aequalsa

Is it just me or are those almost always awarded posthumously? I'm wondering if there is a reason behind that because I have trouble believing that there are not men who have taken similiar risks but also lived. It would seem they would be as worthy. Anybody know? Actually I looked it up and it seems to be a recent phenomenon. http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/mohstats.htm I wonder what philosophy would motivate that?

This is an interesting notion which I have come across fairly frequently. While there are certainly differences in communication styles between men and women, I have serious doubts that women are worse. I submit the possibility that the difference in perception is based on just your perception. Most men treat women well(with alterior motives, of course). Especially attractive women. I have known more then one guy who was an entirely different person when women were present. Let me emphasize the "entirely". And typically the women acquainted with them have no clue what they are really like. Without getting into the details too much, my own experiences indicate that men enjoy gossip and minipulation quite a bit. And many are the definition of two facedness. As something to consider, in the future when you see a woman on the side of the road with a broken down car, take note of how often one or more cars parked behind her? Then take note of men in the same position and how often they have some "friendly" guy stopping to give them a hand. Before I made enough money to buy newer cars that didn't break down all the time, I put many a mile on my tennis shoes without a single one of these nice men stopping to help.(to clarify, I didn't expect them to help...just noticed the discrepency in treatment) edit: I just want to clarify that I am not making the claim that men are worse. Not being a women, I can't really fairly compare the two. I just don't think that most men have the level of integrity they seem to with you.

sickle cell has a causal relation. If correlational data is valid in some situations, why is it never valid with regard to race? What is the fundemental difference?

Who suggested "giving up their decisions about an entire realm of their lives?"

Absolutely right, it is correlational. So is your stand then that correlational data ought never to be taken into account or only with regard to race?

I don't think of my decision making process as primarily one dimensional. Some decisions are very black and white(no punn intended) But often times a decision must be made based on a certain amount of intuition. When you have to make a decision about a large number of concretes that you do not have time to full integrate. You might not even have time to gather all of the relevent information. In circumstances like that, making educated guesses is a part of life. That is primarily when probabilities become relevent to me. So I do not disagree that there is always a right answer based on the individuals character, which when possible should be found. I just disagree that you always have the luxery of devoting the necessary time to the decision. I go the impression earlier that you were denying that these differences existed. I now see that this is not the case. I'd like to repeat back what I thnk you are argueing to see if I undersdtand correctly. You believe that these difference are less likely to yield the correct answer with regard to another person then knowing them personally would. Is that correct? If so, then I agree completely.

Well now...I ve moved up in the world. From slave owner to a mere second hander in a day. Some congratulations are in order. At this rate of improvement I'll be John Galt in a week. I have really thick skin if anyone else would like to sling some unsubstantiated ad homs in my direction. Since this seems to be the end of reasoned debate on this thread I respectfully take my leave.

I shouldn't have put that question in there. I'm trying to understand something else. It was poorly worded and I apologize. So Ill try again. Those small judgements about people based on (non-genetic)appearances are not always true. They're just usually true in the same sense that you might find certain racial stereotypes to be usually true. Why, then, is making a preliminary assessment about someone based on general traits(specifically genetic traits) wrong?

Im having trouble with this idea. I think we might be talking about two different things. Are you saying that as an individual you don't judge their full characters without more in depth knowledge(if so, I absolutely agree), or do you mean that you do not realize that they are black, white, tall, or poorly dressed when you meet someone? So tall people statistcally make more money, though not all of them. Poorly dressed people are poor, though not all of them. Are these bits of knowledge ok to consider in certain contexts-say marketing or sales-even though exceptions exist? Or, for you, must all circumstances be judged on the individual level?

In essence, that is not what I am saying. "If you have felt it, you wouldn't disagree with us, is the thought motivating the statements you respond to." I was not making a statement here, just referring to earlier posts. The rest is my attempt to describe the value I personally have derived from a monogomous relationship in order to display the difficulty one would have in attaining that simultaneously with 2 or more people. And how about you don't equivocate the voluntary possesion of a lover in a trade for trade relationship with slavery. You know thats not what I or any objectivst would suggest and to say that shows me that you are not interested in an honest debate.

