Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Black Wolf

Regulars
  • Content count

    647
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Black Wolf reacted to RussK in SOPA - Is it right?   
    I must say, I am fairly disappointed in the responses by the Objectivist community regarding SOPA. For one, I'd like anyone to point out which section in the bill constitutes a violation of due process; the bill makes clear that court orders will and must be issued, particularly persuant to existing (or ammended) US Code. It seems to me that way too many people have gotten on a bandwaggon without being properly informed, or by being heavily against the bill without even taking the time to read it or parts of it. This bill takes approximately a little more than an hour to read; it's time for the advocates to get busy actually reading it.

    Another thing that irks me is that there are many good ammendments to prior Code in the bill, particularly in Title II, yet the call is for the whole thing to be scrapped. For example, instead of relying on a transmission timeline of 180 days, a standard of 10 infringments, or a single infringment of heavy monitary worth, would be used.
  2. Like
    Black Wolf reacted to TheEgoist in Politically Correct Atheism   
    Pat Condell, wrong as usual.

    It's an issue of principle. As SteveD pointed out through Jefferson, it's tyrannical to use a man's tax money to fund the celebration of those things he finds objectionable. The government has no reason to celebrate Christmas, Easter, Hanukkah, Rammadan, Ayn Rand's birthday or even the birthday of the nation.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204791104577110880355067656.html

    Some until-now unpublished words from Hitchens.
  3. Like
    Black Wolf reacted to 2046 in Objective Values Confirmation and How They Relate to Economic Approach   
    Okay, there's a lot in there, let's try to untangle some of this. Rand would attest that productiveness as a virtue does follow from the ultimate end of life, because production is required to sustain life. Life is a sort of goal-directed process that requires constant action to sustain and further. Production here does not mean necessarily something more narrow, like picking up a hammer and some nails and building something; it means the widest possible sense of "the adjustment of nature to man." Productiveness doesn't mean something narrower like, wow you filed a lot of papers today, you were really productive; it means something more like having a commitment to taking responsibility for acting to achieve one's values. Technology does not mean something like computers and software and things like that; it means something more like in the Misesian sense of using the necessary means to achieve a given end. Man finds himself in a certain environment, man works with the numerous elements that he finds in his environment, by rearranging them in order to bring about the satisfaction of his ends. Industry here doesn't mean something like a process of manufacturing, making steel, etc.; it means more like effort, diligence, and the opposite of sloth and laziness.

    So here we have a virtue that is about action, that is about "doing stuff" in other words. We use our reason to recognize the requirements of sustaining our lives and achieving our happiness, but then we need a commitment to actually go forth and do those things, to assert ourselves in the world and bring about what we need to see in order to make a contribution to our well-being. We recognize that entities act in accordance with their natures, that ends cannot be pursued without pursuing the means, then we need a sort of commitment to pursuing those means. So how does it fit in with reason, is that yes, we need reason to survive, but we also need to translate our ideas and plans into material form, into the actual various material goods they consist in.


    Well, "begging the question" is an informal logical fallacy, it doesn't mean something like "raises the question," so I would avoid that usage. So if we can reformulate the objection, it goes something like this: If Rand is saying one needs this virtue in order to survive, that it's absolutely necessary in order for survival, then she can say one of two things: Either men already know and use this virtue by the very fact that they are being alive and thus this is nothing that anyone alive doesn't already have, so why consider it a virtue at all (like it would be considering "breathing" or "eating" or "having a pulse" as a virtue), and then this would seem inconsistent in that she acts like it is a virtue that some people have, and some don't have; or if she is right that you don't automatically have this virtue by being alive, that it is a character trait or habit that one has to achieve, and that only some virtuous people have it, and some don't, then how did the human race manage to survive up until Rand?
    So the response is that this would be basically accurate if one takes Rand's ultimate end to mean a bare-bones survival in the Hobbesian sense. Then only a bare-bones survivalist ethics can follow from that. But what Rand has more in mind for her ultimate end is more like the Aristotelian conception of "eudaimonia" or flourishing human life, so the virtues she presents are not merely necessary for survival, but as systematic ongoing habits for happiness in this more enriched sense.

    Okay, so having answered that, now you ask various questions like why should a guy that builds a skyscraper be admired, why is he more virtuous than some hippie, or what if I don't want to make steel and just want to do nothing, lie around, etc.

