Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Nuke the ChiComs *NOW*

10 views
Skip to first unread message

Dave O'Hearn

unread,
Apr 5, 2001, 1:39:05 AM4/5/01
to
"Public <Anonymous_Account>" wrote:

Anonymous? Afraid the Reds are going to take over and torture you? They have
computer hackers, you know. For your own safety, I recommend you don't post
anymore.

> [etc etc etc etc]
> Nuke the Reds NOW! One global civilization, one system: Capitalism!

Ha ha ha ha ha.

--
Dave O'Hearn


Robert J. Kolker

unread,
Apr 5, 2001, 7:10:22 AM4/5/01
to

"Public " wrote:

> One update to my previous post: the Marxist savages are now demanding
> that America apologize for violating "their" airspace and insisting
> that America stop its surveillance flights.
>
> Let's get a few things straight here. The so-called "People's
> Republic of China" has no moral standing to assert any sovereign
> privileges whatsoever. Thuggish dictators have no rights under any
> proper understanding of international law; by their own contempt for
> the rights of Man they forfeit all the benefits of any kind of
> civilized law.

1. This is not worth starting a major war over.
2. Sec. of State Powell should have told the Chicoms
that he regrets Chines pilots fly like they drive cars.


Bob Kolker

Robert J. Kolker

unread,
Apr 5, 2001, 9:01:10 AM4/5/01
to

"Public " wrote:

>
> Finally, whoever the legitimate government of China might be and
> whatever their policy about their airspace might be, the
> internationally-recognized limits of airspace jurisdiction extends
> only 12 miles off the coast. 70 miles off the coast is international
> airspace, where Americans have a right to fly their planes and
> detect electromagnetic signals. Or are we supposed to concede that
> the whole Pacific Ocean now a ChiCom lake?
>
> The is only one correct answer America can give to the insolent
> demands of the ChiComs. The ChiCom entity must be defanged and
> destroyed by whatever means necessary. It should be obvious by
> now that global civilization cannot continue as a house divided
> against itself, half slave and half free. As long as nuke-toting
> Marxists exist on this planet, there is a clear and present danger
> to its very survival.

When shall we start the next war? Is an "incident" with a surveillance
plance (or if you wish a "spy" plane) sufficient reason to commit
troops and treasure and incur large casualties?

Have the Chinese People's Republic attacked us lately?

The Chinese have not kidnapped the plane and the crew?
After the collision, the crew of the American plane chose
not to ditch in the ocean.

Is this the cause, the time, and the place to start a nuclear
with the CPR (make no mistake, any serious war will soon
escalate into a nuclear exchange)?

Bob Kolker

6079 Smith W

unread,
Apr 5, 2001, 12:55:17 PM4/5/01
to

>One update to my previous post: the Marxist savages are now demanding
>that America apologize for violating "their" airspace and insisting
>that America stop its surveillance flights.

Quack quack quack quack quack!
Hurrah for Big Brother! Down with Eastasia!
And what would America do if it got Chinese spy planes flying up and down
it's coast?

6079 Smith W

unread,
Apr 5, 2001, 1:02:22 PM4/5/01
to
Heard of something called MAD, you silly little gung-ho turd? It's short for
Mutual Assured Destruction. In other words, if you, for some bizarre reason,
fired a 'pre-emptive' (my ass) strike at China, you would almost certainly
be a charred, carbonized crisp, along with everyone else in your city,
within hours. And quite honestly, you deserve it.

Stephen Grossman

unread,
Apr 5, 2001, 5:26:21 PM4/5/01
to
"Robert J. Kolker" wrote:

> 2. Sec. of State Powell should have told the Chicoms
> that he regrets Chines pilots fly like they drive cars.

I just saw a similar email comment on CNN! ARe you stealing jokes?

--
=======================================================
Reason is man's basic means of survival. AYN RAND
-------------------------------------------------------
Tracking Marxist dialectical revolution: ZigZag
Radically systematic radical metaphysics: Existence 2
http://home.att.net/~sdgross
-------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Grossman Fairhaven, MA, USA sdg...@att.net
=======================================================

Stephen Grossman

unread,
Apr 5, 2001, 5:27:33 PM4/5/01
to

we are moral. they are not. THus, we have rights, they forfeited theirs.

Robert J. Kolker

unread,
Apr 5, 2001, 6:07:24 PM4/5/01
to

Stephen Grossman wrote:

> "Robert J. Kolker" wrote:
>
> > 2. Sec. of State Powell should have told the Chicoms
> > that he regrets Chines pilots fly like they drive cars.
>
> I just saw a similar email comment on CNN! ARe you stealing jokes?
>

Mine! Mine ! All Mine! Do you hear? All Mine!

>

Bob Kolker


6079 Smith W

unread,
Apr 5, 2001, 6:48:20 PM4/5/01
to

>> Quack quack quack quack quack!
>> Hurrah for Big Brother! Down with Eastasia!
>> And what would America do if it got Chinese spy planes flying up and down
>> it's coast?
>
>we are moral. they are not. THus, we have rights, they forfeited theirs.
>

and it's not like the Chinese were roughly 2,500 years in advance of
America. Nooo.
Moral justification for a war is total nonsense. You're going to prove how
moral you are by killing upwards of 15 million civilians? Possibly up to
half a billion, or indeed, indirectly, all life on this Earth?
Try to actually speak from your mouth and not the other end of your
alimentary canal in your reply. And also using your *own* brain somewhere in
the equation would be appreciated, too.

