Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by RadCap

  1. Where have you been?

  2. Actually this is not true. Blatant means "without any attempt at concealment; completely obvious; "blatant disregard of the law"; "a blatant appeal to vanity"; "a blazing indiscretion." " In other words, at least in my dictionary, self-evidence is not a synonym of blatant. Thus my statement "blatantly false" means it is obviously false. To be self-evidently false, the falsehood would have to be evident in the statement itself. And it is not. The evidence is on The Forum. As prior posters stated, no such claims were made against Ms. Hsieh and she had supporters on The Forum. None of this could be known, of course, without visiting the forum however. You provide no support that her accusation is unsupported. Instead you claim it is obvious. Does that mean your statement is therefore arbitrary? I say this simply to point out that lack of support alone does not make a statement arbitrary (as AR herself pointed out). Context is everything. In this case, the context is that this is a discussion forum. And in a discussion, one can make statements without providing the logical support for them. If, however, one is questioned about that support, one must indeed provide it. If one cannot, then one can say the statement is arbitrary. Until then, it is simply unsupported. There is a BIG difference between the two. No. I am identifying exactly what you asked. The values to be gained are knowledge and ethical behavior. Disruption? On what basis do you claim the values of knowledge and ethical behavior are a disruption? Actually, I hope "we" have learned the difference between an arbitrary claim and an unsupported claim. You have a problem here. You have shifted the burden of proof. It is up to Ms. Hsieh to provide the proof of her accusations - that the posters of The Forum unanimously consider her to be all the things she listed. And evidence against such a claim was provided by others before I even posted. However, the statement is easy enough to refute. I am a poster at The Forum, and I have not ever made any of those claims against Ms. Hsieh. Nor do I hold to them. So much for her claim. It is just this type of offensiveness which drove myself and others from this site and to The Forum in the first place. I am sorry to see things have not changed. -- Edit: [i had not seen DO's change of the focus of the thread (nor his subsequent deletion of my refutation of his 12:24pm post) until after I made this post. I will thus no longer post in the thread as he requests. However, I have not removed my response since the questions and accusations it addresses have not been removed.]
  3. Given your emphasis on my use of the term "blatantly" I am a bit unclear as to the nature of your question. Are you asking me to identify why Ms. Hsieh's statement is false? Or are you asking me to identify why a statement - any statement - can be "blatantly false" as opposed to merely "false"? Since you allowed Ms. Hsieh's accusation against other persons to stand here, the "rational value" to be gained is the identification of whether such accusations are true or not. And this can only be done through the identification of the facts which lead to the conclusion Ms. Hseih continues to promulgate on this site. Some in this thread have attempted to do this. In other words, the rational values to be gained here are the identification of reality [knowledge] and, consequently, the ability to act justly towards those who post to this site [ethical behavior].
  4. Are you suggesting Betsy not be allowed to express any idea outside her own forum? Are you suggesting that she should not be allowed to address accusations which are made against her here? Are you suggesting such attacks are appropriate but a defense against them is inappropriate? And why no similar 'outrage' at Ms. Hsieh expressing her ideas here when she too has her own site on which to post and which she too can control as she sees fit? Why are you so eager to silence Betsy Speicher?
