Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Hairnet

Regulars
  • Posts

    842
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    15

Everything posted by Hairnet

  1. Hairnet

    Date Rape

    My token Feminist vlogger that I watch was really upset about how many people were reacting to this Salon.com article. http://www.salon.com/2010/09/03/was_i_really_raped/ Many people making comments on the article do not think that this woman was raped. I suspect that they feel it is inappropriate to use the term because the abuse of recreational drugs was involved and that sexual contact was initiated by the woman. How do you guys evaluate this?
  2. I don't think that Rand was incorrect to use the term selfishness. When most people use that term it is meaningless. One man I spoke to once told me that he hated Ayn Rand, and when I asked him why, he said that Rand promoted selfishness, and that his brother was a selfish drug addict who ruined his family life. That is a sad story, and it is a bad thing that his brother ruined his own life and hurt his loved one's that way. However i do not think it makes any sense to say that he was selfish. There are several important questions to ask about this though. Why is being a drug addict selfish? Is that because he wants to do drugs? Is it selfish because it excludes other peoples values while pursuing his own (no matter what they are)? Finally think about how either of these definitions can not possibly apply to the drug addict brother without applying to almost everyone. Most people do pursue values at the exclusions of other peoples, even altruists, and everyone does what they want to. Those definitions don't work. In our culture it is one of those imprecise and hypocritical insults that other throw at one another. If you need a term to describe people who are consistently at odds with the good of others, I would say anti-social or misanthropic are better words to use. It is important to make sure that words correspond to actual facts. Selfishness can be better understood as promoting what is good for you. We can understand what is good for people on an individual basis.. When you think of the term this way it doesn't just end up being a cheap way to throw mud on people. It becomes very obvious when you put it this way that things like friends, family, good work ethic, all are good things and help you promote other good things for you. I am not saying that you have to use the term selfishness in a different way. I don't go around correcting people's use of the term. If I were to say "Honesty is selfish" people would look at me like I am crazy. They think I mean "Honesty is anti-social", which it can be, but usually isn't. However if I argue that "Honesty is good for you" people may be skeptical but they will understand what I am pointing out.
  3. This is what happens when political discourse is Egalitarianism vs Protestantism. However, I do not think that any priest's rights have been infringed upon. While progressives will regulate racial issues for sure I do not think they will go very far with religion. Even if some gay rights advocates are that irrational, the establishment would never allow for it.
  4. I like that platform Crow. My main concern though is that both parties tend to monopolize support for issues and present two wrong ideas. When we share idea with egalitarians, they act as though our reasons for sharing their beliefs are misguided or convenient. Same with Christians. How can this be avoided? Anyways, I would look at what Paul McKeever advocates for his political party in Canada. I haven't listened to this podcast in a long time, but he basically advocated a political party that would take up popular freedom issues, and offer the populous a chance to elect candidates that would force change that the political establishment on both sides avoid. http://www.philosophyinaction.com/archive/2013-05-15.html So for instance, in Oklahoma we have all of these ridiculous liquor laws. No one really supports them, but neither party wants to risk dealing with that. So running a candidate or political activity that promises action in that limited area on the basis of their political principles can help build trust with the public.. Another example: The Institute for Justice is got on the front page of reddit today for its victory against a imminent domain action that was going to help Donald Trump get an extra parking space. Victories like this show serious real world principles that actually serve life. This kind of stuff gives capitalism credibility. http://www.ij.org/casino-reinvestment-development-authority-v-coking
  5. He bashed the school and its professors for not debating Rushton. Just thinking about it for three seconds, the reason the school wanted Suzuki is because he is a big name and they wanted to see him smack down this guy. He accepts the invitation and then spends about 90% of his opening statement attacking the school for not having one of their people do it. I have seen Richard Dawkins at the University of Oklahoma speak. Even though creationism is obviously wrong he was happy to speak about the issue and didn't bitch at us for not correcting the rest of the Oklahoman's around us of their ways. I left that discussion with Richard Dawkins more knowledgeable. I saw Suzuki and all I could tell is that Suzuki believed that he was correct. In addition to this, the left will ridicule anyone in the exact same way over any issue. Objectivists especially are subject to this exact same kind of ridicule and dismissal. The "righteous liberal" card is so over played that it has lost all meaning and seems to be a dishonest tactic. The fact that men like Suzuki do things like this only engenders the suspicion that they are hiding something or lying about something. You may think that race is an absurd concept, but most people wouldn't know any better. Consider that the media is filled with racial stereotypes, racial humor, and race bating news stories. People do have these categories in their head. In addition if one does accept that people did evolve, there is a legitimate question in whether or not all kinds of humans evolved in the same manor. Suzuki could have spent less time being outraged and more time actually informing the audience about how to think about these issues. In my mind, it is men like Suzuki who have encouraged the spread of white nationalism and other neoreactionaries. One day, the leftist establishment is going to wake up and realize that no one is listening to them anymore. People will be homeschooling their kids with lessons in race realism, austrian economics, creationism, anti-anthropogenic climate change science.
