Plasmatic

Aleph said:

My nephew, who I ave been the main male role model for, is bi-racial. I have always stressed to him that racism is pride in the unearned. At about 17 his ex convict father tried to come around with a sad and ironic message of "racial pride". My nephew responded to him, "Pride is the result of productive achievement. How can I be "proud" of something I didn't earn?"
I have an intimate awareness of the effects of multiculturalist garbage because since that time of rational triumph, my Nephew has entered college and is now infected with a bizarre anger and contempt for certain "cultures" that are serving as easy excuses-scapegoats for bad decisions. I can only endeavor to continue to respond to him with the light of reason while he wades through all this fog.

This is the new Marxism-Social Constructivism. This philosophical poison is growing rapidly.

Western education tends to stress learning. It has it's hippee side-lines, but nobody got academic Western brownie-points for being a hero there. Instead, "STEM" is put on a pedestal. 
In a word, the Western system mostly aspires to be Aristotlean.
 
But, if Aristotle was a African, what we have is really an afro-centric system already... we just don't know it. 
Seems like "problem solved".

PS: The British teach Shakespeare, not realizing that he is black too. The ideal they project for the highest point in literature is thus an Afro-centric one. Indeed, we probably all have so much to owe to African civilizations, that our ideals that we pretend are Western are truly African.
 
And, the bottom line is that the whole human species came out of Africa anyhow.... making us all African at our very root. So, all cultures are actually African. Q.E.D.

Plasmatic makes an excellent point that posts are intended for everyone to read and consider, even in the case (and perhaps especially in the case) when responding to a particular posters comments, and their explicit and implicit reasoning.
 
If Descartes came here spouting off about "the cogito", and how "it's possible" Demons could be fooling me about 4 not being equal to 5, my responses to him would in part be motivated by an attempt to persuade him (although this would likely be a futile exercise) but more importantly, my responses would be motivated by the fact that a response to him shows others WHY he is wrong in his approach, WHY he is a rationalist and THAT it is very probable that he is motivated by mysticism. 
 
In some contexts, to be silent is tantamount to acceptance.  In a forum such as this one of Objectivists and near, and novice Objectivists responding with the firmness of rationality is in one's self-interest insofar as proper understanding of Objectivism by as many people as possible is in one's self-interest (which I think it eminently is).

This is primarily directed to Jaskn:
 
 
Where can I find the forum's "objective" laws/ objective standards, tests and requirements, surrounding an individual moderator's deleting of posts?
 
 
 
In particular I want to know:
 
1.  What objective criteria the "target post" must be evaluated as having prior to deletion.
 
2.  Whether a deleted post is kept on record somewhere for another moderator to view
 
3.  Whether moderators can delete posts on whim without any other moderator's approval or input. 
 
4. Whether moderators are required to post a) an identification of the fact that a post was deleted and b )  a explanation generally of the subject matter of the post and in particular why the post was deleted i.e. how the post met the objective standard for deletion.
 
5.  Who moderates the "deletion" behavior of moderators.

Would this stand using an ontologically based logic?

Spiral asked:

Danny boy doesn't like the Randian type of egoist. Particularly the way they don't care to pretend to engage in the more multiculturalist toned "discourse" with intellectual opponents who come into their turf condescendingly calling her a dogmatist. He prefers the socially conscious foundation of Kant's approach. The one that redefined "reason" in such a way that it can be on a par with "faith" ....Then we all can respect each others faith without moral judgement because justification of the Aristotelian sort ( the certain kind) is for those who still slumber "dogmatically".
I will respond in detail to this tonight.

"incommensurability"

If you understood what Kuhn and Fayerabend actually mean by the silly theory then you wouldn't waste your time talking words that cant possibly mean to your "discourse" opponent what they mean to you. After all you live in a different "world" constructed by your socially determined "narrative"....

Why embrace this invalid "evil" by claiming it with "our"?

The penis isn't what stimulates the clit during missionary anyway. Its the lower pelvic region above the base of the penis. One needs strong lower abdomen muscles to tilt the pelvis sufficient enough to consistently rub her the right way... As somebody who had an eight pack most of his life and now more of a light six pack, I doubt most men can sustain the motion sufficiently.

As far as resentment on the part of the female due to lack of orgasm, there are plenty of other ways to stimulate her clit and any man worthy of the act should communicate well enough with her to find out what she likes.

I hardly find such a topic worth discussing but this:

statement from Louie is interesting.
Has anyone here heard of a person who "changes their sex" ( removed the physical evidence of their sex) who didn't also consider themselves to be the "gender" they are pretending to be by having the operation?

