[Illegal Immigration & Objectivism]

Unlike what it has done historically, America is no longer attracting just one type of immigrant, but two.

How is current immigration different from historical immigration? And why does such a difference matter?

The consequences [of immediate open borders] here are that welfare attracts the exact sort of people you don't want, which means more people will ultimately vote for more communism, and more moochers will come.

Why is that, in and of itself, a reason to not have open immigration?

Any rational person would want to embrace ... America's language, it's art, etc.

As opposed to his native language and art - why??

[Illegal Immigration & Objectivism]

Well played

[Does causality give man an excuse?]

Many times, within the context of knowledge one player may have, one logical opening could be equally as logical (or strong) as the next logical opening.

I hope that helps illustrate hunter's chess example anyway.

It does, thank you.

When hunter wakes up, maybe he will fill in the scenario where it is simply impossible to integrate the sum of his knowledge and reach a logical conclusion about what move to make.

It is outright impossible to know whether playing e4 or playing d4 for the opening move will lead to a better position 15 moves down the road, let alone know which will lead to winning. Both choices are good and logical conclusions, and all the known knowledge in the world isn't enough to determine which choice is the logical conclusion.

When one choice is objectively better than the other, or one choice is significantly better within the context of one's knowledge, then (and only then) I agree that there is a single logical answer.

Eventually, I realized that all evidence suggests that [the theory that man is a biological robot] is true. There is no evidence that support any other theory, and a lot that supports this one. But it takes mountains of integrity, and dedication to the truth to be able to recognize it.

Let's examine where integrity and truth lead us. You've said (several times) that all evidence suggests we are biobots. What evidence?

And hypothetically, what evidence would count as supporting the theory that humans aren't deterministic biobots?

An optional value is something that is a value, but not for all men, thus "having children".

For a specific man (with his specific knowledge and existing values), is choosing whether or not to value having children a choice with a single logical conclusion?

[Does causality give man an excuse?]

Logic plus knowledge leads to somehting -- one right answer, and any number of wrong answers (not just one wrong answer). But if you hold an opposing view, I want to see your disfunctional argument... I seem to be saying that if a man uses logic then a single set of facts leads to a single conclusion

A counterexample? Take chess. In very simple terms, no one has enough information to conclude that any given opening is *the* single logical answer.

You (seem to) say that our chess-playing Groundhog Day guy will, if without memory of his last episodes, will:

1. play the same opening move again and again... if he is rational
   
2. May play different opening moves only if he acts irrationally
   

The first smells of determinism - it's saying that the rational man, in a given situation, is going to perform the one(??) rational move, and if he confronted the situation again in the exact same state, he'd deterministically perform that same one move.

The second relegates choosing different paths under identical environments to irrational behavior - which sounds like only irrational people can volitionally choose which move to play.

And you seem to discount the third option:

C. may play different

rational

opening moves

even though it avoids what seems (to me) a false dichotomy between being determined and being irrational.

Now, if a man were thinking rationally and logically, then every time we went back in time, he would always make the same decision. This isn't determinism, this is causality. The facts presented to him, combined with his choice to approach them logically, will always lead him to the same conclusion.

Why, when there isn't one logical answer for some questions??

[Does causality give man an excuse?]

Well, nobody believes that 10 similar men always act the same. Not even Ifat, AFAICT.

Is it utterly beyond the scope of rational investigation to test scientific hypotheses using approximating (i.e. similar) models of reality?

If you look again at the sci-fi experiment I referred to, you'll see that I was talking about one man, looping through time, where everything that he becomes aware of is the same, time and time again, and he retains no memory of the previous episode.

Sure.

If a man has some particular knowledge and uses logic on that knowledge, he will reach a particular conclusion.

That's what I disagree with - or perhaps I just misunderstand you. Logic doesn't necessarily lead to a single right and a single wrong answer. Much more often, it leads to many feasible solutions and many other unsuitable solutions. Even if your Groundhog Day-ed man retained no memory of previous episodes, I see no reason to say that he'd play the same opening chess move every episode.

