Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Nicky

Regulars
  • Content Count

    3834
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    193

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Nicky got a reaction from dream_weaver in Abstract Surrealism   
    The real twist would be if Banksy managed to draw something that's above the skill level of an eight year old...or, even better, said something more sophisticated than an eight year old.
  2. Thanks
    Nicky got a reaction from Harrison Danneskjold in Why Objectivism is so unpopular   
    That post assumes that winning popularity contests is what makes or breaks a belief system. I disagree. I think Objectivism has a bright future no matter what the idiots following either Liberal or Christian pseudo-journalistic publications believe about it.

    So Slate or HuffPo can make up all the lies they want. It doesn't matter, because the people who rely on those publications for their information don't matter.

    And I think we can all agree that what Christian fundies believe doesn't matter.
  3. Like
    Nicky got a reaction from AlexL in Ukraine   
    Putin's expansionism is a bigger issue than just Crimea. There needs to be a much tougher reaction from the West than there was during the Georgia invasion, if it is to end in Crimea or even Eastern Ukraine. Obviously, it can't be the full out political and economic isolation of Russia (because holding something back leaves them an incentive to not escalate further), but it needs to be painful.

    Russia isn't as important as they seem to think they are. A demonstration of that, by cutting down on trade (through various means, it doesn't have to be overt sanctions, it can be tariffs and regulatory roadblocks - God knows every western government has the power to obliterate trade using whatever excuse they feel like using) might go a long way towards reigning in their ambitions.

    And, above all, there needs to be a long term solution to the European reliance on Russian energy. The EU bureaucrats need to figure out which is more offensive to their sensitive taste buds: being Putin's lapdog, or fracking and nuclear energy. Same with the US: the federal gov. has the power to singlehandedly bring down the price of oil by a good chunk, and devastate both Putin and Iran's ability to fund their ambitions, just by supporting oil production and infrastructure on US soil.
  4. Like
    Nicky got a reaction from thenelli01 in Should you be friends with a woman you want, but can’t have?   
    Sorry, but this whole thing stopped making sense to me. On the one hand, you are describing a situation where a friend of yours, who you have a crush on, and who's shown interest in you herself, is either having a quick fling with someone else, or is in the early stages of a relationship with someone else. Either way, not a relationship that's guaranteed, or even likely, to last.
    On the other hand, you're talking about a girl who is "unattainable", "out of your league", and regret and missed opportunity, all suggesting that there's no chance you could ever date her.
    Those two stories can't both be true. It's one or the other. Which is it?
  5. Like
    Nicky got a reaction from thenelli01 in Should you be friends with a woman you want, but can’t have?   
    I think you have a problem, but it's not what you think. Your problem isn't inexperience or shyness. Women don't mind that. What they mind is jealousy and insecurity. You are NOT in a relationship with anyone. You shouldn't act like you are, and while we're at it, you should also try not to feel like you are. Your jealousy is out of place. You're not in pain because of any kind of lost love (she's clearly not lost to you), you're in pain because of misplaced jealousy.
    Here are some things you shouldn't do:
    1. Do not tell her about your jealousy or any kind of pain she is causing you. It's not her problem, not her responsibility to "not hurt you", etc. Don't even entertain the thought that it's her fault in any way, no matter how many texts she sends, and what's in them. It's her right to share her life with her friends, and it is not your right to blame her for it. It's also her right to test you, if that's what she was doing (though I doubt it), and see if you can handle the idea that she doesn't belong to you. If you ask her out, be casual about it, don't pressure her or become emotional.
    2. Do not act on this pain in any way. Don't try to distract yourself with alcohol or any other high, substance induced or emotional, either. That's a way to validate it, too. You're in pain, just accept the fact and do nothing else, because it shouldn't be your goal to live a pailess life.
    3. Do not for a second think that jealousy is an unavoidable part of love. It's not. It's a symptom of a sick culture that misrepresents love, not a natural consequence of human nature.
    If you never give an unwanted emotion any validation, and take full personal responsibility for having it (never blame anyone else for causing it), that is the way to fight it, and make it subside and eventually go away.
