Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

JJJJ

Regulars
  • Posts

    201
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by JJJJ

  1. They were obviously extremes, and i thought it was obvious what i meant. Here is the bored down version of it: 1) a man who values something that is of value to him - does things that are consistant with achieving that value 2) a man who values something that is of value to him - does things that are not consistant with achieving that value 3) a man who values something that is not of value to him - does things that are cosistant with achieving that non-value 4) a man who values something that is not of value to him - does things that are not consistant with achieving that non-value And here are more watered down examples: 1) a man wants to become an engineer - applies to MIT, works for his tuition as long and as much as it takes(if he doesnt get a scolarship), stays focused on his dreams... 2) a man wants to become an engineer - applies to MIT, squanders his tuition money on partying, doesnt graduate... 3) a man wants to become a ballet dancer, but doesnt want to disappoint his parents who wants him to be a structural engineer - applies to a MIT, works for his tuition(if he doesnt get a scolarship), stays focused on his parents dreams... 4) a man wants to become a ballet dancer, but doesnt want to disappoint his parents who wants him to be a structural engineer - applies to MIT, squanders his tuition money on partying, doesnt graduate...
  2. i love basketball, and have been watching the US team preparation for the games quite closely. Its nice how words dont mean anything anymore, as the players are being hailed as selfless and showing great sacrifice, opposed to previous years when they apparently were selfish..... And all this because now they are actually doing things that are consistant with achieving what they want. Its like they are saying that Kobe is just dying to hog the ball and take stupid shots and play weak defense, but that he refrains from this because he is sacrificing himself. Everytime someone gives a sweet pass they are called unselfish, when all i see is selfishness. Its like calling me selfless and sacrificial because i let the airline pilot fly the plane. I value getting to my destination safely, more than i value flying the plane ---> i let the airline pilot fly the plane. If Kobe values being an integral part of winning an olympic gold medal, more than he values winning the scoring title, then why is it unselfish, if he passes the ball to an open man? Who is it he is sacrificing himself to? With that said, many top level athletes are immoral, because the main driving force for many is not personal achievement and happiness, but the animal drive for competition. Usually a good way to see who did it for the right reasons and who didnt, is to look what they do 5 years after retiring. If they are drugged up and gambling all their money away in Las Vegas, then its quite clear that they arent part of the moral athletes, the ones we should admire. Many athletes become great for the wrong reasons, and in those cases there is no value in their greatness. Even though their competitive pseudo-instincts and whims make them work really hard and improve their talent, they themselves dont really get anything out of it, at least not anything more than a drug-addict gets from his daily fix. Its not surprising to see so many athletes being totally messed up in their personal lives, and its not just because many of them come from poor families with bad ubringings. They are just sick, and should not be admired....
  3. This is pretty much it, folks. Still, i would like better definitions, or at least clarifications for what words to use for the following persons: 1) A person is hungry, and wants to be nourished in order to live - he goes to the supermarket and buys food, that he then eats. (This person lives) 2) A person is hungry, and wants to be nourished in order to live - he sits down in his apartment and prays that god makes food appear in his refrigurator (This person dies) 3) A person is hungry, and wants others to be nourished with no regard for his own nourishment - he uses all his money to buy food for others, and doesnt eat himself (Others live, This person dies) 4) A person is hungry, and wants others to be nourished with no regard for his own nourishment - he sits down in his aparment and prays that god makes food appear in starving peoples refrigurators. (Others and this person dies) So in essence, it is "motivation - course of action". Person 1 clearly acts "selfish - rational", but what would be the correct definitions for the others. Person 2 is not really altruistic, as there was no motivation to sacrifice himself for others. You cant call person 2 selfish, because in my mind only person 1 is that, but there clearly is a distinction between this person and persons 3 and 4. Also, person 3 had immoral motivations, but he pursued his motivations in a way that were consistant with his motivations. Person 4 on the other hand also had immoral motivations, and also acted in a way that wasnt consistant with reaching his immoral goals. Sadly, in reality we have a lot of varying mixtures of 2's and 3's walking the streets, but can we really lump both these into the same definition? Immoral yes, but in different ways...
