Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 07/09/22 in all areas

  1. I think there is more to "man qua man" than people who like to philosophize are willing to dive into. There are certain rational shortcuts and superficial calculus' we like to throw at things like the trolley problem or the definition of a human (recall the story of the throwing of a plucked chicken to ridicule "featherless biped" as the definition of man). IF man WERE cannibals, by nature, by flavor, by urge, by intuition, by evolution, culture, and institution, then what makes a person thrive should probably involve some cannibalism, as well as some virtues for avoiding being supper. BUT our nature is NOT cannibalism. Letting defenceless babies of our own nature, other individuals, other persons, other ends in themselves whose natural life includes parental or adult care, simply die for the want of it... when each and every one of us was provided... had to be provided with it ourselves... offends our very nature. It is not simply emotional... nor outside the realm of rational... it is part of what makes humans what we are. No matter what kinds of rationalizations people bandy about to support dehumanization , or inhuman existence... they imagine we can be anything, but an anything is nothing in particular. We have natures, and the order of nature is in us, we are human, and at the root ARE things like our our innate ability to respond and to care for children. So to be sane, to be healthy, flourishing humans... we are our children's keepers. Parents first, family second, friends and local people, and the rest of us at large if only temporarily, until someone takes over.
    4 points
  2. Stephen Boydstun provided the following as an example of the government's attack on the gold standard. “Genuine free banking, as we have noted, exists where entry into the banking business is totally free, where banks are neither subsidized nor controlled, and where at the first sign of failure to redeem in specie, the bank is forced to declare insolvency and close its doors.” Doug, it looks like Murray Rothbard's book The Mystery of Banking is a good resource on this controversy, including the historical record. The book is available online. Pages 197-234 of the book (220-257 in the PDF pagination) look to be exactly the pertinent material, though it is challenging and probably requires some portions earlier in the book to understand it well. (i would suggest starting one page earlier.)
    2 points
  3. In each of the following your friends may have additional questions, so try to be prepared to answer such. "Ayn Rand’s raped-girl-decides-she-likes-it novel, “The Fountainhead.”" "Rand’s hero Roark, in fact, “raged” so much in her novel that he blew up a public housing project with dynamite." It can help in both these cases to provide context from the novel. Also, make the point that the encounter between Roark and Dominique is an unusual encounter between unusual people, not a guide to ordinary relationships. "Only billionaires should rule the world, Trump has suggested. And he tried to put it into place, installing a billionaire advocate of destroying public schools in charge of public schools, a coal lobbyist representing billionaires in charge of the EPA, an billionaire-funded oil lobbyist in charge of our public lands, and a billionaire described by Forbes as a “grifter” in charge of the Commerce Department. Trump’s chief of staff said that putting children in cages and billionaire-owned privatized concentration camps (where seven so far have died) would actually be a public good." No one should rule the world. Such positions should be eliminated, not just filled by someone from a different faction. "Trump’s chief of staff said that putting children in cages and billionaire-owned privatized concentration camps (where seven so far have died) would actually be a public good." Neither "illegal" immigrants nor anyone else should be put in cages or concentration camps. Imprisonment should only be for people convicted of serious crimes, which does not include "illegal" immigration, and should be done in a properly thought-out manner, especially if children are involved. Rand's personal life is not relevant to evaluating her philosophy. If anyone insists on digging into her personal life, we need to sort out actual imperfections from smears. " Rand believed that a government working to help out working-class “looters,” instead of solely looking out for rich capitalist “producers,” " The working class are producers, not looters. The looters are politicians who seize people's wealth. Government should not "help" anyone at anyone else's expense. Its sole proper function is to keep physical coercion out of it, leaving everyone free to produce and trade and to enjoy the fruits thereof. Of course Ayn Rand disagrees with the traditional Judaeo-Christian ethic of self-sacrifice, for reasons which she has explained. It might be helpful to explain about metaethics here, for those people that are willing to listen. "Ironically, when she was finally beginning to be taken seriously, Ayn Rand became ill with lung cancer and went on Social Security and Medicare to make it through her last days. She died a “looter” in 1982," Government takes a lot more from us in direct and indirect taxes and reduced economic efficiency than it ever gives back. Anyone who leads a basically productive life and does not vote or advocate for government handouts is entitled to take whatever government is willing to give back to them. Ayn Rand first explained this in "The Question of Scholarships", written long before she got cancer. "over a million dead Americans from Covid" I don't think Ayn Rand would be a vaccine denier or a vaccine skeptic. Lockdowns kill people too. "an epidemic of homelessness, and the collapse of this nation’s working class." This is the result of mixed-economy statism, certainly not of laissez-faire capitalism, which we haven't even approximated for a long time. (Here you may have to persuade people that this is a well-thought=out position, even if they still don't agree.) "the Republican Great Depression" (If people want to argue with the following, you may have to research it.) The gold standard provided a natural discipline which prevented monetary and financial matters from getting too far out of balance. The government sabotaged the gold standard and moved further and further away from it, giving more and more control to the Federal Reserve. In the buildup to the Great Depression, the Federal Reserve loosened money and banking up too much, creating a speculative bubble which had to burst sooner or later, creating a massive dislocation. The specific trigger that burst it was a combination of crop failure and financial panic. Then Herbert Hoover intervened in ways that may have been well-intentioned, but made things worse. He propped up wages and prices, pricing people, goods, and services out of the market. He signed the Smoot-Hawley tariff act, which restricted trade when it needed to be opened up, and provoked retaliatory restrictions from other countries. If Hoover had been a do-nothing President as some people say, the Depression would not have lasted as long or been as bad. "pitting Americans against each other, and literally killing people every day." It is mixed-economy statism that does this, not laissez-faire capitalism. Mixed-economy statism pits people against each other in pressure-group warfare and impairs the functioning of the economy. "get billionaires and their money out of politics" The way to do this is to get away from mixed-economy statism and the resulting pressure-group warfare, and establish laissez-faire capitalism. (Sorry, I can't get rid of the bolding here.)
