Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Eiuol last won the day on August 16

Eiuol had the most liked content!

About Eiuol

  • Rank
    Senior Member
  • Birthday 05/01/89

Contact Methods

  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Sexual orientation
    No Answer
  • Copyright
  • Experience with Objectivism
    Rand related: All major works. (Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Virtue of Selfishness, Atlas Shrugged, etc)

    Peikoff related: OPAR and three lecture series (Objectivism Through Induction, Understanding Objectivism, Unity in Ethics and Epistemology)

    Tara Smith related: Most things, including Viable Values and Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics.

Recent Profile Visitors

20525 profile views
  1. White Supremacist Protest Violence

    Marginally better. Not much though. The issue, here, is racism. I find the violence by antifa to be irrational, to be sure, but it doesn't necessarily seek the extermination of capitalists. Antifa is not Stalinism, there's a difference. Nazis and the KKK seek a purification of society for the sake of race. I find that belief to be worse than seeking the end of capitalism by dismantling racism. Besides, identitarians and white nationalists do intend to end capitalism for good by fascist measures. They supported literal Nazis as well. In other words, at Unite the Right, the organizers were worse by going beyond anti-capitalism with their racism. I wasn't attracted to them, I said sympathetic. It was only when I first heard and thought about the term late last year. I could grasp how they felt only from remembering how I felt in high school. You're wrong about why. The main reason was weakness of my support for freedom of speech. It's not weak anymore. Either way, as far as danger to society today, the Unite the Right people are a greater threat. Antifa are not as well organized by their nature as anarchists. They'd be squashed so fast. They are politically weak even.
  2. White Supremacist Protest Violence

    Equally responsible, not really. Unite the Right was a hate rally where many attendees were PLANNING to fight rather than appeal to law enforcement. That takes the edge for responsibility. Or just leave that part aside. They are not equally reprehensible. Is antifa reprehensible? Yes. Are identitarians like Robert Spencer reprehensible? Yes, and a little worse. Are neo-Nazis reprehensible? Yes, and A LOT MORE than both. There is no moral equivalence of them, as the prior two are decidedly racist. Are you suggesting that antifa is equally as bad as the KKK? On moral grounds, racism requires an even more depraved view of man than antifa. Not all immoral action is equally reprehensible. "He forced the Left to adopt such an extreme level of identity politics" ...and the right.
  3. Immigration as related to loyalty

    This is not a principled point. This is saying that "in order that Democrats receive less support, we want fewer low-skill immigrants". This would be protectionism, that is, you would keep some people out only because they don't fit a highly politicized and pre-defined agenda of the "American Worker". There's no such thing as a unified American Worker. If someone says they support American interests, at least on this forum, they should mean individual rights of its citizens, not the particular needs of a specific group. Citizens only need to expect defense from initiation of force - not from labor unions, not from immigrant low-skilled workers interfering with their employment. This is why I also think loyalty is irrelevant. I would eliminate any possible element in RAISE that can be construed as "American Workers' " interests. What counts as far as RAISE is merit. The rest harms your case you're making. I wouldn't generally want RAISE, but as long as there is opportunity to alter immigration away from lottery completely, I want that. 1, 2, and 4 are arguable points. 3 I think is a horrible justification. It's the very thing I don't want. It would be bad for an economy if that's the reasoning.
  4. Immigration as related to loyalty

    β€œ(1) IN GENERAL.β€”The number of refugees who may be admitted under this section in any fiscal year may not exceed 50,000. " This one of two specific numbers I saw. The other number was this: " β€œ(c) Worldwide level of family-Sponsored immigrants.β€” (1) The worldwide level of family-sponsored immigrants under this subsection for a fiscal year is equal to 88,000 minus the number computed under paragraph (2). " I'm not sure though how that 88,000 is different than it is now - it takes going down like 4 layers and some familiarity with reading legislation to know what that minus amount is anyway. So, it still might be true that the legislation reduces legal immigration by a fixed number, I just still need a source that can show what that 88,000 means. This is far from a 500,000 fixed reduction. Looking at the text, the green card reduction is clearly way exaggerated. I can't find a primary source. an effect that can still be altered. It's not "hard coded" that legal immigration is halved. To me, if the number is halved as an effect, it suggests that the law needs a few amendments. But this is the concerning thing: https://www.cotton.senate.gov/files/documents/170801_New_RAISE_Act_One_Pager_FINAL.pdf See the last part. This is a supporter of the bill, and he cites the projected decrease of legal immigration as a good and desirable thing. That it's good to keep low-skill workers out in general. This is the usual "they took our jobs!!!" reasoning which is not based on any discernible economic policy. Grames may be able to formulate a rational immigration policy (despite my disagreement on a lot of things). The actual politicians though? That's not the reasoning. Populism is the basis. It's concerning that low-skill immigrants are seen as threats to America. (This would be protectionism, aka bad.)
  5. Immigration as related to loyalty

    To the graphs: it isn't valid to compare graphs visually to then establish correlation, except in very general terms (e.g., both went up at first). That's not how data analysis works. EDIT: That's not to say you're wrong, but that your argument is weak.
  6. Immigration as related to loyalty