  4. i know this is a bit random, but its a good example of every day "relativism": the backstory, is that they are interviewing a (russian) hockey goalie in Edmonton who plays for Anaheim. Chris Pronger, who now plays for Anaheim left Edmonton in the last summer, and there were reports that his family didnt like living there and now this russian goalie gives his insight...... Now, first this russian goalie (toungue-in-cheek) goes on a rant about how cold it is in Edmonton, and how much nicer California is. But then just when you think the interview is over, a reporter asks him, "but you like them both?[Anaheim and Edmontom]" and he just quickly answers "yeah". Now, i know this is just a sports interview, but its really telling of the mentality some people have. I mean, he clearly doesnt rate Edmonton all that high, so why the hell do they have to ask a "but you like them both"-question, when its clear that he doesnt, at least equally. Why cant a person just think that living in Anaheim is nicer than living in Edmonton, and why does he HAVE to like them both?
  5. I would go with the "not truly happy" part, because i have always understood objectivism in the sense, that living qua man---->happiness, therefore: live qua man. Living qua man just for the sake of living qua man, is something that i have never heard Rand advocate, and it has always been in the context of promoting your own life, and achieving happiness. However, im not entirely sure that "promiscuous sex" with random people is in itself that bad, just as long as it doesnt replace searching for a romantic relationship and you take care of safety. Its more like masturbating, just in this case, there is another person involved. So as long as you arent trying to replace romance with promiscuous sex, i dont see why it differs from masturbating..... it would be, if he would have provided me with an argument why heterosexuality is the ideal. Because to me it just sounds like comparing orange juice to apple juice. In the case of a pedophile, it is clear that he cannot achieve the same kind of happiness with relationships with children, because that relationship can never be between to rational minds. Therefore, it is in his best interest to re-evaluate his "preferences"....But i havent gotten a good argument for, why the gender of your loved one is relevant....
  6. I may have understood objectivism totally wrong, but dont you see the difference between happiness, the state of mind, and pleasure, a sensation that has no permanent effect. Hedonism, is seeking of pleasure for the sake of pleasure. Pleasure, is not the same as happiness. I mean, an unhappy person may masturbate and feel pleasure, but that doesnt make him happy. I dont really know what it is you are arguing, but i dont really understand what it is you are asking me, as i thought this is quite straightforward? "It feels good" is not the same as "i am happy". I have understood that the pursuit of happiness in mans greatest purpose, and at least i try and live that way....That is the way i try and apply objectivism in my life, so i will be happy. Still, "it feels good" and "it makes me happy" is not the same thing, and im really baffled about your reply.... The question is: If you love a person, and are attracted to him/her, why should you refrain from a romantic relationship that makes you happy, just because you are of the same sex? What is it that makes a man, someone that is romantically only interested in women? I may have misunderstood Rand completely, but as far as im conserned, i live "qua man", BECAUSE it promotes my life and happiness, and this cant be overlooked. Happiness is the purpose of living qua man. By living as a human being, i will be happy, but that is the value of living as a human being. There is no value in living as a human being, just for the sake of it. Im really baffled about what it is that you mean, and maybe its just my english skills that prevent me from understanding you. But i get the feeling you are saying that living as a human being is something that is valuable in itself, and separate from the fact that it promotes your life and happiness? But maybe i misunderstood you.....
  7. It seems like people fall in the same trap over and over again, and forget what is the "master" and what is the "servant". Objectivism is the servant, a way for you to achieve happiness(the master). You should apply objectivism, in order to be happy, not you should do A, so you can "achieve" objectivism. This is relevant in the sense of, what should a person that is attracted to the same sex, do, IN ORDER TO BE HAPPY? His happiness is the factor he should take into acount, not the fact that he should stay true to every conclusion Rand may have made at one point or another. And i have yet to hear a single argument for why a man who is not attracted to women, should choose selibacy and refrain from homosexual romance with a moral person he values. My own estimate, that may be or may not be wrong, is that in this case Rand fell into the trap that collectivists often fall in. Due to the fact that many homosexuals are whim-worshipping, hedonistic hippies, she made the wrong conclusion, that it is the homosexuality that is the immoral thing, even though it was the whim-worshipping and hedonism. Just like many people become racists because they see so many immoral black people, not understanding that the immoral part is not the skin color, but the ideas and actions of a person. Rand did not usually like package deals, but in this case she sadly seemed to do that..... Its sad that so many homosexuals are immoral, but it doesnt mean that homosexuality is the immoral thing. Just like many arabs are immoral, it is not their ethnicity that makes them immoral. The opposers of homosexuality should really try and focus on homosexuality itself, and not try to make it into some big package deal..... Why is it wrong for a person who values a person of the same sex, and wants to engage in romantic activities with him, to do so?
