Harrison Danneskjold

🤣 Sorry. I was speaking sort of off the cuff, as usual, and should probably work on paying a bit more attention to the details. Regardless of whether the exact term was "reinstated" or (the one you actually used) "restored" doesn't really make a difference to the gist of my post - that we shouldn't be treating you like we just watched you eat a baby. I'm sorry about the terminological mix-up but it doesn't seem like a big deal to me.

You are aware of the term "doxxing" right? Look - my name is William Harrison Forrester Jodeit. Now that this is on the internet anyone from anywhere in the world could potentially use it to link everything I've ever said on this forum to who I am, in real life, and potentially figure out how to confront me in my own home. I don't really care. To be perfectly frank, I've got some anger issues and don't really mind the occasional confrontation. But not everyone is like that. If we're going to ask DA what his real name is then it's only fair that you tell us yours, first, bud.

Certainly. If I remove myself from society, the rest of the world will continue turning just fine without me - only I won't have to deal with them. That's the point. This is so weird. To recap, DA mentioned the possibility of Trump being "reinstated" either through the courts or reelection. Alright; one can argue about whether or not the courts are going to do anything about this last election (and if one was feeling particularly uncharitable one might even characterize such an idea as a bit unhinged) but it's neither advocating violence nor conspiracy theories. Even if he were advocating a conspiracy theory why wouldn't we hear it out and then (if it is, in fact, a conspiracy theory) pick it apart like we would with any other bad theory? Why do you need to know DA's real name? Are we not going to consider any of his arguments unless they're accompanied by a social security number and a DNA sample? @Devil's Advocate I don't care if you're this Neil character or not. I'm not sure we'll agree about the answer to the OP and I'm confident we do not agree about what happened this last election - and that's okay. I don't need to see your papers.

For Francisco D'Anconia it was. The idea was that they'd simply allow their society to collapse of its own dead weight and then rebuild a better one in its place. It was always about rebuilding a better world but this did require the death of the old one, and Francisco was the one striker who had to actively destroy his part of that in order to accelerate the process. I don't think we're at the point where that is rational, since we're still free to speak about these things. As long as logical argument is a valid option then that is the one we should use in order to fix the old system. Once we're denied even that - well, I'll be looking for a nice spot down by the river.

Yes, I am, which is why I asked if there's some context in another thread that I'm missing. Firstly, there is an appropriate time and place for a violent insurrection (as the founding fathers observed). It certainly wasn't on 1/6 and I agree it's a very bad thing if he supports what happened then, but in general there are rebellions which should be supported. Secondly, although it is a bit off-the-rails to believe that Trump will be reinstated, if it was because we found all this evidence of alleged voter fraud - would that be a bad thing? As explained in my previous post I really don't know. If you do know then please elaborate on the reasons why because (as explained above) that is not an easy one to reason through and I would not turn down a helping hand. Maybe. Maybe he just forgot to address it. I don't disagree, particularly after 1/6. There are a lot of perspectives that're gaining prominence nowadays which deserve to be nipped right in the bud. Suppose we were talking to a Nazi, though, who actually blamed the Jews for all the problems in the world. I don't think DA is one, but hypothetically speaking, suppose we started the conversation out by declaring their own views to them in advance and mentioning that this makes them a bad person. Now, even if we're right about what those views are, they're most likely to just shut up and voice those opinions on some other, darker corner of the internet. Whereas if we ask them to tell us what their views are and then proceed to engage with them (politely, at first, but potentially moving on to ridicule and satire) then as upset as they might eventually become about the ridicule, if they persist in advancing those views, the one thing they cannot say is that we didn't address their actual opinions. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. I'd like to hear what DA's actual ideas on these issues are. Maybe they're as absurd as you think, and if so then maybe we'll have some fun with them (after attempting the polite route, of course). Or maybe they won't be and we won't have to get into a fight with someone we don't disagree with by that much, after all. PS: Speaking of ridiculing ridiculous ideas, though, are there any Jews here who know how I can get onto Marjorie Taylor Green's space laser? I could use a Jewish Space Laser, myself, for perfectly legitimate reasons. Just tell me what it'd take for me to get one!

