merjet

In an interview with TAS Williams rejected the label "conservative" and called himself a "radical for individual liberty." What's interesting to me, however, is that both Rand and Williams were popular with conservatives. To this day many people think of them as conservatives. Williams died in December, and he had spent so much time with conservatives that his NY Times obituary called him a "conservative economist" in the headline. I think it's a credit to conservatives that they find value in the ideas of radicals like Rand and Williams. And it's a telling fact that the liberals have rejected them.

I look forward to reading it, Stephen. I also will have an article in the July JARS. The title is Selfish vs Selfish. (There are two legit meanings.)

Huh? My writing "gibberish," which was flippant, referred to the numbers in the following.
 

Gibberish to some people. Are you one of them?

Aristotle, Generation of Animals 5.8, 789a8–b15
Aristotle, Physics, 2.8, 199b27-9

George Walsh - “If you talk about the glass merely in terms of the macroscopic level, then don’t you need some concept of ‘dispositions’?”
Rand - “In what way? How?”
Walsh - “Because the glass is not acting now, it’s not breaking into pieces.”
Peikoff - “Well, what’s wrong with the Aristotelian concept of ‘potentiality’? An entity has the capacity to act because of its nature.”
Walsh - “Well, the reason I was bringing this up was because I thought you rejected the concept of ‘potentiality’.”
Rand - “No. . . .”
Walsh - “I have memory or a misremembrance of someone saying that Objectivism does not accept the Aristotelian concept of ‘potentiality’.”
Rand - “Specifically, that wasn’t me. Unless it was in some context of what Aristotle makes of it, as in regard to his matter-form dichotomy.”
ITOE Appendix 285-86
~~~~~~~~~~~~
A good help on the Aristotelian metaphysical distinction in being between matter and form is here.

Impulsively , no. Examining every emotion, no matter how fleeting and superficial, would be a profound waste of time. To examine fleeting and superficial ones is not faking reality, but focusing on more important things.

The link for the book doesn't work. This Amazon one does for now.

I knew there was good reason to altogether stay away from social media...
The consuming one now is "hate speech", however our Big Tech Moral Guardians wish to define it. One man's facts are someone else's "hate speech".
 

Oh, my. So profound! Do you believe I would wear a catcher's mask to avoid infection by a virus? 

Trump's businesses and family have gained significant financial benefit from his presidency.
Trump placed a lot of emphasis on personal loyalty to him.
Trump blew a chance to save at least one Senate seat, and thus control of the Senate, for the Republicans.  He was more interested in repeating and pushing his claim that he really won his election.
The accusations against Trump are not arbitrary.

If Trump had said "I want to make sure this election was fair", that would be much more reasonable and much less destructive than saying that the election was stolen.
I'm not interested in rehashing that whole other thread, so I'll just repeat my key point.  Subjecting other people to physical danger, including danger of disease, can rise to the level of physical aggression.

Browne on reference, meaning, convention, and the arbitrary.
 

The place and dates of OCON 2021 have been changed -- to Austin, Texas, and August 27–September 1, 2021.
 

14 January 2021
We will crush their violence enacted under their feast of self-delusion and contempt for our Constitutional rule of law. The republic will prevail. The citizens on both sides are armed if it should come to that, but I expect the organized force of the American government will succeed in defense and in bringing the violators to commensurate penalty.
Tony: Indeed the American citizens overwhelmingly are not so stupid as to buy into Left-tarring of the bulk of Republicans as fascists and white-supremacist. And they are overwhelmingly not so stupid as to buy into the Right-tarring of the bulk of Democrats (and Biden/Harris) as socialists or communists.
Many of my relatives and friends voted for Donald Trump in 2020. Most of them have detested his behaviors with regard to the election result. What they had in common with Trump voters who bought and sold the BIG LIE of a purported Trump/Pence win of this national election being STOLEN was only a preference for that ticket over the Democratic one. It is not the case that those who showed up for the fateful Trump rally are representative of the majority of citizens who voted for Mr. Trump.
~American Republic Forever~

Dupin,
Heh. Duh! What is the relevance of your article?
Of course, a statement might be true, or partly true and partly false, or totally false. The same applies to a set of statements. However, when you start with what is largely false and construe it as largely or wholly true, that’s called voluntary derailment. When you assume that the hearsay of Donald Trump, whose standards for truthfulness are far below average, are true, then your speech acts become irrelevant.
 
 

"DERIVING AN ETHIC OF EGOISM FROM THE FACTS OF EXISTENCE: THE PARALLEL PHILOSOPHIES OF SPINOZA AND AYN RAND" by Dagney Palmer.
https://www.academia.edu/19599757/DERIVING_AN_ETHIC_OF_EGOISM_FROM_THE_FACTS_OF_EXISTENCE_THE_PARALLEL_PHILOSOPHIES_OF_SPINOZA_AND_AYN_RAND?email_work_card=title 
I haven't read it yet. It is only 5 pages when shrunk and white space galore removed.
 

"DERIVING AN ETHIC OF EGOISM FROM THE FACTS OF EXISTENCE: THE PARALLEL PHILOSOPHIES OF SPINOZA AND AYN RAND" by Dagney Palmer.
https://www.academia.edu/19599757/DERIVING_AN_ETHIC_OF_EGOISM_FROM_THE_FACTS_OF_EXISTENCE_THE_PARALLEL_PHILOSOPHIES_OF_SPINOZA_AND_AYN_RAND?email_work_card=title 
I haven't read it yet. It is only 5 pages when shrunk and white space galore removed.
 

I launched my blog on 2 January 2011. The title was inspired by Gregory Browne’s Necessary Factual Truths (University Press of America, 2001).
I met Dr. Browne at Eastern Michigan University in the fall semester 2007. Waiting for a class in police operations, I was walking the halls and heard him lecturing. It was obviously a philosophy class and he sounded reasonable. I looked in and saw “Ayn Rand” on the blackboard closing an array of philosophers in historical sequence. A couple of weeks later, I heard him actually mention Ayn Rand. So, I introduced myself. And I bought the book format of his doctoral dissertation. It derives from a refutation by Leonard Peikoff of the Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy.
https://necessaryfacts.blogspot.com/2021/01/ten-years-of-necessary-facts.html
 

A posteriori and a priori #1
To all, I hope you had a Merry Xmas and wish you a Happy New Year. Sometime in 2021 maybe 20/20 hindsight will put more light on the world. 
 

Coronavirus -- symptoms of Covid
 

Guessing, you meant “take preventative measures in not increasing (decreasing) risk for others.“ If that is correct, then I can apply it to driving as follows. I will heed the 45 mph speed limit and thereby not increase risk to other drivers or pedestrians rather than drive 80 mph and endanger other drivers or pedestrians.
whYNOT’s response makes no sense when applied to my driving example. That’s because "not increasing the risk" means not driving, say, 80 mph in a 45 mph zone and thereby creating liability by driving dangerously.

There are multiple cases regarding being infected by someone with HIV. Granted it is very difficult to prove in many cases, but it is not impossible and in some cases one can find a direct link. In those cases the law would apply consequences.

Influenza is not an individual.
If it was between you and the virus itself, the concept "rights" does not apply. Rights is only applicable in a social context. The only relevant question would be "does someone have a right to infect you with a disease"?  And the answer is always no.

But interacting with people in public even without symptoms increases the risk of catching the virus. In fact that is problem with this disease that allows it rapid transmission. Some other diseases like ebola have higher mortality, but have symptoms that people can identify and stay away from. 
So the statement "isn't dangerous" is false.