Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Eiuol

Moderators
  • Content Count

    4995
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    96

Eiuol last won the day on January 16

Eiuol had the most liked content!

About Eiuol

  • Rank
    Senior Member
  • Birthday 05/01/1989

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    NJ

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
    NewJersey
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Sexual orientation
    No Answer
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted
  • 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

22478 profile views
  1. Eiuol

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    I think you missed the point again. You keep talking as if IQ is a characteristic of your brain. It isn't. It is not a measure of something about your brain. This would make sense if you were measuring something about your neurons, or neurochemicals, or your synapses, or anything else that is truly a measure of brain capacity. IQ does not measure what you think it measures. I don't understand your previous post directed at me. First, I was saying that height is not like IQ. They are not similar at all. Second, I was saying that for whatever parts are genetic, it would still be irresponsible to say that it has much to do with ethnicity or race (race and ethnicity aren't defined by a specific set of genes). Even in your example about runners, it's not that being black or being Kenyan is why they run fast. There would be specific genes about lung capacity, blood oxygenation, and so on, which cannot be grouped into simple racial categories like black or white. I imagine you mostly agree, so the main point is that you are thinking about IQ in the wrong way.
  2. Eiuol

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    You missed the point. IQ is not a measurement of a (natural) trait, it's a measure to infer a trait. On top of that, in infants and babies, IQ is correlated a lot less with genetics than for adults. Height is itself the trait you measure. Height has no motivational element, IQ tests do. And in either case, it's bad science to just say something like "black people run better than white people".
  3. Eiuol

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    If you want to measure some sort of capacity, like a sort of calculating power, IQ doesn't actually measure that. Specifically, it's a measure of a particular kind of problem solving on a specific set of standardized tests, narrowly defined. They attempt to measure a general intelligence capacity, but it is extremely controversial to say that it really does measure that sufficiently. It doesn't actually get down into innate capacities, even though that was its original intention. We know generally how it correlates and does not correlate with environmental and intrinsic factors. But IQ is primarily used for correlation research, because that's all it's really good for. It helps to give a sense of intelligence, but only on a broad way. That isn't the controversy. The issue is the explanation. Saying race is the cause is a bad explanation. It's a bad explanation because any study that uses race has a predefined notion of race, and much of the time, there is no genetic measure in the experiment. And besides that, if we did find some reliable genetic measure, like a specific gene that was reliably correlated, we wouldn't even talk in terms of race. We would talk about the specific ways specific genes are passed on. Read the beginning of the thread, much of this was discussed already.
  4. Eiuol

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    But IQ isn't a property like that, so I don't know what your point is.
  5. Eiuol

    Immigration restrictions

    But this is the line I was drawing since the very beginning, but you were arguing that anti-American belief that's sufficiently bad, and this alone, can qualify someone to be denied access to the country. Did you change your mind? If you have the legal rights to deny someone access for being a socialist, then you have the legal right to exile (any legal punishment really) them for being a socialist. What I said ideal situation, I meant the ideal form of government.
  6. Eiuol

    Immigration restrictions

    The way you wrote this, you are saying that an ideal situation, you can deport or exile socialists. In principle, this also means you can deport anyone who is not sufficiently capitalistic. I'm really just curious where you would draw the line. I'm not arguing for a completely open border by the way. I'm just not seeing any principled answer from you. That sounds pretty cool. I think you might like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYG_4vJ4qNA
  7. Eiuol

    Integration?

    This is true for conceptual integration, but she didn't necessarily mean that all integration is by reason. Integration can include the formation of a percept, which the brain does automatically. The details of that are a scientific question.
  8. Eiuol

    Immigration restrictions

    I wouldn't. But your scenario is pretty fantastical once you start talking about millions upon millions of people, and I'm answering according to the constraints you set. If there are millions of people coming in, they would be supported by some foreign government, or possibly even a corporation. I already explained how I probably would intervene if this was the case. But you said they are acting independently. You are also assuming that they would become a threat, despite the fact they have no plan of action. I don't see how that is possible. Basically, I don't see how your scenario could be true unless there was some (imminent) threat of violence already going on. That isn't to say I wouldn't do anything, and I would want to stop it, just not with the method you prescribe. For one, I think it reflects weakness of a country if an ideology is truly a threat on the level of ideas. If a country is going to fall over so easily, it's already dead. I'm going to treat an ideological invasion as strictly ideological, so I would combat it in ideological ways. As soon as an ounce of violence enters in the equation, I'd be fine with using force. Remember, we were talking about permitting people to enter the country based on anti-American beliefs. I'm not talking about assessing the risk of propaganda and legal measures unrelated to immigration. But he did use violence, so you can't possibly answer that he didn't need violence. He used violence and other things. Without violence, his plan probably never would have worked. He used multiple tactics that included violence, particularly violence against government people, and even violence against other Nazis. Clearly a philosophical component was necessary to win out, but the point is that violence was an essential part. It doesn't have to be violence against civilians; any good dictator knows that you need support of the people while making sure you literally destroy your opposition in the government. I don't think you can even come up with one example of a dictator who didn't use violence. Just because some nonviolent measures were used doesn't mean these measures were sufficient.
  9. Eiuol