  5. This is a blatantly false statement. What prompts Ms. Hsieh to make such fantastical accusations?
  6. Hi, I am offering a pristine CD set of Dr. Peikoff's course entitled: Eight Great Plays as Literature and as Philosophy. This series is a great analysis of eight of history's greatest plays, and Dr. Peikoff does an amazing job of not only bringing them to life but of dissecting them with a brilliant philosophic and artistic eye. Definitely a series to treasure. And offered at a great discount to boot! Check it out here: EBAY OFFERING Here is a brief description of the series, taken from Dr. Peikoff's site: Eight Great Plays — As Literature and As Philosophy This course is designed to give you the ability to understand, judge and savor the values offered by great drama. Antigone by Sophocles - Introduction to the principles of analyzing drama. Esthetic enjoyment as the primary. Plot-theme as the essence of the action and the key to a play. Antigone as a great heroine — the only Greek protagonist with free will. Othello by William Shakespeare - Iago as the blackest villain in literature. The brilliance of the climax and resolution. Le Cid by Pierre Corneille - The "Corneilian hero." Understanding the ambiguous ending by grasping Corneille's unique concept of honor. Don Carlos by Friedrich Schiller - The difficulty in naming the plot-theme and the protagonist. The Grand Inquisitor scene as the most dramatic and philosophic in all of theater. An Enemy of the People by Henrik Ibsen - The play's hero as a rare character in literature: a this-worldly idealist. Why the happy ending is logical. How Ibsen's theme is undercut by his view of truth as non-absolute. Saint Joan by George Bernard Shaw - The essential conflict between Joan and the nobility and Church. The ingenuity of the plot. The genius against society. Monna Vanna by Maurice Maeterlinck - The artistry of the plot-theme. How Guido's metaphysical view of man keeps him from seeing the truth about Vanna. Conclusions This session integrates the previous seven classes and answers such questions as: Which play has the most ingenious plot-theme? The most admirable hero? Which play is objectively the best? Cyrano de Bergerac by Edmond Rostand - Rostand's brilliant portrayal of Cyrano's courage, intellect, poetic soul — and proper attitude toward his nose. Why the line "A man can have too much happiness" is the key to the play's deeper meaning
  7. There is a woman who used to do animation for South Park who now has a site with her own creation called "Making Fiends" ( http://www.makingfiends.com ) that I find amusing. Its style is very simple and somewhat dark - similar to Edward Gorey. But what i like is the main character of Charlotte. She is an innocent, untouched by any evil that exists - and remains that way through all her encounters with the antagonist, Vendetta as well as her evil fiends. It is Charlotte's indomitable spirit that I enjoy about the simple series. (I have followed the series since its creation a while ago. I think the first 6 or 7 episodes are the best ones.)
  8. I cant tell you if the overall movie is going to be good or not, but I worked a few days on Lemony Snickets and I can tell you this - I have done work on films on the east coast and west for years and in a number of capacities, and this was the first picture I said "Wow - I am on a REAL Hollywood set now". It was back to the good old days of the studio system productions. The production values are amazing. They built a whole lagoon and dock with boat etc - a whole city block in a stage. A whole dead wheat field with a general store and a railroad with train. Even the smaller scenes were extremely well done. What amazed me was the level of intricate detail observed by everyone on the sets - right down to makeup and costumes. If you have seen any of the trailers etc, you will get the feel of the 'timeframe' of the film. It has a distinct victorian style in clothing. And the amazing thing was the quality of that clothing. The background actors had clothing of such high quality that it was higher quality than principle actors would use on other movies. All in all, I am very interested to see the film just because of its production value. The director focused on it so much, the production ran over by at least 3 months. So it should definitely be interesting to see.
  9. http://www.emporis.com/en/il/im/?id=260000 This is the scope and vision that should have been at the heart of the WTC rebuild From the BBC: "South Korea's Samsung Corporation has won the contract to build the world's tallest building, the Burj Tower in Dubai. Samsung won the $306m(£160m) deal, after an 11-month bid process. The concrete and steel tower will be part of an $8bn(£4.2bn) 500-acre project in the United Arab Emirates. Workers have already started to clear the ground for the 800-metre high, 160-floor skyscraper and it should be completed by November 2008. Construction work on the Burj tower will begin in January, and when completed it will be taller than the world's current highest building, Taiwan's 509-metre TFC 101 building. The building will have a hotel, a shopping mall, offices and luxury apartments." Oh - and as I suggested, it definitely reminds me of someone else's work: http://www.delmars.com/wright/milehigh.jpg Of course the dubai skyscraper will only be half as tall as this design, but its still a heck of alot taller than the rest of them out there (beats the next tallest by essentially 1000 ft).