    2 points
  4. No, I have never denounced Tony. Where do you get this?
    2 points
  5. Whenever the fetus has become capable of sustained survival outside the womb with or without artificial support, it is a living being worthy of adult protections and support (far beyond such worthiness of one's dog, for example). And adults willing to step up and provide that protection and support should have a right against interference with their project by other adults. As to when an infant or child becomes a person, that is a gradual process. We usually and correctly think of individual rights as belonging to (obtaining between) autonomous human persons and sourced in such personhood. In abortion rights and child rights, the question all along the way is not about rights of the little one not yet autonomous, but about rights of various adults concerning protection and support of the particular little one at all stages of development. Persons not the mother don't have a proper right to control the pregnancy until the fetus is capable of sustained life outside the womb with or without artificial support. It is only then that support-projects by persons not the mother can get underway without impressing the mother into service of their project. In other words, when does the fetus/infant become a person has always been a faulty and distracting way of looking at the rights that are actually in play over Law concerning abortion. Rights between various adults are the whole story.
    2 points
  6. Boydstun

    Guns in America

    "While the shooter, 20-year-old Douglas Sapirman, fired 24 rounds from an AR-15-style rifle, Dicken did not hesitate to use the Glock handgun he was legally carrying. Sapirman was "neutralized" within two minutes, police said." Hero Within that CNN story in the link, is a story of a shooting in Colorado in which police arrived, mistook the private rescuer for shooter and fatally shot him. A thing like that happened in the small country town where my Mom lived her whole life, in southern Oklahoma near the Red River. There had been an armed robbery of the bank going on, a local man wrestled the gun away from the robber and was holding it on the robber when the police arrived from a neighboring, larger town. The police shot the good guy, but fortunately, in this case, it was only a wounded arm, and he lived.
    2 points
  7. necrovore

    Guns in America

    My "conspiracy theory" is that people wrote books hundreds or in some cases thousands of years ago, and then died of old age, but many people today are still following those books, and their actions come out to be coordinated even if they do not communicate with each other at all, because they are following the same books. That may not be true for much longer. The environmentalists are now banning nitrogen fertilizer in places. If this becomes widespread, billions of people will starve, and I think the environmentalists would welcome that as "less of a load on the Earth." (Of course Peikoff quoted one of them as saying "we can only hope that the right virus comes along," and along comes COVID-19...) The selfishness of self-defense is a virtue. (I use "selfishness" here in the Ayn Rand sense, which could be described with redundancy as "selfishness without victims.") There is something in Atlas Shrugged (probably from Ragnar Danneskjold) about the killed attacker achieving the only destruction he has any right to achieve -- his own. And I suppose it's okay to regard it as a sad thing if someone commits suicide, perhaps more so if they do it at your hands, as it were... Technically the Left is correct that they are "more Christian than the Christians," in the sense that they are more consistent about self-sacrifice than the Republicans. The Republicans support both freedom and Christianity, even though consistency would make it an either-or choice. A lot of Republicans are too anti-conceptual to see the contradictions, and they don't want to see them. (They sometimes argue that such inconsistencies prove that reason is inadequate by itself and that religion is necessary, but this argument is circular, because it is religion that creates the inconsistencies in the first place.) In the past I have interacted with atheist groups, but was disappointed that they wanted to be "Good without God" which suggests that if you take God out of the Bible you can get something good. Thomas Jefferson also tried that, writing his own Bible with the miracles edited out, or so I've read. But if you secularize Christianity and make it more consistent, you get Communism, as Ayn Rand observed. Thomas Paine ended up a Communist, if I remember correctly... (I don't recall the chronology around this.) Ayn Rand was right to call selfishness (as she defined it) a virtue. American intellectuals have been unwilling to embrace what she said (or even read it I think), but what is left of the originally American sense of life seems to understand it perfectly (without reading Rand or knowing that she provides a logical basis for it). It is this sense of life that the Left seeks to destroy, and they are trying to use Christianity as a tool with which to do it. I hope this is not successful; I would hope it undermines support for Christianity instead, but far too many people would rather give up consistency.
    2 points
  8. Don't have sex with strangers. Link sex and romance by reserving sex for romantically significant others. Use contraception with planning and conscientiousness. Don't rely on abortion as contraception. These points are what pass for common sense among normal people.
