Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Azrael Rand

The Case for Open Objectivism

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Obviously IQ is not biological and I havent said that. But it is a measurement, effective, or not, of a function of a biological entity, the brain - and that's different. 

2

Eiuol, I let you earlier bring in "causal factor", your words, without objection. That was my mistake. I never explicitly said causation, except this once, adopting your word.

Above again is my quote which properly describes my position on IQ - "...a measurement ... of a function of a biological entity, the brain". You make no response to that? If it was not defined directly by me, it was what I meant throughout and thought was self-evident. So I was imprecise. 

"Function" (- or "capacity" as I've repeatedly put it) of the performance of the (biological) brain.

If we can't get past semantic stumbling blocks - and - accept there is a ~correlation~ of IQ to race, we can't get to the critical moral-philosophical matters of how and why IQ/race is abused, suppressed, moralized and politicized, and by whom. This apparently doesn't interest you as it does me. IQ itself is such a minor matter.

Edited by whYNOT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, whYNOT said:

Eiuol, I let you earlier bring in "causal factor", your words, without objection. That was my mistake. I never explicitly said causation, except this once, adopting your word.

Still, everything you wrote was in support of the idea that race is a causal factor of IQ.

1 hour ago, whYNOT said:

If we can't get past semantic stumbling blocks

It's not a semantic stumbling block. I don't know how to put it, other than you don't really know what you're talking about. Inaccurate analogies, fast and loose use of the words causal and biological, confusing the discussion between correlation and causation. I don't expect you to be an expert, but I don't think you're even listening. You can't talk about why IQ is abused as a construct until you can get the science right.

1 hour ago, whYNOT said:

and - accept there is a ~correlation~ of IQ to race

I keep repeating this. No one in this thread disputed that a correlation exists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A bunch of White people debating (to be honest, it's not even a debate. Nobody has brought up the possibility that the Blacks are intellectually superior to Whites. It's still an epistemological possibility that Blacks are intellectually superior and Whites are trying to keep them down, both through actions and through propaganda about intelligence) among themselves whether they're smarter than people from third world countries isn't very interesting. "Oh, looks like we're smarter than everybody aren't we? What a coincidence? Clap Clap. Self-congratulations. Clearly, we aren't biased af". Let me add some spice to it (no, I'm not stereotyping myself).

 

On 1/5/2019 at 11:22 PM, Azrael Rand said:

why would the Dalai Lama of all people say "Europe belongs to Europeans?"

I don't know. He's a refugee in India. He can be as hypocritical as he wants to be.

If White people consider themselves superior to me (or my race) and they're exterminated, you have to agree that that's a good thing for me (at least as far as my self-defense is concerned). If White people want to be collectivist as a race, go ahead, be collectivist. At least, I can sleep peacefully knowing that White people are dying (and that's selfish and morally right for me to do so). That's not racist, it's just self-defense (if you're intellectually honest, you would agree that White people would try to destroy me and that it's morally right for me to be happy if they ever die out).

Besides, I bet that Dravidians are smarter than Europeans. If a bunch of third world Dravidian illiterates with bows and arrows could come up with calculus and infinite series centuries before rich Europeans, who is smarter? Clearly, Dravidians. Dravidians discovered many other mathematical theorems centuries before the Europeans crawled on their hands and feet pretended to discover the same results (for the first time!) with their inferior brains. It must be the manifest destiny of Dravidians to take over India and eventually Europe.

If Mysore (inhabited by Dravidians) had a higher per capita income than London and the entirety of Europe before the British arrived (even the guns produced in Mysore were superior to low IQ European guns), what does that imply? If Dravidians had the highest living standards in the world, what does that mean? Europeans must be lower IQ compared to Dravidians. Capitalism wasn't meant for low IQ Europeans anyway: Europe and America are heading towards becoming unlivable third world countries, as they were always meant to be. Only Dravidians are meant to possess Capitalism. Europeans and Americans have always kept Capitalism for themselves and try to spread western philosophies like Socialism and Communism to the rest of the world. Not anymore.

North Indians are genetically closer to Europeans than South Indians are, which makes them have a lower IQ. Their connection to Europeans (and the resultant low IQ) is responsible for their high fertility rates (several times higher than Dravidians), honor killings, low hygiene, cow vigilantism, low per capita income and sucking up taxation from Dravidians. If North Indians, with a bit of PIE blood is like this, what would actual Europeans be like? Probably mentally retarded (you would agree with me if you were intellectual honest ☺️). However, North Indians are inflicted with the curse of being more closely related to Europeans, which causes all their failures (they're born with a disability: their PIE genes).

