Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Nicky

  1. Just to get ahead of this: the hypothetical Nazis in my example have not expressed any desire to illicitly participate in the government of the US...or to break any other laws on the books. They haven't expressed the contrary, either (presumably, they were never even questioned about it, since entry is free as long as you can prove your identity and have no criminal history, it's not like they would make you pinky swear that you won't break any laws in the future when you cross the border). And some of them will start using guerrilla tactics to intimidate everyone they hate and everyone w
  2. To me, it FEELS LIKE you think expressing a preference for a government system that doesn't involve periodical free elections to establish who runs the government (i.e. expressing a preference for a military dictatorship, a socialist revolution, a fascist totalitarian state, or for that matter a state of anarchy) constitutes sedition. I say feel like, because you haven't even come close to accurately describing what is and what isn't sedition.
  3. That wasn't the question. That was just a statement of fact: that's what US law says. Being a Nazi (with everything that implies, as described in my post above) is not a crime in the United States. So, with that fact in mind, do you want to answer the question: should it be a right to organize the mass migration of ideological Nazis, who's stated goal is to create a fascist, national socialist government, and then achieve racial harmony by having the government murder all non-whites, into the US? Again: holding and expressing such beliefs is the constitutionally guaranteed right of Americ
  4. Okay, so just to confirm that I'm reading your answer correctly: immigration to a country for the purpose of fundamentally changing its form of government to totalitarianism is a right. In any numbers, even if it's organized and taking place in mass. Correct?
  5. The stated purpose of the organization is EXACTLY what I said. Nothing less, nothing more. They will not say they intend to do anything else except help people who share their stated beliefs enter the US, and then organize to take power. There's no mention of how. They also do not tell the people they are helping whether to behave peacefully or violently. They leave it up to them. So, is this a right, or not?
  6. I said "eventual Final Solution". Under US law, the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio Espousing Nazi ideology (which is centered on racial harmony, clearly only achievable by killing all non-Aryans), is protected speech. So what exactly is the problem? Being a Nazi is not a crime in the US. Why shouldn't, then, Nazis be free to settle in the US in great numbers?
  7. Here's a question, might be relevant to the thread: let's say someone formed the International Nazi Party in South America. This movement then started recruiting like minded, white South Americans, putting them on buses, and bringing them up into the US, for the stated purpose of spreading national socialism in America (this includes promoting antisemitic laws, government imposed segregation and overall fascist control of society, an eventual takeover of America's military might and a global Final Solution). Is this within their rights? Why or why not? Note: the reason why someone wo
  8. Just curious: what's your background? Have you worked for or managed a large business before?
  9. I used to believe in God, and study the Bible, when I was very young. I don't look at it as "lost time" at all. In fact, those were some of the most intellectually productive years of my life. I didn't just read the Bible, I also read Dostoevsky and several other Christian authors, but it was all connected to my faith, and it was all very much productive and worthwhile. I highly recommend crazy ol' Fyodor. Every single thing he ever wrote is genius. Insane (or maybe just insanely pessimistic) on some level, but he cuts to the essence of things on every other level. So does Nietzsche (who is v
  10. That sounds like your social anxiety, not anything caused by other people's shortcomings. That's one of many things a therapist will likely point out to you: it's not other people's job to alleviate your stress, it's your job to function in stressful situations. Everybody feels anxiety, and it's perfectly normal. Anxiety is only bad if you let it paralyze you. If you are able to act despite feeling anxiety, it can actually help you (it can make you more focused than if you were entirely relaxed and comfortable with a given situation). Obviously, there are degrees, and everyone needs
  11. Yes. Seek two or three therapists. And then settle on the one who insists on honesty the most, and catches you in lies and equivocations most often. That's who's gonna help you engage in the honest, painful self evaluation required for healing.
