JASKN

Are you aware of the Q&A sessions she had after every lecture? Or her television appearances? She answered plenty of criticism.
She just didn't answer the criticism of the self-appointed experts of the field of contemporary Philosophy, because she considered the field they created devoid of value.

But whenever the questions came from people interested in philosophy as a means of understanding and living in reality rather than just a purposeless intellectual exercise, she made a considerable effort to answer.
 
What makes Nozick's critique "informed and independent"? The fact that he had a PhD? The fact that he's famous?
Or is it something actually contained in that criticism? (if it's the latter, please, name a specific point that's informed and independent).

P.S. The real question I have (the one I'm interested in far more than anything else in this thread) is an explanation of what "technical" refers to. What are the specific techniques/definitions/assumptions/(whatever else) being employed, that make a critique of Ayn Rand "technical"? (in fact I'll probably start a thread about it at some point, because I keep hearing it and it always struck me as a very vague thing to say)

"Already law"? Congress exists for the specific purpose of changing the law.

Who are these "Objectivist Republicans"? I mean by name, especially if there are "many." As far as I have seen, Objectivists ridicule Republicans in the very same breath as they ridicule Democrats.

I'm guessing that if you put a segment from a piece of literature up against a short story written by a first grader, most people could tell the difference there.  That would seem a more apt comparison to this exercise.

9/11. Full disclosure: I feed and water my own toddler daily.

Blabbing for 21 hours, saying nothing of substance, making poor arguments, failing to use those 21 hours to develop a plan, making a fool of himself, leaving behind no use of facts, no unifying thesis... He failed at many levels to demonstrate that he even cares a tiny bit about reason. Ted Cruz clearly has no commitment to truth, but he's sure good at complaining.

I'm not sure what the controversy is here.  The article was spot on in saying the Government botched it's roll on this by focusing on the wrong priorities and will continue to botch it's roll since it is more interested in regulating property than protecting rights.  Or to put it succinctly it wants to criminalize what people own instead of what they do. 

Try to refrain from using the following terms:
Dirty (as it relates to sex, unless actual dirt is involved) Filthy (see above) Slut/Slutty Smut/Smutty Whore (unless there is a transaction involved, but even then this term is derogatory; see: prostitution) Indecent Naughty Raunchy Sex is none of those things.
 
Music videos make no sense to me. Music is music--observed the ears. The video part is... strange. The video of the performers making the actual music helps your enjoyment of the music sometimes, but anything else is... weird to me...
 
Other than that, Miley and the rest of her ilk seem to have a niche in the ~2.3% of adult males left on the planet who still do not have consistent access to porn and are stuck with this sort of thing. For the rest she is simply a poor specimen. Or at least that's what's consistent with my context...

If the ban on chemical weapons is rational, then let's have a ban on all weapons, since such a ban would put an end to war.

I just finished the beginning of the preliminary "Done Stage" of something I've been working on since February. The (mobile and desktop) site is:
http://putit.co

After buying some leather with the idea to cut out a shadow for my new iPhone to rest on so it wouldn't scratch, and then using it a couple of days, I figured other people might also have a use for it.

That small "thought" translated into tons of time planning and working -- close to half a year now. My guess is that I could have knocked it out in a few weeks if I hadn't had a full time job to cover also -- but, that's the magic of tiny business. Definitely I have come to more robustly appreciate the power of delegating than before (and I thought I had had a pretty good idea), realized through the negative, as nothing I did had a budget so delegating wasn't optional. As an already ultra time-aware person, I somehow became even more aware of the consequences of choosing to do one activity over another. Wax the car also/really meant a guaranteed week delay of the next tiny-business-related task that needed done.

The numerous tasks weren't themselves particularly challenging, though of course there were things I didn't enjoy, like taking pictures and editing (so tedious!). It was the time management that was most challenging. Even an hour's difference sleep developed a very real identity for me as, say, "no decisions will be possible on anything for the following 24 hours due to the 1 hour sleep deficiency."

I decided to create a standalone site instead of using amazon or eBay because those markets are trolled by copycats, and it would be nothing for someone to copy this idea. I wanted my chances to be as good as possible for my site to get credit. As such, I also tried to make things memorable with an off-beat name, and with design that didn't look like a total hack-job. And finally, in the event that I receive an amount of luck, I can better control a site I own if expansion and growth become possible. A site can also serve as a way to provide a customer with information in the event that I wind up selling another way.