    2 points
  9. Here is another to complement the Barber: Korngold Violin Concerto
    2 points
  10. *** Split from: Objectivists are working to save the world from tyranny--isn't that altruism? *** >Just today I saw a news report that a gov't official in Russia had said that domestic opponents to Russia's current war in Ukraine will be sent to concentration camps. What was the news source? Most of what mainstream media has presented to the public regarding Ukraine has been propaganda. Even many images have been shown to be hoaxes. Ethnic Russians who speak Russian but live in Ukraine don't want to live under a Ukraine government run by a neo-Nazi gang (the Azov Battalion) with a puppet president (Zelensky). The Ukraine government has been shelling the ethnic Russian regions of Ukraine since 2014 and thousands of those Ukrainians have been killed. Additionally, as Undersecretary of State, Victoria Nuland, has confirmed in a recent videotaped Senate hearing, Ukraine has a number of bioweapons laboratories (she called them "research facilities") that we now know through documents released by the Pentagon, were and are, financed by the U.S. Apparently, Mr. Putin doesn't like the idea of U.S.-backed bio-weapons labs on his doorstep, especially given what is now know via leaked emails, etc., from Fauci, Daszak, Baric, et al., regarding gain-of-function research on viruses that began in North Carolina (Chapel Hill, University of N. Carolina, Fort Dietrich) and continued in Wuhan, China at their Institute of Virology. Can't understand why anyone would uncritically believe the narrative spun by mainstream media.
    1 point
  11. The manner in which you are discussing the raid and the Biden Crime Family, is propaganda. lol
    1 point
  12. There are no long term studies on mRNA covid vaccines, none. You are no different than people who place blind faith in institutions. Fear is a mind killer , you are fully boosted , right ?
    1 point
  13. The most important response to something like this is to explain, as fully as necessary, what Ayn Rand's philosophy really is. It would take a long time to refute every error in this rant, and I'm not sure how worthwhile such an effort would be.
    1 point
  14. (click on photo) That is a poem I wrote last autumn. I think it is true. All people live under this shadow, which at some level they know. Long ago I came to think one way of looking at people is as walking philosophies. So in getting to know someone it is sensible to ask to oneself What philosophy is here being walked? I don't mean What philosophical heritage is here being walked? but what particular set of philosophical theses are here in this person, especially in their practices. Now I add for myself of each one How are they dealing with the fact of absolute mortality?
    1 point
  15. I would agree these are fair criticisms of western media ‘news coverage’. It’s effective too. How else do you explain that Biden is provably the most corrupt official ‘elected’ to the President , the general expectation that the untested mRNA vaccine platform would be safe and effective , the need for maternity flight suits in the military, immediate curtailment of fossil fuels will halt climate change , rampant systemic racism necessitates violence ,ect.
    1 point
  16. 1 point
  17. In the Greenhouse * Wagner Song – he used this melody also in Parsifal
    1 point
  18. EC

    Theory of Mind

    @dream_weaver Thankfully reality is the final arbiter of truth and not other Objectivists who keep their mind stuck in only one version of Schrödinger's cat box. Even the one's I highly respect 😉
    1 point
  19. Great, you saw that. A shrewd piece of conflation, a package deal, to debunk the trivial charge, while not attempting to disprove a thing of the main charge. Politifact seems to understand the "power of leaving out", as any propagandist.
    1 point
  20. 1 point
  21. You been taken to task for linking nothing but RT articles. If you linked other sources as well, or even compared and contrasted RT articles with articles from others, then I wouldn't have said anything. You haven't joined in on the skeptical analysis of RT articles, as you proposed we do. Worse, when we ask what your point is about linking a particular article, you don't really say. Read a bit more carefully, one notable thing that they have done here is take a quote and then chop it up within the same sentence, not as a simple gap like a pause in what somebody said. This is a way to get it to feel like a paraphrase, but it gives just enough room to exaggerate or minimize a phrase by the words the insert in between. "NATO should still “increase force presence in the east” but focus on “defensive” capabilities and re-evaluate activities such as drills “to avoid creating a false impression of preparation for offensive action,” the researchers said." See how the word focus is put just before defensive? We don't have any context for the word defensive, and the word 'but' is in there even though increasing force presence is not necessarily offensive. It's trying to suggest that NATO is obviously planning an invasion or assault and there's no way it could be defensive. The paragraph here by RT makes you want to believe that increased force presence is the opposite of defensive, and anything that appears defensive is actually an attempt to hide preparation for offensive action which is in the form of increased force presence. I think this kind of quote splitting is always on purpose, it is a pretty good way to notice a subtext. Your first reaction should be to look at the report that it is quoting, did you do that? Here it is: https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PEA1971-1.html This isn't some special attention I'm giving to RT because I hate it, I do this thing with any kind of article I read about world events. Democracy Now is not so bad as an information source for this conflict, or at least because it isn't one of the actual participants in the conflict.
    1 point
  22. A trap set for Putin. First I've heard of this notion I ventured, voiced explicitly by any analyst. Short, sweet:
    1 point
  23. But here's one. A factual report, I assume. No "editorializing" https://www.rt.com/russia/559728-ukraine-escalation-rand-report/ Comment beneath: "It seems to me that this Rand group is misnamed. There doesn't appear to be much thinking going on..." Ha ha! O'ists get around.