  12. Regarding fasting, I don't know if this was mentioned yet, but the longest medically observed and documented period of fasting (on NO CALORIE INTAKE, water and vitamin supplements alone) was 382 days. In that time, the 27 year old grotesquely obese patient lost 125 kg. More from the study:
  13. Don't Google "ice cream", google the toxic and addictive ingredient in ice cream: sugar. The dosage where sugar is chronically toxic depends on each individual, but the normal western diet should put you well above that dosage. On average, Americans eat 30 kg of sugar per year. That's 85 grams/day. It (added sugar) starts being toxic at a fraction of that. If you buy processed food, from the store, and do not actively avoid foods that have sugar in them, you are exposing yourself to toxic levels of sugar, and are at significant risk for all those illnesses you listed. Doesn't matter
  14. I recently read a book called The Power of Habit: Why We Do What We Do in Life and Business. It really helped me make peace with this ever present contradiction between supposed workplace rules and what people actually do, as a rule (not sure how to phrase this exactly...maybe "what people actually do as if they were following a different rule book"?), at work. Because it's not chaos: people aren't acting unpredictably, or unilaterally, when they're ignoring the official rules. They are just following a different set of rules: one that's not written down. But they're all following the same unw
  15. There are many fasting methods. I am talking strictly about restricted eating, where you restrict your food intake to anywhere under 12 hours/day. And even in this case, you can have all the benefits of coffee and tea...during those hours when you're eating. It's just that you can't drink them instead of water (because you wanna be drinking some sort of fluid when you're not eating, and non-flavored water is the only thing that doesn't cause enzyme production (doesn't start that 12 hour stage of your metabolic cycle when digestion is optimal). And, again: the studies that show spectacular
  16. Just because something works on mice (that's usually what things like this are tested on) doesn't mean it works the same on humans. But still, it's more likely to work, than a more arbitrary suggestion, that hasn't even been tested on mice. So yes, I do try to keep up with the latest studies, and adapt my lifestyle as much as possible. That said, some of the stuff (even the stuff on your list) is contradictory. Drinking coffee and tea instead of water for instance contradicts the version of intermittent fasting you describe (it's specifically called time restricted eating)...because coff
  17. No, none of what you are describing contradicts tabula rasa. I'm currently reading (almost finished) a book called "The power of habit" (I recommend it, because it doesn't just spout advice, it describes the cutting edge science and studies that back up the advice), which goes into detail about how habits are formed, which parts of the brain light up or go dim when they take over, and how we can consciously determine or affect these subconscious, semi-automatic habits. These are not fully automatic reactions, they can be created, bypassed or altered through conscious mental effort. I
  18. Sure. But that's not the issue. The issue is, the brain (it is claimed, I'm happy to name the people who make the claim, but I assume you're aware) reacts automatically to something being perceived (perceived automatically... this part Oism agrees with). The effect of that reaction (the mood) isn't knowledge. But what about the cause? If event X is automatically, and entirely independently of anything a person learned in their life, is causing reaction Y, isn't the ability of the primitive mind to recognize event X, and KNOW that this is the time to react in manner Y, "knowledge"? It is t
  19. If parts of the brain react independently from the conscious mind (to produce mood altering chemicals, automatically, NO MATTER WHAT YOU DO, because that's what they've been doing for the past 250 million years), how is that a blank slate?
  20. I'll keep this simple, to start out with. Could it be that parts of the human brain are remnants of evolution (vestigial, like the appendix, the tailbone on an embryo, pseudo genes, etc.), and that they produce chemicals (such as serotonin) in reaction to outside stimuli, that affect our state of mind, entirely independent of our conscious mind (our values and knowledge)? (what I'm getting at is that this notion is fairly widely accepted in Psychology, and it does not gel with "tabula rasa"...that's the subject I'm ultimately hoping to revisit)
  21. Most tech executives, including Google's CEO, live in the US. Which means the US Congress has the authority to stop this. They can make aiding and abetting repression abroad illegal. And, frankly, they should. There's already a precedent for it: the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act makes involvement in corruption abroad a federal crime. This is way more serious than giving a bribe to some bureaucrat. This app could very easily end up facilitating torture and murder.
  22. Farmers are traders. Everyone who produces something to sell is a trader.
  23. Not a bad point there, Miss Rand. Indeed, the nationalism vs. internationalism question is superficial and artificial. Nationalism has no virtues, nor does socialism, nor does internationalism per se. Only capitalism does, and international agreements only have virtue to the extent that they facilitate individuals' freedom to trade and move between states. P.S. You really should be more careful about the ghost of a dead individualist philosopher taking over you fingers and posting corrections to your collectivist book review, Grames. It's hurting the cause.
  24. I don't think a helicopter will take you to any reasonable definition of " the top of the world". A combustion engine tends to run out of oxygen after a few miles above sea level.
  • Create New...