Greyhawk
-
Posts
57 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Greyhawk
-
-
I'm aware of most of those imaginary claims you consider "knowledge of the situation". I just happen to know they're not real, so I don't consider them when passing judgement on Iran.
You have me highly interested to know which of my beliefs are imaginary.
-
The US is currently backing Israel. Not in a principled fashion, but it is backing it. And Obama will do very little to change that. He may not want to do it, but he's a pragmatist who will never withdraw US support from Israel simply because others would disapprove. So, the US gov. is complicit in any action Israel takes against Iran, there's no point in pretending "they" did it, not us, if they do attack Iran.
And it is an American problem. There are 300 million Americans, and only five million Israelis. If we must pick somebody who has the primary moral responsibility to defend freedom, it is the government of the 300 million free people. But, in reality, both governments have that same responsibility, and they also have the obligation to act together if at all possible.
You know for someone shown to have no knowledge of the situation at all you speak with absolute conviction. Why do ignorance and arrogance hang together like that?
-
Many Marxists did look at WW1 as demonstrating the bankruptcy of the old order but are you suggesting an organized secret society of crypto-marxists pushing for war existed on a global scale?
-
Interesting essay, thank you for posting it here for us.
-
Why would they not be?
-
He must have had some hard knocks for sure.
-
Why is this not being considered terrorism?
-
I have to say based on the battle reports up on youtube this game is going to be WIN. Game of the decade material.
-
The meaning of volition is hinted at by the Lexicon in two entries, Volitional and Free Will.
Also David, nice use of the Socratic Method.
-
Man has free will; animals do not. What possible middle ground is there?
What evidence would be accepted to show animals have volition? Tool creation, language use, a lack of tail, fur and scales?
-
It is perfectly meaningful and non-contradictory. There's a clear difference between the entirely passive receipt of pictures and text that is pushed by a server and copied to a temporary file, and the active taking and copying to user-controllable space of the same material.
So viewing a commercial site through offline browsing would be theft?
-
Pursuing values is a relativistic affair, you have to continually weigh the pros and cons. In this context I think the effects on your financial situation and interpersonal relationships would be the key to analyse though depending on the nature of the hobby there may be other factors you need to weigh.
The way that calculus works out is the rationality of your decision.
-
Interesting. 2 quick points,
1) Every site has a different TOS, a site designed to give images for free and a commercial site would differ in what they allow you to do.
2) Every user has a cache, presumably there is nothing wrong with revisiting a site offline and viewing an image from it even though the data is stored on your hard drive.
3) What you plan on doing with the picture also enters into it probably.
-
Volition (or free will) is not merely the power to choose between alternatives based on values. It requires reason; it's the power to focus one's rational mind or not, simply as a matter of will.
What external signs could an animal give to show it has 'focused its mind' as a 'matter of will'?
-
"Whoever does not know how to lay his will into things, at least lays some meaning into them: that means, that means he has the fiath that they already obey a will"
"Religion is an illusion and it derives its strength from its readiness to fit in with our instinctual wishful impulses. "
A lot of the great modern atheists have the same kind of critique you laid out.
I agree, we're star dust, the universe conscious of its itself, etc etc.
I agree, triumph over the universe is like the story of Sisyphus, it is impossible but the striving is what counts. After all, you don't want to be http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5U1-OmAICpU.
-
"When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me." 1 Corinthians 13:11
Children are not just 'smaller rational egoists' they are fundamentally different, they think and perceive differently than we do/ Here is a wiki article on it
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_cognitive_development
Does this change the picture?
-
Hi
Just a few comments.
I don't know how much in Oism addresses the issue of a child's cognitive development, Oism mainly deals with adult, rational individuals which a child for clear neurological reasons is not. There are a lot of things in fantasy literature that appeal to children, magic, time travel, talking animals and magic flutes are all thoroughly realistic to them while long division and relativity are not; in most cases. A story about the collapse of the energy economy leading to break down in the acceptance of capitalist ideology in favour of a Hegelian or Marxist system would go clear over a child's head but the story of a Dark Lord who created rings for man, elves, and dwarves in his pursuit of absolute power would resonate with the child.
As for using them as morality plays to children I think an Oist would say it depends entirely on what the morality play is about. Stories have a powerful ability to function as metaphor, reshaping the world and our role in it. Keep in mind Ayn Rand was was a fiction writer who used an imaginary world to teach something about life. If the stories teach individualism and self worth then go for it, if its about a darker message, like Goebbel's "Michael" or the Bible then you would run into problems.
Two second Zip's comment there are a lot of idiots who use Oism to act like a smart ass, I would read Rand's Romantic Manifesto for more info about what Rand thought about these matters.
-
Bob, that's really cool news.
Thanks for posting the link.
-
You don't think pointing out a formal inductive fallacy is a valid, rational argument?
Not as you presented it no.
-
What I'm saying is that I don't think physical features that are determined by genetics should be taken into account in an objective judgment about a person's beauty. Physical features are not irrelevant though, since they can help determine what sorts of clothing to wear.
I get your point 100% but dear god that's waayyy to evolved for me
-
The definition of man in Objectivism is literally "rational animal." Pulled straight from line 1 of her Ethical Egoism proof:
(1) |- man(x) <==> animal(x) & rational(x).
In other words, "a being is a man if and only if they are an animal and rational." The moment a being ceases to think rationally, it ceases to be a man. Therefore, when a being requests that I repect its rights while it is not thinking rationally (in this case, the purchase of a drug that will harm it), I am not obligated to respect its rights, precicely because it is not a man and therefore has no rights.
Rawls, the issue of the non rational human comes up from time to time, there is a section of Oism that tries to cover that gap, make of it what you will http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showtopic=1099
-
Holy mother of ipse dixit.
Rule 5?
"Healthy debate is encouraged, but participants agree not resort to personal attacks, and do not belittle someone else's argument. Instead of making it personal, participants agree to use rational, persuasive skills to make a point or criticize another’s."
-
Threatening to use, yes. The Soviets wanted to prevail on Earth, however wrong they were. Islamists want to win in death. That's why they'll have to be used, not just waved around.
Would you be in favor, right now, of nuking every muslim capitol city?
-
Actually it's interesting, most people who believe in God have no logical means to believe in a concept such as evil. Most people believe in an omnipotent God, incapable of evil by definition, whose act of creation was willful in totality, i.e. 'God has a plan for all of us.' If we are all inescapalby part of God's plan, and God's plan is good by way of being an act of God, then there is literally no action we could take that could be defined as evil, or even bad, since it would be a criticism of God's 'perfectly good' plan.
So does that mean there's no good either? Just the amoral unfolding of a divine will? Have any major theologians worked with those ideas?
Religion makes my brain hurt
Pre-emptive War: e.g. Should we nuke Tehran?
in Terrorism and Islamic Fundamentalism
Posted
I recall one conversation we had in which you stated Israel is not a Zionist State, maybe that is what you are referring to?
I mean don't get me wrong, your reply was characteristically poetic and beautiful in its rhetoric, but what exactly am I imagining?