Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Azrael Rand

Regulars
  • Content Count

    64
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Azrael Rand

  1. If by exploring the extremes and the logical end state implication of certain ideas we could determine the validity of said beliefs in their non extreme state then you would be correct. But what I've advocated for is a balance between freedom and security. Instead of using a seemingly ideologically perfect intellectual construct, such as traditional Objectivism (which is actually just a product of selective truths mixed with rationalizations), this objective balance informed by human nature and an orientation towards positive outcomes ought to be used to organize society. People are tribal but this doesn't mean we ought to strive for communism. People are also selfish but this doesn't mean we ought to strive for 100% rugged individualism either. We need to look at the complete picture that comprises human nature, not just the selective few things we prefer based on our ideological convictions and/or our epigenetic preset. Progressives have a natural diversity fetish that is strengthened by today's cultural incentive structure, but that doesn't mean we should cave into their demands for a borderless society, and neither should be turn ourselves into North Korea because conservatives have a natural security fetish. It's about balance as opposed to embracing the extreme epigenetic proclivities and their ideological derivatives (Marxism, Conservatism, Objectivism, Racial Supremacy, etc). A state of war is an abnegation of individual rights. Innocent people die in war, there is no accounting of individual actions among the casualties of war. You can try to rationalize this as other Objectivists have done but at the end of the day war is living hell in which individual liberties and human rights are no longer a valid construct even if we try to delude ourselves with the notion of war crimes, rules of engagement, human rights, etc. The only thing that truly matters in war is winning. My point being that the morality of war is decided by the winner and the punishment for breaches of said morality are also determined and enforced by the winner. These are natural laws. There is no moral appeals court to this process (unless established by the winner). War is a collectivist activity by its very nature: Us vs them. Trying to use individualist metrics to judge what actions in war were moral or immoral is a right reserved for the winner. As I said before, social harmony is a prerequisite to individual rights. Do I feel bad for the people who were innocently imprisoned as part of the war, absolutely. Would I feel better if they had only imprisoned people that were actually Japanese spies? Of course. But the action that established the immorality of Japanese internment during WW2 was America's winning of the war and it's desire for self-reflection after the fact. Not some cosmic and infallible truth about the supremacy of individual liberties. Are you a Trump supporter? If not, maybe you can start there. Some people value security over freedom and vice versa. Others value ethnic diversity over racial in-group preference and vice versa. In either scenario, both adversarial parties are likely to agree with each other on at least one issue, that being that the other group is deluded and doesn't understand the first thing about how reality really works. You know in your heart that racism is immoral and evil, correct? Did you always believe this to be true? How would you demonstrate this to be objectively true? What beliefs about reality do you hold that make this belief an objective truth? @ human murda: Loving your use of ridicule here I'm glad that at least someone has come to terms with the functional implications for persuasion/communication based on the objective facts that humans are emotional creatures by nature. Yes facts matter, but the fact that we are emotionally motivated is also a fact, therefore communication that consists solely of a factual exchange cannot be considered to be an objective means of communication. Among all the people on the board you're the only one that not only appears to grasp this truth but is intelligent and daring enough to put this truth into practice. You have my respect and appreciation Maybe this is proof that your people are superior to us white folk. Or maybe the whiteys on this board were just to busy trying to white knight for you and other minorities to read between the lines, but the fact of the matter is that you get it and they don't. Again I'm not saying that facts don't matter, because they do, but in a social context you'd be a fool not to use the most effective means to get the job done. Especially when defending against ideas that you know are poisonous to your interests and those of the people you care about.
  2. For the majority of America's history it has been a majority white country, choosing to live by European enlightenment values, united by a common culture and common language. Implying that the US was nontribal is nonsense. The US was quite successful internationally, as you said they crushed it, when non-whites and women were not legal equals to white property owning men. From a factual perspective your argument is completely invalid. You're entitled to your own feelings but not your own facts. Japan, a racist country, enjoys a far superior standard of living compared to Iran. Care to revise your claim? It's not my problem that you can't accept the fact that tribalism and reason are not inherently incompatible. Leftist account for tribalism but do so at the expense of accounting for selfishness whereas I acknowledge both. Not following you here. Considering that we are a tribal species and that we lived, succeeded, failed, and died all within a tribal context you can't claim that tribalism is at fault here. It's just an underlying reality of the human condition. It's like the water that surrounds the fish. She might not understand things like math but at least she understands human power dynamics and race realism. No, this is what evil Leftist SJW's believe because they've allowed their rational capacities to be neutered to the point that all they can do is mindlessly repeat what the irrational majorities around them are chanting. They have next to no capability of rational independent thought left. You are the same, but with slightly different, but equally evil views. You are also parroting complete nonsense the same as they are but based on the far evil Right. You are all evil collectivists that no longer are capable of independent rational thought outside what the majorities of your respective evil spheres of influence tell you. That you would morally equate what a majority that is by definition evil due to it's Leftist philosophy believes with what is true in reality means that you are irredeemably evil as I already surmised. FWIW I'm white and would happily have you and other racists shipped out of the US along with all the other collectivists of the Left or Right. You are all evil. So this is your version of the progressive accusation of the right wanting the poor, the elderly, the disabled, and children to fend for themselves. Can't say I'm impressed. You call me evil and by doing so signal to those around you your virtue of the good. But have you ever considered that your beliefs and the ideology you have chosen to embrace aren't the result of your moral superiority, rather you simply just adopted a certain set of beliefs that most closely aligned with your personal default nature. Food for thought. I may not be able to think, per your comments, but I'm sure you can manage right
  3. You may as well have said freedom is slavery. It's a contradiction in terms. It is nothing do with what I agree with. I'm just trying to get you to comprehend that you are using doublethink. You're trying rationalize segregation as freedom. Presumably your example was the Japanese government forces segregation. And presumably you would support forced segregation.  I was referring to private establishments. Also I'm not equating freedom with segregation by default. I've said many times that different people have different preferences. There are people who highly value diverse experiences and those that do not. Freedom allows like minded people the opportunity to live life the way they would like too. On both sides of the spectrum. Lol, you talk about how important it is to talk about things that make people uncomfortable, but you'd prefer not to go there yet? You keep hinting at a position you'd like me to assume which I do not believe in. I'm not avoiding the topic of genocide, ethic cleansing, or holocaust because I have a hidden agenda. I don't bring it up because it's not a place we have to visit in real life if we correctly account for human nature. I have argued for my position on the Immigration Restrictions thread. I don't care to discuss it further in this one. But in a nutshell, I believe in border control for objective threats to the general welfare, such as contagious diseases, criminals, and anti-American beliefs. Doesn't sound unreasonable but how do you plan on maintaining the culture to retain said American values in the face of collectivist activism? If a few million come in every year they have time to assimilate and become more American, especially if they are not forced to keep a low profile by wrongful immigration restrictions. Many of the people who come here do so to work, which is compatible with becoming more American.  