softwareNerd

Schiff uses too much hyperbole for my liking. To the extent that he speaks about the need for freedom, he is right; but, then people like Milton Friedman also spoke about that. Indeed, there have been many economists that sound good in many things they say, but those are things that folks like Adam Smith said more than a century ago. So, Schiff is a mix. The biggest thing I do not understand about folks like him is how they think U.S. government spending is bad, but think that Chinese government spending --- which is huge -- is relatively benign.

I am an Objectivist, except that:
I think that it is proper that a woman can be President of the United States;
I do not place a high value on operetta music (though I know many tunes);
I accept other people's homosexuality as their choice and do not find it disgusting;
I enjoy Mozart and Beethoven; I enjoy rock music, especially "new" music of the 80s and even punk.
I respond well to Rodin's "The Thinker;" (See my review on RoR here.)
I know that you can have law and justice without government.
I once read one book by Mickey Spillane -- I, the Jury -- and that was more than enough;
I tried "Charlie's Angels" and did not like it;
I watched old "Man from UNCLE" shows on DVD a few months ago and liked what I saw.
I believe that "ought" comes from "is" but that "is" might not lead to any "ought."
And I am not sure that saying you oppose welfare gives you a right to accept it.

But other than that...
I am an Objectivist.

And I agree with Ayn Rand that you might have a right to own a rifle, but you probably have no right to own a handgun.

(When asked to sum up Objectivism standing on one foot, Ayn Rand defined politics in terms of capitalism, not government.)

I see many clear distinctions among (1) objectivism as rational empiricism and (2) Objectivism and (3) the corpus of Ayn Rand's works.

Okay, I understand now. Then the list is Dwayne, Eiuol, & CapitalistSwine as being proposed for chat-mods.
BTW, for those who have not noticed, since this thread, one forum member has volunteered to be forum-moderator and has been made one: Sapere Aude. Thanks for volunteering.

One of the most crucial things I look for in a girl is sense of life. Just looking at her website, it appears that she really has a great sense of life. I went straight away to the math section of her website and read several Q&As, and I was highly impressed with her on many levels.

It's true that you can't really tell another person's sense of life that quickly, but I like what I saw.

Nice find.

I like Danica Patrick for the same reason. Two sweet Danicas.

Why do you refer to these as examples of integration of mind and body?

OK so I recently got busted for driving with a suspended license and was sentenced to 100 hours of community service. Since governemnt doesn't have the right to issue driver's licences in the first place, I felt that I had done nothing wrong and that the most moral course of action was to get it over with as painlessly as possible.

I did the community service with a one-man environmentalist organization picking up trash and removing invasive plants at city parks. The "president" of the organization is a guy who lost his job as an airplane mechanic (before the recession) and cannot now find another line of work, so spends his days as a professional "volunteer" running his one-man nonprofit agency. He is very ideological about volunteerism and the first day I met him, he went on a fucking rant about how evil employers are and how he couldn't get a job now because he was "overqualified." Really f'd up shit.

Anyway, most of the work was unsupervised, so there were plenty of opportunities to cheat and embellished my hours, i.e. report work when I really wasn't working. I spent about 50% of my reported time not working. He eventually caught me taking a break offsite while I was "on the clock" and read me the riot act. I later sent him an email apologizing for lying to him and explained my side: I didn't mean to rip him off, but I was operating under coersion and had no incentive to work any harder than absolutely necessary. Here is his response:

"Attitude is everything. You wasted my time and cheated the community of a valuable service. Volunteering can be fun, rewording and educational. I suggest you find something you like to do and try it some time."

This seems ridiculous to me beacause the hours I lied about required no time investment on his part. He only benefitted from the time I spent working, and lost nothing during the time that I wasn’t. Regardless of how many hours I reported, he was always the beneficiary of my misfortune. Of course, we all understand the silliness of "cheating the community."

My question is: did I owe this guy my honesty since it wasn't his fault that I was in trouble with the law? The contract is that I give him a certain number of hours and he pays me in the form of a letter to the judge verifying my completion of those hours. However, since I'm operating under coersion, and he is in collusion with the courts, I think this renders the contract morally invalid. But I would like to hear your thoughts. Did I "cheat" this man out of something that was rightfully his?