    1 point
  24. Yup, it would be nice if you did that, I agree.
    1 point
  25. Just some information from the latest issue of SCIENCE NEWS (30 July 2022): The "fetal heartbeat" heard at around six weeks of pregnancy are not caused by the opening and closing of heart valves moving blood through heart chambers. The heart's chambers have not yet developed at that time. The ultrasound machine is creating the heartbeat-like sounds upon detection of fluttering of the heart-tube tissue, which is due to electrical activity in that tissue. So the ultrasound is detecting something new in the development that concerns tissue that is on the way to becoming a heart, but not the onset of a beating heart.
    1 point
  26. I see, so it is the law of the land. Meaning, currently, the mother does not have complete control after the viability stage.
    1 point
  27. He's just posting "thoughts". Nothing to see here. No motive. Just innocent links. The facts reveal themselves. If you don't see it, no explanation is possible. If you do see it, you get it. If you disagree, you missed the point. Because after all, if you understood the point, you would agree. Then again, if you don't follow his point, you are hopelessly lost. Yeah, who knows what they're saying? In fact, who even knows why you showed us the link if you don't even know how much reliability and understanding the source provides? The US is surprisingly more free than you would think.
    1 point
  28. What exactly is your point with these links - clearly and succinctly ?
    1 point
  29. That what is going on between Russia and Ukraine is that an independent and sovereign country was military attacked and an attempt is made to suppress dissolve it or at least continue to dismember it and incorporate the pieces. Crimea was already swallowed (in 2014), and parts of Donbas were already detached from Ukraine. With the second stage of the war, which started 5 months ago, the process continues with a much higher intensity. It is unique in that it takes place in the 21 century, in Europe, in violation of a dozen of treaties regarding the independency and territorial integrity of post-soviet countries. It is a textbook case of naked, cynical, perfidious aggression, similar to Nazi Germany (and Russia’s) aggression of Poland in 1939, which started WWII. For an Objectivism forum it is important as an opportunity to discuss the responses of USA and Europe to this war , from the point of view of Ethics and Political Philosophy PS: About In fact, - the problem is that Tony is NOT providing conflicting sources, he mainly and consistently provides information, and supports his claims, from governmental sources of one of the warring parties; - he is also not simply “missing the point”, he supplies “facts” he cannot (and is not willing) to validate.
    1 point
  30. Not really, because authoritarian governments actively suppress a lot of information while simultaneously presenting information that would justify their authority as something good and desirable - and thereby making people even easier to hold under their thumb. Would you show me the RT article that demonstrates your claim? Also, I would like some articles by Xinhua. After all, if authoritarians have the least need to manipulate the truth, their news sources should be the most accurate and truthful.
    1 point
  31. 🤣🤣🤣 1. Look Tony, this is not a site where people post their works of fiction. Not in this section, anyway. I don’t think you got a license from this site’s owners which grants you the extraordinary privilege to be dispensed from the burden of grounding your assertions in FACT ! When asked for proof, you say that it is not available, that it is hidden from truth-tellers and truth-seekers because it is suppressed by powerful Forces. And thus we have a full circle – so typical of conspiracy theories. But, curiously, it is available to you through such notorious truth-seekers and truth-tellers as the Putinist Russia state-owned agencies like Russia Today, RIA Novosti, TASS and other Dimitri Simes’es. 2. I asked you to specify clearly if you agree about the following point of principle – about about legitimate sources for facts: «During a war it is useless to get the facts from the government-related sources of the warring parties: one knows they do engage in propaganda and, thus, one cannot a priori know which clams are true. I explained this before, but you did not comment. Therefore, “facts” (and, consequently also opinions) coming from these sources should have no place in our debate» You did nothing.
    1 point
  32. In other words you believe that Amnesty International is being bribed in some way to keep their mouth shut about any persecution or genocide? Is that your claim? If so, can you prove that?
    1 point
  33. Oh please! This looks like a big giant dodge to me. If you think there's been ongoing persecution against those pesky Russo-Ukrainians just prove it already.
    1 point
  34. The social and legal persecution of Russian-speakers and ethnic Russians in Ukraine is a well-documented fact. The civil war over Donbas can be researched, while not much was publicized back then (or now). I don't see "a genocide" of the locals as Putin stated, and as little do I accept the "genocidal" motive of Russia's assault on Ukrainians. Not the slightest evidence for this, mere scare-mongering. The opposite, trying to avoid civilian casualties, is closer to true. However, civilians were certainly killed in the Donbas by Kyiv's indiscriminate shelling of civilian areas**, totaling combatant and non-combatant deaths above 22,000. If AI, the UN, and any organizations voiced concerns about that long civil war, I have not seen where they actively did a single thing to end it. That should raise suspicion by itself. Maybe, I speculate, they were told to butt out. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwi0mpSYhoz5AhXEolwKHUdtDuYQFnoECBoQAw&url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FCasualties_of_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War&usg=AOvVaw2vgfH37WVebSyjea27Kdhz **exactly as Kyiv is once again doing recently.
    1 point
  35. OMG, are you making fun of me? I asked you what did Stoltenberg exactly say. And you give me an article from... Russia Today (an a priory dubious publication, as it is by a governmental agency of one of the parties in conflict) with, supposedly, a quote from him, but also with a lot of many other irrelevant claims - I didn't even read. As if RT the only place it can be found! Couldn't you give me just the quote? Or you believe that if you refer me to RT, I would be more convinced of its authenticity?😁😁 I don't dispute the quote you gave: it happens😁 to be correct. Here it is, for reference: It is taken from where you should have quoted it, from the NATO site (see here). Instead, you took it from RT, together with the lying title "NATO's chief lets the cat out of the bag: US-led bloc has ‘been preparing since 2014’ for proxy conflict with Russia" plus other comments... Now, you implied that NATO had a plan to perpetrate provocations to induce Putin to invade. Two questions: a). How did you infer, from that quote, that NATO had a plan etc.? (b). Otherwise, on what other basis do you arrive at that conclusion?