While these first major pieces have finally been finished and organized, work is probably far from over. With basically any level of sales, I am looking at the problem producing more of them myself (especially with the release of a new iPhone) -- the next round will still have no budget for delegating, even with money made from sales of existing quantities. So, more time and money will be required. Also, I will likely be producing one kind of advertisement or another fairly soon here, meaning more pictures and editing (argh!).

Still, I am proud of what's done so far -- especially of having followed through with an idea.

I got hired to work for my hero, Peter Schiff.

I just finished the beginning of the preliminary "Done Stage" of something I've been working on since February. The (mobile and desktop) site is:
http://putit.co

After buying some leather with the idea to cut out a shadow for my new iPhone to rest on so it wouldn't scratch, and then using it a couple of days, I figured other people might also have a use for it.

That small "thought" translated into tons of time planning and working -- close to half a year now. My guess is that I could have knocked it out in a few weeks if I hadn't had a full time job to cover also -- but, that's the magic of tiny business. Definitely I have come to more robustly appreciate the power of delegating than before (and I thought I had had a pretty good idea), realized through the negative, as nothing I did had a budget so delegating wasn't optional. As an already ultra time-aware person, I somehow became even more aware of the consequences of choosing to do one activity over another. Wax the car also/really meant a guaranteed week delay of the next tiny-business-related task that needed done.

The numerous tasks weren't themselves particularly challenging, though of course there were things I didn't enjoy, like taking pictures and editing (so tedious!). It was the time management that was most challenging. Even an hour's difference sleep developed a very real identity for me as, say, "no decisions will be possible on anything for the following 24 hours due to the 1 hour sleep deficiency."

I decided to create a standalone site instead of using amazon or eBay because those markets are trolled by copycats, and it would be nothing for someone to copy this idea. I wanted my chances to be as good as possible for my site to get credit. As such, I also tried to make things memorable with an off-beat name, and with design that didn't look like a total hack-job. And finally, in the event that I receive an amount of luck, I can better control a site I own if expansion and growth become possible. A site can also serve as a way to provide a customer with information in the event that I wind up selling another way.

While these first major pieces have finally been finished and organized, work is probably far from over. With basically any level of sales, I am looking at the problem producing more of them myself (especially with the release of a new iPhone) -- the next round will still have no budget for delegating, even with money made from sales of existing quantities. So, more time and money will be required. Also, I will likely be producing one kind of advertisement or another fairly soon here, meaning more pictures and editing (argh!).

Still, I am proud of what's done so far -- especially of having followed through with an idea.

You didn't get the analogy. PK said "uniquely irresponsible" not "uniquely immoral". So, let's dissect the polemic. It is like PK saying that Hitler was not "uniquely dictatorial", or that Plato was not "uniquely philosophical". In other words, he names a pretty egregious example to which an adjective will apply. In this case "Detroit" is the noun and "irresponsible" is the adjective. Then, he uses the adverb phrase "not uniquely" to qualify the adjective. The purpose of this phrase is to tone down the adjective. If we take the category, which is "irresponsible cities", we find Detroit is pretty high on the top. His qualifier is a dishonest attempt to lessen the adjective instead of the more honest approach: which would be an adjective that increases the intensity.

 
So, are you claiming that the people of Detroit and their government are impotent and powerless? There is nothing they could have done differently for the last 50 years? Is that your point? Or, to tone it down, are you suggesting that the people of Detroit made some poor choices, but even if they'd made better choices -- not whiz bang choices, but the choices we can expect from a simple, responsible human -- then they would have still been nearly in the same situation?
 
Everything. This is not just a tale about cities. You need to look at the cause: irresponsibility.

Now, if PK had said that Detroit was not "uniquely irresponsible", and had used this as a parable to show why people all over the U.S. are irresponsible with their votes and the government's purse, then his polemic phrasing would have made sense. Of course a fan of huge deficits being foisted on our kids and grand-kids would never point to his own irresponsibility. He simply does not see his role in causing things like Detroit.

Detroit, specifically, also has this to do with the rest of America: some folk there want the folk outside Detroit to bail them out. Here's a story about Detroit government. It used to cost the city $62 to process each pay-check, primarily because the work was labor-intensive. If those irresponsible people who were processing paychecks did not realize that their irresponsible employer could never meet its promises to them, then they ought to learn via the market: by getting less than they were promised. 
 
Fortunately, it appears that the general American voter and even the general Michigan voter is in no mood to make his fellow-citizens pay for Detroit. So, that's the good part. However, this voter is still willing to run up debt on future generations to pay for all sorts of irresponsible hand-outs.