  10. Well, the auctions are over. I want to thank everyone who bid and/or won for making it a very successful auction. It certainly will prove to be helpful. Thanks!
  11. Well, all the options to use Buy It Now have either been used or ended by bids, so that means I'll see everyone on the other end of the auctions. As a reminder, that is sometime mid-day SUNDAY (check the specific auction for the time relative to your time zone). Besides enjoying the process of selling here, I am somewhat impressed with the USPS as well. I am using their Media Mail for the first time and it seems to be pretty speedy for the price. For instance, I sent a box from LA on Wed 17th, and it has already arrived (today) at its destination in Chicago. Since the PS indicates the transit time can be at least 2-9 days, I was expecting the package to be closer to the 9 day mark. So it is pleasantly surprising to see the faster delivery time. If this holds true of all the packages I send on these auctions, I will indeed use this service in the future.
  12. This seems like a really smart idea. I do have one question for you concerning a part of the service. I am asking this publically, because I suspect others may wonder about it as well. I know you specifically indicate that copyrights are respected without exception. Concerning the leasing etc of purchased audio series and the like, though, have you actually confirmed with the copyright holders whether the right to lease etc such materials is granted in/by the sale of those items? If it is, I am surprised no one has created such a service already. I would imagine the demand for such a service would be great (relative to the size of the Objectivist market for such things of course). As such, it makes me stop and wonder if there is a legal reason such a service does not already exist. I ask this question because I am ignorant as to the specifics of the law in this instance, not because I believe the law in fact does prevent such usage. I actually hope that there is no such legal impediment. And if not, when I am able, I may indeed utilize this service. Good Luck!
  13. Thanks Jason! I really appreciate it. It's nice to know it 'found a good home.' And good luck with "The Objectivist"! While I hate to have to sell all these items, the PROCESS of selling them is kind of fun. Each morning is like Xmas - with the anticipation and the surprise of what has transpired the night before.
  14. WooHoo - another one gone! Get your bids or Buy It Now, while they are still available!
  15. Wow - sold one already! Get the rest while you still can, before someone else beats you to them with the Buy It Now feature.
  16. Okay - they are all out there now. Have at em!
  17. As some of you are aware, I am going through some trying times, which are causing financial difficulties for me. I therefore find myself in the position of having to sell may Objectivist materials I have been collecting over the years. I am selling a total of eight (8) separate items on Ebay - begining TUESDAY (ie today - the day of this post) at 6pm (EST - 3pm PST). And they will each run until this SUNDAY, around the same time (so that hopefully the transactions will be completed and I can make rent). I am offering the following: Video RARE - WE THE LIVING - Film and Press Kit http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...me=STRK:MESC:IT Audio HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY Vol1 - Founders of Western Philosophy http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...me=STRK:MESC:IT HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY Vol2 - Modern Philosophy http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...me=STRK:MESC:IT INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...me=STRK:MESC:IT The PHILOSOPHIC CORRUPTION of PHYSICS - David Harriman http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...me=STRK:MESC:IT Books The OBJECTIVIST - Hardback http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...me=STRK:MESC:IT The OBJECTIVIST NEWSLETTER - Hardback http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...me=STRK:MESC:IT The AYN RAND Letter - Hardback http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...me=STRK:MESC:IT So, if you are interested in getting great Objectivist materials at bargain prices, please visit the above pages. OR - if you know someone who is looking for such materials, send them my way. Also - remember, we are now entering the holiday season, and these would make great gifts. So check them out!
  18. testing Hmm - dont know why quotes are not working in our last two posts GC. You may want to check into that. Perhaps there is a limit to the number of quptes permitted in an individual post.