    1 point
  36. Yes, when it was about me justifying my own claims, I did. I even accepted to reverse the onus of proof and I examined (and refuted) your claim (it was something about Minsk, see below). No. It doesn’t work that way. I made no claims regarding facts (except the two mentioned below, which I proved). I mainly disputed your „facts”. It is up to you, but not simply to source (one can find sources for anything), but to prove. AlexL: You ignored my points. Again. Yes, you did it, again! My main point was that during a war it is useless and stupid to expect objective information from sources of the warring sides. This is because one expects them to disseminate propaganda. And I noted that you (seem to) rely systematically on Russian sources belonging to government or related to it. Now about the Minsk agreements. I would like to take them off the table once and for all. We had in fact two distinct Minsk-related subjects. One was about Putin having signed it (or one of them). The second was about Putin having mentioned the Ukrainian non-compliance as one of the reasons of the February 24, 2022 attack. 1. Did Putin sign one of the agreements? Your initial claim was exactly this: “Minsk deal ... which Putin co-signed, btw”. I commented: “(BTW, Putin did NOT co-sign either of the two Minsk agreements; it took me less than 5 minutes to check...)” You did not acknowledge your error. It was a secondary point, but now you claim „You already made one wrongful accusation, which I verified from Wiki concerning Putin's presence at Minsk”, as if the dispute was about Putin's presence at Minsk (see here). 2. Did Putin invoke the Ukrainian non-compliance as one of the reasons of the February attack? You correctly assumed that the Minsk Agreements were important for Putin. From this you - wrongly - assumed that he signed them himself – see #1. To stress their importance for Putin, you claim that he was “using Minsk's failure as (one) justification to invade.” You even brought some references to support this, but the proved only that maybe in his head the Minsk non-compliance may have been one of his reasons of the February attack. Then I did what I was not legitimately expected to do: I DIS-proved your claim (see here). Putin listed the reasons for his „Special Operation” in his speech broadcasted the early morning of the February 24 invasion. I found the very official transcript of his speech on the very official Kremlin site, both in Russian and in English. The words “Minsk”, “accords” or “agreement” are absent... You never addressed this point from that comment of mine, or any other point… This seems to be a pattern of behavior, a telling one… PS: Besides, about Minsk agreements you made a lot of inexact claims. One of them: “Yelensky… the Minsk treaties he signed” (see here). This is not the moment to mention more of them, but in this Ukraine thread they abound… But you write: “I can't be bothered to validate every trivial detail.” Yeah, detail, right! A flood of unverified “details”… from RT, or RIA Novosti, or from memory failures. If you disagree, just tell me, and I will bring some more examples. But I guess you won’t… But I might do it regardless 😉 And please address all my points.
    1 point
  37. It's like you can't conceive that someone would say unequivocally that Russia is significantly worse than the Ukraine and is responsible for great moral fault. You have rationalized that by saying you have lower standards for Russia than the West morally speaking, refusing to engage many questions unless you can blame NATO or the Ukraine for irritating Putin (you don't bother answering questions about what you think), and your only source for any claim is RT. I already went over before how one story was not putting forth facts and statements, but using adjectives and descriptions that directly distort factual information. Adopting an official language was portrayed as banning the Russian language. If you don't notice this, you aren't paying attention. Why should he bother? You aren't going to bother responding, you don't typically respond to people breaking down arguments. Did you literally not understand what I said about the difference between something being authoritarian by nature by its very functioning, and something being authoritarian as merely an individual act? But hey, if you think you are really living in an authoritarian dictatorship, and Russia is no better, I guess enjoy your fantasy? Jon Letendre is enjoying his with his qanon LARP campaign. You didn't verify it and present the evidence to us (I looked) and it was a big part of your claim for Putin's justification for invasion (you never did say Russia's invasion was moral, explicitly, but defense of justifications indicates moral defense). It doesn't help when your only source is RT.
