Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

SuperMetroid

Regulars
  • Posts

    29
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Previous Fields

  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Country
    Not Specified
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted

SuperMetroid's Achievements

Junior Member

Junior Member (3/7)

0

Reputation

  1. This is as wrong-headed as applying the same train of logic to economics. Let me rephrase your quote so you can see this clearly: "This is an economic question. If it is to the benefit of the society's well being and development to regulate it, then it should be done. Otherwise, no. And establishing whether a regulation is not to the benefit of societies with various problems is the job of economists, who study the various economic conditions and theories." All throughout history, doctors have been practicing quackery and inflicting it upon innocent children. And ignorant parents hand over their children to the quacks just because they feel like "something" needs to be done. See: lobotomies, genital mutilation, widespread use of AHDH medications, etc. All of this assumes that the infant/child has no rights or protections whatsoever and is effectively a piece of property that can be treated in nearly any manner whatsoever until the age of 18. Anyone who takes this stance (that humans can be property) has absolutely no understanding of the rights of the individual and should not claim any association whatsoever with Objectivism. QuoVadis, defending the practice of BRAIN MUTILATION just because there were no "alternative treatments" available at the time is shockingly stupid. Lobotomies always have been, in nearly all cases whatsoever, a horrifically bad idea. And yet there were some twistedly idiotic doctors who supported this practice to "treat" anything from promiscuity in teenage girls to hyperactivity in young boys, just as recently as a few decades ago. Jake_Ellison, perhaps this will dispel your naive viewpoint that the medical profession is some bulwark of rationality that is so infallible as to be granted the right to supersede the wishes of the patient (read: victim).
  2. The one and only guideline is whether or not you're making a profit.
  3. Assertion A: There is no such thing as truth. Assertion B: What I am stating is correct, and you are all wrong. This is not a matter of English semantics. Your argument is inherently and absolutely self-defeating.
  4. ilrein, I faced the same crossroads in life that you're at. I chose to drop out of college and become an entrepreneur, as I'd always wanted to do. The road is not going to be easy when you ignore the path that society's put before you. Most likely, no one will understand your reasoning, and no one will give a damn either. If you don't go through with college you're going to be a useless dropout in the eyes of many people, at least until you've accomplished something that shuts them up. If you decide to strike out on your own, make sure you have a plan that you're confident will succeed.
  5. If you wanted to be more realistic, you should have said a 12 year old or a 14 year old. Agreed. Yes, this seems to come up whenever I bring up privitization of the school system. Along with the fact that a bunch of kids' educations would be suddenly "disrupted" by the radical change. Let's reformat your argument to use another topic, and see how it sounds: "On some level you can't escape that if you say a child has an enforceable claim against his parents to not physically abuse him, you have to define what "physical abuse" is before you can determine whether a child has received it or not. Consider spanking, in which the parent physically hits their child, but only hard enough to cause some pain and not actual physical harm. Is that abuse?" It seems like the direction you're headed with your argument is that if you create a law about something, you need to define it, and if defining it is problematic you ought not to make a law about it. The problem is, if you avoid making laws about anything that's difficult to define, you're going to allow the obvious cases of abuse to go completely unchecked. As for the "gray area": the ideal of Objectivist law is objectivity. This means that the task of clearly defining what bare minimal requirements constitute the legally obligated education properly falls to legislators to define, and the courts to enforce-- just the same way that they have to define where the boundary between spanking and physical abuse lies, and enforce that in court. If the law is properly defined, there will be no gray area. What you may not be considering is that we aren't talking about FORCING a child to endure an education, even if they don't want one. This means that, even if a child were being undereducated by legally-defined standards, it is not a crime unless the child also believes that their education (or lack thereof) is causing harm to them, and they want to file a complaint with the courts in order to force their parents to provide a better one.
  6. Fluoridation of the water supply is not harmless. It's a toxic chemical that has a proven link to lowering cognitive ability, similarly to lead. The fact that it's been placed in the water supply is just an excuse for chemical companies to sell something that would otherwise be considered a toxic byproduct, which would cost them money to dispose of. As for the actual topic, I am not surprised. The governments of most countries seems to think it's their right to tinker with the masses in any way they please. It's sickening.