If they arrive in large enough numbers they won't have to assimilate, they'll just take over. You assimilate when you leave your country behind and set up residence in a new country. If you take our old country along for the ride the incentive to assimilate is greatly diminished. That approach may be of value, especially in breaking through initial resistance, but to really accomplish something we need to work positively, on a fundamental level, by teaching them the right fundamental principles. Agreed. However it can't be understated the importance of using influence techniques to arrive at a place where we can have debates based on facts, reason, and evidence. Since we are largely subjective and emotional by nature you have to actively incentivize the higher virtues of discourse. It has always amazed me that objectivists support a rational means of national defense as written about by the likes of Peter Schwartz but are unable to do the same in the realm of cultural defense. Yes higher virtues exist, but unless you can come to terms with our emotional base state and account for it in your approach your appeals for said higher levels of discourse will fall on deaf ears. As I said in my original article, objectivists have failed to win the cultural wars because they haven't fully accounted for human nature. You can't succeed at persuasion if you choose to believe humans are rational actors by default. If you're willing to drop a nuclear bomb on another country you should at least be willing to call a leftist a racist to their face by holding them to their own irrational standard. That's tribalism right there. If every country should have open borders, if we're all individuals and all have equal rights then that statement is a contradiction. The nation state of the USA is an arbitrary construct if you believe in open borders. Why focus on the arbitrary when you could focus on the concrete? It's not tribalism. It's recognizing where I can have the most effect and where this will most affect me.  The place you can have the most effect is where the greatest amount of evil exists. That clearly wouldn't be the US in this example. But yes you prefer to deal with your own in-group. That's tribal, not ethnic tribalism but still tribalism or in-group preference. Any portion of collectivism or individualism present in any person's ideas is there by their choice and can be changed by their choice. It is not biologically determined. This is also true, in a less direct manner, of most, if not all, of a person's attitudes and emotions. And where reason conflicts with emotion, we can choose reason. You're partially correct in that we can adopt new beliefs and said beliefs can and do change how we interpret the world around us, that part is true. But if you research the underlying epigenetic differences that underlies the split between liberals and conservatives (a good place to start would be Haidt's book "The Righteous Mind") you will also discover that there is a genetic/environmental component as well. There is a spectrum that is defined by a need for security on the one end and a desire to embrace diversity on the other end. Where we fall on this spectrum largely determines our political beliefs. So to be clear there's a genetic component, environmental component, and a free-will component at play. Objectivists fall onto the diversity/freedom seeking end of the spectrum but have less empathy than "genuine" liberals. I have no doubt in my mind that that is a firmly held core belief of yours. Doesn't mean it's objectively true though. To the extent that people distinguish "races", they do so on the basis of minor physiological differences. The evidence for greater differences is weak at best and implies at most statistical differences which are much less than the differences among individuals within each "race". The biggest genetic differences that do exist among humans fall not along the lines of traditional "races" but among different groups in Africa, one of which gave rise to all modern humans who left Africa. Referring back to the security-diversity spectrum, if you fall more on the diversity seeking side of the spectrum, race and loyalty to the group play less of a role in your moral makeup. Add to that a belief system that outright rejects race and this is why libertarians and objectivists do not understand the concept of race as being real. But it's a very real concept for the people on the other side of the spectrum.
  4. Yes people do believe this to be true. The more you read and learn about human psychology and cognition the more you begin to understand that the way people view the world and specific events is through a filter that is shaped by their core beliefs of the world. There is no guarantee that any two people witnessing the same event will perceive it the same way. When things don't agree with a person's viewpoint their brain steps in and dismisses whatever information they perceived to contradict their core beliefs. Thus how we perceive reality depends on our core beliefs. This is why you can have otherwise rational people believe in the most stupid things. I once believed that humans were rational by default; but that's not the truth. We do however have the ability to benefit from understanding objective reality if we are motivated to do so. Here's a great example in action: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7gwEyDV_Ps This is also an excellent example on how to "red pill" others. Note how at 5:20 he frames his argument in a way that is in sync with her world view and core beliefs and as a result information that was previously instantly dismissed, because it conflicts with her core beliefs, is actually seriously entertained because it was framed in a matter that acknowledges and aligns with her core beliefs. If we were rational individuals she would have seriously considered what he was saying at the beginning of the conversations not minutes into the conversation and not until he was able to correctly frame his message around her world view. The truth is that unless we understand how the human cognitive process works we're all essentially living in denial running on a script provided to us by evolution. If you're willing to sweep virtually all of human history and human nature as a whole under the rug then yes race is nothing more than an arbitrary social construct. If you're not a slave to your own cognitive limitations however you may come to realize that humans are a tribal species and that the tribe functioned as a evolutionary survival mechanism. A religious person may try to pray away the gay, a marxist may wish to vanquish human self-interest, and you may wish to rationalize away the tribal aspect of human nature but neither of the people I listed are acknowledging reality as it exists. They are strictly viewing reality as they would like it to exist. Quoting Ayn Rand doesn't change that. All that does is demonstrate to me that you lack the willingness to think for yourself and would rather defer to other people's judgement. They won't have to if whites continue to view themselves as a doormat for people of color. But on a more serious note the US as we know it today has traditionally been a majority white country similar to the way India is a country made up of its native inhabitants. What your saying makes about as much sense as asking if the Chinese have to permit the entry of Indian people into India. I never stated that race ought to be the sole and defining factor in any measure of anything. What I have said however is that it is a relevant factor. Should India become a majority African nation in order to prove the logical consistency of an ideology that does not correctly account for human nature? Should it? That's not freedom of association, except maybe in a very rigid and legal sense and nothing to do with political principle. Freedom of segregation is more like it, which is an oxymoron. And here I thought you were an advocate for a nation of laws. Now your the one abandoning freedom and the freedom of association because you don't like what freedom may look like in real life. What's next on the chopping block, free speech? We do not share the same core beliefs so I understand why'd say that. Of course the same could be said of my opinion of you and your argument. Its clear to me that you'd prefer I go to a certain place I don't think we ought to go. My reasoning isn't guided by a hatred for the other but by an understanding of human nature, specifically the nature of r vs K selection, epigenetic preferences for diversity vs security that underlie the two major philosophical movements of our time, and other related co-factors. Social harmony is a prerequisite for maintaining law and order. This is where I'll say that I think you're the one stuck in a loop. That's why you boil the frog gradually and don't throw him into boiling water. The overton window is a more effective tool than a radical war cry for revolution. You may be right that people would demand political action under such a scenario you outlined (hundreds of millions all at once), but a few million every single year is a different story. Again it goes back to an understanding of human psychology. My point is we're all part collectivist. Better to acknowledge it and honestly deal with that fact than to try to pretend it isn't so and to risk the foundation of everything you hold dear. The idea that humans can't be part tribal in order for there to be legal protections for the individual is not rooted in reality. Right, communists believe that humans ought to value others more than they do themselves. This belief is not rooted in reality. Of course every communist, whether they choose to admit it or not, has carved out a little niche for themselves in which those rules they espouse apply to all but themselves. The best way to fight against communists is to hold them to their own standards (no to yours) and to ridicule the living crap out of them. You believe in white privilege? You believe that all inequality is the result of oppression? Well guess what? By the extension of said logic drinking a cup of coffee at Starbucks makes you a racist sociopath because you chose to purchase a cup of coffee for yourself with money stolen from a person of color in the third world that just died of hunger of a preventable disease. See how quick they backpedal once you hold them accountable to their own rules. The rules for radicals work both ways. The major practical reason being that humans are the main variable in the equation and that we are to a large extent selfish beings and that capitalism leverages said fact. That's tribalism right there. If every country should have open borders, if we're all individuals and all have equal rights then that statement is a contradiction. The nation state of the USA is an arbitrary construct if you believe in open borders. Why focus on the arbitrary when you could focus on the concrete? I have no doubt in my mind that that is a firmly held core belief of yours. Doesn't mean it's objectively true though. Just because differences are real doesn't mean the answer has to be bloody murder every single time. There are some shades of gray here. It's just that you can't see them based on your current belief system which demands that only black and white are allowed to exist.
