Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

softwareNerd

Patron
  • Content Count

    13320
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    231

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    softwareNerd got a reaction from dream_weaver in Buy gold and silver?   
    The typical advice from financial advisers to clients is to put their money into an index fund, getting a combination of: low commissions and lowered temptation to try an beat the market. In general, this is still good advice. but... 
    ... it is based on a key assumption that the future U.S. performance will be pretty much like the past.  Stocks can be hurt by inflation, but their prices inflate too. And, couple that to an unwritten assumption that statist governments have an incentive to subsidize the most common vehicle of investment. 

    A true hyper-inflation type scenario is different. But, since such  situation has not really occurred in U.S. history, a financial adviser will never advise you to plan for it; not qua financial adviser. A few economists might be willing to predict hyper-inflation in the U.S., but they're basing their advice on a theory that has not been borne out for a century. 
    One can compare the DOW vs. Gold, but looking at the DOW "priced in gold", how many ounces of gold would it take to buy the DOW. 

    Source: https://www.macrotrends.net/1378/dow-to-gold-ratio-100-year-historical-chart
    A big problem with this raw chart is that the price of gold was fixed in the U.S. from the great depression all the way to Nixon. So, the relatively bad performance of the DOW during the 1970s was gold shooting up in price from many years of pent up legal binding.
    Given that legal context, one really ought to look at post-1980 data. Which gives us this portion:

    Since 1980, the only time when one could have bought gold and still be better off than the Dow today was the years between 2000 and 2008. Notice that this is pre-Great recession, pre-housing-crisis, not post. Why? because the factor at play was the DOW rather than gold. It was the DOW that was shooting up. 

    Since 2009, the DOW has shot up again, far beyond its previous highs. Since about 2012, the price of gold has not followed. Consequently, the DOW has risen significantly in gold terms. if you think the DOW is in a new bubble, then that might be an even better (as in history-based) reason to buy gold than a hyper-inflation scenario. 

    However, betting against the stock market averages is something that a typical financial adviser will not recommend because it is usually a way to under-perform.

    My personal view on gold is that if I own it, it will likely under-perform the stock-market over most multi-decade periods. Personally, I don't see a complete break down of the U.S. system during my lifetime. I'm also aware that in a complete breakdown, either the government or some thug is likely to take my gold from me, and to prevent that it may become necessary to hide it and not actually use it... making its value theoretical. But, as I said, I don't expect anything even close to this scenario in my lifetime.
     I think gold is a decent multi-generation asset, if you want to buy some to leave to your grand children. Even here, buying something like a rental property is likely to have better returns, because it is a true investment.

    Finally, if you do buy gold, beware of the scammers out there. Companies that hype the coming inflation etc. are dicey. Many of them  try to convince their customers to buy coins that are not near 100% gold. So, if you do buy physical gold, stick with regular U.S. Gold eagles and the like.
     
     
  2. Like
    softwareNerd reacted to Boydstun in OBJECTIVITY Journal   
    Objectivity
    About Objectivity
     

  3. Like
    softwareNerd reacted to MisterSwig in I am a bit confused...   
    This strikes me as a form of empathy. If your buddy gets beaned in the groin with a baseball, you might unthinkingly grimace and say, "Ouch!" Likewise, when he hits a home run, you cheer and share his pride in himself. It's not that you take on unearned pain or pleasure. It's that you express your shared grasp of reality. Getting hit in the privates hurts. Hitting a home run feels good. You're letting your buddy know that you two are alike and feel the same way about things.
  4. Like
    softwareNerd got a reaction from AlexL in I am a bit confused...   
    Yes, it's quite routine for people to take pride in stuff they played no role in, and would even have actively worked against. They do this because they identify closely with the target of their pride, and they think something along the lines of "someone enacting values like mine" did something good. 

