Economic Freedom
-
Posts
79 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Posts posted by Economic Freedom
-
-
2 hours ago, Doug Morris said:
How many people attend a candidate's rallies does not necessarily correlate well with how many vote for that candidate, especially if candidates are using different strategies, and especially if their followers tend to differ in attitudes and motivations.
LOL! Right.
-
I should also add -- for those who harp on the issue that "Putin is not the legitimate leader of the Russian Republic" -- that not only (as posted earlier) is Zelensky not the legitimate leader of Ukraine, but Joe Biden is not the legitimate leader of the U.S., so the lend-lease arrangement recently made between the U.S. and Ukraine has no "moral legitimacy" either.
You really believe a guy who stayed in his basement during most of the campaign phase, and made a few public appearances in which a dozen or so people showed up, each one sitting compliantly with a face mask, and separated by one another by six feet, sitting in a chair with a circle drawn around it -- that he got 80 million votes? The most popular POTUS in history? Even more popular than Obama? When Trump would speak at rallies in various cities, each filled with capacity crowds, e.g., when he spoke in Butler, PA, there are almost 60,000 people who showed up. And yet Biden won in a "secure, fair, and honest election"? I don't think so.
Watch "2000 Mules".
- Jon Letendre and Grames
-
2
-
16 minutes ago, EC said:
I stopped reading when you claimed I get my news from CNN and MSNBC. I don't watch left-wing propaganda stations and when I watch a national news channel it's only FOX News, but, and this is very important, I watch it objectively, and have mostly stopped watching Tucker even though as I said earlier I like a lot of what he has to say over exactly this issue.
>it's only FOX News
That's a mistake. FOX (as well as its conservative competitor, Newsmax) is controlled opposition: it's permitted by its sponsors to criticize certain things, but not to criticize -- or even mention -- other things.
Examples: a year ago, Newt Gingrich was a guest being interviewed by commentator Harris Faulkner. When Newt started to mention the funding by George Soros of local Attorneys General who were radical lefties, Faulkner cut him off and told him that "we're not going to talk about Soros..." At first Newt laughed, thinking this was some sort of joke, but then he realized that FOX was simply censoring his statements: he was not permitted to mention the name "George Soros". More recently, Catherine Engelbrecht, a founding member of True-the-Vote (investigating the fraud of the 2020 presidential election) was on Tucker Carlson's show. She was told by Carlson before the show not to mention Dinesh D'Souza's recent documentary on the fraud, titled "2000 Mules", which used cell-phone tracking data to track thousands of ballot-harvesters ("mules") who went back and forth to ballot drop-boxes in many states, and then picked up more ballots (with names of dead people on them, or names of out-of-state people), to drop them into the ballot drop boxes. The documentary also tracks them going to various NGO headquarters where they picked up the ballots and were paid per ballot. FOX and Newsmax have stated publicly that they will not air the documentary or even mention it.
As stated earlier, both FOX and Newsmax receive millions of dollars in sponsorship from Big Pharma (mainly Pfizer, it appears) and thus will not honestly criticize the so-called "vaccines."
In that sense, FOX and Newsmax are no different from CNN and MSNBC. The only way to watch these venues "objectively" is to start from the assumption that they are presenting propaganda promoting someone's interests that are most likely not your interests.
Wake up.
- Jon Letendre and Grames
-
2
-
Something the monkey excerpt above fails to mention:
Most of the biochemical processes involved in life are "reversible", and would reverse themselves unless held in equilibrium. To make the monkey example relevant as an attempted explanation that life arose by chance, we'd have to add the following: every time a monkey randomly typed a character, it would also type a backspace key and type over the letter using the correction ribbon.
There are as many forces in nature that undo built-up arrangements of molecules as there are forces that do the building up; probably more (that's why the 2nd Law says that entropy moves from low to high, and not the other way around, at least not without purposeful action to maintain the earlier low-entropy state). So the assumption that, if only given enough time, random combinations will inevitably build up arrangements that are functional (e.g., proteins) and meaningful (e.g., literary novels) is a non-starter.
-
>-Incorrect. Past events have run out of time, and "given enough time" should be realistic.
I agree. I was clearly being provocative in my previous assertion since most people incorrectly believe that as long as some event can be shown to have a non-zero probability of occurring, it will occur if given enough time. We both agree that's untrue.
>The chance that left to themselves all the air molecules in a room where one is breathing will come to reside in a one-cubic-inch volume in a corner of the room is so small, one shouldn't get nervous about it or give it a second thought.
I also agree. The reason that we shouldn't fear air molecules randomly aggregating in the corner of a room (thus suffocating us to death) is that there are vastly more combinations of air molecules not aggregating in the corner than there are combinations of molecules aggregating in the corner. Simple statistical mechanics.
Similarly, there are more combinations of molecules of stone and plaster comprising differently shaped piles of rubble than there are combinations of stone and plaster comprising inhabitable structures like The Parthenon, which explains why structures like the Parthenon go from being low-probability-low-entropy arrangements of molecules (the structure as it appeared in antiquity after it was built by intelligent minds) to lying in partial ruins (as it appears today), and not the other way around...even though by hypothetically assuming the other way around, no physical laws are being violated.
