tadmjones

Hairnet Again that has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic. The wider point , I think, in this kind of discussion should be along the lines that if we lived in a society that treated the right to carry as it does drivers' licenses, it would be reasonable to assume that when in public a significant percent of public will be armed at anytime and at any place being armed would not necessarily give anyone advantage as far as initiating force. Walking around brandishing a weapon would certainly draw attention and make one a 'marked man'. Any threats you feel 'may' come from unstable teachers would be checked by the other more rational and armed people in the immediate vicinity.

Hairnet re school scandal What does your twice cited school scandal have to do with the topic of teachers either carrying or not being permitted to carry weapons on campus? It does show how people in the public education system are protected professionally if they act irrationally. It seems this was an ongoing problem with a particular individual, actually if what one poster said was true that 95% of parents confronted the board about this coach to no avail , I do not understand how they could have let their children participate in any program this person was invovled with. Either way, what does this have to do with guns in school zones?

Design a weight training apparatus that immoblizing the wrist, but some how allows for the rest of the arm to train ?

I failed to tie my aside to a possible link to the idea of a priori , in that Rand shows that the axioms are held implicitly, but due to the hierachy of knowledge can later be recognized and therefore held explicitly. In a sense this could be viewed as having awareness of axioms innately, not that O'ism holds this position, just a personal hypothesis as to how innate ideas may have been mistakenly formulated.

I don't know if I would define myself as an empiricist, maybe more like a context-based conceptual factualist. I wouldn't touch the the thought experiment example with a ten foot pole! But to the example using quantities of oranges, maybe I can shed some light on how I see it. I know I will have four oranges in a basket if I put in a quantity of two and then also put in another quantity of 2, the fact here concerned is the fact that I can say with certainty that 4 would be the quantity of oranges in the basket , if I did what you describe. The reason I know this is because of the way I understand and use concepts. The statement or proposition is made up of concepts: basket, orange, 2 ect. Concepts refer to entities in reality , and reality is what determines what is true. Meaning proof, or showing something to be true, means to point to that thing in reality. The concept of 2 refers to a specific quantity, specifically which entities make up the quantity is irrelevant as far as the concept of '2'. If you add two quantities of 2 , you will have the resultant quantity of 4, everytime. One would not need to prove by sensual experience every single instance of quantity aprrehension to say this was true. But your example seems to be asking if I can 'know' the fact of the specific basket with oranges in it to be true in the future if one can not actually experience the future. I am not sure if you mean by this , that since I can't point to an existent potentiality , therefore certainty of the quantity is unprovable. You also at one point equate the 'laws of logic' with the Law of Idenity, I wouldn't agree with that reasoning. A is A is the axiom of identity, a thing is that which it is and can not be something other at the same time. The laws of logic are a methodology to use to make sure the axiom is not being contradicted. Logic is based on the Law of Identity , but they are not the same thing, they are corollaries or derivative applications of it. O'ism holds that existence is primary and that identity is a corollary. In just a quick aside/example consider how an infant must react to reality(existence) in order to make sense of the world(begin the process of identification) they must implicitly accept the primacy of existence, if not they would then have to decide if what they see is really 'there' ,literally in every single instance of sensual apprehesion. Sorry somewhat rushed , perhaps too broad of an aside.

I would rather the reverence in a courtromm be reserved for the idea of law itself. How that may be implemented aethesically I'm not sure. The personal costuming seems to me archaic, a reminder of times when people knew their betters and were expected to feel belittled and do as told.The gavel , the raised platform and respect for the court shown to its spokesperson the judge I can live with, but I just draw the line with costumes. The raised platform or dais should be enough of a distinction to remind everyone who controls the precedings, so why the addition of the robe? Mere tradition? If it is , what tradition? In Britian at the time of the Revolution, didn't the court function at the pleasure of the King?

