Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

AlexL

Regulars
  • Posts

    722
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    42

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    AlexL got a reaction from monart in Remembering the CG Computer-Generated Pandemic Tyranny   
    Interesting.
    But have you checked what happened after the challenge was proposed?  Did anyone accept the challenge?
    I would be cautious about a 1.5 million award: is it a honest offer, not a bogus one? Does the person/organization have this kind of money? Who will evaluate the scientific proof? Etc.
    IOW: have you establish the seriousness of this award offer?
  2. Like
    AlexL reacted to DavidOdden in Remembering the CG Computer-Generated Pandemic Tyranny   
    As I mentioned at least twice above, “SARS-CoV-2 Production, Purification Methods and UV Inactivation for Proteomics and Structural Studies” provides the proof that you have demanded, which incidentally is an unreasonable demand (evidence is evidence, you don’t get to arbitrarily stipulate what constitutes evidence). You have not addressed the facts, instead you retreat behind automatic denial as a means of evading the science. In the face of evidence having been presented, it is incumbent on you to disprove that evidence. Indeed, I have no evidence that you have even looked at that article, and I can think of no rational reason for your refusal to directly address the science. You offer no alternative conclusion regarding the axiomatic (the myriad scientific observations of covid), instead you just repeat your denial without evidence to support an alternative, nor do you even state what such an alternative is. In other words, you are engaging in selective epistemological nihilism.
    My current counter-offer is that you should provide evidence that malaria exists: I will take the position that you have taken, which is to just deny that malaria exists. I sincerely hope that you do not hold a political-consequences theory of epistemology, that the standards of proof depends not on the logic of the claim and the objective nature of the existent, but are determined by whether the existent has been misused to support initiation of force. Under which logic, I substitute measles, smallpox or Spanish flu in my challenge to you, all of which triggered tyrannical governmental responses. I would like to see what you consider to be acceptable proof that malaria exists, and see some reasoning as to why you find that evidence to be sufficient (unless, of course, you are also a malaria-denier).
  3. Haha
    AlexL reacted to monart in Remembering the CG Computer-Generated Pandemic Tyranny   
    Again, no documentation has been found or offered, verifying that SAR-CoV-2 has been isolated, purified, and distinctly identified as a new existent, and, furthermore, that it cause Covid-19. Ignoring this fact may lead one to the distraction of comparing "having covid" to having appendicitis or malaria. No tyranny has ever been imposed because of appendicitis or malaria, or the common cold.
  4. Like
    AlexL reacted to DavidOdden in Remembering the CG Computer-Generated Pandemic Tyranny   
    The same question can be asked about the common cold, appendicitis or malaria. Do you know by your own reason that these things exist, or do you merely rely on the expertise of others who say that they exist? I have personal sensory experience with the common cold and appendicitis, and not malaria. I now know that Turkey exists, though I do not know directly that Iraq exists, however, I have friends (whom I trust, perhaps unreasonably so) that can attest to the existence of Iraq.
    There is a simple formula that can be followed to deny all knowledge: just deny something. If you claim “I personally had covid”, the counter-claim would be “How do you know it was covid that you had, not something else?”. Indeed, Peikoff discusses the procedure in his explication of reason and certainty – to be certain, you must not just have evidence for a proposition, you must eliminate all evidence, even conceptual evidence, for alternatives. You could say “Possibly I had covid” or “Possibly I had appendicitis”, but how can you rule out all of the alternatives. It is always possible to say “It might be something else”.
    The key to not devolving into epistemological nihilism is to reject unsupported denial as a logical tool. To deny that an individual has appendicitis or the common cold, you must offer superior evidence that they have a specific alternative. My initial hypothesis regarding covid was that I had strep throat. I refuted that in two ways. First, the probative throat pustules of strep were lacking. Second, the antigen test was positive. My knowledge of what I had was not complete, for example I do not know which of 5 variants I was infested with, and certainly not which of the thousands of sub-mutations. The broader lesson is that you don’t deny knowledge just because you are not omniscient.
    If you intend to discount the testimony of scientific experts, you have to have superior evidence that they are not to be trusted. In fact, scientific experts collectively provide the essential evidence against themselves. I always urge people to directly engage the peer-reviewed literature as best they can, though I can’t make heads of tails of physics publications. An article will (should) contain the seeds of its own destruction, identifying weaknesses and alternative accounts, because the reviewers demanded that those seeds be planted.
    Unfortunately, most popular knowledge of science is transmitted in untrustworthy venues. I don’t know whether Science is trustworthy in other areas, but I can tell you that it is completely untrustworthy in the area of linguistics, where it occasionally publishes an ill-researched article. Blogs are plainly untrustworthy. So, a crucial skill in evaluating scientific claims is being able to evaluate the credibility of a journal, which is a very difficult task.
    Belief in climate change is a major problem, because it's a very specific package deal which is partially related to something else that the senses directly validate – weather change. "Climate change" is an ill-defined assertion that cannot even be spelled out as a concrete scientific hypothesis. Covid, on the other hand, is a specific, testable, and tested scientific claim.
     