 

@whYNOT

(In the spirit of pretending to be civil while claiming that some races are mentally challenged or born with a disability):
Heritability figures are obtained under the assumption that the covariance between the environmental and genetic variables is zero. This assumption is false.

Edited by human_murda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Eiuol said:

 Inaccurate analogies, 

 

Do you know what an analogy is? An analogy is a device and does not need to be equivalent in every respect to the subject analogized and it won't be. By definition, it will not be 'accurate' or "inaccurate".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, human_murda said:

 

 

@whYNOT

(In the spirit of pretending to be civil while claiming that some races are mentally challenged or born with a disability):
Heritability figures are obtained under the assumption that the covariance between the environmental and genetic variables is zero. This assumption is false.

 

Thank you for your response. You of course have set up a straw man. I have seen only of the authors who take well into account covariance, never making such a false assumption it is "zero". Not to burst your bubble, and I have alluded to those variables here. (For the rest of your comment about me, that is presumptuous and I take it to be cheap psychologizing).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

Do you know what an analogy is?

It was inaccurate because it failed to convey what you wanted apparently, and you tried to say two things were related in a way that they aren't actually related. We already talked about this.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Eiuol said:

 

 

I keep repeating this. No one in this thread disputed that a correlation exists.

 

Circumspectly said. Indeed, no one has said much to dispute - or agree - outside of quibbling over inessentials. So what was the fuss about?

There is more to discuss about the increasing assault on, and the self-abnegating guilt by, one specific race and specific gender - i.e. white men - wherever they live - racialistically motivated, also. Perhaps this isn't the place for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

There is more to discuss about the increasing assault on, and the self-abnegating guilt by, one specific race and specific gender - i.e. white men - wherever they live - racialistically motivated, also.

Aww. So sad 🤧.

White men are surely the victims in a discussion about the mental disabilities of non-White people. Please cry more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

So what was the fuss about?

I have no words. It just sounds like your posts are stream of consciousness at this point. If you still don't know what the fuss was about, and how you were part of that fuss, even after I and other people explained it, then there's nothing more to say.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

I have no words. It just sounds like your posts are stream of consciousness at this point. If you still don't know what the fuss was about, and how you were part of that fuss, even after I and other people explained it, then there's nothing more to say.

 

To try another way. Surely clear by now, this basic topic does not interest me that much. Where it leads does. You and others want to keep this to the empirical level. While important, that doesn't come even close to the extent of the objectivist method. (To mention what you know, one does not need to be and cannot be, empirically "expert" in each and every sphere - for that you have conceptualism).

It may be far easier to stick closely and concretely to the loads of data and narrowing complexities from science (and to make moralizing/emotional pronouncements) than to consider all the ramifications of IQ that rationality, volition and logic will answer, which -- I have maintained, repeatedly -

- are the ONLY way to defuse all racism, whether in societies, or within oneself.. 

"Moral sentimentalism" [DH] merely defers or skates round the problem.

There is sense in my posts and you know it. These irritated responses are by those who well understand what I mean.. Logically, take apart my "stream of consciousness" (huh!) if you want.

But you can see now what I meant by "upsetting" to some, which you couldn't accept earlier? Why is it that facts disturb? Also important and to be thought over/introspected by Objectivists I'd believe.

Edited by whYNOT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, human_murda said:

Aww. So sad 🤧.

White men are surely the victims in a discussion about the mental disabilities of non-White people. Please cry more.

Fascinating. Do continue. It all provides fresh insight into racism, in all its manifestations.

(And what made you think I am a white man?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, whYNOT said:

But you can see now what I meant by "upsetting" to some, which you couldn't accept earlier?

So, if somebody says that Africans are mentally challenged, they're enlightened robots with no emotion (and are "intellectually honest"). But if somebody says Europeans are mentally challenged, they're emotionally compromised (because that couldn't possibly be true). Good to know.

Looks like everyone has preset psychological evaluations for people based on what fact they're claiming:

(1) Claiming that Blacks are mentally challenged: The person claiming it must have mastery over his/her emotions, is intellectually honest, is unbiased, has no ulterior motive, etc.

