by some right winger to out the story. I have a suspicion Edwards is the main contender as Obama's VP, failing Clinton. The republicans fear Edwards as they do Clinton. Holding my breath this is just another smear campaign that holds no water.
posted by , at
7/23/2008 11:49 AM
No, Robert, it's TRUE! I thought he was a contender but now he's toast. What a slick sonofabitch. He is finished as VP choice. :(
posted by , at
7/23/2008 12:13 PM
Yeah but the difference between Democrat scandals and Republican scandals is that Democrat scandals involve people of the opposite sex who are of legal age.
posted by Emily K, at
7/23/2008 12:44 PM
I was talking to someone whose daughter is very active in the Obama campaign, and she said the RUMOR within the inner circles is that he's going to pick Joe Biden. I cant verify, I'm just reporting what I heard.
Gary (NJ)
posted by , at
7/23/2008 12:46 PM
Biden would be an excellent choice!
posted by , at
7/23/2008 1:16 PM
Emily, good point!
Chris, I'm stunned. I've not heard anything in the news today, not even on Air America about this. What a disgrace if its true as you say. I was hoping he'd pick him for VP. Joe Biden on the other hand would make an excellent choice given his foreign policy experience.
What is so tragic about Edwards is that on the one hand he does not support marriage equality while his wonderful wife does, and on the other....he's now embroiled in an anti-marriage activity, ergo an extra-marital affair. Hypocrisy knows no bounds I guess at least among the straight democrats and neocons alike. So sad.
posted by , at
7/23/2008 4:16 PM
Emily:
:D
posted by , at
7/23/2008 5:32 PM
I'll bet the Hillary camp exposed this. Oooorrrr.... maybe the Obama camp exposed this because they really don't want him for a running mate. If it was right wingers - they would have waited for the VP announcment and then sprung the news.
posted by , at
7/23/2008 10:58 PM
After thinking about this one, i feel that this may actually improve his image. That would be amazing.
posted by , at
7/24/2008 12:52 AM
I hope for his wife's sake that this is not true. I like his wife. I've always liked her better than her husband anyway.
posted by , at
7/24/2008 10:43 AM
The Democrat scandals are usually heterosexual in nature, the GOP (gay ol party), well, not so much these days.
posted by , at
7/24/2008 11:22 AM
Slate.com has posted an article which discusses the phenomenon of this story being ignored by the mainstream press:
http://www.slate.com/id/2195869/
Psychologically speaking, this story is more evidence that human beings just don't live altruistic lives despite the pretending that we all do. Yes, John Edwards has a wife with cancer at home, but he isn't going to give up on his own dreams or needs, nor do most people. Depending on how you look at it, it seems that Ayn Rand was right in some ways.
posted by , at
7/24/2008 1:04 PM
Robert is never short on floating conspiracist nonsense. I don't mind. It makes me laugh...
Chris L. is right about Ayn Rand being right on many issues. One area was her view of homosexuality.
Rand was right in her consistent advocacy for the right of political freedom for homosexuals.
And she was right in her personal views of homosexuality, which were unambiguously negative. She was also right to oppose laws against discrimination within the private sector.
In 1971, Rand was asked the following by a moderator: "This questioner says she read somewhere that you consider all forms of homosexuality immoral. If this is so, why?"
Rand answered: "Because it involves psychological flaws, corruptions, errors, or unfortunate premises, but there is a psychological immorality at the root of homosexuality. Therefore I regard it as immoral. But I do not believe that the government has the right to prohibit it. It is the privilege of any individual to use his sex life in whichever way he wants it. That's his legal right, provided he is not forcing it on anyone. And therefore the idea that it's proper among consenting adults is the proper formulation legally. Morally it is immoral, and more than that, if you want my really sincere opinion, it is disgusting."
Well said.
posted by , at
7/24/2008 1:30 PM
I am aware of Rand's view of homosexuality and, of course, disagree completely with her apparent belief, asserted over 50 years ago, that it was a psychologically-based immaturity, a notion that was proven to be fallacious by Dr. Evelyn Hooker in the 1950s.
Rand made many errors. Sadly, she was a very heavy cigarette smoker. She didn't just oppose laws against anti-gay discrimination in the private sector; she opposed all non-discrimination laws, another position I strongly disagree with.
