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

50695 profile views
  1. Leaving aside the terms/words, there are two different aspects out there in the world: there's a a conclusion that starts with a set of true premises but ends up with a false conclusion there's a conclusion that starts with some false premise and applies generally correct processes to reach a false conclusion So -- simplifying down to just two stereotypes -- our false conclusions can be the result of: some flaw in the process: errors of logic or process some flaw in a significant premise There are contexts where it is useful to distinguish between these two types, even though delving deeper one might find that the fault premise was itself the result of faulty process.
  2. I have no reason to think the list is made-up, and my default assumption would be that it is pretty accurate...but, it's the internet
  3. Supposedly, this is a listing of Ayn Rand's personal library.
  4. There's a long term (by 2025) plan for the Baltics to switch their electrci grid from being connected to Russia to being connected to the West.
  5. I see what you mean, he's for "motherhood and apple-pie", and we'll get the details later
  6. Thanks for the informative posts. What are two or three of Macron's signature positions that he usually mentions in his speeches? For example: if you had to guess, what would he want to focus on in his first year as President?
  7. Seems like someone (the Russian FSB?) is trying a desperate last-minute attempt to damage Macron, by leaking lots of his campaigns emails.
  8. What was the Chat we used before using IPS, was it PhpFreeChat? Placing a free chat of some type on the forum should be easy. The tricky part was integrating it with the user's forum-login, but most will have some way to do that.
  9. What do you see as the pros and cons? I think the forum software allows sub-forums to be merged. The bigger job may be to figure out the structure. There are so many threads now that Google search is the best way to navigate the forum if you're looking for a specific topic.
  10. Given that Macron is not from a mainstream party, it sounds as if he will become President but the legislature (National Assembly and Senate... says Wikipedia) will not be people from his young party. So, he will have to work with legislators from other parties. Is that true? If so, what types of power can a French President exercise on his own, and for what does he need the legislature? Is it close to the American system where the President has executive power but no legislative power? Can the president decide the budget on his own, or does the legislature have to do that? Has the legislature given the President so many discretionary powers over the years (as Congress has done in the U.S.) that the President has lots of discretion in what he can do on environment, regulation and so on, without having to go back to the legislature?
  11. As I understand it, property rights are limited on reservations, because they're viewed as belonging to the tribe. To the extend that is true, it should be phased out, giving residents (and possibly non-resident tribe members) full-fledged rights in property and ending the concept of collective ownership. (I'm not implying that the whole reservation should be broken up into private parcels.) Hernando de Soto makes a strong case for formal property rights as the basic need for economic development. This article from The Atlantic argues the same. In some villages in Africa, the land is owned by the whole village and it is quite a mess trying to get new development. One has to gather various chiefs and get some consensus, or -- even more likely -- the main chief treats the village as his domain, doling out favors with most of the benefit coming to him. A lot of problems on poor Native American reservations are behavioral, so they won't change in a hurry; but, its important to make it easier for outliers to change their behavior... others will follow in time.
  12. One can't really get anything useful from A=A as such. It's the "other knowledge" that's yielding all the concrete conclusions. However, even scientists who've never heard of Rand and who only know Aristotle as a name, assume that A=A when they think about all that "other knowledge". ot just scientists though: everyone, every day, in almost every little sphere of life, simply assumes A=A when they brush their teeth each morning, start their car, open the garage door, and so on. Most will never explicitly identify this in words, but when a magician does a trick, they assume its not really magic, because they know that A=A.
  13. I assume this isn't a specifically Objectivist symbol. The firebird/pheonix is a symbol of rebirth.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.