Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

All Activity

Showing all content posted in for the last 365 days.

This stream auto-updates

  1. Past hour
  2. He's talking about Jon Letendre. I wonder if he ever met this Q?
  3. Today
  4. Or: When a Call to Arms Amounts to an Early Post-Mortem Governor Brian Kemp was primaried by a Trump-backed candidate, but won reelection in Georgia by over seven percent. Herschel Walker lost a runoff. (Image by the Office of U.S. Senator David Perdue, via Wikimedia Commons, public domain.)Even if I were the type to stay up for election results -- I am not -- I am pretty sure I could have slept through reporting on the Georgia runoff, which pitted a leftist clergyman against an empty suit. Candidate quality matters, Republicans who say But, but, ... Fetterman won! to the contrary. I will not stoop to trying to argue about which of a snake-oil salesman (Oz) or a loony-lefty stroke victim (Fetterman) is "preferable." Ditto for whether a leftist pastor (Warnock), or a multiply-concussed, anti-abortion philanderer (Walker) is a "better" or even "less bad" candidate. They were all atrocious, and were all easily beatable -- unless running against other low-quality candidates. Instead, I'll let a conservative columnist do the talking for me. The very fact that Deroy Murdock felt the need to write a column titled "Republicans Should Walk Hard for Herschel and a 50/50 Senate," just about says it all. The piece goes into detail about why a 50-50 Senate with the Vice President's tiebreaking vote giving the Democrats a majority is preferable to a 51-49 Senate. He's right about that, but he should think deeply about why he's having to talk about it in the first place. First of all, that's thin gruel to even just to motivate casting a ballot. Second, Walker is the last of the handful of awful Senate candidates Donald Trump backed in a midterm election the Republicans should have won handily. Set aside the fact that Trump effectively turned the election from Biden's midterm into a second one for himself by making the election about himself: Trump had already cost his party several chances to achieve 50-50, such as by backing the snake oil salesman. Murdock's column should be reframed in hindsight: The increased power of an outright majority over 50-50 is what Trump has already cost the GOP: Republicans should be angry at Trump. If you're basically saying Hey! He may be a brain-damaged kook, but he'll get us to 50-50, you're already playing damage control. Rather than carrying water for Trump, Murdock and lots of other conservatives should realize that Trump is causing their party to lose, and make that abundantly clear to their readers. Then they should and could very soon start talking about a better alternative that voters could get excited about, instead. -- CAVLink to Original
  5. You were quite clear that the West has done a lot worse with nefarious intentions and these intentions were not from rational errors (irrational errors are immoral), while Russia/Putin made a rational error (which, hopefully you are aware, is not immoral by Oist standards). So, assuming that your pages upon pages of analysis are correct, and we consider all the issues that are relevant, Russia comes out as the moral superior with regard to this conflict. Of course it's complex, but you've been posting your opinions for many months now on this topic, with a lot of (supposed) analysis. More than enough time for you to reach a conclusion. I mean, you should read the essay by Rand called "The Cult of Moral Grayness".
  6. I am stating that Russia has the right to self-defense like any nation. A principled thinker and/or nation, will not assert "for me but not for thee". I surely do not have to repeat and produce many others' words endlessly, that NATO encroachment, the outside militarizing of Ukraine, the outside meddling in its politics, an illegal and continuing Ukraine war against a portion of citizens based upon their ethnicity - a CIVIL war turned a blind eye to by the West - can NEVER have been committed innocently, arbitrarily, nor purposelessly. A child could see that Russia was the target all along. Perhaps Putin couldn't see this ... Like this other dude you want an easy answer, categorically condemning Russia: Objectivists, in line with the self-righteous and warmongering neocons and most (woke) Leftists. But. This moral judgment is not open and shut, 'revealed knowledge', that intrinsicists yearn for, it's complex. The collective West has acted immorally; and Putin has been immoral but not "unprovoked", as proven. Such clearly deliberate ¬provocation¬ by the self-same West, is only one reason why its acts were immoral. In short, they wanted confrontation with Russia. With sanctions and all, this war was to be the final weakening and dismantling of Russia. More - "a proxy war". To exploit Ukraine's location and Ukrainian Russophobia to the West's ends - using and encouraging Ukrainians to fight on their behalf (and to hell with peace treaties) while their country gets "wrecked", which the West could not legally do themselves or (rightly) have not wished to lose their own soldiers in - is unbelievably callous and cynical and sacrificially immoral. You fight your own battles, take your own licks - or else don't take on any non-self-defensive war.
