StrictlyLogical

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.

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.

Anyone care to bring up the distinction between "potentialities" and "actualities"?
 
I think it quite relevant in this point of the discussion.  (see AR lexicon "infinity") 

Danny:
 
Why not post something positive about your working metaphysics and/or epistemology? (by "positive" I do not mean "optimistic", instead I am hoping for something of a positive assertion regarding what you actually hold as true which is to be distinguished from a negative assertion merely for purposes of rebutting another's claim which you do not hold as true...).
 
I realize some have put you on the defensive... but perhaps new substance for discussion would be more interesting and fruitful for all who are interested in the subject.  If you feel so inclined you could weave Kant or Rand into it.

ludicious
 
You do not need a different example, or need to discuss something more intuitive.
 
You both are correct but both might claim more than your due territory.
 
There is a passing of the baton from metaphysics and epistemology to the special sciences.  The sciences must play within the fundamental principles discovered through philosophy, metaphysics and epistemology, but philosophy itself has nothing to say about the special sciences (as LP reminds us so often).
 
That said, if the philosophy is BAD, the special sciences will be able to correct it.
 
Be careful both of you.... the dance is delicate, many a philosopher has stepped on the toes of scientists (invalidly so) on purpose, and many a scientist has stepped on the toes of philosophers with naïve blindness.
 
...........
 
As for the specific example of a minimum length, such a thing is not within the realm of philosophy.  This is very similar to the question (before the discovery of atoms) of whether solid matter was infinitely divisible (this is to be contrasted with the ridiculous and impossible notion that matter is already infinitely divided).  Philosophy is primarily concerned with wide abstractions and integrations to generate fundamental principles generally applicable to ALL existents and all knowledge and all thought rather than specific knowledge requiring specific experiment and observations regarding some specific existents or aspects thereof.  the nature of space in particular whether or not there is a minimum, i.e. a minimum relationship (if space is seen as a relationship and not reified) must be confirmed or denied through observation.  There is no overarching general philosophic principle which can weigh in on the matter.

No, Kant didn't coin the term. but that doesn't mean he's not an indirect realist. Rand didn't make it up for writing flare. All Rand is saying is that Kant doesn't believe in direct perception. You could argue if that's the best label, but it's not an unfair label at all. Now, it's unfortunate that Rand didn't write an essay criticizing Kant's words and arguments directly, it would've been a good way to detail how, precisely, Kant is wrong. Nothing suggests incompetence at criticizing/evaluating others though. Rand preferred to create ideas that are right than to write about all the different ways an idea is wrong.

Inequality of is not good or bad.

Why is this not a good staring point?
 
All I would add is, try things quite different from those things you already do (which must already ALL not be your passion), try many of them, DONT QUIT UNTIL YOU ARE GOOD at them.  The greatest rewards from doing anything often require you to get over the hump of effort per results curve.  Self-doubt, and a feeling that one is not good at something can spoil the inherent doing of any activity, and since the results have little payback, it can seem it is not worth the effort.  BUT that effort really should be seen merely as practice, you are LEARNING TO DO X... but you have NOT DONE X yet, so you cant know yet IF you'd love doing X.
 
Only once you achieve a certain MASTERY in an activity (to some degree), will you be able to properly judge if it could be your passion.  This goes for almost anything requiring skill, effort of mind or body.

It was a weird post by Nicky anyway. SL was saying Nicky's response to me was irrelevant to the discussion - I wasn't asking about IF there WERE things black people do because they're black. So Nicky's "if" was irrelevant.
 
EDIT: By the way, race/gender/etc are all relevant to a person's actions to the extent other people enforce norms. Even the belief that there is a norm leads people to act in response to a norm, whether it is conformity or non-conformity. That was part of my point earlier: the concept of gender only makes sense as a set norms set by society. Nothing else. Sex changes can't alter that. But they can help self-image (I'll get to Jaskn's post later).

Suppose I "feel" I have more in common with dophins than I do with humans... Further suppose that I am a human, and that dolphins and humans are both mammals, but different kinds of mammals.
 
No, not only do I feel I have more in common with a dolphin, I think I AM a dolphin... but somehow reality has "mis-expressed" my metaphysical identity.  Swapped my body for what it should have been.... somehow in the mammal warehouse the DNA elves messed up...  I aim to correct such an error by using laser surgery to remove all my hair, I have my legs sewn together surgically, have my skin pigmented grey, and have the skin and fat of my buttocks fashioned into a fin for the middle of my back.
 
What is the result?  Is it a dolphin?  Heavens no.  Is it human?  Certainly, bodily, it structurally and functionally is a contorted remnant of a human.  Is it more like "me"?  Certainly not... not if me means what I AM (here "was").
 