"The purpose of propoganda is to make the populace forget the enemy are
human"
Orwell

6079 Smith W

unread,
Apr 5, 2001, 7:02:32 PM4/5/01
to

>Once you begin to play the pragmatist game, once you compromise the
>principle that the integrity of American lives and American territory
>is the highest priority of the American government, then thugs all
>over the world will..

Thugs? THUGS?!? 'Don't fuck with us or we'll nuke you back to the stone
age'. How much more thuggish can you fucking get?!?

Dale Worthington

unread,
Apr 5, 2001, 8:23:52 PM4/5/01
to


On 5 Apr 2001, Stephen Grossman wrote:

> we are moral. they are not. THus, we have rights, they forfeited theirs.
>


That is a completely ignorant statement.

We are moral? Come on you are giving Objectivists a bad name.

By what right do you feel it is okay to violate the rights of others
because you think you are right?
Thats called repression. Do socialists in our country forfeit their
"rights" because of the ideas that they hold, and are you willing to view
them as rightless?
Rights are something intrinsic to mans nature, and are defined by it, not
something that can be forfeited, you still have rights even if you kill
someone. You are imprisoned by force in retaliation to your actions, but
you still have your rights, they don't go away ever and its the very idea
that they somehow mysteriously dissappear that allows people to lose sight
of the true nature of rights and thus violations once again become
acceptable.

It was the idea if you held an irrational(immoral) thought about a
minority your decision to chose who works for you was taken away(right of
property), its what made the biggest travesty of human rights in
america possible. The Civil Rights bill.


Dale Worthington

Robert J. Kolker

unread,
Apr 5, 2001, 10:38:29 PM4/5/01
to

"Public " wrote:

> 6079 Smith W <win...@ministry-of-love.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Moral justification for a war is total nonsense. You're going to prove how
> > moral you are by killing upwards of 15 million civilians?
>

> No, we are going to prove how moral we are by disarming and killing
> those who are robbing others of liberty. It is sad that millions
> of helpless coolies will get in the way, but that can't be helped.
> We also prove how moral we are by valuing life lived in a manner
> proper to human existence, not life lived in a manner that advances
> the interests of socialist dictators.

Are you aware of what a war would do to millions of United Stateseans.

If our survival were at stake (it is not) it might make sense to
bear the cost of a war. But over a small matter? To sacrifice
the lives of thousands or possible hundreds of thousands of
American citizens? You are daft.

I tell you what. You volunteer to die and I will cheer you
on, very patriotically --- from a safe place.

He who sows the wind shall reap the whirlwind.

Bob Kolker

A is A Exterminators

unread,
Apr 6, 2001, 12:28:06 AM4/6/01
to
In article <9aiti1$7ua$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk>, 6079 Smith W says...

It's only a fucking matter of self-defense against countries who are mortal
threats or outright aggressors, whose fucking governments have no right to
exist
in current form. Totalitarian nations are thuggish in principle.

Nuking them back to the fucking stone age might not be the specific recommended
policy to implement a proper stand against fucking foreign thugs, but we have
every right to take a stand, in the most effective manner possible for the
protection of individual rights, against these fucking thugs.

--
A is A Exterminators
Here to check your fucking premises

Steve Reed

unread,
Apr 6, 2001, 12:34:15 AM4/6/01
to
"Public <Anonymous_Account>" <rema...@xganon.com> wrote:

>[...] And yes, Carter should have nuked Iran too.

>[...] Powell and all the rest of the Bush administration should keep their
>mouths shut. We can save our expression of regrets until ~after~ we
>have taken out their leadership and their strategic assets with a
>first strike.

You don't use anonymous remailers too adeptly, do you, Mr. Speicher?

--
* Stev...@earthling.net *

The average cost of rehabilitating a seal after the Exxon
Valdez oil spill in Alaska was $80,000. At a special ceremony,
two of the most expensively saved animals were released back
into the wild amid cheers and applause from onlookers. A minute
later, in full view, they were both eaten by a killer whale.

Gaius Helen Mohiam

unread,
Apr 6, 2001, 7:49:40 AM4/6/01
to
"Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:3ACD2C0B...@mediaone.net...

> I tell you what. You volunteer to die and I will cheer you
> on, very patriotically --- from a safe place.


Now, now, Bob, isn't this a bit too much? I mean, there are institutions for
the mentally handicapped like our anonymous friend. -- Helen.

6079 Smith W

unread,
Apr 6, 2001, 7:55:21 AM4/6/01
to

In article <11iz6.4740$wQ1.9...@typhoon.nyroc.rr.com>, Gaius Helen Mohiam
<GMo...@Bene-Gesserith.org> wrote:

Graveyards.

