TheEgoist

Dmastt, I like your blog! The design is different and interesting. I will keep it in mind and check it for content in the future.



Consider the fact that you have been proven wrong already in this thread.

Consider, perhaps, that people that give respect get respect. You make a regular habit out of insulting the Objectivist philosophy and Objectivists. Cynicism, ridicule, and sarcasm seem to be a highlight of your activity here. When you post things like this on your profile, clearly suggesting that we make up excuses to justify whatever actions we feel like, "brb, gone to snort coke off an enslaved sexworkers ass. all within the proper context of course." that is not something that gives you positive attention, nor should you expect it.

Consider, perhaps, that people are likely to react better and be more supportive of an Objectivist-centric blog that posts actual content, rather than simply posting pictures with little quotes under them, essentially making it a website full of nothing but motivational posters of which there are billions and contribute little to nothing to the advancement of Objectivism or the knowledge of it. Show us something praiseworthy and we will "praise it."

Maybe the judgement goes one way in your mind because the negativity is directed at you because you deserve it for being such a tool.

Good luck with your project, but don't expect any support from here. Judgement goes one way here. Its a tool used to condemn. When there is something to praise, there has consistently been silence.

Elsewhere, I've heard the type called "Objectionists."

You're pretty much positing the analytic-synthetic distinction, dude.

The truth of a claim is necessary because of its correspondence to reality, not because of the meaning of the terms. Consider that we could simply be mistaken categorically about number terms. For some reason, when we add 1 and 1 we always get 3. We would come to think, that's the order of things.

Patently absurd with such elementary arithmetic, but some higher maths posit things that can be absolutely, deductively valid but we realize "Oh wait, we didn't compute the constituents right.".
That's the real distinction you're looking for, though: 1 + 1 = 2 is deductive. It is, however, not more true or more obviously necessary, even if we perceive it to be that way.

You're pretty much positing the analytic-synthetic distinction, dude.

The truth of a claim is necessary because of its correspondence to reality, not because of the meaning of the terms. Consider that we could simply be mistaken categorically about number terms. For some reason, when we add 1 and 1 we always get 3. We would come to think, that's the order of things.

Patently absurd with such elementary arithmetic, but some higher maths posit things that can be absolutely, deductively valid but we realize "Oh wait, we didn't compute the constituents right.".
That's the real distinction you're looking for, though: 1 + 1 = 2 is deductive. It is, however, not more true or more obviously necessary, even if we perceive it to be that way.

I put it to you that you are a libertarian. You use the non-initiation of force principle (NIOF) without regard for context. In the context of certain military operations the government can pre-emptively strike (ie initiate force before the other side does). In the context of nuclear weapons in the hands of a normal citizen, the government can legitimately prohibit this. Each of the previous sentences was started with "In the context of", so this is not ethical intrinsicism. Libertarians hate premptive military strikes (look at Cato.org), and prohibition just as you seem to hate it. So I hope you see why you are coming across as a libertarian to me.

I put it to you that most of the big users of Bitcoin (in its current form) will be criminals. In this context, how can you justify not either 1)banning it 2)regulating it (eg require Bitcoin exchanges to validate and log postal addresses of users)?

Not to use an argument from authority, but a principle Rand held applies here amply.

Rand participated in the HUAC trials in the 1940s. These trials were meant to expose members of the Communist party in America. The Communist party was not merely a political party that supported communism but an organization that supported and planned on violent attacks on the establishments of the U.S. Many years after the events of the trials, Rand commented that they were a great failure. She stated that she wished the trials had actually done what they set out to do, instead of persecute an idea.