There is not a single good argument that marriage is "defined" as between a man and a woman, any more than there is a good argument that marriage is "defined" as between people of roughly the same age, same religion, or same race. To even raise this question of definitions implies the primacy of definitions. Read up on the Objectivist theory of concepts, and you will see that the purpose of a definition is to efficiently express the essential defining property of the concept, which implies all of the concrete instances. Definitions do not serve as gatekeepers, admitting only those units that pass the definitional test. The adequacy of the definition is tested by seeing whether it correctly identifies the units actually subsumed by the concept. You have inverted the relationship between definition and concrete.No, this is not a problem with marriage, it is a problem with taxation. Specifically, the tax provision that allows less theft through taxation to married couples is what might violate due process and equal protection. (Though in fact they do not, but that's a more advanced problem).There is a higher standard, which I would have assumed that you're familiar with. Marriage is basically on a par with the UCC, in stating a regular set of assumptions in agreements. There is no compelling reason for the state to make any kind of agreement more convenient, and it could theoretically demand that all contracts be written, signed and notarized (thus bringing ordinary business to a halt). Once a convenient, regularized legal relationship is recognized it should be recognized universally. It would thus be a violation of equal protection to hold that unwritten contracts such as exist when you buy a gallon of milk are recognized only between whites. We need not get into questioning the legitimacy of state-sanctioned sales.However, I am celebrating a righteous principled ruling. Not the least of which is that even when the mob arbitrarily demands it, the state cannot rightfully impede the exercise of individual rights by an arbitrarily specified population. Strict law, especially strict adherence to the Constitution, demands that Prop 8 be ruled unconstitutional, as it was.

The judge justified the decision with the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. That's a pretty straight forward argument, and I see nothing wrong with it. I would've made the same exact decision and basic argument.


You haven't named any. I can name a good reason for defining marriage the way this judge defined it. Th concept of marriage is dependent on the concept of sexuality (including sexual orientation). Marriage is a long term commitment between sexual partners.

Defining marriage as a straight partnership either ignores the fact that there are any gays, or ignores the fact that gays do not have straight relationships. Either way, it is not a valid concept.

Only if your definition of marriage ignores the existence of gays. By a definition that acknowledges the existence of people who do not engage in straight sexual partnerships, let alone marriage, but engage in gay sexual partnerships, you are denying some people the rights you are affording straights.

Since you actually have located the ruling and were able to extensively cut and past from it, you ought to stick to what is actually contained in the ruling, rather than psychologizing and inventing a basis that simply does not exist there. You have completely misrepresented his ruling.Yeah, now you're implying that the legal state of marriage has a dubious moral and legal status, without offering a single piece of evidence or rationalization to disparage the propriety of marriage. It is of course entirely proper on all grounds that the judge accept the fact that marriage qua legal state exists, and could not possibly rule otherwise since that is not the issue before the court.
The essential point is (110.5) "The freedom to marry is recognized as a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause". Furthermore, the right to marriage is a single right, and is not limited to "those of the same race" or "those wishing to create children". Therefore, the ability to exercise that very right extends to all citizens, under the 14th Amendment.
You completely misunderstand, I regret to inform you. The function of a judge is to evaluate the evidence advanced by the parties and to judge the relevance to drawing a legal conclusion. The anti-rights party advances the legally irrelevant argument about historical trends, which the judge dismisses as being irrelevant and inapplicable. See Tara Smith's "Why Originalism Won't Die" for an excellent dismantling of the concrete-bound mentality of originalism and the arbitrariness of specific historical opinions in defining concepts.To quote from the opinion (116.25) "That the majority of California voters supported Proposition 8 is irrelevant, as 'fundamental rights may not be submitted to [a] vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.'" Your infatuation with democracy -- mob rule -- is clouding your judgment w.r.t. individuals rights.You entirely misread the ruling. The judge did not rule that since society now holds that it's okay to have gay marriage then it's okay. He stated that it is irrelevant that society was largely mistaken in the past.It looks to me as though you either didn't read or don't understand the parts on Equal Protection, and all of those references to rational review versus strict scrutiny. The entire matter depends on there being an individual fundamental right to marriage, which the judge went to some pains to demonstrate exists. And then he argued that because this is a fundamental right, the standard for government infringing that right is much higher -- strict scrutiny -- than it is for ordinary government restrictions. (And furthermore, the case for prohibiting marriage to gays fails to even meet the standard of rational review). So it is all about the rights.I repeat: "That the majority of California voters supported Proposition 8 is irrelevant, as 'fundamental rights may not be submitted to [a] vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.'"It is exactly a question of equal protection. Given the fact (which you surely will not deny) that legal marriage exists, that it is a legal convenience which enables individuals to exercise their rights with fewer encumbrances, then it is precisely a matter of equal protection that certain irrationally-identified individuals are denied access to this means of exercising their rights.

Right now, it does not work for anybody.The previous version allowed rating complete topics 1-5. This new version also allows voting for posts, but some set-up needs to be done first.
I forgot about it... one has to set up quotas that allow users a certain number of votes a day... something along those lines.
Will check what other mods think the configuration should be, and get in in place.
Thanks for the reminder.

The way the system works is that each vote counts toward a member's "reputation". On the side of the voter, each voter has a budget: you can only give out a certain amount of reputation each 24 hours. I'm going to try setting it up where all people in the "Regulars" user group earns the ability to give 2 votes (i.e. dole out 2 reputation points) in every 24 hours. Let's see how that goes.