  7. I was referring to JL, who you quoted. But really, the site is mostly dead. You have the stupidity of a Q believer, the drunken ramblings of what resembles an old man who watches too much Newsmax, and the Socratic trolling of a guy who always hits space bar before a question mark. This is probably more than half the posts in the past few months. I just pop in once in a while hoping to see a decent threat on philosophy, but I can't resist sometimes to see how the psych ward is doing. Get out while you still can!
  8. Well, this returns to Mearsheimer and others. At that top level of international relations: "Who you gonna call"? 9-1-1 isn't picking up. "I had this signed or verbally agreed upon peace treaty - or trade contract, etc. - and xyz has broken their side of the deal". What then? As exists I suggest ¬a subjective¬ "rules-based order" (as it is called) laid down and enforced by the greatest power/s, you as another and lesser nation and leader may often receive a moral and just dispensation for your problems. But not always, when there is a conflict of interests, where your beef lies specifically WITH one or more of those great powers themselves, is it not possible they will rule against you to serve their interests? The previous/present "rules-based order" I suggest was premised on "might is right": the strong are the good, by definition and necessity - our rules and our judgment are final and will be backed by all necessary force. That leaves open the door to the (supposedly) unjustly-treated nation rebelling, to take the 'law into their own hands', to apply and equally enforce their own "might is right". The replacement being put about is an international "law-based order", as I read it, a positive move to an objective/impartial "order". How, and what form it takes, is beyond me.
  9. Yesterday
  10. Obviously I need to work in my delivery, if what I said is to be taken as approving. No, you don't : Seshadri Kumar was approvingly quoted by whYNOT.
  11. I do bother. I have a dream😁: whYNOT is ejected from this Objectivism site (for not abiding by the rules of a rational discussion) or at least is banned from posting to the threads about the Russian aggression against Ukraine, where he broadcasts war propaganda.
  12. Wait, and you can't just say that you prefer Russia here? There is no leading question here, or if there were, you would be criticizing me for leading you into saying that you prefer Russia here? Since you're trying to say that they aren't bad, why wouldn't you just say that Russia is overall in the moral right? You said that "no one is innocent" but at the same time you are saying that "the only error Russia made is expecting a short campaign", aren't you saying that Russia is more innocent than everyone else? I'm criticizing you for the apparent moral relativism. I'm not trying to prove you wrong, I'm trying to figure out what your moral position is. It's more of a psychological curiosity why Nick Fuentes makes his moral position abundantly clear, but your moral position is pretty vague. The guy literally believes in Q. Look at his post history. I'm telling you, don't bother.
  13. Obviously I need to work in my delivery, if what I said is to be taken as approving. Is the USA striving to be the role of the promoter of individual rights if their goal is to bring about an unstated subversive ulterior agenda?
  14. I also suspect that this Seshadri Kumar never dreamed to be approvingly quoted on a Objectivism site...
  15. The no right or wrong reveals the author's acceptance of moral relativism. As to a central law enforcer, the laws have to be discovered /or created before the discussion of their enforcement comes to play. If the role of legitimate government is to identify, secure, and protect individual rights, then using this standard for evaluating right or wrong casts much of what was written by. Seshadri Kumar under a different light.