  6. What I really appreciate about this forum is that it doesn't have tons of threads dedicated to attacking another forum or other people over drama. Thanks for keeping it that way softwareNerd.
  7. I think the first real mistake is identifying as a Republican or Democrat. Still it has been plenty clear to me that the Christian right is filled with ignorant people who don't care about the truth.
  8. His generalizations mostly match with my experience. He was arguing that there were three types of humans which had different amounts of k-type reproduction in them due to evolutionary splits. This theory claims to account for the correlation that he has gathered. I don't know what else to say about it. I don't know how I can evaluate that claim, so I don't take it very seriously right now. I don't think there is any harm in exploring our genetics. If some people are on average more likely to have traits that could be considered negative, then I am not shaken by that. His claim isn't earthshaking. I think we can use genetic engineering/gene therapy to help all people rise far above their current stations. If the genes that cause these different reproductive tendencies could be found and altered, then it sounds like the problem would be solved. No politics, just commerce and technology. People flip out about this stuff though, Part of it is because people really hate racists and are rightly suspicious of anyone who would be challenging established academia in order to support a position that Racists need to be true. There are tons of pseudo scientists out there now. Astrologists, Creationists, jfk researchers, truthers, birthers, gold bugs, preppers, Race realism sounds really easy to put into that category to the average guy. I think the other reason people flip out is because John Rawls philosophy has taken deep roots in our culture. No one wants to think that some people may be rightly be denied opportunities because they were born to an "inferior" race. It kind of wrecks the whole idea of social democracy if it turns out that equality of opportunity is just down right impossible with contemporary humans. It would be a disaster for the left if Race Realism were accepted as true.
  9. What is sad leonid is that the so called "secular" left seems intent on attempting to prohibit people from smoking, using fast food chains, being subjected to advertising. One thing I have begun to appreciate is how perfectly the principle of the separation of church in state explains the classical liberal position on other issues. Treating matters of race and enterprise the same way as matter of religion, the state should be an entity that pays no mind to those issues. If the Left was around during the protestant reformation they would have exacerbated the situation in the same way that they do with race, culture, and enterprise today.
  10. Happy New Year! Values require particular actions in order to gain and keep. Anything outside those parameters can damage those values. Its easy to get a math problem wrong because there are finite solutions and infinite failures. Nothing is destroyed or created if there was no pursuit of value. In the eyes of a simple beast the world just is, and that is all it can be if we choose to be indifferent to our own fates. However because we choose to use reason and live we see the possibility to create, destruction is just the negation of or deviation from the requirements of our values. An ancient tribe exists on a beach. Every year they must move into the caves in order to hide from storms and strange tides. They use their minds to improve their cave shelters. Perhaps they create signs to guide people on paths up to the shelters in the stormy weather. Maybe they reinforce the caves and clear animals out of it. Perhaps they find ways to use the caves for the rest of the year. The ancients think. They understand their potential to control their environment, to go beyond what is into what could be and should be. The storms are destructive, but ultimately outside their control. However the caves are under their control. The real evil would come from the man who would command people to fuel magical rituals with important resources out of the delusional belief that they may work or more cynically, to the purpose of alleviating people's fears. Perhaps the man who would waste resources picking fights with others or trying to dominate others would also be an enemy of himself and his people. His choices deviate, negate, and distract from his need to create and develop his world according to his needs. These sorts of things are what I consider destructive.