As Feynman pointed out in his Cornell lectures, if you saw a film clip of a tornado tearing through a pile of rubble and a perfectly assembled barn is the result, you'd understandably claim that the film was being run backward, because in our experience, non-intelligent forces like tornados don't take arrangements of things that have a high probability of appearing on their own (piles of rubble) and converting them into low-probability arrangements (barns).
It's called "statistical mechanics" and it provides a compelling illustrating of how things break down over time when left by themselves without intelligent intervention to maintain their low-probability arrangements, as well as illustrating how things cannot go from high probability (high entropy) arrangements to low probability arrangements (low entropy) without intelligent intervention. I.e., without purposeful, goal-directed, teleological action.
The same arguments apply to the origin of life, as well as the diversification of disparate species.
-
11 hours ago, Eiuol said:
What point are you trying to make? Why are you spending time on stupid and uninformed people? I just find it curious when people opt for self-mutilation rather than something interesting and productive even in their own eyes.
>What point are you trying to make?
Objectivists live in an echo chamber.
-
>There is no evidence of any sort of purposeful being guiding evolution.
There's also no evidence of any sort that a person named Ayn Rand engaged in teleologically mystical and goal-oriented action to write a book called Atlas Shrugged. Eye-witness testimony from someone claiming to have typed the manuscript? That's not objective proof worthy of being accepted by an Objectivist; that's just someone saying she did something or saw something. Imagine if we all accepted such eye-witness testimony as "proof" of anything! We'd probably have to accept the eye-witness testimony of survivors of extermination camps during WW2 (and there are many deniers who do not accept such eye-testimony as proof of anything except, in their view, the willingness of some people to lie); we'd probably also have to accept the eye-witness testimony of Ukrainians who say their cities and homes were shelled by the Ukrainian army or that Ukraine is a central hub (by virtue of its geographic location, as well as by virtue of the general anarchic and corrupt state of affairs in its own government) of child trafficking! Just imagine all of the ridiculous things we'd have to consider seriously as being plausibly true if we accept eye-witness testimony as evidence! It's not fully and majestically Objective, so the whole issue is a non-starter.
The reason we don't have to resort to such a mystical explanation as "someone named Ayn Rand intelligently-designed Atlas Shrugged by means of purposeful, goal-oriented action" is that the entire book, all 1160 pages, can be shown to have a non-zero probability of having appeared simply by pure dumb luck by means of naturally occurring forces. And you'll have to admit that as long as there's a non-zero probability of anything occurring, it probably will occur, given enough time. Right?
As far as the text itself goes, it can all be explained by very simple probability:
1) The book is about 1160 pages (hardcover might have a different page count from paperback, but 1160 pages is not too far off the mark).
2) There are 26 letters in the English alphabet, and we use another character -- a space -- to separate groups of letters (called "words") from one another. So if we include a space as a character, the English alphabet can be said to comprise 27 discrete characters. There are also punctuation marks, of which I include the following 11: period, comma, colon, semi-colon, exclamation point, question mark, apostrophe, open quote, close quote, open parenthesis, close parenthesis. We might include the open-and-close brackets and the diaresis but I'll skip those since they don't change the outcome by much. Also, I'm omitting the fact that there are actually 52 letters in the English alphabet, not just 26, because each letter has a majuscule (upper case) and miniscule (lower case) form.
So the total number of characters in English is the following:
26 letters;
1 space;
11 punctuation marks;
Total = 38 characters.There are no physical or chemical constraints on any of those characters; i.e., any character can precede or succeed any other character. True there are mental constraints on the order of characters determined by mental considerations such as grammar, syntax, rules of spelling (e.g., in English, a "u" must follow a "q" 100% of the time, or in others, with a probability of "1") but mental considerations are irrelevant in this calculation, which only considers physical or chemical constraints -- the same kinds of constraints that come into play in biological systems.
Now, how many characters are in the complete work known as Atlas Shrugged? Hard to say. I guess we could find an online version and do a character count but this is just a "back of the envelope" calculation, so I'm going to "guestimate." I'll guess that there at least 300 characters per page (probably more); since there are about 1160 pages, the total number of characters would be around 300 x 1,160 = 348,000.
Now: just taking into consideration laws of physics and chemistry -- not "rules" of spelling, grammar, etc. -- what is the probability that the entire string of text, from "Who is John Galt" to "traced the sign of the dollar" arose purely by dumb luck? It's very easy to calculate:
Think of those 348,000 characters as being "slots" waiting to be filled by a character spit out by any physical force we imagine (naturally occurring ink blown by tornado, for example. It could happen, right? It's not completely impossible, right?). So what is the probability that the first character we see in a current copy of the book -- an open-quote, or " -- could appear in the first position of the text (i.e., the first "slot")? It's not hard to figure out. If there are 38 characters, then the odds of one of those characters appearing in the first slot are one-in-38, expressed arithmetically as "1/38." This means: there's a 1-in-38 chance that the first slot in the text will be an open-quote.
The 2nd slot in the novel shows the letter "W" (i.e., "Who is John Galt?"). What are the odds of that letter appearing (after being blown in by some tornado or storm from a pool of inky substance that just happens to be lying around on the ground) by chance? Same as before: there are 38 characters total; "W" is one of those characters; so the odds of that character appearing in the 2nd slot are 1/38.