Rand thought that businesses should be allowed to turn away anyone, although the belief was not based upon bigotry but a misguided sense of privatism and unregulated capitalism. She also believed in "voluntary taxation," something I find stunningly naive. She was also a proud atheist, something that I think you would disagree with, Theo, based upon the nature of your posts.
Nonetheless, I always admired this brave, hard-working woman for her main contribution, which was to teach us all that the highest morality is not that of altruistic self-sacrifice, which kills the spirit, but of self-interest. She taught us that the true heroes are those who work to guiltlessly become the very best people that they can be. This not only helps themselves, but, ironically, helps all of us as that collective she so passionately opposed.
posted by , at
7/24/2008 2:28 PM
Ayn Rand's views and objections concerning homosexuality were much broader than you acknowledge. And the nonsensical, irrational, and unempirical "psychobabble" that came from the likes of Evelyn Hooker is just as ludicrous and arbitrary as the "right-wing" "research" so-many visitors to this blog rightly mock.
Your view on discrimination Chris L. is hardly surprising - and unsurprisingly anti-liberty and anti-freedom of association (something you and others allegedly champion elsewhere). Free association is a crucially important implication of the rights of private property. If we cannot freely associate with others on a mutually voluntary basis, our property rights are to that extent abrogated.
All laws against so-called "discrimination" are violations of free association, because they force two parties, one of which who wishes to have nothing to do with the other, to interact despite these desires. When a store owner is forced to sell to customers against his will, and is not free to snub any of them on whatever racial, sexual, religious, etc., basis he chooses, he is to that extent a slave. The difference between such laws and outright slavery is only one of degree: in each case, the essence of the matter is that people are forced to associate with others against their will.
As an enormous fan, I'm aware of Rand's (at times militant) atheism and (as she aged) agnosticism and (before her death) her comments that allowed for the existence of God. Alhough she was an atheist for the vast-majority of her life, her idolatry consisted in her membership in the Religion of Reason. The inconsistencies of her religion worked on her a lot, and given that she was an intellectually honest woman, she softened her atheism progressively throughout her life.
Christian thought in no way rejects reason or mistrusts reason, properly understood. In the generic sense "reason" simply refers to man's intellectual or mental capacity. Christians believe in reason, and non-Christians believe in reason. They both believe in man's intellectual capacity.
However, for each one, his view of reason and his use of reason is controlled by the worldview within which reason operates. And because the atheistic worldview is irrational, arbitrary, and inconsistent, their reasoning skills - or lack thereof - are normally the same.
posted by , at
7/24/2008 5:06 PM
Anti-discrimination laws in no way compromise our constitutional right to freedom of association. If a business owner decides to open a store and serve the public, he must serve the entire public. Yet, you assert that a pizza shop owner, for example, should be able to place a sign in the window that says "no blacks served." This is not acceptable.
Serving persons equally does not constitute "association" any more than child pornography constitutes "freedom of the press." The store owner does not become a "slave", as his freedom lies in determining for himself whether or not he wants to sell to the (entire) public at large; HE still determines whether he gets out of bed in the morning; HE is the main beneficiary of his work. Anti-discrimination is not conscription.
Evelyn Hooker used double-blind methodology. The "ex-gay" industries last so-called "study" laughably involved calling self-professed "ex-gays" on the phone (many of whom were employed by the industry itself!) and, most outrageously, asking them if they were still "ex-gay"!
To call this science is hysterical. You cannot compare it to Hooker's pioneering research. However, I am not surprised to hear that you mock psychology. You are clearly anti-humanistic, but you must be in order to defend religion, which itself subverts the mind to the make-believe "higher authority." Pity. The computer you now use and the Internet which now hosts this stimulating exchange is the direct result of humankind's most refreshing efforts.
Finally, Christianity not only mistrusts reason, it is the very antithesis of reason! "Rely not upon your own understanding", scripture unabashedly advises. It is absurd that we are asked to believe that a man (Jesus) had to be "sacrificed" in order to prevent "a soul" (another unproven myth) from being tortured for all eternity. It is idiocy and rank superstition. Christians do not believe in reason; in fact, they war against it. It's time to summon the courage to free yourself from the chains and binds of having to carry water for these silly stories.
posted by , at
7/25/2008 11:56 AM
Chris L. writes: "If a business owner decides to open a store and serve the public, he must serve the entire public."
