Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Tanaka

Regulars
  • Content Count

    201
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Tanaka got a reaction from Nicky in My final word on the Gold Standard   
    Never saw a final word with chapters in it before. And I still haven't read one.
  2. Like
    Tanaka got a reaction from Boris Rarden in Porn and the free market   
    Objectivism doesn't define the virtue of productiveness as "producing a product many want to buy". That's pretty much the Libertarian definition, at least the one I've heard them use.

    My impromptu, Objectivist definition would be "adapting the environment to one's own needs (to further one's life) through a creative, rational process". In the modern context, in which one is a part of a vast, rich marketplace of goods and ideas, that would translate into a creative, long-term, specialized career.

    The fundamental difference between the two definitions is that yours is subjective, it isn't built on any objective idea of what is and what isn't good (as in objectively furthers a man's life). Instead, it assumes that whatever people want is the good. That's obviously wrong, people want bad things all the time.

    The fundamental reason why doing (certain kinds of) porn isn't productiveness is because (certain kinds of) porn is objectively bad. I'm adding the (certain kinds of) tag to my sentence because prudes and religious opinion makers love to characterize art and photography which celebrates the human body and sexuality as porn. When I'm saying that porn is bad, I am referring to the kind of grotesque porn which denigrates women (or men I would guess, in the case of gay porn), trivializes the body and cheapens sex, not to erotic imagery in general.
  3. Like
    Tanaka got a reaction from Dreamspirit in Is letting your chlid get fat abuse?   
    It's not abuse, but it's neglect. Neglect can be just as harmful as abuse.
  4. Downvote
    Tanaka got a reaction from LeftistSpew in BitCoin   
    You don't see anything wrong with this argument?


    Here's a diverse basket of useful goods for which that statement isn't true: oil, silver and Tibetan medicinal plants. You're welcome to research that, I'm confident you'll find that gold is much less volatile than the dollar, compared to those.

    With a little looking into I could also name a diverse basket for which lettuce is the most stable currency on the planet. Hand picked baskets, no matter how diverse, don't make for valid arguments.

    [

    I'm not sure what he's saying (although I know that the statement "gold is just gold" does not mean all those things you're saying it means), but I here's what I'm saying:

    In a free economy, the market value of gold is less volatile and more predictable than most things, because both the supply and the demand of it are quite stable and predictable.

    With state issued currency, supply can (and is being) manipulated, and with most other goods (like oil, iron, etc.) demand can change quickly with technological advancements or just changes in consumers' preferences. If you believe that supply and demand dictate the market value of goods, then this simple inference should be pretty difficult to not understand.

    In an economy that's subject to the whims of fiscal policy makers, gold does tend to shift its value somewhat, because it is used as a safe haven from inflation, etc. Any time the policy makers screw up, the value of gold goes up. But a quick math (the kind you learn when you study supply and demand in Economics) will tell you that, as long as this practice doesn't become more widespread than it is now, gold should still remain more stable that the inflated currencies which are driving people to it.
  5. Downvote
    Tanaka reacted to TheEgoist in Republicans for taxing the poor   
    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/31/opinion/the-new-resentment-of-the-poor.html?_r=1&hp

    Leave it to the Republicans, including the head of the moronic Tea Party Caucus to not support taxation of the rich but to be fine with taking some money from the poor. Because taking the last pennies people have will do a lot, but taxing the rich more would never help the country!

    This is just reverse class warfare.
  6. Downvote
    Tanaka reacted to Mark2 in Has anyone else ever been bullied by a manipulative sociopath?   
    Don’t know what whYNOT is talking about. Nothing I wrote should be construed to mean what he’s arguing against.


    Tanaka is mistaken not only about Dreamspirit’s post, but about Ayn Rand ever writing about Hickman in an essay. It was in her very early private journals where she wrote about him, blown way out of proportion by her detractors.

    Defending Ayn Rand by saying she was perfect, never made a mistake, only helps them.
  7. Like
    Tanaka got a reaction from Superman123 in Objectivism and homosexuality dont mix   
    I have a couple of separate points:

    1. There are two branches of Objectivism which relate to homosexuality:

    One is Politics. In Capitalism, the state has no right to interfere with any kind of sex, or any kind of personal relationships, between consenting adults. End of story.

    The other is Ethics. First off, there's the question of sexual orientation. Since it is very clear that homosexuality is not consciously chosen (but is determined from birth or during early childhood), it falls outside of the realm of Ethics. Beyond that, the morality of homosexuality depends on the particulars, just like in the case of straight sex and relationships. Sex and relationships based in people sharing the right values are good.