The me that I was, is the me that I have assaulted on the basis of a fiction and an evasion.  I wished I were a dolphin (not me), and I assaulted metaphysically what I was, a human... in the hopes to attain something unattainable... a rebellion on reality.
 
 
Although a metaphysical assault on reality... it succeeds only insofar as it destroyed identity (what I was) but an utter failure insofar as it was unable to substitute identity with the wish... I could not become a dolphin,
 
and the reason why is simply because I was not and never was one.

Why the concept 'gender' should exist? I think of it as something like an invalid concept in the sense it doesn't refer to a phenomena in reality. Not that it's entirely baseless, since it describes norms many people follow, but it doesn't stem from being male or female other than what a culture prescribes.

Trans-sexualism and trans-genderism is not the same thing. Trans genderism doesn't involve any kind of surgery or hormone theraphy.

I don't think trying to change one's sex can be justified, but I have no issues with people who wish to choose their own gender. Gender roles are chosen either way: you can accept the choice made by everyone else for you, or you can make your own choice.

And I don't know how accurate the Peikoff quote is in the OP, but I think if it's accurate he probably has his terms mixed up. Surely, he doesn't think that a biological male simply dressing and acting like a woman would, is an assault on reality. Reality doesn't dictate whether we should be wearing skirts and heels or not.

The surgery solves nothing for the gender issues as evidenced by the support groups for post-op disappointment, and adds physical problems and removes sexual function -- I doubt I will ever understand how the latter could be justified. I don't get the cry for recognition of their "true" selves followed by strong mimicking of established gender norms in dress and mannerisms. It's contradictory to simultaneously eschew gender identity for others while clinging to stereotypes of the opposite sex yourself.

If it were literally possible to change one's gender physiologically, via body transplant or some other science, I'd say go for it. But that's not possible, and the hack jobs people are doing to themselves I think is pretty gross and irrational, given that it doesn't even solve their inner conflicts.

I think what we have is not a problem of identity but a problem of self-esteem.
 
 
Gender roles and stereo types I think play a large part in a social-metaphysician's image of others, self, and relationship to others.  A rational egoist would not deem it a schism that their mannerisms, thoughts/feelings etc. tended to align with one gender whereas their body was of the other gender... they would accept such a thing as what they were.  A manly female or a feminine male....  For transgender folks, I think the excuse that they don't feel like they belong in their body really is just saying they don't feel accepted in superficial society and they need another "mask", one others will understand, to wear.
 
Now, if someone could find an intransigent rational individualist who nonetheless decided they were "born wrong"... I would like to hear their opinion... bearing in mind feelings are not a means of cognition or knowledge.
 
 
Am I supposed to be much smarter and handsome than what I am?  Did my DNA make a mistake by being what it is and making me be what I am?... Could I argue I don't feel like the real me ... which is smarter and more handsome?..  I could try to make an argument based on something in reality but I don't think saying I feel smarter and more handsome that what I actually am, quite cuts it.

Interesting...
 
Back to the error in the above:
 
Upon thinking about the stones in the buildings you immediately think of a large heavy stone, and a small lighter stone falling next to each other.  You imagine that the lighter stone is falling slower than the heavier one and visualize it lagging behind the heavy one, the gap becoming ever increasing.
 
Then a thought comes to your mind... what if you tied the lighter slow stone to the heavier fast stone, would the slow stone "hold back" the fast stone?  You imagine the string becoming taught between the heavy stone "trying" to fall faster and the lighter stone "trying" to fall slower. Would the result be an average speed, or would the string break? Then you imagine bundling them tightly and ask yourself would the bundle fall at an average between the natural speed of the fast stone and the natural speed of the slow stone acting against each other?
 
Then you come to the realization that two stones which are tied together could be thought of as a single thing, a "bundle" of stones. If thought of as a single bundle, it has a weight greater than either of the two stones of which it is composed and should therefor fall even faster than either two alone...  but then again, when thought of as two stones working against each other they should at an average (or some intermediate) speed between the two... or in any case slower than the single bundle.
 
It seems as if the bundle must fall at two mutually exclusive (different) rates...This clealy starts to become disconcerting to you.
 
You then remember that from your experience watching your uncle make sculptures with the stone, that in fact the common stones used for buildings in your village are sandstone.  You remember your uncle showing you that in fact the stone is made of an incredible number of very little grains, and pebbles, which are packed closely together.
 
... it starts to dawn on you that any single heavy stone is actually a great number of very miniscule and much lighter stones.  If a stone can be thought of as a collection of tiny miniscule stones, then should the stone fall at the slow rate of any one of those single tiny stones??... but then again if tightly packed little stones can be though of as a single heavy stone (the same way the bundle can be thought of as a single thing) then should not the heavy stone fall at a single speed which is much faster than any single tiny stone?
 