Now: what would the odds be of both of those characters appearing by chance? It's a simple probability product:
" = 1/38
W = 1/38
" and W (whether in temporal succession or simultaneously, it makes no difference for the calculation): the word "and" in probability means "times", so we simply multiply the two probabilities:" and W = " * W = 1/38*1/38=1/1,444. So there's a 1-in-1,444 chance of a " and a W appearing by chance in the first 2 slots.
What about the 3rd slot, the letter "h" ("Who . . .?"). Same thing. It's also 1/38. And so it is for every character in the entire string of text, from "Who is John Galt" to "traced the sign of the dollar." Since we're guessing there are about 348,000 characters total, the odds of the entire text string appearing by chance must be 1/38 multiplied by itself 348,000 times, or 1/(38^348,000). It's a bit easier to conceive of the denominator if we convert it to base 10, so we do a little junior high school log arithmetic:
38^348,000 = 348,000*log(10)38
The log(10) of 38 is about 1.58 (i.e., 10^1.58 is about 38);
So 38^348,000 = 348,000*log(10)38 = 348,000*1.58 = 549,840; or
38^348,000 = 10^549,840
And since that number was in the denominator, we have the odds of Atlas Shrugged having come into existence completely by random processes and pure dumb luck as being:
one chance in 10^549,840, or 1/10^549,840,
which is NON-ZERO.
And because it is a positive Real Number, we cannot simply dismiss it as impossible (which would be a zero probability), and therefore there's no need to trust unreliable "eye-witness" testimony as some sort of evidence in favor of a mystical force like "teleological, goal-directed action" to account for a 1160-page novel, which after all, is really just a very long string of characters, and ink is just ink; a liquid with chemical properties, capable of taking many shapes from completely random physical forces. We don't need anything other than those physical forces and the chemical properties of liquid ink to account for a long text string like Atlas Shrugged.
>There is no need to suppose such a being, since genetic mutation and natural selection are enough to account for evolution.
Just as random physical forces, the chemical properties of liquid ink, and the ironclad math of simple probability are enough to account for the appearance of a long string of text we have named "Atlas Shrugged." See above.
-
53 minutes ago, dream_weaver said:
The woman who typed up the hand written pages Miss Rand wrote still walks amongst us.
You haven't explicitly answered the question: Direct evidence such as eye-witness testimony?
-
7 hours ago, EC said:
I think the person in this thread complaining about O'ists getting too much info on this subject from the MSM has been getting too much of his own info (nonsensical conservative propaganda) from Tucker (who I like in many ways even though he's a lunatic about this subject which is objectively evil Russian aggression, war crimes, and atrocities that are clearly reminiscent of those of the 3rd Reich). This is WW3's (let's call it by what it actually is) of the shit the actual Nazis did during WW2.
>which is objectively evil Russian aggression
As a response to objectively evil Ukrainian government aggression against other Ukrainians who are ethnically Russian. If you study some history of the subject instead of watching CNN and MSNBC you might learn something and arrive at a conclusion more consistent with the actual historical record.
This is known as the "correspondence theory truth," in which "truth = correspondence to fact"; as opposed to slavishly following MSM, which is known as the "coherence theory of truth," in which "truth = beliefs and statements that are not only internally consistent but concur, and are consistent with, stories and viewpoints espoused by pundits on MSM." As an example of the latter, when Brian Stelter on CNN went to one of the areas that were rioting after the George Floyd killing, and with a straight face told the cameras that "this is mainly a peaceful demonstration" when viewers could plainly see buildings burning in the background and people rioting violently in the streets, there were many viewers who, to this day, deny that there was any violent rioting in the streets because Brian Stelter -- Johnny-on-the-Spot -- told them what to think, and told them how to interpret what they were seeing. That's called "controlling the narrative."
It's like the scene in "The Wizard of Oz" where the little terrier Toto pulls back the curtain, revealing a harmless old man at a machine that amplifies his voice, making him sound menacing, and who then shouts (as a last-ditch attempt to "control the narrative" of Dorothy and her companions), "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!"
>war crimes, and atrocities
False flags. For example, the maternity hospital that was shelled several weeks ago, with reports of dead women and babies, and blamed on Russian forces by western mainstream media, had been evacuated several weeks earlier in February and was being used as a headquarters by Ukrainian military and the Azov battalion. That's why it was shelled by Russian forces. But women and babies were not among the casualties.
The online newscast called "The Hill: Rising" hosted by Kim Iversen had a webcast at the end of February about some of the fake images and newscasts coming out of Ukraine and promoted by mainstream media, such as spectacular nighttime rocket attacks that were actually images from a video game; images of "brave" president Zelensky donning military gear, apparently "ready to appear on the front lines to support his troops" that were actually recycled pictures from a year ago of a training exercise; etc. See link.
The more recent hysteria by MSM over Russian forces "about to attack a nuclear power plant" was a false flag, too. Ukrainian military took over the power plant and fired on Russian forces hoping to goad them into returning the fire (they didn't). Nevertheless, sleepwalkers in the west who swallow Blue Pills handed out to them by MSM got to shake their heads and virtual-signal to one another, "I just saw on The View that those nasty, nasty Russians were about to attack a nuclear power plant! That Putin guy sure is nuts!" Etc. Controlling the narrative.