    2. As for the opinions of self-proclaimed Objectivists, they shouldn't matter. Objectivism isn't a cult (or even a single "community"). At most, it's comprised of circles of friends, loosely connected or independent of each other. There is no reason why some self-proclaimed Objectivists' opinions should ever interfere with your life, or your choice of a philosophy, unless you expressly invite them to do so.

    In my experience, most Objectivists are not anti-gay in any way. In fact there is an unusually high percentage of Objectivists who actually are gay. And if someone insults gay people, he is quickly refuted in Objectivist circles, just like any other bigot would be.

    You shouldn't have any problem finding Objectivists who don't mind your sexuality to hang out with. So being gay should not keep you from seeking out Objectivism as a philosophy, or Objectivists to associate with.
  8. Like
    Tanaka got a reaction from Superman123 in Objectivism and homosexuality dont mix   
    I have a couple of separate points:

    1. There are two branches of Objectivism which relate to homosexuality:

    One is Politics. In Capitalism, the state has no right to interfere with any kind of sex, or any kind of personal relationships, between consenting adults. End of story.

    The other is Ethics. First off, there's the question of sexual orientation. Since it is very clear that homosexuality is not consciously chosen (but is determined from birth or during early childhood), it falls outside of the realm of Ethics. Beyond that, the morality of homosexuality depends on the particulars, just like in the case of straight sex and relationships. Sex and relationships based in people sharing the right values are good.

    2. As for the opinions of self-proclaimed Objectivists, they shouldn't matter. Objectivism isn't a cult (or even a single "community"). At most, it's comprised of circles of friends, loosely connected or independent of each other. There is no reason why some self-proclaimed Objectivists' opinions should ever interfere with your life, or your choice of a philosophy, unless you expressly invite them to do so.

    In my experience, most Objectivists are not anti-gay in any way. In fact there is an unusually high percentage of Objectivists who actually are gay. And if someone insults gay people, he is quickly refuted in Objectivist circles, just like any other bigot would be.

    You shouldn't have any problem finding Objectivists who don't mind your sexuality to hang out with. So being gay should not keep you from seeking out Objectivism as a philosophy, or Objectivists to associate with.
  9. Downvote
    Tanaka 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?
  10. Like
    Tanaka got a reaction from ropoctl2 in Free State Initiative   
    You are assuming that everyone here took your claim that this project is a realistic effort to create liberty for granted, to the point that you are using "create liberty" and "this project" interchangeably, and accusing everyone who is disagreeing with your claims with being anti-liberty.

    That's a fundamental mistake that is making any further communication in this thread impossible. The question at hand isn't whether creating liberty is a good thing, and whether people who are doing that should be supported or shouted down. That is not what so many people are "malevolent" about, that is not what you need to prove to us. The question is whether your project will, realistically, create liberty.

    The only reason why anyone not affiliated with your project would believe that it will is your word. There is absolutely no other reason whatsoever that I have seen. Refusing to take your word for granted doesn't make people "malevolent" towards liberty, it makes them malevolent towards taking strangers' word for granted. Sorry, but I just can't do that. You'll have to give me some actual, verifiable information that you have done more than just start a website and a few threads on various forums, before I start believing in your project.

    And, after that initial step of establishing that you're actually in business, you will, like aquelsalsa said, still have to respond to huge amounts of criticism. If your only rebuttal to people pointing out that the continent you're trying to do this on is an uncivilized, war torn, tribal mess is "You're racist", no one will take you seriously.
  11. Like
    Tanaka got a reaction from anonrobt in Wabi Sabi   
    None of these are true statements. Everything lasts (for various lengths of time), and I just finished my lunch. I'm positive about that. It wasn't a perfect lunch though, because the shops and markets around here are very poorly stocked and I can never find the right stuff. But, if I had found the right stuff, and cooked it the way it's supposed to be cooked, it would've been perfect (perfect by the standard I formulated when I first set out to make that meal).

    So the speaker is not really acknowledging reality, he's acknowledging a subjective perspective (things don't last long enough for his expectations, finished things aren't good enough for his expectations - so he calls them "unfinished", and his standard of perfection is intentionally formulated so that it would be physically impossible to attain). For instance the perfect speed for a car, for him, would probably be a million times the speed of light.