I believe that I understand your position but am not certain that I agree. Other things such as dress and posture certainly take presidence in forming an initial impression but I do not see how it is improper to hold a prejudicial impression of a person based on probability asociated with race or any other immediately noticable fact. Here's what I mean. Say, from a distance, you see 4 people on the corner. Now say, as you get closer, you see 4 men on the corner. Now say they are wearing army uniforms. without knowing much about them, your subconcious at each step is bringing up a list of associations with the facts that you possess. I am not declaring their total worth as people, but my judgements(and they are mine) are going to form on whatever information I have at that time, race included. Obviusly as more information is presented those judgements will likely change, but the basis of judgement seems sound. When all you have to go on is probabilities, it beats having no oppinion at all. I think people form these judgements all the time whether they realize it or not. I have to because I need the placeholders. I am not certain that it applies to anyone else, but for me, early judgements are necessary since I can't keep a zero in my brain. I have to have a running assessment. So in other words, I am not recommending that anyone make absolute moral judgements on individuals based on their peripheral traits, but I believe the nature of our minds is such that these initial judgments have to occur. Otherwise I am curious where the cutoff line is with regard to making judgements. How many years must you know an individual before you are qualified to judge them? How long do you hold yourself in that realm of indecision. And I am curious, actually, how you are able to do it. The only possibility I can think of is some form of evasion(don't mean that in a bad way) where you refocus on some other fact or issue so as to not let the associations enter your concious mind. I assume generally positive things about soldiers(discipline, moral code, etc) but they could just as easily be rapists or murderers. But generally, the first discription is more accurate, so I base my expectations on that even though I may not know the individual. Not sure what the danger is in applying this same system of evaluation based on race-other then upsetting the multiculturalists, that is.

Possession is 9/10ths of capitalism, that's mine.

As I understand, it is not that an arbitrary claim can never be proven, but rather that no evidence exists or has been provided to support it. Such is the case with the matrix. Nothing I am aware of would make that circumstance physically impossible, but because no evidence exists which suggests that we are in a computer, it is an arbitrary claim which doesn't warrant much consideration.

I don't think that is accurate. It is decidedly the people that live in that location that make the area dangerous. The buildings don't shoot at you, after all. I don't understand why you would deny that differences exist between groups of people. Or that sociological probabilities are a valid means of knowledge. The differences may be culturally based rather then genetic, but the differences exist just the same. And more times then not, those differences devide loosely on racial lines. To not take those differences into consideration would be foolish and possibly dangerous. So what are you opposed to here, exactly? That an individuals worth should not be judged based on on their genetics alone or that you should take any notice whatsoever of someones physical characteristics regardless of whether or not there is correlational data to warrant a certain level of prejudgement?

I think that quite often stereotypes are useful to take into consideration. If I were invited to a potluck dinner by people who were semetic, I wouldn't bring bacon, even if I didn't have direct knowledge of their religious beliefs. By that same token, I would be a lot more weary of walking down a street at night in O'town(bad neighborhood in miami) then I would in Lexington(nice suburb of Boston). When I encounter an individual, their particular traits are a more important concern, but I don't think it inappropriate at all to consider people by group when you have nothing else to go on. It helps you establish some expectations of their behaviour. The problem comes if you hold those initial expectations as fact rather then probability.

I think that since ethics applies only to men's actions, preferring death means that ethics is not relevent to you.(well, short of knowing which way you need to point the gun). Something being good or bad presupposes that it is good or bad for something. Some inanimate object cannot have values and has no need for ethics(ie how to behave in order to gain or keep values). "to exist is the good" for those who wish to have other values. It is a necessary requirement. It could probably be argued that to exist is also the good for those who do not wish to exist. They just do not realize it because of bad philosophy.

You laid it out very nicely, David. Just one question though. What does BIV stand for?

I think the reason for redefining words is that many definitions are poor. In the current case, though, I think there is a subtle difference between possible and arbitrary that you are not taking into acount. ARbitrary has the added nuance that it is disconnected from reality in some way which disallows inquiry. If I were to say that it is possible that there is a book in a box, we could find out if it were true by opening the box. If on the other hand I were to say that it is possible that god exists, or we live in a matrix, or unicorns are somewhere, then it is in the realm of arbitrary as there is no way to find out if the hypothesis was true. Those statements could be changed by saying, there is a Unicorn in my backyard. Now we have a statement which can be investigated...the possible-ness of the statement is derived from the spatial limitation of my actual backyard of course and is not derived from the concept of unicorn.

RationalBikers's socratic answer is exactly right, but Ill take the liberty of explaining it in more detail. The axioms are axioms because they are necessary precursors to any other knowledge. Everything we can ever know is predicated on those 3 ideas. Any arbitrary idea that someone comes up with must be supported by evidence or it is nothing more then a floating abstraction. So the axioms state, in other words, that the concept of evidence presupposes some material universe and an entity capable of observing it. It is not possible to provide "evidence" that evidence cannot exist. If you were Neo and met some people who gave you a pill which caused you to wake up in his circumstances, you would then have evidence that an interesting computer program existed but the nature of the universe would still not have changed. Only your knowledge would have changed. Like when you feel the straightness of a stick that appears to bend in the water. Remember that the burden of proof rests on the shoulders of the individual making the positive claim. I don't believe in god, unicorns and fairies. I dont have any evidence that they don't exist, except that I have no evidence that they do exist. Nothing else is required.

Do you remember where you read about that, by any chance? I had heard something similiar but thought that it was debunct by some geneticists, but that was second hand.