moralist said in #110 Well, that's why you don't ever want to use Federal Reserve Notes as a store of wealth when almost any dollar denominated equity works so much better. I have some old dollars fromt he time they were printed as Silver Certificates. Do you know that you could go to the Federal Reserve Mint in San Francisco and trade those in Silver Certificates for packets of real silver bullion? That's great, you do know that only FRN are legal tender for all debts private and public? So in essence even if a store owner wanted to trade his goods for your bullion , he can't legally. So as far as currency goes, bullion doesn't work. Other than those who hold money market accounts(denominated in US $)as investment instruments, I don't think many rational people believe FRN are anything other legal currency not a store of wealth(as in safeguarding , not in the sense of medium of exchange)

I think she would have preferred a society in which individuals voluntarily trade value for value. The fact that a medium of exchange makes such trade more efficient means , she probably would agree that a specific currency or a small group of objectively defined currencies would be necessary and expidient in an advanced division of labor society. I think she would also agree that the idea of credit was on the whole a 'good' thing, the current state of affairs notwithstanding.

secondhander said in #35 A priori means that there is knowledge that is justified using deduction, not induction alone; that you can deduce that something is true without having to use sensory perception in each and every case for the justification of the knowledge. An example: Lisa was born after Bart. Therefore, Bart is older than Lisa. If you know the first premise to be true, then you can hold a justified belief that Bart is older than Lisa. Note that you don't have to go do an empirical investigation of Bart and Lisa to determine their ages empirically in order to know which one is older. So long as you know that one was born before the other, then you can deduce that one is older than the other, without using your senses in an empirical investigation whatsoever. How does using the word therefore mean new knowledge was apprehended? Your example does not yield anything beyond which individual was born first. You do not deduce that one is older than the other if you know which was born first, it is just a restatement of the same fact. Is this the proof of a priori knowledge, or just not a good example of what you mean? Also I do not understand what you mean by a 'justification for knowledge'. You have stated that you are not that familiar with Rand's epistemology, while I really only know her epistemology so i may be handicapped in understanding a response if it is couched solely in formal logic proofs.

2046 do you harbor as much resentment against the constitutions of the states that made up the confederacy of which the Articles were the basis, as you do the US Constitution as ratified?

But they are the trapppings of power this republic adopted , from the very government with which it broke. Off with their robes!!

moralist said #93 In 1971 gold cost $40 an ounce. In 2013 gold costs $1,570 an ounce. Exactly the same one ounce of gold... only the amount of dollars needed to buy it has changed. And that is why the dollar is such a poor quality store of wealth. Again as an economic layman, while I do not doubt that these numbers are correct it doesn't necessarily follow that monetary policy is the sole reason for the change in values. Of course irrational and or immoral principles will lead to less desirious economic effects. But the 'price' of a thing is what the price of thing is , as measured by the unit. In terms of gold , what is the price of gold? An ounce of gold was equal to an ounce of gold in 71 and still is today. Fiat currency and legal tender laws work to erode the concept of store of wealth. But they are not the sole cause of the change of value expressed in prices (dollars). In capitalistic societies it should be expected that things will become 'cheaper' due to the amount of productiveness the political system allows to occur, or to put it another way: to the extent the political system does not hamper the virtue of productiveness. Operating a strict gold standard( or any commodity, gold just happens to be probably the best 'thing') would, I think, be the optimal monetary policy to adopt, along with what that would necessarily entail eg seperation of government and economics. I doubt most rational people would choose the current state of monetary policy as the optimal policy, and yet here it is. There are myriad reasons why the current state of affairs is what it is, but it isn't the fault of the current politic minority. Spartacus (as the tv version of the story goes) rebelled against the gladitorail system in heroic manner because the system was immoral. I get the idea from your posts that he should rather have focused his energies on just working toward being the best gladiator, meaning disregarding the fact his opponents were also nonwilling participants.

O'ism holds the primacy of existence. Something is , and that existent has an identity. The Law of Identity is axiomatic, but it is a corollary of existence exists. Existence exists is not proved by nor based on the laws of logic. This is probably the gist I sensed in your posts that led me to think you posit the primacy of consciousness.