Why? Based on what philosophically and/or legally and/or constitutionally? It's his store. He can serve whoever he wants. Who are you, or a mob, to tell that man who he HAS to serve? And under what threat? Are you threatening this man with force?
If he doesn't want to serve blacks or whites, heterosexuals or homosexuals, midgets or giants, that's for him to decide. Is it his store or not? If he is not allowed to serve who he wants, he is a slave to you and/or a slave to the mob.
"Anti-psychology" would be a bit of a stretch, but I know how much the Lavender Brigade loves to preface everything with "anti," so I'll admit I'm "anti-pyschobabble" and "anti-promoting studies that seek to 'prove' what's largely unprovable in the empirical way the publishers and the supporters present it."
As a "science," psychology is nothing more than a fake, false, and "pseudo-science" which the dictionaries should define as "a system of theories, assumptions, and methods erroneously regarded as scientific." If you're "pro-psychology" in it's modern sense and understanding, more often than not you're "anti-science."
You claim that Christianity "is the very antithesis of reason." Could you please cite verses (in context please) or maybe some tradition that supports that audacious claim? As you look for that, what you will find is the clear teaching of the Scriptures that followers of Jesus Christ are to have a rational faith - a faith based upon knowledge and refined through testing. Christians are encouraged to use their minds in all aspects of life, including our spiritual life. Our Creator values truthfulness to a high degree and wants us to know the truth about His creation, the nature of His being and His revelation to us.
posted by , at
7/25/2008 1:33 PM
Theo, my good friend, if you think the Jesus story is based upon science, maybe we should just agree to disagree. The notion that "there had to be" a sacrifice (much as the Jews of the time would sacrifice lambs so that the blood would wash away the sins of the people) of a man to save the non-existent "souls" of humanity is patently absurd! Even the gospel accounts of the resurrection cannot themselves be brought into harmony. It is a story that was simply made up. It is a total hoax that was invented by story-tellers. It isn't true.
Psychology is a social science. Members of the bible brigade like yourself hate it because it explains you guys backwards and forwards, up and down, so I am not surprised that you reject it.
No, a business owner does NOT have the right to refuse black people, white people, midgets, Jews, born again Christians or anyone that the law, as long as it is constitutional, says he cannot refuse. And he is not a "slave." Is he a "slave to the mob" because of ALL business regulation or just because of anti-discrimination law?
Is he a slave because he has to sign up for and pass a food handling course before opening his store? Truly *private* clubs can and do discriminate, and that is where you miss the point; public businesses are subject to governmental (public) regulation and the courts have never intruded upon this.
posted by , at
7/25/2008 2:29 PM
Chris L. wrote: "Even the gospel accounts of the resurrection cannot themselves be brought into harmony."
Please point out any contradictions.
You made a distinction between "private clubs" and "public businesses." Could you provide some sort of legal definition and distinction between these two and cite some sort of statutory or common law provisions to back up your claim?
posted by , at
7/25/2008 3:02 PM
The gospel accounts of the resurrection do NOT harmonize, and if I bring out the contradictions of which you are obviously fully aware, I am sure you will have an excuse as to why they say different things and will simply refuse to admit that they constitute a contradiction. But a basic list can be found by searching google, as well as the response of the Christian apologist which is entirely inadequate.
Also, you know fully well that the law defines private and public very differently. Come on, now! Do you deny that the law treats private clubs differently than it treats public businesses? You need only look to your own churches to see this. I know what you're trying to do, so please stop using debate protocol and instead directly state your position. :-)
posted by , at
7/25/2008 3:32 PM
Chris L., I'll ask you again because you're assuming what isn't true and what you need to prove for your point to be valid. Once you concede your point the rest of your case will fall apart.
