gags
-
Posts
1755 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by gags
-
-
Two quotes come to mind:
"Mistake, error, is the discipline through which we advance." - William Channing
"There are men who never err, because they never propose anything rational." - Goethe
There is nothing wrong with making an error as long as you continuously check your premises and honestly identify your mistakes. However, being a nihilist who believes in nothing.... that is pretty much incurable.
-
You're really talking out of both sides of your mouth here. If we are deterministic, then everything we do is a foregone conclusion. It doesn't matter whether we are able to know the outcome of life because we can't make our own choices.Just because we are deterministic doesn't mean that we can percieve of the exact state of the universe and are aware of every influence on us. The ultimate outcome of life, the universe, and everything, are not foregone conclusions because we have nowhere near the ability to solve what it is.So why did you make the thread about getting a divorce? From what you said above, it seems that your purpose was to hear from other people with similar personality types so that you would have some idea of what course has been predetermined for you.
-
If it made you feel sick, then it seems to have done what it was intended to do. What a bunch of crap.
-
Yes, I believe this is key to the issue. It is also important to note that the ongoing process of focusing requires effort. The initial process of focusing may take place automatically, but continued focus must be learned. Also, one must make the choice to exert the effort necessary to focus. Some people decide that the energy needed to focus is too much. They inevitably become drunks or drug addicts, choosing to live in a state of foggy inebriation rather than clear mental focus.The ability to bring one's mind into focus is the "bridge" between determinism and free will. It is like a switch and once that switch is flipped on "you" are in control of your mind to the degree that "you" choose to focus. The only thing that may be "determined" is the initial "flipping of the focus switch". Because how can one choose to focus if the mind is still completely out of focus. I.e., in a state similar to a drunkard during a blackout. That is a what a deterministic state would be like.The robots here refute that. They are simplistic, but they do show learning behavior, and they're able to navigate over a variety of surfaces. There's also robots in the Grand Challenge which are completely autonomous, but are able to navigate over rough terrain from one place to another. The 'choices' they make are due to their programming. Their algorithms dictate why they would choose to take one path over another, and that's all completely deterministic.Of course it's possible to program a robot to "choose" among several options in a given situation. What isn't possible, is for a robot to have volitional consciousness like that of a man. A robot will never have free will because it doesn't have the ability to choose whether or not to focus its computer "brain" and to have that choice require effort. If a robot were to be given that "choice" and it was programmed to act "rationally", why would it ever "choose" to exert the effort necessary to focus? The rational choice for the robot would be to not expend the energy and remain out of focus. A robot doesn't prefer life over death.
On the other hand, man must make a continuous choice between life and death. For men, life (and focus) requires effort. Life has value to men because it is not eternal, because we will all eventually die. Life would have no value to a robot unless it was programmed to always try to preserve its life (in which case it would not have free will).
-
That fee quote sounds low to me. I don't know where you are in TX, but major metro area legal fees are not cheap, particularly if you get into a REAL fight. You could easily burn through double that amount. If things are relatively amicable, it can save both of you a great deal of money. If you do decide to divorce, one of your more important tasks will be to convince your wife that this is the best course of action for the entire family and that getting into a huge battle will only hurt everyone (the kids included). In divorce, some people have a hard time understanding that the marital estate is finite. The more they spend paying lawyers to screw their spouse, the less there is for everyone to live on after all the screaming is finished.The financial factor is a big one. Saving for college for 3 kids is a daunting task. Plus I had a consultation with a lawyer to get an idea of what kind of a custody battle I was in for, and how much it would cost. They said $15-20k. That's one of the reasons I encouraged her to go back to work. Divorce is expensive, and she'll need some income if I do divorce her.
My hunch is your kids would love that. You sound like a good father, so I'm not telling you anything you don't already know. However, the more you can do with them and the more you can interact with them in different situations, the stronger the bond with your kids will become.Even though there are reasons for accepting my life as it is so far, as I have mentioned above, I think you are right about me being too nice and compromising too much. I have recently been thinking that if I do not divorce, I am going to have to be more proactive in getting what I want out of life. Divorce or no divorce, I will get my pilot's license. And I will take more trips to do the things I like to do. I bet my kids would have fun coming too. -
Your situation is a tough one because it sounds as if your wife might become vindictive. I'm not an attorney, but I have had dozens and dozens of clients who have gotten divorced. The expense and the heartbreak in some of these matters was enough to make everyone involved (with the possible exception of the lawyers) sick.
If there is no way to avoid a divorce, I'd suggest using professionals and planning it out as carefully as possible. I'm sorry, I wish I could be more help.
-
You’ve already received some good advice above.
If you had no children, this would be easy. However, when you have children, I believe that you make a commitment to raise them in a safe household and to provide for their needs until they reach the age of 18. I know that is what my wife and I consciously decided to do before our kids were even conceived. I would hate to see you go back on the commitment that you made on behalf of your children.