  7. Some of the most lucrative business models in existence thrive on exactly this basis. Another way of looking at it is that you are providing a service in the eyes of your target audience-- while simultaneously knowing that your service is worthless to a rational individual. The corollary of this is that the profit margin is HUGE, since you are providing a cheap/easy service which is irrationally valued at a much higher price than it ought to be worth. Yet, if you did not provide the service, those masses would merely wander off to the next person who will provide that service. If the masses are determined to spend a portion of their disposable income on irrational things, why not be on the receiving end of that tidal wave of money? After all, their collective irrationality is what empowers politicians to pass the same laws that tax you and take a large portion of your efforts away from you. The idea that basing a business model around the irrationality of others is somehow fraudulent in and of itself, or that it cannot provide long-term success, is naive and incorrect. Stupidity is the world's most abundant resource, and there will never be a shortage of suckers in this lifetime. So the answer is yes-- it is completely rational to minimize production while maximizing profits by leveraging the irrationality that exists all around you.
  8. That's laughable. That's like saying the job of a stock market speculator is to make markets more efficient. The "job" of a stock market speculator is to make predictions about the market and cash in on those predictions, if correct. The job of the finance industry is to make as much money as possible by utilizing every opportunity available to them, including investment and making loans. The fact that credit fills a vital need in society is only incidental to that. Anyway, this thread is seriously on the wrong track. I have never heard so many Objectivists seriously claim that leaving a child without an education would be a morally acceptable thing to do. Peikoff wouldn't agree with that. The act of having a child obligates one to provide certain things, just as surely as signing a contract does. Among those is an education-- in the sense that the child must be educated about the world in order to gain their own self-sufficiency (not necessarily in the formal, academic sense). Making the claim that anything less than locking a child in a closet 24/7 constitutes fulfilling that educational obligation is absurd. What's lacking from the discourse here is the concept that individuals under the age of 18 ought to have the ability to enforce their own rights. If a minor can provide substantial proof that their parents are neglecting fulfilling their educational duty, he or she should be able to enforce that obligation through the courts or law enforcement.
  9. Grames, now do you understand why I've said that almost everyone on these forums is making claims that go well beyond the extent of "free will is axiomatic and it doesn't matter how it happens"? All of these statements are directly implying that no form of cause-and-effect physical behavior is sufficient to give rise to volition. This is the overwhelming sentiment on these forums, whether you notice it or not. All of these people have the naive understanding of determinism and refuse to acknowledge the existence or sensibility of anything else.
  10. Grames, I don't have an issue with your argument, but in my view, most people I've seen discuss this topic will do not agree with you. They usually support some sort of dualism that enables the mind to be free from the constraints of physics, or they simply point to the fact that it doesn't matter how it works within the scope of the philosophical claims of Objectivism. They definitely don't entertain the concept of a "naive determinism" versus a more sophisticated understanding that might enable volition to coexist with it. Determinism is just a naughty word around here.
  11. I don't think you really understand what "emergent behavior" is. It is as deterministic as rocks in a landslide, and in the same way. Except it's a "landslide" that's trillions of times more complicated, self-aware, and recursive. However, I will grant that many people who argue in favor of determinism are in fact arguing against free will, and that many determinist don't understand emergent behavior either. Maybe Objectivism itself doesn't make any further claim, but almost every Objectivist in this thread has made further claims. Most are in fact claiming that volition is not and can not be derived from any deterministic physical laws. It is not a mystery. Physical determinism giving rise to volition is both the only possible and only plausible explanation. It's not hand-waving, because it's making a very specific claim as to the nature, scope, and cause of the phenomenon. It is a very important philosophical claim to those who understand the implications. Try reading the rest of the thread, or any of the other threads on this topic, or any of the replies that follow. Most Objectivists don't even entertain the notion of a physical, deterministic cause for volition. Most of them will entertain a "physical" explanation, but they require special laws of physics to be in operation for the brain to make sense, i.e. everything in the universe is deterministic except for the human brain (and quantum mechanics if you believe in that nonsense, but that's for another thread). If you drop "deterministic" from "physical" you are no longer talking about a physical explanation at all, but rather a nonsensical explanation that violates any concept of physical law. If dropping cause-and-effect (i.e. the