So again, you made a distinction between "private clubs" and "public businesses." Could you provide some sort of legal definition and distinction between these two and cite some sort of statutory or common law provisions to back up your claim?
posted by , at
7/25/2008 4:30 PM
Theo, if you find us so 'disgusting', like Ayn Rand, why the fuck dont you just get lost and dont come back. Is some fascist hate church paying you to post here, or are you just some pathetic loser who sits on the computer all day? The only thing disgusting is your totally bogus 'morality'.
posted by , at
7/26/2008 10:24 AM
Such conspiratorial nonsense can only come from the likes of Robert. Then again, maybe he's paying someone to be here? HMM...
posted by , at
7/26/2008 10:55 AM
Theo, I will not do your homework for you. And I will not respond to your endless questions. The law has recognized clear differences between private and public enterprises. If you want to find legal opinions which back this up, you will have to find them on your own. Instead of attempting to suffocate your opponents with endless questioning, you should make your own assertions if you have them. If you want to maintain that the law doesn't acknowledge a distinction between public and private, go ahead and say so, and back it up with references.
posted by , at
7/26/2008 11:21 AM
Of course you won't Chris L., because you have no idea what you're talking about on a multitude of issues. We would both agree that most discrimination imposed by government is wrong and creates many problems. What you ignore is the fact that so-called "anti-discrimination" laws also create many problems – specifically dealing with private property rights, liberty issues, the freedom of association, and a host of other economic rights.
The bottom line is this: If we as individuals have a right to trade, then we also have the right not to trade. And we have the right not to trade with others for any reason we want. The right of association includes the right not to associate. Why? Because the exercise of the right to trade and the right of association depends on mutual consent. If you want to enlist the guns of government to interfere with these rights, it is you who has the thug philosophy of law and government and is anti-liberty.
posted by , at
7/26/2008 12:00 PM
No, you're the one who is wrong. I am no fan of government per se, but the government clearly has a right to regulate commerce and the marketplace. Anti-discrimination laws are a part of that regulation.
The courts have never found them unconstitutional. And you never answered my previous question: Do you favor those laws which require a restaurant owner to enroll in, pay for and pass a class on proper food handling and allow regular government inspection of his premises (for reasons of compliance), or is it only the anti-discrimination laws that bother you?
posted by , at
7/26/2008 12:39 PM
"Such conspiratorial nonsense can only come from the likes of Robert. Then again, maybe he's paying someone to be here? HMM..."
posted by Theo, at 7/26/2008 10:55 AM
Oh Theo, Theo, poor pathetic, unhappy self-loathing, deeply closeted gay republican Theo. So now who's the one caught up in conspiracy theories? Hypocrite!
posted by , at
7/26/2008 2:54 PM
Chris L., it is your assumption that anti-discrimination laws are apart of Congress' constitutional authority to regulate commerce between the states, not mine. Randy Barnett, a law professor at Georgetown, has written some excellent articles on the commerce clause I would recommend you read if and when time allows:
http://randybarnett.com/Original.htm
http://randybarnett.com/55ark847.html\
Concerning your question, I do find it interesting that you'll refuse to answer my questions and then have the audacity to ask me some. Oh well! I will answer your question though.
First off, the laws you speak of can't properly be labeled "anti-discrimination laws," so you're bringing up a new topic.
Second, I don't favor those laws, but recognize that STATE governments have constitutional authority to make them. It is NOT a federal issue.
Finally, a truly free marketplace is what would lead to food safety in restaurants. Under a truly free market system, restaurant owners have an incentive to cook their food properly and serve it safely. The matter of food safety in restaurants is between the owner who cooks the food and the customer who trades for it. Serving unsafe food is not in the interest of a restaurant owner who wants to be successful and survive in a competitive marketplace. Government is an unnecessary third party in this context. And please note, if you next address legal recourse for receiving unsafe food, recognize that again you are bringing up a new legal issue.
And Robert, whoever you are, I was mocking you above. I apologize for not making my sarcastic remarks more clear. In the future I will more plainly help you know when I'm making fun of you and your ridiculous conspiracy views.
posted by , at
7/26/2008 3:28 PM
"Such conspiratorial nonsense can only come from the likes of Robert. Then again, maybe he's paying someone to be here? HMM..."
posted by Theo, at 7/26/2008 10:55 AM
Again, Theo/Aj (Aj, the other alias you use according to a posting by Scott), it is quite apparent that you are now engaging in conspiracy theories and assumptions. Stop the hypocrisy and double-standard! Mocking by the way is also sinful, turn the other cheek if we offend you and live by the scripture that you believe in. Stop proselytizing by using this blogsite as the rooftop from which you spew your religious bile.
