brian0918

All our avatars are forced to be square, distorting the images.

So in other words, you will pretend that the conceptual faculty does not work in any particular manner, in order to avoid having to use concepts in the contexts for which they are valid. You do not require any evidence to conclude that "effect" is a property that can be assigned to "existence" - the mere fact that those two words can both be used together in a grammatically-correct sentence is sufficient evidence to form that conclusion, in your mind. Words can have whatever meaning you want them to have, and can be used in whatever context you like, in order to support your predetermined conclusion. And colorless green ideas sleep furiously.

And so you are back to page 1, committing the fallacy of the stolen concept with respect to your attempted application of the concept "effect" to existence, a concept on which "effect" depends. It is no different from positing souls/spirits/ideas apart from brains - they are all commit the same fallacy.

Yes, that is all I meant. The process of adapting to Objectivism necessarily involves investigating and integrating it. It would not be proper to accept Objectivism on faith, as that would go against Objectivist philosophy.

You quoted the stable 2.7% number, and I have explained why it is not accurate. You've avoided rebutting that, by switching to anecdotal personal feelings. So do you now agree that the 2.7% number is not accurate? Who is this "anybody"? Certainly nobody in foreign countries with ties to the dollar, who have seen rampant food/energy price inflation these last couple years. And certainly nobody who was planning to go to college or buy a house in the last couple decades - even recently, housing prices are still relatively high in most areas. And prices for grain and grain-fed meats have been skyrocketing these last couple years. As I said, prices do not necessarily inflate equally across the board. The fact that prices have been going down for iPads and going up for food does not mean that nobody is affected.

This assumes the government-adjusted CPI is accurate, which it is not. You can check out ShadowStats for a more historically-accurate estimate of CPI. You can also read up on the assumptions, algorithms, and hedonics used to concoct a stable, low CPI. (e.g. this CPA) I will also note that even IF you assume the CPI is accurate (which it isn't), one couldn't even keep up with inflation just by putting one's money in a bank savings account, due to the Fed's continued ZIRP.

I think you are reading too much into my simple statement. To consistently follow Objectivist philosophy will require undoing any pre-existing irrational thoughts, values, or emotions, and learning how to rationally judge situations and make proper decisions. All of these actions involve changing yourself, not changing Objectivist philosophy. That's all I meant by that.

Regarding purchasing gold: we still have yet to pass the inflation-adjusted record high of around $2400/oz. You'll also find that not only do the folks who believe the Fed/government will rapidly devalue our currency (e.g. Peter Schiff) recommend buying gold, but so do the folks who believe that we will experience rapid deflation due to credit destruction (e.g. Bob Prechter). Either way, I wouldn't recommend going all-in. While gold may ultimately play a much bigger role as money in the long-term, the interim is uncertain. I would hold gold, silver, cash, guns, foodstuffs, and trade skills.

Certainly any parent who planned to save for his kid's college based on the prices of tuition back then has found out that that savings won't even cover the cost of books; they and/or their kids will have to leverage up and go deep into debt for the next 20+ years. The same goes for anyone who planned to save for a home, retirement, family, etc. Twenty years ago it was still nearly possible for a single person in a family to work and pay for everyone's livelihood. Now not only do both parents have to work, but so do the kids, just to make do. Fifty years ago, it was the norm to only need one person to work in the family. And back to the people who wanted to save for college or homes - you may say "well that isn't the result of Fed money-printing", but it is certainly the result of government-mandated expansions of credit via continually low interest rates, Direct Loans, and Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac. Price inflation doesn't just occur via money-printing - it also occurs via credit expansion. Price inflation also doesn't necessarily occur equally across all products - some products may inflate while others deflate in price, depending on the whims of politicians and appointed officials at the Fed.

Since you seem to use "inflation" ambiguously to mean both increased Fed money-printing and rising US prices, I cannot make sense of your statements. And besides that, you are not even arguing with anyone here. Certainly Objectivists are not simply in favor of returning to the gold standard that we had up until the '70s - i.e. a government-mandated one. The free market should decide what form our money should take. Gold certainly has ideal properties as money in certain contexts, so it would likely be popular in a free market.

Then buy it.

Where did you download an older copy of Adobe Premiere Pro from, given that Adobe no longer hosts that version on their website as a trial?

Source please. Rand describes emotions in the same section you quote: How is that equivalent to "programming by the conscious mind", and what does that statement even mean? Since you give no specifics, I have nothing to evaluate. Please support your assertion with examples.

I'd prefer it if the flight crew could lock themselves in the cockpit and fill the cabin with knockout gas, though I'm not sure what effect that would have on infants or the elderly.

1. "Tabula rasa" refers to the knowledge/value content of the brain, not to one's genetic tendencies, so you are misusing the term. 2. See Rand's discussion on emotions. Nowhere does she claim that the internal functioning of one's emotional system does not play a factor in determining one's emotional responses. 3. What is the relevance of this? Our bodies are hard-wired to do many things that may be contrary to our goals - e.g. allergic reactions, programmed cell death, etc. That does not change how we *should* act. The fact that we have a lot of evolutionary baggage does not mean that baggage takes precedence, nor implies what goals we should aim for. 4. Natural selection does not have a plan, and thus there is no goal to be "hindered" by modern medicine. 5. See 2. 6. ??? 7. I don't see how your "conclusions" follow from the statements preceding them. And regarding those conclusions: A - Nobody is claiming to "deny" that we have different tendencies which we must consider when striving to be rational in determining our values and the proper course of action to further those values. It is not Objectivist philosophy that must be adapted to each individual - it is each individual who must adapt to Objectivist philosophy. For example, a person with a tendency to alcoholism must recognize that that tendency is due to an inherent trait which is self-destructive, and that he must learn to continually fight that trait in order to act rationally. B - ??? C - ???

Just start a topic, and the Mods will see it in their Recent Posts list. They can review it and approve it.

When I mentioned AGW, I was referencing the entire package-deal of the environmentalist movement, not simply "oh hey, we're making it get warmer... huh..."

I'm not able to watch the video here, but will note that thunderfoot has a history of strong opposition to capitalism and is a proponent of manmade global warming. See the videos of HowTheWorldWorks (a great advocate of the free market) for his debates with thunderfoot (e.g. ).

I can't believe they dumped the body at sea to conform to Islamic tradition. This is going to fuel conspiracy theories.

Then I guess he failed, at least according to oil, gold, silver, and the dollar.

That sounds fine by me. I know Paul's stance on Iran is not good, but we have more important matters at hand. We need a president in power that will stop trying to further destroy our economy. When the bond bubble bursts, it would be good to have someone in charge who knows how to undo the damage of the last several decades.

Many scanning softwares (and I believe the full version Acrobat) have OCR technology built in that identifies text and allows the user to select it as a separate layer. You can tell because when they turn the layers off, the green background doesn't show behind the text - instead it is empty white space, because there was not actually any data behind the text, because the layers were created after-the-fact by OCR.

The public seems pretty adamant that he is not a Keynesian:

I was definitely joking. You can tell from the link at the end of my message, and from the fact that the whole discussion of Obama's birthplace is not important and will not change anything.

It's definitely photoshopped. I can tell from the pixels and having seen quite a few shops in my time.