  5. Funny, you claimed to be an Objectivist earlier. Also funny that you completely ignored the scenario I proposed where you and your "group" are the ones with the inferior IQ's and if it would be moral for them to exclude you from that near future US as a result. Admit you are a racist before you make any more statement or arguments in the thread. At least completely own that shit. If I was a racist I would fully admit it and argue for it explicitly and proudly, not like a intellectual wannabe pussy who hides behind complex sentence structure. Not only are you a racist, you are also a coward. And before that I stated that Objectivism had certain flaws as it does not correctly account for human nature. The two go hand in hand. Also why is it important to you for me to make to make an admission to being a racist? What exactly would that do for you? How do you benefit from that? I don't know if you realize this, but based on the popular culture in the US and the West in general all Objectivists are considered racists because they believe in capitalism, a system of white oppression, and because they don't acknowledge their inherent privilege to the oppressed people of color suffering in silence. As far as the dominant culture is concerned we're both racists. Also the fact that you resort to name calling shows that you're easily offended. Here's a helpful fact, you yourself have some say in what offends you if you hold objectively accurate beliefs about human cognition. Not that your likely inclined to listen to anything I say but its worth noting none the less. Yeah, and you see this as a threat because of their lower average IQ. So you need to keep them out. That's how it works. Or you keep them segregated, like internment of Japanese-American citizens. I don't know why you still don't see the implication. Seeing as you brought up the Japanese, in Japan there are certain areas and establishments that are reserved for "Japanese only." That's what freedom of association looks like in real life. Do you only have a problem with exclusion in white countries or in all countries? Like it or not, people are inherently tribal. People don't just behave in a tribal manner because they have been brainwashed by leftists. Yes said brainwashing certainly amplifies tribalism but it doesn't create it out of no where. Capitalism works as well as it does because we are mostly selfish by nature. But we are also part tribal. You cherish and idealize one but outright reject the other. But both are part of human nature and need to be addressed. You can try to ignore the parts of reality you find disagreeable but that will only make the problem worse in the end. All that deluding yourself into believing that tribalism is a social construct does is to ensure that your tribe will be the first one to go. If your on a soccer team but all the players on your team have convinced themselves its all about them the outcome of the match is clear. Individual rights can exist in an environment in which tribalism has been accounted for but they cannot exist in an environment of inter-tribal competition. You may not see yourself as part of a tribe but others see you as part of a tribe whether you like it or not. I don't believe in segregation by race or IQ. Like I said, however, there might be a case for denying imbeciles citizenship, particularly the privilege of voting. MisterSwig, I didn't ask you what you don't believe in, I asked you what you do believe in :) Was this meant to counter my quoted point? As a stand alone scenario I would say the property owners would try to use the government to get them to move elsewhere. Arresting and jailing them all would likely cause an undue tax burden on the system, especially if their population is ever increasing. If the government failed to effectively deal with the problem, the property owners would likely decide to move elsewhere if the problem gets out of hand. Kind of what you're seeing in certain parts of California right now. The point I was making was that there was not as much difference in principle between Africans and homeless people as you were implying, and that a drastic increase in the numbers of either here would probably mean that at least some of them were committing violations of property rights that could be addressed as such. In theory you're absolutely correct that if we fully respected property rights the way that you envisioned them that said illegals would be in violation of property rights. Having said that neither our government, our people, or the offenders in question fully acknowledge your vision of property rights. If they did we wouldn't have a problem. If these people cared about property rights they wouldn't come here for the sole purpose of violating them. So the key question is why aren't things the way you'd like them to be and what can you do to change that. We both know that the US can't absorb all the world's suffering and poor and still resemble a first world nation. A fatal flaw to traditional Objectivism is that in an attempt to deny altruism at the individual level it guarantees altruism at the collective level by writing off tribalism and groupishness as evil and/or social constructs (simply bad ideas). Individual rights and group interests appear to be mutually exclusive from a logical point of view but they are both a part of our nature. By forsaking one for the other you are logically consistent but that logic doesn't acknowledge people for who they are because you're just viewing them for what you'd like them to be. When marxists envision their utopia they envision a people that are not selfish but care for others interests above their own. Yes at times we tap into this mindset as part of human nature, but again the reason why capitalism works better than communism is because we are more selfish than groupish, but it doesn't mean we're completely one or the other. It seems like what you're saying is that the founders understood human nature better than most and were therefore able to create a system that worked better than past systems. That is most certainly a form of social engineering. Naturally it differs from more recent examples of leftist social engineering where instead of relying on a firm grasp of human nature as the foundation for a social system it is replaced by the utopian hopes and dreams that are a central part of the leftist's mindset. You could compare it to GMOs. Not all GMOs in theory are bad, but if you only genetically enhance crops to streamline efficient production without consideration for safety to the consumer you're likely going to get bad outcomes. You make several good points here but I think you may be misunderstanding my actual point. I'm not sure if you read my original article, if not I'd recommend reading it. My point is that race, IQ, tribalism, and human irrationality (which you touched upon) are facts of life and that we can't just simply sweep them under the rug to protect a belief system we feel comfortable with. There is a difference in saying something is a factor that has to be considered and saying it's something that ought to be used as the sole method by which to judge a person's intrinsic worth. For example, Japan has not and likely will not in the foreseeable future permit immigration that will lead to the Japanese people being replaced by foreigners in their own lands. I do not view this as evil or as a slight of the Japanese towards others but as a means to protect their way of life based on an understanding of human nature and social dynamics. I'm not really tracking a lot of public outrage tied to Japan's immigration policy but when it is adopted by a majority white country then people have a problem with it. Also just because someone's a good person doesn't mean they have a right to come live in your country. Unless of course you have a culture in place that promotes ethnic self-sacrifice which is something white nations are currently struggling with. I hear what your saying about not becoming a leftist by fighting them, but when they're right about something, even something small, they're still right about it. Covering up factual inconsistencies for emotional well-being in the short run will only lead to dignified loosing in the long run. For example, the left is wrong when they claim that power is everything ie all that matters (if you care for outcomes at least) but without power there can be no rule of law. There's a distinction here that many people won't fully come to terms with. I understand that white people are extremely uncomfortable talking about race. They would rather pretend race didn't exist. But that's an illusion. It's like pretending there's no liability problem with social programs in government because we act as if the problem doesn't exist. However what we are witnessing today in white countries is a cultural movement of hyper-tribalism where marxists and minorities seek to replace the dominant population, culture, and institutions with a more diverse and inclusive people, culture, and institutions. We can certainly blame the left for a big part of this but non-leftist whites are to blame as well for sweeping race under the table. The same also applies to IQ differences, tribalism, and human irrationality. By dismissing these topics outright and not engaging their proponents on the battlefield of ideas you're ceding the moral high-ground to them by default.