  19. I cannot speak for RCop, but if this conversation had occured in person, I would have said the exact same things as I have here. And I would have defended myself with the same words, as I am about to now. I said IF you were ACTUALLY interested in the answers you claimed to have been seeking you WOULD have read the thread I said ANSWERED those questions. So far, nothing you have said contradicts that statement. The fact that you IMMEDIATELY responded to the referal by indicating you had NO NEED to look elsewhere because you HAD the answer (nice how you left out THAT little part in your 'more extensive explanation) is CLEAR evidence that you were NOT interested in the answers BECAUSE, as you EXPLICITLY CLAIMED, you ALREADY had them. So much for THAT accusation of maligning. ACTUALLY, I HAD said you DID mean that exactly. However, Stephen disagreed, so I gave the benefit of the doubt and added the term flippant. I am MORE than happy to remove that characterization and return to my ORIGINAL identification - ie the same thing WITHOUT the term flippant. So much for THAT accusation of maligning. You accuse me of taking out of context and then do the same. The context was your ideas on the subject - that of self-defense. Unless you claim you have only ONE idea when it comes to the concept self defense and its application, this is just an attempt to add numbers to your claim. NO maligning there EITHER *I* never claimed that your ideas were inconsistent with Objectivism. The ONLY thing I said is that the answers to your questions could be found in another thread. And I made absolutely NO federal case out of anything until numerous posts AFTER you claimed you had no need to read any other thread because you already knew the answer. So much for maligning there. As it stands so far - still no false claims and NO maligning. IF you had bothered to read the suggested thread, you would NEITHER have to 'presume' NOR be afraid of being mistaken. You would KNOW what I know on the subject (as well as what others know). But you didn't feel this was necessary. And so you are left simply to presume and possibly be mistaken. THIS is a KEY fact - and is one of the reasons I suggested you READ the thread in the first place. THIS is the type of smear I said you were engaging in - and here you do it again. Your implication is that one (jeez I wonder who that could be) believes Objectivism should not be questioned - ie is held dogmatically. Of course this entire claim is SPECIOUS since NO ONE ever claimed you should not disagree with Objectivism. ALL you were told is that the question that was ASKED was in context of Objectivism - AND if you were interested in ANSWERS - answers presumably consistant with objectivism - you could find them in a thread right here. Strange - STILL no maligning so far. Oh wait - yes there is. You maligned ME. And *I* understood it in the CONTEXT of your ENTIRE statement which was that you ALREADY KNEW the answer and thus didn't have to bother reading anything else. THAT, when you are ASKING questions, is NOT a RATIONAL course of action. Hmmm - no maligning here. But you have more to say. Maybe I did it elsewhere. There you go AGAIN - dropping CONTEXT. IF you were to quote the original statement, it is that govt has a LEGAL monopoly on the use of force. ALL other statements were in THAT context. And your claims about 'reality' vs objectivist 'theory' (want to get into a discussion of the false dichotomy of theory vs practice???) is thus void, unless you are claiming that there are OTHER legal entities which weild force. In fact THIS claim about no 'true' monopolies goes to the heart of the issue - and could be viewed as a contradiction to your claim that your views ARE compatible with Objectivism. But, you arent going to 'darken my door' anymore so you can take that up with someone else. Hmm - STILL NO maligning. Got just identification of your positions and ideas so far. See now THIS was MY mistake - though I HAVE already admitted this one. Had I known you were simply going to accept a couple sentences instead of engaging in an actual discussion on the topic as to WHY it is true or WHY it is not, then I would simply have pointed you to a single quote as well. Silly me for thinking you were interested in an IN DEPTH answer. Hopefully OTHERS wont make that mistake with you in the future and will just give you just the barest minimum of a response. Of course, this is not a claim of maligning - so STILL at a loss as to where these maligning statements are. LOL!!!!!!!! BOTH you and Stephen claimed that it seemed I was interested in having a discussion with you on the topic - a goal YOU were supposedly interested in. NOW you are asserting you DIDNT want a discussion, but just a very simple answer to a simple question. JEEZ - if you are going to make up accusations against me, at LEAST be CONSISTENT about it. How nice of you. And I will let YOURS stand as well - as evidence that your claims against me were UNFOUNDED, whereas yours attacks are quite real and quite undeserved. Oh - btw - the fact that someone else agrees with you doesn't make what you say true. Little logic fact there. That is one of the reassons *I* went through the recap. I see no reason for you to resign over this. Given Stephen's statements about your general behavior, I see this as an innocent error which snowballed into an attack. The ONLY thing I have found objectionable have been the personal attacks. But I understand making remarks in the heat of the moment that you might otherwise regret. As such, I don't think the one incident prevents you from carrying out the duties of a moderator. So long as the attacks are retracted, I would consider the matter closed. (Oh - and if you are again going to claim you already did that, no you didn't. You apologized for anything you might have said in posts previous to the one in which you attacked and smeared me. You were NOT apologizing for those attacks and smears. And since you had not made any attacks or smears before that post, you were apologizing for nothing WHILE attacking me.) Anyway. 'Nuff said.