The point of these wierdo hypotheticals is to exclude having different knowledge.

That's the first point. Their second is that having identical knowledge/environment will lead to making identical decisions. You seem to be saying that because the first is impossible the second is unknowable... I'm saying that the second is not dependent on the possibility of the first, as no datum/environmental variable has been evidenced to have a deterministic effect on a human's actions.

...The hypothetical has to be dealing with a man who does not live by reason

As far as I can tell, nobody believes that. Making a different decision when rerunning the episode wouldn't necessarily mean that one of the decisions was irrational.

[The Rise of the Religious Left]

Talking religion isn't exactly the same thing as becoming religious. I think it's just lip service... but it does bear watching.

Another thing is that there isn't a real religious movement being this "religious left" I.e. there are blocks of people and massively organized groups who will vote against abortion because it is some god's will. Not so much with affirmative action or cradle-to-grave health care.

Some of the loonier Dems may be trying to create a voting bloc that will save the trees because it's WJWD, but the difference IMO is that such a group doesn't exist at present, at least not in power and numbers comparable to religious right organizations.

[Does causality give man an excuse?]

So are you saying that you accept the idea of ten men who are the same but not the same? Hypothetically speaking.

I accept that, even if ten identical men did/do exist, they still wouldn't necessarily act identically.

All the evidence that exists suggests that [volition is deterministic].

What evidence are you referring to? No matter how close you get in practice to finding 100% identical people/situations, people still make different decisions. That fact alone is more evidential than anything I've seen in support of human action being deterministic.

...if nothing were different, would the decision have been the same? We have no basis for deciding, since the replicability assumption is invalid... At present, this is utterly beyond the scope of rational investigation.

I kinda disagree. Not with the idea that the replicability assumption is invalid; rather I disagree that this invalidity means we have no basis for deciding or makes the question beyond the scope of rational investigation.

If you experiment with ten nigh-identical subjects, and Subject 6 acts differently from the rest, the determinist says that the minute differences in Subject 6 causes his different action - but that would be without basis. Unless the determinist could evidence why the difference in Subject 6 forced him to act differently from the rest (requiring another ten identicals test??), the determinist has no basis for his argument that being more identical would cause the subjects to act identically.

You might not be able to prove (qua replicability being invalid) that ten identicals won't make the same decision, but IMO experimental evidence will suggest that they won't necessarily act the same. No point in giving the issue up to subjectivity.

[Does causality give man an excuse?]

First, I want to say - I never understood some people's problem with hypotheticals. Why do some hypotheticals pass and others do not? Your hypothetical seems perfectly fine to me.

As far as that goes, I also don't have a major problem with the hypothetical.

My answer is that ten identical men will act exactly the same. The reason is that man's body is composed of cells and substances which obey the laws of physics that we know... The nature and behavior of substances with mass and certain charge is deterministic. Therefore, the operation of the mind is deterministic as well, given all the other information required that affected this brain (infinite amount of information).

I do have a problem with this, though. The parts are deterministic, therefore the whole is deterministic? Isn't that a fallacy?

The brain...is a device that...has a mechanism for deciding whether or not to focus

Ah. And are you saying this mechanism is a volitional choice? Or simply a deterministic effect?

[Cool blocks game]

That it is. I have to pull myself away, but I'm going to beat it later!

[The Benevolent People Premise]

I think the problem is what you should do upon consideration that most men are not rational. How should you choose to approach each stranger?

Indeed. As I understand things, a person holding the BPP would not base his initial evaluation of a stranger on the statistic that "most" men are not benevolent.

On the other hand, a person of the Malevolent People Premise would base his initial evaluation of a stranger on the statistic that most men are not benevolent. She may be polite to strangers... but she still mentally equates individual strangers with their collective statistics until they prove to be benevolent.

I read Dan's "expectation" as the Benevolent Universe premise is part of giving someone the benefit of the doubt, until they give you reason to think otherwise.

Do you mean the Benevolent People premise?

At any rate, I think that hits the nail on the head. And someone with the Malevolent People premise instead gives someone the detriment of statistical expectations, until they give you reason to think otherwise?