Betsy Speicher

unread,
Apr 6, 2001, 9:52:38 AM4/6/01
to
On 6 Apr 2001, Steve Reed wrote:

> "Public <Anonymous_Account>" <rema...@xganon.com> wrote:
>
> >[...] And yes, Carter should have nuked Iran too.
>
> >[...] Powell and all the rest of the Bush administration should keep their
> >mouths shut. We can save our expression of regrets until ~after~ we
> >have taken out their leadership and their strategic assets with a
> >first strike.
>
> You don't use anonymous remailers too adeptly, do you, Mr. Speicher?

That isn't Stephen. It's probably Cathcart pretending to be a an "ARIan."

Betsy Speicher

You'll know Objectivism is winning when ... you read the CyberNet -- the
most complete and comprehensive e-mail news source about Objectivists,
their activities, and their victories. Request a sample issue at
cybe...@speicher.com or visit http://www.stauffercom.com/cybernet/


Robert J. Kolker

unread,
Apr 6, 2001, 9:54:44 AM4/6/01
to

Betsy Speicher wrote:

>
> That isn't Stephen. It's probably Cathcart pretending to be a an "ARIan."
>

I did not think so. If Stephen had anything to say about it,
he would have said it and signed his name to it. What
ever else your husband is, bashful is not it.

Bob Kolker

Chris Cathcart

unread,
Apr 6, 2001, 12:31:31 PM4/6/01
to
>===== Original Message From Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com> =====

>On 6 Apr 2001, Steve Reed wrote:
>
>> "Public <Anonymous_Account>" <rema...@xganon.com> wrote:
[...]
>That isn't Stephen. It's probably Cathcart pretending to be a an "ARIan."

Okay, if, in your Peikoffian epistemological terminology, it's probable, you
can generate evidence of such. Even more than a shred of it.

Or can we conclude that you're probably trolling?

--
Chris Cathcart

"Forget your perfect offerings; everything's
cracked. That's how the light gets in."
-Unknown

"I felt this incredible surge of power, the way God must feel when
he's holding a gun." -Homer Simpson, on the joys of gun-ownership

"He's a shady character who played us all for chumps!"
-Mayor Quimby, on Armand Tanzarian, a.k.a. Principal Skinner

Gordon G. Sollars

unread,
Apr 6, 2001, 12:46:21 PM4/6/01
to
In article <Pine.LNX.4.20.010406...@hypermall.com>,
Betsy Speicher writes...
...

> That isn't Stephen. It's probably Cathcart pretending to be a an "ARIan."

Then kudos to Chris for a spot-on impersonation!

--
Gordon Sollars
gsol...@pobox.com

Kyle Haight

unread,
Apr 6, 2001, 1:06:11 PM4/6/01
to
In article <3AE6...@MailAndNews.com>,

Chris Cathcart <cath...@MailAndNews.com> wrote:
>
>Okay, if, in your Peikoffian epistemological terminology, it's probable, you
>can generate evidence of such. Even more than a shred of it.

Based on the fact that you have engaged in similar behavior on this group
in the past (and evidence to that effect has been presented), you are
a plausible candidate in this case. This is no different from rounding
up the "usual suspects" in a criminal investigation. It isn't conclusive,
but it's a good place to start.

>Or can we conclude that you're probably trolling?

I think she drew a plausible inference based on observations of prior
behavior. Not to put too fine a point on it, but if you don't want
to be accused of pseudonymous impersonations of "ARIans", you shouldn't
have been doing it in the first place.

--
Kyle Haight
kha...@alumni.ucsd.edu

"Feeding on the blood of the working classes for fun and profit."

Ken Gardner

unread,
Apr 6, 2001, 1:50:40 PM4/6/01
to
Gordon G. Sollars says...

> > That isn't Stephen. It's probably Cathcart pretending to be a an "ARIan."

> Then kudos to Chris for a spot-on impersonation!

That's who I thought it was as well, and if so a first rate job at that.
But it could just as easily be an parody of original Peikoff radio
speech as well.

--
Ken

Chris Cathcart

unread,
Apr 6, 2001, 2:04:46 PM4/6/01
to
>===== Original Message From Kyle Haight <kha...@olagrande.net> =====

>In article <3AE6...@MailAndNews.com>,
>Chris Cathcart <cath...@MailAndNews.com> wrote:
>>
>>Okay, if, in your Peikoffian epistemological terminology, it's probable, you
>>can generate evidence of such. Even more than a shred of it.
>
>Based on the fact that you have engaged in similar behavior on this group
>in the past (and evidence to that effect has been presented), you are
>a plausible candidate in this case.

That doesn't raise it above the level of "possible." Mrs. Speicher stated
it
was "probably" so, in which case she purports to have evidence (just like in
past instances there was). I'm interested in hearing Mrs. Speicher's
response
on this before others start trying to cover for her.

>>Or can we conclude that you're probably trolling?
>
>I think she drew a plausible inference based on observations of prior
>behavior.

Ah. Oh. I see irony in none of this. Probably because there is some
evidence in this case for the counter-charge.

Gordon G. Sollars

unread,
Apr 6, 2001, 2:30:29 PM4/6/01
to
In article <MPG.1537bdca97e230b1989686@news>, Ken Gardner writes...


> But it could just as easily be an parody of original Peikoff radio
> speech as well.

Parody? Who's to say it won't be an actual Peikoff speech?

--
Gordon Sollars
gsol...@pobox.com

dbco...@webinbox.com

unread,
Apr 6, 2001, 5:47:17 PM4/6/01
to
Wow - another Objectivist "nuke 'em all" thread.

