Objectivism Online Forum

# human_murda

Regulars

262

• #### Days Won

6

human_murda had the most liked content!

## Previous Fields

• Country
India
Not Specified
• Relationship status

## Recent Profile Visitors

2314 profile views

24

1. ## "Is Capitalism NECESSARILY Racist?"

You don't need to agree with people who make similar claims, but you should first try to understand the essentials of their argument. You think leftists are dumb enough to inadvertently claim that non-White people/lower castes are incapable? But that's not the argument they're actually making; it's simply a mischaracterization (not saying I agree with them, but you don't understand their argument).

3. ## Do Algorithmically Non-Trivial Definitions Refute Measurement-Omission Theory?

I don't think it matters to Rand's theory what quantities are directly measurable or not. Side-length is a measurement, average of side-lengths is a measurement, angles are measurements, sines and tangents of angles are measurements. These are all characteristics of a triangle, even if we might need to perform some computations to find them out. It's possible to restate your definition in terms of quantities that are "directly measurable": we just need the ratio of a triangle's side-length to its perimeter (which is "directly measurable") to be between 0.9/3 and 1.1/3. However, even here we need to "compute" the ratio (which isn't directly measurable). The measurement omission here is the fact that only the ratios matter, not the actual lengths. This isn't actually necessary. It was just the easiest way. Since we know for a fact that only the ratios matter, we can discard all length measurements as a first step (and instead just look at angles). Thus, even without computing averages, we can omit all length measurements (since they're just indicators of scale). Then, based on the law of sines, we can apply the following conditions: 0.9/3 < sin(A)/(sin(A)+sin(B)+sin(B)) < 1.1/3 0.9/3 < sin(B)/(sin(A)+sin(B)+sin(B)) < 1.1/3 0.9/3 < sin(C)/(sin(A)+sin(B)+sin(B)) < 1.1/3 Even after this, there are additional measurement omissions (only ratios of sines matter, not the actual values of the sines. The exact value of the ratio also doesn't matter and only a certain range matters). The idea that we need to compute averages before any measurement omission is incorrect. It's possible to get rid of length measurements first and then do other computations. However, calculating averages first is easier (and it honestly doesn't matter. The average is as much a property of a triangle as a side-length).
4. ## Do Algorithmically Non-Trivial Definitions Refute Measurement-Omission Theory?

The only way to do that would be to compute the average first (the average can be taken as the scaling factor in the previous example). Only once you have gotten rid of all the triangles whose average is not 1 would you even need to check whether the side lengths are between 0.9 and 1.1. Here, the average (or scaling factor) is 1.09, not 1. If the side lengths were 9.87, 10.199, 10.88: the scaling factor would be 10.3163. After omitting the scaling factor, the side lengths would be 0.9567,0.9886,1.0546. After omitting the exact side-length, it would be (yes,yes,yes). What's "circular" about this?
5. ## Do Algorithmically Non-Trivial Definitions Refute Measurement-Omission Theory?

Consider all "almost equilateral triangles" with an average "side-length" of 1. Then all possible "almost equilateral triangles" are just off by a scaling factor from the previously described triangles. However, the scaling factor is not important for determining whether some triangle fits our definition or not, so the scaling factor is just one measurement that's omitted. There are no "required ranges" for a triangle that already exists. A triangle either fits the definition or it doesn't. Its other sides are probably not going to vary just because you measured one side. In the case of triangles with an average "side-length" of 1, all 3 sides are within 1±0.1. The three sides are not "correlated" and we don't need a long list. Other triangles are just off by a scaling factor (which is not important and can be omitted). Mostly irrelevant. Measurement of one side of a triangle doesn't "determine" the allowed measurement range of another. A triangle is what it is and doesn't change during measurement. Such concerns are only relevant if you're constructing a triangle to fit the definition, but it's irrelevant to the problem of defining a triangle. For a triangle that actually exists, its average "side-length" is well defined and the side-lengths are not correlated. What you described previously is the process of constructing a triangle. This is obviously complex and has nothing to do with concepts or measurement omission. The first measurement that is omitted is the scale of the triangle, since the only thing we need to know is whether the side-lengths are within a certain percentage point of the average. You can scale any triangle (that already exists) so that the average "side-length" is 1. Then all sides must be within ±0.1 of 1. The next measurement that's omitted is the exact percentage point by which the sides are off from the average (since it doesn't matter if it's 4.3% or 8.7%). The sides aren't "correlated". The only reason they appeared correlated was because you were describing a non-existent triangle with an undefined (and changing) average "side-length". Hence, you arrived at contradictions like "it's likely that certain measurements could end up excluding themselves from the ranges that they themselves determine". You were not talking about things that exist (or could exist). You were talking about the process of constructing a triangle (which does not exist yet). This is completely irrelevant to Rand's idea about concept formation.
6. ## Cultural Parasitism

