themadkat
-
Posts
714 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by themadkat
-
-
OTOH, there are some who claim that anybody's attempt to do better than the market is a fool's game. This is a flawed view that arose from the so-called "efficient market hypothesis". See related NY Times story here.
I think this is really what it comes down to for me. What I got from Bogle's article is that no one can beat the market ever except over the short term by luck, which doesn't seem to allow for having knowledge and insight about how a company will perform. That was probably what irked me.
-
I think of myself as having Jewish origins because that's what my parents are. I recognize to the rest of the world this means I'm Jewish. Religion aside, I don't practice what might be termed "Jewish culture." Which is also a very nebulous term. American Jews differ a great deal from Mexican Jews. I know plenty of both to know this.
That makes a good deal of sense. I participate in some aspects of Jewish culture, but they tend to be that which is pursued by the most secular Jews. I think I've been to one Bar Mitzvah in my life, for a family friend. Nor do I participate in a regional Jewish culture, like say the prolific NYC Jews. I think more than anything I look at myself as continuing in the intellectual traditions of great Jewish thinkers like Einstein. But even that doesn't go too far. It seems like a bit of a tribalist concept, I suppose.
-
Again? I said Judaism is not an ethnicity. That means there's no such things as a Jewish race any more than there is a Christian race or a Muslim race or anything along such lines. Judaism is a religion, not something genetic you get from your parents.
I'm going to have to disagree with you on that one. I count my Jewishness as an ethnicity just as much as I do my Polishness or my Irishness, in fact it's the only way in which I am Jewish at all being that I am not religious. I did "get it" from my mother. My children will "get it" from me.
The whole idea of "ethnicity" in general is kind of nebulous. It's not quite race and it's not quite culture. It's something in-between, something having to do with group affiliation as far as I can see. Clearly even Jews do not agree on this issue. To make my point, in my mind Ayn Rand was Jewish because she was born Jewish, even though she was atheist. Similarly I am Jewish because I was born Jewish, even though I am an atheist and my mother, while spiritual, does not practice Judaism (or any Judeo-Christian tradition). She does that weird eastern mysticism stuff.
-
I've heard it said that humans could only live within a relatively small circular band around the earth without the existence of clothing because of the temperature and exposure. The human body is both very frail and very resilient depending on the context. That's why it's a good thing we have a brain. Human beings are reliant on clothes, food, water, and a host of other things (technology). To say that humans are reliant on something is not necessarily a bad thing, it's a recognition of a fact of reality. Our brain allows us to utilize those things that we need to keep us alive and striving. When a deficiency of a certain thing pops up, we have a tendency to use our brains and adapt to the changing situation. If we lost 'technology' tomorrow, I suspect quite a few people would have a hard time dealing with that. Some probably will die. Others will continue to employ that most important organ, the brain, to continue their survival.
Those who become "too reliant" on technology may not be employing their brains as the should, but there are countless examples of that in the world today.
Additionally, to gain some perspective on this, humans are fairly generalist even WITHOUT modern technology. We can survive in a much broader range of environments than many, many other creatures. Do you know how many critters are restricted to one particular spot just a few square miles or less? Humans are pretty physiologically flexible, all things considered.
-
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2009...ng-term-in.aspx
Thoughts on this guy's perspective? I don't agree with him at all, but I was wondering if someone a bit more knowledgeable than me about the market might like to comment on it. Some of the comments on the original article have already pointed out some of my objections rather well.
-
The simple response is, respect private property and let the chips fall where they may. People have the freedom to be irrational with their own property (but no one else's). Might this result in some segmentation of society? Yes, but probably no more than we already have, just in different patterns. I don't think you will find that people here will turn around and argue for special privileges when they are on the wrong end of a property owner's decision. I respect, for instance, that an all-male school may deny me admission if it is a private institution. I can ask them to admit me, but I can't rightfully force them to do so. Now, this issue is complicated by all the public money all sorts of people take, but of course Objectivists object to that on principle too.
If what you're suggesting is that principle will be abandoned by some here when on the losing side of discrimination, I think you'll find you're wrong.
Its easy to say are make a quote about minorities having no special rights, actually they want equal rights not special rights some may arugeDo you really suppose a business is going to check genitilia of a patron who uses the bathroom? Many forum readers say thats the standard businesses should use, I am not sure what opinion people have,
should bald haired woman/women such as khadjiah farmer be kicked out of the bathroom who herself was a lesbian, I'm curious as to the opinon of people on the forum on that issue.
So, lets suppose Catholics are a minority in this country, or protestants become a minority or whites became a minorty in the next 20-30 years, would you argue that they should allowed to be discriminated
against, perhaps.