The Law of Identity is axiomatic, in the second paragraph you give an example of what axiomatic means. An axiom is an irreducible primary and any attempt to deny it would imply it, or be based on it. I do not understand what you mean by "knowing something axiomatically". The gist of what you are saying seems to imply that axioms exist based on consciousness.You stated that the laws of logic are somehow hard wired in the brain/mind(not sure which one or if you maintain a difference) and that this is their genesis. The laws of logic are based on the axiom of identity , but they are not the same as the axiom. They are a method to determine if reason is being used in accordance with noncontradictory identification in an ongoing manner , so to speak. Axioms are the irreducible primaries that are implicit in all reason and knowledge, but they are in no way hardwired or innate. In other posts you talked of behaviours residing in the dna waiting to be expressed. This too seems to be an arguement for innate ideas, in that actions of volitionally conscious beings are preceded by thought. If what makes a potential mate desirous is purely driven by innate urges, does this mean that given the current context of human knowledge we can now relegate them to vestigual status? But keep in mind the status of the appendix and why it may not be as vestigual as previously thought. Evo/psych may provide a useful tool to explore , but can fall prey to the same dangers of investigation as any other discipline.

moralist said #90 If a paper note does not accurately represent gold, it's a denial of fiscal reality, and denying reality is a lying. This is similar to the A = B lie that credit is capital, when it is only the lack of it. This A = B lie causes economic depressions which are the inevitable return to the A = A reality that only capital is capital. I am not an economist, but as a layman I would suggest that this line of reasoning is an incorrect view of what happens in capitalism. Capital or wealth (values in addition to what is needed for sustanance) are created by productive means. A capitalist that uses the wealth he created by lending it to another for a productive/profitable purpose will gain assuming his is repaid from the profits of the second person. It could also be that the same capitalist takes his profits from year x and uses it to further expand his own business in year x+1 in essense he has 'lent it' to himself. How then, can credit be the evil thing you claim it to be?

Off topic but , isn't public oath taking odd? It seems so archiac and ritualistic. Do we need actually perform such rites to make say perjury(lying in an official preceding courtroom or congressional hearing) stick. same with judges' attire "Off with the robes!!" Thank god we got rid of the wig thing, I have a hard time watching British officialdom when they purposely wear those ridiculous outfits.

He'll most likely just enjoy the honorific for the rest of his life, 'write' a few bestsellers about how it wasn't the fault of his policies that couldn't fix the damage of his predecessor.. and probably work on his golf game. And some Republican will hold the office and yada yada yada .

Perhaps they should then. Especially if the US govt continues to recognize snd treat Islam in the same way as other 'legitimate' religions. They did take away Jeffers' rights and the reason was his practice of his 'religion'.

Actually most of the responses seem to treat chaos as an adjective , not a noun.

In the interesting analyis from the link, what would happen if the caveman observed a deer? Would he have arrived at a truth , if the same methodology were used to seeing a deer approach from the east for a month? (and does the sun actually rise from the east?, it is a caveman so it would at least be pre-Galileo)

I was going to respond that it is impossible to lie to one's self, one could evade a truth or fail to apprehend the truth of a thing even be simply ignorant of a fact, but really why bother.I'm glad I didn't respond.

Chaotic ,being an attribute , makes no sense in this context. 'The Universe' is not an entity. Do you mean, in understanding the maths that try and descibe the conditions in the past can be called 'chaotic' or disorderly? Although this would imply a standard. I started on this line because creation theories seem to be based on some vague idea of 'coming out of chaos'.

Actually, you have it reversed, the recognition of the workings of the hydrogen atom, is what gives raise to the understanding of the relationship between a hydrogen atom and the universe(the ultimate context, remember no contradictions).

One of my favorite arguements from those who want to assert a 'designer', is the magic contextless adjective:complex.

I agree with first part of the post in the sense, "nature to be commanded must first be understood", but what do you mean by the second part? Disorderly in what context?