Welcome to Objectivism Online Forum

Welcome to Objectivism Online, a forum for discussing the philosophy of Ayn Rand. For full access, register via Facebook or email.


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About softwareNerd

  • Rank
    Proud Father

Contact Methods

  • Website URL http://practiceGoodTheory.blogspot.com
  • ICQ 0
  • Other Public-visible Contact Info [email protected]

Profile Information

  • Gender Male
  • Interests My wife and kid. Software. Finance.

Previous Fields

  • Country United States
  • State (US/Canadian) Not Specified
  • Chat Nick sNerd
  • Relationship status Married
  • Sexual orientation Straight
  • Copyright Public Domain
  • Biography/Intro 50+ yrs old
  • Occupation Software Development

Recent Profile Visitors

50564 profile views
  1. I assume this isn't a specifically Objectivist symbol. The firebird/pheonix is a symbol of rebirth.
  2. There's a huge difference in the psychology of the person, even if there ought not to be a difference in legality. The OP is arguing that the psychology of the former poses an actionable danger to others.
  3. As I said above, your argument is: People who are overly cruel to animals (e.g. actual irrational torture for no gain other than some sick emotion), are a potential threat to other human beings. Therefore, such cruelty is beyond being immoral: it should be criminal. I'm not troubled at any of the semantics or style of your argument, but I am troubled by your fact-lacking approach. Do you have evidence of your premise? My impression is that you have no evidence that such people are a real threat -- at least any more a threat than many others; instead, you're simply assuming this. Frankly, without any evidence to back it up, it seems like you're purposely grasping at this assumption because it helps your argument, rather than because it is true. If someone is very drunk, we have ample evidence that they lose control, and -- in the right context -- we have no problem using force to restrain them from some anticipated dangerous action. If someone is dangerously psychotic where they're having hallucinations and can act dangerously toward others, the law allows them to be held -- and, if the kinks could be removed from the system, it is fine in principle to do so. The point is this: if your premise is true, then you might be able to make a case. Imagine you have a neighbor who starves his pet, or kicks it, or abandons it is some area it will probably die... etc. do you actually live in fear this person will assault you? I don't ask this as an argument: I ask that you introspect about this.... make it real, and see what evidence you really have, and what fears you really and legitimately feel .. then, argue forward from that, to your conclusion.
  4. First, welcome to the forum. I think using the concept of "debt" distracts from your argument; speaking of "debt to your fellow citizens" and "social contract" adds still more levels of indirection. I think your argument is much more straightforward than that; but I my be misunderstanding what you're saying. So, let me rephrase your argument in a shorter form and you tell me if I'm missing any essential point. Your core argument is: People who are overly cruel to animals (e.g. actual irrational torture for no gain other than some sick emotion), are a potential threat to other human beings. Therefore, such cruelty is beyond being immoral: it should be criminal.
  5. The bit above reminded me of what Rand wrote about lipstick. [CTUI, essay "What is Capitalism"] Inventors make for interesting tales, but there are many businessmen who create <whatever> product or service and do it well and cheaper than others. Even here, there's a lot of innovation, but its not the big headline-capturing news like Galt's motor or Readen metal. Dagny's strength, for instance, is to run her railway well. She'll sure hire inventors and innovators to go from one technology to another, but she isn't an inventor by profession. To extend Rand's example, the businessman who take a few cents off the price of a lipstick, and many of his cohort, cutting prices elsewhere, enable Rand's stenographer to save a few extra dollars for the use of a microscope when she needs it. As Walmart said "Save money; Live better".
  6. The beauty of forums is that you often get good incidentals from discussion triggered by the most vacuous OP. You gotta check out their magic shows, not just their "Bullshit" TV series. Their magic shows are fun.
  7. OMG! There's this constant danger of being exposed by ex-scientologists. A tactical response is to have a second undercover operative expose the operation. But, not really. Instead, the way it works is that they bring it up in a way that gets the target community (in this case Objectivists, who are obviously a huge threat to Scientology) to come to the defense of the primary undercover agent. It works as inoculation, because the undercover agent has been embedded with a visible mission the opposite of the primary plant. They have long worked as a pair: the primary plant (let's say we call him Barney) gets to a leadership position in the enemy camp, while the second agent (let's give him any handy handle) positions himself as an attacker of leaders in the enemy organization. When the second agent attacks the first, the natural response in the enemy camp is to defend the primary agent against the secondary, who they have classified as a regular attacker. This inoculates the enemy against the few sane people within the enemy camp who investigate and find genuine doubts.
  8. Their main influence is transitive -- because they influenced your parents. For example, a person may be a Muslim because his great-great-granddad converted to Islam. For most people, the religion they practice goes back to a choice or a forced change made many generations back. There are more subtle impacts too. For instance, a person living in Cedar Rapids may be influenced mostly by his community; but his great granddad might have been the one who decided to move from Ukraine to America. The person's current existence in America (indeed his existence itself) is a product of that old choice.
  9. It depends on what one is interested in. Personally, my interest is more about the parents who brought me up, and the parents who brought them up. The biology of it is way less important. If I were to find out I was adopted, I might be curious about the circumstances of my biological parents, but I wouldn't bother investigating or even proactively seeking information.
