Mindy
-
Posts
463 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Posts posted by Mindy
-
-
Gotthelf says Rand's view of essence is epistemological. He alludes to a role in unit-economy, and he distinguishes it, as achieving objectivity, in contrast to instrinsicism and subjectivism.
I am familiar with these claims, but I do not think unit-economy address essence on a par with instrinsic or subjective theories of it. Fundamentality is the more apt criterion, I would think. Still, fundamentality, being a relative characteristic, may not suffice.
Besides the claim that objectivity is achieved when the individual follows a certain process, the process claimed to result in objectivity needs justification, or an explanation of its claim to yield valid concepts. Unit-economy will not do this.
Mindy
-
Kohl's has a new TV advertisement in my area. They, surprisingly, say, return anything, at any time, even if you don't have the receipt. Interesting.
Mindy
-
CGA: So, according to you every performance of your favorite song after the first one by whoever singer (not an artist by your standard) is a pointless repetition.
Jake Ellison response: Not an argument.
Actually, it is an argument. It is an apt comparison, in fact. It applies your objection to another situation, a song, and the false conclusion that the first time the performance took place is the only time it might be valued as art is succinctly countered by common experience--we listen to our favorite songs over and over.
Perhaps that should be called an illustration, rather than an argument? No matter, its pertinance is clear.
Mindy
-
Once you correctly characterize deduction, I claim that will include induction.
That is a most interesting claim. Can you elaborate?
Mindy
-
Instead, it comes across as excessively argumentative with no clear purpose or conversation direction.
I envy you the convenience of begging the question. If you didn't read the post to which I was responding, that will help you with your difficulty in understanding the purposes of my statements. If, after reading this, the context, you still have any questions, I'll try to answer them specifically.
If this is all that is behind your complaint that I don't "pick by battles" well, well... isn't what you are doing exactly what it means to be "excessively argumentative?"
Mindy
-
In that instance, perhaps (although intelligence is not the only measure of "complexity"). The point is that for a given organism they may evolve to be more or less intelligent depending on the environment. Also, on balance, it's not correct to say that life as a whole is getting more complex. There are more highly complex lifeforms now than there were 2 billion years ago but that's because there is a "left wall" to the distribution, so to speak. The dominant lifeforms on the planet are still unicellular.
Is there an example of a species evolving to a less intelligent form?
Mindy
-
I can't speak for Marc, but the impression I get is that you don't "pick your battles" here when replying.
It seems to me that I pick my battles. What criterion do you think I'm overlooking, possibly with an example? That is, what "battle" should I have left alone?
Mindy
-
Makes me sick.
Uggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
Sorry. Needed to vent. Opinions?
You have my heart-felt sympathy.
Mindy
-
It is perfectly clear with what I was agreeing: the quote immediately preceding.
The quote was a statement that people were upset. You agree with it? Are upset people automatically in the right? Or is there a sub-text to which you wish to add your amen, without having to state it explicitly?
This illustrates the point me, CapitalistSwine and Sophia are making: it is almost always argumentum ad infinitum with you. And the argument seems to have no point, it is argument for argument's sake which is unproductive, boring and childish.
Do look up your fallacies. I suppose you mean I have an answer to your best points? What does that imply?
Or are you saying that if I'd only stop and let you have the last word, you and CapSwine would like me? Or are you wishing, impotently, to imply that my arguments are weak? Please do be specific as to which argument, and what weakness, thanks.
Well that's a little insulting and presumptuous of you.Let's see, you may set your limited experience up against mine, not knowing what mine is, but then feel insulted when it is pointed out to you that you come out short? Which of us knows the posting experience of both of us? You, who stated yours, or me, who read yours and knows my own? Which of us is in the position to make the comparison? I've known chickens who reasoned better than this. (Just a little oddity of speech, there, to spare you the "boredom" of my typical argument.)
Mindy
-
Which eludes to my earlier post.
If the voices of socialism are embraced by more than the voices of capitalism, then the socialization is what we are seeing being embraced. It will probably 'work' until, as Margaret Thatcher stated, they run out of other peoples money to spend.
Which eludes MY ealier post. (You meant "allude," I mean "elude,") It is not "other people's money," it is their own.
Mindy
-
To say that David's knowledge is more easily absorbed by those who are not easily ass-hurt in no way implies that he is abusive. Not sure what logic to are using to claim it does.
To say he is abusive is to say he is abusive. Do you understand that?
Mindy
-
Would 'Sanction of the Victim' be more appropriate?
They did not/could not fight the freeloading then? It is therefore just to freeload now? (Senior Citizens)
How do you make the thief deliver retribution, when the source of their retribuition is more theft? (Government)
Who says they didn't fight it? Write letters, try to elect Goldwater, etc.
They ought to get the pensions/benefits they were forced to contribute to pay for, no?
Mindy
-
The "party" in Tea Party is not the concept of a political party, or only indirectly so. It means a get-together, a shindig, a "Let's Party!"
I think it has more effect if those words remain a kind of event, spontaneous and responsive to political trends. It would then be a constant threat to politicians who think their being elected is an unlimited franchise to alter America.
Mindy
-
The senior citizens are a portion of the voting block. They usually possess the discretionary time to use for understanding and passing on their understanding.
From the Health Care (more like Wealth Pare), to Public Education (Comprachicos of the mind), the state of the battlefield for the mind is reflected in what we see happening around us.
To the degree that the socialist arguments are successful in persuading, while the defenders of liberty, esp. capitalism appear to flounder in their delivery, the effects are the product of the people chosen to legislate.
To the degree that the votes are honestly accounted for, the results are that of a popularity contest placing the individuals with the silverest tongues to impliment what they decide are the desired policies, and not neccessarilly what they publicly declared.