    And, in general, don't act like you're in a monogamous relationship, in any way. She clearly hasn't rejected you romantically (the way you, kinda annoyingly I must say, claimed in the OP), and there's no reason to give up on her, but you're not in any kind of relationship with her. So do what she does: keep your options open, go on dates with whoever will go out with you, be open about it with your friends, accept their support if offered, etc.
    Prove to yourself, and to everyone else, that you are able to keep your emotions grounded in reality: she's not the center of your existence in reality, therefor she shouldn't be the center of your emotional life, either. That groundedness will take you further with attractive, confident women (who have to deal with obsessive, possessive "admirers" on a regular basis) than anything else you can do.
  6. Like
    Nicky got a reaction from DonAthos in Alex Jones: Prophet of the Machine Elves   
    Well that's arbitrary nonsense. But if, instead, you said "open the gateway to an unconscious part of the brain", then that would be a valid hypothesis.
  7. Like
    Nicky reacted to softwareNerd in National Borders   
    Do you take any of those points seriously? People who make those points are either rationalizing or using them to try win an argument. Their real argument is that they don't want more than a certain number of immigrants each year, because it dilutes existing culture and brings competition for jobs.
  8. Like
    Nicky got a reaction from EC in The Trolley Problem   
    The enemy is volitional in OP's example as well. Those people didn't get tied to the tracks by the wind.
    The difference between the two scenarios is this: in mine, you are allowed to know about the people involved, and you can therefor JUDGE them. That's what makes the decision possible. You can recognize evil, and act to defeat it.
    In OP's scenario, you're supposed to make a decision without knowing anything about the person who set this up, why he's doing what he's doing, or about the people tied to the track for that matter. You're supposed to make your decisions without JUDGING the people involved.
    You're supposed to decide that diverting the train is right or wrong irrespective of who the people involved are, what they have done, why they're in this situation, etc.
    That's what's fundamentally wrong about it: it divorces ethics from context, and expects people to have a moral code that doesn't require them to make value judgements about people, or do any kind of thinking, before they can apply it indiscriminately.
  9. Like
    Nicky got a reaction from softwareNerd in The Case for Open Objectivism   
    Jordan Peterson (who I think is a brilliant thinker and public speaker) makes a very interesting point about social statistics: the real issue isn't the 60/40 split between the masses. The real issue is between the outliers: when there's a 60/40 split between two large groups of people, the spit between the extremes (the people who out-perform the group, meaning the over-performers) is far greater (95/5 to 99/1).
    For instance, in NYC (or NYS, I'm citing this out of memory, so I'm not entirely sure which), an overwhelming majority of genius level IQ tested high-school students are ethnic Ashkenazi Jews. A crazy amount, something like 49 out of 50 "genius" IQ students in NY are Jewish. That's a natural consequence of Ashkenazi Jews being, on average, about ten points above the average population, in IQ. Which is not that much. But small statistical differences result in overwhelming differences when it comes to outliers (in this case, geniuses).
    Another good example of this, often cited by Jordan Peterson, is the radical split in prison population, by sex...pretty sure it is above 9 to 1 in "favor" of men...despite the fact that, on average, personality traits that favor criminality, between men and women, tend to be around 60/40 percent...which, on the surface, doesn't seem that significant until you look at the results in outliers.
    And, of course, outliers determine the future of a society. It's hard to argue with that. Albert Enstein (a person who can be objectively judged to have had superior intellect, without an IQ test) was more important than 5 billion people, all added together, who lived since. Clearly. If high IQ really does equal superior intellect, then no one else really matters in the NYC school system on a societal level, except Ashkenazi Jews. And no one really matters on the African continent, period. So, if you buy into IQ (like Jordan unfortunately does...but with a caveat: he does not claim any kind of omniscience, he is open to counter-arguments, and I think he would be blown away by someone challenging his definitions, I don't think he ever met someone able to do that), you can't really dispute these types of conclusions. The only possible avenue of attack against that position is attacking IQ (and social sciences in general, because Jordan is correct: IQ is one of the better parts of social sciences).