Even though there are standards of discourse, you aren't under an obligation to follow any of them. It's a myth that there's some prototype human that everyone could emulate to better make friends, get along with the general populace better, etc. People can be very different. Though there are some basic rules of communication, but how those are conveyed and practiced vary, sometimes widely, between groups of people. You could say the truly sociable person is the one who naturally recognizes all these subtle group-communication differences and can easily morph between them when in the company of different groups of people. But you don't have to (can't? nothing wrong with that) be that person.
  As a rule, I think it's better to focus on what you like yourself, and then find people who happen to like the same things at the same time, as opposed to trying to conform to a person or persons with the hope of gaining relationships. There is forever a place for new activities and interests, but they can't really be forced and depend on the complete context of your person and group of interests at the time -- you will or won't like something at a particular point in your life. If small talk and certain groups of people don't do it for you right now, there's not much to be done about it in the short run. Put yourself in social situations you don't like right now as a way to develop that interest later maybe -- but then again maybe you'll wind up never liking that kind of human interaction.   The internet acts as a great medium for less (or uncommonly) sociable people. If you happen to not currently coexist in person with people you like, it is pretty easy to find people on the internet to fill that void -- and on your chosen time frame. It's nice having people in person to talk with, but the internet makes a pretty good substitute. Furthermore, there are people I like on the internet but couldn't sit through lunch with. Nothing wrong with that, either.   If you're forced into situations with people you don't particularly like, be cordial, but don't let them take advantage of you and leave whenever you please. Recognizing differing methods of human interaction goes both ways, and there's no reason why they should consider their preferred methods to be superior to yours, just as you recognize theirs to be good for them but not for you.

Even though there are standards of discourse, you aren't under an obligation to follow any of them. It's a myth that there's some prototype human that everyone could emulate to better make friends, get along with the general populace better, etc. People can be very different. Though there are some basic rules of communication, but how those are conveyed and practiced vary, sometimes widely, between groups of people. You could say the truly sociable person is the one who naturally recognizes all these subtle group-communication differences and can easily morph between them when in the company of different groups of people. But you don't have to (can't? nothing wrong with that) be that person.
  As a rule, I think it's better to focus on what you like yourself, and then find people who happen to like the same things at the same time, as opposed to trying to conform to a person or persons with the hope of gaining relationships. There is forever a place for new activities and interests, but they can't really be forced and depend on the complete context of your person and group of interests at the time -- you will or won't like something at a particular point in your life. If small talk and certain groups of people don't do it for you right now, there's not much to be done about it in the short run. Put yourself in social situations you don't like right now as a way to develop that interest later maybe -- but then again maybe you'll wind up never liking that kind of human interaction.   The internet acts as a great medium for less (or uncommonly) sociable people. If you happen to not currently coexist in person with people you like, it is pretty easy to find people on the internet to fill that void -- and on your chosen time frame. It's nice having people in person to talk with, but the internet makes a pretty good substitute. Furthermore, there are people I like on the internet but couldn't sit through lunch with. Nothing wrong with that, either.   If you're forced into situations with people you don't particularly like, be cordial, but don't let them take advantage of you and leave whenever you please. Recognizing differing methods of human interaction goes both ways, and there's no reason why they should consider their preferred methods to be superior to yours, just as you recognize theirs to be good for them but not for you.

Sourcing would have been a good idea, especially due to the downright criminal reporting of some media outlets. But I was treating this thread casually and don't really feel like going back and sourcing every specific I've mentioned. I will go as far as to source what I believe to be the #1 misrepresentation about this case, and of course I'll source any other specific claim if asked.

The most extreme form of the misrepresentation goes something like this, "Zimmerman disobeyed police order and refused to go back to his truck." Ari Armstrong, Diana Hsieh and Paul Hsieh recently perpetuated this misrepresentation to various degrees when they condemned Zimmerman for (paraphrasing), "following martin against the advice of dispatch." 

Audio
People are perpetuating this misrepresentation in the comments on the source itself! The video shows "911", but it may have been a non-emergency number that Zimmerman called.
 
Transcript


I understand that the statement of the operator could be construed as a request (or even advice) not to follow. But I don't think that's what it was. I think it was to cover the dispatcher in case somebody got shot. For instance, the statement prevents Martin's parents from suing dispatch for Martin's death. If Zimmerman had gone back to his truck and Martin proceeded to commit a crime, the city would have denied that this was a request to go back to the truck - in other words, the verbiage is such that nobody could claim a crime happened because dispatch requested Zimmerman refrain from intervention. Indeed, a request doesn't exist in the sentence; you have to infer one. 