Let me be clear, people are entitled to their own viewpoints, and I was pointing out different scenarios that may arise in the future and am using though provoking questions.
An opinion or suggestion by me for a topic doesn't necessarily mean that I agree or disagree with the forum readers.
Say I own a dance club, or a resturant should I be allowed in your view to exclude blacks or anybody who isn't light skinned for the club, what about hispanics, its a place of busineses so one may view
it as private property, what about housing discrimination, again there are people who will love to discriminate not necessarily because they are racist but because they don't like that particular person or
maybe racists at times in a sense that they don't judge people by race, but tend to socialize with certain ethnic groups who share their cultural viewpoints and such.
Somebody may then argue this, if we allow business owners, landlords, companies who hire, tc to discriminate at will , then we could have a big schism or divide and people may then argue against that
argument and want regulation or ownership by the government, similary the government could tax busineeses that engage in certain things it doesn't like in a lower-profile way such as taxes and regulations on a case-by-case basis, but with a bias.
By the way this is interesting , objectivism, so I welcome civilized and factual debate or opinions on this matter, not just about bathrooms and transgenders.
or rather say that the government should own all businesses, landlords, employers
-
Are you sure polls always tell the truth?
Seeing as in reality Ahmedinejad didn't even come in SECOND, much less win, these polls don't...
-
I disagree that he should own sidewalks.
If every restaurant owner defines gender by the presence or absence of a penis, which is very likely, transgendered people have a problem. They cannot go anywhere. How to solve this problem?
Why do you suppose that transgendered people cannot go anywhere? First of all, knowing that you are transgendered and you live in a society where this might be problematic, you can make plans for that and try not to use public restrooms that are not unisex. This may not always be practical, but it is a forseeable step you could take to help yourself. Secondly, why do you assume every business owner would be unaccommodating? Obviously many will be, as this article shows. But some businesses might choose to have a different policy (and of course you are free to ask for an accommodation as long as you accept that the answer might be "no"). Businesses are not going to be in the habit of turning away lots of customers. Who knows, some businesses might even start to advertise as "trans-friendly". In a free society, you can do that. The point is it's up to each individual owner and there is no reason to suppose they will all do the same thing. Do you think there are no transgendered restaurant owners?
No one in a free country forces any person to perform any particular gender. If a business owner insists that if you have a penis you have to use the men's room, he's still not using force...you can always not use the bathroom or even leave the restaurant entirely. Force would be if you could be arrested for performing the "wrong" gender, i.e. one that does not match your physical characteristics. That would of course be bad law.
-
It might be helpful to discuss here why it was moral in Atlas Shrugged for Dagny to kill the nonviolent, nonthreatening person that was in her way. Clearly she initiated force against that person.
Wasn't he an armed guard?
-
I wouldn't necessarily call it a BETTER show, but perhaps it would be interesting to see an Objectivist to go on Rachel Maddow and challenge her liberal views. It's not so much that she's pro-reason as that she's reasonABLE, meaning I think she would let the person talk and give them a fair shake even if she didn't agree. She's had lots of interesting guests on her show, and she frequently talks with Pat Buchanan, who even though they're polar opposites she seems to have a weird kind of respect for. Barring that, there's always John Stewart. Why John Stewart? Because that's what my generation watches in rapt attention, and that's really who Oists should be trying to reach.
I agree, but are there better shows?Not that Beck is the best, but is there any show in the mainstream media that is run by a pro-reason host? They're all conservatives or liberals of varying degrees.
I wonder if the reason why Binswanger, Ghate, Brook and others go on these shows is that they're the only ones that invite Objectivists. It's better to have these men interviewed on TV for a couple of minutes -- even though the show's host is intellectually misaligned with Obejctivism -- than for the Institute not to have any TV exposure at all. I've noticed that the issues and opinions in ARC press releases are largely favored by conservatives: economy, foreign policy, etc.
What would be nice would be to see Objectivist scholars get a chance to call out conservatism on these issues. I like it when Brook goes on TV and is allowed to express a pro-capitalist opinion, but it's annoying that he can't get in a "conservatives are guilty, too" statement.
I doubt it will ever happen, though; these partisan talk show hosts largely have guests who will validate their opinions, not challenge them in any meaningful way.
-
Sometimes I want to slap Glenn Beck. What was that nonsense at the end, really, was that necessary? Well, this is Fox news and Glenn is an Uber moron.