  16. Part of the star map of Hipparchus(+) has been found.
  17. Nothing but dissembling sophistry--for effect. You are quite the authoritarian, no? There is no trace of sophistry in my comment [but you are free to reveal it], neither dissembling, nor otherwise, but it is obvious that my tactics with you is getting you looney. It wouldn't if you would make sure you are capable to support with evidence every fact you put here. For me, "out there" are only facts I can perceive. For what others believe - and what you push here indiscriminately - I need evidence. It is not my choice with you, only with whoever is, in my judgment, sincerely interested in forming an opinion. I will read all you say, so that you should better make sure you are capable to support with evidence every fact you put here.
  18. "Possible" has many meanings. As you connect it with identity and causality, it follows that you use it in the metaphysical sense. Now : in connection to what metaphysical claim are you making the above observation ?
  19. Aligning one's thinking and actions with that which is possible and away from that which is not possible are the epitome of respect for identity and causality. Anything else is what constitutes a futile attempt to brush them aside.
  20. If it had said 'not always' instead of 'never' it would be more 'right'. No ? The implication that a central enforcer is needed would not stand, yes ?
  21. Yes, it works ! Thanks vey much to David and to you!
  22. From the article: International relations are never about right and wrong. They are about what is possible and what is not, because we live in an anarchic world with no central law enforcer. This is the key error. This is where the laws of identity and causality are brushed aside to make acceptable to the reader that we live in an anarchic world, and suggests that a central law enforcer might be needed, or possible.
  23. "Government funding means government control." -- Me to a lefty friend years ago, on why I would not sign her petition for more government "support" of the arts. *** Two professors writing for the James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal argue that "Administrators Have Seized the Ivory Tower." I think the below nicely summarizes what they lay out, as far as the symptoms go:Image by Vadim Sherbakov, via Unsplash, license.The university community faces an expanding bureaucratic framework that values visibility more than substance. The faculty faces an administration that is increasingly indifferent to the variety and nuance of their research and the substance of their teaching. There is more and more empty praise for faculty members in the form of prosaic honors and unimaginative "certificates of appreciation," but less and less understanding of what faculty do and why. Even the focus on the intellectual development of students is being sacrificed to the vacuous goal of "student satisfaction." In many respects, university administrators are academia's answer to what has become known as the "professional managerial class," or PMC. As Catherine Liu argues in a recent book, the PMC is comprised of educated professionals who embrace a moralizing progressive ideology while believing that it can be realized only in a top-down, hierarchical manner... [bold added]They make a few stabs at causes, but I found their analysis unsatisfying. Yes, there is corruption. Yes, recent economy-wide (and state-caused!) financial pressures have made administrators keenly aware of budgetary perils. And, yes, politicians of all stripes are pressuring colleges to "provide students with 'job-ready' skills." I would respectfully submit that they more deeply consider how much the government has academia's neck in the grasp of its grubby little fingers. Per my title, Ludwig von Mises's Bureaucracy will help show, in a mechanistic way, why the college administration bureaucracy keeps growing. That covers "expanding." As for "progressive [sic] ideology" (which arguably includes some entire faddish areas of study), that is very well laid out by a relatively obscure work that deserves much greater attention: Ayn Rand's 1972 essay, "The Establishing of an Establishment," which is most easily found as a chapter in Philosophy: Who Needs It. While Mises lays out the general process by which bureaucracy grows, Rand explains how government funding intellectually corrupted academia itself long ago:[T]he premise to check is the idea that governmental repression is the only way a government can destroy the intellectual life of a country. It is not. There is another way: governmental encouragement. Governmental encouragement does not order men to believe that the false is true: it merely makes them indifferent to the issue of truth or falsehood. Bearing this preface in mind, let us consider an example of the methods, processes and results of that policy. [bold added]This precedes a case study of a "plum" research grant awarded to B.F. Skinner, which Rand concludes in part with:t is viciously improper for the government to subsidize the enemies of our political system; it is also viciously improper