    The bottom line is, some things are perfect. They last for as long as they've been designed to last, they look the way they were meant to look, they perform the functionality they were expected to perform, etc. As long as one's idea of perfection is not meant to sabotage his own life by ignoring reality, but is instead formulated with reality taken as a primary, perfection is attainable.
  12. Like
    Tanaka got a reaction from anonrobt in Wabi Sabi   
    None of these are true statements. Everything lasts (for various lengths of time), and I just finished my lunch. I'm positive about that. It wasn't a perfect lunch though, because the shops and markets around here are very poorly stocked and I can never find the right stuff. But, if I had found the right stuff, and cooked it the way it's supposed to be cooked, it would've been perfect (perfect by the standard I formulated when I first set out to make that meal).

    So the speaker is not really acknowledging reality, he's acknowledging a subjective perspective (things don't last long enough for his expectations, finished things aren't good enough for his expectations - so he calls them "unfinished", and his standard of perfection is intentionally formulated so that it would be physically impossible to attain). For instance the perfect speed for a car, for him, would probably be a million times the speed of light.

    The bottom line is, some things are perfect. They last for as long as they've been designed to last, they look the way they were meant to look, they perform the functionality they were expected to perform, etc. As long as one's idea of perfection is not meant to sabotage his own life by ignoring reality, but is instead formulated with reality taken as a primary, perfection is attainable.
  13. Downvote
    Tanaka reacted to brian0918 in Creator of competing Liberty Dollar currency found guilty   
    Tanaka: if you're going to downvote my post, at least explain what you found wrong with it.
  14. Downvote
    Tanaka reacted to brian0918 in Creator of competing Liberty Dollar currency found guilty   
    The legality is not the issue. The issue is whether or not you are liable to be arrested, prosecuted, and thrown in jail, regardless of the actual legality. So long as the government holds the monopoly on both force and legal tender, there is an inherent conflict of interest in that relationship. So you cannot assume you will get a fair trial, regardless of the legality of your actions.

    Nevermind the fact that laws are often written in a vague and contradictory way to leave room for just such individuals who attempt to skirt the system. Talk to Irwin Schiff about the difference between what the law says versus what the legal system does.
  15. Downvote
    Tanaka reacted to CapitalistSwine in Libya Updates   
    Two sources I found:
    http://www.presstv.ir/detail/167814.html
    http://mondoweiss.net/2011/03/report-israel-company-recruiting-gadhafi-mercenaries.html

    The original source I was originally linked to, which I believed to have a biased writer, since it didn't bother to mention that a contracting company was involved, and what prompted me to look up other links:
    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/03/03/gordon-duff-israel-intervenes-in-libya-for-gaddafi/

    I hope to find some more renowned news sites posting information on this to ensure this is completely accurate, I will post any that I find, if nothing else, my post contains some good information on other events in Libya if this isn't further substantiated.


    ------------------------------
    Other relevant, related, recent news for those that have been busy and haven't been able to keep up to date:
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/feb/28/many-libyans-oppose-us-invasion/

    The following Google Map is tracking significant events in Libya as they happen:
    http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?source=embed&hl=en&geocode=&aq=&ie=UTF8&msa=0&msid=215454646984933465708.00049c59184ae1136341a&t=h&ll=28.539164,17.464045&spn=8.711661,12.994689

    Who owns what territory in Libya (Revolutionaries vs. Govt.) MAP
    http://imgur.com/gallery/jAyWo

    "Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, one of the top advocates of the military occupation, insisted that Libya could “become a peaceful democracy, or it could face protracted civil war” depending on whether or not the US chose to intervene militarily."
    http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle09.asp?xfile=data/international/2011/March/international_March59.xml§ion=international

    Most discussion has been about enforcing a no-fly zone through NATO, and if there is an invasion in the future, that it will likely be spearheaded by the United States.

    The US has been bringing its warships ever closer to the Libyan coast while announcing a broad asset freeze against Gadhafi, including demands that he immediately resign. The reality of Gadhafi’s already tenuous position, however, makes the threats have very little impact.

    "Top Pentagon official Gen. James Mattis also told the Senate the military was preparing to bomb Libya’s air defense systems to set the stage for a “no-fly” zone. This would be particularly problematic as the indications are virtually all of the air defense systems, outside of the capital city of Tripoli, are under the control of the rebels, and have been used against Gadhafi’s warplanes."

    Today:
    Rebels successfully repel attack in eastern Libya
    http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/node/687456

    This post edited at poster's request
  16. Like
    Tanaka got a reaction from Dante in Massive 8.9 Earthquake Japan. Major Tsunami hitting multiple islands/c   
    Their choice should be looked at in the wider context of their prior commitments. They signed up to work these jobs long before the disaster. It's a career choice. If they chose their careers fully aware of both the benefits and the potential dangers, and it was a worthwhile trade for them, then it wasn't a sacrifice. Not running away now is of course also not a sacrifice. Giving up their values and integrity by breaking their commitment to do these jobs would be the sacrifice.