In other words, who chops off their male equipment but considers themselves male in gender nonetheless ?

I don't think an 'Objectivist' would ever use such words. Statements made above reeks with the stench of 'weakness', a total lack of 'Pride' and a general deficit in 'Self-Esteem'. Precisely opposite of how an ideal Man should be.

Probably a necessary discussion would be on the topic of "Truth and Toleration" and "Fact and Value" as relates to the OP.

I've no idea about QM, who's wrong or right on any particulars, or how even to evaluate the arguments, but I feel the need to interject something here.

There's no such thing as "Rand-physics," or Objectivist physics. Ayn Rand was a philosopher, not a physicist. Neither Objectivism nor the Law of Identity, as such, have anything to say about these sorts of scientific particulars; they cannot decide on a given controversy. The Law of Identity means that a thing is what it is, and is not what it is not, but it does not fill in those blanks. That -- the filling in of the blanks, and coming to understand "what things are" (and what they are not) -- is what science is. But knowledge of the Law of Identity does not do that work, and neither can it interfere with that work being done. Whatever is true is true, and the Objectivist position is that it is our job to discover what is true, with respect to QM or any other scientific subject. So if QM is true, or to whatever extent it is true, rest assured that there is no discrepancy between that portion and Objectivism, qua philosophy.

Physics is physics, chemistry is chemistry, biology is biology. And while Objectivists, as individuals, may have opinions on scientific matters, their opinions may be right or wrong with respect to those matters, just like anyone else, and ultimately must be resolved on the same ground as any other scientific debate -- not by pointing to the Law of Identity, but with respect to the extant evidence, hypotheses, testing, and so forth. At the same time, a philosophical conclusion that the Law of Identity somehow does not hold, on the basis of some or other scientific data, is not sensible, is self-contradictory, and is therefore rightly rejected.

Also, if you'd like to respond to any material from this post, as these threads appear to be about the same topic, it would be just as welcome.

To produce is to cause something to be by your own effort and action.

Obviously there are those who are rich who did not obtain their wealth by "their own effort". Inheritance is an example.

To produce is to cause something to be by your own effort and action.

Obviously there are those who are rich who did not obtain their wealth by "their own effort". Inheritance is an example.

Andie said:

So we cant "claim to base universal substance on the human-perceptual", but "the observations and measurements contradict a 'one-substance' theory: "....
I guess you Copenhagen interpretation humans have found a way to observe non perceptually...

Maybe you shouldn't have left logic at the door while making those statements...

Your transistor comments are complete strawmen. What is at issue is your irrational interpretation of the theoretical ontology of QM, not the factual existence of technology that does not give you an inkling of a view into said theoretical ontology. Its funny how you make out like the Copenhagen Interpretation is de facto the only view. Philosophy of science texts are full of discussions on alternative interpretations of the factual basis of the mathematics of QM.

This establishes that you reject the very notion of a priori knowledge.
I think what is being asked in addition to this is, would you concur that Objectivism rejects a priori knowledge or truths, as well? This may come off as a subtle distinction here, but should add some clarity to this aspect of the conversation.

Anuj said: 
 
No, I "should" ask the questions that satisfy the conditions set by my own purposes in discourse. I want to know what your evaluation is of someone who is offended by righteous judgment of their character? Your response above does reveal your standards clearly though. What do you think of the Oist position that one morally must at least express disagreement in public settings with premises that are evil?
 
Anuj said:
 
 
You obviously don't agree with Fact and Value or basic tenets of Objectivism then. What do you think is the criteria for evil?
 
Should a bully be humiliated and ridiculed? If a person knows what to say to a person who is bullying them that will persuade them away from beating them again via argument should they do so instead of beating the f**k out of them and then humiliating them whenever possible? Why would an egoist choose to persuade this bully instead of treating them as the savage they chose to be? (the definition of justice) Likewise, If an altruist mystic would listen to an argument about the irrationality of the concept of a supernatural being and likely be persuaded if you didn't mention the evil nature of religion and simply focused on the irrationality, should you avoid calling religion evil?
 
 
Anuj said:
 
Refute what? How can a muslim be humiliated by a cartoon about someone who is not them? It doesn't follow. I am not humiliated by the many anti Rand articles etc. You cannot be humiliated by something that is not true of you or even about you personally. Offense and humiliation are not the same thing..
 