Objectivism is an evil philosophy that hides its nationalistic/collectivist
death-wish behind a facade of egoism, capitalism, etc. Get a glimpse behi
nd the facade, and you'll see that Objectivism is really about pumping up
the U.S.A. to wage a kind of religious war against everyone who disagrees w
ith Ayn Rand. And, as is obvious from the proposals of Rand's fanatic deat
h-cult to nuke Iran and nuke China, Objectivists are willing to go to any e
xtreme to wage their crusades, no matter how many innocent civilians get ca
ught in the cross-fire.

I urge you - do not confuse Objectivists with advocates of individual right
s or of rational self-interest.

-Coop


__________________________________________
Sent using WebInbox. "Your email gateway."
Check us out at http://www.webinbox.com

Ken Gardner

unread,
Apr 6, 2001, 5:56:04 PM4/6/01
to
dbco...@webinbox.com says...

> Objectivism is an evil philosophy that hides its
> nationalistic/collectivist death-wish behind a facade of egoism,

> capitalism, etc. Get a glimpse behind the facade, and you'll see

> that Objectivism is really about pumping up the U.S.A. to wage a

> kind of religious war against everyone who disagrees with Ayn Rand.
> And, as is obvious from the proposals of Rand's fanatic death-cult to

> nuke Iran and nuke China, Objectivists are willing to go to any extreme
> to wage their crusades, no matter how many innocent civilians get caught
> in the cross-fire.

I hate to break it to you like this, but I strongly suspect that the
"nuke China" posts are a very well-done parody, written either by a sane
Objectivist (but it wasn't me) or a non-Objectivist who is a veteran of
the nuke Tehran thread. My guess is Chris Cathcart.


--
Ken

6079 Smith W

unread,
Apr 6, 2001, 6:01:49 PM4/6/01
to

In article <a3bf298a5defb9ca...@anon.xg.nu>, "Public
<Anonymous_Account>" <rema...@xganon.com> wrote:

>The rational thing for America to do is to stamp out dictatorships
>before they acquire survivable long-range nuclear forces. In the
>case of Marxist-occupied China (and, I would also argue, Iran), the
>dictatorships will reach that point within the decade. We can't
>afford to let that happen. We must strike now, while we still have
>a chance to prevail militarily.
>

It's becoming increasingly clear to me that Ayn Rand will become the 21st
Nietzche - eventually, some right-wing government is going to take hold (oh
wait Bush *did* get elected - make that already takken hold) and use Ayn
Rand as it's moral justification.
Please, people, continue reading Ayn Rand, continue being objectivists, but
for G*d's sake at least think for yourselves sometimes.


Kyle Haight

unread,
Apr 6, 2001, 7:30:30 PM4/6/01
to
In article <9alec1$8dl$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk>,

6079 Smith W <win...@ministry-of-love.co.uk> wrote:
>
>It's becoming increasingly clear to me that Ayn Rand will become the 21st
>Nietzche - eventually, some right-wing government is going to take hold (oh
>wait Bush *did* get elected - make that already takken hold) and use Ayn
>Rand as it's moral justification.

I have yet to see any evidence that Bush uses Rand's theories as moral
justifications for his actions; based on what I've heard of his speeches
I'd say he's a Christian altruist. Cites to the contrary?

>Please, people, continue reading Ayn Rand, continue being objectivists, but
>for G*d's sake at least think for yourselves sometimes.

Oh, by all means.

dbco...@webinbox.com

unread,
Apr 6, 2001, 8:03:07 PM4/6/01
to
After brushing the fallout off his keyboard, Ken Gardner
<kesga...@home.com> wrote:

> I hate to break it to you like this, but I strongly suspect that the
> "nuke China" posts are a very well-done parody, written either by a sane
> Objectivist (but it wasn't me) or a non-Objectivist who is a veteran of
> the nuke Tehran thread. My guess is Chris Cathcart.

From my point of view, a "sane Objectivist" is a rational egoist who
is in the process of moving away from Objectivism or who has not yet
discovered what Objectivism is really all about.

A "consistent Objectivist" on the other hand spouts the kind of
insanity that Rand, Dr. Peikoff, Dr. Speicher, and Anonymous have
come up with. The nuclear macho flash suits Ayn Rand's premises to a
tee. True believers lap this stuff up because Objectivism portrays
the world in terms of ideological struggle among the Great
Philosophers in much the same way that Marxism portrays the world
in terms of class struggle.

Whether any of these people are serious about their proposals or not
is an entirely different question. Remember that the essence of a
good parody is that it isn't too far from the original. For all
we know, Ayn Rand herself may have been a Soviet agent whose writings
were intended from the start to be a twisted parody of
pro-capitalist philosophies.

Robert J. Kolker

unread,
Apr 6, 2001, 8:26:14 PM4/6/01
to

"Public " wrote:

>
> The one thing I ask of you is this: please make the effort to judge
> the ideas put forward in my posts on their intellectual merit, not on
> the basis of groundless speculation about who is the author of them.