  5. Haha
    AlexL reacted to monart in Remembering the CG Computer-Generated Pandemic Tyranny   
    I appreciate and am grateful that, in response to this challenge, each one of you have given it attention and posted your replies. I have learned and am encouraged that there are Objectivists here who are curious and caring about the truth of covid. My will was good, and I've received goodwill in return.
  6. Haha
    AlexL reacted to monart in Remembering the CG Computer-Generated Pandemic Tyranny   
    Reflecting on all the facets of the covid pandemic tyranny, there is much to think about - even if to most people, it's like a nightmare better to be forgotten, or even if, to a few others, it's like a comedy gone stale and no longer amusing.
    What's more to look at? The murky reality of "SARS-CoV-2" and "Covid-19" raises doubts in the minds of independent thinkers about the objective existence and identification of a distinct, "novel" virus causing a new respiratory disease, deadly enough to justify a pandemic tyranny. But why then have so many people, the overwhelming majority, including most Objectivists, believe in covid?
    Consider this: For thousands of years, nearly everyone believed in some God/gods. Even today, in our enlightened, scientific age, according to surveys, 85% of the world population reportedly believe in a God, over 6 billion people – including 2.4 billion Christian (1.4B Catholic), 2 billion Islamic, and1.1 billion Hindu – all preaching and practicing selfless service to God and the needs of others.
    Why do these mystical beliefs in unproved, non-existent beings and irrational concepts endure and persist? What's similar, and what's different, between belief in God/Christ and belief in covid?
  7. Like
    AlexL reacted to y_feldblum in Objectivistic Cosmology   
    Goedel's "incompleteness theorem" says that a purely formal deductive system (ie, a purely rationalistic system) is not closed. D'uh.

    A purely formal deductive system does not have any facts drawn from reality. A system of knowledge is not closed unless it's got facts drawn from reality. Incorporate facts of reality into your purely formal deductive system and presto! you've no longer got a purely formal deductive system.