What is happening to this Muslim cultural center is nothing less than thought crime. And it's a new kind of thought crime. We admit that the Imam may not even harbor any extremist views, yet putting anything Islamic near the WTC emboldens the enemy. This is not only demonstrably false but irrelevant if true. Are we to now say that anything that "emboldens" the enemy is illegal? Very well. Islam is now illegal. No one can convert to islam. Imagine if America turned to be 15 or 20% Islamic? That would truly embolden the enemy, so we can't allow it. For even if the people turning to Islam are not plotting against us, it's making some people in caves happy. So, no new mosques anywhere either. Not just near ground zero or NYC but no mosques anywhere.
This is fucking sick, to put it bluntly. It's the last thing I would expect out of anyone that calls themselves an Objectivist, but it's a direct logical consequence from the principle at play.
Let us say you disagree, that it isn't a logical consequence. Then how far from the World Trade Center can we build? Must we now create laws that say "You can't build a religious institution near an area that was damaged by it"? And what's the actual distance? 10 blocks? 15 blocks? Westchester county? One intelligent man from the Glenn Beck rally for religious dictatorship said 100 miles. Perhaps some of you can find common ground with morons like that.

I certainly hope those calling for a legal ban on a mosque or anything Islamic near ground zero are just as stupid as your arguments are, and that you aren't indeed as evil as your arguments are. It would be a great shame if I ever had to associate myself with anyone of such depths of evil.

This isn't some grand anti-libertarian action, guys. Gary Johnson just doesn't have the name recognition. They have Ron Paul on this debate, I'm assuming?

He wasn't going to win anyway and he was a pretty awful public speaker IMO.

Carl Sagan's gonna smack a cripple

Verificationism is dead and was never really alive in science. Science requires universal generalizations over many entities. You can't make a universal generalization and be a verificationist. Simple as that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeuLDRwfOhs

Hitchens gives an interview, explaining his cancer has worsened and it's in stage 4, which Christopher remarks "The worst thing about stage 4 is that there is no stage 5.".

It's pretty painful to watch. Hitchens is one of my personal heroes, despite our many disagreements. THis was very hard to watch.

Here is what I think:

1) Rand's ideas are not presented by herself as rigorous theories of academia. This is usually a prescription for being taken seriously in an American university's philosophy department, since almost every department is at least leaning analytical. Rand presents ideas for a general audience, in a common sense manner. Because of this approach, she does not address common objections that would arise against her ideas on, say, perception. Philosophers have objections to direct theories of perception that they think are still valid. They will commonly accuse Rand of ignoring these objections.
2) Rather than remedy this, I think a large portion of the Objectivist community has chosen to just abandon academia. That, of course, has changed in the past decade.

no guiz, it's da gubbermint conspeeracie again/

Peikoff has said, and I think it's been agreed in the past by most, that you can't add to Objectivism. You can merely apply. APplication of it is not necessarily applying it consistently. Any theory posited not only can be criticized but must be.

I'm conflicted between my hatred for hipsters that slobber the Mac dong and my hatred for the government. Why can't the two somehow be integrated into one big enemy?

Deport the Mac users.

Really, do you think these people actually want to kill people who don't comply with some stupid movement? It's there to be absurd and silly, not to threaten people.

And "Shaky science"? 97% of the science community agrees that global warming is occurring and that humans to some extent contribute. I don't think we should take political action or that industrial society is somehow inherently evil, but it is not an absurd claim that changes should be made. To what extent, in what way and for what reasons are or should be the issues at hand. I think it would take a skeptic of climate science a hell of a lot of proof to cast serious doubts on the accepted science of the day.

Really, do you think these people actually want to kill people who don't comply with some stupid movement? It's there to be absurd and silly, not to threaten people.

And "Shaky science"? 97% of the science community agrees that global warming is occurring and that humans to some extent contribute. I don't think we should take political action or that industrial society is somehow inherently evil, but it is not an absurd claim that changes should be made. To what extent, in what way and for what reasons are or should be the issues at hand. I think it would take a skeptic of climate science a hell of a lot of proof to cast serious doubts on the accepted science of the day.

Really, do you think these people actually want to kill people who don't comply with some stupid movement? It's there to be absurd and silly, not to threaten people.