>that are clearly reminiscent of those of the 3rd Reich
That's for sure! The members of the Azov Battalion are the scions of WWII-era Nazis (can't even call them "neo-Nazis; they're actual, old-style Nazis, and they even don some of the runic symbolism on their military gear). So when Putin declared that one of the aims of the incursion would be to "de-Nazify" Ukraine, he was being literal.
The Objectivists on this board are simply uninformed. It's understandable, though. Ayn Rand hated Russia, so followers of Ayn Rand should also hate Russia. That seems to be about the extent of "research" most Objectivists here have done on the topic of Ukraine.
As for Tucker Carlson: he's a good interviewer and very likable. Many haven't forgiven him, though, for the insulting way he treated attorney Sidney Powell after the fraud of the 2020 election started to become known (see Dinesh D'Souza's recent documentary on that, titled "2000 Mules" showing video evidence of massive ballot-stuffing by Democrats). The problem isn't Tucker; the problem is that Fox is really part of MSM now (it was been for a long time), whose function within that space is being seen by many (including me) as being "Controlled Opposition", i.e., a venue that is permitted to voice opposition to some of the prevailing narratives but only within certain limits. This applies to Newsmax, as well. Both Fox and Newsmax have taken large sums of money from Big Pharma so you won't hear a peep from them regarding the poisonous effects of the mass vaccination and mass boosting programs, and both news venues have demurred on the January 6th "insurrection" at the Capitol, and the 2020 election fraud.
Regarding the vaccines: as Edward Dowd (former managing director at BlackRock) has said, there's been a 40% increase since the vax rollout in 2021 of "All Cause Mortality" in a demographic that shouldn't be having such an increase: working age adults between 18 and 64. This was first reported a few months ago by the CEO of OneAmerica, a large insurance company headquartered in Indiana. A 40% increase in All Cause Mortality is about 10 Standard Deviations on a Normal Distribution, indicating an event that one wouldn't expect to see even in 200 years. Other insurance carriers, both US and European, have noticed similar kinds of increases over the past year. There are probably several causes (the lockdowns, for sure) but the injurious effects of the mRNA technology on causing long-term damage to the immune system, as well as contributing to blood clots and myocarditis, has now been admitted even by Pfizer during its recent FOIA releases of its trial data. Dowd and others (MDs and PhDs) are expecting huge numbers in excess mortality -- in the many millions, possibly more -- to die in the next few years. Unfortunately, many of those will be children.
Alternative viewpoints that aren't censored or controlled can only be had on alternative platforms such as Rumble, BitChute, Telegram, Gab, Gettr, Parler, Truth Social (Trump's platform), Frank Speech (Mike Lindell's platform), and maybe a few others. Under Elon Musk's helmsmanship, Twitter might rebound as an actual mainstream platform promoting free speech, hence, alternative narratives, but we'll have to wait to see how that all plays out in the next few months.
-
>We have direct evidence that Ayn Rand wrote Atlas Shrugged.
Such as eye-witness testimony of persons claiming to have witnessed Ayn Rand actually hand-writing the manuscript? That sort of "direct evidence"? Specify, please.
-
10 hours ago, necrovore said:
Maybe because this is a case of bad guys vs. bad guys, like two groups of gangsters in a gang war. Sure, one of them had to start it, and that one (Russia) was wrong for starting it, but that doesn't make the other group of gangsters "good guys."
p.s. I do not know if my position here matches that of anybody else in this thread. I just saw that one statement and wanted to respond to it.
>and that one (Russia) was wrong for starting it,
Actually Ukraine started it back in 2014 when it started shelling the Donbas region populated by Ukrainians who are ethnically and linguistically Russian. The Ukrainian military has killed at least 14,000 civilians there, possibly more. So Russia is simply responding to long-time Ukrainian aggression against ethnic Russians.
-
39 minutes ago, 2046 said:
One thing I've noticed among the pro-Russian right wingers is that they spend a lot of effort telling you about all this stuff about the US/NATO expansion, leaked phone calls, Azov, etc. to keep focus on the US/NATO as the "bad guys" in their current programming. But very few of them (?) either (a.) continue to say that since the US/NATO did all this stuff that therefore Russia's invasion is justified and amounts to self defense on the part of the Russians, or (b.) continue to say that nonetheless Russia's invasion is not justified and in fact they are committing a grave injustice worthy of resistance on the part of the Ukrainians.
Question: why is that?
Possible answer: They're not interested in the typical philosophical questions surrounding the issue. Finding out what one ought to do about a given situation in accordance with some set of general principles. (I mean in a Socratic sense that "care for one's own soul" would lead one to make sure one wasn't supporting or condoning or excusing injustice.) The interest here isn't even philosophical or practical at all. There is no truth one is trying to get at. One's goal is something else, like promoting one's self being an exciting contrarian "maybe I can make myself look like a really cool transgressive thinker." It's kind of a role play in one's head.
The use of one's faculties is not aimed at guiding action, but is rhetorical in nature, as if to say "don't look there!" To remind one "we're bad too!" is designed to shift the focus of the listener and leave the rest to implication.