On the other hand, if a spouse is unfaithful, abusive, or is addicted to drugs or alcohol, then I believe divorce is an appropriate option even when children are involved. Also, if you are so unhappy in the relationship that it damages your ability to be an effective parent, then divorce may be a viable alternative. Nevertheless, things I’ve seen in my own life and with others indicate that divorce often turns out to be very damaging for the kids and their parents as well.
Have you tried every possible avenue to imporve the relationship with your wife? Surely she must still have some admirable qualities that you saw in her at the time of your marriage.
-
How does one help a child build self-esteem? By helping the child learn to deal with the world rationally, and productively; in other words, by helping the child achieve; in other words, by helping child be estimable. Any attempt to tell the child that he is estimable just the way he is, without any need to change is futile because it rings hollow.
This is one of the reasons why cultures that specifically de-value achievement are so damaging. When academic and economic success (through hard work) are frowned upon, the inevitable result is large numbers of individuals with low self-esteem. Teaching children their multiplication tables is far more beneficial to self-esteem than drilling into their heads that they are the descendents of kings and queens.
-
Those are great suggestions Dismuke. Nice job.
-
Yes: do you really think that when the government taxes oil companies, the amount of that tax isn't reflected in the price that the consumer pays for gasoline? Taxes are like any other expense in that they ultimately have to be passed on to the end user of the product or service. In competitive markets you may not be able to pass the cost increase on immediately, but that is what eventually happens.
By the way, what business are you in?
-
I agree. In fact, I would have fired the strikers when they staged their illegal walkout. They could have been replaced by the National Guard while replacements were trained.
This strike is a harbinger of difficult times to come with public employee unions and retirement benefits.
-
Eternal, there's no arguing that Jews make up a disproportionate percentage of many high skill/knowledge occupations. What I have yet to see is any convincing evidence that this is the result of genetics rather than a culture that values learning.
-
Now Gags, I did go to the thread on this subject you linked to. Unfortunately, I did not read nor discover any thread of compelling evidence nor logical argument as to how to properly and appropriately finance the government for its citizens' authorization that government protect the rights of its citizens.
I thought there were a number of very useful suggestions in that thread. Assessing a charge for contract enforcement would certainly raise a tremendous amount of money for the government. The other thing to remember is that with a rationally structured and limited government, we would not have a $2.6 trillion federal budget. A big part of the solution to this problem is restricting the government to its proper role, which doesn't include about 90% of the crap in which government is currently involved.
Uggg. When the government levies a tax on business, what happens? The business raises its prices to pass the tax on to its customers. It happens all of the time. Sometimes it's a combination of price increases and cost reductions (which usually means firing employees). In any event, the business itself doesn't pay the tax.Business does so pay taxes. That statement is patently false. -
I provided a link for a thread that discusses a number of moral methods for raising money to fund government. You really should read it. It would help your thinking on this issue.The issue then becomes "By what tangible standard should government collect what is due for its task of protecting our rights?"The standard of "wealth" does indeed relate to ability to pay, as the wealthier are more able to pay..... more money.... to the government for such protection.
I'm not sure what running a business has to do with any of this. By the way, I've run several and I still don't see the connection.Yet the standard of "income" is far more tangible, and those who disagree have no concept of what it is like to run a business.
A system based solely on the ability to pay rests on the Marxist idea "from each according to his abilities to each according to his needs...." There are other more rational ways to fund government than taking from the rich through an income tax, which seems to be what you are proposing.So Gags, I disagree with you.I also disagree that contributions to government based upon one's ability to pay is an element of Marxism. Please furnish tangible proof that one does not have any obligation to pay the government for protecting our rights, under capitalism or any other system other than Marxism.
So you would only tax the income of business owners? Would you also tax corporate profits? If so, I hope you realize that business don't pay taxes. The people who pay business taxes are the customers -- in the form of higher prices.I am speaking from the point of view of those who run businesses. I regret not having clarified that.My opinion- it is the businessman who is the main source of products and services, who is the main source of income.
The employee merely contributes to the production of revenue in such business, and from such revenue draws his wage, so why is it that he/she should be liable for contributions to the government when the business he works for does so?
-
What you say about immigrants is likely true. I wonder about the Arab vs. Jew issue. They're both Semitic races, yet I believe one would outperform the other in terms of IQ.
-
Eternal, I didn't read the entire paper by Rushton & Jensen, but I wonder about their findings.
For example, given that Arabs and Jews are racially similar (they're both Semitic peoples), do Arabs score as high on the IQ tests as Jews? My hunch would be that they do not. Another hunch would be that cultural differences (nurture) explain these things more than racial differences. Another example would be blacks who are recent immigrants from Africa tend to do much better economically than blacks who have been in this country for generations. Why? They are both from the same race..... but one group embraces a culture of hard work and self-improvement while the other embraces Kanye West and 50 Cent.