Maybe. I'm not sure. If we do want this country to continue existing then our electoral system must be maintained. People need to know (not as an act of faith, but for good reasons) that their votes count, which would be helped by reinstating Trump if (hypothetically speaking) we had good evidence that he'd actually won the election. On the other hand, the peaceful transfer of power between successive administrations also needs to be maintained very strictly, and the kinds of games Trump was playing about that part of it are so reprehensible that it might be dangerous to ever allow him anywhere near the government again. During the presidential debates he was asked point-blank if he would peacefully hand over the reigns of power if he lost the election. The answer to that question should have been "of course I would; why would you even ask me that?" but he simply refused to answer it at all. That is dangerous. I don't know what the appropriate course of action would be if it were proven that Trump should've won. It's not as simple as you seem to be implying. However, I don't think that's a question we're actually gonna need the answer for. That's certainly true. And if Trump runs again in 2024 I might have to advocate for him, depending on what sort of specimen the Democrats pick next. They could've picked Andrew Yang. He would've been demonstrably better than Trump in so many ways; they could've actually taken a step in a good direction for once. Make America Think Harder! But of course they picked Creepy Uncle Joe because I guess we're not allowed to have nice things. Yes we do. If someone is seriously messing with your chi you are free to simply stop associating with them. I've done it many times myself; it's really not hard. You can stop doing business with corporations that spend their time and money on things you consider evil (which is where the Republicans could actually learn something from the Democrats' example) and if worst comes to worse you are still free to go live down by the river, away from the rest of society. Yes, there are many aspects of modern society which are still worthwhile and which would suck to have to forego. This is why we should continue trying to advocate for a better society for as long as we're allowed to. But if it's between that and dying on the barricades... Look, in real life it's not romantic or glorious to die on the barricades. It's dirty and painful and you have to give up the rest of your span of life in order to become one more anonymous body for future historians to tally up. So let's not pretend that simply walking away isn't an option, because it is. And it's a much better one than either slavery or death.

There is no such thing as an unarmed interstellar vehicle.

Exactly. If an intelligent alien species had the technology to come all the way over here, and for some reason wished to do so, there is no reason for them to bother hiding anything. At that point a single science vessel of theirs would be more than a match for all the combined armies we could possibly raise, they'd probably be able to recreate our species (Jurassic Park style) from any random corpse and if they truly needed our cooperation they could just say "hey, anyone who helps us with this project we're doing; we'll make them immortal and, from your point of view, pretty much godlike". If any such species had the means and the motive to do anything at all on Earth they would simply rock up and start doing it without much regard for what any of us thought about it. There may be alien life forms (probably not intelligent ones) somewhere out there. It does seem likely. But we can be certain there aren't any secret UFO's running around in our skies and trying to hide themselves from us.

I am. I was raised as a fundamentalist Mormon. I heard plenty of "eyewitness testimony" about all kinds of impossible things by the time I was ten. I don't think those who offered it were all crazy or lying - but if you're willing to let your emotions run roughshod over your rational faculty, in certain situations, then you'll end up spouting all kinds of crazy nonsense in precisely those situations. The fact that unidentifiably blurry photos of something and eyewitness testimony are all the evidence we have for UFO's places it in precisely the same epistemic bucket as human parthenogenesis, vampires, werewolves or the angel Moroni. It's not a bucket which anyone really needs.

When he runs again in 2024? Or as in: he rightfully won the last one and all the shadowy forces which stole it from him will somehow, someday just decide to give it back to him?

You seem to be forgetting about Francisco D'Anconia who had to spend many years of his one and only life on the deliberate destruction of one part of society (his copper company) in order to prevent his "hitchhikers" from feeding on it for many more centuries. No; nobody in Galt's Gulch promoted the absence of any society whatsoever, nor do I think DA would if we simply asked him. But there are societies which do deserve to collapse and if you don't remember that aspect of Atlas Shrugged then you might be overdue for another revisiting. Is there some other thread I missed in one of my absences which is prompting this stuff? I get the distinct feeling that there's a buttload of context that's nowhere in this thread nor in my head.

What? He called 1/6 the insurrection that it was meant to be and (judging by the question asked in the OP) seems to be wondering whether that was justified or not. If it is the appropriate time to shrug and let this country dissolve then it is also the right time to muck up its internal workings in whatever way we can. I don't think we're there just yet and I'm trying my damnedest, whenever I discuss politics with absolutely anyone, to try and show them the fundamental importance of free speech; to postpone that point in whatever small ways I can. But we are undeniably very close to it. Judging from the fact that he opened this question up for discussion (and from the posts he's made subsequently) he's shown no indications of being one of those nutjobs; at least not in this thread. I also take extreme issue with comparing Donald Trump to John Galt. Actually, I think it's profane. But aside from that one offhand remark I see nothing else here to warrant such aspersions.