    Jordan, as far as I know, only makes one decent argument for IQ: there's a strong corelleration between IQ and financial success in the West. Which is somewhat of a non-sequitur.
  10. Like
    Nicky got a reaction from Tenderlysharp in Should you be friends with a woman you want, but can’t have?   
    One of the greatest regrets of my early life is cutting off ties with a girl I loved, and several of our common friends, because I couldn't have her.
    Yes, staying friends would've been painful...and, back then, I thought pain was a hindrance to any kind of accomplishment or success, and therefor to be avoided at all cost...but, as I found out later: pain is a part of life. A necessary, and therefor GOOD part of life. It would've TAUGHT me a lot, about both myself and the nature of the human experience in general.
    So just take the pain. Don't betray your values, by removing a good person from your life, because you're scared of a little pain. If you take the pain of a short term, probably illusory heartbreak, you will be rewarded for it with a learning experience you can't access in any other way... and possibly a lifetime of friendship as well.
    P.S. You DO want to stay away from any kind of an exploitative relationship. My post assumes that your relationship with her is a straight forward friendship (like mine was), and she is not taking advantage of your feelings in any way.
  11. Like
    Nicky got a reaction from Tenderlysharp in The Case for Open Objectivism   
    That is in no way, shape or form true. Ayn Rand is not Jesus Christ the Savior, she was just a person, like the rest of us.
    Also, she's been dead for 37 years now. Stone cold dead. Not resurrected, not sitting on the right hand side of God, but buried in some dirt, and well on her way to decomposing. There's no Objectivist, in any faction, who would think that we all got done coming up with useful philosophy 37 years ago.
    Ayn Rand herself wouldn't have thought that humanity is all done coming up with useful philosophy, after she died. That's not what closed Objectivism means. Closed Objectivism simply tries to preserve her work for posterity, uncorrupted by people who claim to speak for her. She deserves that much.
    If you wish to come up with new philosophy, go right ahead. I'll read it if it's interesting. And if you think your philosophy has been influenced by Objectivism (the philosophy of Ayn Rand), go ahead and cite her as an influence. But that's all the level of familiarity you're allowed, as far as "closed Objectivists" like myself are concerned. You're not allowed to claim any kind of deeper connection than that, because, guess what: you don't have it. Objectivism is HER philosophy, and hers alone. Anyone who contributed only did so with HER direct approval. Anyone else, who claims to be adding to HER philosophy without her approval, is an interloper.
    The book on Objectivism closed when Ayn Rand died. The book on rational philosophy is wide open, you just have to earn your paragraph, page or chapter in it on your own, as a philosopher,  without claiming any kind of magical connection to Ayn Rand.
     
  12. Sad
    Nicky reacted to Eiuol in Immigration restrictions   
    If they really are totalitarian thugs, then they would fit all the other criteria that I mentioned. You've assumed that you could have totalitarian thugs that are nonviolent and could become a threat. I'm saying that a totalitarian thug is necessarily going to show threatening signs like violence, or do things like stockpile arms, or explicitly call for the extermination of a race. You've already told me that they wouldn't speak in explicit terms, they are being nonviolent, and they have no plan. If you'd call that a threat, I'd call that paranoia. 
    For purposes of a better life and adopting many of the customs of the destination country.
    Only by means of using violence early on and throughout their rise to power.
    So I find the combination of the two fantastical, because the motivations are contradictory. I'd say there is no historical example because no totalitarian would be stupid enough to try to enact their beliefs through persuasion. Well, maybe Lenin was that stupid, actually, very early on. Except Stalin was an even bigger totalitarian, was violent from the beginning, and probably had Lenin killed. (By the way, saying no one would ever be that stupid is almost always false. You can almost always find an example of somebody being that stupid.)
    The better question is, can totalitarians be nonviolent? I don't think so. But then you might say, if totalitarians are necessarily violent, then shouldn't we prevent their migration? Absolutely! My point is there will always be signs of violence, so we don't even need to get into a discussion about whether someone's beliefs really are totalitarian. It's enough to look for all the usual signs of threats and violence.