    Goedel is an absolute genius for realizing that pure rationalism does not admit the facts of reality into its system. But he is an absolute asshat for confusing a pure rationalism with actual knowledge, and declaring that knowledge is therefore not "closed".
  8. Haha
    AlexL reacted to necrovore in Remembering the CG Computer-Generated Pandemic Tyranny   
    It's likely the government is covering something up, but I think it's outlandish to conclude that the virus doesn't exist. More likely it does, but the reason the government knows it exists, is something like, certain people created it in a lab. The government doesn't want that fact to get out. They want to deny responsibility. So what you get is, "The virus exists, but we can't tell you how we know that."
    I suppose some people think that if they make up some crazy story, they can pressure the government into disproving it by revealing the truth. That doesn't work.
  9. Like
    AlexL got a reaction from Pokyt in A new Staff Member/Moderator   
    @Pokyt is a new Staff Member and Moderator. This doesn't (yet?) appear in his profile. His profile specifies only Newbee and 
    Unfortunately, there was no prior notice about this addition to the Staff Member and Moderator.
  10. Like
    AlexL got a reaction from Boydstun in A new Staff Member/Moderator   
    @Pokyt is a new Staff Member and Moderator. This doesn't (yet?) appear in his profile. His profile specifies only Newbee and 
    Unfortunately, there was no prior notice about this addition to the Staff Member and Moderator.
  11. Haha
    AlexL got a reaction from tadmjones in Israelo-Palestinian Conflict: 2023 Edition   
    I will add @whYNOT, @monart and @SpookyKitty
    While @whYNOTis, curiously, pro-Israel, he is anti-Ukraine and an avid consumer of Putinist propaganda.
    All 6 are, possibly, also Trump and conspiracy theories sympathisers.
    I did not ask them about 9/11 and moon landing, though... 😁
  12. Like
    AlexL reacted to EC in Israelo-Palestinian Conflict: 2023 Edition   
    They are populating and destroying this forum do to lack of proper moderation and enforcement of forum rules that once made this one of the premium Objectivist forums outside of HBL which I need to rejoin and start avoiding this site while it's allowed to remain in this state. 
    Also, good luck finding other real O'ists in the Detroit area. Virtually everyone is collectivist/altruist/statist in the area and from what I can tell can't even imagine valid alternatives to those ideas without resorting to irrational attacks or understand rational discussion of reality/Objectivist viewpoints without resorting to ad hominem attacks about literally everything regardless of how often you point them to eloquent Objectivist sources and articles that overcome all of their false objections.
  13. Like
    AlexL reacted to DavidOdden in Remembering the CG Computer-Generated Pandemic Tyranny   
    Yet you still have no personal evidence to support your position, it is entirely based on believing the claims of other people. That would be fine, if those other people are shown to be credible and trustworthy. I have no reason to believe that Massey is trustworthy, and based on my reading of her FOI-related posts, I conclude that she is not trustworthy w.r.t. this particular issue (which is whether covid exists). You on the other hand, apparently have faith in her belief, and use her postion as the basis for your own argument. Your challenge to the covid-existence is ineffective, because you have not provided any evidence that supports the claim that covid does not exist, which is necessary to overcome the direct evidence of the senses, which cannot be rationally denied, that covid does exist.
    You might imaginably argue that there has been a specific misidentification, for example you could claim that covid is a bacterium, not a virus, or you could argue with the specific scientific classification of covid, but you have not done that. Your argument also seems to depend on an invalid package deal, a mixed wall of scientific and political claims. All of the political issues such as lockdowns and mask mandates are red herrings w.r.t. the scientific question of the existence of covid. Every known Objectivist, as far as I have been able to discern, holds that it is not the proper role of government to show down businesses, mandate a suspension of property rights, force vaccinations and mask-wearing etc. irrespective of their scientific beliefs about the nature of the disease. Feel free to challenge improper governmental action, but don’t lump in nihilistic unscientific claims there covid doesn’t even exist.
    As I mentioned before, “SARS-CoV-2 Production, Purification Methods and UV Inactivation for Proteomics and Structural Studies” provides prima facie scientific evidence, of the type that you demanded, for isolation, purification and distinct identification of the virus. Scientists have shouldered the burden of proof, now the burden rests on those who deny that proof. You claim, in broad terms that many such studies “on closer examination, have not actually done so”, but you do not provide any evidence in support of that assertion. The subsequent sentence “Numerous FOI requests worldwide for records of isolation have resulted in "no records found" (any administrative exclusions notwithstanding)” is irrelevant as I explained above (FOI requests provide evidence of government records, not scientific results).
