DavidV

Until I write down an “official” list of moderator policies, I’m going to present some rules for moderators to follow, based in part on the above discussion: If you see a post you object to, please take one of the following actions: Obvious trolling, offensive content, etc: Please send me a copy of the *first* post you delete, and let me know if you want me to ban the offender. If the material is very offensive, I will notify the offender’s ISP (or boss, as the case may be.) In such cases, including the IP address will help. Posts devoid of intellectual content of any kind: You may either delete or close the thread in question. If you delete the post, please send me a copy of the *first* post you delete by a given poster in a particular thread. If the offender has a thread with several replies, I would prefer that you close it instead. I may decide to delete closed threads when I get a chance to review their content. If you want to *edit* a post for any reason: Please use the “Edited by” option in all cases, and leave a comment in the post regarding the general reason for the edit in bold text if you are making more than a grammatical change. If a member is consistently engaging in offensive/irrational behavior: Please use the “Warn” option. If you want to delete or block a registered member, please ask me first. Note: Unless you want to delete a member, I’m requesting notification, not permission, so I probably won’t reply. If you are a member and would like to report another poster’s behavior (guest, member, or moderator) please report the offensive post or send me a message. I’m the final judge of all moderation activity. If you have a problem with that, tough.

Infallible? In what way, exactly? They’re certainly not omniscient, nor is their reason infallible. Can you give an example of what you mean? Speaking of the guilt aspect, it’s a common question/objection I hear. “Don’t you sometimes want to cheat on your ideals?” or “I like Objectivism, but it’s just too hard to be perfectly rational.” It’s funny to hear people claim that being an egoist is impossible when self-denial and self-sacrifice is supposed to be the “noble” and truly hard behavior– the more difficult, the better. I think that the real objection of such arguments is not to rationality or egoism per se, but to acting on principle. Pragmatism is so deeply ingrained in most people that the notion of consistently acting on any principle simultaneously arouses admiration and skepticism.

Africans are in sore need of Western values, not of the current variety of “European leadership.” My point was that only something as comprehensive as re-colonization can stop the perpetual state of tribal warfare going on in Africa, not to advocate it. The only thing that can make Africa civilized is the recognition of individual rights – something that is unlikely to happen until the Western world explicitly recognizes them first.

In light of the recent rapid growth of this forum, I would like to establish some moderation guidelines. I would like help from you, the users, in writing these guidelines. I’m not looking for anything detailed, just something specific enough to provide a consistent set of rules for the users to follow and for the moderators to enforce. Submit your ideas and suggestions here or message me directly, and I will consider them when I write the new guidelines in about two weeks or so. Please keep in mind that moderation does not consist solely of banning offensive or irrational members: moderators should also take the initiative to facilitate discussion on the forum, including moving, splitting, merging, deleting, and editing threads, presenting topics for discussion, and handling complaints. The guidelines should also mention which actions will be up to the moderators, and which should be referred to the forum administrators (currently Ash and I) If you would like to be considered for the moderator position, please let me know. For the record, here are the original guidelines: And here is the mission of the site: (I will be reviewing it as well.) I’m also considering what additional features to add the site. If you have any suggestions, let me know.

Welcome to the forum, Roland! I lived in the Ukraine until I was about 11 - my family escaped shortly before the USSR collapsed. I remember being indoctrinated by communist propaganda much as you probably were. Fortunately, my parents did their best to keep me “sick” and out of school, and my dad forced us to listen to Radio Free America from an early age. As I remember, his stories about starting a business in America did much more good than what I heard on the radio. I'm happy to see an advocate of capitalism in Eastern Europe – it seems like there will soon be more capitalists in the former satellite states than in the west.

Idjiit, I recommend that read the opening essay of Ayn Rand's book “For the New Intellectual” to get a better understanding of the nature of “Religion.”

Actually, Saddam got 100 percent of the vote in his last re-election. And I don't mean 99.999% -- CNN reported that all 12 million Iraqis went out and voted for him -- even the ones in the independent Kurdish region. Who says unanimity isn't possible?