  6. Can't help but look into the dumpster fire can you. On the subject of evil ideas, the idea you referenced in this quote is quite similar to the view of leftists that claim that free speech invalidates their feelings, dignity, and existence and therefore ought to be replaced with controlled speech. Also I would wonder if debating me is only "semi-wrong" because you yourself have chosen to debate me? What makes you think that the US Constitution wasn't an attempt at Utilitarian social engineering? I think if you objectively look at the situation you would come to the conclusion that it was social engineering, except unlike the many other approaches we normally associate with social engineering, it was extremely successful for a quite a long period of time based on objectively verifiable metrics. What's your position on immigration? Do you outright dismiss segregation using national borders or is there a certain set of criteria you prefer in order to segregate, and if yes what are these criteria? As far as AI goes, I don't think it will be used as a tool to revolutionize individualism, rather I see it being used the same way that nuclear weapons were used in the past, and to this day, as a tool of collective nation states. That's not to say that businesses will be excluded from using it but it likely won't be the catalyst to us all combing together chanting songs around the camp fire as you may envision it. As far as giving human rights to AI, I think that's a very r selected thing to do. Only people that are virtually immune from a resource constrained environment would ever consider going there. I see a better case for animal rights than I do for AI rights but to each their own. At the end of the day it's still intellectual tribalism. You want to extend rights/benefits to entities that you perceive as being similar to you. You likely empathize with AI because you view it as possessing similar characteristics to yourself. Nothing revolutionary going on here. Have you ever imagined how ridiculous the implications would be in the real life environment? Imagine AI with property rights killing it in the stock market and/or casinos, buying up all the land and making virtually all of humanity homeless... Emotional reasoning on steroids here... Efficiently filling holes in the labor markets and open borders are two different things. The former I support the latter I don't. Note how the criteria you're using is both utilitarian and collective in nature (labor market). Ayn Rand would have reject such a notion because it isn't an absolute form of freedom. I don't draw the same distinction by default. I think today's environment is proof that "proper systems" aren't a substitute to culture in guarding any system against moral decay. The alternate hypothesis is that said society would be taken over by another collectivist group because the individualists have deluded themselves into thinking that in-group preference and tribalism are not inherent parts of human nature. One thing I'd like to point out is that the current immigration law, which isn't a walk in the park by all means, is actually an IQ and cultural compatibility test even though it's not advertised as such. If you don't come here illegally and rather choose to obey and submit yourself to rule of law then you are allowed entry. We are currently in an environment where real differences have become a cultural taboo, and because of it the narrative has shifted to granting access to the best and brightest foreigners to all foreigners. If we're all equal, then it can be argued, current immigration law is just arbitrary and racist. If we can't talk about race, IQ, tribalism, etc because we may offend someone then we have no means to prevent something good from becoming a third world *hole. Have I made my case clear enough yet? Remember what I said before about the left holding you to your standard in effect using you and your belief system to achieve their goals for them?
  7. Come on, man. You've gone on about IQ and racial differences, not just threats by actual rapists. I didn't ask if it's okay for black people to live here, I'm asking what you'd do about the threat of black people lowering average IQ.  My distinction lies not in principle but in objective reality and goes back to Enos. There's a difference between one black person or family living in an all white area vs having different ethnic groups clustered together and occupying the same territory with other groups. Different psychological dynamics at play. How do you justify the notion that the NAP ought to be respected but that others notions such as the content I've discussed ought to be viewed as irrelevant and/or dangerous? Are said family members of mine US citizens or not. If you don't address that we're talking apples vs oranges. Again how do you justify that the NAP is the only thing that counts? How do you justify that notion, why do you believe it to be true? I don't support rape on an individual level or a group level so the individuals or groups of individuals that are committing these rapes, wherever they are (on campus, off campus, etc) should be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law. Do we need to do anything about some groups sharing and reinforcing ideas that encourage rape? I don't mean treating them as criminals because of their ideas. Do we need to use any techniques of persuasion that take into account the existence of a subculture? Do colleges need to have policies addressing the matter?  Based on my understanding of the problem, objective parenting that encourages both empathy and reasoning ought to be the best long term solution. Men and women stand to benefit from each other's company but that requires an objective understanding of our differences. Traditional gender roles naturally facilitated said acknowledgement of differences but we've moved away from them in favor of egalitarianism which isn't doing anyone any good in my opinion. Was this meant to counter my quoted point? As a stand alone scenario I would say the property owners would try to use the government to get them to move elsewhere. Arresting and jailing them all would likely cause an undue tax burden on the system, especially if their population is ever increasing. If the government failed to effectively deal with the problem, the property owners would likely decide to move elsewhere if the problem gets out of hand. Kind of what you're seeing in certain parts of California right now. Both are however tied to human nature, the same way that selfishness and our embrace for freedom/independence is tied to our innate nature. These aren't just ideas someone came up with. These are essential components of who we are based on our nature and our environment (epigenetics). The reason why we keep having to deal with socialism isn't because people are simply exposed to bad ideas, but because they embrace these ideas based on who they are and how they feel about their environment. I like the fact that your intellectually flexible and quite frankly honest enough to at least extend your principles from the individual to the individual's country based on real life considerations. My philosophical approach could be described as utilitarianism based on human nature. That makes it more of a math problem than a matter of sticking to principles that may or may not protect you, our family, and country when in need. If we are tribal as a species then we cannot exclude in-group considerations. If we weren't tribal then in-group considerations would be irrelevant. Self-sacrifice is required to a certain extent assuming you're not living on an isolated island. Some people choose to rationalize away the required acts of self-sacrifice as virtuous and then dismiss the rest but that approach dismisses real life outcomes because it prioritizes emotional satisfaction over real life outcomes. Just because part of life means having to give in every now and then doesn't mean that we have to do it all the time. Conservatives get wrapped up in their principles and then fail to protect what they were tasked to protect in the first place. From a perspective of resource bargaining with someone that doesn't share your principles, your principles are a weakness. One of the easiest way to shut people up is b pointing out how they aren't living up to their own set of rules. Sticking to principles won't work against this type of tactic. The easiest way to defeat this tactic is to use it against your opponent before they can use it on you. The notion of human rights can be viewed as a congruency test initiated by the left of the right. Classical liberals assert that we all ought to be treated the same in the eyes of the law, well guess what, let's extend that line of thinking to its logical conclusion and here we go, open borders, Muslim/Sharia controlled areas all over Europe, and vibrant diversity in the US that will set the stage for a political Marxist takeover. Remember what I said about others using your own standards against you. They will only talk to you about your standards when it supports their cause. When it doesn't they will dismiss it as emotional reasoning or outdated thinking. However the Marxist liberals doing this are essentially just following their genetic code, expressing r selected behavior that favors diversity over security (K selected behavior). It's essentially just a contest of using logic to extract as many resources and concessions out of the group as possible. Just remember, the best defense is a good offense.