"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you (Matthew 6:5-6).
Obviously, you are incapable of living by what your preach!
posted by , at
7/28/2008 8:27 AM
Robert, whoever you are, I have no idea who "Scott" is or what he's talking about. I've consistently posted here as Theo.
I know that doesn't fit into your conspiratorial worldview Robert, whoever you are, but for that you need professional help.*
And may I ask what Bible are you reading? The God of Genesis to Revelation in general and the Jesus of the Gospels in particular mocked people and was brutally sarcastic. So were the vast-majority of the prophets of Israel. So was St. Paul. "But that doesn't fit my preconceived notion!" cries Robert, whoever you are. Well, cry me a river...*
*sarcasm and mocking
posted by , at
7/28/2008 12:32 PM
Ayn Rand was in no position to judge anyone. Her own affair with Nathanial was discusting. Her discust with homosexuality was personal and rooted in her jewish upbringing. Her brother in law Nick was gay and she was close to him. She was an atheist all her life to the end. Near the end she was tolerant of those who would say "god bless you". She god represented the highest level achievable or something to that effect. She also could not have been more thrilled with abortion. She was totally in favor of this. and this is the most important issue to christian consevatives becasuse it deals with life itself.
I have always wondered whether christians consider aborted fetuses to have souls and what happens to those souls. Do they all go to heaven? Theo could answer this best
posted by , at
7/28/2008 1:29 PM
and this (from wikipedia):
In 1983, Branden wrote that Rand was "absolutely and totally ignorant” about homosexuality. Branden added that he saw her perspective "as calamitous, as wrong, as reckless, as irresponsible, and as cruel, and as one which I know has hurt too many people who ... looked up to her and assumed that if she would make that strong a statement she must have awfully good reasons."
Harry Binswanger, of the Ayn Rand Institute writes that, while Rand generally condemned homosexuality, she would adopt a somewhat modified view of it "when she was in an especially good mood."[2] He also noted that he "asked her privately (circa 1980) specifically whether she thought it was immoral. She said that we didn't know enough about the development of homosexuality in a person's psychology to say that it would have to involve immorality."
[edit] After Rand's death
After Rand's death in 1982, her heir, Leonard Peikoff, went on record disagreeing with Rand's statement.[3] Peikoff argued that homosexuality itself is not open to moral judgment. Other contemporary Objectivists generally continue to support the view that, while government should not discriminate against homosexuals in any way, private individuals and private organizations should be free to do so.
Is it true? I don't know, I wasn't there.
In Theo's mind gays are going to hell and so are catholics. So you gays out there, you are no less moral then Mother Theresa and your fate is the same (hell)
posted by , at
7/28/2008 1:44 PM
Aborted unborn children - fully humans created in God's image - are covered by God's grace and will be in heaven. I base my view on sacred scripture and tradition, God's mercy as exemplified in sacred scripture, and Jesus Christ's treatment of children in the Gospel biographies.
posted by , at
7/28/2008 2:55 PM
Then following that logic, abortion should be celebrated! If 100% of the aborted go to heaven, why bring life to term at all. What better way to insure eternal life for your offspring, considering, by your theology, only a minority of those brought to term will go to heaven. In fact given that only a small fraction of a womans eggs will ever be fertilized, shouldn't we harvest as many eggs from women,and also clone eggs in a lab, fertalize them all and toss them in the incinerator and watch their widdle souls rise to heaven.
Ayn Rand viewed religion as childish and I can see why.
posted by , at
7/28/2008 3:57 PM
What absolutely chilling, shocking, bloodthirsty, and anti-life "logic" that is! Similar, of course, to the anti-life logic of homosexuality.
Our Creator - the creator of all life - abhors and detests the shedding of innocent blood. There's nothing in Scripture (recall that you asked me for my Christian worldview perspective) which in any way teaches that because unborn infants go to heaven at death we should therefore kill them. As men and women seeking God and His glory, we should be appalled at and avoid the shedding of innocent blood.