If anyone has suggestions on how best we can use the system, I'd be happy to hear them. (To understand more about how reputations work on this software, visit IPB's forum and check out this topic.)

You could create a "top users" hall of fame page that somehow factors in the number of total votes and number of posts.

Can others tell who rated them?

Mostly because this is a discussion forum, not a debate forum. While proper dialogue between individuals should be factual, logical, and logically consistent, the format of a discussion is one in which facts are brought into the discussion by more than the one party.

For instance, you say there is not a shred of evidence to support this assertion. I had assumed, by my reading of the issue, that there was plenty of evidence - at least enough to justify a discussion on the issue.

But, since you have failed to see any evidence on your own, it is proper for me to present some clearly. It appears, then, that this discussion could be taking the form of a debate.

This is unfortunate, because despite being verbose and touching on zillions of political and cultural issues, I thought it was pretty obvious from my post that my main point was that political actions justified by political whim over consistent principle are never good for individual rights. I see how this might not have been clear to some, but I would expect many to understand. One reason to touch on a million issues as well as to mostly imply one's main point is to foster discussion.

A person can be asked to clarify his position on an issue, or whatever point he was making, but to mock a point or rule a point irrelevant by narrowing the context of a discussion to specific debate terms on the validity of specific arguments is to destroy the purpose of discussion. This purpose is to allow ideas to freely enter a conceptual space, and then allow the participants to come to conclusions as they examine those ideas from a variety of different contexts.

In your reply, I can assume you are not innocently asking for more information. "Despite" "verbose" "zillions" "a single shred" and then reiterating the same point clearly made, over again, is what I read. Then, a question: "Why is that?" While I wouldn't necessary assume that the final question is rhetorical and malicious, the language I pointed out beforehand leads me to believe it is.

In a previous post I used some aggressive language against another poster, so I would personally justify the use of aggressive language in retaliation. For this, then, I cannot blame you. Nevertheless, your argument is completely shallow, and someone stuck-up. It's as if you can flame and call for a proper debate standard at the same time.

Still, legitimate concerns about what in this ruling in particular is of concern to me - specifically - I will address in the next post. Keep in mind that after a vigorous, or even a short discussion, it may become clear that this most recent Prob 8 ruling is not the best example of the principle I had wanted to discuss. I think it is, with the knowledge I currently have, but the discussion is still relevant and useful. Finding out that this ruling doesn't apply to the principle I've set forth to discuss would be a good conclusion to the discussion, as would finding out that it does. The purpose, though, isn't to come to a conclusion on the board - but to provide an opportunity for board participants to come to their own conclusions. That is one thing that differentiates this format from a debate - where an outcome is sought, if not achieved.

I will contradict (seemingly only) what I wrote earlier, and say that Objectivists ought to be intellectually 'liberal'. Yes, establishing concretes is important, but assimilating broad ideas is a necessary part of tying concepts to reality. That means that incessant criticism is a bad policy in a discussion - and I think that I have been too aggressive in my response to it. By criticism, I mean a consistently critical approach whereby one consistently attempts to point out the flaws in any given argument, and generally seems to view discussion as a competition. This is different than seeking understanding.

In other words, "I cannot comment on your post until you have provided a more detailed description of what specifically you find wrong in this particular ruling." would have sufficed.

I will address that issue in the next post.

Only democracy, the rule of law in general. His argument is specious. At this moment in time, his political movement happens to think gay marriage should be allowed. Didn't my reference to Obamacare register with you?

If this was an instance of individual rights being upheld by a judiciary that does so consistently, I would be more than happy about it. But the decision, in light of the broader liberal agenda in America, is capricious - it's all about rule by whim.

The political institutions - judiciary, legislature, executive, the constitutional structure that acts as an interface between democratic sentiment and law must guard against whim so that the rational have the capacity to act towards the preservation of their interest.

True, that makes this an odd case - because the proponents of Prop 8 are themselves in error - but the decision to rule against Prop 8 was made for reasons that destroy, not preserve, the institutional safeguards against whim.

The difference is that the whim of an elite took precedent over the masses. Reason and objective judgment by the elite is supposed to be the last bulwark against the masses.

Our government is so illegitimate that I don't expect it to consistently stand up for all individual rights - but I do rely on it to protect those that exist. I need the government to be institutionally sound for that to happen. Otherwise, you get Obamacare and that sort of thing - which a judge could easily rule in favor of because 'morally healthcare is a right despite the constitution' which is essentially what this judge did regarding gay marriage - our system of government doesn't explicitly designate many rights beyond a few ammendments. So I do rely on democracy to protect some rights. At least then there is a process to advocate for rights and make changes - but when you convince a million minds of the importance of rights, what good is it when one elite has the power to overturn you? The process is destroyed, made arbitrary, and you can only hope that whatever it is that is popular with the government-academia crowd will be in favor of your rights. But chances are it won't, for reasons as obvious as those demonstrated in Atlas Shrugged.