    When asking whether you should admire something, keep in mind that we don't have any kind of idea that something is intrinsically valuable such that everyone ought to admire this no matter what. Something is only to be admired in the sense that you appraise it as "the good" and you can only do this if you have a standard of value, and this can only be objective if it follows from the facts of human nature. So why should you admire building skyscrapers? Well, maybe you shouldn't. Maybe you live out in Montana and you could care less if someone builds a skyscraper in NYC. Maybe your father or someone close to you is a weird hippie who lives in some shack in the woods, and so you admire him more than building skyscrapers. The point is, you have your own "axis of measurement" so to speak, where you look at your ultimate end (your own life) and then you look at various things by which your standard will appraise as good or bad. I'm sure building skyscrapers can fit somewhere on the good side, if for nothing else that it takes an immense amount of rationality and productiveness to build one, and that these are good traits of excellence that mean that person is creating material things that are life-affirming, adding to the welfare of the human race, not subtracting from it. This is what Rand means by there being certain heroes that "move the world." As far as the bum out in the woods, if I don't have any connection to him whatsoever, then his existence is insignificant to me by my own "axis of measurement," but yours can differ from mine, you don't have to want to get up and start making steel or something like that. But you do need to be productive.

    Now what about if you want to do nothing? Well, if we take this seriously, then sure, productiveness will not help in this regard, but the absence of productiveness would be necessary. This is like a point Irfan Khawaja makes in regards the connection between reason and virtue, or in this analogy, between the principle of non-contradiction in thought and the virtue of productiveness in action. The principle of non-contradiction is not a categorical imperative to engage in thought, it merely states a fact about man's nature and the facts of reality that becomes a guide for thought when and only when one chooses to think. If someone were to say, well look, I don't have to abide by the principle of non-contradiction, if I don't want to. I can just not engage in any thought. Well sure, one way to evade principle of non-contradiction would be just to not think anything, as Aristotle says, to turn yourself into a vegetable. It certainly doesn't apply to a non-thinker, but this is hardly a threat to it's validity as a law of logic. In the same way, you can say, hey, what if I just want to laze around all day and take no actions? Well of course, then productiveness wouldn't be able to bind you as an objective moral law. But then your ultimate value is not life but death, which will come in due course because of the inaction. Productiveness is only necessary if one does choose life as a human being. If I choose life as an end, then I must choose the means to it. I can refuse the means, but then I must give up the end.

    About Mises, I'll try to dumb it down. Yes I think Austrian economics and Objectivist ethics are two peas in a pod, and can co-exist. Mises' ethical views should not be confused with his views on economics. Objectivism too can hold that people change what they value today to tomorrow and so forth. But there is a difference between economic value (just saying that people do have values) and ethical value (saying what people ought to value.) As far as his a priori knowledge, yes you can reconcile the general point of what he means by this with Objectivist epistemology if you make the necessary changes, so don't worry about it too much. Empirical evidence can play a role in economics, certainly in economic history, and in cases where you need to gather data to study for various purposes. But you don't approach economic theory the same way you would about physics or biology, is Mises' point.
  4. Like
    Black Wolf reacted to brian0918 in Objectivism and homosexuality dont mix   
    I would be interested in a comprehensive reply to FeatherFall's preceding post. This is not such a reply. It is obviously unnecessary to know the scientific basis for some specific man's observed effeminate behavior. That behavior is certainly the result of some is - i.e., the result of the environment and circumstances under which he developed. A boy is not a man - his mind and body are still growing and developing years after leaving the womb. Depending on the environment in which he grows, his behaviors, tendencies, and preferences will develop and become ingrained. It's up to you to not only show why he should want to change them, but also why he should be morally condemned for not changing them.
  5. Like
    Black Wolf reacted to FeatherFall in Iran is almost about to reach nuclear capability   
    This is an allusion to Ahmadinejad, who I'll agree is insane for the purposes of this discussion. But he isn't the real leader of Iran, Khamenei and the ruling religious counsel are. It remains to be seen whether or not they are as stupid or insane as Ahmadinejad appears to be. Regardless, I don't personally think it likely that Iran will use a nuke. Why invite destruction when you can use your nuclear sheild to step up your proxy wars (especially now that your 1979 Iranian model is sweeping the region)?
  6. Like
    Black Wolf reacted to Grames in Elizabeth Warren's frightening rant   
    Via Instapundit:


  7. Like
    Black Wolf reacted to Gramlich in Steve Jobs and Cosmic Justice   
    Don't worry, Wotan; I have it all covered.
    I conversed with a rock today that told me Steve Job's soul was currently travelling past the Gligok galaxy, on its way to Valhalla. Now, as is well known, the Gligok galaxy is home to the infamous Kecktox. An evil race known for its proclivity of enslaving souls as they make their cosmic voyage.
    Me and the rock both agreed something had to be done, so, being a wizard, I cast a spell on Steve Job's soul to hide it from the Kecktox's souldar.
    With any luck, Steve Job's soul should arrive safely at Valhalla, where he will be at peace slaying Jewish money lenders for all of eternity.
  8. Like
    Black Wolf reacted to Nigel in Global Warming   
    Why is this even a matter of discussion. This is not a case of hard science, but a case of the media distorting science. The truth is this:

    The earth may be getting warmer by fractions of degrees. This is not a cataclysmic Armageddon however. Sea levels may rise slightly. Hence, I am intelligent enough not to invest in ocean front property. The bottom line is, humans survived a very rapid climate change 12,000 years ago. Resent evidence that I read last week suggests that this ice age 12,000 years ago came on in a matter of years (not tens of years or hundreds of years like global warming extremists warn about). And guess what happened, MAN SURVIVED. Not only did humans survive, but they adapted to cope with the changes and agriculture started to develop. Its not hard to imagine that humans, at least those willing to use their brains, could survive another rapid climate change. Those who fear climate change doubt man's ability to succeed in the face of adversity. The truth of the matter is that we can survive a change in climate and so can most organisms. Furthermore, there are practical solutions proposed that can intrusively alter earth's atmosphere and control climactic conditions. Thus worrying about climate change is entirely irrational. Just think rationally and there is no problem. However, on the other hand, Rebuilding a city like New Orleans, which is below sea level, surrounded by water, and prone to hurricanes and Mississippi flood waters, is entirely irrational and indicative of why thus discussion is even occurring. In a rational world, global warming is no threat.

    On a side note, the stuff on global warming has reached the level of pure absurdity. I think it was the NY Times, but I am not 100% sure on this, published an article last week about highly speculative inconclusive research that stated that global warming was effecting tectonic plate movements. I don't even no where to start with how absurd this is, its just an example of fear mongering liberals. The forces that drive plate movement come from the earth's extreme interior heat (up to 4000 degrees Celsius in the mantle) where plate movement is driven. To say that a temperature increase of 1 degree C on the surface could in any way alter plate movement is a stretch, to say the least.

    Anyways, most lemmings who express their concerns over global warming are not scientists. Fortunately, I have a degree in biology and can read the evidence for myself (from the primary sources, not some piecemeal propaganda that was cited earlier in this thread). Go to the library and see what the journals really say. Sorry for my bluntness, but global warming alarmism bugs the hell out of me.


    EDIT:

    I am willing to bet that a news story within the next few weeks states that global warming is destroying our satellites. NASA's URAS satellite is going to crash sooner than expected due to atmospheric phenomena, though the atmospheric conditions are in no way related to earth's temperature. But you can see the easy extrapolation made possible for big brother Gore.
  9. Like
    Black Wolf reacted to Vox Rationis in Bachmann wins, Paul in close second   
    Speaking to Dairdo in particular:

    The idea that the military should only ever protect the rights of the citizens of that same country is ridiculous. It's no different from my saying, "Well, why should I pay to protect your rights? You live in the next city over, and you don't even pay taxes." It's a question of long-term self interest: it's better for me in the long run to have free people in Iran than to have enslaved ones. Furthermore, what about the right of Americans to move to Iran and open businesses free of restrictions while enjoying personal liberty? Now, there is a complex balance: clearly, one country cannot afford to free everyone else in the world, nor should it be asked to do so. It requires a case-by-case analysis of the degree of oppression, the cost to the liberators in money and in soldiers' lives, the likelihood of success, the wealth and level of civilization of the country, and, yes, the lives of that country's people.

    And when a country does decide to liberate another country, it should do the job right or not do it at all. It should annex that country or at least impose on it a rights-respecting constitution and strict oversight over its government (as we did after World War II). It should certainly not let them elect whoever they want and do whatever they want, as long as there is "democracy".
  10. Downvote
    Black Wolf reacted to NOTJOHNGALT? in The Flaw in Objectivism   
    I have read all of Ayn Rand's novels..

    She stops short in most of them, She doesn't reach her own point.