  8. Exactly. Just like pointing a gun at someone is wrong, even if you dont mean to use that gun. Having a nuclear weapon in your house, in the middle of the city, is the same thing as if you would have several gun turrets pointing out of your window aimed at everyone and everything in your neighborhood. It doesnt matter whether you are meaning to use them or not, it is still an initiation of force. Its not the same thing as having a handgun in your drawer, that you use in emergency situations. I bolded the important words, that seem to go unnoticed by the public at large, at least here in europe, where evil-loving and good-hating is at its peak. I hate people, who say stuff like "why is america allowed to have a nuke but Iran isnt?". Its like saying, "why should the police be allowed to have guns, if a criminal threatening the lives of others cant?". For some reason most people understand this in the sense of individuals, but for some reason they go all "relativist" when its about nations. Its like the fact that they are nations, and that the UN has accepted them as members, make them by themselves somehow legitimate......
  9. First of all, i have to say im not that familiar with Objectivism or philosophy yet, so this is just my own opinions, and not any Objectivist standpoint.... Usually i dont try to partake in discussions when im not comfortable with my own knowledge of the subject, but i'll try and give some "common sense" answers here nevertheless. Others, who are more familiar with the subject, will probably give you a more detailed answer..... I do understand your point, but it really does not "solve" the problem, or make the problem a false dichotomy. It doesnt answer anything, it just states, that there really is just one entity, existence. As you said: So what are we going to call all the things within this one single "entity", existence, that have different characteristics from eachother, if we cant call them entities? In that single extremely dense "entity", that we now call the universe, after the big bang, there was different distunguishable "things". The fact, that it was all in the same place, does not mean it consisted of only "one thing". Just like a rock consists of different things, that are distinguishable, despite all of them making up a rock. After the big bang, these "things" were distributed differently around the universe, and therefore created many things that have less and more in common with eachother, despite the fact that they all originated from the same entity. If that single point only consisted of one "thing", it would never have "banged", and even though you want to call this single point a single entity in itself, it can also be divided into all the things it consisted of. And these things make up the universe, just like it made up that single point before the big bang. Then, it is easy to see that different things have a varying degree of all these different things, and the ones that have a lot in common can be called the same thing by us humans, and be clearly differentiated from things that have less in common with that thing, even though they all originated from that single point....
  10. hence, the use of the word "spatial" before the word dimension in the title of my topic
  11. Yes. I would argue that i am quite capable of expressing myself here on this forum, and i cant remember a situation where someone would have criticized me for my poor written english. Sure, it has its flaws, and its far from perfect, but i at least hope everyone can understand what im trying to say, without much effort. Still, my spoken english is quite poor, and its not just the pronounciations. Every time i talk english to a person with english as their first language, i dont have much confidence, and im unable to express myself in a way i would prefer. If i ever had a discussion about Objectivism in person with an american, i think the american would need to give me a lot of time, to express my points, as spoken english doesnt come easy to me. The reason for this is, that i rarely use spoken english. I've learned english by watching TV from an early age(we dont dub our programs here), and after personal computers and the internet became widespread, i think i have mastered the written language to a degree, where i can discuss almost any topic, without constantly being lost for words. I havent needed subtitles for many years now, and i can "think" in english(im actually doing it right now). But i rarely speak the language, and i really find it embarrassing sometimes, when i struggle to get my point across completely when speaking english. My pronounciations can be akward, and i can master "small talk", but if the topic becomes too specific, i struggle. However, i think it would require only a couple of months living in the US, for me to start mastering the spoken language as well, because i feel i have a strong foundation what to build on. So, if you want to be able to speak the language, just speak it