[Atlas shrugged implications( a few spoilers).]

It really is difficult to know when the time has come to go on strike. I think that time is when the fight is no longer a battle of ideas any more.

And how does one determine that it is no longer a battle of ideas, other than total totalitarianism?

A long long time ago, I read an article on the capmag site where Dr. Hurd said there are three things that determine whether it is time to strike or not.

• there are a number of common-sense, "grass-roots" developments that indicate Americans are not willing to surrender (such as the parent-led concern for education)
  
• today's politicians have a higher implicit regard for the system they are attempting to destroy than did the villains of Atlas Shrugged.
  
• we are still free to speak
  

I'm not entirely sure why these 3 (and only these 3?) things should matter in a decision to strike though.

I'm not sure I'd be much use to anyone (including myself) as a rebel or guerilla fighter.

I'll save a spot for you on the ship when you're ready - we can always use some good novelists

Am I able to live and be happy within the limitations that are forced on me? Yes, I know I'm going to have to work harder than I should have to, and yes, I won't be getting as much reward as I should, but will I still get enough to make it worth my effort?

If you can answer yes to that, then the time has not yet come to shrug.

Makes sense.

[Are Video Games Art?]

With a CRPG, you have not added a new artistic element, you've added a bunch of puzzles.

What is an "artistic element", and why does interactivity (puzzles??) have to be an artistic element in order for video games be art?

This whole thread is nothing but people a.) defining art as "whatever the hell I feel like calling art" and b.) saying that "<insert name of their favorite computer game> is art".

So video games aren't and can't be a selective re-creation of reality in accordance with the artist's metaphysical value judgments?

[Pedophile Nationalism]

I would have a problem with a convicted pedophile adopting a child. I think that it would be wrong to judge someone's self-control and deny them of children even if they have shown no criminal history. People can control themselves.

Let me make sure I'm clear on this. You wouldn't have a problem with an admitted pedophile (qua sexually attracted to children) adopting a child so long as he hasn't actually raped a child?

If [pedophilia is] natural and unchangeable, like homosexuality, why should you have a problem with it?

Why would it matter whether pedophilia were natural and/or unchangeable?

[Pedophile Nationalism]

I said that there is a problem with the pedophile who acts on his urges in an unjust or violent manner. How is that a 'dodgy' expression at all?

It implies that "justice-based pedophilia" exists. And that there isn't a problem with it.

Suppose a pedophile, one who has not acted in an unjust or violent manner, wants to adopt some children.

Would you have a problem with this?

If [the cause of pedophilia is biological], then condemning someone for being a pedophile is the same thing as condemning someone just for being.

That depends on whether you think there is something wrong with being sexually attracted to children.

[Atlas Shrugged]

I want to start the mission which John Galt accomplished in Atlas Shugged. Anyone interested?

Sure, why not.

...how serious are you about this?

[Spiderman 3]

You guys already got into the list of reasons, but let me take this down another road...

For starters, the main reason [spider-man 3] sucked was because it had no respect for source material.

Really?? How so?

Read the Ultimate Spider-Man series and compare that too the movie, you'll see how the comic book is actually an incredibly well-written piece of work and the movie is, well, crap.

You shouldn't compare the movies to an entire series. Better perhaps to compare SM3 to a comic book story arc - some of which are good, and some of which are very bad.

Personally, I don't see how the movie fundamentally drifts from the comic-book ideals. Not to mention that there are some Spider-man comic book storylines that are much worse than Spider-man 3.

[Lying in emergencies]

But what if the patient does not want treatment or to survive?

Wouldn't the patient have an obligation to say so?

If the patient says "I don't want surgery if the chance of survival is less than 20%", and the doctor lies in saying that an impending operation has greater than 20% chance of survival, I agree with you.

But if the patient doesn't say such a thing (i.e. "I don't want X under conditions Y") and the doctor doesn't know of the unstated conditional, I don't see precisely why the doctor has the obligation to truthfully tell the patient what the chance of survival is - even if the patient asks what the chance of survival is.