Have you considered this: If we attack China over the matter of
the detainees, the detainees will be killed immediately. Very
counter productive. Doing something that will get them killed
is a very bad way of freeing them. On the other had, if the ChiComs
try to do some serious blackmail using the detainees, then the detainees
would have to be sacrificed. Never dicker over hostages. If they die,
they die.

Bob Kolker

Gaius Helen Mohiam

unread,
Apr 6, 2001, 9:09:52 PM4/6/01
to
"Public <Anonymous_Account>" <rema...@xganon.com> wrote in message
news:661c5223923f9e71...@anon.xg.nu...

> The one thing I ask of you is this: please make the effort to judge
> the ideas put forward in my posts on their intellectual merit, not on
> the basis of groundless speculation about who is the author of them.

[Laughing] Be careful what you wish for, son. "Intellectual merit"?...

Ken Gardner

unread,
Apr 6, 2001, 9:48:35 PM4/6/01
to
The enigma known only as "Public <Anonymous_Account> says..."

> Betsy, I apologize to you and your husband for any misattribution of
> my posts. For the record, let me say that I do not claim to speak for
> Objectivism....

That's for damn sure.

> and I am not trying to assume the identity of anyone
> who posts to humanities.philosophy.objectivism.

Well, who are you exactly if you are not Chris Cathcart doing a
masterful parody of Betsy's husband? I'm sure your parents didn't name
you "Public <anonymous_account>," although if they did it explains much.
Are you too embarrassed to use your real name? I would be if I were
you. Also, are you over the age of 16? Just curious....

> Furthermore, I recognize that the courageous, principled stand your
> husband took with respect to Iran....

[Insert "barf" here....]

> ...cannot be automatically linked to my proposal for dealing with the
> Peking bandit regime.

Sure it can. In both cases, the proposal involves the initiation of
deadly force against millions of totally innocent civilians.

[...]

> I would not expect many Objectivists would know offhand what
> the ChiComs actually have, or what it would take to successfully
> neutralize what they have. Such detailed knowledge of military
> affairs is necessary before we can apply the more fundamental
> philosophical principles to this case.

Suppose we determine that we can take them out in a first strike. Then
what? Does seizing a single plane, detaining 24 people, and acting like
complete assholes with chips on their shoulder justify a nuking that
could result in the deaths of millions and perhaps start WWIII?

[...]

--
Ken

PS: If you are not Chris, maybe you are dbcooper in disguise. Or Steve
Davis.

Chris Cathcart

unread,
Apr 6, 2001, 11:33:14 PM4/6/01
to
>===== Original Message From Ken Gardner <kesga...@home.com> =====

>The enigma known only as "Public <Anonymous_Account> says..."
>
>> and I am not trying to assume the identity of anyone
>> who posts to humanities.philosophy.objectivism.
>
>Well, who are you exactly if you are not Chris Cathcart doing a
>masterful parody of Betsy's husband?

Well, if it's me, I'm having quite a fun time watching myself put forth all
these arguments without having to expend any effort doing so -- and what's
more, saying things that never even came to my mind! :-)

What's interesting is how *this* anonymous account has been the target of
speculation in the past couple days, in regards to authorship. Adds a bit
more to the fun of watching what's going on.

Ken Gardner

unread,
Apr 7, 2001, 12:35:19 AM4/7/01
to
Chris Cathcart says...


> >Well, who are you exactly if you are not Chris Cathcart doing a
> >masterful parody of Betsy's husband?

> Well, if it's me, I'm having quite a fun time watching myself put forth all
> these arguments without having to expend any effort doing so -- and what's
> more, saying things that never even came to my mind! :-)

> What's interesting is how *this* anonymous account has been the target of
> speculation in the past couple days, in regards to authorship. Adds a bit
> more to the fun of watching what's going on.

I'm beginning to think that it isn't you after all. Obviously it is
someone who was a veteran of the nuke Tehran thread -- probably someone
on the ARI side who got his ass thoroughly kicked and blames my
"altruistic psycho-espistemology" for that fact instead of his own
intellectual incompetence. Steve Davis comes readily to mind, but there
were others as well.

Don't take this personally, but when the revolution comes, people who
use fake names to post on a philosophical board will be punished for
their crimes. :)

--
Ken

Dale Worthington

unread,
Apr 7, 2001, 2:51:09 AM4/7/01
to
On 6 Apr 2001, Public <Anonymous_Account> wrote:
>
> No, Stephen Grossman is right. If he is an Objectivist, then he is
> giving Objectivism a good name.
>
> Marxist savages do forfeit their rights when they establish themselves
> as dictatorships.

As I stated before(if you had bothered to go past the judgemental
dictatorial mind-block that sprang from reaction to my first statement),
you could have seen my point.

> The theory that Marxist governments are morally equivalent to
> capitalist governments and are entitled to the same respect for national
> sovereignty is nauseating

At what point did I claim that Marxist governments were "morally
equivalent"? Please quote me.
Morals have nothing to do with rights in the context of having them.
Let me spell it out once again. Immoral does not = rightless. Rights are a
condition of our nature as human beings. Or do you need me to quote Rand
for you? Time to check your premises.

> - we have every right to destroy them, and when the necessity arises, we
> ought to do so.

Yes and when the necessity does I am sure we will.
They have not killed any of our pilots that I am aware of.