(2) Claiming that Whites are mentally challenged: it can only be an emotional response and a form of racism against White people.

(3) Claiming that there's no significant or important distinction between races (other than insignificant things such as skin color): The claimant must be saying that because that's what he/she wants to believe. They're trying to fit facts to their idealistic egalitarian fantasies.

 

What's the point in giving out all these psychiatric evaluations with no interest in the actual science or mathematics? (If anyone's still interested, I'll still argue the position that White people are mentally challenged on average with a few exceptions).

 

1 hour ago, whYNOT said:

And what made you think I am a white man?

If you aren't, live long and prosper.

Edited by human_murda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

You and others want to keep this to the empirical level.

Not really, but when you say things that are wrong, and fill your posts with that, you can't expect people to ignore it. For the purpose of discussion, you can't just throw up your hands and say "well I never was very interested in that anyway!" To do that is to attempt to say the facts don't really matter, all that really matters is that how you feel (or think) about the words in front of you is more important. Kind of like saying "since I feel that IQ is closely tied to genetics, just the way height is, then since height doesn't absolutely determine where I end up in life, then neither does IQ!" But then when people talk in depth about the genetics, they are trying to show you how "genes cause IQ" was actually based on faulty reasoning, and the very jumping off point that people like Azrael use as a basis for racist political philosophy (e.g., government policies based on race). 

This isn't the empiricist error; you've been fooled to think that understanding these facts doesn't explain why Western society today tries to instill identity politics and think so much about the "guilt" that various races have. Some might say that by understanding IQ, we can come to see that SES or racism explains the true reason for IQ differences. Others might say that by properly understanding IQ, we can come to see that there are inherent inferiority is among races. I would say that by understanding IQ, we can come to see that the differences are really pointless because the construct is not built well at all. 

No, it's not that facts disturb. It's that people fail to understand facts, interpret it according to their narrative, and then act like the people who don't fail to understand the facts are the ones who don't understand the facts. People might do this because it's difficult to truly understand something complicated. Or they only take pieces of it, attempt to integrate it. In a sense, it's mis-integration. Parts are forced together into a deformed jigsaw puzzle. So that's why I said stream of consciousness. There are disparate thoughts. They are superficially related.

I don't mind if you say the understanding in depth isn't worth your time entirely, or beyond your study. You don't need faulty facts or imprecise understanding of scientific literature to participate. You can let it be. Offer what you can, and update your understanding as others respond to you. Change your mind and all that, not a big deal. But rational discussion starts to break down when you introduce incorrect ideas and act like they are minor and not what you really wanted to talk about.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, human_murda said:

Looks like everyone has preset psychological evaluations for people based on what fact they're claiming:

(1) Claiming that Blacks are mentally challenged: The person claiming it must have mastery over his/her emotions, is intellectually honest, is unbiased, has no ulterior motive, etc.

(2) Claiming that Whites are mentally challenged: it can only be an emotional response and a form of racism against White people.

(3) Claiming that there's no significant or important distinction between races (other than insignificant things such as skin color): The claimant must be saying that because that's what he/she wants to believe. They're trying to fit facts to their idealistic egalitarian fantasies.

 

15 hours ago, whYNOT said:

For the rest of your comment about me, that is presumptuous and I take it to be cheap psychologizing

 

Anyway, I don't want to insult anybody. Let's talk about the race of mentally challenged people (with a few exceptions) known as White people; Let's discuss this like normal, rational people equipped with emotional mastery and intellectual honesty. If you assume that Blacks have mental retardation, I bet it's a form of attack and you're just emotionally upset. If you assume that any races have significant differences, I bet you're just saying that because that's the belief that fits your narrative. It's the way non-Dravidian brains are wired, you can't help it. I must not assume that non-Dravidians can think. Thinking is a curse that Dravidians must bear. I can't assume that White people can think, because they don't have Dravidian genes. Thus, only Dravidians must be able to think. I must not assume that other people are like me. Hence, it is proved that White people are mentally challenged (if you can't handle that fact, you're just emotionally upset).

It's not my problem that White people are mentally challenged. I will not assume Dravidian-guilt by pretending that White people are not mentally challenged, anymore. Overwhelming scientific evidence has proven that White people are not like me. I must strengthen my psychology and steel my emotions and like the Ubermensch that I am (different and wired differently from everyone else), I must just accept the fact that White people can't think like me. I've never been to Europe, but I can smell the mental retardation from here (in a scientific and intellectually honest way, of course).