    My main point here is that science is a specialized kind of knowledge, not the same as philosophy, and making any scientific claim requires the integration of massive amounts of existing knowledge. At best, you can reasonable declare that you are personally not persuaded that covid exists, just as you could reasonable declare that you are personally not persuaded that the Earth is a sphere since you have not directly seen any evidence supporting that claim and you do not accept the claims of myriad others who claim that the Earth is a sphere.
    I do not actually accept your premise that “isolation, purification and distinct identification” is a logical requirement for an existential proof of an existent, but I have acceded to the demand and provided one reference, in the hopes that you would engage the science and abandon the irrelevant political rhetoric.
  14. Haha
    AlexL got a reaction from Jon Letendre in Remembering the CG Computer-Generated Pandemic Tyranny   
    In what form are they(?) "quietly admitting Ivermectin is also a powerful anti-cancer agent"? By publishing that article on the nlm.nih.gov site?
    This site has the following disclaimer: "As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsement of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health".
    If not on nlm.nih.gov, then where are they(?) "quietly admitting etc."?
  15. Like
    AlexL got a reaction from monart in Remembering the CG Computer-Generated Pandemic Tyranny   
    There should be thousands of scientific publications about the search for SARS-CoV-2, with varying levels of quality. An identical response of "No record found" from 220 different searches (assuming the lady's account is true😁) should have raised concerns among experienced scientists. This unanimous result suggests that there was not a single scientific publication claiming, albeit falsely, to have correctly identified SARS-CoV-2. This is quite remarkable!
    On the other hand, given the claim that the existence of SARS-CoV-2 is a hoax orchestrated by those in power, one would expect to see a near-unanimous "Record found" response.
    If I were Christine Massey, M.Sc., I would have felt compelled to investigate the entire process, from the formulation of my query to the search procedures for archival records to the evaluation of the responses. I would have conducted an end-to-end probe, a "calibration test" of sorts. I would have submitted the same query but about another virus whose existence I was certain of, to see if I received predominantly positive responses.
    The remarkably unanimous outcome reported by C. Massey could be attributed to the specific wording of her query. For instance, CM's requirements for an acceptable answer may have been internally contradictory or not aligned with established virology practices.
    A clue in this direction comes from a comment by one of the respondents to CM's inquiry [see here]:
    Indeed, C. Massey's query was phrased as follows:
    Could the question have been carefully crafted to ensure that the only honest answer was "No records found"? Would a conspiracy-minded individual engage in such tactics? Who can know for sure? 😉
  16. Like
    AlexL reacted to DavidOdden in Remembering the CG Computer-Generated Pandemic Tyranny   
    So to paraphrase your response, you personally have no evidence to support the claim, instead you believe a claim made by others. Which is pretty much the same basis that 99.99% of people on the planet have for the affirmative belief that covid exists: they have heard an “authoritative request”, they have no reason to deny the claim and some reason to accept the claim – an act of faith. Clearly, we have an epistemological crisis: contradictory positions, so how do we chose between rejecting vs. accepting the claim (that covid is real)?
    In reviewing some of the voluminous files provided on the web page, I concluded that the requests themselves were misconceived, in terms of what constitutes a record under 45 CFR Part 5, which starts by clarifying that
    The FOIA does not require us to perform research for you or to answer your questions. The FOIA does not require agencies to create new records or to perform analysis of existing records; for example, by extrapolating information from existing agency records, reformatting publicly available information, preparing new electronic programs or databases, or creating data through calculations of ratios, proportions, percentages, trends, frequency distributions, correlations, or comparisons.
    Ill-defined requests for “any information on this topic” are very likely to run into the 2 hour search limit. As a meta-test test of FOIA compliance, you might therefore request something more specific, such as information contained in the article “SARS-CoV-2 Production, Purification Methods and UV Inactivation for Proteomics and Structural Studies”. I don’t believe that this published article would be produced by a FOIA request, because scientific publication on a topic within the scope of what a federal agency “does” are not automatically records subject to disclosure. The regulation states that “Disclosure of the requested records must be meaningfully informative about government operations or activities. The disclosure of information that already is in the public domain, in either the same or a substantially identical form, would not be meaningfully informative if nothing new would be added to the public's understanding”. Discovery of some fact about covid in the above publication would not “shed light on the operations or activities of the government”, therefore would be outside the penumbra of FOIA.
    There are better tools for searching for scientific information. A FOIA request is about as appropriate as would be using a hammer to remove a screw.
  17. Haha
    AlexL got a reaction from tadmjones in Remembering the CG Computer-Generated Pandemic Tyranny   