    1 point
  38. "A new season of war". Why do I report "Russian propaganda"? Because no one hears the "other story", as here, the background events glossed over, hidden, indeed suspiciously stifled, in the West's media - out of sight out of mind, like a falling tree which did not make a sound. This conflict supposedly started on 24 Feb? If you were living there, in eastern Ukraine, not quite. [edited for brevity] 17 Jul, 2022 14:38 "A view from Donbass: Ukraine has treated the people of this region as sub-humans, this made peace impossible" How Kiev has tried to dehumanize people in its former East – first domestically, then everywhere By Vladislav Ugolny, a Russian journalist based in Donetsk: "The military conflict in Ukraine, which began on February 24, was preceded by a long war in Donbass. Over the course of eight years, it claimed the lives of at least 14,200 people (according to the OHCHR), over 37,000 were wounded, hundreds of thousands became refugees or had their homes destroyed. A de-escalation was achieved in February 2015, as both sides realized that a bad peace was better than a good war, and attempted to find a political resolution on the basis of the Minsk agreements. That, however, failed to bring peace to Donbass, which instead faced eight long years of economic and legal blockade, compounded by chaotic shelling of areas near the frontlines. They were eight hard years, which involved rebuilding bombed schools, hospitals, and houses, a rather humiliating dependence of formerly well-to-do people on humanitarian aid, an economic slump due to the economic blockade imposed by the Ukrainian government, restricted access to pensions, and the risk of being wounded or killed for those who lived in urbanized frontline areas. People who voted for the independence of the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics in the referendum in May 2014 could never have imagined living in this endless terror. They were forced to wait for that terror to stop until February 2022, when Russia recognized the independence of Donbass and then deployed its military to, among other things, protect it and liberate territory occupied by Ukrainian forces since 2014. It hasn’t exactly been a walk in the park, but the people of Donbass now know that war will soon be over for them. The people’s militias of both republics are doing everything in their power to achieve victory as soon as possible. It may seem to an outside observer that some citizens of Ukraine backed by the Russian military are fighting other citizens of Ukraine backed by NATO. This description, however, would satisfy neither side of the conflict. Donbass residents no longer consider themselves citizens of Ukraine, while the Ukrainian government and society at large deny their sovereignty and dismiss them as collaborators and mercenaries for Russia. Both are wrong. In reality, it was precisely this denial of sovereignty that led Donbass to renounce everything having to do with Ukraine, and it started way before 2014. Let me add here that what was said above applies to the whole southeastern region of Ukraine, also known as Novorossiya; however, the case of Donbass was the most dramatic and revealing manifestation. It all began with dehumanization. After gaining independence in 1991, Ukraine was too big to be uniform. The enthusiasm of Galicia in the west to build a nation-state was mixed with depression in the southeast over the loss of a shared economic space with Russia. Machine building in Dnepropetrovsk, Kharkov, and Zaporozhye declined, Odessa’s Black Sea shipping operations were shut down. The country survived thanks to metallurgy and coal mining. Both industries were centered around Donbass. [...] Children were killed in Donbass. Nobody gave a damn, except Russia and the repressed Russians in the rest of Ukraine.... All of this convinced Donbass it had the moral high ground, which allowed it to stand tall and weather eight years of incredible hardship. The Ukrainians were granted the chance to reach a political settlement with the Minsk agreements, if they agreed to treat Donbass as a sovereign region within Ukraine. Had they done this, Donbass would have lost interest in politics, returned to its industrial roots, and left policymaking in the hands of western Ukraine again in a few years’ time. But they wouldn’t do this, even for the sake of stopping the war. Recognizing the sovereignty of Donbass was a red line for Ukraine, and so was dialogue with Donbass. The Ukrainian leadership stuck to those red lines even after Russia said it was going to put an end to the ongoing slaughter at its doorstep. So, what we now have is a new season of war, which has been going on for Donbass since 2014. The two people’s republics’ armies are storming Ukrainian fortifications as the Ukrainian military continues to bomb residential areas in Donetsk. People in Donbass stopped wondering “what they are capable of.” Now they know that the Ukrainian army and government are capable of anything – bombing cities, torturing people, and trying to pass off Donetsk people that they killed for Kiev residents, supposedly killed by Russian missile strikes. The only thing they can’t do is admit that the citizens of Donbass are people just like them, people who have their own interests and are prepared to fight for them until they win or die in battle". https://www.rt.com/russia/559061-children-donbass-world-not-care/
    1 point
  39. along with western response to the pandemic, climate crisis, racism, equity, immigration,financial policy ect.., but they are not authoritarian they just act that way sometimes
    1 point
  40. Reformation in the Church of Science, RealClearScience July 9, 2022 Archives, subtitled: How the truth monopoly was broken up. From within the article, "Ideas have become a battlefield, and we are all getting lost in the fog of the truth wars." bringing to mind, "The battle of philosophers is a battle for man's mind. If you do not understand their theories, you are vulnerable to the worst among them.” - Ayn Rand, Philosophy: Who Needs It By creating a correlation between science and beliefs and contrasting it with a correlation between the church and beliefs, analogy serves as a basis for making the leap within this article. Curious, I followed a link to the source, The New Atlantis and discovered another article in a similar vein. Reality is Just a Game Now, subtitled: And we’re all losing. A link on Facebook was generated by myself using the following lead-in: The Hounds of Zaroff was The Most Dangerous Game, by Richard Connell, January 19, 1924, . . . tame compared to the cognitive assault generated by thinking Reality Is Just a Game Now. — — — The article starts off with a subsection — "✦ A Fun Collaborative Activity ✦" — based on CoViD-19 The article transitions into a subsection "A Strange Game" launching into a recollection of 9/11, of twenty years ago. (Use January 6, 2020, if a more recent time frame is desired or twenty years is beyond your scope of existence: many of the particulars share similar conceptual categories.) It is tempting to suggest follow the white rabbit at this point (being a multiple time watcher of The Matrix tetrology, or quadrilogy if you prefer) as "✦ The White Rabbit Appears ✦" Enter, "The Q Game", which has spread as an ARG (Alternate Reality Game) to draw in those attracted to the allure it has garbed itself with. — — — . . . perhaps I digress. Back on January 6, 2022, a severance agreement with my employer since May 1, 2000 was reached. I've been employed, as an individual, in some way, shape or form since 1972. I found this forum coming up on 12 years ago. A coworker of mine asked questions that drove me to investigate deeper what the writings of Ayn Rand had to offer. In the last six months, I've spent time learning to cook some different dishes, (whampoa chao dan*, anda bhuji*, egg foo young (it's not just for dinner**), german potato salad, red lobster cheddar biscuits, just to name a few) and converting some of the flower gardens into vegetables. The local library offers a course on writing to try out (to supplement reaching day 576, today, of Julia Cameron's Morning Pages). In my tenure here, the diversity of folk posting has somewhat diminished. The discussions have dwindled, while a few events have sparked a small rallying of intense articulations revealing differing approaches to epistemic justification not clearly articulated. After visiting the Death Clock, contrasting being 22,368 days old to having 4,579 days left, puts into perspective a basis of 4/5ths (roughly 20,000/25,000) life left. Perhaps a morbid way of viewing things, still it captures an element of teleology, like it or not. *mentioned on Gus VanHorn Blog, discovered here on OO. **the Chinese popularized the omelette for dinner.