  12. I havent read Hayek in a while, but i dont remember the meaning of "spontaneous order" having anything to do with cultural conservatism, and he definitely wasnt one. He definitely did not propose anything that we shoudlnt question pre-existing cultural practises, and i remember him being quite vocal about why tradition in itself is of no value, so i dont know where you got that. Spontaneous order, as i understand and remember it, is an inherently libertarian principle. It starts from the premise that many libertarians have, that people "in general" are good, and that no specific action is required to "be good". Therefore, when these "good" people act freely, the result will be a society that is ideal. There is some truth to this, in the sense, that the shape a society takes, is not something that has come out of a single plan, and in that sense it is spontaneous. However, the fallacy he makes, is that it doesnt really matter what these people do, as long as they do it freely. According to that, the ideal society could just as well be a society with people dying from heroine-overdoses at age 28, just as long as they didnt force others to their will. The classic libertarian stuff, you know..... So, even if spontaneous order in the marketplace is true, it should not be in itself a value. The markets will generally be the "sum" of all its peoples actions, and if most people value using drugs and mutilating themselves as a hobby, the market will cater to these "values", and does not discriminate whether these things actually are "of value" to these people. The thing that Hayek never does, is differentiate between different free actions, and just dubs every free action as equally good. It is important to note, that the idea of spontaneous order is pretty much the same thing as "the invisible hand", and it is in general a valid argument against central planning. However, it should not be a value in itself, and that is where Hayek goes wrong, or at least i cant ever remember him explaining anything that would disprove that..... I've read "The Road to Serfdom" and "The Fatal Conceit", but both were like 5 years ago, so i may have misrepresented Hayek here by accident. However, that is what i remember, correct me if im wrong....
  13. I certainly do understand the abstract 0d,1d,2d and probably could understand what 4d was abstractly if is studied some math. But even abstractly, i cannot understand how a 3d being could ever theoretically enter this 2d world so that the 3d object would be visible.... Because all explanations and illustrations, such as this Dr Quantum one: , has the flatlanders having height. In that video they cannot move upwards or downwards, but they still clearly are 3-dimensional objects, in a 3d world. So, they would actually be seeing in 3d all the time, without understanding that the third dimension is a dimension, because everything they have ever encountered has the same height. That still doesnt mean that it has the height=0. And Dr.Quantum could have easily shown the flatlanders what height is without taking them out of their "universe". He could just carefully, and slowly insert his finger into their world, so that his finger wouldnt have gone all the way through, but that just the tip of his finger would have reached halfway down in their world. Then the flatlanders could have understood what height is, as they would have seen something for the first time, that is not of the same height. Now i dont claim that Dr.Quantum here gives an accurate description, but if i try to apply this to the thought that we actually live in a 4d(or higher) dimension, it gets tricky. For it to apply, there would have to be something, that we dont understand as a spatial dimension, due to the fact that we have never encountered a situation where the amount of this 4th dimension, lets call it "pought", would be different from anything else we have ever seen. Every object we see would have to have the same amount of "pought". This is the only way i can theoretically understand how we could live in a 4th dimension. That doesnt mean that we dont have any "pought", or that we dont see "pouhgt" all the time. We do see "pought", but dont know that we are seeing it....For other dimensions to exist, and someone being able to come into a "dimensionally challenged" creatures world and "freak them out", these lower creatures should be able to see "pought", and have physical 4th(and 5th, 6th etc.) dimensional characteristics. Otherwise it is impossible, even theoretically, that a being with physical characteristics in 4 dimensions, could ever show itself, even just partially, to a creature with physical characteristics in 3 dimensions, and i would even claim that for higher dimensions to exist, we would with absolute certainty have to have physical characteristics in all these dimensions, even if they were really miniscule. Now, what this "pought" could be, is a different thing, and it makes my head ache when i try to think about it I know, my language isnt exactly scientific, and english isnt my first language, but i hope you understand what i mean.