    Too often, this becomes "people like me did...", or "people who live near me did..." of even "people who live nearby 200 years ago did...". As an *emotion* this is just natural consequence of the core question: who am I? If you think of yourself as a American, mid-western, Christian... the emotion of pride is natural when another mid-westerner, American or Christian does something good. 

    Of course, just because one feels an emotion does not mean the core assumptions are right. That's what one needs to question: who am I? 
  5. Like
    softwareNerd reacted to StrictlyLogical in "Tree's life" OR "your tree's life"   
    Alternatively:  "A Botanist and an Objectivist walk into a Bar"
     
    Imagine you are a brilliant botanist and geneticist and that you have created a hybrid apple orange tree ... and you created only one. 
    Now suppose because of your brilliance you can, from its unique genetic makeup, and all your knowledge, predict and completely understand its requirements for life and flourishing, some requirements similar to apple trees others similar to orange trees, other requirements common to both, and yet other requirements new and dissimilar to those of both apple and orange trees. 
     
    You have chosen that your goal is to keep it alive which logically entails a goal of maximal flourishing and all that implies.  Soon it will be transplanted outdoors and your gardener will be tasked with its care. You aim to write a guide to action, recipe of care, a standard practices manual, whatever you call it, for your gardener, using all your knowledge.  As you set off to do so... you think to ask your friend, who is an Objectivist and an all around smart guy, how to formulate such a thing. 
     
    Of course you meet him at a bar.

    Upon hearing of your problem, he smiles and tells you that he has all the answers you are looking for.  Apparently, he knows all about this sort of thing because Rand discovered morality for people, and  he could apply her logic to the analogous goal of keeping your tree alive.
    He excitedly says to you: "Your book or manual for your gardener is, in fact, a code of values to guide the choices and action of your gardener in the care of the tree aimed at its flourishing!  Although I am no botanist, the general principles which guide how you write your code (to guide choices and action) is a no brainer"
    First he observed that your manual, or guide, etc. must be formulated according to some standard to ensure it is to be successful.  The content of your proposed chapters, paragraphs, etc. should be evaluated against that standard to ensure that what goes into the code is proper, in other words, the code will actually guide choices and actions which lead to the "good", the goal of the tree's flourishing... flourishing being the maximal state for current and future long-term life (and maximal against unforeseen setbacks, like a storm or a drought).  He interjects, that Botanists like you know that subjecting a plant to wind and the elements "hardens it" for long-term longevity, in comparison to sheltering a plant overmuch which might lead to fast growth short term, but which threatens the plant's long-term ability to survive... A little puzzled at why he should emphasize this short-term long-term nugget, you know your gardener is not an idiot who would trade the plant's long term health for short term showiness... you nonetheless nod in agreement. 
    Your first contribution is to say, "Well, I plan to use all my knowledge derived from and consistent with all available knowledge about apple trees and orange trees which includes all relevant knowledge about apple trees and orange trees, trees in general, plants, living things.. and all I know about "entities", as well as all my special brilliant knowledge as a geneticist about the specific nature of this hybrid.  In that sense, I will be guided by all abstract knowledge I can apply (as a finite non-omniscient human) which leads to flourishing".  You smile, keen to see the reaction on his face to your use of "finite" and "non-omniscient" in the conversation... words you have oft heard from him.
    Instead of greeting your reference with a smile, your friend, with some disdain says: "Sounds to me like you are going on the premise of using the individual tree's life as the standard of value for your code."
    This puzzles you quite a bit.  You point out... "Well the individual tree's life is the goal of the gardener's choices and actions... and that tree's potential and actual flourishing over the long term must therefore must be the standard by which that code is to be written.  If something in the code leads to ill health or destruction of that tree it does not meet the standard for being chosen or done and hence does not meet the standard of being included in the code, and if something in the code would lead to good health, flourishing and life of the tree then that would meet the standard for being chosen and acted upon i.e. it would meet the standard for being included in the code...  No?"