    But, of course, if the context changes and TEPCo. or the government asks the workers to do things they did not sign up for (like go on a suicide mission), then the above argument becomes irrelevant. Then the decision no longer has anything to do with what they signed up for, it should be made in the new context.
  17. Like
    Tanaka got a reaction from Dante in Massive 8.9 Earthquake Japan. Major Tsunami hitting multiple islands/c   
    Their choice should be looked at in the wider context of their prior commitments. They signed up to work these jobs long before the disaster. It's a career choice. If they chose their careers fully aware of both the benefits and the potential dangers, and it was a worthwhile trade for them, then it wasn't a sacrifice. Not running away now is of course also not a sacrifice. Giving up their values and integrity by breaking their commitment to do these jobs would be the sacrifice.

    But, of course, if the context changes and TEPCo. or the government asks the workers to do things they did not sign up for (like go on a suicide mission), then the above argument becomes irrelevant. Then the decision no longer has anything to do with what they signed up for, it should be made in the new context.
  18. Downvote
    Tanaka reacted to Mister A in Irreversible Psychological Damage   
    I know the hardline Objectivists would hate me for posting this but I highly recommend chakra meditation.

    http://www.wikihow.com/Open-Your-Spiritual-Chakras
  19. Downvote
    Tanaka reacted to agrippa1 in Iowa Caucus Focus Group Agrees: Obama is a Muslim   
    I've been to Australia, and I claim that it's full of intelligent people, but I have not brought back any samples, even though my equipment is intact. Therefore there are no intelligent people in Australia. Certainly no evidence here to dispute that conclusion!
  20. Downvote
    Tanaka got a reaction from SapereAude in Iowa Caucus Focus Group Agrees: Obama is a Muslim   
    I agree that it's false, but the person who said it first (at least on record) was cosmologist Martin Rees. Carl Sagan actually quoted Reese, in his book on the scientific method, as an example of a foolish thing to say. Ever since that book came out, the world has been inundated with maroons quoting Sagan, thinking he actually meant it.

    I guess Rummy's one of them.


    That's not a general truth either. If you were to go over to a distant planet, for instance, on a scientific fact finding mission, and came back, equipment intact, claiming it's full of docile bee-like insects, but you haven't brought back samples, it would be safe to say that the absence of proof is proof of the absence of the bees you mentioned.
  21. Downvote
    Tanaka got a reaction from SapereAude in Iowa Caucus Focus Group Agrees: Obama is a Muslim   
    Was I suggesting that? Or was that a joke?
  22. Like
    Tanaka got a reaction from SapereAude in In the arts conservative students marginalized   
    If someone presented a similar piece of art, directed at my beliefs, while at a school I ran, that would definitely make me angry. The notion that I would actually sponsor an exposition with a childish collage mocking Ayn Rand, or any other great thinker or any great idea, in the name of being tolerant towards diverse points of view, is unconscionable to me.

    If I blame the people at Pratt for anything, I blame them for being Liberals (to whatever extent they're Liberals, I haven't met any of them). But, since that's not at issue here, I definitely don't blame them for not wanting to help this guy insult them and their guests with an infantile stunt. If they did, I wouldn't stop pointing and laughing at how stupid that would be.
  23. Downvote
    Tanaka reacted to SapereAude in Wisconsin Union Protests   
    One of two things should happen:

    1) only one Dem is needed present to make the voting valid. A republican can switch parties.

    2) declare the Dems derelict of duty and hold new elections for their positions.

    I would also like to see him go all Reagan v Air Traffic controllers on the teachers.
  24. Like
    Tanaka got a reaction from CapitalistSwine in Iowa Caucus Focus Group Agrees: Obama is a Muslim   
    It was just a joke.
  25. Downvote
    Tanaka reacted to SapereAude in First Amendment "protects" rights of funeral protesters?   
    As depraved as these people are Zoid is correct, Icosahedron.

    What is the purpose of freedom of speech if it only protects speech that isn't objectionable?
    The purpose of the First Amendment is there to ensure that people can say things that the majority or the government, or the church or any other entity would rather not have voiced.

    The problematic aspect of freedom is that people are free to be as scummy as they choose to be.

    That said, if a grieving parent were to say..... bludgeon one of these tools into oblivion I'd be the first person on the jury to accept a "fighting words" defense.
×