  11. Suzuki is a hostile blowhard, and if they had a real moderator he should have been censured for it. Also he consistently revealed a troubling hostility to even discussing these ideas. Rushton has a theory and some correlations. He wasn't prepared to discuss these issues.
  12. Nice video thanks. I get what you are saying about famous people.
  13. I will bite. Why no woman? I admit I had trouble thinking of an alive woman who was both famous and admirable in my eyes.
  14. Your note was unnecessary. Also, you should say "Rationalistic" or "Rationalist" not Platonist. Anyways, if they intend on talking about politics with their friends during these coffee breaks then I wouldn't attend. It sounds like they are staging a left-wing echo chamber for themselves. If they can go without talking about politics then I would be fine. So talking to people. I am not saying I am an exemplar of these virtues but they make sense to me. Charity: Most people aren't very well read nor are they very good at express their own ideas. If someone says something that sounds really weird or wrong, I tend to give the best interpretation of the argument I can. If someone is clearly too ignorant to be speaking about a subject, just tell them so, and if you think they can improve refer them to some material. Honesty: Don't pretend you know about things that you don't. If you disagree with an idea, give the reasons or facts that cause you to disagree, but don't ever inflate your understanding of an issue. If they provide you with alternative explanations or point a whole in your idea, its okay to tell them that you will have to think about it. "Winning the Argument" is not important, because people can be wrong and win argument and people can be right and lose arguments. Politeness: Don't bully others. Let them finish their points as long as they are going somewhere, and try not to interrupt. The main reason most people don't want to talk about politics is because most people interested in politics are bullies who don't have any power in the real world so they attempt to make other people feel bad for disagreeing with their world view. No one will want to talk about bullies if you go into it attempting to punish or humiliate others. Pride: Have a goal for the conversation, make sure it contributes to your well being. Pride means moral ambition, so make sure that those conversations about important topics are conducted in such a way. Some people will exhibit toxic behavior. They may not be able to handle conflict or they may wish to bring up irrelevant concerns and attempt to intimidate you away from reasonable conclusions. Let your standards be known and shut down the conversation if you have to. If someone is spending time personally attacking you then they aren't interested in discussion but intimidation.
  15. Gordon Ramsay, because he encourages virtue and excellence. Tina Fey, because 30 Rock was a wonderful show and she made it work.
  16. Is kissing someone without permission sexual assault? Of all the things to criticize about that situation a slap is the least problematic.
  17. @whYNOT I understand. The idea of allowing someone to choose their own religion was a good starting point for liberalism to evolve. Protestantism continued the individualist tendencies in Christianity, leading to an explosion of private religions that suit the congregations. Choosing a church to attend and a community to be a part of voluntarily based on creed is a huge step towards understanding capitalism. While protestants are by no means perfect secularists, these days they come closer than any other religious group on the planet. My problem with these people isn't that they are more wrong than egalitarians, is that they seem to be as a whole blatantly opposed to being reasonable. When I listen to left leaning radio such as NPR I get the impression that they are trying to convince me. Right-wing talk show hosts tend to just appeal to fear and the shortest most oversimplified snippets of information.
  18. Christians in the US tend to fall into two categories. The first one is "God is Dead". These Christians are your "normal" people who basically don't do anything the bible tells them to. The question of whether there is a god or not is mostly a question of comfort.They are the ultimate pragmatists by far. The next category is the "Nietzsche is Dead" Christians. These are your hardcore conservatives who really believe in God and that the bible should affect the behavior of society and the individual. They promote terrible ideas and really sour the fight for Capitalism by doing so. I haven't seen many secularists who are radical skeptics. Skepticism in todays world means something more like scientism or positivism. I accept that the movement is arrogant and philosophically naïve but they are dedicated to the scientific method as far as it will take them, which shows a lot more integrity to me than someone who thinks the bible is a guide for anything. The worst of the atheist crowd is the "Atheism +" movement. Which is essentially an egalitarian movement. I haven't seen any evidence that they are pragmatists though, as they seem extremely dedicated to their principles.