Counter proposal: Putin/the Russian government does not have a legitimate security interest in NATO not expanding eastward or in the Ukraine wanting to be part of Europe. The reason is very simple: Putin is not a legitimate ruler and the Russian government is not morally legitimate. Putin has no right to rule at all, not over Ukraine and not even over Moscow. Indeed I, 2046 have more of a right to rule over Russia because at least I haven't violated anyone's rights or liberties and would immediately resign. It may or may not be strategically prudent to not upset Putin, to include tactical deception about one's intentions to join NATO, but he has no moral claim to keep NATO from his doorstep.
>The reason is very simple: Putin is not a legitimate ruler and the Russian government is not morally legitimate.
Neither is Zelensky and neither is the present Ukrainian government. Zelensky was chosen by Igor Kolomoisky (a criminal oligarch living in Switzerland) because 1) he was a popular comic actor starring in a popular tv show so he had a high public profile; 2) he had no political or executive experience at all; and 3) he's a known cokehead. Upshot: Zelensky is very easily manipulated. Many Ukrainian civilians, especially those living abroad, have stated outright that the election was fixed and that Zelensky was essentially installed. "Deep State" players (including those in the U.S. such as the Biden crime family) like weak, easily manipulated leaders of foreign countries. It makes money laundering so much easier.
So the issues of "rights", "moral legitimacy", etc. are irrelevant in this conflict. The only issue that matters is to understand motives, not to agree with them. Russia views Ukraine as a necessary buffer between itself and NATO. Understandably, Putin does not want western nukes on his border, for the same reason the U.S. didn't want Russian nukes in Cuba, just 90 miles from its own border. Putin also doesn't want western-financed bioweapons facilities on its border (there were about 30 of them, last I heard), labs that the U.S.'s own Victoria Nuland admitted to in front of the Senate several weeks ago (much to the surprise, it seems, of senator Marco Rubio). If Zelensky were any kind of a leader at all -- legitimate or not -- he could negotiate peace immediately and save many Ukrainian lives. All he would have to do is agree to keep Ukraine neutral. He won't do it because he can't do it: he's just a popular-tv-actor-coke-addict-figurehead and is not the one actually in command of the government. The intent of those who are in command, is to keep the conflict going as long as possible to create a proxy-war between the west and Russia; i.e., specifically, between the U.S. and Russia. Lots of people in the west like that idea because lots of people can profit from war.
Objectivists should check their premises before apologizing for a regime run by absentee oligarchs, brutal thugs, and explicit Nazis.
-
5 hours ago, Doug Morris said:
If you are saying that genetics is complicated enough that some changes can happen quickly, or that Darwin knew nothing of genetics, you probably have a point, but this is irrelevant to the question whether reason evolved.
If you are saying evolution is guided by purposeful choices, please explain why this is not just a form of mysticism.
If you are saying something else, please clarify.
>If you are saying evolution is guided by purposeful choices, please explain why this is not just a form of mysticism.
"Atlas Shrugged" came into being by means of purposeful choices. Please explain why that is not just a form of mysticism.
-
>It would be more precise to say "Teleology – goal-oriented approach – has no part in Darwin's view of how human morality came to exist."
It would be even more precise, as well as more accurate, to say "Teleology – a goal-oriented approach – has no part in Darwin's hypothesis of evolution."
For Darwin, evolution is a process of pure-dumb-luck plus determinism taking place very slowly over long periods of time.He was wrong, of course, but his hypothesis has sure gotten a lot of intellectual mileage, especially in academia.
-
6 hours ago, AlexL said:
You wrote:
> [the] Ukraine government [is] run by a neo-Nazi gang (the Azov Battalion)
> [the] Ukrainian government is […] mainly RUN by a minority of Nazis known as the "Azov Regiment" or "Azov Battalion"
1. You provided no proof of this claim, you only evaded the request of providing proof by mentioning the government’s corruption, human trafficking, and money laundering. All these do NOT prove your claim.
2. By "Azov Regiment" or "Azov Battalion" you seem to mean some kind of a political party, heavily represented in and dominating the Ukrainian government.
Whatever the case may be: specifically, what members of the Ukrainian government do belong to this “Azov Regiment" or "Azov Battalion" ?
And please don’t recommend me watching/reading someone else’s work to look myself for proof of YOUR claims! This trick doesn’t work with me.
Be also aware that I am knowledgeable enough on the subject of Ukraine (and Russia and so on), so be careful about what you do claim on these subjects: I will ask for proof.
>Be also aware that I am knowledgeable enough on the subject of Ukraine
Clearly not. Since you've apparently never even heard of the Azov Battalion -- or if you believe that they're a political party -- then you know nothing about Ukraine. If you've never heard of Kolomoisky, you know nothing about Ukraine. If you don't know who Victoria Nuland is (and don't know about her leaked phone call), then you know nothing about Ukraine. If you don't know about the Dept. of Defense documents indicating the financing of bioweapons labs in Ukraine, then you know nothing about Ukraine. I could go on but the conclusion is ineluctable: you know nothing about Ukraine except that it's next to Russia. You know that you don't like Russia mainly because Ayn Rand disliked Russia, so (like most on this board) disliking Russia is pretty much all you wish to know about Ukraine.
>And please don’t recommend me watching/reading someone else’s work to look myself for proof of YOUR claims!