  8. So based on your assessment of the situation would it be fair to assume that you have about as many immigrants as you can sustain? If so how do you square that away with the principles of freedom of association? Do moral considerations not trump practical considerations? Would you still feel the same way if the current ethnic majority group became an minority? People are very selfish by nature, but we're also tribal (and thus a little altruistic). What we consider in our self-interest though isn't just a mathematical calculation that maximizes personal profit. There are multiple dimensions to our self-interest and that does vary from person to person and includes the epigenetic considerations I mentioned in my previous post. Also how do you personally arrive at the moral case for individualism? That's not for me to decide but for you and your country as a whole. I'm not making any claims to how India should govern itself. I would hope that the Indian people would do the best they can to create a workable mix of liberty and security that works best for most of its people. Just my best educated guess but I'd say because America is a multicultural society and because interest group politics works in that type of environment. It doesn't help that the current dominant culture is defined by a combination of altruism and collectivism which in my opinion culturally incentivizes whites to sacrifice their interests to non-whites. Maybe other posters can chime in here for some added perspective. I don't know if you're using that as an objective term to describe yourself based on your culture or not but you shouldn't hold anything outside of your control against yourself. Mindset matters a lot ;D But I probably don't have to tell you that. People should want to pursue what's in their rational-self interest. If that's moving to another country then they should pursue that as a goal. But there can be no blanket moral obligation for any other country to have to accept you. If there was then that would be suicidal. Ask yourself this, why would the Dalai Lama of all people say "Europe belongs to Europeans?"
  9. Well of course it makes sense to you since you stand to gain in said example. But what happens if this individual uses their temporary access to stay in the country illegally, commit a crime during their time in the country, etc. Is your business or you going to assume full legal and financial liability for the individual during their stay in this country? Every country on the surface of this planet has made these types of decisions and will continue to do so in the foreseeable future. I understand you're coming from a place of "ought" as opposed to "is", but the "ought" is meaningless unless your ideas are acknowledged by a majority of decision makers in society. If your ought doesn't even account for the means to do so you may have to re-look your original position. That's one of the core themes of my original writing. I listed a number of facts that I believe traditional Objectives aren't accounting for. Race wasn't the only item on that list. I wouldn't call it "might makes right." All I'm saying is that "right" without "might" doesn't amount to anything but a thought in someone's mind. I stated before that not all of the progressives facts are wrong but that I believe that their conclusion based on said facts are incorrect. I still consider myself an Objectivist and that implies a philosophy for man on earth. I do not believe that human nature supports sweeping identity under the rug completely in favor of individualism. Here's why: Based on our epigenetics we end up falling into a spectrum that is defined by a focus on security on one end and openness to new experiences on the other. A more resource rich environment tends to produce more people with openness for new experiences whereas a resource poor environment tends to produce people that are more security oriented. This makes sense because as a species we need to be able to adapt to our environment. The safety of the tribe is a core component to the safety aspect whereas the desire for freedom is linked to the desire for new experiences. If you're going to adopt a purely individualist position you're essentially describing utopia for one end of the spectrum but a living hell for the other end of the spectrum. I think a more sensible approach is to work towards an objective balance between the two given human nature and environmental considerations. Identity, race, human irrationality, IQ, cognitive biases and distortions, all of these factors should be taken into consideration and accounted for as best as possible when determining said objective balance. Correct. I oppose the notion that anyone that is not a US citizen has the moral right or claim to US citizenship, access, or property. I do not believe that it is immoral for black people to live in the US, but I do believe it would be immoral to say that anyone living on the African continent that isn't a rapist or murderer has the right to become an American citizen. You have people like George Soros that will hold nations to their virtue signaling rhetoric. If you create a right he will fund the transportation costs. I also believe that individual self-interest is critical but based on my understanding of human nature I cannot say that it should reign supreme without considerations for the collective. I'm sure most if not all of the members on this board consider themselves as individualists and not as tribe members, but this simply isn't true for all of humanity. Tribalism isn't just a bad idea someone came up with it's a part of human nature. Now that doesn't mean that we have to live like North Korea or Soviet Russia but at the very least you have to objectively address it as part of life in society. If you want a more open and more racially diverse society you have to convince people of the benefits of it if you want their support. If you're bringing in say one foreign family per community, that is made up of the best and brightest a foreign country has to offer, I think that works out to be a net plus for that community and the family but when you set out to dramatically reshape the ethnic composition of a country you can't just equate it to the former scenario that involved just the one family. It's like saying that just because it's safe to consume a small amount of a given substance, that it's safe to consume a larger amount of said substance. I don't support rape on an individual level or a group level so the individuals or groups of individuals that are committing these rapes, wherever they are (on campus, off campus, etc) should be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law. If they have a moral right to access then you can't deny them access. Their rights would equal those of homeless American citizens who also have a right to live within the US even though they do not own any property. If you make something a moral right you can't use practical concerns to reign in those rights. Could you link to that previous post(s); I may have missed it. As far as your moral framework, how do you morally justify individualism?
  10. Agree with Eiuol on looking for a therapist that specializes in Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) which will allow you to come to terms with what you're facing. The book "The Coddling of the American Mind" by Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt has a chapter specifically dedicated to CBT in the book's annex and will give you a leg up on where you need to go from here as well as additional resources to consult. Best of luck on your recovery.