People buy (vote for) their newspaper. They select the channel on the television to watch. They buy literature to either entertain or become informed. The radio station they select. Until people desire something different, and equally as important, entrepreneurs with the vision to supply that what is expected - we (as a culture) are getting what we are actively pursuing, or passively accepting as the rewards of those choices.
I'm not sure what you mean to get across. I am arguing that great numbers of today's senior citizens did not agree with, nor vote for entitlements. They were, nevertheless, forced to pay great sums over decades into Social Security. It is, thus UNJUST that "you" that is, the posters of the early-on consensus of this thread, characterize them as looters who want someone else to pay their way.
Mindy
-
Thank you for saying this Sophia, I agree completely.
She already did. David Odden's reputation speaks for itself. He is knowledgeable on a plethora of subjects and his understanding of Objectivism and its application to those many topics is exceptional.
What are you agreeing with? That some, unnamed people are "upset?"
Reputation is generally relevant when the author's actual performance has to be guessed at. Which attorney to hire? Mr. Banks has a good reputation for this sort of case... When someone's performance is extant, there is no need to look to their reputation to evaluate those actions.
Neither you nor Sophia attempt to defend the facts of the case, you just think Odden's general contributions ought to excuse his behavior here. A sort of a "greater good" argument, no?
You seem to acknowledge Mr. Odden's tendency to be abusive when you mention "thick skin." Why do you give it a pass?
If a person's errors, even of behavior, are criticized, does that mean the whole person is being mis-evaluated? Are your assertions of Mr. Odden's knowledge logically related to my objection that he was abusive?
I doubt you could tell me anything about the standards of thought, or behavior, on any of the major four Objectivist forums. As to how Objectivism Online compares to the other three, I'm very interested in finding that out.
Mindy
-
Actually I've made a decent enough living for myself, and being self employed have the privelege of paying double on some of those taxes TYVM.
I'm sure you can see where you are being needlessly insulting and inflammatory here..?
Anyway, this is a well thought out article:
http://www.theatlasphere.com/columns/100824-williams-our-future.php
addressing some of the issues we will face as the Ponzi-scheme entitlements start to implode.
There is also a link within it to a couple more of Walter Williams' pieces on the topic.
The problem is, Mindy, that these entitlements were Ponzi schemes all along. They were created keeping in mind that once people felt they had paid in no one would vote to stop it if it meant losing what they put in.
There are going to be tough decisions ahead and I fear none of the solutions will be ideal.
Why no, I was not being insulting at all. That is, in suggesting that the posters were not experienced with the burden Social Security taxes represent. Most of the posters, I believe, are very young, many students.
The abuse heaped on people who opposed entitlements in the first place, then were forced to pay for them all their lives, and now are being villified in this thread is what is inflammatory, and is indeed stupid.
You needn't tell me what the problem is with entitlement schemes, as I didn't defend them.
Mindy
-
FYI: There is between 50% and 89% probability of dying of Ebola, depending on the strain. (Wikipedia)
Mindy
-
I'm familiar enough with Objectivism to know that any healthcare including inoculation is a personal choice and none of government's business. However there is a special case with vaccinations, which can be best explained with an example.
Let's say person A decides against vaccines and therefore takes a risk of getting the disease. Person B vaccinated himself and wants to have his newborn vaccinated too, but the vaccination can only be done at a certain age. Until then the baby is vulnerable to catching the disease from person A. If the baby catches the disease and dies person A is not responsible because he didn't do it on purpose. Person A doesn't have to sacrifice himself for the baby. Yet this is fucked up, because we have a dead baby and it could've been avoided by forcing person A to get vaccinated.
Do we accept the baby death as a negative side-effect of higher values or am I missing something?
At least some of this apparent conflict can be settled by considering that in an ideal society, there would be little or no purely public space. The proprietors of private spaces may require people to have been vacinnated against certain diseases, if there is anything so virile as to persuade the public that they will avoid places where infected people might be.
The child's school, etc., would pretty surely be governed by rules about innoculation. Otherwise, I believe it is the parents' responsibility to keep the vulnerable child safe from contagion. Medical masks for the child, etc.
Mindy
-
-
No it does not follow from what I stated.
When you say seniors got "what they voted for," you blame all people who voted at all for the result of the election. By the same logic, wouldn't all of us be responsible for Obama's Health Care? (That is, we, as a group, elected the people who passed the legislation.)
Mindy
-
I presumed knowledge, not omniscience. Your error lies in using the two interchangeably.
You are right, you didn't use the word. I used it because you claimed to possess it. You did that when you said you could know what another man's considerations could and could not extend to. You claimed, for your convenience, what another man's thought must be.
Mindy
-
For interest, the Canadian school board curricula or at least ministry 'objectives' are all online and I have many times had to take breaks from reading them because they are utterly disgusting. Even worse than when I was in public schooling.
I salute you, fellow soldier at arms.
Mindy
-
At that point, would it remain subjective, or acquire objective underpinnings?
It is akin to watching TV. We have many devices that extend or enhance our senses, microscopes and telescopes, infra-red binoculars, etc. This would fall right in the same category as the experience derived from these devices, I would say.
Mindy
-
Mindy,
Wow... you have managed in a very short time stir an incredible amount of drama here and with people with whom many of us have been interacting for years and greatly respect.
If you want to defend what DavidOdden said, please do so. If you wish his actions weren't open to reasonable criticism, your complaint is with him.
Which posts and which arguments should I not have made? What was wrong with them?
Mindy
Paper: Ayn Rand on Concepts
in Objectivist Lectures/Books
Posted
The topic isn't concepts, but essence. What has more commonly been termed the problem of universals.
Mindy