I'd just like to remind everyone that you under no obligation to respond to posts that you don't find to be worthwhile. If you think someone has violated the forum rules, please use the report function; do not retaliate by violating the forum rules in turn. We are not online 24 hours a day to read every post.

I think the government should be constantly limited, with repeated checks on those limits, in every way. Government attracts power lusters and is not directly controlled by the people, who have better things to do (getting on with their lives). History shows that government will not regulate itself. I think always erring on the side of skepticism, suspicion, and caution is best. "Safety" is a catch-all that will just be exploited to add controls, as is evident today.

Of course, if the government was doing its job, terrorists and other criminals would be scared to act against the American people, who would understand the importance of freedom and would only support good government.

There's an obvious mistake about half-way through the video, in one of your text graphics. The "Libertarian = Right-Wing" text is targeted at Peikoff, right? But he's attributing that position to the radio host, and Peikoff himself says that it's the wrong definition. And I don't think "Nolan Chart" gets to determine the correct definition of 'libertarian.' The Nolan Chart says so and so... who cares? I don't understand where the snark is coming from in that part. Hasn't "libertarian" become, for many people" a word like "conservative" and "liberal"? A not very clear concept that means to them something like "socially liberal and economically conservative"? Such a libertarian isn't what Peikoff/Schwartz ever had in mind when they talked about sanction, I don't think.

I always took it that Rand, Peikoff, and Schwartz meant by "libertarian" "Rothbardian." Weren't all Schwartz's examples of libertarians examples of Rothbardian anarchists? If that's so, then I don't see any hypocrisy going on here. The Kochs own Cato and Charles is an Obejctivist, and Allison has promised to remove anarchists and persons disrespectful of Rand from the Cato payroll. Sounds like Cato moving in an Objectivist direction to me.

Would quadroons count as black, I wonder? Elizabeth Warren is 1/16th native American... I wonder if that would count? Or, does one have to be really black?

I quit drinking. Might not sound like much but that's a big deal for me.

Can't edit my other post, but I wanted to add something:
 
The only 'evidence' I've seen about gender roles is from participant studies. From these, generalizations are made with respect to people's personal anecdotes, feelings, experiences, etc. I don't know if this form of evidence is valid- wiki says "it is accepted only in lieu of more solid evidence (regardless of the veracity of individual claims)" and "the process of verification is necessary to determine whether a generalization holds true for any given situation."
 
So IF these studies are the only 'evidence' available right now, there's not much we can do except to say "that generalization is false in these specific situations" and leave it at that.
 
What Delaney and other romance bloggers/radio-hosts do (see tom leykis) is try to help people along in their relationships and/or make a living. Where do they get their info? Cherry-picked anecdotes, their own experiences, and maybe a few studies or articles on google. Obviously their advice is not going to work for everyone or even be appealing to everyone, because their info is based (at best!) on generalizations.

Let's not go too far here. Kevin's advice is bad for most of the reasons given in this thread and others, but absolutely there are special actions that you should take on a date that you wouldn't take for one of your guy friends or just some random stranger.  You  treat your date as special because he or she is special, to you.  She isn't special because she's a woman, she's special for all the reasons that led you to ask her out.  Now how you express that is more open; you could go along with social conventions like holding the door and paying for her meal (assuming you set up the date), or not.  If she finds those sexist, that's fine, the point isn't to follow some rulebook, but just to communicate that she is special to you, not because she's a woman but just because you like who she is.  Treat your date like a 'special case' because she is.  That means going beyond just courtesy stuff that you'd do for a stranger, because she means more to you than a stranger does.  I'm speaking from the male perspective, but this goes for both sides of the date.
 
Now, some of the stuff recommended above can be used to convey to your date that she's special, and others I just don't see.  Picking the table, for instance, seems like a pure dominance move.  In the broader sense, taking the time and the initiative to plan out a date and set it up beforehand is a nice thing to do for your date (man or woman), but picking the table first?  I just don't see that, or the "no touching in public" thing.  Wow.  Now, not ignoring your date during the meal, having a two-sided conversation, and opening the door for her (if she doesn't mind that) all seem like sound advice; not because of some leading man framework, but because of both common courtesy and the fact that you should go beyond common courtesy on a date.

Same old, same old. Assuming the conclusions ("principles") which were criticized instead of addressing the criticisms, insulting others, and not backing up your claims.
Why do you keep posting this stuff on OO.com when you don't get the agreement you're looking for and you don't try to get others to see your view?

When do the games stop and the real behavior start?