> The bandit regime in Peking has proven, not just in the EP-3 incident,
> but in a long string of words and deeds, that it is an enemy of the
> United States. The EP-3 incident is just the last straw in that
> the insolent hooliganism of the ChiComs has grown to the point that
> the U.S., if it has any regard to its own interests at all, absolutely
> cannot tolerate it.

What by nuclear first strike as you later indicate?
I don't know of any greater hooliganism then that.

> Also, if we don't take them out now with a nuclear first strike, the
> socialist beasts that are holding most of China hostage will continue
> to acquire capital and technology from the free world and use it to
> build up their military strength.

Yea we see your true nature now nameless one.
YOU propose taking out the "socialist beasts" who are "holding most of
China hostage" with a nuclear first strike. Hmmm.. I don't recall
Objectivism advocating sacrifice of the few to the many, especially not
the many to the few.


> Over time, they will become just as menacing a threat to our existence
> as the Soviet Union used to be.
>
> If Bush turns wimp now, we are going to be in for another long and
> dangerous Cold War - but unlike the first Cold War, America will not
> enter the struggle with solid alliances or a preponderance of force.

Go to your grave a scared little boy.

> The rational thing for America to do is to stamp out dictatorships
> before they acquire survivable long-range nuclear forces. In the
> case of Marxist-occupied China (and, I would also argue, Iran), the
> dictatorships will reach that point within the decade. We can't
> afford to let that happen. We must strike now, while we still have
> a chance to prevail militarily.

Good god you advocate shooting a shoplifter for buying a gun.

LOOK who is the hooligan now.

Get them before they get you. I see the law of the jungle is not to far
off in this country.


Dale Worthington

Ken Gardner

unread,
Apr 7, 2001, 3:13:04 AM4/7/01
to
Dale Worthington says to someone else (not me)...

> Yea we see your true nature now nameless one.
> YOU propose taking out the "socialist beasts" who are "holding most of
> China hostage" with a nuclear first strike. Hmmm.. I don't recall
> Objectivism advocating sacrifice of the few to the many, especially not
> the many to the few.

Think again. [Insert "Welcome to HPO" here.] You are right about
Objectivism not advocating any such thing, but last May many here on HPO
who call themselves "Objectivists" advocated a nuclear attack against
Tehran, Iran (a city of over 10 million people) in the name of "fighting
terrorism." With one possible exception, every HPO regular who is pro-
ARI advocated the nuking of Tehran.

The underlying Objectivist principle is the same in both cases: force is
proper only in retaliation and only against those who initiate force.
This means that you don't nuke millions of innocent people to kill a few
guilty people as well, especially when alternative methods are available
to punish the guilty. And, going back to the current problem with
China, even the guilty do not deserve death under these circumstances.
Of course, the Chinese government should be severely punished in other
ways.

--
Ken

Dale Worthington

unread,
Apr 7, 2001, 3:25:19 AM4/7/01
to

On 7 Apr 2001, Ken Gardner wrote:
>
> Think again.

What does that mean?


> You are right about
> Objectivism not advocating any such thing, but last May many here on HPO
> who call themselves "Objectivists" advocated a nuclear attack against
> Tehran

I would argue that decidedly that those people are not Objectivists.
Just because some says "I am an American" or some such other statement
does not mean that that means a pile of dogshit to me.
Bottom line: if they act in a manner that is contradictory to what they
claim, well they must be mistaken.

> The underlying Objectivist principle is the same in both cases: force is
> proper only in retaliation and only against those who initiate force.

Correct.



> This means that you don't nuke millions of innocent people to kill a few
> guilty people as well, especially when alternative methods are available
> to punish the guilty.

I agree.

> And, going back to the current problem with China, even the guilty do
> not deserve death under these circumstances.
> Of course, the Chinese government should be severely punished in other
> ways.

And in what way are we in disagreement?

I must be confused. :)

Dale Worthington

Dale Worthington

unread,
Apr 7, 2001, 9:22:59 AM4/7/01
to

On 7 Apr 2001, Public <Anonymous_Account> wrote:
>
> Yes, I have considered this as well as the prospect that many other
> Americans in China would get killed, but I maintain that it is not
> nearly so counterproductive as letting dictators around the world
> think that they stand to profit in any way from grabbing Americans in
> the future. The correct way to respond to hostage-taking is to
> immediately destroy the hostage-takers.

You are an idiot and not an Objectivist. You would willingly sacrifice
innocent people, even AMERICANS to start a war.
Sacrifice the few to the many? once again you spout off some innane
bullshit and criticize me for my views? hah.. I hope somehow that when the
Chinese retaliate to one of your "first strike" scenarios, the first and
only thing that they hit is your little backwoods village with all the
other jungle dwellers.

Your are so full of shit it sickens me. I just hope you don't own any
guns.

> The problem with the do-nothing approach is that hostage-takers don't
> necessarily have to extract formal concessions from the U.S. in order
> to achieve their ends. The mere fact that they are able to get away
> with defying, intimidating, and humiliating America by grabbing and
> holding Americans is enough of a ransom for many of them. Making
> Uncle Sam look weak or indifferent to the fate of its people or its
> territory is quite enough to undercut the very purpose for which the
> U.S. government exists.