    1 point
  41. Beware of axe handles. Anyone here approve of this behavior? Alas, it may well be that I'm the only one here with an axe, and I certainly do not approve of the attack on Jan. 6! Nor any of you guys making slight such behavior! Keep on with the the lol's, models of stupidity in more ways than one. Speaking of stupidity, you defenders here of the woe-is-me, poor-'lil-white-guy set, always rationalizing rioters you sympathize with by switching the topic to violence that was perpetrated in association with BLM public assemblies should notice that if a patrolman stops me for speeding, it is no defense to cry "but everyone was speeding." Break the law, get caught, pay penalty.
    1 point
  42. Continuing education in Vienna. Go there, have Sacher, and visit my cathedral, along with The Museum of Contraception and Abortion.
    1 point
  43. 1 point
  44. >The reason is very simple: Putin is not a legitimate ruler and the Russian government is not morally legitimate. Neither is Zelensky and neither is the present Ukrainian government. Zelensky was chosen by Igor Kolomoisky (a criminal oligarch living in Switzerland) because 1) he was a popular comic actor starring in a popular tv show so he had a high public profile; 2) he had no political or executive experience at all; and 3) he's a known cokehead. Upshot: Zelensky is very easily manipulated. Many Ukrainian civilians, especially those living abroad, have stated outright that the election was fixed and that Zelensky was essentially installed. "Deep State" players (including those in the U.S. such as the Biden crime family) like weak, easily manipulated leaders of foreign countries. It makes money laundering so much easier. So the issues of "rights", "moral legitimacy", etc. are irrelevant in this conflict. The only issue that matters is to understand motives, not to agree with them. Russia views Ukraine as a necessary buffer between itself and NATO. Understandably, Putin does not want western nukes on his border, for the same reason the U.S. didn't want Russian nukes in Cuba, just 90 miles from its own border. Putin also doesn't want western-financed bioweapons facilities on its border (there were about 30 of them, last I heard), labs that the U.S.'s own Victoria Nuland admitted to in front of the Senate several weeks ago (much to the surprise, it seems, of senator Marco Rubio). If Zelensky were any kind of a leader at all -- legitimate or not -- he could negotiate peace immediately and save many Ukrainian lives. All he would have to do is agree to keep Ukraine neutral. He won't do it because he can't do it: he's just a popular-tv-actor-coke-addict-figurehead and is not the one actually in command of the government. The intent of those who are in command, is to keep the conflict going as long as possible to create a proxy-war between the west and Russia; i.e., specifically, between the U.S. and Russia. Lots of people in the west like that idea because lots of people can profit from war. Objectivists should check their premises before apologizing for a regime run by absentee oligarchs, brutal thugs, and explicit Nazis.