    Oh, you are a virology professional ! Nice ! Too bad that, according to Christine Massey, M.Sc., "Virology is not a science, [it is] made for pandemics and vaccines". Which is only understandable, because viruses do not exist😁
  18. Like
    AlexL got a reaction from Boydstun in Remembering the CG Computer-Generated Pandemic Tyranny   
    Therefore, they fabricate epidemics and amass wealth through fraudulent means.
    This was the full title of the 2007 edition. The augmented July 2020 edition is titled 
    VIRUS MANIA: Corona/COVID-19, Measles, Swine Flu, Cervical Cancer, Avian Flu, SARS, BSE, Hepatitis C, AIDS, Polio. How the Medical Industry Invents Epidemics, Making Billion-Dollar Profits At Our Expense.
    From the book description:
    Therefore I urge you to refrain from citing this book as evidence for any claim. It only subverts its credibility.
    About
    There are at least dozens of articles documenting the isolation, purification and identification of SARS-CoV-2, published in the leading peer-reviewed journals. Just google isolating SARS-CoV-2 virus
  19. Like
    AlexL reacted to DavidOdden in Remembering the CG Computer-Generated Pandemic Tyranny   
    I got something about 16 months ago: mostly a persistent sore throat like strep (without the blotches). My wife was also feeling crappy, then she hollers down to me that she had covid, I took the test again and the test device showed lines. I infer that I had covid, but I don’t “know, with certainty” that I did. The main question, then, was “what should I do?”. I decided to take the benevolent path and not risk transmitting it to others for the requisite time, and just waited to get over it. The alternative would be to assume that I don’t have any bio-disease, so maybe I would go shopping or partying, or something.
    In other words, when you don’t know “for absolute positive certain” what the correct conclusion is, you have to carefully weigh risks and the quality of knowledge that you have. My direct knowledge was pretty minimal, everything that I know about covid is second to third hand (I don’t classify “common knowledge” as “knowledge”, and gen-pop health services announcements are also not “knowledge”, they are social-management strategies). Mask facts and distancing facts were prime examples of ideologically-engineered conclusion which had a mild relation to scientific fact. The 6’ figure was derived from standards applied to doctors, a number for reducing chances of getting whatever the patient was emitting (20’ closer to the Truly Safe distance, also completely impractical for ordinary human interaction). I decided to read a couple of serious (paywall) articles when the plague first happened, and like everything else in medicine (and science in general), I found multiple tiers of information.
    Popular media and politicians rely on the lowest level of pseudo-information, the executive summary. This is strictly a series of conclusions and recommendations, and no evidence – the existence of evidence is implied. You can either accept or reject the popular statements, but to do so on a reasoned basis, you have to work hard, ultimately you have to engage the peer-reviewed scientific literature. This goes for covid, lipids, pollution, global warming, species endangerment, homelessness, and every other hot-button political issue. I just don’t have the bandwidth: I’m gonna do what makes sense for me, knowing that death is always possible and fearful death-avoidance isn’t living. Others may prefer to prolong their process of dying, in the mistaken belief that living is “not being dead yet”.
    Anyhow, I assume your grandfather had something, which the professionals decided was “covid”, and it isn’t important whether covid is “one thing” or “a class of things”. In terms of declaring what they (the CDC mouthpieces) should have said or done, the one thing that I would fault them for is the huge missed opportunity to elevate the population’s understanding of science. They could have focused more on evidence and logic, rather than the resulting conclusions. The main reason why they did not was that suggestion any possibility of doubt would encourage irrational rejection of conclusions that were not absolutely, definitively and with certitude proven beyond imaginable doubt. Some aspects of this thread are ridiculous, mainly the implied conspiracy theory that nothing actually happened, it was like the staged landings on the moon. Sweeping aside the innuendos and nit-pickings at the lower margins of the science, there are only two important questions. First, was there a disease (or class of…) – can we rationally be Holocaust-deniers about the event? I say no, it happened, details of the disease are of lesser importance. The second question is what the government should have done, and that is pretty obvious at least here: nothing. The function of government is not disease control. But we have been saying this for decades, covid presents nothing new, and IMO losing serious ground in that struggle for hearts and minds.
    It is up to the person who cares to find the evidence that objectively (in)validates their conclusions. It would have been nice if the CDC had packaged the science better, but there shouldn’t be an official governmental voice of science in the first place, so applying a “should” to a “shouldn’t” requires you to embrace a contradiction.
  20. Haha
    AlexL got a reaction from Jon Letendre in Remembering the CG Computer-Generated Pandemic Tyranny   
    Therefore, they fabricate epidemics and amass wealth through fraudulent means.
    This was the full title of the 2007 edition. The augmented July 2020 edition is titled 
    VIRUS MANIA: Corona/COVID-19, Measles, Swine Flu, Cervical Cancer, Avian Flu, SARS, BSE, Hepatitis C, AIDS, Polio. How the Medical Industry Invents Epidemics, Making Billion-Dollar Profits At Our Expense.