    He looks at you and says, quite solemnly: "The correct formulation is: Tree's life is the *standard* of value for that code--and that specific tree's life is the purpose of the code.  Not that tree's life, Tree's life.  Any other standard is subjective"
     
    You try to hide your utter shock, keeping a straight face, and reply: "What the heck are you talking about?  Tree's Life?"
    He replies: "Why yes of course.  Basing your code on what is best for that specific, concrete, particular tree, is "self-referencing" and circular.  Effectively the code says the tree is its own standard a conclusion which is ultimately subjective (and leaving one adrift from a "standard of value" to which to adhere)."  Practically, this will be acted out as: whatever "the gardener" chooses and decides to be a value to the tree, is a value because "the gardener" chose it. ... that makes him sound a little unreliable but you get my point... and well I mean... how will your code apply to other trees?... your code will be missing something if it's only for your tree... it...needs more.... something else...  well you get my point."
     
    With a frown you try to tell him that he is incorrect, and that the code would in no way be subjective.  It would be formed from objective knowledge of the nature of the thing to which the code is directed.  The gardener would have no reason to depart from his goal which is to take care of that tree and your code has nothing to do with other trees.  Your aim is not to start a movement for growing apple orange tree forests and you have no interest in sharing your code with anyone other than the gardener for any purpose whatever.  Your code is for your tree... that tree, full stop.  
     
    After a moment, you ask for him to explain how the code for the gardener would ACTUALLY read differently, if based on all of your knowledge, as you previously outlined, of what would be best for this particular tree, i.e. using the individual tree's life as the "standard", versus writing a code for the gardener which had as its standard "Tree's life"... whatever your friend means by that.
     
    Your friend the Objectivist, after taking a moment to gather himself, then outlines clearly and exactly how that code, your manual, would differ when written with "the tree's life" as the standard of value versus when written with "Tree's life" as the standard of value, and carefully explains how the former would NOT be the best manual, would not be the best code to follow, for achieving your goal of your tree's flourishing...
     
    NOW, WHAT HE SAID WAS....  
    [PLEASE REPLY to this thread by filling in what he said.... once we have enough honest attempts at the argument he presented, I propose we discuss and rank the results to choose a winner]
     
    You do not immediately indicate agreement, preferring to keep the meeting friendly... after nodding in acknowledgement and your thankfulness for his input, you quite deftly change the subject.
     
     
  6. Like
    softwareNerd got a reaction from 2046 in True objectivists in real life   
    There's a sense in which they are. Rand wanted her heroes to be perfect. So, it would not be enough to give Howard Roark his single-minded passion and rationality; she also had to have him be right in his choices.

    Rationality can lead to the "right" conclusion in the sense that it is the conclusion that all the available evidence, known to the decider at that point in time. points to that conclusion.  Unfortunately, this is not how reality works: rationality does not lead to coming to the "retrospectively-right" conclusion 100% of the time. Rational people have to re-evaluate, correct mistake, an change path all the time. This is something that Rand's writing misses.
    Further, humans are not rational in every moment. We are rational animals... not just rational "beings".  Our rationality allows us to be alert about our "animal" impulses and our irrational biases, and allows us to correct conclusions and actions that arise from them. So, once again, the process is not smooth. 
    If you look at some of Rand's positive characters: Rearden is often used as an example, but you have Dominque and Steve Mallory and so on... then Rand does give them some flaws and idiosyncrasies. But, she seems to have had this idea that the hero should be flawless.