    NB, those graphs are not even the same standard of measure. Many graphs caan be drawn with a scale that makes it resemble another graph so that they correlate visually. Even if it's not on purpose, the graphs don't tell us anything as a unit. You need to -calculate- the correlation, not look at the graphs. The stranger thing to me is that Grames says there is no proof that there will be reduced legal immigration. You seem to support that view and suggest it's just a new merit system. Then Don comes in with the evidence, then you avoid that correction entirely. Whatever questions there are of loyalty, if it matters, if it's collectivist, the actual policies seem to be concerned about race or merely anyone not here already. The RAISE Act by halving green cards without any apparent reasoning isn't some attempt to help Mexico or NAFTA countries. Most immigrants aren't even from North America. Mexico has the most, but China, Vietnam, Pakistan, and India are just a few big ones.
  7. White Supremacist Protest Violence

    Immigration posts moved here:
  8. White Supremacist Protest Violence

    It's interesting you say that, I was originally sympathetic too. I thought it was more like being vocally militant against any fascistic inclination, Nazis especially. Then I learned that their self-defense was that the mere hateful statements was actual violence. It does have its appeal in the face of actually violent Nazis and fascists, but antifa gets wrong the function of free speech (in other words, they're anarcho-Communists). Although it 's also true no one I've seen does any good at defending free speech. White nationalists only defend it as a means to preserve "white culture", instead of arguing that its merit is that it hinders and combats those irrational voices. I feel similar about the monuments. I don't feel like it is a pressing need to fix it. Even strategically, it fuels white nationalism. I'd opt to make philosophical cases against all of that nationalism. My case only extends to how this monument is government property. There is good reason to de-legitimize the statue. The difference with Roman statues is one, the government that built them don't exist. Two, Roman statues were not erected for historical revisionism. People built them to somehow legitimize Confederate grievances, not really to say "hey, Robert E. Lee did some cool things". More like "Lee fought for us, may the south rise again". Often, things like the Partenon are so old we don't know why they were made. The symbolism is different. The institution to decide is the federal government, which can define whether its own monuments and states' monuments that represent that federal government's mission. Symbolism, here, is about the Confederacy. Local councils do not deserve a say, so any lawful measure is fine; these are not local symbols. I do not want public monuments, so I can't offer a foundational principle. There is no legitimate principle for the government to establish official symbols. So, I like your market solution.
  9. White Supremacist Protest Violence

    As suggested in the Yaron Brook video that 2046 linked, the monuments are artwork, not just artifacts of history like finding Machu Pichu or Auschwitz. Even more, since the 1920s (when the Robert E. Lee statue was built) aren't so long ago, we know why these monuments were built: to glorify or celebrate Confederate soldiers (who fought in large part for the "right" to own slaves). They are not built to be reminders of history. They are not Civil War era artifacts even. Rather, they are state-sanctioned pieces of artwork that are intended to honor Confederates and to intimidate those who see Confederate soldiers as evil or unAmerican. Don't forget that the most prominent defenders are literal Nazis and white supremacists. That they are the MOST worried is a sign of what these statues mean. The Unite the Right rally was using a symbol for racist ends to support a racist agenda. Those who attended, given that unification was the intent, endorsed or apologized for the supremacists who went. If there were those who attended and rejected, explicitly, the supremacists, I'd like to see it.
  10. White Supremacist Protest Violence

    I'll do that tomorrow since it's late, I see what you mean though that they aren't equally blameworthy (and I'll see if I agree). But he's still blameworthy as far as being too easy on the alt-right in general, as Don seemed to suggest. I don't think you really answered how anyone said Trump is at fault except for just appearing weak (not the NYT, not even Colbert, both wildly anti-Trump). Trump is far less interesting than the white nationalism I see as a threat anyway, though.
  11. White Supremacist Protest Violence

    Not really - depends if you mean progressive liberals, or antifa. Antifa just hates capitalism and about class politics, like Communists. The whiteness doesn't matter a lot. To a progressive liberal, identity politics is primary, so whiteness and all that matters a lot. Anyway, sure, we should condemn those people for their collectivism and those who hate Western values in principle. Don's point, looks to me that Trump is helping neo-Nazis and all the more toxic elements of the alt-right with his weak initial response to the rally. Trump isn't any more blameless than Obama. What do you think Unite the Right was about? Identity politics revolving around whiteness.
  12. White Supremacist Protest Violence

    But who said it's Trump's fault?
  13. White Supremacist Protest Violence

    Grames, I don't understand your point. I don't know anyone who said Trump had to do with what happened. The most I've seen in this instance is that Trump has not done much to combat or stand against the KKK and neo-Nazis (as in he's weak and at best just doesn't cafe). I did see those groups conflated as "Trump supporters" before, but not for the Unite the Right rally. What does the Governor's actions matter anyway? He's not responsible for people choosing to be violent, or the attack by car. He's responsible for poor law enforcement if anything that lead to escalation. And the result is that neo-Nazis and the KKK are blamed. I don't see this strategic manipulation to blame Trump that you're talking about.
  14. I'm just wondering, do you think in the long run that NK should be bombed? Your Taiwan idea sounds like a deterrent as in MAAD, I don't see what your long range idea is to eliminate the NK threat.
  15. Is this rape? Consent? Something else?

    I mean that you'd be able to press charges. Since you didn't actually mind, it would be wrong of you to pursue it of course. I don't think it'd be hard to show though that there were good signs you consented anyway if you honestly didn't mind. Focusing on Sally and -those- details, we see nothing about consenting.