Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Azrael Rand

Regulars
  • Content Count

    64
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Azrael Rand

  • Rank
    Junior Member

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    https://www.minds.com/AzraelRand

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. If by exploring the extremes and the logical end state implication of certain ideas we could determine the validity of said beliefs in their non extreme state then you would be correct. But what I've advocated for is a balance between freedom and security. Instead of using a seemingly ideologically perfect intellectual construct, such as traditional Objectivism (which is actually just a product of selective truths mixed with rationalizations), this objective balance informed by human nature and an orientation towards positive outcomes ought to be used to organize society. People are tri
  2. For the majority of America's history it has been a majority white country, choosing to live by European enlightenment values, united by a common culture and common language. Implying that the US was nontribal is nonsense. The US was quite successful internationally, as you said they crushed it, when non-whites and women were not legal equals to white property owning men. From a factual perspective your argument is completely invalid. You're entitled to your own feelings but not your own facts. Japan, a racist country, enjoys a far superior standard of living compared to Iran. Ca
  3. You may as well have said freedom is slavery. It's a contradiction in terms. It is nothing do with what I agree with. I'm just trying to get you to comprehend that you are using doublethink. You're trying rationalize segregation as freedom. Presumably your example was the Japanese government forces segregation. And presumably you would support forced segregation.  I was referring to private establishments. Also I'm not equating freedom with segregation by default. I've said many times that different people have different preferences. There are people who highly value diverse experi
  4. Yes people do believe this to be true. The more you read and learn about human psychology and cognition the more you begin to understand that the way people view the world and specific events is through a filter that is shaped by their core beliefs of the world. There is no guarantee that any two people witnessing the same event will perceive it the same way. When things don't agree with a person's viewpoint their brain steps in and dismisses whatever information they perceived to contradict their core beliefs. Thus how we perceive reality depends on our core beliefs. This is why you can have
  5. Funny, you claimed to be an Objectivist earlier. Also funny that you completely ignored the scenario I proposed where you and your "group" are the ones with the inferior IQ's and if it would be moral for them to exclude you from that near future US as a result. Admit you are a racist before you make any more statement or arguments in the thread. At least completely own that shit. If I was a racist I would fully admit it and argue for it explicitly and proudly, not like a intellectual wannabe pussy who hides behind complex sentence structure. Not only are you a racist, you are also a
  6. Can't help but look into the dumpster fire can you. On the subject of evil ideas, the idea you referenced in this quote is quite similar to the view of leftists that claim that free speech invalidates their feelings, dignity, and existence and therefore ought to be replaced with controlled speech. Also I would wonder if debating me is only "semi-wrong" because you yourself have chosen to debate me? What makes you think that the US Constitution wasn't an attempt at Utilitarian social engineering? I think if you objectively look at the situation you would come to the conclusion that i
  7. Come on, man. You've gone on about IQ and racial differences, not just threats by actual rapists. I didn't ask if it's okay for black people to live here, I'm asking what you'd do about the threat of black people lowering average IQ.  My distinction lies not in principle but in objective reality and goes back to Enos. There's a difference between one black person or family living in an all white area vs having different ethnic groups clustered together and occupying the same territory with other groups. Different psychological dynamics at play. How do you justify the notio
  8. So based on your assessment of the situation would it be fair to assume that you have about as many immigrants as you can sustain? If so how do you square that away with the principles of freedom of association? Do moral considerations not trump practical considerations? Would you still feel the same way if the current ethnic majority group became an minority? People are very selfish by nature, but we're also tribal (and thus a little altruistic). What we consider in our self-interest though isn't just a mathematical calculation that maximizes personal profit. There are multiple dim
  9. Well of course it makes sense to you since you stand to gain in said example. But what happens if this individual uses their temporary access to stay in the country illegally, commit a crime during their time in the country, etc. Is your business or you going to assume full legal and financial liability for the individual during their stay in this country? Every country on the surface of this planet has made these types of decisions and will continue to do so in the foreseeable future. I understand you're coming from a place of "ought" as opposed to "is", but the "ought" is meaningless
  10. Agree with Eiuol on looking for a therapist that specializes in Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) which will allow you to come to terms with what you're facing. The book "The Coddling of the American Mind" by Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt has a chapter specifically dedicated to CBT in the book's annex and will give you a leg up on where you need to go from here as well as additional resources to consult. Best of luck on your recovery.
  11. Fine, just stop saying you support freedom of association. Or at least, you want to have it both ways. I've asked you very simply: what would you do about black people in the US, since they lower the average IQ?  And I think I answered that question. Given all the variables in play I think freedom is the best solution here. But no I do not believe in universal freedom of association that would allow for the destruction of America from within. I do not believe it's wise to sacrifice the good for ideological consistency. I totally understand why the concept is distasteful t
  12. Thanks for posting this. It's a good point to illustrate the difference between being persuasively correct and being factually correct. Being persuasively correct involves the usage of language that targets people emotionally, in this case by tying one's proposal to the way people want to view themselves as human beings. You're cleverly equating your proposal with a people's sense of self-actualization and it's a highly effective strategy to get things done. It's likely the most effective form of persuasion in existence (along with fear which arguably covered). But this rosy verbiage
  13. You seem to contradict yourself.  First you say that IQ matters a lot for the health of a country. Moreover, you have gone over how you think that by nature black people have lower average IQ than white people. This means that having more black people will lower the average IQ. According to you, this is bad. In response, you could deport black people, withhold the right to vote, or deny them citizenship. If you do nothing, then you are allowing the country to weaken. Then at the same time, you clearly advocate for freedom of association. But with freedom of a
  14. Just to recap, the comment was in response to your view that "everyone's base intellectual capacity is the same." This isn't exactly true if you look at IQ distributions both within a given population and across populations. We do not all possess the same intellectual capacity. What your describing is the case for 100% environmental causes to describe differences in intelligence and the science doesn't support it; I posted resources in this thread if you want to read up on the matter in-depth. As far as reasoning in general goes, if say X is proven to be false then that doesn't necessarily pro
  15. I see it as striking an objective balance between freedom and security given human nature. If absolute freedom means us accepting anyone that comes in and the consequences be damned then that's essentially only freedom for the people wanting to come here, not freedom for the people already living here. The people wanting to come here want a better life and the people who live here want to preserve their way of life. I don't see why only one sides case matters. If that Mexican is here legally on vacation and wants to patronize your store there is no issue. Or if you want to do e-commerc
×
×
  • Create New...