The proof of MY claims are based on the eye-witness accounts and testimony of others actually in Ukraine (Ukrainians, Russians, Americans, and sundry western European journalists) as well as leaked information such as phone calls, documents, etc. of principal actors responsible for a coup back in 2014 (Victoria Nuland, etc.). If you don't accept eye-witness accounts of Ukrainian citizens that the Ukrainian army has been shelling their own cities and committing atrocities against their own people, then you'll just have to travel to Ukraine yourself and see for yourself.
But then you'll be Red Pilled and awake and you probably won't like that. Please: swallow the Blue Pill, continue watching CNN, and go back to sleep.
-
6 hours ago, Doug Morris said:
I already answered this with what you called a "nice save". Did you limit your reply to calling it a "nice save" because you don't really know how to answer it?
>Did you limit your reply to calling it a "nice save" because you don't really know how to answer it?
No, I limited it to "nice save" because your intellectual dishonesty in conveniently stretching definitions to cover your weak arguments doesn't merit more of my time or effort. -
5 hours ago, AlexL said:
You wrote:
> [the] Ukraine government [is] run by a neo-Nazi gang (the Azov Battalion)
> [the] Ukrainian government is […] mainly RUN by a minority of Nazis known as the "Azov Regiment" or "Azov Battalion"
1. You provided no proof of this claim, you only evaded the request of providing proof by mentioning the government’s corruption, human trafficking, and money laundering. All these do NOT prove your claim.
2. By "Azov Regiment" or "Azov Battalion" you seem to mean some kind of a political party, heavily represented in and dominating the Ukrainian government.
Whatever the case may be: specifically, what members of the Ukrainian government do belong to this “Azov Regiment" or "Azov Battalion" ?
And please don’t recommend me watching/reading someone else’s work to look myself for proof of YOUR claims! This trick doesn’t work with me.
Be also aware that I am knowledgeable enough on the subject of Ukraine (and Russia and so on), so be careful about what you do claim on these subjects: I will ask for proof.
>Be also aware that I am knowledgeable enough on the subject of Ukraine (and Russia and so on)
I don't believe that. You'll have to provide proof.
-
5 hours ago, Doug Morris said:
What I read about lucid dreaming indicated that in some cases the lucid dreamer can deliberately influence the dream.
Indeed.
-
3 hours ago, Doug Morris said:
The discussion about evolution started when, as LB, you stated
You did not give any reason why this statement about human nature should be taken seriously in philosophical inquiry.
I asked you to back up your claim about Darwin and, as EF, you said
It would be more precise to say "Teleology – goal-oriented approach – has no part in Darwin's view of how human morality came to exist."
I then indicated the distinction between acquiring reason and acquiring morality by saying
You then blew this off by crudely and imprecisely restating my point and comparing it to
I think much of the rest of the debate about evolution in this thread has been a smokescreen generated by you to cover up how weak your argument is philosophically.
Obviously, we could not have acquired the faculty of reason by means of reason. We acquired it by biological evolution. This is not relevant to a discussion of what we did once we acquired the faculty of reason, which includes arriving at morality.
>I think much of the rest of the debate about evolution in this thread has been a smokescreen generated by you to cover up how weak your argument is philosophically.
I think much of what you've posted on evolution shows you haven't studied the subject, nor have you read a book on it in years. Your views are 50 years behind the times. I've already posted links to 3 relevant books on the subject. If you need help purchasing them, open a "Go Fund Me" account.
More importantly:
I actually only care whether arguments for or against Darwinian evolution are scientifically true; not whether they are philosophically strong. It's a scientific question, not a philosophical one.
Your ignorance of the difference between scientific research and philosophical inquiry underscores yet again the main reason Objectivists don't enter the field of scientific research, as well as underscoring the fact that Objectivism itself -- certainly as espoused by Rand, Peikoff, and other Fundamentalists -- is anti-science.
>Obviously, we could not have acquired the faculty of reason by means of reason.
We didn't "acquire" it at all. It was always there. Knowledge evolved; reason did not. In any case, when it comes to scientific research, nothing is obvious.
-
>Good to learn to read the latter, for exactitude in grasping reality.
LOL! "Good to learn to read the latter, for exactitude in grasping reality."
A lovely, well-constructed sentence. Ranks right up there with Churchill's quip about not ending sentences with prepositions:
"This is the type of arrant pedantry up with which I will not put!"
-
On 4/4/2022 at 9:32 PM, Harrison Danneskjold said:
Then (and I mean this only as an observation; not a condemnation) you don't have a solid conceptual grasp on what "rights" are.
It is not possible to do the right thing for the wrong reasons. Your reasons for doing something matter. "Doing the right thing for the wrong reasons" is a contradiction in terms.
That being said, I absolutely agree with the OP. I am also pro-vaccine but anti-mandate.
I was actually excited to get the vaccine, when it first became available. Not because I was ever worried about COVID (I'm 32 and do not have AIDS) but because I was excited to end the lockdowns and get back to normal life. When it became clear that "normal life" would have nothing to do with whatever COVID was doing, and specifically when Joe Biden declared that he had lost his patience with me, I decided I'll never get it.
Not because I'm in any way worried about it. I'm sure it's entirely safe and probably good for my health. I decided that I'll never get it because I am not a six-year-old child who isn't responsible for his own life choices, thank you very much!
If being a soulless, rightless, brainless robot in a plastic bubble is what it takes to save my life then no thank you; I'd rather just die as a man.