["Demoting" a Relationship]

...The lack of positive feelings is due to the fact that you gave [the ex], physically and emotionally, what only The One deserves. They got a taste of something that was not for them.

But that's a limited case - when you think she's The One, and find out she's not (and even then I don't see why you'd begrudge her - so long has she hasn't misrepresented herself, you'd have made the mistake, not her).

What about the majority of break-up cases, where you know she's not The One, but she is of high enough quality that you want to (having not yet met and until you meet The One) want to have a romantic relationship with her? (This is not "settling" or "giving up".)

In these majority of cases, you haven't given the ex what The One deserves, but rather what she, as an acceptable romantic partner, deserves. Assuming that the breakup isn't over an extreme difference in values, there's no reason to begrudge her or feel she's gotten something she didn't deserve. And there's certainly no reason why such an ex can't rationally be "demoted" to friend.

I infer that your standard for The One is your personal standard for whether a person is acceptable for a romantic relationship. (Otherwise she wouldn't be getting something she didn't deserve.) A bit stoic for my taste, but I don't see anything wrong with that. However there's no reason why others ought to have the same (romance only with The One) standard.

[The Rise of the Religious Left]

Talking religion isn't exactly the same thing as becoming religious. I think it's just lip service... but it does bear watching.

["Demoting" a Relationship]

More relevant to the original point of the thread, many of one's past "less than perfect" performances aren't failures at all even if they're less than perfect. For instance, "We the Living" was not a failure, just because it was not "Atlas Shrugged".

Whether it is a failure depends on your goal.

You keep saying "goal" - singular, as if one can only obtain one worthy thing (all-consuming love with a soulmate) from relationships.

Usually if it doesn't last it's because there was something morally wrong with the other person, and that would destroy any "worth" that you may have gotten out of it.

Usually. But you grant that it is not always the case - and that a friendship with a morally acceptable ex may be desirable?

Your positive feelings would be based on false premises - so once you know they are false, how could you still consider those feelings valid and thus the experience worthful?

I would only agree with that from the premise that

1. you completely misjudge your partner e.g. she's is none of the things you thought she was, or
   
2. your positive feelings are based on thinking that she is The One and you have no positive feelings at all if she is anything less than a soulmate e.g. no positive feelings toward her if you find out she's "only" worthy of friendship
   

The first is an extremely exceptional case, though I think everyone agrees that you shouldn't be friends with an ex who is absolutely worthless. The second would be rather odd... no positive feelings for a friend???

And even if they are successes in that ["less than perfect"] sense, if you do find true love, then they will just be regrettable.

If you grant that gaining real (albeit less-than-soulmate) values like friendship (or even "lessons") are successes, then there is nothing to regret, nor any reason to regret. On the other hand, if you want all-consuming love and consider gaining a friendship instead to be a waste of time, then that would be regrettable.

["Demoting" a Relationship]

Even if you do cut it at that point [of seeing that the romantic relationship won't work out], why would you look at the experience fondly? Your goal was romance, not "lessons."

1. Romance may be one's highest goal in forming relationship, but it needn't be the only one.
   
2. If a unsuccessful romance leads to a lesser (but still desirable) goal, it should be looked upon positively and fondly.
   

E.g. I might begin a romantic relationship with someone. A year later I may realize it's not going to work as a romantic relationship, but also that she would still make a great friend. Thus we end the romance amicably (unlike being burned) and I gain a friendship - a lesser goal perhaps, but still a worthwhile one.

Why equate a positive result to kissing a dog? More like getting a silver medal IMO.

"romance slut"

Nice new phrase I fear I shall have to be judicious with its use though

I do not believe that someone can go from a firm grip on reality to scientology without some extreme case of brain damage or dementia.

Okay, but what do you base that belief on, given that reality-oriented people are volitional too?

If you'd said

It's possible

but not likely

that someone will choose to go from a firm grip on reality to scientology without some extreme case of brain damage or dementia.

I'd be more inclined to agree with you - but then (if it's possible) it wouldn't say anything regarding the possibility of demoting relationships.