  20. Do you believe if you act shocked and indignant, that will change the fact that you DID engage in personal attacks and swipes against me? Oh - and as of yet, still no identification and rebuttal of the supposed 'several malignings' of you. Which part is the magligning: Claiming you didn't bother to read the suggested thread which ANSWERED your questions - which you didnt? Claiming you want your idea whether that acceptance means you cant be an Objectivist or not - which you did? Claiming you rejected the objectivist claim about monopolies (there are no 'true' monopolies) on force - which you did? What DO you call someone who rejects a source of information because they supposedly already have the answers - yet still keeps asking the questions anyway, huh? Me: You want an answer? Here - go read this. Him: No. I already know the answer. Yeah - that shows REAL interest in a 'discussion' and learning about the answer. Maligned?! Only if you consider the truth to be maligning can you call yourself maligned.
  21. Stephen Would you consider it 'respectful' of me to suggest that YOU are not seeing MY perspective and that you are spending too much effort defending YOUR perspective instead of stepping back and trying to see what is going on from another perspective? Instead of making that suggestion, may I respectfully make an alternate suggestion: that I HAVE seen the 'other perspective' and simply disagree with it? And may I suggest that the effort I put into the recap was an (apparently failed) attempt to demonstrate I DID understand that 'other perspective' but found it lacking in its accounting of the facts of the situation - ie that it was an attempt to explain WHY I disagreed with the 'other perspective'? In other words, can we agree that we disagree - instead of accusing each other of failing to understand the other's 'perspective'? -- As to RCop, I will simply respond to his general 'tone and attitude' thusly: I am sorry that 'the price' - ie looking up and reading a suggested thread - is 'too high' for him. If he prefers a single quote to more in-depth information, that is indeed his perogative - just as is asserting he already knows an answer and doesnt need to bother reading other info in another thread. If THAT is his standard, then it is just as well he doesnt look this direction. That is a standard I refuse to stoop to meet. When TWO people in a row accuse me of behaving inappropriately for what I see as legitimate actions on my part, I defend myself (as HE has done more than once in this thread now). SPECIFICALLY I provide my premises, my evidence to support those premises, and my conclusions BASED on that evidence and premises. I am sorry he doesnt consider such things to be 'necessary' to support one's perspective. It would be nice if he backed up this accusation. As it stands, I have accurately represented his actions in this thread. He DID ignore the suggestion to read the materials which would answer his questions. He DID flippantly reject Objectivism if it stood in opposition to his ideas. And he DID expand upon this attitude by rejecting the Objectivist concept of a 'true' monopoly on force - among other things. If those actions reflect badly upon him, his ethics and his entire life, that is HIS problem, not mine. But note, I am not the one who has tried to make it reflect upon anything beyond this thread. In fact I explicitly stated otherwise. Yet he persists with his accusations. I will let THOSE speak for themselves as well This is part of his problem. He seems to think I was somehow taking this personally and NEEDED or REQUIRED some form of apology. His behavior did not "offend" me at all. I was TRYING to help HIM. If he REJECTS that help, that is HIS problem NOT mine. His claim that he need read no further to accept his ideas has NO effect upon ME. His flippant dismissal of Objectivism if his idea is not a part of it has NO effect upon ME. His rejection of the Objectivist concept of a 'true' monopoly of force by govt has NO effect upon ME. NONE of it has an effect upon ME whatsoever. I do not take his lack of understanding or his refusal or his rejection of specific ideas or suggestions or whatever the explanation, personally. I have NO emotional attachment to his grasp of a subject (or lackthereof) at all. So I neither need an apology for those things, nor is one appropriate. He did not WRONG me, so no apology for such a wrong is necessary. Put simply, I never had a "problem" with him in the first place - until of course he engaged in personal attacks and swipes against me. Hopefully in his "newly accepted position as a moderator" he will refrain from repeating such inappropriate behavior.