  14. Okay, Youtube is filled with videos about a theoretical 4th spatial dimension, and even though i understand what they are trying to say, there is much i dont get about the explanations they are trying to make.... Here is a video of Carl Sagan explaining his view of a 4th spatial dimension: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9KT4M7kiSw...feature=related He(and other people) bring up the the example of the 2-dimensional flatlanders, and how we could possibly "freak them out" by just appearing and disappearing in their dimension. At first i accepted this as totally clear, and didnt even think about the 2d-creatures, but then i started really thinking. My brain may be the size of a peanut, but i dont understand, even theoretically, how such a creature, could even theoretically exist. If something is entirely flat, with no height at all, doesnt that mean that he has no matter at all, even if his surroundings actually were 3d, or even some freaky theoretical 4d. And even if that creature somehow could exist, it is completely impossible that a 3d creature could ever see it. I mean, put a sheet of paper on your table. Then imagine that that sheet, would have absolutely no height at all. The fallacy comes from thinking that a sheet of paper doesnt have any height, and Sagan even admits that in the video, but i still do not understand, and he doesnt explain it in any way, how we could ever see anything that lacks height altogether. How could we see the width and lenght of something that doesnt have height? Imagine that you would lift up this creature that lacks height? Where would you grab? I mean, Sagan says in the part where he the apple lifts the flatlander up in the air, that he "makes contact from below" with the flatlander. What below, is he referring to, if the flatlander does not have any height at all? Just like if this 2d creature lacked width or length. It is absolutely impossible to imagine what such a thing would look like, and as impossible to think that such things can exist. Despite this, they use this flatlander example as an easy way to show how 3d creatures can "freak out" 2d creatures, even though i dont get it at all. Because i do understand that everyone agrees that it is completely theoretical for a 4th dimension to exist, but i cant even fathom there existing anything 0d, 1d or 2d, and yet Sagan, and other similar videos, give this 2d example as an easy way of "imagining" how a 4d creature would look at "us" 3d creatures. Is there something im missing, as i cant understand why these videos accept as a fact that we could see these theoretical 2d creatures, as i cant get it at all, as my logic would make them impossible to exist, due to them lacking substance in a very fundamental dimension, therefore lacking any substance. Even the thinnest sheet of paper is always 3d, and no matter how many times you cut it in half, it will remain 3d. Any thoughts on my incoherent ramblings, as im dumbfounded that people like Sagan and others dont explain these 2d-creatures at all, and just take it for granted in order to explain some 4d.....
  15. I didnt mean to claim that you did claim that, and im sorry if it looked like that. I just wanted to point out that the topic of homosexuality is different to the topic of, let's say, what reality is. And i would even go as far as saying that it is fairly irrelevant to an honest Objectivist, WHAT, Rand herself thought of homosexuality. The fact whether homosexuality is wrong or not, is based on "what is a homosexual". If you apply the Objectivist principles to decide whether it is wrong, but have faulty information of what a homosexual is, you can make a faulty judgement on the subject. However, that does not mean that Objectivism itself is wrong, just your judgement based on faulty information. Therefore Ayn Rands views on homosexuality are not in any way central to her philosophy, and her possibly having faulty information about a certain subject, has no bearing on whether Objectivism is a valid philosophy. Therefore, i think it was quite intellectually dishonest(or just an ignorant mistake) of the person that made the wikipedia entry, to have her view on homosexuality printed, without any explanation on the foundations of her philosophy, as that makes it seem like her view on homosexuality is somehow at the foundation of what Objectivism is.
  16. yeah, i edited them out, as i noticed that i made one of the most annoying things a "debater" can do. I said "i dont want this to become a discussion about topic X..........after which i myself discussed topic X" So yeah, the thing i was trying to say was that the topic whether homosexuality is moral or immoral, is not at the foundation of Objectivism. Objectivism is true, even if homosexuality is moral or immoral. The only debatable thing that remains is, whether it is or not. It was a conclusion Rand made by using her philosophical foundation, but that does not equate, that every conclusion she made using her philosophy, is necessarily true.....
  17. Yes, but it was not one of the foundations of her philosophy, it was a conclusion she made by using her philosophy. Every conclusion she may have made using her philosophy, is not the same thing as saying that all those conclusions are correct. As far as i have understood/applied Objectivism, is by looking at it from the bottom up. The critique of homosexuality is not something that lies near the "bottom" part of her philosophy, so its odd that it was singled out in a description of her. Its a bit like saying that: "Ayn Rand, novelist and philosopher, critic of the IRS, and founder of the objectivist school of metaphysics, famous for writing Atlas Shrugged and The Virtue of Selfishness.". Sure, she probably was a critic of the IRS, but i wouldnt choose to include that fact in a short summation of her. edit: i edited out the comments about homosexuality, as i really dont want to have this debate now....