    From the book description:
    Therefore I urge you to refrain from citing this book as evidence for any claim. It only subverts its credibility.
    About
    There are at least dozens of articles documenting the isolation, purification and identification of SARS-CoV-2, published in the leading peer-reviewed journals. Just google isolating SARS-CoV-2 virus
  21. Haha
    AlexL got a reaction from Jon Letendre in Remembering the CG Computer-Generated Pandemic Tyranny   
    The AI bot doesn't simply say yes, but also provides references;
    Christine Massey says she asked and says that she received only "No Records Found". Christine Massey also says "Virology is not a science, [it is] made for pandemics and vaccines". (BTW, the exact arguments you are providing appear in the article The shocking research if Christine Massey on the site YogaEsoteric, among other😁)
    Maybe, however e.g. this of the 4 cited articles is titled "SARS-CoV-2 Production, Purification Methods and UV Inactivation for Proteomics and Structural Studies", has "Purification" in its title... But if you claim that the study described did not respect the virology standards required to warrant the conclusion that SARS-CoV-2 was thus isolated, then you should substantiate this claim. The onus of proof is on you because I only said "maybe - just maybe - there are records that document the isolation, purification, and identification of SARS-CoV-2", but you were affirmative.
  22. Like
    AlexL got a reaction from Boydstun in Remembering the CG Computer-Generated Pandemic Tyranny   
    Here is what Bard AI bot says (I know, I know!):
    Q: Was the isolation, purification, and identification of SARS-CoV-2 documented? Where?
    Bard: 
    Having had bad previous experiences with AI bots, I insisted:
    Q: Please double check the above info.
    Bard: 
    Therefore, maybe - just maybe - there are records that document the isolation, purification, and identification of SARS-CoV-2.
    I also verified the existence of (2 out of 4) of the cited articles and they do exist indeed.
  23. Like
    AlexL reacted to necrovore in Reblogged:Blog Roundup   
    Yes, we objectively have a border crisis. So does Europe.
    Ours is of course our own fault: first, we shouldn't be giving welfare to illegal immigrants. Second, we should be enforcing the laws, including in the cities, and not, e.g., allowing people to shoplift "as long as it's less than $900." These two policies alone attract the wrong sort of people.
    Third, we do need adequate border police as well. What we are facing is an invasion, and the only reason the invaders aren't armed is because they don't need to be.
    Fourth, however, legal immigration is absurdly difficult because of the bureaucracy, and that needs to be corrected, because discouraging legal immigration (and legal employment and trade, etc.) encourages illegal immigration (and employment and trade, etc.), and this creates organized crime in much the same way that alcohol prohibition did. (When you're engaging in illegal activity, you can't call the cops, so you call the mafia instead; they play the role of "cops" and "judges" between people engaging in the illegal activity -- but disputes become a matter of "might makes right" and there's no rule of law. Unfortunately the present régime seems to be supporting the organized crime rather than supporting the repeal of the Prohibition, but that is just another example of how the Left would rather use force than reason. The Left is much like a mafia, themselves.)
    There are some people who think that culture has to be enforced and that the government should enforce it. Such a belief amounts to using "culture" as a license to initiate force. It should be noted not only that we don't have the "separation of state and culture" that we should have, but that the immigrants typically don't have it either, and so they will want to enforce their culture, and currently there is no principled opposition to this, there is only "might makes right," or, our culture versus their culture. The invasion of a hostile culture is much more of a problem in Europe than in the US (because in Europe the invaders are more hostile, bringing Islam and the desire for an Islamic state), but it is a problem even in the US -- and it's easy to see again why the Left aligns with it, because they want to annihilate the good parts of Western culture, and immigrants who seek to enforce their own culture give the Left another way to do that.
    The correct solution, however, is not to "enforce our culture, or let them enforce theirs." We need a proper separation of state and culture (as part of a rights-respecting government), which means no enforcement, either public or private, of any culture at all, which means that peaceful immigrants could live here, but invaders could not hope to colonize our country by force. If we did have such a separation, the good parts of Western culture would survive, because they are aligned with reality itself and do not need enforcement. The separation, like any protection of rights, would not properly be subject to vote, but a government would still have to take care that it does not have so many immigrants that they become able to overthrow it completely (or infiltrate and subvert it). It would make sense to require that immigrants seeking citizenship support the separation of state and culture, to the extent such a requirement is even possible, but such a requirement would only make sense if we supported it ourselves.
  24. Like
    AlexL reacted to Gus Van Horn blog in Reblogged:Blog Roundup   
    A Friday Hodgepodge