  11. Fine, just stop saying you support freedom of association. Or at least, you want to have it both ways. I've asked you very simply: what would you do about black people in the US, since they lower the average IQ?  And I think I answered that question. Given all the variables in play I think freedom is the best solution here. But no I do not believe in universal freedom of association that would allow for the destruction of America from within. I do not believe it's wise to sacrifice the good for ideological consistency. I totally understand why the concept is distasteful to you but individualism and collectivism aren't just good or bad ideas that were created wholly detached from human nature. Each represents a "distilled" version of either selfishness or tribalism with some rationalizations thrown in for good measure so that it's convincing enough for those in the market of being convinced. Rather than choosing between the two ideologies I'd rather seek an objective balance between the two since both concepts are rooted in human nature. You can have an individualistic society only as long as everyone believes that groups don't matter and that the individual is all that matters. The only context in which this is objectively true is in the context of an ethnically homogeneous society where the group has already been controlled for. Once you stray from this you'll be reminded by reality that we are both individualistic and tribal. Like it or not tribalism played a major role in human survival strategy for a very long time. It's part of us for better or worse. We can choose to ignore the facts, just like a communist would have us ignore our selfish nature, but reality will catch up with us sooner or later.
  12. Thanks for posting this. It's a good point to illustrate the difference between being persuasively correct and being factually correct. Being persuasively correct involves the usage of language that targets people emotionally, in this case by tying one's proposal to the way people want to view themselves as human beings. You're cleverly equating your proposal with a people's sense of self-actualization and it's a highly effective strategy to get things done. It's likely the most effective form of persuasion in existence (along with fear which arguably covered). But this rosy verbiage doesn't speak to the quality of one's actual proposal or the implications of adopting said proposal. Does this statement negate the fact that a clear majority of ethnic minorities that vote actively support the political party that advocates for racial interest group politics? No it does not. Does it change the fact that they view the world in racial terms when they are living in one of the freest countries in the world? No it does not. As a people, and yes they see themselves as a people, they have made the choice to reject individual rights. White people would be advised to wake up to this reality. Also is this the same Ronald Reagan that signed amnesty into law thereby creating an unmistakable incentive structure for future illegals to come by indicating that the laws on the books are only for show?
  13. You seem to contradict yourself.  First you say that IQ matters a lot for the health of a country. Moreover, you have gone over how you think that by nature black people have lower average IQ than white people. This means that having more black people will lower the average IQ. According to you, this is bad. In response, you could deport black people, withhold the right to vote, or deny them citizenship. If you do nothing, then you are allowing the country to weaken. Then at the same time, you clearly advocate for freedom of association. But with freedom of association, without even discussing immigration yet, you are allowing racial groups to mix and therefore lower the average IQ. Something has to give. At least one of your beliefs has to change if you care about the consistency of your own beliefs. Given the variables in play, freedom is the best choice to let the problem work itself out according to my estimation. Freedom works great in certain applications, I don't contest that. We are mostly selfish by nature and our desire for freedom is a reflection of that. That doesn't mean that it's the answer to every problem. Just because freedom works in certain applications given certain environmental factors doesn't mean it's the solution to everything. I don't think it's a good idea for the US to allow its population to be replaced by importing a fifth of the Africa's population in the name of freedom and individual rights. Nor Chinese people for that matter even though they have a higher average IQ than whites do. Drastically changing the ethnic make-up of a nation is not an action that is informed by an understanding of human nature. I consider it as immoral as an imposition of a communist form of government. This reflects why I wasn't going over individual rights. 2046 went over with you that individual rights are not based off a selfish nature. Nothing even about Objectivism supposes that people are selfish by nature, or tribal by nature. I only mentioned it for the convenience of other people reading the discussion. Rational self-interest?
  14. Just to recap, the comment was in response to your view that "everyone's base intellectual capacity is the same." This isn't exactly true if you look at IQ distributions both within a given population and across populations. We do not all possess the same intellectual capacity. What your describing is the case for 100% environmental causes to describe differences in intelligence and the science doesn't support it; I posted resources in this thread if you want to read up on the matter in-depth. As far as reasoning in general goes, if say X is proven to be false then that doesn't necessarily prove Y to be true. The part about assuming commonality being emotionally pleasing comes from us, humans, generally valuing others that are like ourselves. If someone looks like you, talks like you, and shares your belief and values that contributes to social well-being. The more we have in common with people the more we value them. It's likely part of both our tribal and selfish nature as humans. I consider emotions to be the chief culprit because we as humans are able to believe and treasure the dumbest things so long as they provide us with emotional support. IQ does not exempt you from basic human psychological needs. IQ doesn't prevent someone from making stupid mistakes that are based on emotional reasoning. If your emotional intent is to prove something wrong your reasoning mind is likely going to give you a conclusion good enough for you to accept. To combat this phenomenon, education, cultural controls and traditions are most effective in my opinion. But again, just because X is or isn't true doesn't necessarily prove anything about Y unless there's a universal and objectively true documented relationship between these variables. Ask yourself this, are you able to do things now intellectually that you weren't able to do in your younger years (when you had a lower IQ)? If the answer is yes, imagine a society with more people capped at that lower IQ (from your childhood years) and imagine what that society would look like. You're contradicting yourself: If we naturally assume that other people are like us, then that "precondition" is satisfied regardless of our "tribal nature". When someone doesn't look like you and doesn't talk like you, your subconscious doesn't perceive them to be like you. Now if you know the person and have a positive relationship with them your conscious knowledge and emotional investment in the relationship obviously override the gut feeling of first impressions. But based on Enos findings, which I referenced, perceptions of likeness matter as it relates to social cohesion and the upkeep of social institutions. If that's how your going to define open mind I'd agree with your conclusion because virtually everyone has an opinion on all the major issues, therefore finding someone with an open mind is like finding a needle in a haystack. You said yourself this (being 100% correct) isn't possible. There's only a contradiction here if you want one to be here ;D What's the reason why both can't be true at the same time. The only reason I can see is the emotional reasoning of preferring to be in a position where you can't ever be fooled which is made impossible by one of my two claims. The fact that we can't be omniscient does not negate the need or desire for self-improvement. After all, perfection isn't required to beat an opponent, you just have to be better than them at whatever counts. But you are in that you're assuming that individuals exist on the IQ scale that are able to solve every problem in the world. What made you conclude this to be true? If it's IQ ranges and associated meanings you're interested in see here: http://www.assessmentpsychology.com/iqclassifications.htm Also you're welcome on the eval, it's on the house The leftist are actually right about some of the things they talk about but the conclusions they draw from their objective assessments are most often wrong. You have your own definition of rights that is most likely different from the rights currently observed by your country or any country in existence. Rights only matter in a social context. What ends up as the rule of law in a country is shaped by politics which involves different groups vying for power. That's objective realty. You can decorate the process intellectually in any way you see fit but that doesn't change this underlying reality. The rights you believe to be true will only be respected by society if your group wins in this process. Power isn't everything, but it's an absolute prerequisite. If all else fails, there's always uncle Adolf to fall back on. How about them leftist tactics huh ;D Embracing objectively true differences doesn't have to lead to concentration camps. That's what's called catastrophizing. Japan understands that there are differences between themselves and other peoples and they limit immigration accordingly. I don't see any concentration camps in Japan do you? By the way, you're from India if memory serves right? Do you feel that any Pakistani has a claim to travel to and live in India if they so chose?