  18. here is an example of humour that i think is completely valid: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1cKD93W3yg making fun of people with absurdly idiotic ideas. I especially liked the, "entertainment complex, in the middle of a sewage system.......no designer would design that, at all" part at the end.....
  19. Yeah, i just dont see the value of "All is God"/"God is All", instead of "All is All". Also, i must obviously mention here, that we are talking about naturalistic pantheism here, if it hasnt been mentioned already, as there are many other types of pantheism, that clearly believe in the supernatural etc. This is really difficult for me to debate, because im really not sure what im debating here. Becuase it still seems like calling the universe God, doesnt make any sense.... If you want to differentiate yourself from relativist or "there is no reality"-type atheists, i wouldnt recommend using the word pantheist. I think the word Objectivist is quite sufficient in describing "what kind of" atheist you are. I think the wikipedia article on Naturalistic pantheism, has one very telling paragraph: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_pantheism The fact that someone thinks that the prefix "pan-", that means "all", or in this case "all is", somehow modifies the suffix after it is totally absurd? How does the statement "All is God", modify the meaning of "God"? also in the same article: If "all is nature", then "all is nature". If you want to base your spirituality on nature instead of deities, then dont use the word of a deity, God, but use the word for nature, that is......ummmm.....let me think.....NATURE! I really cant wrap my head around this, because im not even sure what im trying to debate here. Its like someone called baseball basketball, but still meant baseball.
  20. But what is the value of "reconciling religious terminology". What is the value of calling reality, nature, existence with the term God. What i argue is that you are an atheist, who just for some reason calls existence, nature etc. God instead of calling them by their real names. And that makes absolutely no sense to me. Pantheism still has the theism in it, and by theism we usually mean belief in a deity(or many), that posess supernatural powers, and are supreme beings. If you have some alternative explanation on the what the word theism means, please tell me. I just cant understand the value of giving validity to the religious nuts to believe in a God, by yourself calling the universe God, even though you mean completely the opposite by this word. Just like the belief in unicorns. We have "unicornists" - those who believe in that unicorns, magical horselike creatures with horns on their forehead, exist a-unicornists - those who do not believe in unicorns & those who affirm that unicorns do not exist agnostics - those who do not "know" whether unicorns exist In this case, what would the value be of calling yourself a horse-unicornist - those who affirm that there are no horselike creatures with horns on their forehead, but that what they mean by the term unicorn is actually everything that encompasses a horses organs, blood circulation system, bones, hair etc. In other words, what they mean, is a horse, but they call them unicorns. Why not call yourself an a-unicornist, and call horses horses? Exactly, but i think he really is one.... The only explanation for why people call themselves pantheists, would be if they had been raised really religiously, and the idea of a God was so ingrained in their upbringing that they have found it necessary to redefine the word God, once they realized that their Christian/Muslim etc. beliefs were BS, because they are not capable for some reason to give up on the idea of God..... But still, what is the value of calling yourself a pantheist, if the only thing how it differs from atheism, is that it has different words for some things..... edit: slightly off-topic, but as i was browsing different articles on wikipedia i found this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antireligion scroll down to the "Notable antireligious people" part and you will find: first of all, the libertarian part obviously struck my eye, but what is weird is that "critic of homosexuality" is listed in such a short summation of Ayn Rand. Sure, she was a critic, but that is not in any way a cornerstone of her philosophy, so why would someone add it in such a short summation.....
  21. I dont know what kind of a pantheist you are, but i have never understood really what it is? I may be ignorant, but could someone explain to me..... Why wouldnt pantheists just call the universe=the universe, nature=nature and existence=existence? What is the value of calling these things God, by which they mean an abstraction and not a personal god, and that does not possess any supernatural powers. This god did not create anything, it does not command anyone to do anything, it does not judge, in fact it does not do anything at all.... What is the value of calling existence god, instead of existence? What is the difference between an objectivists view of reality compared to a pantheists, other than the fact that we use different names for the same thing? And why arent pantheists called atheists? Its like someone saying: I watch basketball, i like it a lot. However, by me watching basketball, i do not mean watching an activity where two teams consisting of five players try to score points by throwing a ball into a round basket, while the other team tries to prevent the other team from doing that. Because that i do not want to watch. Still, i watch basketball....