  19. This is anecdotal I know, but this what I understand. My biological father was a Major in the US Army and was a member of the Inspector General's office stationed in South Korea. I asked him when I was young why the US couldn't just take down the North Korean government. He explained that the South Koreans did not want that to happen. While many South Koreans are just uncomfortable with the idea of killing their northern counterparts wholesale, the leadership is concerned with economics. They simply do not want to undertake the cost of caring for so many refugees and dealing with the headache of integrating an impoverished nation into their modern capitalist economy. I do not know if this is true, but this is what most of the officers believed to be the political situation during the mid 2000s. I am not sure what to think about that though.
  20. I don't understand why Guatemalan immigrants would ruin the environment. Can you explain? I don't think that the governments of the world have a right to maintain ethnically segregated regions. Many peoples, including all Americans, do not have a state that belongs to just their ethnicity. The Japanese should follow the same protocols as any other country, putting security as the primary concern and letting in any productive person.
  21. Well nationalism seems to make a little more sense. National conflicts seem to be a greater driver of history than class conflict. Also people have an immoratalism via blood concept inherited from the medieval era, where they imagine that they are somehow living on through their descendants after they die.
  22. As long as someone can produce something, find a place to stay, and can stay out of trouble, they should be able to come to this country. I don't see a reason to deport anyone unless they are criminal. As far as the right to vote and citizenship, I don't think most Americans should have that right much less immigrants. There should be fees and testing processes for anyone who wishes to vote in an election. This process should be the same for all people, natural born or not. I don't see how free immigration would ruin Costa Rica's environment. Job seeking immigrants who can't vote are not a threat to the sanctity of that nation's laws, and I doubt they will be violating the property rights of whoever own's the jungles (or whatever) there. Under the principles I outlined above, Palestinians would have trouble immigrating to Israel. Security concerns are a huge problem.
  23. A lot of people think that the individualist approach is dishonest, naive, or disrespectful. I think most of those people want you to recognize that they have been through some trauma due to their position in society. Vietnamese and Koreans get a lot of shit in our culture, especially from the media. It isn't helpful when your race is the casual punchline on Family Guy. Its pretty rough. Most people of color apparently feel alienated from "white" society and feel like they don't have a place in that society. Our ideal of a commercial paradise where people are judged on their merits has not come to fruition. I think its important to recognize that kind of damage. However I don't really want to support people's false sense of pride they get from heritage. In discussions with White Nationalists, I have pointed out time and time again that nationalism doesn't make you strong, it makes you weak. It draws energy away from your real life and asks you to sacrifice real values for its cause. Black Nationalists want to essentialy set up protectionist policies in black communities. White nationalists want white people to reproduce a whole ton. Zionists criticize Jews living outside of Israel as being greedy and not loving their people or god. Its the same crap across the board.
  24. No, I know things aren't equal. I just know it isn't my fault. I have had a black DEA officer tell me not to buy weed from black people. Most sex workers avoid black men altogether, often explicitly saying so on their adds. I once gave my black neighbor a ride to the mall, and he stole shirt ties while I was there. Black men robbed my friends. Black men threw a garbage can thew my friend's window. (All of these stories involve perpetrators who were different people in different parts of the city.) What do people expect? That whites are just going to pretend that certain groups do not tend to be more dangerous than others? That is like asking women to keep just as much of an eye for female rapists as male rapists. I know very well that there is something severely wrong. However I have personally never been anything but fair and individualistic with my interactions with everyone no matter what their appearance or background is. I didn't do it because some Social Justice Warrior told me about white privileged. I understand what bias and bigotry are, so I can actually counteract it. Look, if minorities and immigrants want to talk about media representation, how they are treated, and how they can accelerate "the melting pot" then I am game for that. If people want me to feel bad for supporting Israel, getting adrenaline rushes around black men, or for being wealthy while others are poor, they can fuck themselves. No, all cultures have histories of invasion and domination. Read any history book about anywhere you will find no "Awesome Leftist Kingdom of Peace and Hugs". All of history was blood thirsty cults, gangs, demagogues, and pirates fighting over resources. No one back then knew how to deal with scarcity, they just fought one another out of ignorance and irrationality.There isn't anything special about the cultures that died out. The Westerners were group that won. They brought the first semblance of order to this planet. I am not apologizing for being descendant from the victor, especially when I fight for the aspects of that culture that benefit all people. EDITED ABUNCH: Poorly written. bleh
×
×
  • Create New...