These types of objections may be addressed in the paper, I just don't have the time to read the entire thing.
-
So if , say, such contributions to government are expected on a per diem basis, as I stated, they should be based on one's ability to pay.
What I specifically mean by that is that such contributions sould be based upon the net income of the producer per diem. And it should be a flat rate, not an escalating rate, such that each contribution is based upon a fixed rate and the "burden" is equally shared by others.
Yes, you might find this thread helpful:
http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showtopic=2479
Also, I have to disagree with your contention that "contributions" to funding government should be based on one's ability to pay. That's one of the central tenets of Marxism.
-
I hate Jap cars. I'm glad nobody really drives them around here. The only vehicles I hate more are those supposedly "superbly engineered" German cars that really seem like they were engineered by obsessive-compulsive Germans on crack.
Yep, you can take the boy out of Detroit, but you can't take Detroit out of the boy.
-
I recall when those thugs murdered Stethem. It was very brutal and cold blooded. I hope we actually have his killer in custody. If anyone deserved a chance to meet Allah ASAP, it would be Mohammad Ali Hamadi.
-
Why is it impossible to obtain warrants for data-mining?
I don't know that it's impossible, just that there seem to be problems with timing and flexibility given the technology. For instance, I read somewhere that if a suspect changes cell phones, a new warrant needs to be obtained.
Here's what Jamie Gorelick of the Clinton Admin said about the issue when she testified before Congress:
"It is important to understand," Gorelick continued, "that the rules and methodology for criminal searches are inconsistent with the collection of foreign intelligence and would unduly frustrate the president in carrying out his foreign intelligence responsibilities."
Executive Order 12333, signed by Ronald Reagan in 1981, provides for such warrantless searches directed against "a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power."
Reporting the day after Gorelick's testimony, the Washington Post's headline — on page A-19 — read, "Administration Backing No-Warrant Spy Searches." The story began, "The Clinton administration, in a little-noticed facet of the debate on intelligence reforms, is seeking congressional authorization for U.S. spies to continue conducting clandestine searches at foreign embassies in Washington and other cities without a federal court order. The administration's quiet lobbying effort is aimed at modifying draft legislation that would require U.S. counterintelligence officials to get a court order before secretly snooping inside the homes or workplaces of suspected foreign agents or foreign powers."
In her testimony, Gorelick made clear that the president believed he had the power to order warrantless searches for the purpose of gathering intelligence, even if there was no reason to believe that the search might uncover evidence of a crime. "Intelligence is often long range, its exact targets are more difficult to identify, and its focus is less precise," Gorelick said. "Information gathering for policy making and prevention, rather than prosecution, are its primary focus."
Here's a link to the Byron York article where the above info originally appeared:
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200512200946.asp
This article (also by York) does a decent job explaining the Bush rationale for not obtaining warrants:
-
There is a pervasive cynicism among the left. They believe in nothing, so they're skeptical about nearly everything.
Your dad's comment reminds me of an incident with our daughter. Nicole is now 18 but she still reminds us occasionally that several years ago my wife stuck a bar of soap in her mouth. I can't even remember the specifics of why my wife did this, but it had something to do with my daughter being a disrespectful smartass, which wasn't that uncommon. Neither my wife nor I have ever been very big on physical punishment, so this was out of character and she felt terrible afterward for having done it. Honestly, it wasn't that big of a deal, IMO. Nevertheless, whenever Nicole wants to hang some guilt over my wife's head, she brings up the soap incident.
I love both of my kids more than life itself, but there are times when children can drive you absolutely nuts. I'm not defending your parents' actions, just hoping to add a little perspective from someone who has been there.
-
Anything good happening in Meeeechigan?
I saw something funny on the news the other day about my congressman's wife. I have the unfortunate distinction of being able to say that I'm represented by John Conyers, perhaps one of the worst politicians and humans on the planet. Apparently his wife (who was recently elected to the Detroit City Council) was just in a barfight with another woman. The people of Detroit sure do have a knack for picking losers to represent them, don't they?
P.S. Merry X-mas. I hope all of your capitalist dreams are fullfilled!
-
From what I understand, the Govt. has apparently secured the cooperation of a number of telecom providers and has been doing "data mining" directly from their switches. Given the huge volume of information that flows electronically, I don't see how obtaining warrants for this type of communication is possible. However, if the information is ever to be used in court, it makes complete sense to require that it is gathered under a warrant.
-
Andrew, your point about other philosophers is well taken. Some of the stuff is simply impenetrable. One of the attributes of Objectivism that appeals to me is its clarity.
As far as Rand v. Peikoff, I don't see much of a difference in terms of understandability. If I had to pick though, Rand would get my vote.
Danica McKellar
in Miscellaneous Topics
Posted
That's actually pretty neat. She's not your average Hollywood twit.