  22. yeah, but why do they choose to give them, especially without a disclaimer, "this is just my opinion, and i have thought it through...." I have no need on commenting about who is the worlds best cricket player, as i dont watch that sport, so its a bit like i would go take part in a debate whether player A is better than player B, just because i "feel like it". And after some cricket-fan would bring up evidence why it isnt true, i would respond with one-liners about player B being "gay" and ugly. I have no urge to do something like that, so what is it that causes people to do that in political debates? edit: im sorry that im venting here, but as i want to come across as a patient and calm debater on that forum, im just going to vent here..... Now there idiots are saying that it would have been sufficient to just drop an a-bomb in some desert location, and the japanese would have surrendered? Well, then i obviously said: "well, they dropped an A-bomb in Hiroshima, and the japanese didnt even surrender then, so by which logic would they have surrendered if they had dropped it in a desert location?" I get the answer along the lines of, "well, we can always speculate, but i think a warning shot would have sufficed". AAARGGHHHH!!! How can anyone have such faulty logic?
  23. Ok, im having a debate on Hiroshima/Nagasaki on a non-american message board, and it just baffles me how people can say that the A-bomb wasnt justified..... Im getting irrelevant one-liners as responses to my "lengthy" posts, and when i continuously ask: "Why should a government of a country that was attacked, sacrifice its own citizens lives for the sake of the enemy's civilians lives?" i do not get a straight answer. I've asked it now for 4 or 5 times at the end of my posts, but ive yet to receive a single answer conserning that question. Im getting answers like "it wasnt the japanese civilians fault" or "even though i agree that the government should protect its people, nothing justifies killing that many people". Then when i ask why the amount of dead enemy civilians is important for you, if you otherwise agree with my point, i get the answer, "well, its just wrong to kill that many people". Also, the most sad part is, that none of the people disagreeing with me, even admit that the ultimate blame should be put on the japanese government, for going to war with the US. I consider myself as a patient man, and usually i show enormous "self-control" while trying to get answers from people that disagree with me. I do not understand why these people im debating, even want to debate about anything(i didnt start the topic about the A-bomb), when they are not at all interested in explaining their views, nor answering to questions i ask them that are really relevant to the discussion? It has to be said, that the forum is not a political forum, but still, i cant understand why these people engage in debate at all, if they are not at all interested in explaining their views, and just resort to one-liners and irrelevant drivel. Is this some kind of mental disease, because im getting really fed up with the fact that these people, the majority on that site, hold such perverse view of reality.....
  24. There are in my view, a couple of totally different problems that arise in mainstream analysis of classical economics. The first are the classical economists that assume that all people ARE rational, instead of saying "if all people acted rationally, then.....". This often leads to wrong conclusions from classical economists when discussing current economic issues, as in reality, people arent all that rational. The errors they make, especially the libertarian ones, is that because X amount of bought product A for the price B, it means that it is rational for these X amount of people to buy product A for that price. It doesnt matter if product A is a herbal pill to make your penis bigger, all that matters is that there was X demand for it, and that the demand had to be rational. The second type of error is the more typical one, that comes from socialists, that just claim that because all people arent rational, classical economics are bullshit, and therefore capitalism is bullshit, as all people arent rational. However, the logical step would be to urge people to rationality, but instead these socialists and othere similar people urge people to denounce classical economics as a whole.
  25. Yeah, this is a fallacy ive never understood. Or the part ive never understood is how adult people actually do think that redistributing money helps. You often hear stuff like, "we have enough food to feed the world" as if acquiring food doesnt require any effort, and its just that we in the west have stolen the third worlds food.... I always like to say: "Sure, we could redistribute all the money and the food in the world, so everyone would get an equal share. All people may have food and clothes to wear for a week, but what happens the week after that?" I also noticed the sudden resurrection of the monuments and buildings after the "evil capitalist" was killed. Its like they hold the view that buildings exist in nature, and after the evil capitalists dont destroy them anymore, everyone will once again be able to enjoy these buildings. Sadly, most people who make nice sounding music are complete idiots.
×
×
  • Create New...