You are starting to make a modicom of sense here, too bad your solution
for doing something about is something akin to the holocaust.

> While it is desirable to minimize harm to the hostages and to innocent
> bystanders while going after the hostage-takers, that doesn't mean
> that you give the hostage-takers a break out of fear that hostages
> or bystanders are going to get hurt. Terrorist governments must learn
> that there is no place that is safe from the thermonuclear wrath of
> the fierce and ever vigilant American Eagle.

Your all-to-willing-nukem us against them mentality is really showing off
as tribalism. And it really truly shows that you have not an inkling of
the horrific destructive power of nuclear weapons, which would cause more
pain and death than another WWI and WWII put together.

If you really want to hurt the Chinese dictatorship keep them from
molesting and raping other countries with military policing, put all
trading with China to a halt and let them collapse like Russia.

Or here is a better solution, flood them with information and education
and they will rebel and overthrow their own government.


Dale Worthington

Robert J. Kolker

unread,
Apr 7, 2001, 10:12:13 AM4/7/01
to

Dale Worthington wrote:

>
> Or here is a better solution, flood them with information and education
> and they will rebel and overthrow their own government.

That wont work. People accept their governments out of
habit. As long as it is bearable they will not revolt or rebel.

Bob Kolker

David Buchner

unread,
Apr 7, 2001, 10:43:56 AM4/7/01
to
6079 Smith W <win...@ministry-of-love.co.uk> wrote:
> and it's not like the Chinese were roughly 2,500 years in advance of
> America. Nooo.

You're right. I forgot they had interstellar spaceships and nanotech
manufacturing.


--
David
Buc...@wcta.net Osage MN http://customer.wcta.net/buchner

Robert J. Kolker

unread,
Apr 7, 2001, 11:05:08 AM4/7/01
to

David Buchner wrote:

>
> You're right. I forgot they had interstellar spaceships and nanotech
> manufacturing.

About 400 years ago the Chinese were way ahead of
the west. But the dreadful Ming Dynasty spelled the
beginning of the end for them.

While the Portugese were creeping around the west of
africa in 85 foot long Barques, Cheng Ho [1] was plying
the Arabian sees with a fleet of ships about 400 feet
long. A total of 37,000 in his flotilla.

Sic Transit Gloriat Mundae

Bob Kolker

[1] See the -Discoverers - by Daniel Borstin

6079 Smith W

unread,
Apr 7, 2001, 12:37:56 PM4/7/01
to

In article <1ereo0q.1g3bbj61vtwz8gN%buc...@wcta.net>, David Buchner
<buc...@wcta.net> wrote:


>6079 Smith W <win...@ministry-of-love.co.uk> wrote:
>> and it's not like the Chinese were roughly 2,500 years in advance of
>> America. Nooo.
>
>You're right. I forgot they had interstellar spaceships and nanotech
>manufacturing.
>
>

the direct quote of the original follows below:

">we are moral. they are not. THus, we have rights, they forfeited theirs.
>

and it's not like the Chinese were roughly 2,500 years in advance of
America. Nooo."


note the word "moral"? Note the implication of the word "morality"? Note how
you're desperately trying to win this argument by picking apart semantics?
the main Taoist text, the Tao Te Ching, was written c.600 BCE. It contains
truisms that were essentially repeated by Western philosophers only from the
17th century onwards (yes. The 17th century. Before America itself even had
any noteworthy philosophers). And don't ask me to quote them, just read the
goddam thing. It's not very long.

Ken Gardner

unread,
Apr 7, 2001, 1:09:10 PM4/7/01
to
Dale Worthington says...

> > Think again.

> What does that mean?

I was urging you to reconsider the notion that some people who call
themselves "Objectivists" would be opposed to using nuclear weapons in
response to the Chinese situation.

> > You are right about
> > Objectivism not advocating any such thing, but last May many here on HPO
> > who call themselves "Objectivists" advocated a nuclear attack against
> > Tehran

> I would argue that decidedly that those people are not Objectivists.

As I did at the time and still would today.

> Just because some says "I am an American" or some such other statement
> does not mean that that means a pile of dogshit to me.
> Bottom line: if they act in a manner that is contradictory to what they
> claim, well they must be mistaken.

Exactly.

> And in what way are we in disagreement?

> I must be confused. :)

No, you are very clear-headed on this point. <G> But do you also
realize that the entire nuke Tehran idea originated from a Leonard
Peikoff radio speech in September 1998 in which he essentially said that
it would be appropriate to use nuclear weapons against Iran, Sudan, and
Afghanistan as part of "fighting terrorism." For years I used to be a
tireless defender of Leonard Peikoff, but he lost me in about a
nanosecond after I found out about that speech. So that's what you're up
against, and what the real underlying issue is here at HPO (the post
from "Public Anonymous" simply sets the stage) -- just be prepared to
handle the consequences.

--
Ken

R Lawrence

unread,
Apr 7, 2001, 2:19:30 PM4/7/01
to
Steve Reed <Stev...@earthling.net> wrote:

>You don't use anonymous remailers too adeptly, do you, Mr. Speicher?