    Ayn Rand proclaims herself to be an Atheist. That is what Saves Rand from True Godlessness.

    IF YOU CAN FIND THE ABSOLUTE UTTER LACK OF GOD IN RAND'S WORKS.

    A PERSONS WHO HAS TRULY COME TO A CONCEPT OF "UTTER LACK OF GOD."

    WILL ANSWER THE QUESTION , "Are you an Athiest?", By replying , "NO!"

    Because you see, If you come to an Utter Lack of God, then there is no such thing as Athiesm, it ceases to exist as a concept.

    Many Objectivists have turned to trying to find GOD in Rand's Work, why?? Because of the flaw that Ayn Rand introduced by proclaiming herself to be an Athiest.

    If Rand had gotten to TRUE GODLESSNESS, She would have also proclaimed that she wasn't an Athiest also.

    Ayn Rand was an Athiest. She had God in that tiniest sense.

    Both the Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged have God in them, in the barest essence in their Atheism. Which is why there for a time Objectivists started trying to Integrate a Notion of God into Objectivism. Well it is there in Rand's Athiesm itself.

    Rand's Mere Athiesm is one step short of TRUE GODLESSNESS.

    The opposite attempt is to Rid Objectivism of God altogether by comming to an "UTTER LACK OF GOD" which will destroy Atheism itself.

    Objectivism has God in it, in the narrowest sense, in the smallest amount.

    And that is as far as Rand could go philosophically.

    If she had gone further she would have found herself stairing at the Ultimate Question.

    Ayn Rand in her Athiesm doesn't deny God's existence at all. Which is what has objectivists seeking an integrated notion of Objectivism and God.

    Which is what will ultimately save Objectivism itself.

    Objectivism cannot survive without God....

    It is interesting that it takes a flaw in Objectivism to keep it viable to people as a system of thinking.

    Christ puts no stipulation on the socio-economic model that man lives in.

    Which is why also that man can live with Communism for 80+ years also.

    Christ will allow man to exist in a purely Capitalistic Society as much as he will allow man to exist in a Purely Communist
    Society.

    To abandon God because you want Capitalism is erroneous thinking also.

    To abandon God because some men will not let you have a purely Capitalistic Society, is flawed thinking as well.

    You think that people would abandon those people and not Abandon God, but nope.. That guy over their voted me into
    Socialism, I think I will abandon God in retaliation, Just doesn't make any sense.

    So Rand's fit started about Communists and rightfully so, she was powerless about that and chose atheism instead.

    But Christ is left Scratching his head because Jesus Christ never told Ayn Rand that she wasn't allowed to make any money
    or to Own Property, ie, That Trading powerhouse, The House of Hurr.

    So perhaps it is possible to live in a Capitalist world and not abandon God also, seems possible to myself.

    Just as it is possible, to feed the homeless around here without a Communist's Makorov Pistol to your head also.
  11. Like
    Black Wolf got a reaction from Dante in Refutation of existence of an all powerful being.   
    Actually I had no idea what I was talking about
  12. Downvote
    Black Wolf reacted to Erik Christensen in Objectivism and homosexuality dont mix   
    Ayn Rand has stated explicitly that homosexuality was not normal homo sapien behavior. I support that view. It appears as though, in terms of morality, too many proclaimed Objectivists of this generation take the anarchist/subjectivist approach. This line of reasoning is simply not in line with the philosophy of Objectivism that that Ayn Rand created, Peikoff maybe, but not Ayn Rand. That being said, I don't think she would have an issue with someone choosing to be gay, but she would certainly not endorse it as Objectivist approved morality. The Objectivism of today seems more concerned with a libertarian approach to subjects that Miss Rand stated were contrary to her philosophy. Will the defenders of Rand's work and beliefs please stand up?
  13. Like
    Black Wolf got a reaction from th3ranger in Biblical Marriage   
    Totally
  14. Downvote
    Black Wolf reacted to Jennifer in Silent Dancers Violently Arrested Jefferson Memorial   
    I found an article on Restore the Republic, it has a different camera view from the one in the original post so you can get another look at how things went down. It shows a lot more o the whole picture, since it's from the perimeter of the building, rather than right up close where you cannot always see what is happening:
    http://rtr.org/videos/2/21418