I saw this and honestly I was really disappointed. Trying to retcon the Nazis as leftist flies in the face of history and sense. Binswager is wrong about the nature of the Right. They are no more aligned towards freedom and individualism than the left. I think it is a mistake for Objectivism to affiliate itself with the Right or for Oists to consider themselves politically to the right. What would be a better option, in my opinion, is to junk the whole left/right dichotomy as the false alternative garbage it is and just stand for what we are, supporters of individual rights and capitalism. And I seriously wish Objectivists could find a better show to go on than Glenn Beck.
-
Because they were forced to. Most of the black soldiers in the union army were captured in the South.
Many more black soldiers fought for the South than the North.
-
Couldn't insurance also help with this?
Absolutely.
-
Any chance of getting a link? As a dog owner (he prefers "host"), I'm a wolf buff.
thx
Sadly I do not think the manuscript I was privileged to read is available anywhere yet. It was still in draft stage and Jane was still working on it. She's very busy (including, hopefully, collaborating on a paper with me woohoo!) so I'm not sure when she's going to find the time to finish it. But when she does I'll certainly let you know. Actually, what I can do is send you an excellent book chapter she wrote on some interesting aspects of wolf behavior in PDF form. It's about 30 pages and pretty readable for a primary source.
-
The (relatively few) poor will largely consist of people who choose to be (boohoo) and the disabled, who I predict will recieve support from relatives and charity, given how small the market for charity will be.
Well, there is also the case of the temporarily poor who have fallen on hard times, that is to say people who are normally not poor but have fallen into severe misfortune. There would probably be charity available to help them too and they are unlikely to stay poor.
-
I think the Wikipedia would be well-served if certain articles (and not just controversial ones) are turned over to the control of some type of expert panel. From Brandon's post, it sounds like there is already some such system in place, with perhaps Objectivist enthusiasts in control, as opposed to Objectivist experts. I figure that's the best one is going to get. In our day of "let all voices be heard" this system will likely ensure that the articles are always mixed enough that the intelligent reader will have some leads to the right (and some to the wrong) avenues.
This is an excellent idea, and I'm not sure how many people know this but there is a precedent for it, as some academics are starting to expend some effort to improve certain articles in areas of specialized knowledge such as the natural sciences. For example, one of my professors this term who is an expert on wolves did a very nice primer on basic wolf behavior and characteristics for a wiki (though I'm not sure it was Wikipedia proper).
-
Wasn't it the war that emerged over the South's unwillingness to accept the forces of Capitalism and its desire to have government protect its inexcrable commerce?
In that respect, you've got it backwards - the North was operating a mercantilist policy towards the South, preventing them from selling their cotton to anyone they liked (specifically England) to force them to sell on favorable terms to Northern textile mills, like the ones in Massachusetts. So I wouldn't say the North was trying to bring capitalism to the South so much as to extract their resources for their industrial base. That said, the South was based on an agrarian, almost feudal economy in a way most of the North was not. But I don't think their agrarian economy, such as it was, was any less capitalist than agrarian regions of the North, for example the upper Midwest.
-
Families that cannot afford private school or a relatively high tax on schooling can pay significantly less and still send their child to a public school. Under objectivism, what happens to a child who's family cannot afford education?
They either get a scholarship or go to a charity-run school, I suppose. I think the far more pressing problem is what happens when parents do not assume the responsibility of educating their child, whether at a recognized school or at the very least at home.
-
Nothing wrong with that, except if that sense of misery becomes a norm in one's life to the point where one is contemplating suicide every few days... which was the suggestion that started this sub-topic.
Nope, I'm good in that regard - value my life too damn much for that. I tend to turn my anger outward, anyhow. It's other folks that should watch out.
-
I understand what the two of you are saying. Of course it is frustrating to see stupidity, etc. At the same time, you don't want to create a situation where ignorance is bliss.
Imagine someone who is pursuing similar values to you -- a similar career etc. -- but is "blissfully" unaware of the crappy aspects of the world.... has shrugged off the fields of philosophy and politics and adopted some type of "common sense" approach, mainly ignoring the daily news, and going about his primary value-pursuit. You don;t want your own frustration at the negatives you see in the world place you in a situation where you are envious of that other person's ignorance.
Actually I don't have to imagine it. I know such a person. It was very frustrating to me to see her shrug off things like that except occasionally and on a few topics. I didn't consider it blissful at all. It leads her to have a libertarian outlook that borders on anarchist and it didn't prevent her from living more or less as a hedonist for awhile. But for a time it seemed we were pursuing similar values, being in related fields and having what I thought for a long time were compatible goals. I think she's come around somewhat since then but I know she still does not keep up with the "outside world" and makes a point of that.
I never consider ignorance blissful. I'd rather know everything even if it makes me miserable. I guess I'm weird like that.
-
The idea that Obama could reach the greatness of Lincoln is absurd. I'm so sick of the anti-Lincoln rhetoric amongst people.
