Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

tadmjones

Regulars
  • Posts

    1989
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    48

tadmjones last won the day on March 8

tadmjones had the most liked content!

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Previous Fields

  • Sexual orientation
    No Answer
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Country
    United States
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted
  • School or University
    na

Recent Profile Visitors

6633 profile views

tadmjones's Achievements

Senior Member

Senior Member (6/7)

201

Reputation

  1. It looks like a 6% rate was last seen in 1992 and hasn't gone below or even to 5% since. Maybe 'high' is a clickbaiting term ? https://www.statista.com/statistics/777612/average-commission-rate-realtors-usa/
  2. And the detail I am harping on is the detail in this article ie age restrictions for social media accounts.
  3. Too bad, I guess, that the street you grew up on wasn't populated by stricter constitutionalists.
  4. In the article the example of bad parenting is given as an arranged marriage to a first cousin, and that an age restriction on creating an account on a social media platform could harm children in a like situation by barring them from receiving certain information, contacts, or resources. The author agrees that the legislation is 'bad' because of that effect and the article also talks about suppression of speech or expression. I am saying the protection children need from bad parenting would be protection from their parents allowing them to participate on social media, and I don't think it is 'bad legislation' unless there is an argument that 'objective laws' that bar selling alcohol and tobacco to minors are 'bad' too.
  5. Are laws that place age restrictions on tobacco and alcohol use 'bad legislation'? The psychological manipulations that all persons who use 'social media' are subject to are not the 'latest in moral panics' , they are design features of the medium. No one disputes that designers of the tech were studying and designing platforms with the expressed purpose of exploiting psychological manipulation techniques and effects, eg how to engage and capture attention, brain chemical fluctuations based on responses in physically interacting with touch screens, ect. Placing age restrictions on accessing the 'internet' because networked computers qua networks is a manifestation of demonic forces would be a 'moral panic'. Disallowing entities from profiting on uninformed consent of minors isn't necessarily bad legislation, perhaps anti big L Libertarian, but it doesn't 'feel' that bad. I mean I wouldn't punish(unless it was my child) the fifth grader for sneaking a cigarette behind the playground, but if they bought a pack from the corner store I'd see that as abuse by the store owner.
  6. Now I think you've misinterpreted my motivations.
  7. My original comment was sort of a shit post, though not as denigration to Stephen's contribution, just a semi-humorous little 'throw it out there thingy'. But our little back and forth about it has brought, at least to my mind, thoughts in tangential areas. Eg. the origin of and types of petro-chemicals colloquially or perhaps technically referred to as 'fossil fuels' , is there a distribution of 'rates' of evolution dependent on organism type? how long ago was Pangea a place? as in if we assume a linear rate of plant evolution, than is it even plausible to think the development of 'the proto-types of the proto-types' would stretch back 700 million years? and how does a timeline like that match up with the age of the planet and how that might affect developing a gauge for evolutionary 'rates'. One of O'ism's strongest suits or powerful attributes is the importance placed on integration of non contradictory identification. For me that highlighted the idea of not only using 'logic' to identify 'facts' but has to also be coupled to the idea that all facts correctly identified need to be integrated into the set of all previously 'proven facts'. And now your latest comment has touched on, to me anyways, a possible ontological point, but perhaps it is just me reading too much into semantics. But I am curious , when you say "life evolves" , you mean different 'forms of life' can and do evolve at rates consistent within the range of possibility and circumstances available for say an increase in 'survivablity ' of certain or various forms , or that 'life' is evolving 'through' the various forms? Is 'the vital force' changing constitution or do the germ lines of living things change? Ie that 'life' gets more complex through time ?or that organisms 'obviously' change through time by genetic variation?
  8. But do you think the rate of plant evolution is linear? If it is then what I said about the proto types of the proto types would/could be true right ?
  9. I was responding to the idea of moving mountains lol.
  10. Oops too late for edit , liminal should be luminal
  11. So you accept that rate of plant evolution is relatively linear? The proto types of the proto-types of tree/ferns mentioned were in the process of evolving for the prior 350 million years? I was under the impression that a rough estimate is like a billion years after the earth formed and ‘cooled’ , attained a state that we would recognize as earth like now, unicellular life got started and then maintained a rather static almost homeostasis rate of growth but not development , for as much as a few billions years of nothing but unicellular life forms until bam! eukaryotes! I think eukaryotes fossils are like 1.9 billion years old , looks like fits and spurts there , but maybe linear if the ages are misaligned, I suppose. And isn’t fossil fuels really a misnomer ?
  12. That type of conjecture is I think an example of ‘trying to create the territory out of the map’ fallacious framing. Not the conjecture qua conjecture , as much as treating the thesis of a possible feature of reality as sufficient cause to claim having found a feature of reality. As science physics identifies features of reality and allows for predictions of the behavior of reality. The ‘maths’ allowed for the predictions that lead to the empirical proof of the possibility of atom splitting. And the splitting proved the maths. I’m not versed in the history of the scientific development of knowledge of fusion and fission and the technologies that made manipulation of those forces possible, but I’d assumed it is in some sense based on the maths that were based on observations of star like objects. Are there analogous instances observed of Supra liminal phenomena or does some interpretation of ‘the maths’ lead to a possibility by interpretation alone? Quantifying the empirical evidence of the facts of reality doesn’t necessarily lead to the ability to exploit the laws of physics in such a way as to create a ‘new’ phenomenon, do we not first need to identify an instance of super liminal motion before exploiting the forces ?
  13. Would the proto-types of the proto-types of modern trees have been fossilized at the time their fossilization occurred? And I suppose we are still the New World, lol. But certainly not on a young Earth , well relatively anyway
  14. Nay, you shall see a bold fellow many times do Mahomet's miracle. Mahomet made the people believe that he would call an hill to him, and from the top of it offer up his prayers, for the observers of his law. The people assembled; Mahomet called the hill to come to him, again and again; and when the hill stood still, he was never a whit abashed, but said, If the hill will not come to Mahomet, Mahomet will go to the hill. So these men, when they have promised great matters, and failed most shamefully, yet (if they have the perfection of boldness) they will but slight it over, and make a turn, and no more ado. Bacon, Francis, chapter 12, Of Boldness, in his Essays.
  15. Unbound or not traversing the distance is the stopper (for now?), so terraforming is probably more in the range of energy expenditure/production/directed utilization we can handle before we break out of our Newtonian limitations, so walk and chew gum ? A ‘warp drive’ concept is in the realm of acceleration? Serious question , as my limited knowledge of physics makes me believe travel at the ‘speeds’ to make interstellar distances even conceivable for human survivability means developing systems that would sustain everything we know about stuff like the Kreb’s cycle and what know about metabolism is based on earth exact conditions , notwithstanding what effects such acceleration would and to the mix. I’ve heard the Higgs field is kind of sticky stuff with mass adds a little drag to the mix, too, no? I also think this thread is more suited to an appreciation of the inspirational/ aspirational and physics would be better in a discussion on a separate thread.
×
×
  • Create New...