    Adam Kokesh has had his own radio show, ran for Congress, was a strong advocate against the Iraq war after having fought over there, and now has his own tv show on RT with tons of liberty-oriented guests, and Yaron Brook is fairly high up on the list of recommended guests that are suggested. What are you doing? I think he is allowed to pick his little battles that are important to him on a personal level every once in a while, considering he is doing more than anyone in this forum the other 90% of the time. So what if it is not an "important" battle, we have entire organizations like CATO, ARI, Mises, FEE, and on down a hundred times over focusing on all of the "important" battles. What does that have to do with anything? Sounds like you just want to belittle their efforts whilst you watch Spongebob in your pajamas on Saturday mornings and discuss how the government sucks online. This attitude annoys me.
  15. Like
    Black Wolf got a reaction from ropoctl2 in Let's get Yaron Brook on "Adam vs. The Man"   
    I do believe he once went on RussiaToday to talk to Thom Hartmann. He might get less hostility from Kokesh.
  16. Like
    Black Wolf got a reaction from ropoctl2 in Let's get Yaron Brook on "Adam vs. The Man"   
    I do believe he once went on RussiaToday to talk to Thom Hartmann. He might get less hostility from Kokesh.
  17. Like
    Black Wolf got a reaction from ropoctl2 in Osama bin Laden dead   
    I resent that someone has to have a "scholarly knowledge" of something, before making judgments. Especially if your standard of a proper evaluation of Islam, is that muslims clerics disagree. Muslim clerics are not trustworthy as an authority on Islam, because they will go out of their way to reconcile what it says in the Qu'ran, to what they want Islam to be portrayed as.
  18. Downvote
    Black Wolf got a reaction from dream_weaver in If you are on a plane with someone   
    If you are on a plane that you personally own with a passenger, do you get to push him off the plane? You made no written contract with him, and you made no agreement with him that you would be responsible for his safety. If the guy is bothering you and basically being a rude guest, or just basically being a bother, do you get to push him off in a society of individual rights? Are you responsible for his airbag?
  19. Downvote
    Black Wolf got a reaction from dream_weaver in If you are on a plane with someone   
    If you are on a plane that you personally own with a passenger, do you get to push him off the plane? You made no written contract with him, and you made no agreement with him that you would be responsible for his safety. If the guy is bothering you and basically being a rude guest, or just basically being a bother, do you get to push him off in a society of individual rights? Are you responsible for his airbag?
  20. Downvote
    Black Wolf got a reaction from dream_weaver in If you are on a plane with someone   
    If you are on a plane that you personally own with a passenger, do you get to push him off the plane? You made no written contract with him, and you made no agreement with him that you would be responsible for his safety. If the guy is bothering you and basically being a rude guest, or just basically being a bother, do you get to push him off in a society of individual rights? Are you responsible for his airbag?
  21. Downvote
    Black Wolf got a reaction from dream_weaver in If you are on a plane with someone   
    If you are on a plane that you personally own with a passenger, do you get to push him off the plane? You made no written contract with him, and you made no agreement with him that you would be responsible for his safety. If the guy is bothering you and basically being a rude guest, or just basically being a bother, do you get to push him off in a society of individual rights? Are you responsible for his airbag?
  22. Downvote
    Black Wolf got a reaction from dream_weaver in If you are on a plane with someone   
    If you are on a plane that you personally own with a passenger, do you get to push him off the plane? You made no written contract with him, and you made no agreement with him that you would be responsible for his safety. If the guy is bothering you and basically being a rude guest, or just basically being a bother, do you get to push him off in a society of individual rights? Are you responsible for his airbag?
  23. Downvote
    Black Wolf got a reaction from dream_weaver in If you are on a plane with someone   
    If you are on a plane that you personally own with a passenger, do you get to push him off the plane? You made no written contract with him, and you made no agreement with him that you would be responsible for his safety. If the guy is bothering you and basically being a rude guest, or just basically being a bother, do you get to push him off in a society of individual rights? Are you responsible for his airbag?
  24. Downvote
    Black Wolf got a reaction from dream_weaver in If you are on a plane with someone   
    If you are on a plane that you personally own with a passenger, do you get to push him off the plane? You made no written contract with him, and you made no agreement with him that you would be responsible for his safety. If the guy is bothering you and basically being a rude guest, or just basically being a bother, do you get to push him off in a society of individual rights? Are you responsible for his airbag?
  25. Like
    Black Wolf got a reaction from softwareNerd in Iowa Caucus Focus Group Agrees: Obama is a Muslim   
    Obama is... whatever we currently have a problem with apparently
×