While pondering this apparent paradox you realize that the fact that "something can be thought of" in one or more senses is not a principle of how reality works, things simply are what they are and do what they do... and ariving at a conclusion that something must be and do something self-contradictory reveals an error of thought... in particular it is the premise which directly lead to this contradiction which is in error.
 
 
With a smile, you then state to the fellow who originated the principle:
 
"Your asserted principle fails application to single things which are at once heavy and also are composed of a plurality of lighter things, leading to a self-contradiction regarding the speed at which it should fall. In fact since all things around us here (you point at everyday complex macroscopic objects made of matter) are made of divisible matter, no "thing" could fall at a single speed according to your principle, being both a whole heavy thing and a collection of subparts being lighter things. Your principle lacks non-contradictiory compositional application and is therefore incoherrent, quite simply: false."

Interesting...
 
Back to the error in the above:
 
Upon thinking about the stones in the buildings you immediately think of a large heavy stone, and a small lighter stone falling next to each other.  You imagine that the lighter stone is falling slower than the heavier one and visualize it lagging behind the heavy one, the gap becoming ever increasing.
 
Then a thought comes to your mind... what if you tied the lighter slow stone to the heavier fast stone, would the slow stone "hold back" the fast stone?  You imagine the string becoming taught between the heavy stone "trying" to fall faster and the lighter stone "trying" to fall slower. Would the result be an average speed, or would the string break? Then you imagine bundling them tightly and ask yourself would the bundle fall at an average between the natural speed of the fast stone and the natural speed of the slow stone acting against each other?
 
Then you come to the realization that two stones which are tied together could be thought of as a single thing, a "bundle" of stones. If thought of as a single bundle, it has a weight greater than either of the two stones of which it is composed and should therefor fall even faster than either two alone...  but then again, when thought of as two stones working against each other they should at an average (or some intermediate) speed between the two... or in any case slower than the single bundle.
 
It seems as if the bundle must fall at two mutually exclusive (different) rates...This clealy starts to become disconcerting to you.
 
You then remember that from your experience watching your uncle make sculptures with the stone, that in fact the common stones used for buildings in your village are sandstone.  You remember your uncle showing you that in fact the stone is made of an incredible number of very little grains, and pebbles, which are packed closely together.
 
... it starts to dawn on you that any single heavy stone is actually a great number of very miniscule and much lighter stones.  If a stone can be thought of as a collection of tiny miniscule stones, then should the stone fall at the slow rate of any one of those single tiny stones??... but then again if tightly packed little stones can be though of as a single heavy stone (the same way the bundle can be thought of as a single thing) then should not the heavy stone fall at a single speed which is much faster than any single tiny stone?
 
While pondering this apparent paradox you realize that the fact that "something can be thought of" in one or more senses is not a principle of how reality works, things simply are what they are and do what they do... and ariving at a conclusion that something must be and do something self-contradictory reveals an error of thought... in particular it is the premise which directly lead to this contradiction which is in error.
 
 
With a smile, you then state to the fellow who originated the principle:
 
"Your asserted principle fails application to single things which are at once heavy and also are composed of a plurality of lighter things, leading to a self-contradiction regarding the speed at which it should fall. In fact since all things around us here (you point at everyday complex macroscopic objects made of matter) are made of divisible matter, no "thing" could fall at a single speed according to your principle, being both a whole heavy thing and a collection of subparts being lighter things. Your principle lacks non-contradictiory compositional application and is therefore incoherrent, quite simply: false."

Honestly, I never would have imagined ever having to utter such a statement! 
 
All those years of being bullied with a stick are coming back to me. 

Honestly Crow:
 
Govt services would be package deal.  Police, justice, and military.  You can't pay for domestic bits... and somehow "opt out" of the military bit.  The number of freeloaders would be very small.  Who would want to forego police and justice services   ... due to an ill advised desire not to pay for military services?
 
So the freeloaders would be minimally freeloading... using Geography as a shield from foreigners, but having no guarantees against theft murder etc. 
 
They would not participate nor enjoy government in the to the same degree animals (sorry DA  ) also would not participate or enjoy the benefits of a proper government.  Accidental freeloaders with regard to foreign invasion.

They are in opposition to Objectivism's requirement of "voluntary funding" of government
 
 
Here is a reminder about what a certain very thoughtful someone thought of this issue:
 
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/taxation.html

Your emotional response to the Fountainhead indicates your thoughts, and insofar as you find it inspiring, those thoughts are rational and those feelings are a response to your progress learning about what morality and existence as a man are.
 
Do not despair.  Valuing life is something you will naturally come into as you value yourself.  I will guess self-esteem/pride is the root of your struggle ... you can and will (from what you have said I have every confidence in your rationality and emotional maturity and your future progress and growth) develop that self-esteem and love of life, as you recognize your successes at striving for moral perfection... the more you succeed at being principled and rational, you will see yourself as the kind the hero you are becoming and therefore value yourself, eventually, as your highest value.
 