Avoiding the fact that they're (outdated) stereotypes of two nationalities. I'm just going to say that stereotypes don't need to be verbally explicit and leave it at that. As a different example, this is clearly a stereotype of a group of people (it does not refer to an individual) :
7. ## Cultural Parasitism

Well, there are the conical hats and turbans (among other things), which are used as stereotypes. They're not mental characteristics, but they're still stereotypes. Also, the drawing on the left could represent individuals, while the drawing on the right doesn't. Caricatures of what/who? You're basically just saying that they're caricatures of caricatures ("caricature of two ridiculous faces") avoiding the big turban in the room here.
8. ## Cultural Parasitism

Non-Americans only care about America? Okay, you probably can't show every abstraction with a still image, but you can show some abstractions (including stereotypes) with still images. Do you think there's any difference between the following two images?
9. ## Cultural Parasitism

It isn't. It's an abstraction. Which Chinese boy (in reality) does it refer to? It could be anyone. "A picture of an individual Chinese boy who happens to eat this way" would have to be a literal photograph of a Chinese boy. It is an individual copy of that drawing though. That's not how Math works (unless you're just talking about the US). I actually live outside India now (for studies), although that's only been two years. However, I've seen the "We wuz kangz and shiet" memes, debates about race and intelligence, how White people are going going extinct, how Australian Aborigines are not human and all of those things while in India (and not on Stormfront, but on sites like Reddit and YouTube. It's mostly coming from Americans but also from South Africans, Australians, Canadians and British people who cared about American politics and are trying to "defend America"). I was raised in a small town of 16000 people in a lower middle class family (although we're more upper middle class now). I normally wouldn't have to listen to all of this BS but access to the internet (and knowledge of English) is enough, without which I wouldn't have encountered Ayn Rand anyway (I saw her on an online booklist).
10. ## Cultural Parasitism

Well, you know that now, because I gave a source. But if you were just observing patterns about casting in movies, you could easily come up with conspiracy theories about the alt-right controlling Hollywood. I never said that non-(White men) should be cast because they were discriminated against by Hollywood historically. I'm just saying that your White victimhood narrative doesn't hold up. You came up with the claim that "White men were getting erased from existence". And you have previously made claims such as "There is more to discuss about the increasing assault on, and the self-abnegating guilt by, one specific race and specific gender - i.e. white men - wherever they live - racialistically motivated, also". You keep making the same claims on a lot of threads and also claim that other people are making everything about gender and race. You're the one making the claim that White men, as a collective, are assaulted and victimized everywhere on the planet.

12. ## Cultural Parasitism

Who is "they"? Progressives don't make movies. There's no group of leftists sitting around and deciding whether some movie is going to be economically viable. These decisions are made by Studio executives who determine if there's going to enough interest in a movie to generate a profit. Sometimes, political topics generate enough interest (like the case of the Ghostbusters movie) even if they're crap. And these are not flagship movies for a Studio. They just generate some passive income (like remakes of Video Games), while they focus on bigger projects. They're the equivalent of card games made by well known gaming studios. And these movies are not made by leftists. Bigger projects that are not lazy cash-grabs and have different leads are the Star Wars series, Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (the lead isn't Peter Parker) or even a video game like The Last of Us 2. These are well made films (and games) and no, they're not made by "progressives".