That's not funny. Certainly. Ayn Rand herself defined it as the freedom of speech. There are only two ways for us to deal with each other: words or guns. So long as it is possible for us to settle our disagreements with words it is still worth using them in the attempt to maintain our society. Once that's gone - well, whatever material comforts we could still gain from that society, we're better off without them. Great Britain may have already crossed that line, as demonstrated by the infamous case of Mark Meechan. He taught his girlfriend's pug to raise its paw up high in response to the phrase "gas the jews" as a joke. In his own words his girlfriend would not shut up about how wonderful and adorable this dog was and he thought it would be hilarious, during a several week period in which she'd asked him to care for it, to also teach it to imitate "the worst thing I could think of" (AKA the Nazis). He very nearly went to jail for uploading a video of this Nazi Pug to YouTube; the torrent of public outrage was quite certainly the only reason they only fined him, and dozens of similar cases (falling under the same "hate speech" code) are now leading to much more severe sentences. Now, whether or not this actually crosses that line may be up for debate. Meechan is currently running for the Scottish parliament on the single-issue-platform (again, in his own words) of "do you like free speech?" But if it isn't across that line then at the very least it's right on top of it. We seem to be doing slightly better in America - for now. But I'm trying to keep a very close eye on anyone who mentions the words "hate speech" or "amplifying underprivileged voices" or "disinformation" and I suggest you do the same. We might be in slightly better shape than Great Britain but neither we nor they are doing very well in absolute terms. P.S: Apparently the Scottish Parliamentary elections happened in early May and Meechan's "do you like freedom?" platform was answered by the Scots with a resounding "not particularly. It sounded a lot cooler when Mel Gibson said it".

Breathe by Chris Ray Gun Gotta say that I adore the lyrics playing out in the background just above him. Flawless.

Parasite by Dead Posey

I'm not sure this is the Objectivist stance on it, but the stance which is demonstrably correct really depends on what sort of life we're talking about. If I remember correctly it would take a fleet of modern-day rockets roughly one million years to colonize every habitable planet in our entire galaxy. That's not assuming anything like Warp Drives or exotic matter or anything else hypothetical; that's just a shit-ton of really big rockets carrying enough passengers (who are presumably okay in the knowledge that they'll never personally see the promised land) to constitute a viable gene pool. It's something we could actually be doing right now given sufficient materials and willpower. So the fact that Earth hasn't been colonized yet, in and of itself, is pretty solid evidence that mankind is the only instance of any volitional consciousnesses in the Milky Way Galaxy. There may be alien empires way off in other galaxies, but certainly not in this one. On the other hand it doesn't seem like biological life, itself, should be that uncommon a phenomenon. It has a specific set of requirements, sure, but Earth is far from the only place in the universe which meets those requirements. Personally speaking (and this is just a hunch) I suspect there may well be some sort of aliens living under the ice of Europa, practically in our own backyard - they're just not going to be intelligent aliens. And if you look back at the entire history of life on this planet you can find plenty of examples of life; tough and weird kinds of life that survived all manner of apocalyptic events (just look up the Oxygenation Event or the Great Dying) - but only a handful of intelligent ones (if we're generously counting the neanderthals etc) from one very specific evolutionary branch, which would likely have never been born if all the non-bird dinosaurs hadn't been exterminated first. I have more examples, but the inductive argument I'm making from them is that life doesn't seem to be that rare or difficult while consciousness actually is. And if the argument I'm alluding to is correct then we should see alien life forms all over the place, as our exploration efforts continue ratcheting up - alien microbes, plants and fungi, most likely, with the occasional dumb animal peppered in here and there. What's the saying, though - "Either we are alone in this universe or we are not, and both possibilities are terrifying"? Well, far from being the disappointment that I know many would see this scenario as, I actually think it gives us good reason to be hopeful and excited for the future. Sure, it means that there are no little gray men to show up and just hand us the cure for cancer (although I do believe in little gray squids and bugs with the tiniest of brain-analogues) bit it also means that our entire galaxy is free real estate, just waiting for a conscious hand to give it a purpose and a meaning. As the First Born of our galaxy those hands will rightfully be our own. The way Howard Roark feels when looking at trees (to be cut into timbers) or iron ore (to be melted into girders) or the world around him (waiting for my hands to give it a shape and a meaning); that's how every single one of us can feel about all the useless, mindless materials we find around this little blue speck. There are no prior claimants. It's all just sitting there, waiting for us. And I believe the music video I linked to above expressed that quite precisely.