To try and create arguments that in any way minimize the tremendous horror that are abortions is repulsive and repugnant. Your argument appeals to the worst of human depravity, seducing the savage supporters of death to minimize what their Creator has stated is absolutely evil.
posted by , at
7/28/2008 4:58 PM
So help me here. Lets say I have a petri dish with a thousand eggs in it that I just cloned. I pour in a teaspoon of semen and fertalize them all and toss them into the furnace creating a thousand souls for god. I may go to hell for doing it, but where is the blood? I am sorry, but like Rand I find abortion to be as blood thirsty as removing a mole. What is going on in Iraq is blood thirsty. Microsopic fertilized eggs tossed in the furnace is simply creating life.
posted by , at
7/28/2008 5:33 PM
I should note that I am making an abstract point. Not having a christian dominionist view, life in the real sense is infinitely more important then life in the abstract, i.e. fertalized eggs. There is plenty of innocent god sanctioned blood shedding in the bible btw and no I won't give examples so don't ask. Instead I will allow you to explain away the examples that you might expect an atheist to give. this will save one of us typing.
posted by , at
7/28/2008 6:00 PM
Actually we need to back up for a bit. You see, most atheists will object to the God of the Bible on the basis of alleged ethical "problems" with the character and attributes of God as He is revealed to His creation in the Sacred Scriptures.
Whether they use the slaughter of the Canaanites or the eternal wrath of God on the impenitent, it's normally the same song and dance. The central theme is usually "Who would want to worship a God like THAT!"
However, despite the very surface-level plausibility of these objections, a careful - yet very simple - examination of the argument reveals that the atheists Achilles is attacking the Christians Hector with his bare heel. Instead of being the atheist's strongest case against the One True and Living God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the atheist's objection in fact demonstrates the radical futility of their irrational unbelief.
For without God there are no ethical objections to ANYTHING!
posted by , at
7/28/2008 9:58 PM
honey, you misunderstand ethics AND god. you should not be commenting on ANYTHING if you can make a statement like that
posted by , at
7/29/2008 11:21 AM
One True and Living God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob
You are full of meaningless platitudes. You should be preaching on a street corner with a tin cup in your hand.
As to your "anti-life" comments, this is a pure Ayn Rand comment,one she often used to describe those who believe in god, such as yourself. And, of course she is correct, fundy christians are anti-life.
posted by , at
7/29/2008 11:32 AM
I'm not sure if that constitutes your argument Ben, but I'll bite (even though I know you'll run away, throwing out terms like "troll," etc.).
If there is no God, then ALL things - including morality and ethics, tragedy, sorrow, etc. - are in the same meaningless category. They are equally brief and fleeting. They are all nothing more than empty sensations created by the chemical reactions of the brain, which in turn were created by too much spicy Kung Pao the night before.
If there is no God, as you and others appear to believe, then ALL abstractions are nothing more than chemical epiphenomena, akin to marshy fumes over foul waters.
And this means that you have absolutely no justifiable reason for assigning TRUTH and FALSITY to the chemical fizz you call reasoning or RIGHT and WRONG to the irrational reaction you call morality. If there is no God, then you are simply a set of bi-pedal carbon units of mostly water. And nothing else.
And for you to then argue anything based on "good" and "bad," "right" and "wrong," "human rights," etc., is the height of irrationality, arbitrariness, and inconsistency. Basically it's an outflow of your absurd worldview.
posted by , at
7/29/2008 12:23 PM
Actuallly, Theo, YOU have no reason to assign values of right or wrong.
don't speak for me, because I do.
In the immortal words of Mammy yokum-- Good is better than evil 'casue it's nicer.
posted by , at
7/29/2008 1:12 PM
Oh, crap, I just can't resist it. Moral infantility always gets me.
You're right, theo. there is no meaning without god. there is no meaning with god, either.
Assigning Meaning is a human attribute, the result of the same chemical miasma or whatever your were talking aobut.
But just because something has no meaning, does not indicate that it has no value.
and therein lies the flaw in all your arguments. YOU assume that meaning is inherent in god, and must be inhgerent in your, and all, life.
grow up, honey.
posted by , at
7/29/2008 1:17 PM
Rand:
Happiness is the successful state of life, pain is an agent of death. Happiness is that state of consciousness which proceeds from the achievement of one’s values. A morality that dares to tell you to find happiness in the renunciation of your happiness—to value the failure of your values—is an insolent negation of morality. A doctrine that gives you, as an ideal, the role of a sacrificial animal seeking slaughter on the altars of others, is giving you death as your standard. By the grace of reality and the nature of life, man—every man—is an end in himself, he exists for his own sake, and the achievement of his own happiness is his highest moral purpose.