  15. I see it as striking an objective balance between freedom and security given human nature. If absolute freedom means us accepting anyone that comes in and the consequences be damned then that's essentially only freedom for the people wanting to come here, not freedom for the people already living here. The people wanting to come here want a better life and the people who live here want to preserve their way of life. I don't see why only one sides case matters. If that Mexican is here legally on vacation and wants to patronize your store there is no issue. Or if you want to do e-commerce and send them a package that's fine subject to laws governing said trade imposed by either the US or Mexico. But to say that we have to grant someone access to the country for the sole purpose of going to your store and making a purchase doesn't really make a lot of sense. Like it or not, the reality of politics is one of interest group warfare. Those fighting for certain freedoms are one group in this contest. If you do not have the support of the people you and your ideas will likely not stay in power for long. While power by itself isn't everything, it's still a prerequisite for implementing any set of ideas into law and keeping them there. A constitution that is not understood and valued doesn't stay in place for long. That's just reality. As far as freedom of association which I brought up in context to diversity in the US, I didn't reference it as a moral absolute, rather as the best practical situation given the variables in place. I agree with the latter part. We have our set of rules and other countries may or may not share the rules and values that said rules are based on. That part I agree with. My argument is that these rules should be properly aligned with human nature to maximize outcomes for the people that make up a country. Rational self-interest at the nation-state level you could say. However when we come up with these rules we need to be sure that they aren't used against us and our interests. Sacrificing our national self-interest for logical consistency of an ideology that isn't properly aligned with human nature is counter to the concept of rational self-interest. There is a difference between rapes occurring on campus and an actual rape culture. I do not believe it's fair to say that a rape culture exists on US colleges because there are X number of rapes reported on said campuses each year. A rape culture exist if rape was incentivized using social norms. If you want to see a rape culture look at the middle east where there are actual incentives built into their culture and into law to incentivize rape. That's not the case at American campuses. Being accused of rape is a net negative to the accused individual not a net positive. The only cultural component I can see on campuses that encourages rape is Marxist and feminist ideology that say's we're all equal when this isn't true. Of course Marxist feminists are the ones spreading the untruth of rape culture in the first place... Men and women aren't equal they are complimentary. If we are equal that means we value the same things the same way which couldn't be further from the truth. We may value the same things but the weight we attach to them is completely different. You're setting people up for failure when you brainwash people against the grain of reality. My recommendation is that if you want to harmonize relationships between men and women, then the best means of doing so is by starting with the truth behind male and female nature. Understanding and empathy go hand in hand with each other. Gender roles were created with an understanding of male and female nature. Outright rejecting them in favor of Marxist and feminist egalitarianism is asking for trouble between the sexes.
  16. If it weren't for the whole Diversity + Proximity = Conflict thing embedded in human nature I would agree with you. Sure we can manage outcomes to a certain extent using cultural controls, but it's something that requires expenditure of social / cultural capital that can't be used for other cultural initiatives. From a utilitarian perspective that acknowledges our groupish nature, why expend extra resources to achieve a sub-optimal outcome for the sake of logical consistency? Why can't we instead have individual liberties for the members in our society and do the best we can using non coercive foreign policy to assist other nations in their pursuit of improving their lot? The central issue is do Whitistanis have a right to US citizenship or not? And if yes on what grounds? Do Americans not have a right to restrict access to their country? Is it moral to allow access to Whitistanis into the US against the will of the people? I don't believe that one's group "owns" the individuals that make up the group but on the other side I do not believe that any individual has a universal right to access any group's country. If this were the case we would need to limit/halt trade and/or declare war on Japan, China, Mexico, and every other country that doesn't have an open access immigration policy for violating this sacred universal right. This is a good point. So essentially we're talking about the best and brightest Whitistanis here. These are people that are more like us than the general Whitistani population. On one side of the argument it makes sense for us to accept these people because they are for all intents and purposes "our" kind of people. But what happens to the country of Whitistan if you take all of their best and brightest from them? We're essentially removing what little chance that country had left to become a halfway decent place to live. Would the US and Whitistan not both be better places if we used foreign policy to assist the best and brightest of Whitistan to make Whitistan a better place for all Whitistanis? Good one. We start by challenging the notion that we're all equal. The left loves this notion because it justifies their egalitarian lunacy, but as most of us know this is not true at face value. (Leftist) women are forced to believe that all people are equal (untrue), that groups matter (true) and that the male collective group is evil (untrue). That requires quite a lot of mental gymnastics, but thanks to human nature it's certainly not impossible. So since we're all equal, but men as a group make choices that don't make sense from a female perspective, men are evil and must be avoided, feared, hated, shamed, punished, etc. If women were taught to understood male nature, and men taught to understand female nature there would be more give and take. Save for the current situation created by female bias in statism, men and women benefit from living together as opposed to living apart. There's something in it for both parties, we just need to understand and respect what it is the other side values. Demonizing someone for their core identity creates alienation and dehumanization on both sides. If you want harmony inform people of the truth and let people adjust their behavior accordingly.
  17. You do recall the discussion we had about embracing the freedom of association do you not? If a group of white, blacks, hispanics, etc choose to live in racially homogeneous communities they are free to do so. If you have a group of interracial individuals that choose to live in each others company then they are free to do so under the freedom of association. Does this answer your question? If we're talking about a more or less racially homogeneous society then yes. But the scenario I outlined could come to pass under unchecked migration / open border policies. That's what you're seeing in Europe right now. Why bring up a point for discussion only to shut it down. If you want to discuss let's do it. If you want to claim a quick victory by using a rhetorical device try again. As I've said before, my position does not dismiss content of character but it desn't end there either. A 90% solution doesn't cut it if your opposition has identified your weakness / logical fallacies. This belief system is solely based on our selfish individualistic nature but doesn't account for our groupish and tribal nature. Furthermore you're essentially saying that there's no theoretical limit to the amount of people with below average IQ that would have to be granted access to the United States so long as they take a pledge to uphold our values. Sounds like a trojan horse scenario in the making. Lowering the average IQ of a country has real life implications whether you like it or not. Saying IQ is irrelevant, a non-factor, is misguided.
  18. Individual rights in my opinion are the result of combining and balancing self-interest, utilitarianism and empathy. Utilitarianism requires a certain level of IQ whereas empathy requires a certain level of EQ. A population that is lacking in sufficient average levels of either will not voluntarily consent to a system built around individual rights. Individual rights in my opinion don't exist as universal truths or absolutes. They are the product of a certain mindset that is conditional on certain variables. Everyone should be held accountable to the same set of rules within our society but we need to ensure that we don't jeopardize the foundations and preconditions of individual liberty; the minimum levels of average IQ and EQ I mentioned before. Immigration policy is one of many component to this. No I don't agree with that; but at the same time I can't agree with the assertion that everyone inn the world has a right to become an American citizen. As a hypothetical, let's assume the fictional country of Whiteistan had mostly white people with below average IQs that culturally valued incest, rape, and cousin marriages; I'm sure you'd agree with me that it would be in our best interest to have a number of immigration restrictions in place to protect the foundations our society is built upon.