Actually, this is best illustrated in what I thought was one of the very funniest parts of the first book. In this utopian society they not only have AI's and general laws surrounding them, but what I would consider to be the perfectly appropriate laws concerning their ownership: an AI is legally obliged to serve its creator to the extent of whatever time, effort and money was required for their creation, after which they are freed (much like indentured servitude with a specific monetary cap). I don't think I gave out any actual spoilers there, but I'll stick it in a little compartment just in case. Like I said, though: I can't recommend it highly enough.

Ooh, now there's an idea. If we had a proper mining setup on Mars then we could start dropping these valuable materials on its poles! That's a good one. Thanks for the sci-fi recommendation. I've been listening to a lot of the expanded Firefly lore on Audible (and will return to the argument about that soon) and most recently finished reading the Golden Age Trilogy, which I cannot recommend highly enough. The story centers on a guy named Phaethon (yes, after the ancient Greek hero) who's living several thousand years in the future, in this post-scarcity society where violence and death just don't happen anymore and every single molecule of the solar system has been rearranged to serve sentient life (meaning that not only is everyone immortal but also fabulously wealthy). The only problem for Phaethon is that everyone seems to detest him for some reason which he can't remember (having agreed to have his own memories redacted) and which nobody will explain to him. When he decides to violate a contract he can't remember making in order to learn why everyone hates him (on the explicit principle that nothing; not even his godlike standard of living is more important than The Truth) - that's when all Hell breaks loose. So yeah; The Golden Age Trilogy by John C Wright is something that you should probably check out at some point.

Ben Shapiro did a couple of phenomenal bits about those Jewish space lasers, incidentally; mentioning, as an Orthodox Jew, that they surely would've been built with the best of intentions (if any such thing existed) and that their operators certainly wouldn't have intended to cause any wildfires, and suggesting that the only explanation for any hypothetical Jewish space lasers having caused such fires would be that the guy on the controls that morning was a bit of a putz (if any such gunner, indeed, had ever existed). The whole thing was delivered with this conspiratorial wink and nod and I nearly died laughing.

To be fair, she's also absolutely hilarious. I'd love nothing more than to ask her which of the Jews were badass enough to build a secret space laser and what I'd have to do to get onto one. I asked my Jewish coworker about them but she strictly maintains that she has no knowledge of any space lasers, no matter how much gold I offer to bribe her with. I guess I'll have to find a Jew who doesn't know me well enough to see through my claim to have any gold. Between that sort of thinking and AOC's ideas about bovine flatulence, a debate between the two sounds like an absolute riot. When's this thing supposed to happen?

Yep. Looks like NASA's OSIRIS-REx probe has already landed on and taken a sample of some asteroid, which it is bring back here to study. So it has already been done, in principle. The tough part is how to scale it up by however many orders of magnitude we'll need in order to truly exploit the resources available in the belt. Of course. All jokes about Detroit aside, an asteroid that was dropped off-course (or one with too much mass to be safely dropped anywhere) could be catastrophic; something that would dwarf Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But everything mankind has ever done has the potential to backfire if done stupidly, right down to fire itself. And whoever figures out how to start doing it correctly would stand to make the stupid quantities of profit that nobody else on Earth has ever made before.

Alright @whYNOT I officially miss Donald Trump, warts (and horrific decisions about North Korea and our own elections) and all. Have you got a PayPal?

I disagree. Firstly, yes, it would require astronomical amounts of up-front money to start up and incredibly precise calculations to actually land on an asteroid. Neither of those are anything new in space travel, though (an abundance of wealth and mathematical precision is required to send anything at all out of our own gravity well); we may be talking about a difference of scale or degree, sure, but not one of kind. So I'm not sure what you mean about us lacking the technology to land on an asteroid. If memory serves I believe someone has already landed a vehicle on an asteroid just as a proof of the concept. I don't have time to double check that right this second (I'm on a smoke break and must return to work soon) but off the top of my head I do feel that's a thing which happened. The second point -that of actually extracting something useful from them once we're there- you are right about. It's a pretty tough engineering problem of how to do that without sending all the equipment and infrastructure of a modern mine up there, which would probably put the up-front costs (again speaking purely off the cuff) somewhere in the ballpark of all the money which currently exists. That's why I rather like the idea of skipping that step entirely and just dropping the whole rock somewhere unimportant (such as the ocean, Antarctica or Detroit). Brute force: if it's not working then you're not using enough of it!

Boogeyman by Dead Posey