  10. Most people are Christian or Muslim etc. because that's what their parents were. Obviously that's not universal or we wouldn't see change, let alone see something like Objectivism. Religion is just one thing people learn from their parents. How people construe who they are, and thus what they aim for, and thus what they achieve is heavily influenced by their parents -- in the typical case. So, I wouldn't say it is minimal, if one is looking at broad impact, across society. Of course, peers and the general culture have a big impact too. Indeed, what people call "American exceptionalism" is not so much a chosen quality in Americans, but more a set of values that is mostly absorbed by cultural osmosis. Immigrants actually are a special case, and are atypical. Immigrants are displaced, and this makes them question who they are, and forces them to choose. They're confronted with the values of their native place and the values of their adopted place. Since they have this new cultural force working on them, it isn't surprising that they choose mix. (Some do the opposite and go looking for their "roots" in a way that their parents do not, but tat's a different topic.) In general, parents and larger society impact most people. Not taking the time -- or not knowing how -- to figure out a philosophy of their own, they end up with a mix of influences from those around them.. with parents and close family being important contributors.
  11. I assume you are not questioning the string impact that parents have on their kids, at least in a majority of cases? Rather, you're pointing out that such "inherited" traits are not a reason for pride because they're just there. So, for example, a person could be proud that he adopted some positive trait even though his parents taught him the opposite; but, if he got some trait from his parents, without making a decision himself, there's less reason to be proud. Is that your view?
  12. My own curiosity on this did not start with my own ancestry, but about the ancestry of humans in general, and curiosity about race and impacts of nature vs. nurture. Reading about Haplogroups got me curious about my own personal genetic profile. This goes centuries beyond what the OP was probably thinking about: where were my ancestors 10,000 years ago? Were they part of the second human migration out of Africa, and which sub-migration? Just curiosity, though do like the fact that everyone is African in some sense, and that the myth of Adam and Eve has an element of truth. When it came to my more immediate ancestors, I was uninterested most of my life, and have never been close to extended family either. Only recently did curiosity got the better of me. and I found out the little I could from living relatives. To me, it is mildly interesting to know a snippet or two: the profession of my Great Grandfather, something about the way he grew up, and similar facts about other family members. There;s really no story to be told, though one can always weave whole cloth from a few facts. I could spin a fact-based family mythology: I come from a family where an ancestor found himself as the eldest son in an orphaned family at 14 and he went to work and figured out how to take care of a large brood of siblings. It would be mythology, because it appears to assert "this is who he was...and thus this is who we were", when both are pretty shaky, based off the few facts that are remembered and passed on. An Indian with a lastname that signifies a long line of village chiefs can tell you that he gets his confidence from his long line of warrior leaders; but, another, with the lastname from an "untouchable" class can spin his own myth: how his dad was a professor of agriculture who refused to be held by by societies expectations and has bred children who will defy expectations again. Even a child of a jailed criminal can spin a family myth: "I get my balls and my devil-can-care attitude from my dad, even if I chose to be an honest person." I don't grudge anyone their mythology, as long as the tail does not wag the dog: as long as you do what you ought to be doing, and spin a mythology to motivate you on occasion, I see no harm in it. The positive approach boils down to this: select certain good things from what you know of your ancestors; then, ask yourself "if they had those virtues, what excuse do I have not to?" The choice here is your own: you choose what is a virtue and what you want to follow. Needless to say on this forum, there can be irrational approaches too.
  13. Integration -- if there's one word to point the direction, it is "integration". There's a certain amount of knowledge in your head and organized in some manner. When learning new things, you need to plug the new stuff into the old stuff... integrating it. Something you may need to reorganize the way you think about a topic, to better integrate the new stuff. That's pretty abstract, but I find it helps to keep that thought in mind. Meanwhile, the concrete things I do: If a topic is important, highlight or make notes. This could be a couple of sentences you write down about each chapter. I like Kindle books because they make it simple to highlight text and share the highlights across all my access points. After reading a book I often go back over the highlights I have made. Often, I'll come back when I'm reading a similar book. I don't always do this. Sometimes, I'll pick up a book out of curiosity about a topic, knowing I don't to pursue it more than that open book. In that case, I'll simply read and make notes only if I find them relevant to other topics of closer interest. On the other hand, I sometimes go beyond highlights and simple notes. I might diagram something -- or I might draw a time-line -- if I want to get a better grasp on the material. You need to make things concrete and you also need to abstract. Authors vary in their styles. Some present a high diet of concretes and one needs to spend time drawing out the abstractions. Others write abstractly and one needs to visualize concretes. Something you can try asking (a trick I learnt from Peikoff's "Understanding Objectivism" lecture) is to ask: what other writer make a very similar point to this person? Once you have a similar author identified, ask: what is special and different about what this person is saying, compared to that other writer. Those are just a few top-of-mind things. Will post more if I remember.
  14. Or, they could bring some other sun nearer. But, why live on these poorly designed planets. They could make nice planets with just the right mix of terrain that humans and other aliens like. And, medicine would have ensured that humans and aliens can live in the same ecosystem: even if we're breathing carbon dioxide. And, since orbiting a single sun gets to be a bore, they could make an alternative, and have these new "Earths" roam all over the galaxy. In a billion years, anything is on the table: except a free-market in healthcare
  15. Yeah, let's just ignore the bleeding obvious that is being said to you multiple times and play these games instead. If you have no clue what people are referring to, you clearly are incapable of carrying on a sensible conversation.