Any government that enslaves its citizens does not have the right to exist. Thus, any free country has the right but not the obligation to destroy it. Claiming that someone’s (the Rwandans, Tutsis, Bosnians, etc) suffering is a claim on your life is not only altruism, but if the government uses your money to take it out, is an initiation of force against you. Under some circumstances, I might risk my life to save a stranger, but it would be immoral of me to force someone else to do so at gunpoint – which is essentially, what you seem to be advocating. If you want to go fight in Africa, that’s your business, but the US government has no business doing so unless those nations pose a threat to America. Aside for that, peacekeeping efforts in Africa are doomed to fail no matter what their motivation. Most of Africa is ruled by barbaric dictators and strongmen, and nothing short of a fundamental restructuring of their society (ie: re-colonization) is going to change that. Until Africans learn to respect individual rights, such bloody conflicts are going to be inevitable.

The problem with the "balloon" analogy is that there is no evidence of such any such higher dimension, and I can't even conceive of what it would be like. However, I don't see why it's not possible for the universe to be of a finite size and yet be expanding into nothingness. My working hypothesis is that the universe is essentially an expanding sphere, with the radius being the distance light has traveled from the center since the known universe came into existence. It's not possible to get "outside" it and pointless to speculate about what's "outside" since no information can be gleaned about it -- just as it's useless to speculate about the pre-big bang universe. The whole notion of a big-bang singularity seems dubious to me, and while it may be the best theory we have, I think it’s safe to say that both the origin and the fundamental nature of the universe remain will mysteries for some time…especially considering the current state of physics.

I hope you're having a great one

I have a few experiences with some of today's physicists I'd like to share. I first suspected that there was something wrong with the state of physics during my freshman year. My physics TA liked to impress us with his “knowledge” of high level physics by talking about “gravitrons” and all sorts of other imaginary particles. Last year, the famous Stephen Hawkings came to speak at A&M. He drew a huge crowd that not only paid to see him live, but to watch him on tv screens on other locations on campus. Needless to say, his views cannot be described as “marginal”. The topic was called something like “Hegel and the end of physics.” Here is how a physics prof described his talk (according to a fellow club member): A senior professor in our physics department (which is known for “practical” research) has a section on his homepage devoted to exploring telepathy using quantum mechanics. To quote:

"Invisible pink elephants are very smart." Is that true or false? Neither -- only statements that about something that exists can be true or false.

This came up on another forum, and I'm really not sure of the answer. Here is my best shot: A fact is a falsifiable (non-arbitrary) statement that describes some aspect of reality. An opinion is either a potential fact or an arbitrary statement. A fact may be true or false: the statements “the earth is flat” and “the earth is round” are both facts, but only the second it true. A rational method of inquiry can prove an opinion to be a fact. For example, “that girl is good-looking” is an opinion if it not based on an objective evaluation of her traits in comparison to the average, and a fact if a rational process is used to objectively evaluate her traits. If we come across a box and say (without any idea of what the box contains), “that box is empty” – that is an opinion, even if it is true, because we did not reach that conclusion by any rational means. However if we look inside or have some basis to believe that that box is empty, then that statement is a fact – though it may still be false if we misinterpret the evidence. Finally, “If unicorns existed, then their horns would be sharp” is an opinion but not a potential fact because it is an arbitrary claim lacking a truth value.

The whole notion of "capitalistic expansion" is a contradiction. Businessmen certainly want to reach new markets, but they want to do it through voluntary and mutually beneficial trade, not by military occupation. Colonialism (what is usually meant by "capitalistic expansion") has always found its supporters in bureaucrats who were interested in expanding the State rather than further the cause of free trade. Even the leftists who criticize blame colonialism on capitalism admit that it is far more profitable to engage in voluntary trade than military occupation. How this term could possibly apply to Vietnam, I have no idea. Sounds like something only a twisted leftist mind could dream up.