    Immigration restrictions

    I wouldn't. There is no plan of action even.
  10. Eiuol

    Immigration restrictions

    It's definitely part of the reason, but not the main reason. It is not a sufficient or necessary condition, but more people adds more weight for concern when there already is a concern. All I really care about is if there is a plan of action, not simply hope on their part. There might be an argument to stop them in terms of visiting the country (as in, their intent is "hit and run" propaganda), but I can't see why I should call something a threat if it isn't associated with imminent violence. Are you seriously missing how Hitler used violence to come to power? He toned it down a little bit after being imprisoned, but it's not like he came to power and then unleashed the violence. It wasn't anti-German belief that was ever the threat, it was the constant use of violence. Hitler basically got people to ignore the law (or rather, he got the right people to ignore the law), he didn't use the law of Germany to get his way.
  11. Eiuol

    Immigration restrictions

    Correct. I mean, sure, that's their purpose, but purpose must be evaluated in terms of possibility as well. Just because a person wishes to have a form of government that is totalitarian, doesn't mean that there is a threat. If they proposed that they would use giant super soakers to take over the government because they think it will instill fear on the American populace and traumatize the congresspeople that they assault, I wouldn't rate that as a real threat. If they were casting a spell that they claim would summon Cthulhu and therefore destroy the US government, that wouldn't be a threat either. Based on your immigration example, if I'm reading it correctly, the Nazis were providing ideological material, without any apparent plan for attaining their goal, and no apparent backing by a foreign government. There wasn't anything I would call threatening (specifically, the threat of force). And since a Nazi essentially has to talk in general and vague terms (like you suggested they would do) lest they admit intent to commit a specific illegal act, I think the threat is defanged quite well. But I might make exceptions to this idea if a group is supported by a government or other extremely large organization with substantial monetary funds. Usually mass numbers happen when there is support from a foreign government, like China tries to do with the US. I don't know even any historical examples where a totalitarian government came to power through democratic (nonviolent) means.
  12. Eiuol

    Immigration restrictions

    Yes. The added bit about violence was more for MisterSwig because I expect he would ask "if that's okay, then is there anything that isn't okay?". In this case, about the Nazis, it's pretty close to the edge of what I say is okay. It's worth observing to keep apprised of what's going on, but that's about it. The Nazi's you described do not pose imminent or definite threat, nothing more than a probability.
  13. Eiuol

    Immigration restrictions

    You completely missed how in this example, the guy is advocating to overthrow the US government, through violence and initiating force. I'm asking if this is bad because it is anti-American, or if it is bad because it is advocating the initiation of force. Your prime example is also pretty vague. Or at least, you are including nonviolent overthrow of the US government. Do you really mean to include peaceful overthrow? Electing a new president is a type of overthrow. In the American Revolution, demanding representation in government was a type of overthrow, because the government was explicitly against that. Based on your explanations so far, it sounds like you only want to include violent overthrow. The Chinese government does similar things already. Anyway, if the purpose is ideological expansion, this would be completely fine legally speaking. The rest of the issue depends on if there means of spreading their ideology is violent or not. Eventual violence and rights abuses if they get their way ideologically is not sufficient. But I'm not saying that only from the perspective of "it's not violent, therefore it's okay!" Intense political discussions that go deep into fascism promote a sort of competition among ideas. When other people push on your ideas, even to such an extent that their ideas are evil as Nazi-ism, it pushes you to strengthen and intensify your positions. It makes the Nazi ideas more apparent, because they are free to express their ideas. Of course, this changes if the Nazi is trying to acquire a stockpile of automatic weapons, associated with assaulting minorities, or has training videos of guerrilla operations. After all, when force enters the picture, reason doesn't matter anymore.
  14. Eiuol

    Immigration restrictions

    But this is still difficult to pin down, exactly because you have avoided defining it. You can't simply say "all we need to do is find the appropriate contextual qualifier", the point is whether anti-American belief should be that qualifier. Think of it this way. If some guy in the Taliban yelled death to America while burning a flag, would this be a threat because of his stated and demonstrated intent to murder Americans, or would it be a threat because he yelled and did something obviously anti-American? I'm saying that anti-American belief is irrelevant. Since you want to disqualify disliking fireworks, and burning flags, and you haven't mentioned any types of anti-American beliefs, it sounds like you haven't thought it through. If you mean anti-American belief as in someone who intends to murder and kill people that are American, I don't disagree with you, except to say you should say initiation of force is the real issue. It's not anti-Americanism that's the issue per se. It doesn't even enter into the equation. This is why I was saying either you end up supporting the idea that initiating force is the real issue, or you start resorting to statistical methods based on existing beliefs or intrinsic qualities, like the precogs from Minority Report.
  15. Eiuol

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    I split them here:
×