  13. Sad
    Nicky reacted to MisterSwig in Immigration restrictions   
    There are plenty of good books on how the Nazis gained power, including Ominous Parallels. Street-brawling with communists is not how they took power. That's partly how they became more popular. But generally people loved Hitler's philosophy. They voted for the Nazis, made them the dominant party in the Reichstag. They passed the Enabling Act, giving Hitler dictatorial powers. Citizens were free to leave the country up until WW2. Very few left. In the end, Hitler didn't need to use violence. He was a brilliant speaker and wooed the masses.
  14. Like
    Nicky got a reaction from thenelli01 in Grieving the loss of God   
    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 very much Christian, and a fundamentalist at that, in his critique of the Church, though he's nowhere near as sophisticated as Dostoevsky). So does most of the Bible, as do some other religious texts.
    There's a lot you can learn from religion, when you're really young. You can even learn some stuff from it when you're old. The main things wrong about the Bible are the (occasional) altruism and the supernatural God part. Most of everything else makes quite a bit of sense, and is well worth studying. When you study the Bible, you're studying thousands upon thousands of years worth of human experience. And even the supernatural God part can just be interpreted as a metaphor for reality, and you're fine (well, it's more complex than that, it involves the context of knowledge people had before science was a thing, but there's no reason to get into that here).
    Thing is, this is all off topic. The thread is about the loss of a literal God. There's no loss there, because there's no literal God.
  15. Like
    Nicky got a reaction from dream_weaver in Grieving the loss of God   
    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 very much Christian, and a fundamentalist at that, in his critique of the Church, though he's nowhere near as sophisticated as Dostoevsky). So does most of the Bible, as do some other religious texts.
    There's a lot you can learn from religion, when you're really young. You can even learn some stuff from it when you're old. The main things wrong about the Bible are the (occasional) altruism and the supernatural God part. Most of everything else makes quite a bit of sense, and is well worth studying. When you study the Bible, you're studying thousands upon thousands of years worth of human experience. And even the supernatural God part can just be interpreted as a metaphor for reality, and you're fine (well, it's more complex than that, it involves the context of knowledge people had before science was a thing, but there's no reason to get into that here).
    Thing is, this is all off topic. The thread is about the loss of a literal God. There's no loss there, because there's no literal God.
  16. Like
    Nicky got a reaction from Theg_01 in PTSD from relationship with narcissistic person   
    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 to figure out what their threshold is for tolerating stress, but, in my opinion at least, a stress free life (never facing situations that make you anxious) is even worse than too much stress. You can always dial it back, if it gets too much. Getting into a habit of always seeking psychological comfort, on the other hand, is passive, isolating, and hard to snap out of. So it's better to push yourself, find out what your limit is, and then stay within your limits, than to shut yourself away from the world.
  17. Like
    Nicky got a reaction from EC in How to stay a rational worker in an irrational job?   
    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 unwritten rules, it's not like one person follows one set, another one another set.
    You should just read the book, it's really good (the first half is dedicated to individual habits, the second to organizational ones), but I will try to sum it up briefly. It says something along the lines of: organizations, just like people, are guided by habits, not by rules.
    For instance, you acknowledge that Objectivist principles are rational, and should be followed...but you can't just flip a switch and follow them, you must consciously and constantly work to develop habits that make it easier to act the right way. Same is true for organizations, except developing good habits is even harder, because there are different people, with different values and personalities, involved. I would argue (based on personal experience) that the ONLY way to get people to follow the rules and do so with enthusiasm and good intentions (as opposed to begrudgingly, which produces worse results than not bothering with rules at all) is if the rules are created by EVERYONE in the organization, from the lowliest intern to the top boss, working together and agreeing to them.
    In other words, you can't impose a set of rules from the top down, and expect your business to stay productive if you're tyrannical about enforcing them. People will simply hate you for it, and work against you. Not just "irrational" people. Everyone. The notion of top down rules one's inferiors just follow unquestioningly goes against basic principles of productive human interaction.
    That leaves managers with two options:
    1. In an ideal situation, with an organization that's small enough, or with a branch of an organization that has enough autonomy, the person in charge of the place does what I suggest above: talks to everyone regularly, asks everyone's opinion on what the rules should be, and finally gets everyone to agree on a reasonable, minimum necessary set of rules people are willing to follow. And, of course, the rules are updated regularly.