    1 point
  45. >I'm 32 and do not have AIDS What does AIDS have to do with any of this? The risk factors for getting severe COVID are well known and have long been posted on the CDCs website: they are primarily obesity, diabetes, age, hypertension, pre-existing pulmonary condition (COPD, emphysema), any other immunosuppressive condition. AIDS is so rare compared to runaway obesity, type-2 diabetes, and hypertension that it wasn't taken into consideration at the time. However . . . It's now well known by many doctors and researchers, that the mRNA genetic shots (Pfizer and Moderna) weaken immunity after about 90 days, especially after people get their boosters: the more boosters, the weaker the immunity becomes. According to a peer-reviewed Danish study from just a few months ago, by the end of 30 days, vax efficacy against Omicron falls below 50% (the threshold percentage according to the FDA for a vaccine to be called "effective"). By 3 months, the efficacy against COVID falls to zero; and (interestingly) after 3 months, the efficacy becomes negative. A negative efficacy means that the vaxed person is MORE likely to get sick from COVID than if he or she had simply remained unvaxed. Even more interestingly, the more one is boosted, the more likely it becomes for that person to have a permanently weakened immunity -- even IF the immediate response to a booster might be a high-titer of antibodies. Antibodies, per se, are meaningless. All antibodies wane after a period time, but their reappearance is "memorized" by T-cells and Memory-B cells. If you damage, or "quench", the ability to mount a T-cell response or a Memory-B Cell response, you essentially cannot recreate antibodies against a pathogen. This "quenching" of deeper immune responses (T-Cells and Memory B-Cells) is known as "High-Zone Tolerance" and is a well known concept in immunology. According to many doctors and researchers today, they are seeing such cases in increasing numbers of patients, and they have given it a very interesting name: VAIDS, or "Vaccine Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome." Note also: According to Edward Dowd -- a former portfolio managing director at BlackRock -- many insurance companies are now publishing data from their actuarial tables showing an "unexplained" 40% increase in All-Cause-Mortality (meaning heart attacks, cancers, strokes, kidney failure, myocarditis, etc.) in the 18-64 age group, i.e., working-age adults starting in 2021. There's no indication on their death certs or healthcare reports that these people are dying from COVID. Could the lockdowns have contributed to these deaths? Probably. Lots of people postponed medical treatments and screenings at hospitals because of the lockdowns; but a 40% rise in a young demographic is equivalent to about a 10-sigma (10 standard deviations on a normal distribution) so the lockdowns, per se, can't explain it. Also, the same increase has been noticed in a young demographic -- military personnel -- who were on active duty, and not restrained in their homes. Many are concluding (justifiably) that at least part of this 10-sigma increase correlates almost exactly with the mass rollout of the experimental gene-therapy shots (as well as the adenovirus-vector shots of J&J and AstraZeneca). European insurance companies have noticed the same thing, by the way. I have many links for those who are interested. Or you can do your own research by looking up online interviews with some of the following: Robert Malone, MD (pioneer of mRNA tech in the 1980s); Peter McCullough, MD (cardiologist); Pierre Kory, MD; Byram Bridle, MD; Paul Alexander, MD; Paul Marik, MD; Michael Yeadon, PhD (former VP of Research at Pfizer); Meryl Nass, MD; Simone Gold, MD; Joseph Mercola, MD; Sherry Tenpenny, DO; Zev Zelenko, MD; Judy Mikovitz, PhD; Ryan Cole, MD; Roger Hodgkinson, MD; Samuel Dube, MD; Samantha Bailey, MD; Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., JD Edward Dowd (formerly at BlackRock) Steve Kirsch, PhD Jessica Rose, PhD Norman Fenton, PhD Didier Raoult, MD Kary Mullis, PhD (Nobel Prize winner, chemistry, 1993), inventor of the PCR process; Luc Montagnier, PhD (Nobel Prize winner, medicine, 2008), discoverer of HIV. Don't forget to read Klaus Schwab's revealing blueprint for your future, "The Great Reset", as well as the depopulation statements by Bill Gates during some of his TED Talks. Read RFK, Jr.'s latest book, "The Real Anthony Fauci." A sobering place to start for those who are naïfs might be this recent interview with Zev Zelenko, MD on the "Dr. Drew" YouTube channel. I'm actually surprised YouTube (owned by Google) didn't censor this and remove it entirely, the way it has done to so many other videos since March 2020. With any luck some of you might swallow the Red Pill and wake up. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JBjO-0jTDs
    1 point
  46. >His particular example is not relevant to his point here... he could point to North Korea for example. And yet he didn't point to an obvious example like North Korea. He pointed to Ukraine, indicating that he uncritically believes the narrative spun by mainstream media. Look up "Operation Mockingbird". And note this interesting declaration regarding intentionally planted misinformation (i.e., "disinformation") in the news cycle presented to the public by the established news venues (i.e., today they are The New York Times, Washington Post, ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, NPR, CNN, MSNBC, Fox): "We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false" William J. Casey Director of the CIA, 1981-1987
    1 point
  47. Samuel Barber's violin concerto, first movement
    1 point
  48. “In granting this case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the court takes us all the way back to the heart of the matter, to whether a state can skip all the rigmarole and just impose a flat-out ban on some—or all—abortions before fetal viability. “Do I think the court will use this case to permit states to ban abortion entirely? No, not directly and not soon; there’s no need for the new majority, handpicked for that very purpose, to go that far this fast. The question the court has agreed to answer, as framed by the state’s petition, “Whether all previability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional,” suggests but doesn’t require an all-or-nothing response. “[Presently] what a state can’t do at the end of the day is actually prevent a woman with the resources and will to get to one of the diminishing number of private providers . . . from terminating her pregnancy. “Once the viability firewall is breached, it’s hard to see what limiting principle the new majority might invoke even if so inclined. . . . “Limiting principles usually matter a great deal at the Supreme Court, and it’s common during oral argument for justices to demand that lawyers articulate one. The justices need to know: ‘If we buy what you’re trying to sell us, exactly what are we buying? What’s the next case in line after yours?’” —Linda Greenhouse—20 May 2021, NYT I expect readers here know what’s in the long and growing line from state governments where appeals to mystical metaphysics of the electorate have seated officials committed to the end of all previability abortions (a fortiori, all abortions) in America. (90% percent of US abortions are performed before the 13th week of gestation; present technology for support of a fetus outside the womb is good for effecting live deliveries at about 22 weeks and on up to full-term.)
    1 point
  49. This idea ignores the fact that the intellectual property is not the physical object (although that is the concretization of the idea) but the idea itself. The belief you mention is the result of a concrete-bound mentality that cannot handle abstractions.
    1 point
×
×
  • Create New...