    So, if you want to look for a Howard Roark in the real world, ask yourself if the real world has got people who have a single-minded vision, and pursued it against contemporary advice, and had to fight all sort of battles, but came out vindicated and successful in the end. Turn on the NPR "How I Built This" podcast, and you should find a few examples.
  7. Like
    softwareNerd got a reaction from nathan in From Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia   
    Welcome to the site
  8. Thanks
    softwareNerd got a reaction from Harrison Danneskjold in Ayn Rand's Popcorn-tradiction.   
    There are some older topics on the forum:
     
     
     
  9. Like
    softwareNerd got a reaction from thenelli01 in "Coming out"   
    So, it sounds like your parents think you're gay, or think you may be gay.
    If you confirm that you are gay, what do you anticipate their reaction will be?
  10. Like
    softwareNerd reacted to JASKN in "Coming out"   
    Imagine a world where conceiving a gay child is a parental consideration not much different than having a boy or a girl -- it's just a fact that may or may not occur, and once known, childrearing is just adjusted somewhat. Being gay would have been in the DNA (so to speak) of your upbringing, totally normal and not with extra consideration of any kind as you grew up. A sit-down talk with anyone about being gay now would be as bizarre as "coming out" as a boy (gender politics aside).
    But, we don't live in that world yet (though it's surprisingly near). You described the current context instead yourself - your parents were/are very uncomfortable with homosexuality, enough so to be vocal about it toward their children for years. Your parents were raised in a society more hostile toward homosexuality even than your upbringing. It's baked into their brains, and now it requires of them conscious, consistent mental processes to undo. Even as a gay person, you may have had to do some of that yourself. And that is not easy, and is a lot to ask of someone, even if it's the "just" thing for them to do.
    So, I would say cut your mother some slack. Having a conversation with you about being gay is probably part of her trying to become OK with the idea of gayness herself, which is a positive step in the right direction. She cares enough about you to try to undo her lifelong viewpoint toward gays, and all of the associated mental habits that went along with it.
  11. Like
    softwareNerd got a reaction from AlexL in Ukraine   
    Nope. That's the "stopped clock" fallacy... saying it is right twice a day. Putin's actions are not moral, even when they are coincident with what a moral person would do. I'm happy Putin gave Snowden asylum; but, this was not a moral act on his part.
    As for the act itself, there too, the threat to ethnic Russian in Ukraine is mostly fiction. And, when it comes to Crimea, it is non-existent. So, Putin's actions do not even coincide with what is right.
  12. Like
    softwareNerd got a reaction from AlexL in Ukraine   
    I don't have too much hope that western Europe will do very much, but I would not discount action on the margin.
     
    Regardless, Putin has no moral high-ground. His own rule is illegitimate. No action he takes has any moral ground, high or otherwise.
  13. Thanks
    softwareNerd got a reaction from itsjames in Top 10 Life Tips for the Young You   
    One theme in the advice I'd give to a younger me is the idea of "acceptance vs. ambition". The theme is eloquently summed up in the "Serenity Prayer". 
    While this makes total sense, it is that last line that's the problem: sometimes it can be really hard to tell the difference. Apart from some personal examples, I've heard countless examples from others of situations where there seemed to be no good answers, or where plans seemed to have been wrecked for good, where the only way out seemed to be: graceful acceptance. Yet, sometimes the "impossible effort" works at last. 
    Innovators challenge accepted assumptions. Even when it seems obvious to him that the earth is flat, or that he cannot outrun his prey, or that humans cannot fly, he's not quite convinced. He might be the buffoon, jumping off a castle wall, to his death; or, he could push the idea until he finds another way to achieve his underlying goal. 
    This is the theme I see in the following points you listed:
    I agree completely. There was a point in my life where I had not learned the value of acceptance, and of moving on. Learning that was a big deal. Yet, I'm always wary of this, because I have no rule about where to draw the line between "don't give up" and "give up and move on". I suppose one could try to formalize some factors that should go into the decision, but I think the most important thing is the awareness of this conundrum.
    I would advise the younger me to be aware of this alternative, and to not give up,  to try again, and again, because one can do anything if one really tries; and, also to remember that repeating the same thing usually enacts the same outcome; and, that at some point he should cut his losses, learn the lessons, and move on.
  14. Like
    softwareNerd got a reaction from whYNOT in How does one find its values?   
    No, not if fun and value are intertwined. Too many people look at Roark and misinterpret him as a stoic, driven to deliver value to the world at great personal sacrifice. Not at all surprising... this is what it looks like to people who do not understand the fun of working in a field that gets your heart pumping.
     