    2. The second options is what usually happens: a set of rules gets handed down, and promptly ignored. Doesn't mean that anarchy follows. Far from it: as the rules start being ignored, people come up with their own replacement rules fairly quickly. There are conflicts at first (in the process of these rules being formed), but conflict is unpleasant, and people quickly reach compromises meant to avoid conflict, and those settlements end up guiding their actions from that point on. And smart middle managers aren't just aware of these organizational habits, they know how to make slight modifications as needed, to keep things functioning smoothly, and with minimal conflict. They're essentially doing what's described in point 1., but not explicitly (because they don't have the power to do it explicitly).
    My advice is, figure out these hidden rules quickly, and follow them. When you asked your coworker about the hidden rule concerning eating, for instance, they were beyond forthcoming and honest with you. People usually are, because they love these rules (they love them because THEY made them, and they made them to make work life easier and more productive), and they want to help newcomers understand and follow them to. And once you prove that you understand the system, and are willing to work within it, you can start to influence it as well, and bend it to your will. You have to be willing to start small conflicts, to gain any territory, but people will respect you for it (conflicts shouldn't be shouting matches, they should be calm, brief, rare but well timed expressions of dissatisfaction with someone's actions).
    And none of this is irrational. It's not ideal, but it's not irrational. It's the second best solution to the problem, when the first one (explicit cooperation to reach the same result) isn't an option.
    P.S. Don't mistake this with an absence of principles, or dishonesty. Again: in a functional organization that functions in spite of the written rules rather than because of them, people are honest about the unwritten rules. They are honest about their scope (they're not official rules you can be written up for breaking, they are enforced by your co-workers, through social pressure). They are well intentioned about their purpose, and, finally, the rules DO NOT contradict basic human principles like honesty, property rights, etc. If you are not honest, if you do not have the business' best interest in mind, if you steal, etc., these unwritten rules will get you ostracized and even fired more surely than any written rules.
    And don't think that the above description only fits fast food chains that hire minimum wage workers. I've seen the same habit driven work environment everywhere I ever worked, and in every organization I ever came in contact with. The book also goes into the detailed functioning of organizations like ALCOA, the London Underground, a major East Coast hospital, etc.
    In a dysfunctional organization, of course, dishonesty, theft, and much, much worse becomes the "rule". Such organizations exist too, obviously. Just look at the history of the 20th century, examples abound. Functional organizations can't exist without freedom of association, and self interested, rational owners and managers. But you haven't posted anything to suggest this organization you worked for was dishonest, encouraged theft, etc. Having a bite to eat during your shift, with the full knowledge and consent of everyone who works there, is not theft. Who knows why that rule was written down (could be anything from regulation to some out of touch manager on a power trip)...point is, no one cares about it. If no one cares about a rule, it DOES NOT MATTER. IGNORE IT.
  18. Like
    Nicky got a reaction from softwareNerd in How to stay a rational worker in an irrational job?   
    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 unwritten rules, it's not like one person follows one set, another one another set.
    You should just read the book, it's really good (the first half is dedicated to individual habits, the second to organizational ones), but I will try to sum it up briefly. It says something along the lines of: organizations, just like people, are guided by habits, not by rules.
    For instance, you acknowledge that Objectivist principles are rational, and should be followed...but you can't just flip a switch and follow them, you must consciously and constantly work to develop habits that make it easier to act the right way. Same is true for organizations, except developing good habits is even harder, because there are different people, with different values and personalities, involved. I would argue (based on personal experience) that the ONLY way to get people to follow the rules and do so with enthusiasm and good intentions (as opposed to begrudgingly, which produces worse results than not bothering with rules at all) is if the rules are created by EVERYONE in the organization, from the lowliest intern to the top boss, working together and agreeing to them.
    In other words, you can't impose a set of rules from the top down, and expect your business to stay productive if you're tyrannical about enforcing them. People will simply hate you for it, and work against you. Not just "irrational" people. Everyone. The notion of top down rules one's inferiors just follow unquestioningly goes against basic principles of productive human interaction.