>I'm 32 and do not have AIDS
What does AIDS have to do with any of this? The risk factors for getting severe COVID are well known and have long been posted on the CDCs website: they are primarily obesity, diabetes, age, hypertension, pre-existing pulmonary condition (COPD, emphysema), any other immunosuppressive condition. AIDS is so rare compared to runaway obesity, type-2 diabetes, and hypertension that it wasn't taken into consideration at the time. However . . .
It's now well known by many doctors and researchers, that the mRNA genetic shots (Pfizer and Moderna) weaken immunity after about 90 days, especially after people get their boosters: the more boosters, the weaker the immunity becomes. According to a peer-reviewed Danish study from just a few months ago, by the end of 30 days, vax efficacy against Omicron falls below 50% (the threshold percentage according to the FDA for a vaccine to be called "effective"). By 3 months, the efficacy against COVID falls to zero; and (interestingly) after 3 months, the efficacy becomes negative. A negative efficacy means that the vaxed person is MORE likely to get sick from COVID than if he or she had simply remained unvaxed.
Even more interestingly, the more one is boosted, the more likely it becomes for that person to have a permanently weakened immunity -- even IF the immediate response to a booster might be a high-titer of antibodies. Antibodies, per se, are meaningless. All antibodies wane after a period time, but their reappearance is "memorized" by T-cells and Memory-B cells. If you damage, or "quench", the ability to mount a T-cell response or a Memory-B Cell response, you essentially cannot recreate antibodies against a pathogen. This "quenching" of deeper immune responses (T-Cells and Memory B-Cells) is known as "High-Zone Tolerance" and is a well known concept in immunology. According to many doctors and researchers today, they are seeing such cases in increasing numbers of patients, and they have given it a very interesting name: VAIDS, or "Vaccine Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome."
Note also:
According to Edward Dowd -- a former portfolio managing director at BlackRock -- many insurance companies are now publishing data from their actuarial tables showing an "unexplained" 40% increase in All-Cause-Mortality (meaning heart attacks, cancers, strokes, kidney failure, myocarditis, etc.) in the 18-64 age group, i.e., working-age adults starting in 2021. There's no indication on their death certs or healthcare reports that these people are dying from COVID. Could the lockdowns have contributed to these deaths? Probably. Lots of people postponed medical treatments and screenings at hospitals because of the lockdowns; but a 40% rise in a young demographic is equivalent to about a 10-sigma (10 standard deviations on a normal distribution) so the lockdowns, per se, can't explain it. Also, the same increase has been noticed in a young demographic -- military personnel -- who were on active duty, and not restrained in their homes. Many are concluding (justifiably) that at least part of this 10-sigma increase correlates almost exactly with the mass rollout of the experimental gene-therapy shots (as well as the adenovirus-vector shots of J&J and AstraZeneca). European insurance companies have noticed the same thing, by the way.
I have many links for those who are interested. Or you can do your own research by looking up online interviews with some of the following:
Robert Malone, MD (pioneer of mRNA tech in the 1980s);
Peter McCullough, MD (cardiologist);
Pierre Kory, MD;
Byram Bridle, MD;
Paul Alexander, MD;
Paul Marik, MD;
Michael Yeadon, PhD (former VP of Research at Pfizer);
Meryl Nass, MD;
Simone Gold, MD;
Joseph Mercola, MD;
Sherry Tenpenny, DO;
Zev Zelenko, MD;
Judy Mikovitz, PhD;
Ryan Cole, MD;
Roger Hodgkinson, MD;
Samuel Dube, MD;
Samantha Bailey, MD;
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., JD
Edward Dowd (formerly at BlackRock)
Steve Kirsch, PhD
Jessica Rose, PhD
Norman Fenton, PhD
Didier Raoult, MD
Kary Mullis, PhD (Nobel Prize winner, chemistry, 1993), inventor of the PCR process;
Luc Montagnier, PhD (Nobel Prize winner, medicine, 2008), discoverer of HIV.
Don't forget to read Klaus Schwab's revealing blueprint for your future, "The Great Reset", as well as the depopulation statements by Bill Gates during some of his TED Talks.Read RFK, Jr.'s latest book, "The Real Anthony Fauci."
A sobering place to start for those who are naïfs might be this recent interview with Zev Zelenko, MD on the "Dr. Drew" YouTube channel. I'm actually surprised YouTube (owned by Google) didn't censor this and remove it entirely, the way it has done to so many other videos since March 2020. With any luck some of you might swallow the Red Pill and wake up.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JBjO-0jTDs
-
> hope you didn't come here primarily to talk "narrative" junk and politics.
Why? You only prefer posters to talk "epistemology" junk and metaphysics? Each to his or her own junk.
>The owner of this site, btw, was born in Soviet Ukraine and probably is not in need of any revelations concerning what has gone on there and is "really" going on there.
I'm confident the owner of this site, btw, who was born in Soviet Ukraine, is well-informed enough to know that the Soviet Union disappeared over 30 years ago. It's now the "Russian Federation" and Ukraine is simply "Ukraine." I'm less confident but still hopeful that the owner of this site, btw, would prefer a free, democratic, neutral Ukraine, free of influence from oligarch-appointed thugs in Zelensky's cabinet, with an active Nazi element in its military, trying to draw the U.S. into a long-term proxy war with Russia.
