Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Heresiarch

  • Rank

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
  • Copyright
  1. The above gave me an epiphany, which is why I've quoted it. I'm a layman; a trained engineer, but not a biologist or chemist or doctor or even a university professor. If I see someone claiming that saturated fats aren't the evil the mass media makes it out to be, and can name some studies and papers and dig around within those studies to pick apart their methods, that's good enough to convince me (once I've checked out their line of reasoning). However, it doesn't give me the tools to convince anyone else -- other than to say "go read the same stuff that I read." Once I've read enough mater
  2. Heresiarch

    Traffic Laws

    If roads were privatized, I think what we'd get would be a lot more railways and subways. Cars are grossly, horribly inefficient. Public roads, and the cars that drive on them, have given us bedroom communities and suburban shopping centers. The last hundred years would have been very different if public roads weren't paved everywhere and "a car in every driveway" considered the heart of the American dream. I'd much rather take a train ride across the nation than drive it (as much as I like to drive). It'd be cheaper, to boot.
  3. The burden is on those that make claims. The Lipid Hypothesis is a claim. Where is the evidence for it? We don't have to disprove it. As I mentioned above, I think this thread about processing food is misguided. I think you two are talking past each other. Progressiveman, I suggest you make it clear that you're not talking about "human manipulation" as a primary causal agent. Gary Taubes in Good Calories, Bad Calories does a great job of pulling together the reasons why the Lipid Hypothesis is the current mainstream belief. Maybe getting to a bookstore is difficult for you, I don't know.
  4. Indeed, some among the community that question the Lipid Hypothesis go that far. They think processing -- as in, man manipulating food in some way -- is what destroys the nutritive value of food. I agree with your reductio ad absurdum -- the intervention of mankind isn't what makes certain foods bad. However, when the more cogent of the dissenters talk about "processed foods," they mean just what progressiveman1 mentioned: refined sugar, hydrogenated oils, white flour. These food products (and similar items like high-fructose corn syrup and texturized vegetable protein) are the evils to the
  5. The shy person isn't actively fearful of interactions with other people. Rather, he avoids interactions with other people. This might be due to an irrational fear. The thing is, once you overcome that fear, you are not magically granted the powers of clever and appropriate social interaction. Some people pick it up right away; others move from a global, irrational sense of low self-esteem to a specific low estimation of their own social awareness, which can be just as crippling. Shyness and introversion are similar, but I think they view the same phenomenon from different angles. The int
  6. For the short answer on how to eat right: it's not going to be a little money. Quality food isn't grown in a vat, or produced by animals given the latest high-tech recombinant hormone. Stay away from processed foods (processed cheese, pasteurized milk, TV dinners, white flour), soy, and sugars (including fructose!). Eat nutrient-dense food, such as red meat, organ meat, dairy products, and cooked green vegetables. Learn the basics of endocrinology. Think in terms of micronutrients, not just macronutrients. -- "Everyone knows" that public roads and public schools and taxation are good and
  7. And aren't you just being a labelitarian?
  8. Crossing the street exposes you to the risk of getting run over by a truck. You could minimize that risk by staying inside your house all day. Who would ever want to leave their house? Obviously, leaving your house (or joining the army) isn't a decision based upon an assessment of risk alone. Many people see great value in joining the military, whether it's a respect for soldiers who are willing to die to protect their families and freedoms, or the career prospects of a life in the armed forces, or the money from a GI Bill that will pay for higher education, or even just the economic opt
  9. This could apply to Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche, and numerous other "great" philosophers. There's a concept in Philosophy known as Obscurantism; the idea is that someone is being opaque (intentionally or not), and because no-one can understand them, therefore they must have something more profound than our simple intelligences can perceive. "Too intelligent to properly convey their ideas" is a defense of obscurantism. The charge was brought against Hegel during his lifetime, and his reply was that he was developing a new type of logic; of course his stuff didn't make sense, you had to be will
  10. I think you're using too much jargon. For example, in the following bit: The important thing to communicate here is primacy of existence -- but I wouldn't use that phrase when talking to someone who hadn't studied Oism. Technical terms and complex, jargon-filled phrases make me think of Kant. You don't want to overwhelm your correspondent; I think it's best to focus on one subject at a time. I've found that giving them snippets of ethics and politics and epistemology is more confusing than helpful. It gives the impression that they have to know this giant, complex philosophy (like, sa
  • Create New...