  22. Apparently either I am greatly misunderstanding the posts which have been directed towards me, or my posts have been greatly misunderstood. As such, I believe a recap is in order to determine which is the case. 1. My first post to this thread was a response to a question posed by Godless Capitalist. He essentially asked why he had a burden placed upon his ownership of weapons. I pointed out that a govt has a legal monopoly on physical force. 2. Praxus asked two questions, seemingly aimed at my response. 3. RCop responds to my quote of AR with quotes of his own, asking, among other things, if individual defensive force is subject to legal review by the courts. 4. I responded briefly to both questions asked by Praxus and provided a brief answer to RCop as well - indicating that a use of force which was not sanctioned by the monopoly holder of force would INDEED be subject to that monopoly holder's review. I then advised RCop that this topic had been discussed in great depth in other threads, and if he wanted more answers to his questions he could pursue them there. 5. The VERY next post, RCop dismisses the notion of reading any other materials for answers (REGARDLESS of what they may be). He states he ALREADY has the answers. Maybe it's just me - but in response to a post where one is directed to reading materials and the person indicates he doesnt need to bother with those materials because he already has the answer - that indicates to me there is no 'discussion' going on at all. It indicates to me that the person has made up his mind - and that he does not consider other materials necessary to validate or invalidate his conclusion. COMBINING this fact with his flippant remark about it possibly meaning he can't be an Objectivist, but he is going to stick to his guns on the topic none the less, and I conclude the person IS being 'stubborn' concerning the topic. That he would rather stick to his way and his understanding REGARDLESS of fact or reason. 6. Even given the above, I STILL cut RCop slack. I COULD have made numerous comments about coming to conclusions without fact, etc - ie without even bothering to peruse the postings I referenced. Perhaps that was a mistake on my part. perhaps I should NOT have cut him the slack and come down on him BECAUSE he hadn't bothered to even look up the referenced material. Perhaps I should have then and there insisted he read the material instead of ignoring it and making others REPEAT the information instead. But I didn't. Instead I simply noted that his response was not within the parameters of the discussion, since the question related to objectivism's view, and he was asserting that he was sticking with his view, whether it was considered objectivist or not. 7. After that, I responded to a post of a completely different focus, made by al K. 8. RCop replies to my post indicating, among other things, that no 'true' monopoly on the use of force can exist (a seeming repudiation of the AR claim that govt is such a monopoly). This statement certainly corroborated his position about sticking with his own ideas rather than understanding and accepting Objectivism in this instance. After this he then essentially REPEATS the questions I indicated were already answered ELSEWHERE. 9. Given all of the above I made a final response - one in which I indicated that IF he WERE interested in more definitive answers than had been offered so far, he should indeed follow the suggestion I had made at point 4 in the thread - ie reading the suggested material. I pointed out that his refusal to do so and his decision to abandon objectivism on this point if he disagreed with it, spoke volumes - to which I would simply repeat the original suggestion I had made. Now - IF I have 'musunderstood' or been 'too harsh' with RCop, I apologize. But given the above facts, I do not see that being the case. -- Now - to specific points made: A. Rejecting elaborate material on the subject matter and instead asking that it be repeated is your perogative. Just as it is mine NOT to repeat it. Next time, instead of trying to be HELPFUL and pointing people to materials in an effort to SAVE time and effort, I will simply not waste MY time at all. I will REFRAIN from trying to provide people