If, however, the owner of this site, btw, who was born in Soviet Ukraine is not so well-informed to see what's actually going on Ukraine, I'd be very happy to provide lots of links from individuals "on the ground" in Ukraine who will enlighten him or her.
I'll say this, however. Judging by your posts, you are not especially well-informed about what's going on in Ukraine; you appear to be at least 30 years behind the times ("Soviet Ukraine?" Huh?). The reason is simple: you're too contented with CNN and Fox to investigate further.
Regarding your long-winded posts from 3 months ago:
I'll peruse it when I get the chance to peruse it. Part of the disincentive for doing so (to be honest) is the salient fact that English is not your first language so your sentences are often (as they say in Yiddish) "farblunget", so I have to waste lots of time trying to disentangle your non-standard syntax along with your many typos. It'll take a little time.
I'm sure it's very brilliant and brave. Good grief! You actually have an opinion about Kant that differs from Miss Rand's opinion? That's almost as brave as those Objectivists I knew in 1970s who had opinions about impressionist paintings that differed from Miss Rand's! (she thought such paintings were "silly"); or those who actually had the temerity to say that they liked the music of Beethoven (in spite of Rand's claim that he had a "malevolent sense of life") and didn't especially care for the ragtime music of Scott Joplin (Rand said at a lecture that if someone didn't like the music of Scott Joplin, there must be something wrong with him). Such bravery on your part to have a different opinion from that held by Miss Rand!
I was hoping, of course, for something more trenchant. Such as: "Rand's theory knowledge is kooky", or "Rand's metaphysics is 19th-century naive-materialism and therefore unscientific, if not downright anti-scientific"; etc. Something like that.
Be patient. I'll peruse your opinions when I get the chance to peruse them.
-
1 hour ago, KyaryPamyu said:
Yes. Both exist, both are parts comprising the same world, and the absence of either has some consequences for the other, whatever those might be.
In this example, the interaction is between the puffs that make up the external entities, plus the puffs that make up the perceptual apparatus (including the nervous system). The result is the experience of the world of three-dimensional objects possessing color, shape etc. We wouldn't perceive the primaries (puffs) but the perception would still be real since it's the product of an interaction that actually goes on in the world.
But in this example, consciousness is an effect of the puffs, and not itself a special kind of puff, hence its 'immateriality'. Being immaterial does not disqualify it from existing; it still is, but qua effect and not as substance.
The same way the body keeps itself alive by its own action, the brain perceives existence by its own action.
>n this example, the interaction is between the puffs that make up the external entities, plus the puffs that make up the perceptual apparatus (including the nervous system)...
Plus the integrative power of the non-material mind, which "converts" or "translates" the combined "puffs" into an integrated whole called a "percept."
You forgot to mention the non-material (non-puff-energy) contribution of mind.
-
> I use 'existence' to denote everything that exists, including the material, immaterial ...
Good. So there's no "primacy of mind" vs. "primacy of matter." Mind and matter together comprise the totality we call "the universe". Therefore:
1) We cannot validly claim that if there were no minds at all, matter would still exist. It's a bit like saying "If there were no North Pole, the South Pole would still exist. No. "North Pole" and "South Pole" depend on each, as concepts and as geographical locations, for their mutual existence.
2) A more accurate way of characterizing the relationship between mind and matter is not that the former simply "observes" the latter, but rather that they "participate in each other"; as some have said, there's an "interpenetration" of mind in matter, and of matter in mind.
I might possibly grant the independent existence of so-called "fundamental particles" and "space"; but not the representation of those particles+space as processed by perception and higher conceptual thinking: i.e., trees, clouds, rocks, butterflies, etc. The entire "Qualitative World" of entities and things that have sensible qualities -- softness, hardness, length, scent, etc. -- is a participation between those fundamental particles (which Peikoff once called "Puffs of Meta-Energy") and mind.
Philosophers and psychologists who have studied creativity have suggested that the act of creation is an act of breaking down the artificial barrier (mainly accomplished through language) between so-called "object" and "subject." That might help to explain why many creations seem to have resulted when the person's mind was relaxed but not to the point of sleep; just focused on some small task: shaving, driving, etc. Suddenly an unexpected answer to some problem they were trying to solve just "popped into their head." It's similar to the phenomenon of "lucid dreaming," in which the dreamer is just awake enough to grasp that he's dreaming, but in which he's asleep enough so that the dream imagery -- often an actual narrative story -- goes on by itself without his conscious intervention.
Russian invasion of Ukraine/Belief of Mainstream Media Narrative
in Intellectuals and the Media
Posted
>Instead of evidence you produced evasions, misrepresentations and ad hominems
No, I produced links to eye-witness testimony, which rational people consider to be a robust form of evidence. Either these eye-witnesses are lying for some reason or you're not rational. I'll accept either explanation.
I don't know what "misrepresentations" you have in mind. I simply restated the evidence as presented by the historical facts and the testimony of eye-witnesses.
As for the "ad hominems", I think you mean "insults" (not quite the same thing as an ad hominem). I was merely stating the facts of the matter regarding your evident fear of doing your own research.
Clearly, you're afraid to get Red Pilled over the Ukrainian issue. So are most people.