Prometheus98876
-
Posts
1340 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
6
Everything posted by Prometheus98876
-
Also, appeals to imagined,. unfounded probabilities , are not arguments.
-
Yeah seriously, Steve has a point. Do you realize how easily intelligence on his planet might have been wiped out / prevented from ever existing in the first place? It would not take much. The thing is, we just cannot say that inteligence would or would not be any more fortunate on any other planet on which it might arise. Or even what the chances of such a planet with such a potentail existing. Keep flipping the cards into the hat, or go find something else to do.
-
I want a [ free] free screen recording program for a project, preferably one thats lets me record only particular windows, or rectangular screen areas. Anyone got any suggestions?
-
You tell me, you guys are the ones reading things into what he said, things which he neither said nor implied. It has been pointed out what he did and did not imply ( to some extent). I can only speculate as to what you seem to be pretending he said/implied, hence the previous post. However I think I am correct as to what I beleive you are choosing to beleive that he says/implies ( despite the fact it is fantasy). You have already aproven that false by choosing to ignore his context and imagine your own in its place. That is not conduct proper to a rational mind. Or would you like to demonstrate that he did say or imply what you think? I am disturbed that "Objectivists" would ignore the context of Peikoffs explicitly stated philosophical views, in order to try justify a rather illogical interpretation of what he said. Let alone the context in which he was speaking at the time. This kind of poor thinking is not going to do anyone any good. Check your premises.
-
That is right, they are making ANOTHER Spiderman movie, another reboot. This is beyond absurd. I hate how at least 90% of movies are remakes, roboots or "reimaginings". Make something new for Petes sake...
-
Just think about it : Did Peikoff say that if the woman tries to get out of the situation alluded to, that the man has the right to kidnap her and force her to stay there? Or anything like that? No. That would be the initiation of force, which you know full well Peikoff is against. No, he implied no such thing. He simply said that the fact she then withdrew consent part way through, does not make the act rape , morally or legally. Sure, if he held her down after the point where she tried to actually get out of the situation ( as opposed to simply "withdrawing consent" ) and tried to sexually violate her, that would be an act of sexual violence. Maybe *that* would be rape. That is not what Peikoff was discussing, or at least there is not reason given his track record to think that it was and *every* reason not to. Seems to me you people are confused on this point, which is why I accused you of switching / dropping contexts.
-
I did not attempt to give you defense of Peikoff. I never pretended that I was offering one. I have no interest in persuading those there that are wrong that they are so, that is why I have not tried. They have already shown poor judgement on this issue and I have no interest in trying to untangle their errors. I simply pointed out that it is in fact clear as far as I am concerned. It should be to you if you keep the context in mind and do not insert your own, as others here have done. That and pointing out that you (and others) have implied I should apply very poor methods of evaluating Peikoffs statements. Methods which make no sense. Anyway, I made my point. He is not going to comment on this or bother to clarify. His point was actually not very unclear, it just takes a little reasonable effort to fill in the gaps. Why would he care if people are not willing or able to do so correctly? It was a throwaway comment after all and if others do not get the idea and wish aato get the wrong idea, it has no bearing on him as far as I see. Point made ( not case closed, given as pointed out I did not choose to make a unifying case ).
-
Again, it does not matter how many people get it wrong. What matters is whether or not Peikoff is correct and whether what he said is sufficently clear so that [ with some effort], his meaning can be divined by someone applying the *correct* methods of evaluation. The fact a thousand ( or more, or less) people get it wrong ( especially when those I consider to be careful thinkers get it right ) is no reason for me to think it is in fact *not * as obvious as it seems to me. It would be silly to think so. That is not a rational method to evaluate the truth or clarity of someones statements. What matters are the facts and how they are presented. Not how others choose to intrepret them. Nor is the fact I refuse to go into it, a rational reason to assume I am unable to do so.
-
No, I am not going to clarify it for you. I have no interest in explaining something which was in fact presented with reasonable clarity the first time and which is even more clear if one does not pretend he said or implied things which he did not. Do your own thinking. Also, I have no interest in how many "long t ime Rand fans" are getting it wrong. That has no bearing on the issue. It does not make any difference how many "long time fans" are getting it right or wrong. As with any issue, how well it is grasped, even by those that you would expect to grasp it if it was true, makes no real difference. It just demonstrates that even alleged "fans" are not infallible ( or that possibly the speaker / writer is not either ).