for the government to assume the role of an ideological arbiter. But neither Representative [Cornelius E.] Gallagher [(D-NJ)] nor The New Republic chose to see the answer: that those evils are inherent in the vicious impropriety of the government subsidizing ideas. Both chose to ignore the fact that any intrusion of government into the field of ideas, for or against anyone, withers intellectual freedom and creates an official orthodoxy, a privileged elite. Today, it is called an "Establishment." ... Consider the desperate financial plight of private universities, then ask yourself what a "bonanza" of this kind will do to them. It is generally known that most universities now depend on government research projects as one of their major sources of income. The government grants to those "Senior" researchers establish every recipient as an unofficially official power. It is his influence -- his ideas, his theories, his preferences in faculty hiring -- that will come to dominate the school, in a silent, unadmitted way. What debt-ridden college administrator would dare antagonize the carrier of the bonanza? ... The worst part of it is the fact that this method of selection is not confined to the cowardly or the corrupt, that the honest official is obliged to use it. The method is forced on him by the terms of the situation. To pass an informed, independent judgment on the value of every applicant or project in every field of science, an official would have to be a universal scholar. If he consults "experts" in the field, the dilemma remains: either he has to be a scholar who knows which experts to consult -- or he has to surrender his judgment to men trained by the very professors he is supposed to judge. The awarding of grants to famous "leaders," therefore, appears to him as the only fair policy -- on the premise that "somebody made them famous, somebody knows, even if I don't." [bold added]But Gus, they were talking about power-hungry, woke administrators, not professors! you might say. Yes, that is true, but that establishment educated those administrators, including the ones plucked from its own ranks, so it is a highly relevant part of the problem. Government "encouragement" of prominent researchers created an intellectual establishment by causing incompetent or biased showering of money on prominent intellectuals, severing merit from reward. That establishment then educated the bureaucrats who would later staff the metastasizing bureaucracy so created. It may not be obvious that this was a practically guaranteed outcome, but it should not be surprising. -- CAVLink to Original
  24. "It is very clear from this chronology that when Russia finally did attack on 24 February 2022, it could not have been a surprise to any of the US, NATO, or Ukraine, by any stretch of the imagination. There were too many warning signs for anyone to be surprised. So why did the US, NATO, and Ukraine still do nothing to prevent this war?" Seshadri Kumar I just found this synopsis. Is that not what first came to mind - how was everyone, experts in high places and spooks, caught off-guard? OMG, Russia attacked! Come on, it has become clearer the trap was set for Russia, and the first scheme was to convince the public: there - was NO TRAP - Ukraine is the innocent victim! Of a brutal, causeless invasion! Therefore, the pretext of shocking news when it happened by 'those in the know'. And, who could predict its timing perhaps months earlier. "How could we have stopped it if we didn't know..." Plausible deniability - as politicians say. Very long and well-reasoned essay by S. Kumar dated from March. He seems to know his stuff from every angle. Included a thorough list of the ways the war could have been prevented, some trivial, possibly, but they add up. https://medium.com/@nayakan88/understanding-the-great-game-in-ukraine-330897142aaa
  25. The single - rationally- moral error made: Russia expected a short campaign. Simply arrive in some (low) numbers, and Kyiv would bend to the pressure, return to talks with a purpose this time. Then neutrality, security guarantees, Donbas autonomy, non -NATO, and the worst is over at little cost. They completely miscalculated how far the West would go in making sacrifices in its fervor to beat Russia, pressurizing Zelensky the other way, to war. You are asking for me to acknowledge 'those' moral errors. The media are filled with "atrocities" which, somehow, are never committed by Ukrainians. The early invasion was an exercise in relative self-restraint (a proper military buff can tell you) and of the Russia policy trying to avoid non-combatant casualties. Which is highly dangerous for the soldiers practicing it. You don't automatically open fire at any movement in your vicinity, you check it first, costing vital seconds. Only an inference on my part, the Russian command would not have condoned atrocities by their soldiers. Singly, it's probable. As with reports I've read of Ukraine atrocities you will seldom hear of. We shall see when war crime trials come up. I know what a leading question is.
  1. Load more activity
×
×
  • Create New...