[Pirates of the Carribean III]

I liked it; if I had to give a rating, I'd give it 3 out of 4 stars.

I'd seen the first Pirates, but haven't the second, and I had no problem understanding things.

In my eyes, you could tell that they were trying to make this EPIC. In doing so, they expanded the Pirates mythology (good), increased the characters (s'okay), continued to double-cross each other (always good) etc.

I think they left a few plot threads less than tight, and it probably was too long for what it did - though IMO the length wouldn't have been a problem if the movie had e.g. developed the additional characters better.

Depp was again (and again) good.

For what it's worth, I thought Pirates was the best of the Big 3 summer movies.

[The American Civil War]

The Founding Fathers largely, if not exclusively, accepted slavery... because, a ) they believed that to push the issue of slavery would destroy America and lead to secession, civil war, and even leave it vulnerable to future outside attack; and b ) they believed that if they restricted slavery's expansion and importation, it would die out of its own accord... In short, it was believed that to press the issue of slavery would not only destroy the Union but also lead to the subjugation of all people in the Americas to some other tyrannical power; and in any case, could be destroyed in time by means of suffocation.

I'm curious what arguments people here would marshal for or against having tolerated slavery.

As for the against tolerating slavery:

• gaining one's safety at the expense of sacrificing that of slaves ain't legit
  
• I doubt a slave would consider a European monarchy to be more tynannical than slavery
  
• having implicitly legitimized slavery (and/or given it sanction), they couldn't be sure slavery would be destroyed on its own
  

["Demoting" a Relationship]

If you "fall in love" with some one who later converts to scientology, then you fell in love with someone who did not have rational leanings and a firm grip on reality in the first place.

No, it means the person you fell in love with doesn't have a firm grip on reality; it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with demotion or how reality-based you or your mate were in the beginning of the relationship.

If you can have friends (real friends) who are Christians, I really don't understand why you would divorce your wife for just becoming a Christian.

E.g. I don't mind when Christian friends sacrifice 10% of their household income tithing. I do mind when my Christian wife involves me in the sacrifice. It wouldn't be a betrayal, it's just not something I want in a wife. I wouldn't be overly concerned if a friend does it.

[she] had vices that hurt me enough that I decided to end the relationship. But I still loved her, even when I broke up with her. Sure, her vices were enough to make it so that I didn't want to marry her, but her virtues were enough that I still want to be friends with her for the rest of my life. My romantic feelings for her were never "mistaken." She deserved all the love I felt for her.

Well said

The point is, no matter whose fault it was, you wake up kissing the dog.

I think dan_edge's point (and one that I agree with) is that some breakups may be a realization that you've been kissing a friend - possibly uncomfortable and possibly a let-down, but not necessarily an experience that you either regret or prohibits future friendship.

Dan said he maintains a very close friendship with his former lover, that they discuss current lovers, and are still very intimate. That kind of friendship is what I can not imagine.

Maybe our experiences are just different? I've maintained close friendships with some of my exes.

["Demoting" a Relationship]

What I said was that it is impossible to demote a relationship... We can only argue on principles and definitions...

And now for the argument...

Whatever will lead me to end a romantic relationship with someone has to be something so serious that friendship between us is also impossible. It would have to be something that would lead even mere friends to be friends no longer.

If I would end a marriage over my mate's conversion to Christianity, then can't have friendships with Christians???

By what defined principles are you basing the argument of yours?

Converting to Scientology would be on the level of a betrayal of all of my values. If I were in a serious relationship with someone who did begin believing [in Scientology], it would be because I had not done due diligence in making my decision to be involved with her romantically.

Can due diligence on your part prevent your spouse from ever choosing to "betray" you???

If it can't, then what does due diligence in treating a romantic relationship seriously and rationally have to do with the (im)possibility or potential need to demote relationships?

I doubt one can demote a relationship within the "romantic friend" category and have it remain "demoted".

Hmm. I'll have to think about that. If "romantic friend" is an in-between of full-on romance and non-romantic friendship, I think I'll agree.