-
Peikoff has no real reason to address this as far as I know. Why would he bother? It is not his problem if people drop his context and make up a new one and then wonder how he could say such "horrible" things. Really, he has far better things to do. Especially since it is really a marginal issue, compared to the far more important questions he could spend his time answering. If you keep the context in mind, including that of his previously stated views on violition , consent etc, it is very clear what he meant.
-
This is really just the mental equivalent of flipping cards into a hat isnt it? I mean, that is not to say it is bad, however it is pretty pointless speculation. Given we have no real context to base this on and we grossly lack enough information to make anything resembling a useful rational assessment.
-
Interesting fact : A day on Mercury is 176 odd Earth days. A year is about 88 Earth days. So therefore, a day on Mercury is two years long.
-
Is a thought cop apparently. Who knew? I must be a volunteer though, as nobody is paying me..
-
The philosophy of science is not an easy subject. It includes numerous complicated issues that take a lot of careful thought to unravel carefully. I think if civilzation is to have any hope, Objectivists need to worry more about the philosophy of science and science education. Too many Objectivisits accept some very bad science, simply because they do not know enough about how to identify it. Too many Objectivists fall ( including many studying the sciences ) , fall into the trap of think...
-
To all those Stargate SG-1 fans that say Seasons 9 and 10 were worse than the previous ones : You are wrong. They are amongst the shows best seasons. The main villains deftly continue the main theme of the show - Rational opposition to slavery and religous oppression, and the potentail of the human mind to overcome seemingly overwhelming odds and vastly more powerful enemies. The stakes in these seasons are set very high, yet the characters prevail in a series of very well written stori...
-
I need to do a quick reread of ITOE, then I might just write [ at some length perhaps ] on how the "key probllems" in the philosophy of mathematics are excellent examples of the epistemological confusons / evasdions covered in ITOE. Should be interesting to write, and hopefully to read...
-
"Lakoff and Núñez make a great deal of the fact that different areas in mathematics define the natural numbers in different ways. For instance, in axiomatic set theory all natural numbers (and in fact, ultimately all mathematical entities) are defined as sets. One defines the number 0 to be the empty set, 1 to be the set whose only element is the empty set (so that 1 itself is not the empty set, but a little like a closet which contains only an empty box; the box is empty but the closet is no...
-
Seriously FB? You cant even go two hours without toggling my profile pic to the old one and then back again? or without making my content vanish thten bringing it back , seemingly at random?
-
FB now claims I do not have permission to comment on my own status. What the hell is wrong with FB?
-
Reblogged: On Some Recent Controversies
Prometheus98876 replied to dianahsieh's topic in The Objectivism Meta-Blog Discussion
What is to say that I have not? In fact I have. How do you think I know the current status of relationship between these people and the project? -
Reblogged: On Some Recent Controversies
Prometheus98876 replied to dianahsieh's topic in The Objectivism Meta-Blog Discussion
Compared to the Brandens? In that she is someone that the authors think is a risk of misrepresenting Objectivism and the like? Sure, in that sense she is. Reasonably too I might add. I would like you to find where it says she is *as* bad ( or worse ) as those other people though. I seem to have missed that, *somehow*. As for who they are : Why dont you look into it instead of asking here? I am not their PR man, nor do I intend to do your fact-checking for you. Based on? At the moment all is going very well and everyone seems very happy. -
Reblogged: On Some Recent Controversies
Prometheus98876 replied to dianahsieh's topic in The Objectivism Meta-Blog Discussion
Why did you bring it up then? Or are you just going to delete this post too ( I assume it was you did that so with the last, if not, forget this last question )? I would expect you people to read the FAQ and Purpose section and think more carefully. -
Good day : Discussed some game development work , programming work. Made some enemies ( this might not sound like a good thing, but it is when you have *my* enemies ) and made some new friends. Ah life is good.
-
If you have no thoughts of your own, you wil of course have to scavenge whatever you can find. Sadly most of what you are then able to chew up enough to swallow, will be poison.
-
If physics is to be saved, it needs a Newton with an Objectivst-[like] epistemology. Better hurry up though.....