    1. Over the years, I have taken to task various installments of National Review's war on Ayn Rand. (Here's a good one I'd forgotten about.)

    Scratch war on Ayn Rand in the name of accuracy: It's really a war against anyone learning what Ayn Rand had to say, and it began in earnest with an infamous non-review of Atlas Shrugged by professed ex-communist Whittaker Chambers.

    I recently learned via New Ideal that Leonard Peikoff penned a rebuttal, in the form of a letter-to-the-editor.

    National Review, true to form, elected to memory hole it, but now it appears as a chapter of the collection, Essays on Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged -- and as the blog post linked above.

    It reads in part:I am glad to see not only that this thorough rebuttal is now available for anyone to read, but also that it is now easy for anyone to ascertain the true character of the National Review, as exemplified by its treatment of Ayn Rand.

    2. At How to Be Profitable and Moral, Jaana Woiceshyn asks, in the form of her title, a question she clearly hopes to make non-controversial one again. "Instead of ESG and DEI, how about value creation, justice, and independence?"

    Here is an excerpt regarding justice:This essay is a much-needed corrective for both ESG/DEI and the alleged rationale for them, the latter of which is part and parcel of widespread ignorance about the nature of capitalism and suspicion of self-interest that permeate our culture.

    Image by wirestock, via Freepik, license.3. At Value for Value, Harry Binswanger economically addresses a couple of favorite conservative myths behind the ridiculous idea that there is a "border crisis."

    Regarding terrorism, Binswanger reminds us of what really needs to be done:I completely agree with his contention that, "The only crisis on our border is the outrageous refusal to recognize that 'All men are created equal, endowed ... with certain unalienable rights, that among these are the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.'"

    4. Brian Phillips of the Texas Institute for Property Rights alerts us to a proposal in New York that is as obscene as his post title ("The Right to Eat Fried Chicken") is ridiculous:As annoyed as this atheist is that Chick-fil-A closes on Sunday, I recognize and support the right of its owners to set their own schedule, and I am outraged that this little dictator in New York wants to set their hours for them.

    -- CAVLink to Original
  25. Haha
    AlexL got a reaction from Jon Letendre in Reblogged:A Man Tries the 'Back-up-to-Park' Fad   
    Gus Van Horn's comment is about pros and cons of back-up-to-park. It does not follow from it that Gus "cannot drive a car".
    Changing the subject to Ayn Rand is sneaky.
    Your comment:
    is not morally neutral.
    I did not draw board moderator and owner's attention over the comment you are citing ("Someday, in a month or so [...]"). It was over a different comment.
×
×
  • Create New...