Edited by human_murda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Fascinating. Do continue. It all provides fresh insight into racism, in all its manifestations.

I can tell you're so upset. Don't be mad, it's just the way your brain is wired. You can't help it. I see that non-Dravidians can't control their emotions like I can. These are the mental disabilities non-Dravidians must face. They're simply wired differently (if you don't agree, you're intellectually dishonest). I see it now: we're all so different and must simply accept our differences.

I don't want to insult anybody. I'm being kind to you. Besides, I'm probably being too charitable by assuming that White people have anything close to my brain. I'm sorry, I was being too altruistic in my intentions by initially assuming that White people don't have mental disabilities. I have since updated my thinking, attained enlightenment and realized that White people are just mentally challenged (if any Dravidian person doesn't agree with me: it's just because you're intellectually dishonest and you're being charitable about the intelligence of White people. If any White doesn't agree with me, it's because you're emotionally upset. These are the totally scientifically accurate psychiatric evaluations for you, depending on which fact you want to believe).

There needs to be no more further proof for my lack of emotion (and my intellectual integrity) than my claim that Whites are retarded. I acknowledge that. My claim that Whites are retarded proves that I'm not emotional. Only emotional and irrational Dravidians believe that Whites are intelligent.

I'm not trying to insult anybody. I'm not racist. I'm simply intellectually honest, unlike other charitable Dravidians who have been brainwashed to think that White people are like them. I discard all my failures (believing that White people were like me and could think). However, I'm not brainwashed. I'm not like those irrational Dravidians who believe in a mythical White race that can actually think. I'm not emotional. I've been red-pilled. To demonstrate my honesty, intelligence, rationality, sincerity, lack of emotion (and other Dravidian virtues), I acknowledge that White people are retarded.

Edited by human_murda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(Forgot to mention: I will not accept that White people are my equals. That would imply that any failures of White people are the fault of Dravidian people. I do not accept Dravidian guilt and hence [in my infinite rationality] acknowledge that White people are retarded. If White people are mentally retarded, their failures are not my fault. If White people are not mentally retarded, their failures are my fault. Conveniently enough, it just so happens that they're actually mentally retarded. It's not my fault that they're retarded. I'm the only one rational enough to acknowledge their retardation while everyone else wallows in guilt. It's not my fault 😭).

 

 

Anyway, for a serious discussion regarding slavery in America: the White slave owners who lived in the past are partially responsible for the disparities between Blacks and Whites in America today (Blacks and Whites also have different subcultures which also contributes. However, ultimately, the divergence occurred during slavery). This doesn't mean that Whites who exist in the present are responsible or need to be held accountable (the Whites in the past and the Whites in the present are two different groups only connected by ancestry and inheritance). The actions of Whites who existed in the past have ramifications today. The differences between slaves and masters are not going to disappear in a couple of generations. The success of some immigrants in America (including Nigerians) doesn't disprove the notion that Whites in the past are partially responsible for what's happening today (immigrants have a different culture and different mindset than people in America). Arguments such as "some races are mentally disabled on average and that's why they fail" are incorrect no matter how convenient these arguments may be in absolving some idiot's guilt complexes (get rid of the "either they're mentally retarded or I'm guilty" mindset).

Edited by human_murda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/11/2019 at 2:58 PM, human_murda said:

I can tell you're so upset. Don't be mad, it's just the way your brain is wired. You can't help it. I see that non-Dravidians can't control their emotions like I can. These are the mental disabilities non-Dravidians must face. They're simply wired differently (if you don't agree, you're intellectually dishonest). I see it now: we're all so different and must simply accept our differences.

I don't want to insult anybody. I'm being kind to you. Besides, I'm probably being too charitable by assuming that White people have anything close to my brain. I'm sorry, I was being too altruistic in my intentions by initially assuming that White people don't have mental disabilities. I have since updated my thinking, attained enlightenment and realized that White people are just mentally challenged (if any Dravidian person doesn't agree with me: it's just because you're intellectually dishonest and you're being charitable about the intelligence of White people. If any White doesn't agree with me, it's because you're emotionally upset. These are the totally scientifically accurate psychiatric evaluations for you, depending on which fact you want to believe).