But neither life nor happiness can be achieved by the pursuit of irrational whims. Just as man is free to attempt to survive in any random manner, but will perish unless he lives as his nature requires, so he is free to seek his happiness in any mindless fraud, but the torture of frustration is all he will find, unless he seeks the happiness proper to man. The purpose of morality is to teach you, not to suffer and die, but to enjoy yourself and live.
posted by , at
7/29/2008 2:14 PM
Christ, in terms of the Christian philosophy, is the human ideal. He personifies that which men should strive to emulate. Yet, according to the Christian mythology, he died on the cross not for his own sins but for the sins of the nonideal people. In other words, a man of perfect virtue was sacrificed for men who are vicious and who are expected or supposed to accept that sacrifice. If I were a Christian, nothing could make me more indignant than that: the notion of sacrificing the ideal to the nonideal, or virtue to vice. And it is in the name of that symbol that men are asked to sacrifice themselves for their inferiors. That is precisely how the symbolism is used.
“Playboy’s Interview with Ayn Rand,” March 1964
posted by , at
7/29/2008 2:22 PM
Ben, as you were trying real hard to come up with clever insults and appear smart (you failed to accomplish both), you missed my challenge. You would obviously admit that there is a distinction between human intelligence and marsh fumes. But you have absolutely no way to ACCOUNT for that distinction.
If there is no God Ben, then WHY is there a distinction between the chemical reactions that occur in your head and the chemical reactions that occur elsewhere?
Suppose you and I both agreed that the walls of a house are straight. I say there must be a foundation under it - there must be a PRECONDITION for the straight walls we both acknowledge exist. Your hypothesis is the house has no foundation at all and doesn't need one. "See," you cry out, "the walls are straight without a foundation."
But given your atheistic worldview's assumptions, WHY? Can you please explain to me how time and chance acting on matter can produce the straight walls of reason and morality?
posted by , at
7/30/2008 2:19 PM
come on Theo, be a man, expose yourself and answer these questions. I really need to know how to cure my homosexuality. I am thinking of becoming a catholic or mormon or protestant. will all of these work equally to save may soul
Will Catholics go to hell?
Will Jews go to hell?
Will mormons go to hell?
yes
or
no
posted by , at
7/30/2008 3:33 PM
You were asking me that? Haven't I already answered that?
ANY person - whether they identify themselves as Roman Catholic, Jewish, Mormon, etc. - who rejects their Creator's provision (the shed blood and sacrificial death of the Messiah of Israel, Jesus the Christ) for the forgiveness of their breaking of God's Law will die and suffer punishment for their unlawful actions in hell.
What you may be asking is whether a Roman Catholic who strictly adheres to the specific Roman Catholic faith (i.e., accepts the Council of Trent and at least Vatican I), and whether a Jew strictly adheres to the post-32 A.D. Jewish faith (for the orthodox Jew should logically accept Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah, given that He fulfilled the prophecies), and whether a Mormon who strictly adheres to the Mormon faith, will go to hell.
If that's your question, the answer is yes, they will go to hell, in that they by definition reject the provision described above.