There is a FREE one hour video and a 5 hour lecture on the ARI website. That would be a good start. The tape series I recommend you buy is OTI, Objectivism Through Induction. I've only listened to the first three tapes, but it's been very good so far. However I suggest reading OPAR and ITOE first.

Re-added the subdomain http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/ Made some changes to the forum headings and enabled some new features, like quick-reply. Oct 20: Rearanged the forums based on ideas I got from the CapitalistChicks forum. Thanks Oct 20-something Added new profile fields, had a fling with a new forum theme (you can still find it in your profile) A major forum update is coming soon, as soon as the software goes live.

An essential is the basic concept presented in an idea. Learning to think in essentials is a crucial skill because many commonly-accepted concepts (like “capitalism” and “selfishness”) are actually contradictory package-deals that can only be defused by thinking in terms of the essentials of the ideas. A premise is an underlying idea upon which some higher concept rests. For example, capitalism as a political system is based on the premise that man has individual rights. The recognition of man’s rights is also the essence of capitalism, but not all premises are necessarily essentials. Capitalism also rests on the premises that man’s senses are valid, and an ethics of self-interest, but these are not its essentials. (These are off the top of my head, so feel free to correct me..)

Speaking of posters, check out the collection of fliers I've made for our club, and feel free to add your own: http://ObjectivismOnline.com/Fliers

Thanks! I did

I doubt that this Kelleyite will pose any kind of competition to your group (other than on paper.) If he's anything like the Kelleyites at my school, he's probably a hippie who is too “tolerant” to present any kind of serious intellectual argument, be serious enough about ideas to organize a speaker who can, or dedicated enough to keep running the club after the DC mess is over. The DC obviously has no more legitimacy in choosing which group is truer to Objectivism than which political group is closer to a particular party, which is the only point I would make in regard to his group.

Welcome to the forum, DagnySofia!

I really have no point other than to brag, but our school paper had a lenghy editorial by the VP of the Objectivist Club and a letter from the treasurer yesterday, and a letter from me today.

Dr Harriman does not say and does not imply in any way that any scientific discoveries made after Newton aren't valid. When he talks about the “legacy of Isaac Newton” he is referring to the method Newton used, not the specific discoveries he made. (Nevertheless, Newton’s theories are as valid today as they were when he discovered them.) The essence of Newton’s method is the scientific process – forming theories from the evidence gathered by observing reality, and validating all his ideas against empirical evidence. Today’s physicists on the other hand, reject the existence of an objective reality as such, and thus do not believe that it is necessary (or possible!) to show that their nonsense corresponds to any fact of reality. The only proof their “hypothetico-deductive method” allows is fantastic pseudo-math that takes occasional observations and turns them into complete non-sense. To the extent that it uses any evidence at all, physics today is a study of statistics, not of the underlying causal connections behind them. Disclaimer: I’m no physicist, so I’m not qualified to debate its intricacies, but I do know something about economics, and I see the same exact situation in that field. I did briefly speak to Dr Harriman after his talk at OCON, and he agreed with the essence of my view on the state of physics today…

I think I've been too lenient with Marshall because I have known him for some time through a friend of mine, and we’ve talked occasionally about computer-related issues. It was I who invited him to this forum, and I guess I felt hesitant about kicking him out. Each time I did so, he logged on from another IP and toned down his rhetoric…briefly. However this forum is my property, and just as I can un-invite guests from my house, so can I from my forum, and this guest has certainly overstayed his welcome. I've banned his IP and will be more diligent in keeping him out in the future.

From my own experience and from talking to other student leaders, I think this kind of protest is rare. Torn down fliers and disruptive speakers at meetings seem to be the most common problems. The biggest problem I find is finding people that care about any abstract ideas other than religion. My school has 45000 students, and from random surveys, I’m pretty sure that a good chunk of them see my fliers, yet very few come to meetings on any abstract topics. However, we have no problem at all getting a crowd for meetings on political topics like abortion, Iraq, and multiculturalism, but very few of those that do come to those are open to our ideas.