Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Leaderboard

Popular Content

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

  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. 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 ?
    2 points
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. No, I have never denounced Tony. Where do you get this?
    2 points
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. Here is another to complement the Barber: Korngold Violin Concerto
    2 points
  11. Moving the goal post - you didn't say long term. It's not "blind faith", but then again, I don't think capitalism is out to get me. Indeed, I'm not afraid of either covid or the vaccines, but I'm not interested in trying to argue against the idea that capitalism is why the world is so terrible. It's worse than arguing with a leftist, because at least a leftist knows that they don't like capitalism. It could be stupidity, or could be that you are a victim of propaganda, or both. I can accept that you reach your ideas by lack of reason, it doesn't have to be propaganda. You insist that the only way I could come to a different conclusion is propaganda.
    1 point
  12. The manner in which you are discussing the raid and the Biden Crime Family, is propaganda. lol
    1 point
  13. FBI raided Trump , the same FBI that protected the provably corrupt Biden.
    1 point
  14. As if your examples you used couldn't be propaganda? Anyway, distorted information is a major issue from RT. Also, the Objectivist theory of history is basically that ideas and philosophy shape what the public at large believes. Stopping at modern history being shaped by propaganda is more like a Leftist analysis of history where the powers of capitalism manipulate the average person through false consciousness brought about by large media corporations. You are blaming capitalism centrally (which of course makes the US take the most criticism), including big Pharma ("they want us to think that vaccines are safe!"), political dynamics manufactured by the media, and to top it off, that the West is completely up to no good for just about any conflict or disagreement. All you do that is really different is that you avoid using the word capitalism.
    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. 1 point
  19. A trap set for Putin. First I've heard of this notion I ventured, voiced explicitly by any analyst. Short, sweet:
    1 point
  20. 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
  21. Yup, it would be nice if you did that, I agree.
    1 point
  22. Let's get straight just which war propaganda has been most broadcast to more people and more egregiously devious, by a long way: the western media. There is not a semblance of equivalence. "That's Russian propaganda!" The smear used to silence opposition and to conceal the West's own propaganda-for-war-machine, working flat-out. If one maintained that diplomacy, a truce and peace treaties with concessions, were and are the only solution - "appeasement, you are pro-Putin. No peace! We will beat and humiliate him with (Ukraine's) warfare". Or: tell anyone that the oil shortages, food prices, falling economies, inflation, probable 3rd World hunger, etc. were due not to Putin, but directly caused by our rulers' unthinking imposition of total sanctions (which could have been held in reserve, or incrementally imposed - 'the stick' - with some 'carrots' - to get Putin negotiating, early as March) - that's "Russian propaganda". (The adolescent's causation - we block and contain Russia's exports to try to kill its economy, then moan and complain that - hell - the world is suffering shortages ... and who's to blame: Russia's invasion!). I and anyone could go on at length about the blunders and self-sacrifices by the West's leaders that are being justified and sanitized for public consumption: Western propaganda. You only have to see recently the accounts (begrudgingly and belatedly admitted in western media) of Ukraine's v. Russia's retreats/advances in the field, to know the indoctrinated unreality a large part of the West lives in, when all of a sudden reports of glorious victories are less heard (but still dreamed of). Anyone who knew anything, could and did tell us, mostly unpublished in the msm, from the beginning that Russia was not going to lose this war (in the East). Not an expert, I knew that. Unacceptable! The latest further arming of Ukraine with more extreme-range weapons at this stage is clearly suicidal. It only prolongs the war and the Russians will advance their lines deeper for a wider buffer zone. But to state any of that - Russian propaganda!
    1 point
  23. They all indicate possession of something i.e. a "pairing of". But: My country My planet are two that can indicate ownership similar to wife or child. As in "belonging to". This type of ownership has an element of responsibility while the others don't. It's almost ownership of consequences. What you own, you are responsible for i.e. consequences of "it's" actions should have ramification to the owner. If it is profit, the owner profits, if it is loss, they lose. If your child breaks the neighbor's window, you own the problem. It's yours. Not like your eye color, but like standing in front of the judge and pleading your case.
    1 point
  24. I'm not talking chattel or slavery or any absolute right to "them" but a particular right to interact in a certain way. Ownership rights ultimately is a definition of the boundaries between people. How would you differentiate you're wife from the neighbor's? Basically isn't there a message "don't cross this line regarding my wife"? It's unwritten but isn't it there? Ownership of anything indicates an exclusive way of relating to it, that others don't have and shouldn't have. I would argue this type of exclusive relationship between you and to your body exists that should not be violated by others. That is true of a mother of an unborn too.