There needs to be no more further proof for my lack of emotion (and my intellectual integrity) than my claim that Whites are retarded. I acknowledge that. My claim that Whites are retarded proves that I'm not emotional. Only emotional and irrational Dravidians believe that Whites are intelligent.

I'm not trying to insult anybody. I'm not racist. I'm simply intellectually honest, unlike other charitable Dravidians who have been brainwashed to think that White people are like them. I discard all my failures (believing that White people were like me and could think). However, I'm not brainwashed. I'm not like those irrational Dravidians who believe in a mythical White race that can actually think. I'm not emotional. I've been red-pilled. To demonstrate my honesty, intelligence, rationality, sincerity, lack of emotion (and other Dravidian virtues), I acknowledge that White people are retarded.

 

Some spectacular racial stereotyping going on. Or else satire. I do not consider IQ an emotional issue.There are facts, one of which is that for every given individual, there are many others who have lesser intelligence and many others who have much higher. I advised getting over this fact and moving on. I'll repeat that one's (and others') IQ is way down on any list of objective priorities. Also there's the fact that, logically, there is at least some inheritable factor of native intelligence due to one's ethnicity. Again, nothing to get upset about or take undue esteem from. However, a lot of people will use these facts for their own agendas, for mass power in particular. They will not admit to it but evidently on the Left today, is the intention to "equalize" what and whom cannot be equalized. I.e. to 'redistribute human resources', one of which they stupidly and superficially assume to be intelligence, tacitly presuming upon a mystical phenomenon as the major cause, along with "privilege", of the gaining of wealth etc. by others. (It figures - most are skeptics and determinists). Therefore, a drive to egalitarianism. Which is ironically just another form of racist/groupist supremacism. Some group/race/collective must be brought down and others elevated. And here's both their sacrificial altruism and collectivism, both more toxic from the Left nowadays than I ever heard from the religious/conservative Right, in modern times.

Edited by whYNOT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/21/2019 at 1:06 PM, whYNOT said:

Also there's the fact that, logically, there is at least some inheritable factor of native intelligence due to one's ethnicity.

You talk about how it's correlational, not causal, but now you're talking about race and ethnicity (as opposed to gene) as being causal ("due to") again. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/21/2019 at 1:06 PM, whYNOT said:

There are facts, one of which is that for every given individual, there are many others who have lesser intelligence and many others who have much higher. I advised getting over this fact and moving on.

Of course, but no one knows whether these differences are fundamental. Stupid people can give birth to smart people and vice versa. I don't think the differences in intelligence is that fundamental.

On 2/21/2019 at 1:06 PM, whYNOT said:

Also there's the fact that, logically, there is at least some inheritable factor of native intelligence due to one's ethnicity.

"Logic" doesn't imply that the Earth is round or that IQ differences aren't caused by genetics. These are empirical claims (and there's no reason to believe that there are different variants of human intelligence. Humans haven't even existed for that long [yes, dogs evolved pretty fast, but they were artificially bred]. There's no evolutionary pressure to develop lower intelligence). Human intelligence is genetic (humans have the capacity for a conceptual intelligence, dogs don't). That doesn't imply that there are different variants of the "human intelligence gene". The fact that human intelligence is genetic doesn't imply that the differences are genetic (except for large differences like mental retardation).

Also, all the "science" is just data fitting. It's not predictive. Heritability is a poorly defined quantity that has failed in practically every avenue, including the supposed genetic nature of IQs and human sexuality. Besides, it's a sham. Iranians and Indians have roughly the same IQ scores by these tests, but don't have the same genetics. Iranians are not Arab and have practically the same genetics as Europeans. It seems like India and Iran are simply lumped together by region, not by genetics. Also, the way they measured Indian IQ is terrible: they gave IQ tests to around 50 people in one corner of India and extrapolated it to 1.3 billion people (not to mention the fact that Indians living in other countries apparently have a different IQ). Besides, the Persian civilization and Indus valley civilization were not made by people with "low" intelligence (although they probably would have scored low on IQ tests). That's just non-sense. Europe had no complex civilization at that point. The differences between different civilizations happened during the industrial revolution (no, the industrial revolution was not genetic).

The "science" is not even close to actual sciences like Quantum Mechanics or relativity (or anything from the Physical Sciences). They're not predictive, the gene-IQ correlations cannot be replicated. Don't usurp the prestige of successful sciences to support junk science.