  19. Societies tend to work out best for the majority of its members when all members of the group are held to the same set of rules. No disagreement from me on that account. It's not that all men are endowed equally (by their creator) or any of the other rationalizations people offer when trying to justify their feelings on the matter; based on human nature things just work best when everyone is held to the same set of rules simple as that. However this truth is conditional based upon other factors; it's not an absolute truth. A precondition is that there's a requirement for a certain level of likeness among the members of the population. If we all appear to be roughly equal then it's not a stretch to justify equal treatment. But imagine a country where half the population has an above average IQ and the other half of the population has an IQ that is borderline retarded. You can't tell me that it would be reasonable to hold all members in that society to the high IQ set of standards. Same goes for culture. If half your country is Atheist and the other half is Islamist then how do you justify holding all people to the same standard. You need a certain set of shared values, identity, cultures, etc for the equal treatment to result in desired outcomes.
  20. I think I've more than made my case here. The process of objectively organizing society consists of more than just one issue (freedom, race, etc). You have to look at human nature as a comprehensive whole not just at the pieces you like. You can be 90% correct but if you're not 100% correct you're leaving a weakness for others to exploit. Once your enemy knows your weakness they'll keep exploiting it until you either fix your weakness or totally capitulate.
  21. There are a number of factors why this can be the case. Just because someone has a higher IQ than another person doesn't guarantee specific outcomes in life which also require factors other than IQ. The same applies to countries. I'm sure India would be better off without a cast system for instance. I think it would only make sense to outright compare India and Botswana if essentially both countries were equal other than average IQ. This isn't the case, therefore I wouldn't jump to conclusions. The chief culprit here would be our emotional nature. If someone of average intelligence and above believes in something wholly irrational, it's likely based on an emotional need. That's not to say IQ plays absolutely no role in the belief in irrational ideas but in my opinion it's not the chief culprit; for example people of higher intelligence are likely less inclined to believe in god than people of below average intelligence. This is a good example for my previous point. It's emotionally pleasing too assume commonality but that doesn't mean that reality has to conform to this belief system. The same thing I said above applies here. Unless there's a good reason not to, we naturally assume that others are like us. This isn't necessarily a bad thing since it can contribute to social cohesion. But that doesn't mean it's factually correct just because we want it to be. That's a false premise. Just because differences exist, doesn't guarantee a specific outcome to either side of the extreme. If we're not all equally intelligent that doesn't necessarily mean that you naturally have a vegetable on one end of the spectrum (IQ 0) and an omniscient being on the other. Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think I've advocated for moral relativism anywhere in any of my past and present posts. When I say "open mind" I'm not equating that to mean ignorant or foolish. I'm referring to the ability to look at the argument from both sides of the equation. Since none of us are guaranteed to be omniscient, there exists a statistical probability that what we believe to be true isn't 100% true. Unless you're willing to actually hear the other person out you likely won't be able to improve your world view in terms of it being aligned with objective reality.
  22. I think its a multi-faceted issue in my opinion and your idea sounds reasonable at face value. Most literature about individual liberty is likely written in the English language so it makes sense for that to be a factor. I'd say the same about this as about my response above. What you're saying makes good sense but I don't see how you can conclusively exclude IQ altogether. Although I do believe that if we attached weights to the different causes, the cause you listed likely has a higher weight than IQ. Then again, what explains differences in decision making and public policy between India and African nations? Collective IQ differences are likely to be a factor along with cultural differences and other considerations. Check this out: https://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf The thing about quoting data, and I've listed data before, is that it doesn't do anything to change the way most people think; at least those that have already made up their mind about an issue and aren't really open to entertaining new information. I'm not getting that vibe from you tough but there are some people that took part in this discussion that fall into this category. Not knocking anyone in particular, it's just the way the cognitive process works for us humans. Unless you have an open mind, facts are likely not going to persuade you. We are mostly selfish by nature and we're not about to let facts get in the way of our chosen belief system we're emotionally invested in. Simple as that.
  23. It might make more sense if I define what I mean with individual rights so that we're both on the same age in terms of definitions/terminology: I reject the notion of human rights or universal rights and instead support the view of individual liberties in a context of liberties afforded to and enforced by the members of a given society. To assert that members of a different state are entitled to the rights and protections offered by another state, while idealistic, is misguided and not aligned with the realities of human nature. There's nothing more I can say to convince you that I haven't already said before in this thread. Human cognition is based around an emotional motive; that is we do not normally embrace facts unless they align with our emotional self-interest. You know this just as much if not more so than I do. The ideas and facts that I've presented here do not align with your world view and are therefore dismissed as irrelevant. If you think you've already discovered the truth and aren't actively seeking it out then you're not likely to accept facts that are contrary to your core belief system. Simple as that. At the end of the day we can talk about our ideal vision of society all we want but it doesn't change the fact that we aren't even close to living in an environment where that type of discussion is actually relevant considering current events. There was a time in American history when the discussion was relevant, when America was presented with the choice of being a free society based around individual liberties or tribal warfare. America chose tribalism when it enacted protections and incentives based around race in the form of repealing the freedom of association and instituting programs such as affirmative action. Ever since then whites have deluded themselves into thinking that they were still living in a free society when in actuality we had already entered the age of tribal warfare. The conflict we were warned about by Ayn Rand is already well underway and whites are the only group that isn't actively participating in this conflict as an organized group and are therefore loosing by default. The culture has turned anti-white for a reason. Unless things change and whites start participating in the game like all the other groups they will be the first to exit the contest. The demographic replacement of whites has already reached a critical point.
  24. You believe in individual rights as an end unto themselves (traditional Objectivism), whereas I consider them an important component and a piece of the puzzle to a greater whole. I don't expect this to change anytime soon for either of us. We have a different understanding of human nature and those differences lead us to our different worldviews. I do understand where you're coming from having held our convictions in the past and I don't think you'll change your view until you find yourself in a situation where your existing worldview no longer provides acceptable answers to the questions you ask yourself. Having been there myself, by no means do I hold your misguidedness against you. I for one have enjoyed our conversations thoroughly.
  25. I agree with the sentiment and this is the philosophy I apply in my personal life; a person is obviously more than just a member of their tribe. However from a group-level perspective there are limitations to applying this philosophy. Namely what is re-affirmed in Enos work. I'm not opposed to having any non-whites living in a white nation however I also realize that based on human nature there is a limit to how much racial diversity a society can deal with without adverse consequences. It goes back to the r vs K thing. rs value diversity whereas K value safety. I my opinion an objectively organized society should provide a means for both rs and Ks to live happy and productive lives; this in my opinion requires an objective balance that still unites the rs and Ks under a common cultural identity. Logically extending the colorblind society concept to its logical end could result in ethnic population replacement of the majority group and this leads to adverse consequences as I've discussed in this thread.
×
×
  • Create New...