But I think you're just being a smart aleck - "institutions" in quotes implies that you are mocking my concern. Which means that either you aren't intelligent enough to extrapolate from my earlier comment what I meant - or it means that you did, but you live in some unserious world where you choose to pidgeonhole any and all opinions into convenient labels to be referenced for the sake of convincing yourself incorrectly that you have the intellectual high ground.

Please, if you're going to make a comment like that - especially after a fairly long and articulate post - provide more details. If you disagree, then explain why you don't think any important institutions are threatened by the legal mentality behind this particular ruling.

I should probably have put a smiley on my reply. I'm not affronted by the question, although I am going to decline to go into further details. Apologies for the miscommunication; that one's on me.

If you don't expect inquiries of that nature you should not have brought it up in the first place. It is one thing to say you refuse to comment, but another to act as if the inquiry was rude and as if you should be affronted by it.

Wynand asked Dominique to marry him while she was married to Keating--he didn't wait for her to be "free."

I think her complications are her business, but since you know about it, you should keep an eye on what progress she reports.

Mindy

There's barely enough to go on here to think this girl is an emotionalist. Now if this has been going for a long time, that's one thing, but that isn't the case here. I think what Khaight suggested is good advice (and I have nothing to add to his posts), everything else seems to be assuming a lot and almost psychologizing. People can make a mistake without it then labeling them as an emotionalist. A person's character cannot be judged upon a single action or mistake; character is someone's way of acting over a long period of time.

I agree.

That option is disabled by default. I assume that it will stay that way unless some future forum-admin decides to change it.

Are you against the article because of something in particular that you read, or simply because it says "David Kelley" and "Chris Sciabarra" at the bottom?

To use the multiquote feature, click the button corresponding to the message(s) you would like to quote in your response. You can even browse to other pages in the thread, and you can even browse to other threads, and the multiquote feature will keep tracking you. When you finally click "Add Reply" at the bottom of any thread, you will be taken to a new text editor box, and the quotations will already appear in the editor with "quote tags" around each message you've decided to quote. If you want to insert extra quote tags, you can simply put text around the string of symbols [ q u o t e ] and [ / q u o t e ], where all spaces are omitted.

To play with this, in order to see how it works, see what happens when you post the following text, removing the appropriate spaces:

This is a [ q u o t e] quote [ / q u o t e ]

Note that you can always post something and then edit it within a few minutes of having posted it, so in order to keep the forum tidy, please edit out your experiments with the quote tags and only leave your response.

Ben:

That must not be a recent pic in your profile. Clearly, you've had the word "SUCKER" tattooed across your forehead.


You do not know what another person is feeling; you only know what they tell you. (Read that statement 40-100 times until you get it.)

When a person demonstrates in action that they have no integrity — when they are willing to lie to and deceive people whom they claim to love — why would you believe them about anything?


It can be a challenge to remain in objective control when your feelings are overwhelming you.

If you heard the kinds of statements coming from this lady spoken by anyone else, would they make the slightest bit of sense?

What would it would mean to remain in a romantic relationship out of a sense of "obligation"?

I have a suspicion that this lady is a master of having her cake and eating it, too.


Don't tell me about a person's positive qualities when they're a deceptive liar — particularly in the romantic realm. Integrity is fundamental; to the extent she has brains and is likable, that only makes her more dangerous.

You're sexually gone over this woman and it's frying your intellect.

With all due respect I have to disagree with this response. Particularly when strong emotions are involved it is possible even for rational people to drop context or be confused about where their moral obligations lie. My wife and I fell in love over a period of about six months, while she still considered herself to be engaged to her then-current boyfriend. Our situation was quite similar to the one Ben described -- she was more attracted to me, but felt an obligation to her fiance; sex was involved, etc. Ultimately she decided to break up with him and we got married a couple of years later -- and still are, 14 years later, quite happily.

You don't have enough information about this girl and the situation to pass such a sweeping judgment on her character.

My suggestion to Ben is to help her see that she should pursue her own happiness. Staying in a relationship with a man she doesn't love out of a sense of obligation is just going to make both of them miserable. But she has to decide herself. You can make your interest clear, but she has to decide how best to pursue her own happiness. If she decides, in the fullness of time, that she doesn't want to be with you, accept it and move on. You should not enable her to believe that she can have both you and her current relationship by postponing the decision indefinitely. You want an exclusive relationship with her; you aren't willing to settle for less, and you shouldn't have to. That's your choice.

That option is disabled by default. I assume that it will stay that way unless some future forum-admin decides to change it.