Also, finally, the future is not going to be an egalitarian society where all races have the same birth rates.  It's not the fault of other races that European birth rate is very low (and low birth rates does not equal White genocide). The birth rates of different races are never going to be equalized, even if there was no immigration. The only egalitarianism is expecting the birth rates of all races to be equal. You can try importing high IQ capitalists from North Korea and China, but I can guarantee you that that's not going to work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/21/2019 at 1:06 PM, whYNOT said:

Again, nothing to get upset about or take undue esteem from.

No, you should take pride in your intelligence, genetic or not.

On 2/21/2019 at 1:06 PM, whYNOT said:

one of which they stupidly and superficially assume to be intelligence, tacitly presuming upon a mystical phenomenon as the major cause, along with "privilege", of the gaining of wealth etc. by others.

Free will, environment, quality education and nutrition are not mystical phenomenon.

On 2/21/2019 at 1:06 PM, whYNOT said:

(It figures - most are skeptics and determinists)

Says the genetic determinist (which is the most common form of modern determinism; there's almost no other form of psychological determinism that exists today).

On 2/21/2019 at 1:06 PM, whYNOT said:

Therefore, a drive to egalitarianism. Which is ironically just another form of racist/groupist supremacism. Some group/race/collective must be brought down and others elevated.

Oh, yes. Saying that some races don't inherently have lower intelligence is surely racial supremacy. Immigration = White genocide; White people have less power = racial supremacy of non-White people; Black people are not retarded = White guilt. Tell me more about how I incorrectly assumed you were White.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/6/2019 at 10:00 PM, Eiuol said:

But the only way we can actually talk about the implications I suppose that there are, we need to engage those more extreme positions in order to find if your position actually has some line that doesn't lead to an implication of using the government to segregate people. After all, you've been saying that things like lowering the average IQ is threatening; that social harmony underlies rights; that some form of utilitarianism is correct. 

If by exploring the extremes and the logical end state implication of certain ideas we could determine the validity of said beliefs in their non extreme state then you would be correct.  But what I've advocated for is a balance between freedom and security.  Instead of using a seemingly ideologically perfect intellectual construct, such as traditional Objectivism (which is actually just a product of selective truths mixed with rationalizations), this objective balance informed by human nature and an orientation towards positive outcomes ought to be used to organize society.

People are tribal but this doesn't mean we ought to strive for communism. People are also selfish but this doesn't mean we ought to strive for 100% rugged individualism either.  We need to look at the complete picture that comprises human nature, not just the selective few things we prefer based on our ideological convictions and/or our epigenetic preset. Progressives have a natural diversity fetish that is strengthened by today's cultural incentive structure, but that doesn't mean we should cave into their demands for a borderless society, and neither should be turn ourselves into North Korea because conservatives have a natural security fetish. It's about balance as opposed to embracing the extreme epigenetic proclivities and their ideological derivatives (Marxism, Conservatism, Objectivism, Racial Supremacy, etc).

 

On 2/6/2019 at 10:00 PM, Eiuol said:

So let's go back to that real-life example. Let's talk about Japanese internment. You haven't directly said that this was wrong. But by your beliefs, is it wrong? 

A state of war is an abnegation of individual rights. Innocent people die in war, there is no accounting of individual actions among the casualties of war. You can try to rationalize this as other Objectivists have done but at the end of the day war is living hell in which individual liberties and human rights are no longer a valid construct even if we try to delude ourselves with the notion of war crimes, rules of engagement, human rights, etc. The only thing that truly matters in war is winning.

My point being that the morality of war is decided by the winner and the punishment for breaches of said morality are also determined and enforced by the winner. These are natural laws. There is no moral appeals court to this process (unless established by the winner). War is a collectivist activity by its very nature: Us vs them.

Trying to use individualist metrics to judge what actions in war were moral or immoral is a right reserved for the winner. As I said before, social harmony is a prerequisite to individual rights.

Do I feel bad for the people who were innocently imprisoned as part of the war, absolutely. Would I feel better if they had only imprisoned people that were actually Japanese spies? Of course. But the action that established the immorality of Japanese internment during WW2 was America's winning of the war and it's desire for self-reflection after the fact. Not some cosmic and infallible truth about the supremacy of individual liberties.

 

On 2/7/2019 at 12:02 PM, Doug Morris said:

The greatest amount of evil exists in places like North Korea.  How can I have a significant effect there?