For Oism a concept is not synonymous with its definition, dictionary or not... It is context dropping to divorce the concept from the initiation of force given its generative context of differentiation. Why should a Hebdo care about religious followers evaluation of his work? If one lived in a neighborhood where violent thugs roam periodically, should an egoist stay inside to avoid the thugs, or live his life and simply be aware of and prepared for potential threats while living according to his values? Why live on their terms?

One would have hoped that after hanging out in an Objectivist forum for years, you'd appreciate that this is a straw-man when it comes to freedom of speech. Do you seriously think any Objectivist would say that Charlie Hebdo has a right to have its cartoons published in any publication of its choosing? 

I know it was your post to which I replied, and the puh-leeze comes across somewhat sardonic, - it is just that the upbringing in a 'forgive and forget', 'let by-gones be by-gones' in conjunction with a 'judge not' perspective that plays heavily into this for me. If "judge not and be not judged" translates to "judge, and prepare to be judged"; the "forgive and forget" is just another way of asking for a moral blank check.
 
Man, as a rational being, has the capacity to engage his rational faculty through most of his life. Granted, the longer it is held off, the more difficult I would imagine it to be to engaged. Forgiveness, I would hold, is transgression dependent. The greater the 'sin', the greater the retribution, or restitution that would come into play arises.
 
Since this comes from a biblical source, lets pull a proverb that may be applicable to this. Don't answer a fool according to his folly, lest you be considered also a fool. The contra-postive being: Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be considered wise in his own way.
Rand puts this similarly for the latter,  advocating the expressing of disagreement without going into detail. She also acknowledges that irrationality (more specifically, those that deny reason), cannot be defeated with reason.
 
I don't think this resolves the notion of "forgive and forget", but should lay some solid groundwork for building upon.

They rely on insulting the imaginary god of a silly belief system. The only way you go from that to "humiliating Muslims" is by declaring that religious disagreement = personal injury.
That doesn't leave any room for free speech. Which brings us back to why those cartoons are effective communication: they illustrate in no uncertain terms that, in western societies, speech that insults your imaginary gods doesn't count as personal injury.

Lots of thought's on this with no time to give much effort into a post.
 
My own primary obstacle for discourse with others is intellectual honesty- sincerity. If the person I'm discoursing with is inarticulate, ignorant, brash, or even using ridicule with argument, but is sincere and not evasive, it will bring them a lot further with me personally. I hate sock puppet trolls and their cowardly intellectual cousins. I see it being used to suck knowledge from intellectual opponents in order to turn around and attempt to deploy that 2nd hand knowledge as a "lesson" to the teacher repeatedly. Fortunately these parasites leave snail trails in their posts and lack the identification skills only a first hander can posses....
 
I do NOT think that one should ignore the tone that others bring to discourse though. A rational egoist is not a duty bound cultural warrior. Galt refused to "save the world" on their terms....Consider how many times Ms. Rand refused to answer a question if the questioner asked disrespectfully.
 
I'd say one "ought" to judge the character of the discourse partner (after enough has been shown) and let that determine the type of response one gives accordingly. If someone is an evasive parasite then they should be made an example of as a tool for persuading others.(if cultural activism is your goal) No pearls to swine, as it were.....
 
This has the effect of highlighting how many parasites their are and can be frustrating.
 
Most altruistic parasites will never have the constitution to listen to their ideas and actions being called what they are and be able to evaluate the argument intellectually. This is why Ms. Rand evoked such a vitriolic response from those who choices made them too insecure to listen to the reasons behind the judgments.... Weakness snowballs on itself.
 
I admit that these kinds will listen to someone who avoids direct identification and adopts a circumspect method. Likewise an ignorant emotionalist most often will attack one who is trying to patiently breakthrough the emotional veil. This usually requires someone willing to suffer injustice to "break through". But when does "tact" become avoidance of moral judgment or the pursuit of non value? That is a difficult question.

Hey Stephen, I think my post may have come off in a way unintended. I have heard others make the comment that I was responding to and your post reminded me of the general topic. If that context in my mind caused me to drop some context of all the things you said about the systematic nature of Oism in Atlas, I apologize. I wasn't really directing my response at you but more generally. Too generally.

I could swear I've heard Dr. Peikoff say the same thing somewhere... I'll do some investigation on it...

Recall the beneficiary of morality is a self-sovereign individual and the standard is life.  Having a kid depends greatly on the context of the individual.
 
"Natalism" is very much like the important issues of
 
"own-a-vehicle-ism", "get married-ism", and "live-in-an-apartment-ism"