posted by , at
7/30/2008 4:24 PM
posted by 說妳美美美睫美甲紋繡預約0915551807, at
4/12/2009 9:29 AM
花蓮入口網|花蓮|花蓮民宿|花蓮民宿訂房諮詢服務|花蓮美食|花蓮民宿|花蓮旅遊|花蓮|花蓮電影|花蓮|花蓮民宿|花蓮海洋公園|花蓮縣長|花蓮遠來飯店|花蓮提拉米蘇|花蓮客運|蜂蜜|花蓮太魯閣|花蓮廣告|花蓮旅遊|花蓮地圖|花蓮旅遊|花蓮民宿|花蓮房屋|花蓮旅遊|花蓮民宿|花蓮汽車|花蓮餐廳|花蓮旅館|花蓮瑞穗牧場|花蓮名產|花蓮民宿|花蓮租屋|花蓮理想大地|花蓮民宿|花蓮廣告|花蓮黃頁 網路電話簿|花蓮民宿|花蓮計程車|花蓮餐廳|花蓮租車旅遊資訊網|花蓮入口網 IN HUALIEN 吃喝玩樂樣樣通|花蓮旅遊|花蓮|花蓮|花蓮|花蓮|花蓮|花蓮花蓮|花蓮民宿|花蓮|花蓮民宿|花蓮民宿|花蓮美食|花蓮旅遊|花蓮|花蓮租車|花蓮就業|花蓮房屋|花蓮旅遊|花蓮旅遊花蓮|花蓮民宿|花蓮旅遊|花蓮美食|花蓮住宿|花蓮飯店|花蓮旅館|花蓮|花蓮民宿|花蓮民宿推薦|花蓮民宿市區|花蓮民宿王|花蓮民宿網|花蓮民宿資訊網|花蓮民宿悠遊網|花蓮民宿交流網|花蓮海景民宿|花蓮海邊民宿|花蓮海岸民宿|花蓮旅遊民宿|花蓮|花蓮旅遊|花蓮廣告|花蓮民宿|花蓮房屋|花蓮汽車旅館|花蓮飯店|花蓮民宿|花蓮美食|花蓮餐廳|花蓮小吃|花蓮名產|花蓮工作|花蓮新聞|花蓮民宿訂房|花蓮入口網 in hualien 吃喝玩樂樣樣通|花蓮旅遊|花蓮旅遊|花蓮旅遊景點|花蓮旅遊|花蓮旅遊景點|花蓮旅遊|花蓮旅遊景點|花蓮美食|花蓮餐廳|花蓮小吃|花蓮名產|花蓮縣長|花蓮民宿|花蓮民宿|花蓮計程車花蓮|花蓮|花蓮|花蓮|花蓮|花蓮|花蓮|花蓮|花蓮|花蓮|花蓮|花蓮|花蓮|花蓮|花蓮|花蓮|花蓮|花蓮|花蓮|花蓮|花蓮|花蓮|花蓮|花蓮|花蓮|花蓮|花蓮|花蓮|花蓮|花蓮|花蓮|花蓮|花蓮|花蓮|花蓮|花蓮|花蓮|花蓮
posted by , at
5/03/2009 10:00 AM
There is a cool range of nike air force 1 available including the latest Classic Cardy Style in Black, mens prada shoes, Oatmeal or Cream. These ugg store are almost impossible to get anywhere in the UK and sold out on the cheap Tiffany website within weeks. They are incredibly popular ugg store and its easy to see why. ugg discount is a really versatile boot UGG Bailey Button boots. The three chunky wooden ugg boots Boots Salep the side mean that you can wear them either buttoned up or down and they look great with buy ugg boots.he ultimate in luxury designer clothing has to still be the online shopping Australia boots. These timeless classics are available in nike shoes, Black and Sand these converse shoes really are the last word in comfort footwear. These ugg discount are made entirely from sheepskin with a light Eva sole there is nothing quite Tiffany earring like the feeling of slipping your feet into a brand new pair of ugg boots! But not only do they feel great cheap ugg they look great ugg discount too and can be worn tall or ugg down to expose the sheepskin fur.If you're looking for wholesale supplier for a special lady,discount af1 shoes sale recommend UGG Suburb Crochet from the prada shoesCollection-they have the qualities of great fashion ugg boots online and practicality combined-along with exquisite comfort. If you want to purchase the Tiffany jewelry, please visit ugg classic our online buy ugg boots shop. Welcome to select and buy ugg store!was shocked. But here was a statement ugg shoes that could be checked against future events retail supplies.
posted by Unknown, at
12/28/2009 3:30 PM
posted by 說妳美美美睫美甲紋繡預約0915551807, at
1/16/2010 12:23 AM
posted by 說妳美美美睫美甲紋繡預約0915551807, at
6/25/2010 1:41 PM
posted by 說妳美美美睫美甲紋繡預約0915551807, at
8/13/2011 9:46 AM
posted by 新北接睫毛板橋美睫預約推薦 0915551807, at
4/04/2015 2:13 PM
posted by 新北接睫毛板橋美睫預約推薦 0915551807, at
5/26/2015 10:23 AM
<< Home