Are you a Trump supporter? If not, maybe you can start there. ;)

On 2/7/2019 at 12:02 PM, Doug Morris said:

I understand and acknowledge that some people perceive race a a very real concept.  They are deluded.

Some people value security over freedom and vice versa. Others value ethnic diversity over racial in-group preference and vice versa. In either scenario, both adversarial parties are likely to agree with each other on at least one issue, that being that the other group is deluded and doesn't understand the first thing about how reality really works.

You know in your heart that racism is immoral and evil, correct? Did you always believe this to be true? How would you demonstrate this to be objectively true? What beliefs about reality do you hold that make this belief an objective truth?

 

@ human murda: Loving your use of ridicule here ;)

I'm glad that at least someone has come to terms with the functional implications for persuasion/communication based on the objective facts that humans are emotional creatures by nature.

Yes facts matter, but the fact that we are emotionally motivated is also a fact, therefore communication that consists solely of a factual exchange cannot be considered to be an objective means of communication.

Among all the people on the board you're the only one that not only appears to grasp this truth but is intelligent and daring enough to put this truth into practice. You have my respect and appreciation :D

Maybe this is proof that your people are superior to us white folk. Or maybe the whiteys on this board were just to busy trying to white knight for you and other minorities to read between the lines, but the fact of the matter is that you get it and they don't.

Again I'm not saying that facts don't matter, because they do, but in a social context you'd be a fool not to use the most effective means to get the job done. Especially when defending against ideas that you know are poisonous to your interests and those of the people you care about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Azrael Rand said:

But what I've advocated for is a balance between freedom and security. 

Yeah, basically utilitarianism.

1 hour ago, Azrael Rand said:

@ human murda: Loving your use of ridicule here

You know he's making fun of you, right? If you simply mean the use of rhetoric in terms of emotional effect, you're just cherry picking. I guess you missed your reaction to me describing your beliefs as racist. It was a fact, but also the way to add some emotional engagement (you were stoic about it, but that doesn't mean you didn't have an emotion).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Azrael Rand said:

traditional Objectivism (which is actually just a product of selective truths mixed with rationalizations)

Do you have anything to back this up with?

15 hours ago, Azrael Rand said:

But the action that established the immorality of Japanese internment during WW2 was America's winning of the war and it's desire for self-reflection after the fact. Not some cosmic and infallible truth about the supremacy of individual liberties.

Does this mean that if the Axis had won the war, what they did would have been moral?

15 hours ago, Azrael Rand said:

Are you a Trump supporter? If not, maybe you can start there. ;)

I'm not sure what you're saying about Trump.  His presidency was made in America.  Acting one way or the other about Trump constitutes doing something about what is going on in America, although it has effects elsewhere as well.

Trump's emotion-guidedness, erraticness, and being out of his depth are very dangerous.  He has acted against individual rights by attacking freedom of movement across borders and by interfering with women's abortion decisions.  He has cozied up to authoritarian governments in a way that is probably more harmful than helpful.  On the other side of the ledger is his rolling back some regulations, although Gus van Horn had a column arguing that this is a tiny drop in the bucket.

15 hours ago, Azrael Rand said:

You know in your heart that racism is immoral and evil, correct? Did you always believe this to be true? How would you demonstrate this to be objectively true?

Racism consists of thinking of other people or treating them as members of racially defined collectives rather than as individuals.  Thinking of other people or treating them as members of collectives of any kind rather than as individuals is evil.  It is evil because it distributes judgments, rewards, and, where necessary, punishments according to what other members of a collective are and have done and earned, not according to what each individual is and has done and earned.  It is evil because it evades the differences among individuals.  As far as racism in particular goes, there is much more individual variation within races then there is statistical difference between races.

15 hours ago, Azrael Rand said:

Yes facts matter, but the fact that we are emotionally motivated is also a fact, therefore communication that consists solely of a factual exchange cannot be considered to be an objective means of communication.

In trying to communicate with someone, it may be necessary to deal with their emotions.  But it is essential to base one's own position on facts and reasoning, and to try to get them to do the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/5/2019 at 8:48 PM, Azrael Rand said:

Or maybe the whiteys on this board were just to busy trying to white knight for you and other minorities to read between the lines

In what Universe am I a minority? As far as I'm aware, "whiteys" are a minority in India. If anything, they were brown knighting for the whiteys.

Edited by human_murda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...