I do not know of any previous instance in which Mr. Speicher has been
anything other than forthright in stating his views under his own name. I
do not always agree with everything he has to say, but he has always been
willing to express his beliefs openly. Moreover, some of the lingo in this
particular post ("ChiComs," "slavers," etc.) is not typical of him. So
overall I see zero reason to suspect him of generating this post.

--
Richard Lawrence <RL0...@yahoo.com>
Visit the Objectivism Reference Center: http://www.objectivism.addr.com/

R Lawrence

unread,
Apr 7, 2001, 2:19:51 PM4/7/01
to
Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com> wrote:

>That isn't Stephen. It's probably Cathcart pretending to be a an "ARIan."

I have to disagree with this interpretation as well. Mr. Cathcart's
parodies are usually quite transparent, and the postings by this person do
not really resemble his. We should all keep in mind that there are quite a
few people who hold unusual views and are willing to express them in this
forum. Just because they choose to do so anonymously does not mean they
should be accused of impersonation or parody.

R Lawrence

unread,
Apr 7, 2001, 2:20:55 PM4/7/01
to
Ken Gardner <kesga...@home.com> wrote:

>With one possible exception, every HPO regular who is pro-
>ARI advocated the nuking of Tehran.

Let's not beat around the bush. I believe the ARI does a good job promoting
Objectivism overall, and I support its efforts to do so. Those facts
notwithstanding, I believe that the stand taken on this subject by some
other ARI supporters (including Leonard Peikoff) is seriously mistaken.

C'est la vie. The suggestion that everyone who supports the work of ARI
will agree on all other issues is ridiculous and insulting. The last I
checked, people -- ARI supporters included -- had individual judgment and
free will.

Ken Gardner

unread,
Apr 7, 2001, 3:12:26 PM4/7/01
to
R Lawrence says...

> >With one possible exception, every HPO regular who is pro-
> >ARI advocated the nuking of Tehran.

> Let's not beat around the bush. I believe the ARI does a good job promoting
> Objectivism overall, and I support its efforts to do so. Those facts
> notwithstanding, I believe that the stand taken on this subject by some
> other ARI supporters (including Leonard Peikoff) is seriously mistaken.

"Seriously" is an understatement. I think it is so bad that it
essentially obliterates everything else that they are trying to do -- it
certainly did so for me. It's like asking, "other than that, Mrs.
Lincoln, how did you like the play?"

> C'est la vie. The suggestion that everyone who supports the work of ARI
> will agree on all other issues is ridiculous and insulting. The last I
> checked, people -- ARI supporters included -- had individual judgment and
> free will.

Just to be perfectly clear, I'm not trying to make this overly broad a
statement, much less ridicule or insult anyone who has ever expressed
support for ARI.

--
Ken

AynRand12

unread,
Apr 7, 2001, 5:10:13 PM4/7/01
to
Ken Gardner wrote:
>"Seriously" is an understatement. I think it is so bad that it
>essentially obliterates everything else that they are trying to do -- it
>certainly did so for me. It's like asking, "other than that, Mrs.
>Lincoln, how did you like the play?"

Goodness...that's the funniest thing I've read in a long time. I'll have find
some way to sneak it into a conversation today.

Don Watkins

Stephen Speicher

unread,
Apr 7, 2001, 6:05:56 PM4/7/01
to
On 7 Apr 2001, R Lawrence wrote:

> Steve Reed <Stev...@earthling.net> wrote:
>
> >You don't use anonymous remailers too adeptly, do you, Mr. Speicher?
>
> I do not know of any previous instance in which Mr. Speicher has been
> anything other than forthright in stating his views under his own name.

Not quite the case, Richard. Although Reed, as usual, is entirely
mistaken, it is me who fabricated "The Fiz." It was a very
interesting experiment. It is quite amazing what a few well
chosen insults directed against "ARIans" and "Randroids" can
solicit in private e-mail from their enemies. What I learned was
truly fascinating.

My personal apologies to Dean and Dave, both of whom I hope will
realize that none of what was said, was actually meant. I had to
appear as a rabid anti-"ARIan", anti-"Randroid" in order to be
brought into the fold. I actually spent a great deal of time
studying the techniques used by the various groups of
anti-Objectivists here. "The Fiz" was a unification of them all,
and he apparently was welcomed with open arms.

Again, my apologies to Dean and Dave. And "Helen", I'm afraid I
must call off our engagement!

Stephen
s...@compbio.caltech.edu

Welcome to California. Bring your own batteries.

Printed using 100% recycled electrons.
--------------------------------------------------------

James E. Prescott

unread,
Apr 7, 2001, 7:42:24 PM4/7/01
to

Stephen Speicher <s...@compbio.caltech.edu> wrote:

> [...] What I learned was truly fascinating.

This really sounds seedy. What on earth could you possibly have learned,
Stephen? Something about philosophy? Something about reality?

I think -- and it's just a guess, mind you, but correct me if I'm wrong --
that you were trying to learn something damaging about certain posters to
HPO, and you now think you did that. Well, why do you people (the proARIs,
the anti-ARIs) all hate each other so much? Why do you obsess about each
other so much?

Give it a rest. Grow the hell up. And let's discuss Philosophy. Thanks.

Best Wishes,
Jim P.

Gaius Helen Mohiam

unread,
Apr 7, 2001, 7:59:26 PM4/7/01