Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


softwareNerd last won the day on September 8

softwareNerd had the most liked content!

About softwareNerd

  • Rank
    Proud Father

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • Other Public-visible Contact Info

Profile Information

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

Previous Fields

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

Recent Profile Visitors

52079 profile views
  1. softwareNerd

    Donald Trump

    There's a substantial number of Trump voters who still think Trump was the right choice as President.While some might have soured on him, only a small minority of those who voted for him would want him gone. I've spoken to Trump voters who seemed reasonable in political conversations 4 or 5 years ago, and who are wary of Trump being over the top, but who would feel disenfranchised if he were removed. The idea that the U.S. is controlled by a "deep state" has spread to a wider section of people. I believe the numbers are substantial, even though not a majority. A large number of people feel out of control and alienated from the system. They do not see it as a system they want; but as a system that is imposed on them. Of course, they're the cause of the system, but there's little hope they will ever figure that out: it's an intellectual feat that is beyond most of them. Some of these folk might actually be happy that a few Trump advisers are acting as dampers to his worst gut instincts; yet, they would only want them to act as dampers, not to do anything fundamental.
  2. Just stop it with these dramatics already. From your descriptions, you come across as a spoiled brat, and she's mostly tolerating your crap.
  3. From the name, I'm thinking Cap-italism would probably wear a cap. Mixed-economy would mix it up a bit. Social-ism would want to be friends with both.
  4. softwareNerd

    Choice - or not.

    Why would this be exciting? What about the real world changes if I conceptualize it this way? To ask it another way: why should I be any more happy, relieved, excited etc. after reading your post? Is there an implication that impacts me/
  5. softwareNerd

    Just Shut Up and Think

    Nope. Dismissal is not force, even when it isn't reason.
  6. This process has been moving at a snail's pace, but it does appear to be moving. The latest reform is that some property rights will be respected.
  7. I asked the question because, after I read the introductory pages you posted, and I got the impression that you had an abstract audience in mind... i.e. people you think may benefit. But, when one writes to that type of target, you cannot tailor your "voice". Writing for an audience that is sympathetic to Rand is different from writing for someone who has a vague idea about Rand. Even when writing to a narrow audience like those sympathetic to Rand, one has to tailor one's material to a purpose. A reader who wants to get information to bolster his arguments is different from one who wants to get something from the book to help him in his own work/life in (say) the next year or two.
  8. Who is the audience for this book?
  9. softwareNerd

    What is 'reason'?

    Humans notice causal chains when they're pretty young. This means, they start to figure out that when thing A happens followed by thing B, it is a common pattern, and if thing A happens followed by thing C it is probably coincidental. As they observe more closely, they start to understand the other elements in reality that are playing a role, and thus understand certain causal chains not just as "there's a pattern of correlation", but in a more detailed way: of seeing how that causal chain works and leads up to the observed effect. This faculty is reason.
  10. softwareNerd

    OCON 2018

    His "way of speaking" I think you're referring to his literary/Freudian approach to philosophy. While one might criticize it as being a flawed epistemology to bring to philosophy, it does have its place, and is actually the more common way day-to-day people get philosophy: from tales. Objectivists would do well to learn the approach and counters to the approach. On "what he brings", a speaker often needs a foil. Salmieri could have stood up and given a lecture with only his own content and it would have been far more bland, and he likely would not have made all the points he ended up making. A socratic approach can can bring out points that a lecture wouldn't; but, more importantly, the "drama" and tension is engaging. Most of the day-to-day dispersion of philosophy is done by the socratic approach: families and friends just chatting about stuff (not to mention TV). Objectivists would do well to practice the approach. Finally, Peterson is the "intellectual of the moment". I know Hillary supporters, who did not know he was associated with the right, but had read his NY Time bestseller book and loved/recommended it. To have him on the stage, to present some of his opinions (as weak as they may be), to an audience interested in intellectual trends, is a value in itself. The fact that many in that audience like some aspects about Petersen makes it even more valuable to see how his ground is so shaky on some topics. With that said, tastes differ. I suppose some in that paying audience "wanted their money back". I would guess that the majority thought it was worth the price of admission.
  11. softwareNerd

    OCON 2018

    There wouldn't have been a real discussion without him. It would have been Disneyworld, where everyone agrees with everyone else and never learns much new.
  12. softwareNerd

    OCON 2018

    That was a good panel-discussion. It was interesting to see the differences between the two sides get highlighted so clearly, to hear Petersen make counter-arguments on core topics that would be familiar to most of an OCON audience, and to see people debating things with civility.
  13. I've read a (different) book by Randi ages ago, and he was debunking irrational beliefs. I did not get the sense that he thought everyone was irrational.
  14. softwareNerd

    Global Warming

    My assumptions are: that the counter-arguments to to most dire predictions are all out there, and that these key arguments have been made, not just by groups with a mission against the AGW voices, but by scholars who are credible and who are generally respected in traditional academia If so, a Feyman would bring additional credibility, but probably no new counter-argument. Do you think the case he would bring has not been figured out? Or that it has not been made effectively? Or that it has not been made by someone with his credibility?
  15. softwareNerd

    Global Warming

    Yes, but it isn't clear if someone like him would make a difference to general public-opinion on the topic today.