with materials which will help them. Thanks. Lesson learned. B. Stephen DID point you in the right direction. SO DID I. You simply didnt WANT to BOTHER with my direction. C. I did wish to discuss it - enough to indicate that a discussion had occured previously and IF you had any questions AFTER reading the previous materials, I would be willing to partake in such a discussion. Of course, as I have indicated above, I have now learned my lesson and if I am not willing to duplicate entire threads worth of intellectual effort because others do not want to be BOTHERED to read back on other threads, I will not BOTHER to say ANYTHING on a topic. As I said, lesson learned. D. For reasons I have indicated above, I do NOT believe I was being 'unduly harsh' with RCop. As you say, I know you can sympathize with me on the subject of repeating whole arguments, for I know you yourself have refused to do so - instead indicating where those arguments may be found. Now, I cannot speak to your past experience with RCop. I can only speak to the conversation at hand. And his responses, as identified above, were not consistent with such an interest in understanding. REJECTING past readings on topics - SIMPLY because they are past - certainly does not seem to be the mark of one who is interested in 'understanding' - at least NOT on the given topic. Whether this is true of OTHER topics - that he is earnest in them - I cannot say. I can only say about this topic. And an earnestness to understand does not seem to have been in evidence in the thread as identified above. E. When you direct people to other threads, are you indicating that you are not interested in discussing the subject with them at all? As I indicate in C, I am quite willing to discuss a topic even after having recommended additional reading - so long as that reading is done. I dare speculate that you do the same. If someone reads what you recommend and they do not understand it or have questions about it, you do discuss the issue further. And I am also willing to do the same. Both of you seem to indicate that one should not give such an impression - that one should very tersely provide a reading reference and make no other comment whatsoever on the topic. Very well. In the future I will hold my tongue completely unless I am willing to engage in a discussion on the terms set by someone else.
  23. This is PRECISELY why I suggested you do a search. These questions have already been asked and answered (in great detail). My point was, IF you were ACTUALLY interested in an answer, you would have done the further reading. Instead of pursuing that course of action, however, you dismissed that idea, insisting that you already knew your answer. Furthermore, you explicitly indicated that you are not concerned with whether or not your answer is compatible with objectivism. Both of these facts say alot. As such, I will let them speak for themselves. The only thing I WILL say is that if you are truly interested in the answers to you the questions you have posed, then I repeat my earlier suggestion that you read the previous, in depth discussions which were held on this topic.
  24. According to this 'logic' nothing should therefore be illegal. "Making murder illegal kinda sounds stupid. Its not like a murderer is gonna come to the US and see that murder is illegal and say: "Damn, i dont want to brake anti-murder laws so I guess i cant murder anybody now"." or "Making rape illegal kinda sounds stupid. Its not like a rapist is gonna come to the US and see that rape is illegal and say: "Damn, i dont want to brake anti-rape laws so I guess i cant rape anybody now"." or "Making theft illegal kinda sounds stupid. Its not like a thief is gonna come to the US and see that theft is illegal and say: "Damn, i dont want to brake anti-theft laws so I guess i cant steal from anybody now"." In other words, you REALLY need to check the premises you hold. Because they lead to absurdity.
  25. Hmm - you say you know the definitive answer, but then you imply that this answer may be in opposition to Objectivism. Since the question related to the objectivist position, it does not appear that your 'definitive answer' provides an answer in the context it was asked.
  • Create New...