    That leaves managers with two options:
    1. In an ideal situation, with an organization that's small enough, or with a branch of an organization that has enough autonomy, the person in charge of the place does what I suggest above: talks to everyone regularly, asks everyone's opinion on what the rules should be, and finally gets everyone to agree on a reasonable, minimum necessary set of rules people are willing to follow. And, of course, the rules are updated regularly.
    2. The second options is what usually happens: a set of rules gets handed down, and promptly ignored. Doesn't mean that anarchy follows. Far from it: as the rules start being ignored, people come up with their own replacement rules fairly quickly. There are conflicts at first (in the process of these rules being formed), but conflict is unpleasant, and people quickly reach compromises meant to avoid conflict, and those settlements end up guiding their actions from that point on. And smart middle managers aren't just aware of these organizational habits, they know how to make slight modifications as needed, to keep things functioning smoothly, and with minimal conflict. They're essentially doing what's described in point 1., but not explicitly (because they don't have the power to do it explicitly).
    My advice is, figure out these hidden rules quickly, and follow them. When you asked your coworker about the hidden rule concerning eating, for instance, they were beyond forthcoming and honest with you. People usually are, because they love these rules (they love them because THEY made them, and they made them to make work life easier and more productive), and they want to help newcomers understand and follow them to. And once you prove that you understand the system, and are willing to work within it, you can start to influence it as well, and bend it to your will. You have to be willing to start small conflicts, to gain any territory, but people will respect you for it (conflicts shouldn't be shouting matches, they should be calm, brief, rare but well timed expressions of dissatisfaction with someone's actions).
    And none of this is irrational. It's not ideal, but it's not irrational. It's the second best solution to the problem, when the first one (explicit cooperation to reach the same result) isn't an option.
    P.S. Don't mistake this with an absence of principles, or dishonesty. Again: in a functional organization that functions in spite of the written rules rather than because of them, people are honest about the unwritten rules. They are honest about their scope (they're not official rules you can be written up for breaking, they are enforced by your co-workers, through social pressure). They are well intentioned about their purpose, and, finally, the rules DO NOT contradict basic human principles like honesty, property rights, etc. If you are not honest, if you do not have the business' best interest in mind, if you steal, etc., these unwritten rules will get you ostracized and even fired more surely than any written rules.
    And don't think that the above description only fits fast food chains that hire minimum wage workers. I've seen the same habit driven work environment everywhere I ever worked, and in every organization I ever came in contact with. The book also goes into the detailed functioning of organizations like ALCOA, the London Underground, a major East Coast hospital, etc.
    In a dysfunctional organization, of course, dishonesty, theft, and much, much worse becomes the "rule". Such organizations exist too, obviously. Just look at the history of the 20th century, examples abound. Functional organizations can't exist without freedom of association, and self interested, rational owners and managers. But you haven't posted anything to suggest this organization you worked for was dishonest, encouraged theft, etc. Having a bite to eat during your shift, with the full knowledge and consent of everyone who works there, is not theft. Who knows why that rule was written down (could be anything from regulation to some out of touch manager on a power trip)...point is, no one cares about it. If no one cares about a rule, it DOES NOT MATTER. IGNORE IT.
  19. Like
    Nicky got a reaction from thenelli01 in PTSD from relationship with narcissistic person   
    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.
  20. Thanks
    Nicky reacted to Grames in Do we have a "primitive mind"?   
    Can you apply the correspondence principle to it?  Reaction Y is not true or false it simply is, the legacy of your biological inheritance and integral to your identity as a rational animal (don't deny the animal part).  So no, it is not knowledge.
    Genetics encodes a great deal of information and it is expressed in the material form of the body and in its behaviors.  If you study photosynthesis you gain knowledge, but when a plant performs photosynthesis that is not application of knowledge.  'Information' already has a general, low level and thoroughly objective definition given by Claude Shannon that doesn't really focus on a biological context.  Using 'instinct' on plants doesn't seem correct either.  I think of it as 'technique'.  It is capacity for action which is genetically encoded, and action is not true or false.  An action improves evolutionary fitness or does not.