fundamental concept of physics) is how one chooses to reconcile physics with volition, that's the same as dropping physics altogether. Tell me, just how do the brain particles move about according to the dictates of consciousness if they were not bidden by the laws of physics to do so? Are you going to say: "The laws of physics make special exceptions for human consciousness." Or perhaps this one: "I don't know how they do it, and it doesn't matter how either, but obviously do." Obvious to whom? Such a statement would only be rendered obvious while under the assumption that volition cannot exist unless particles behave in a non-deterministic manner. Will you now say: "It is obvious that volition cannot arise from deterministic systems"? What are your qualifications for making such a statement? Did not each human brain come into existence from deterministic mechanisms? At what point is the brain granted the mystical power to bend the laws of physics? Or perhaps it is you attempting to bend the laws of physics to replace a gap in understanding?
  12. You're thinking too logically for these forums on this specific topic. It's been discussed to death here, and never productively. Objectivism has a fundamental lack of understanding of "what" free will is, and the nature of complex systems that give rise to emergent behavior. It does not knowledge that there is any physical cause whatsoever for the brain's capability to make choices-- nor does it seek to understand why or how that capacity exists. (Indeed, some Objectivists are partial to the concept of consciousness being a distinct entity from the physical brain itself-- which is nothing more than repackaged dualism.) This inconsistency is plastered over by using a tautological concept of causality, i.e. "everything does what it does because it is what it is." Objectivism does not care about the relationship between constituent objects and the actions of the entire object, precisely because it cannot account for this relationship in any sensible way when it comes to volitional beings. The existence of free will is axiomatic because it can be directly observed. No sensible understanding of causality and identity can be formed without determinism. You've already reached these conclusions yourself, most likely. The only acceptable conclusion, therefore, is that free will (and not just an "illusion" thereof) is a product of deterministic mechanisms within the brain. Most people lack the understanding of emergent behavior necessary to grasp the fact that free will and physical determinism are not contradictory. Objectivism incorporates this false dichotomy, and you are scarcely going to find anyone on this forum that acknowledges this fact or even understands it.
  13. Fact: Her parents would never admit that they are going to kill her. Fact: By the nature of this case, it is impossible for there to be any evidence that her life is in danger. It is simply her word against her relatives'. Fact: Her relatives subscribe to a dangerous, violent cult that has a history of driving people to murder in this exact circumstance. Fact: Cultural relativism is the driving force behind the denial of this obvious fact. People want to send this girl to be possibly slaughtered to attempt prove a point. Fact: Parents do not have the right to hold "children" hostage in a hostile environment, as though they are property, until the day they turn 18. Fact: She's 17 years old, and by any rational measure, old enough to stand on her own. Fact: Her own independent judgment is worth more than any of your own damned opinions or the opinions of police officers. Fact: Being forced to live in a home where you BELIEVE you will be murdered in your sleep is ABSOLUTELY INSANE and there is no way ANYONE can argue that it is in her interest. Fact: Anyone who doesn't see the absolute absurdity of sending her back, regardless of the results of any 'investigation', is guilty of advocating the most heinous kind of force.
  14. Or maybe you could stop living in this ridiculous delusion and realize that it's normal to fantasize about an attractive woman you've previously had sex with. What's bothering you isn't the fact that you're doing that, it's the fact that Objectivism tells you it's wrong to do that. Bottom line-- pursue a new girlfriend and your 'issue' will go away with time. In the meantime, what is most harmful is this artificial sense of guilt.
  15. The first thing you will need to learn is to stop your magical thinking. You're abusing the word necessity-- you simply want "god" to exist because it fills an emotional void for you. Whether or not you have that desire does not affect reality. For example-- would you be happier if you believed that a pot of gold awaits you each day at your home when you come home from work? You might gain some temporary, misguided comfort... laboring away for meager pay doesn't seem so bad when you believe that you'll be wealthy as soon as you get home. But then you'll get home, and realize that there was no gold. Yet the idea that you were wrong is completely inconceivable. What you want to be true must be true, otherwise, you will be forced to deal with a reality that you hate. And so you evade, and you rationalize... "Oh, some leprechauns stole it! There will be a pot of gold tomorrow!" This is deluded, insane, and childish behavior. You can't begin to call yourself an Objectivist, nor can you comprehend any logical thought whatsoever, until you cease the fundamental error of evasion of reality. Acknowledging reality is the first step to changing it. Otherwise, you will be powerless for your entire life.
×
×
  • Create New...