Do you find that telling someone that you think they are stupid is more effective then telling them their actions seem immoral in that they are not beneficial to their life? What I understand you to be saying here is that the only way someone can be immoral is if they evade the truth. Is that correct? If so, then I agree with you to this extent; I would consider someone who actively evades the truth to be more immoral then an individual who acts against their self-interest through a lack of knowledge or comprehension. But I do not agree that this differentiation makes their actions moral, just more forgivable because it implies that they are less likely to commit the same error in the future. An evader can make the same mistake over and over.

""the belief that one race is inherently and genetically superior to another."" To answer more directly, no. Believing that genetic differences between individuals or groups exist, which no one would deny, does not translate into believing in racial superiority in any broader context, which is what racism requires. It's not enough to make a generalization about a group, like blacks run fast or white's have a lower teen pregnancy rate or jewish people eat a disproprtionate number of bagels. A racist ideology requires belief that your genetic lineage is better then other races' in total and that those differences are causally related to their genetics and nothing else. Heh...you beat me to it Chops. What race are you that allows you to type so fast?

It seems to me that the difference here is similiar to the difference between objectivists and libertarians. For libertarians, morality essentially starts at the political level. That is their axiom, in fact. The non-initiation of force principle. So long as you don't interfere with someone elses rights, you are not acting immorally. When an objectivist labels someone or something as immoral, they are saying that it is is not in the subjects best, rational, longterm self-interest. So while an objectivist might say that something is immoral, they would not equate that with the idea that it should therefore be illegal, because of the realization of context in personal matters. If the immoral action did interfere with the individuals right to life, then they would believe that it was immoral and should be illegal as well. An objectivist would say doing "meth" is immoral, but feel free to do it. A libertarian would say, Feel free to do "meth", it doesn't hurt me so it's not immoral. Their base is essentially subjectivist in this way and what you are advocating is the same. Because something is contextual, it is not beholden to morality. It is difficult to understand those issues and would should certainly be very cautious in stating that something context based is not moral, but that is not to say that morality is not involved.

Dean Kamen. Although he is not in the billionaire conversion business, he did start a foundation to encourage interest in science with young people. Also, he has invented some kickass stuff. He is as close to Galt as anyone I have ever heard of. I don't know anything about his philosophy except what I can infer from his achievments, but I haven't heard anyhting about him I do not like so far. http://www.dekaresearch.com/

I disagree that that can be inferred from evolution. "Black" refers primarily to people of subsaharan african descent. They populated mainly tropical areas which are ideal human habitats. Especially in prehistoric times(where most of evolution has taken place) when hunting and gathering was the primary means of existence. Living in the frozen rocks in Norway is a great deal harsher. Short growing seasons, ice,... Could you explain why you believe that africans were chosen to be slaves because of their racial strength? I would supect they were chosen because they were tribal and uneducated and easier to enslave. If I wanted to kidnap some people I would choose them that have bows and arrows rather then muskets. Individuals were probably chosen-or more likely survived the boat ride across the pond, because of their strength, but I seriously doubt that the group was chosen because primarily because of their strength. The tall long-limbed africans you have in mind were actuially only found in 3 parts of africa and are not typical of the population. One of those areas was west africa, where a great many of the slaves came from-because it was closer to the westindies. The primary genetic difference as I understand is limb length. Shorter limbs are easier to get blood to and therefore keep warm in colder climates. This causes a decisive difference in running speed for obvious reasons. And thus in any sport dependent on sprinting. Also cyclecell anemia which causes physical weakness while providing resistence to malaria. Another factor you are not taking into account, which is huge, is cultural emphasis of particular sports. Why is it that Americans don't ever win the world cup in cricket even though there are more americans then there are British, Irish, Pakistanni, or Australians? Cause we don't play the game. I had an acquaintence who was black and did not play basketball. He jokingly described it as almost a passage of manhood. If you didn't play basketball you just weren't a man. I, being white, have never felt a similiar pressure in regard to sports. I have felt that consistent pressure with regard to learning and wealth production though. "every man in the same country, if he be able-bodied, shall, upon holidays, make use, in his games, of bows and arrows... and so learn and practise archery." Edward III. Low and behold, England became good at shooting arrows to the point that English longbowman were imported as mercenaries. Perhaps the English are genetically better at pulling their arm back to their ear?? Even diet could have a major impact. Consider the average height of Asians born here with milk as a staple in their diet compared to their ancestors. Blacks eat different food then whites, generally. I try to be real careful with genetic determinism. It's a complicated subject because the results(what people(x) are) all meet at a nexus of environment, culture, freewill and genetics and they are each impacted by the others. To make a statement like blacks are genetically better at sports is just not accurate. What you can say is that blacks from certain areas of africa tend to have longer limbs proportional to their torsos and that trait is primarily caused by genetics. A lot less interesting perhaps, but a lot more true. Regarding the intelligence issue, their was a book that came out several years ago called 'the bell curve'. In it, they determined that the average black IQ was 85 and the average white IQ was 102. So you might say that blacks are genetically less intelligent then whites or you might consider the other issues at play such as the accuracy of an IQ test as a measure of "intelligence" or cultural issue such as emphasis on education which has been shoen to cause an apparent increase in IQ scores.