  21. Like
    Nicky reacted to happiness in How do I live in a country this over the top in its evil?   
    I’m in the Cayman Islands now, where I just had my second Regenexx-C procedure with culture-expanded stem cells. I saved for it for two years. We treated almost every joint in my body. The first procedure 20 months ago probably saved my life, and I’m stoked to get even more improvement from this one.
     
  22. Like
    Nicky got a reaction from dream_weaver in Reblogged:Google Sees No Evil in Sharia App   
    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.
  23. Like
    Nicky got a reaction from Akilah in Health & Evasion.   
    There's no mention of baseball either. Doesn't mean they don't care about it, it just means it's not relevant, beyond the painfully obvious: a rationally selfish person should take care of their health.
    Rand smoked, and her body type didn't really allow her to appear thin, but she was not obese either. Clearly she paid attention to her diet. I would write off the smoking to the Oist tendency to be skeptical of popular and government advice...because such advice is usually wrong. So it took her longer to buy into it than most.
    And her husband was thin through his life. So are all the men you mentioned. I doubt that's just by coincidence. No indication that they drink to excess or smoke, either. Clearly, they value their health more than the average North American.
    I know most about Peikoff's habits, because I listened to his podcast. He is very careful to maintain his weight, at all times, and has been for decades. But he does so without the "nihilistic" approach of denying himself food he craves. He just has less of it, or switches off fattening foods for a few weeks, when he notices any weight gain.
    P.S. But by all means, e-mail prominent Objectivists and ask. You'll probably get an answer from some of them. Or show up to an even they're speaking at, and ask. I'm sure you'll get the same answer back: health is obviously a value, and we should take care of our bodies.
  24. Like
    Nicky reacted to Gus Van Horn blog in Reblogged:Days Numbered for Asset Forfeiture?   
    I'm glad to hear that at least one Supreme Court justice can't believe that he is having to consider whether the Bill of Rights applies to state law enforcement:

    The case, Timbs v. Indiana, concerns a man whose $40,000 Land Rover was confiscated when he was arrested for a $400 drug deal. After reading the article, I think the argument that the fine is excessive is a good one. Interested readers can read a post at the Institute for Justice for legal background, including a timeline of the case. The post reads in part:
    We should know the Court's answer by June, according to the report.

    -- CAV Link to Original
  25. Thanks
    Nicky got a reaction from softwareNerd in What do you think of "The Red Pill" worldview?   
    I'm reading a good book that deconstructs all this anti-woman/ PUA mentality, and offers an alternative approach. One that is respectful of women without putting them on a pedestal, and congruent with Objectivism.
    In fact a lot of it seems to be written from a partially Oist perspective (the author fleetingly mentions that reading Atlas Shrugged in college changed his life, in the book, as well). It's from Mark Manson (who's known for "The Subtle Art of Not Giving a Fuck", which is the second best "life advice" type book I have ever read in my life), and it's titled "Models: Attract Women Through Honesty". ( I don't think "models" refers to fashion models, but rather "things to model yourself after"...but it is an ambivalent title, on purpose...pretty sure it's meant to mock PUAs).
    The two books are very, very different. "The Subtle Art..." is short, it's written in a provocative style (lots of cursing), it throws flashy, provocative ideas around somewhat carelessly, and uses a wide lens to look at life in general. But it's very interesting, and frames a lot of good life advice in some very surprising and original ways.
    The "Models..." book on the other hand is longer, analytical, detailed, carefully thought through, and focused on the subject at hand. But, as you go along, you find out something very important: the subject at hand (getting women) is as wide as life itself...because you get women based on who you are, personally and socially, not on what "techniques" or lines you use. So the book actually sets out to encourage the reader to change their entire life, and become an interesting, opinionated, provocative, well dressed and groomed, physically fit, healthy, independent, well traveled, knowledgeable, well read, sexually uninhibited, confident, courageous etc. person. Do that, and women won't be able to resist you...no aggressive, fake alpha behavior needed.
×
×
  • Create New...