And I don't see what's so damned special about him. The honest truth is, the more I learn about the Civil War, the more I conclude that both sides were wrong.
-
Yeah, I feel that way too... sometimes. I think there are two solutions I know of. One is fighting for the world one wants. Second -- and, I believe, far more important -- is to categorize part of the "man-made" into the "might as well be metaphysically given".
You know, I have never been able to do that second thing. Perhaps it's because I work in the natural sciences and feel like I have a pretty good sense of the genuinely metaphysically given, things like the way genes work and such, and so I see what people do and there's just no way for me not to violently react against the stupid. I never have been very good at accepting things LOL
-
I was given a link to the youtube video Vicarious by the band Tool. It is very interesting how the lyrics so honestly state the fundamental premise of the Mystics and Attilas.
The video begins in a barren landscape with a quasi-human being looking upon it at the beginning, the video then warps into a plasticated unreality of warping dimensions of the incomprehensible, all the while the lyrics ring out the Mystic and Atilla mentality and ethos 'Vicariously I, live while the whole world dies" and "why cant we just admit it, we wont give pause until the blood is flowing in the veins no more".
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but Tool seem like an almost totally evil band. Or are they merely pointing out the evil, I can't be sure.
I think you've missed the point, though. They're not saying they do these things or want these things, they're saying this is what most people are like. Basically it's a commentary on the state of the culture in their eyes. It's not that they're mystics, at least not from this song. I'd say it's more an expression of the malevolent universe premise, or at least the malevolent people premise. That's probably why they want a flood - because they see the depravity and nonsense that constitutes most people's lives and correctly react against it. But what they're not seeing is that lots of people aren't like that and it doesn't have to be this way, that we can be happy and good in this world just as it is.
I struggle with this type of feeling too - that most people are so stupid and irrational as to be unworthy of life, and it makes me want to see them all destroyed. I fight against it because I still believe that people can be good and heroic if they try, and I still have the chance to be that way if I try.
-
Oh, there's more to laugh about. Have you seen their mascot? It's a cutesy bear cub that looks as though he's made out of bread dough, he wears an apron and a chef's hat emblazoned with a "B."
It gets better. Back when elections were an excercise in political theatrics (only one party ever won them), many people nulled their vote by writting-in a candidate. One popular write-in was Bimbo's mascot, known as "El Osito Bimbo" (The Little Bimbo Bear).
It can work the other way around, too. Back in the 70s there was a campaign by Parker Pens translated from Engish to Spanish. The English slogan reffered to using their pens to "Avoid Embarrasment." This was misstranslated into Spanish as "Evite el Embarazo," which means "Avoid Pregnancy."
I've also heard that the sounds "Coca-Cola" literally mean some nonsense phrase in various Chinese dialects.
Yes, I've seen the little Bear and he looks like a fifties throwback. He's cute but also vaguely terrifying. The mistranslation is hilarious - I remember in high-school Spanish us ladies were cautioned about the false phoneme "embarazada," of which the improper use could cause, well, embarassment.
Torture
in Ethics
Posted
I'm against the use of torture, full-stop. It has no self-defense value as far as I can see and so is merely sadism. As Zip alluded to, any "intelligence" you are likely to get from inflicting physical pain is going to be garbage - the only thing torture is really good for is securing a false confession, which is traditionally how it was used by, say, the Catholic Church.
What I always feel is lost in the torture debate is the effects on the people who inflict torture as part of their jobs, as well as those they torture. I think that when a person becomes accustomed to inflicting pain on a helpless person (because I don't think it can really be considered torture if the victim isn't bound or otherwise detained), they inevitably start to lose their humanity and become indifferent or, worse, hostile towards others. I don't want these people in my society. I don't want them "protecting" me.
The US should absolutely not torture any people we have detained, even terror suspects. Interrogation techniques are one thing but it should stop when it comes to physical pain or body damage (I am not, however, against the use of drugs like thiopental if it helps). We are better than that. It's one thing to kill a man. Sometimes that has to be done. But torture is another matter entirely. It is something done by brutes, not men. I lump those who justify torture into the "ends justify the means" camp of utilitarian thinking. What do you hope to accomplish in the way of protecting rights by destroying rights and the rule of law?
I may be labeled a "bleeding heart" for this but I don't care. It's something I feel strongly about. As for the scum we've caught who we know, for a fact, were involved in direct action against US citizens or plotting terrorist acts at the highest levels, get what you can out of them and then just shoot them. Don't make any fanfare about it, don't give their dogs another martyr, just take them out back, shoot 'em, and dump 'em. Problem solved.