    I did not say that finding a central purpose is impossible. I said that you aren't going to find it if you go looking for it. It works the other way around: you try things that seem like fun (and give you objective value... not hedonistic things you regret). Of the things you try, some seem more fun that others. If you pursue those, and start to become more adept, you'll find that you get deeper into it, become more of an expert, and it is even more fun that before. That way, you might well discover a central purpose. But, even if you do not... it isn't something to sweat. All that matters is the purposeful pursuit of value: because that's what will bring you a deep sens of happiness.
    Not sure what absurdism is (I'm not a philosophy buff, and don't plan to look it up either). 

    You correctly answer that we should seek out rational goals that make us happy. Yes, it is subject to our knowledge. You say that makes it non-objective. Objectivism actually uses the term "objective" differently. In Rand's terminology, she's say (instead), that values are not intrinsic. However, they aren't subjective either. There's a difference between choosing with a toss of a coin and choosing with all the adult knowledge we can bring to bear on a subject, coupled with asking other people for advice, reading books and so on. This latter approach is what Objectivism considers "objective". 

    The whole reason we're even having this conversation is that you assume that you can think about things, get other opinions, and make decisions. There's really no such thing as intrinsic knowledge anyway. 

    Bottom line: use the best of your knowledge, and seek out advice from people you consider more knowledgeable. Couple this with how you feel -- emotions are not tools of cognition, but are extremely important in giving us automated feedback about our likes and dislikes. Put all this together as best you can to figure out what value-pursuit seems to be most interesting to you. Then, go for it. You'll likely make a lot of mistakes, and take a lot of wrong paths. So, you watch, think, emote, and course-correct.  
     
    I don't know the details here. But, yes there are times we want some goal that is not immediate, and we have to go work through negative experiences to get there. Being animals, we always have the here and now -- current happiness and comfort -- singing a siren song to us. As humans, we are able to imagine the better long-term future, and are able to be disciplined about keeping our focus there. It is not easy --- as many people who try to lose weight will testify. Still, it is possible -- even with some slips, falls and a few backward steps. 
  15. Like
    softwareNerd got a reaction from dream_weaver in How does one find its values?   
    Not really. Personally, I don't want a life that is an ongoing struggle that produces some happy outcome every now and then. That's drudgery.

    Consider successful financial analysts/investors. Would you say they dislike the day-to-day mechanics of the job, but continue to do it so that they can experience the happiness of being right? I cannot imagine any of them having that attitude and doing very well. Quite the opposite. They enjoy the intellectual challenge... the looking for opportunities... the analysis that yields some new insight... the integration of different data-points. That's what keeps them going. Yes, of course they would not do it if they thought there was no payoff coming. But they play because the game is fun to play... and yes, they want to win too.

    Enjoying art and philosophy is one thing, but making it a career is something quite different. You do not become an artists by aiming at that painting or sculpture that you want to produce. You need to love the doing: the process. If it does not feel like a fun game while you're doing it, what's the point doing it at all?
    Of course, every task has a lot of boring parts. It is the general love for the process that keeps people persevering. It is what drives a dilettante artist  to spend years and money learning techniques even though it means not producing satisfying works of art. it is what drives an analyst to read a boring document, hunting for some clues about a business. 

    As for a central purpose. Don't go looking for it: you aren't going to find it. None of us is born with one either. Instead of a big, ambitious central purpose, aim for a simpler goal: what type of things do you think you could enjoy doing? How did you end up in your current course of study? Did the field of investing interest you? If not, is there anything else? If not, you just have to try things... until you find something that seems interesting. Then, pursue that.