    1 point
  25. 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
  26. RT is more guilty than the rest. You literally said that authoritarian governments have less interest in propaganda than democratic governments, and that democratic propaganda is more corrosive. Here you make a post that says RT is a bad source, and other sources are bad sources, but then you will later on clearly say that RT is the most preferable and the most truthful. You want us to be properly skeptical about news articles, but when we do this about the RT articles you link, you accuse us of demanding too much, don't bother responding to the parts we object to specifically, don't bother to give us follow-up information or secondary sources where we want to know more about your claims. You ask us to peruse everything we can find, but quite literally, you refuse to show us anything else you find besides RT articles. The very few non-RT articles you have linked, you either misunderstand the article or refuse to engage in discussion about the meaning of the article. It seems more likely you have a job at RT and get paid for clicks for articles you link.
    1 point
  27. Here is my original article on the topic (which was in 1983, not 1984).
    1 point
  28. 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
  29. 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
  30. d_w, the best place for this discussion IS because this is an Objectivist forum. This war and its global response demands objectivity, from many more outspoken individuals. Not that it is "essential to Objectivism", but that Objectivism is essential and fundamental to (identifying, explaining, judging, resolving) it. In short: O'ism's applicability. None other, and I've read and heard many erudite intellectuals on this war, has the unified principles and methodology. (I appreciate that opinions can be freely thrashed out here whereas, in other places one might be deplatformed and the site banned for daring to question the controlled, moral agenda). "'Tis not unreasonable to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger". David Hume This anti-philosophy is what mankind has absorbed and we are up against.
    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. 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
  33. 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
  34. I asked myself a similar question: if Russia knew that Russian-speaking Ukrainians were persecuted and murdered since at least 2014, did they do the usual minimum in such circumstances, which is alerting the relevant international organizations? Indeed, Putin's Russia invoked persecutions and genocide when annexing Crimea and during all the Donbass conflict (2014-2022). During the Donbass war and to this day, Putin's propaganda accuses Ukraine of genocide of civilians. The first to be alerted should have been the UN Security Council, where the Russian Federation is an important and powerful member. Accordingly, I examined, on the UN SC site, the list of projects of resolution, or other documents, introduced by RF concerning Ukraine. I found none. None whatsoever! (I found some introduced by Ukraine against RF concerning Crimea and Donbass which were vetoed by RF). The first project of resolution by Russia concerning Ukraine was introduced shortly after the February 24, 2022 invasion and dealt with an alleged development of bio-weapons by Ukraine in collaboration with US/NATO. RF seem to have withdrawn it, because it was never heard of again... On the other hand, the situation in Donbass was permanently monitored, since March 2014, by a "OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine". (OSCE is the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe.) It found no major violations of the Laws of war, for example an unusually high proportion of the civilians. This mission was mandated by the 50+ participating countries and the mandate was extended every year by consensus. RF always voted for the extension, which means it had no major objections regarding a lack of objectivity. The Mission was stopped at the end of March 2022 because Russia voted against a new extension. The conclusion seems to be that in fact the alleged systematic persecutions and murdering / genocide did not occur and was just another excuse to justify the invasion, along with an alleged imminent attack by Ukraine in Donbass, and many other excuses which were invoked during the 5 months of war but never proved. Putin's real motivation seem to be a completely different one.