One thing to remember though, effort is not "pain", effort is effort.  Recall the childhood joy of running, leaping, wrestling, tricycling, or just plain playing... do you remember breathing hard?  Do you remember sweating?  Do you remember being sore after or very puzzled, intellectually challenged during the making a decision during inventive play?  Recall the joy of finding the solution.
 
Do you remember it as pain? 
 
Effort is not pain only a reaction of discomfort which results from false ideas, which false ideas have been force fed to you.  Life should be effortless or for free is one kind of false idea.  That achievement, work, striving, is painful... is a logical consequence of the first and is a second false idea that has been fed to you.  Shed the false ideas, run, strive, sweat... with joy!

That was a hasty remark, from the framework of the "utopian" civilization. As has already been pointed out, this overlooks inheritance, gifts, etc. The deeper gist is that wealth is produced by the producers, which got lost in the transmission.

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.

Crow:
 
 
I do not see what the issue with "voluntary taxation" is, other than it being a contradiction in terms.  You say such a thing is impossible as if it were unnatural to the psyche of man.
 
Do you believe that "naturally" human beings, by some quirk of a defective cognitive process are unable to determine that ... for example.. if he wants SOMEONE ELSE to DO something for him,  whether it is to go fetch some water, catch a rabbit or grow lettuce... that he is required to trade SOMETHING for it?  Is such a thing far to complex or enigmatic for his grey matter to grasp?
 
I think the truth of the matter is quite the contrary.... the natural tendency (observable in children... and adults with healthy self-esteem) is to offer a trade for the doing of something... ANYTHING for him by someone else... from the mundane and almost inconsequential to the most serious and important of tasks.
 
How is it then, that people who want to delegate authority for a justice system, a police force, and a military, and who would otherwise need to spend energy, time, and resources to fill these kinds of roles for themselves had they not delegated it, would not automatically (or at least naturally) assume they also convey resources in exchange for WHAT THEY ARE ASKING FOR OTHERS to DO FOR THEM?
 
I do not think this is riddle of the ages or some implacable Gordion knot.
 
 
Far from being wholly foreign to the natural tendency of man, so called voluntary taxation (better called trading value for value or paying for something with something) is completely in accord and in harmony with man's nature.
 
 
That said, BAD philosophy, irrationality, altruism, paternalism, lack of self-esteem.... all poisoning a writhing mass of mentally crippled souls, such a situation does make spontaneous adoption of what IS natural and proper... and OBJECTIVELY moral, extremely difficult.
 
SL

Crow:
 
 
I do not see what the issue with "voluntary taxation" is, other than it being a contradiction in terms.  You say such a thing is impossible as if it were unnatural to the psyche of man.
 
Do you believe that "naturally" human beings, by some quirk of a defective cognitive process are unable to determine that ... for example.. if he wants SOMEONE ELSE to DO something for him,  whether it is to go fetch some water, catch a rabbit or grow lettuce... that he is required to trade SOMETHING for it?  Is such a thing far to complex or enigmatic for his grey matter to grasp?
 
I think the truth of the matter is quite the contrary.... the natural tendency (observable in children... and adults with healthy self-esteem) is to offer a trade for the doing of something... ANYTHING for him by someone else... from the mundane and almost inconsequential to the most serious and important of tasks.
 
How is it then, that people who want to delegate authority for a justice system, a police force, and a military, and who would otherwise need to spend energy, time, and resources to fill these kinds of roles for themselves had they not delegated it, would not automatically (or at least naturally) assume they also convey resources in exchange for WHAT THEY ARE ASKING FOR OTHERS to DO FOR THEM?
 
I do not think this is riddle of the ages or some implacable Gordion knot.
 
 
Far from being wholly foreign to the natural tendency of man, so called voluntary taxation (better called trading value for value or paying for something with something) is completely in accord and in harmony with man's nature.
 
 
That said, BAD philosophy, irrationality, altruism, paternalism, lack of self-esteem.... all poisoning a writhing mass of mentally crippled souls, such a situation does make spontaneous adoption of what IS natural and proper... and OBJECTIVELY moral, extremely difficult.
 
SL

I appreciate you taking a moment of your time to address the ambiguity of my opening post.
 
As I continue to strive for more clarity in my thinking, the power of philosophy has manifested itself in ways I hadn't imagined. "I'm not brave enough to be a coward", an interesting way she put it there before following with "I see the consequence too clearly." That would tie in with making a case for it being perhaps her main aim.
 
I listen to guys like Andrew Bernstein and Yaron Brooks, bubbling with enthusiasm in their presentations, I looked inside and found the stuff I couched as Objectivism being a threat to, Then I realized, Objectivism isn't a threat, It provides hope. It does so by being properly integrated, which is itself a monumental undertaking, or has been for me.