     
  16. Like
    softwareNerd reacted to Doug Morris in Buy gold and silver?   
    Thank you for the helpful information and advice.
  17. Like
    softwareNerd got a reaction from merjet in Buy gold and silver?   
    The typical advice from financial advisers to clients is to put their money into an index fund, getting a combination of: low commissions and lowered temptation to try an beat the market. In general, this is still good advice. but... 
    ... it is based on a key assumption that the future U.S. performance will be pretty much like the past.  Stocks can be hurt by inflation, but their prices inflate too. And, couple that to an unwritten assumption that statist governments have an incentive to subsidize the most common vehicle of investment. 

    A true hyper-inflation type scenario is different. But, since such  situation has not really occurred in U.S. history, a financial adviser will never advise you to plan for it; not qua financial adviser. A few economists might be willing to predict hyper-inflation in the U.S., but they're basing their advice on a theory that has not been borne out for a century. 
    One can compare the DOW vs. Gold, but looking at the DOW "priced in gold", how many ounces of gold would it take to buy the DOW. 

    Source: https://www.macrotrends.net/1378/dow-to-gold-ratio-100-year-historical-chart
    A big problem with this raw chart is that the price of gold was fixed in the U.S. from the great depression all the way to Nixon. So, the relatively bad performance of the DOW during the 1970s was gold shooting up in price from many years of pent up legal binding.
    Given that legal context, one really ought to look at post-1980 data. Which gives us this portion:

    Since 1980, the only time when one could have bought gold and still be better off than the Dow today was the years between 2000 and 2008. Notice that this is pre-Great recession, pre-housing-crisis, not post. Why? because the factor at play was the DOW rather than gold. It was the DOW that was shooting up. 

    Since 2009, the DOW has shot up again, far beyond its previous highs. Since about 2012, the price of gold has not followed. Consequently, the DOW has risen significantly in gold terms. if you think the DOW is in a new bubble, then that might be an even better (as in history-based) reason to buy gold than a hyper-inflation scenario. 

    However, betting against the stock market averages is something that a typical financial adviser will not recommend because it is usually a way to under-perform.

    My personal view on gold is that if I own it, it will likely under-perform the stock-market over most multi-decade periods. Personally, I don't see a complete break down of the U.S. system during my lifetime. I'm also aware that in a complete breakdown, either the government or some thug is likely to take my gold from me, and to prevent that it may become necessary to hide it and not actually use it... making its value theoretical. But, as I said, I don't expect anything even close to this scenario in my lifetime.
     I think gold is a decent multi-generation asset, if you want to buy some to leave to your grand children. Even here, buying something like a rental property is likely to have better returns, because it is a true investment.

    Finally, if you do buy gold, beware of the scammers out there. Companies that hype the coming inflation etc. are dicey. Many of them  try to convince their customers to buy coins that are not near 100% gold. So, if you do buy physical gold, stick with regular U.S. Gold eagles and the like.
     
     
  18. Like
    softwareNerd got a reaction from JASKN in Buy gold and silver?   
    The typical advice from financial advisers to clients is to put their money into an index fund, getting a combination of: low commissions and lowered temptation to try an beat the market. In general, this is still good advice. but... 
    ... it is based on a key assumption that the future U.S. performance will be pretty much like the past.  Stocks can be hurt by inflation, but their prices inflate too. And, couple that to an unwritten assumption that statist governments have an incentive to subsidize the most common vehicle of investment. 

    A true hyper-inflation type scenario is different. But, since such  situation has not really occurred in U.S. history, a financial adviser will never advise you to plan for it; not qua financial adviser. A few economists might be willing to predict hyper-inflation in the U.S., but they're basing their advice on a theory that has not been borne out for a century. 
    One can compare the DOW vs. Gold, but looking at the DOW "priced in gold", how many ounces of gold would it take to buy the DOW. 