    1 point
  35. 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
  36. 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
  37. 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
  38. Interesting parallel. When once, a certain world leader was hero-worshipped by the western media and politicians, and consequently by the western people - for as long as he was 'useful' and after. Who also committed his army and citizens and great losses of life to a (in a sense) "proxy war" on the West's behalf. Again, irrelevant *where* it is published. Anyhow, the observations of a western journalist, btw. https://www.rt.com/russia/558778-us-campaign-stalin-regime/
    1 point
  39. 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
  40. 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
  41. Hooligans https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/07/lied-proof-highly-sensitive-doj-jan-6-documents-leaked-gateway-pundit-fbi-confidential-human-source-infiltrated-proud-boys-ran-fbi-operation-j-6-reported/
    1 point
  42. "It was not a Government that built up the skill and craft of this country ... t was private individuals..." -- Margaret Thatcher "Note to Republicans: The above also applies to America." -- Me *** Gavin Newsom has been running attack ads against Ron DeSantis, much to the glee of Republicans:The model of government currently en vogue in both parties has failed every time it has been tried. (Image by Evan Fitzer, via Unsplash, license.)Besides the fact that under DeSantis' leadership, the Florida population has grown, and under Newsom's leadership, for the first time ever in California, the population shrunk in 2020 and 2021, it seems clear that DeSantis would trounce Newsom in important swing states. Democrats might not see it that way; the GOP should encourage that. They should want Newsom to run for President because his whole platform will be about guns and abortion -- no problem-solving solutions. Newsom would run the country just like he ran San Francisco as its mayor, and now the state of California: an ineffective 'leader' who has made the homelessness crisis worse by not having mental health workers readily available to treat those in need, by the lack of rehabilitation centers for the homeless, and as much as the rescue missions are trying to help and reduce homelessness, it is continuously increasing due to Newsom's ineffectiveness, and horrible leadership. Forty percent of small businesses were forced to shut down during the COVID-19 lockdowns. That may not translate to the national level; however, his inability to run the fifth-largest economy in the world while having homelessness worsen, rampant crime due to Prop 47, and district attorneys like George Gascon, both of which Newsom supported, making people feel unsafe. His ineffectiveness in leading on several major issues might cause more damage than any President has before. [bold added]Set aside for a moment the theocratic objections to abortion and look at what passes for a critique of Newsom's poor record as governor of California: no problem-solving solutions, would run the country just like ... California, his inability to run the fifth-largest economy in the world. There is no mention of freedom, let alone "fiscal restraint" or an objection (however weak) to "regulatory 'overreach'", or even "small government." (The only mention of "freedom" in the whole piece -- aside from Newsom's embedded tweet -- is an assertion in another embedded tweet that Florida is a "citadel of freedom.") This is not a failure to mention freedom so much as an embrace of the nanny state, as witness the blame for Newsom not running it well, for example: [He] made the homelessness crisis worse by not having mental health workers readily available to treat those in need. Volumes have been written about the roots of the homelessness crisis in the welfare state. An entire party is scorning an opportunity to do something besides run as a more "competent" Democrat/bureaucrat here. Conversely -- and as I have noted before -- DeSantis isn't talking at all about reducing spending or even taxation. Instead, he's quite happy to use taxation to go after political opponents. You could plead that a Californian who contested the welfare state premise would never get elected there -- but this is Florida. And it's not just this piece. You can see the complete absence of the "fiscal conservatism" "leg" of Ronald Reagan's three-legged stool everywhere. Here's an example from a prominent Trumpist blog:It sure would be nice if Pete [Buttigieg] applied so much energy and planning into this current job as Secretary of Transportation. There is still a supply chain problem, as well as travel nightmares in airports, for example. There is no need to say that Buttigieg can walk and chew gum at the same time because we are painfully aware that no one in this administration can do that. It seems to have taken the cancellation of one of his own flights to realize that there is a problem with air travel. This is the least aware administration I can ever remember.One would think that if America just had a better Transportation Czar (or Magic Donald were in charge), all our "supply chain" and transportation issues would evaporate with the wave of a government wand. I am painfully aware that we live in a mixed economy, and so there is legitimate room to criticize the likes of Newsom and Buttigieg on the grounds of diligence or competence, but only up to a point. There is only so much a functionary can do to alleviate these problems: Ultimately, government caused these problems, and long-term only (a) it getting out of the way and (b) time will solve them, as far as government is concerned. Republicans -- having been lobotomized by Trump -- now pass this point regularly to go for the electoral jugular while not bothering to add even a perfunctory acknowledgment to the fact that America was not built by government nor can it be run by government nor should it be run by government. They are choosing the short-sighted and unprincipled tack of running on "competence" and indulging in magical thinking to the effect that it is even possible for a government official to, say run the largest economy in the world. The job of government is far from "running" private lives: It is to create the conditions necessary for countless private individuals to be able to do so: individual freedom and rule of law. It will be cold comfort to see the Democrats dumped from office in the next election if we merely get more of the same -- but with a Christian-themed paint job --from the Republicans. -- CAV P.S. Regarding the attack ads, it pains me to say that Newsom is not wrong to attack DeSantis for his theocratic and anti-free-speech tendencies. It is too bad that such criticisms are made inexpertly and come from a petty tyrant like him, because it makes it easy for many people to ignore or dismiss them.Link to Original
    1 point
  43. Continuing education in Vienna. Go there, have Sacher, and visit my cathedral, along with The Museum of Contraception and Abortion.