And "Shaky science"? 97% of the science community agrees that global warming is occurring and that humans to some extent contribute. I don't think we should take political action or that industrial society is somehow inherently evil, but it is not an absurd claim that changes should be made. To what extent, in what way and for what reasons are or should be the issues at hand. I think it would take a skeptic of climate science a hell of a lot of proof to cast serious doubts on the accepted science of the day.

Not to use an argument from authority, but a principle Rand held applies here amply.

Rand participated in the HUAC trials in the 1940s. These trials were meant to expose members of the Communist party in America. The Communist party was not merely a political party that supported communism but an organization that supported and planned on violent attacks on the establishments of the U.S. Many years after the events of the trials, Rand commented that they were a great failure. She stated that she wished the trials had actually done what they set out to do, instead of persecute an idea.

What is happening to this Muslim cultural center is nothing less than thought crime. And it's a new kind of thought crime. We admit that the Imam may not even harbor any extremist views, yet putting anything Islamic near the WTC emboldens the enemy. This is not only demonstrably false but irrelevant if true. Are we to now say that anything that "emboldens" the enemy is illegal? Very well. Islam is now illegal. No one can convert to islam. Imagine if America turned to be 15 or 20% Islamic? That would truly embolden the enemy, so we can't allow it. For even if the people turning to Islam are not plotting against us, it's making some people in caves happy. So, no new mosques anywhere either. Not just near ground zero or NYC but no mosques anywhere.
This is fucking sick, to put it bluntly. It's the last thing I would expect out of anyone that calls themselves an Objectivist, but it's a direct logical consequence from the principle at play.
Let us say you disagree, that it isn't a logical consequence. Then how far from the World Trade Center can we build? Must we now create laws that say "You can't build a religious institution near an area that was damaged by it"? And what's the actual distance? 10 blocks? 15 blocks? Westchester county? One intelligent man from the Glenn Beck rally for religious dictatorship said 100 miles. Perhaps some of you can find common ground with morons like that.

I certainly hope those calling for a legal ban on a mosque or anything Islamic near ground zero are just as stupid as your arguments are, and that you aren't indeed as evil as your arguments are. It would be a great shame if I ever had to associate myself with anyone of such depths of evil.

Not to use an argument from authority, but a principle Rand held applies here amply.

Rand participated in the HUAC trials in the 1940s. These trials were meant to expose members of the Communist party in America. The Communist party was not merely a political party that supported communism but an organization that supported and planned on violent attacks on the establishments of the U.S. Many years after the events of the trials, Rand commented that they were a great failure. She stated that she wished the trials had actually done what they set out to do, instead of persecute an idea.

What is happening to this Muslim cultural center is nothing less than thought crime. And it's a new kind of thought crime. We admit that the Imam may not even harbor any extremist views, yet putting anything Islamic near the WTC emboldens the enemy. This is not only demonstrably false but irrelevant if true. Are we to now say that anything that "emboldens" the enemy is illegal? Very well. Islam is now illegal. No one can convert to islam. Imagine if America turned to be 15 or 20% Islamic? That would truly embolden the enemy, so we can't allow it. For even if the people turning to Islam are not plotting against us, it's making some people in caves happy. So, no new mosques anywhere either. Not just near ground zero or NYC but no mosques anywhere.
This is fucking sick, to put it bluntly. It's the last thing I would expect out of anyone that calls themselves an Objectivist, but it's a direct logical consequence from the principle at play.
Let us say you disagree, that it isn't a logical consequence. Then how far from the World Trade Center can we build? Must we now create laws that say "You can't build a religious institution near an area that was damaged by it"? And what's the actual distance? 10 blocks? 15 blocks? Westchester county? One intelligent man from the Glenn Beck rally for religious dictatorship said 100 miles. Perhaps some of you can find common ground with morons like that.

I certainly hope those calling for a legal ban on a mosque or anything Islamic near ground zero are just as stupid as your arguments are, and that you aren't indeed as evil as your arguments are. It would be a great shame if I ever had to associate myself with anyone of such depths of evil.