    Source: https://www.macrotrends.net/1378/dow-to-gold-ratio-100-year-historical-chart
    A big problem with this raw chart is that the price of gold was fixed in the U.S. from the great depression all the way to Nixon. So, the relatively bad performance of the DOW during the 1970s was gold shooting up in price from many years of pent up legal binding.
    Given that legal context, one really ought to look at post-1980 data. Which gives us this portion:

    Since 1980, the only time when one could have bought gold and still be better off than the Dow today was the years between 2000 and 2008. Notice that this is pre-Great recession, pre-housing-crisis, not post. Why? because the factor at play was the DOW rather than gold. It was the DOW that was shooting up. 

    Since 2009, the DOW has shot up again, far beyond its previous highs. Since about 2012, the price of gold has not followed. Consequently, the DOW has risen significantly in gold terms. if you think the DOW is in a new bubble, then that might be an even better (as in history-based) reason to buy gold than a hyper-inflation scenario. 

    However, betting against the stock market averages is something that a typical financial adviser will not recommend because it is usually a way to under-perform.

    My personal view on gold is that if I own it, it will likely under-perform the stock-market over most multi-decade periods. Personally, I don't see a complete break down of the U.S. system during my lifetime. I'm also aware that in a complete breakdown, either the government or some thug is likely to take my gold from me, and to prevent that it may become necessary to hide it and not actually use it... making its value theoretical. But, as I said, I don't expect anything even close to this scenario in my lifetime.
     I think gold is a decent multi-generation asset, if you want to buy some to leave to your grand children. Even here, buying something like a rental property is likely to have better returns, because it is a true investment.

    Finally, if you do buy gold, beware of the scammers out there. Companies that hype the coming inflation etc. are dicey. Many of them  try to convince their customers to buy coins that are not near 100% gold. So, if you do buy physical gold, stick with regular U.S. Gold eagles and the like.
     
     
  19. Like
    softwareNerd got a reaction from StrictlyLogical in Notes and Comments on "The Virtue of Nationalism"   
    It's pretty sad that the world prefers to go from evil one horn of the dichotomy to the other, instead of looking for the (abstract) solution that philosophers have long advised: go through the horns of the dichotomy.
  20. Like
    softwareNerd reacted to Craig24 in The Trolley Problem   
    My action?  I'm stuck on a train that will kill 1 person or 5 people no matter what I do.  I can only minimize the casualties.  
  21. Thanks
    softwareNerd got a reaction from thenelli01 in Late Term Abortion   
    The fact that things have changed and made it safer makes it even more likely that Ran would agree with full-term abortions. Also, the simple fact that she said -- albeit off the cuff -- that the line is drawn at birth. 

    I'm always a little wary of arguments that go "this is what Rand would have thought"... because its basically speculation and -- much more importantly -- it does not matter a great deal to whether the conclusion is right or wrong. So, it almost always becomes two sides contesting what is ultimately an appeal to authority. So, both sides end up arguing that they themselves are the ones who are committing that particular logial fallacy.

    Your point about more freedom necessitating more responsibility. I see it as an arbitrary statement, unsupported by any facts or reasoning.
     
     
  22. Thanks
    softwareNerd got a reaction from MisterSwig in Late Term Abortion   
    One most definitely cannot extrapolate that Rand would be against full-term abortions, when ...
    the quote above has no such implication; and, she clearly said otherwise Not that it matters that much, but just want to set that record straight
  23. Like
    softwareNerd reacted to Yes in Late Term Abortion   
    What appears to be missing from these woe-begotten arguments about abortion is the right of the woman to her body.  Government has no right, moral or otherwise, to legislate what a woman should do with her body.  The decision to give birth or abort is hers and hers alone.  So debate as you may about this issue, but never forget that government trying to restrict abortion is, at the very least, government  laying yet another layer of regulation on individuals, and yet another wanton, illicit restriction on our lives.
  24. Like
    softwareNerd got a reaction from thenelli01 in Should you be friends with a woman you want, but can’t have?   
    Just stop it with these dramatics already. From your descriptions, you come across as a spoiled brat, and she's mostly tolerating your crap.
  25. Like
    softwareNerd got a reaction from JASKN 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.
×
×
  • Create New...