    1 point
  44. 1 point
  45. Boydstun

    Theory of Mind

    KyaryPamyu, You added “+ things it comes in contact with actually exist.” That is on the correct line, meaning line to truth, I say. From our science we know that lines, their orientations, and object shapes are actually in the distal stimulus that results in the proximate stimulus—the photo-receptors at the retina, whose stimulations get processed at LGN and visual cortex with all their interconnections. No concepts are needed for the integral shape of a baseball in one's hand to be discerned by hand and by vision. No economization by unit-economies or set-memberships are in necessary play at that perception of shape. In Kan’t mine/not-mine view of sensory perception, he had the matter or content of the sensation be the matter or the content of the “sensible intuition,” be the not-mine component, and the spatial form such as line, configuration, and shape be the mine component, even though in experience, we do not have a sense of it as mine, but as not mine. His arguments that spatial forms are really mine rather than not-mine are really aimed at explaining how Euclidean geometry, true of the empirical world as we experience it, is possible, given the methods we actually use in Euclid and the universality and necessity we arrive at in truths of geometry. His explanation of how it is possible—that space and its Euclidean relations are form contributed by the faculty of sensible intuition—is false and fantastical. But Rand and her intellectual comrades failed at refuting or displacing Kant’s explanation, wrong and (to modern heads) laughable as that explanation might be. Talking about perceptual form in a sophisticated modern, realist theory of perception, and talking about theory of concepts in which set- and unit-ways of looking at things subsumed under concepts do nothing to explain how the method used in geometry (synthetic geometry, not analytic geometry) is successful in attaining truths with the character of necessity and generality they possess come about, indeed how they are possible. Rand should have opposed Kant’s tenet that all formality is necessarily the product of the subject in episodes of perception. There is elementary form—such as the betweenness-relations (my right index finger is between my right thumb and right middle finger), a right-hand glove is an inversion of a left-hand glove, and so forth—belonging to concrete particulars and belonging to them as particulars and independently of our perception or any overt cognitive process concerning them. Kant’s notion that formalities in our perceptions and understanding do and must bar our discernment of mind-independent reality then dissolves. The betweenness-relations among my fingers may require some conceptualization to fully firm in mind, but like some similarities and magnitude-relations, which Rand did notice (ITOE App. 217, 199–200, 278–79), those betweenness-relations are physical relations lying in the physical, extra-mental world. Hilbert lifted betweenness-relations to the honor of primitive relations useful for a rigorous Euclidean geometry. Their residence, I notice, is not only as elements of an abstract geometry but in given physical reality. Rand understood that some similarities and comparative degrees of similarity found in perception lead the formation of concepts tuned to the world given by perception. However, Rand’s theory is an account suitable to only concepts of kinds of things and their contrasts and their taxonomic hierarchies. It is not an account aiming to account for our conceptual knowledge of spatial relationships or adequate to account for conceptual geometric knowledge. How from sensory experience do we learn that two points determine a line? Randian empirical abstraction from sensory experience to the concept line (straight line) together with the concept points will not yield the certain truth that any two points determine a unique straight line containing them (cf. A25 B39–40). And we do not come to know definitively such a thing by empirical testing such as eventually we came to know the existence of atoms. Kant innovated a theory of how we have such conceptual geometric knowledge (B40–41), a horribly mistaken one, needing outright detailed replacement, which is not to be found in Rand (directly).
    1 point
  46. >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
  47. >Be also aware that I am knowledgeable enough on the subject of Ukraine Clearly not. Since you've apparently never even heard of the Azov Battalion -- or if you believe that they're a political party -- then you know nothing about Ukraine. If you've never heard of Kolomoisky, you know nothing about Ukraine. If you don't know who Victoria Nuland is (and don't know about her leaked phone call), then you know nothing about Ukraine. If you don't know about the Dept. of Defense documents indicating the financing of bioweapons labs in Ukraine, then you know nothing about Ukraine. I could go on but the conclusion is ineluctable: you know nothing about Ukraine except that it's next to Russia. You know that you don't like Russia mainly because Ayn Rand disliked Russia, so (like most on this board) disliking Russia is pretty much all you wish to know about Ukraine. >And please don’t recommend me watching/reading someone else’s work to look myself for proof of YOUR claims! The proof of MY claims are based on the eye-witness accounts and testimony of others actually in Ukraine (Ukrainians, Russians, Americans, and sundry western European journalists) as well as leaked information such as phone calls, documents, etc. of principal actors responsible for a coup back in 2014 (Victoria Nuland, etc.). If you don't accept eye-witness accounts of Ukrainian citizens that the Ukrainian army has been shelling their own cities and committing atrocities against their own people, then you'll just have to travel to Ukraine yourself and see for yourself. But then you'll be Red Pilled and awake and you probably won't like that. Please: swallow the Blue Pill, continue watching CNN, and go back to sleep.
    1 point
  48. >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
  49. >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
  50. Samuel Barber's violin concerto, first movement
    1 point
×
×
  • Create New...