Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


2046 last won the day on January 8

2046 had the most liked content!

About 2046

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Previous Fields

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

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

8678 profile views
  1. I'm interested in what you take to be the paradigmatic representatives of each of your circles.
  2. The US banned criticism of government in 1789, calling it sedition, literally fining, imprisoning, and deporting critics. In the election of 1800, a journalist loyal to Jefferson said that Adams was a hermaphrodite.
  3. It is impossible to overemphasize that this is what conservatives actually believe. The mythos is that it always used to be better just a short while ago.
  4. Correct. Which is why it's not, strictly speaking, hypocrisy. Their principle isn't "rioting is bad." Their principle is "what do we have to do to get what we want."
  5. Valid: You're complaining about bad thing X, but you're also doing bad thing X. You should stop that, it's bad. Not valid: You're complaining about bad thing X, but those people also doing it, so we're going to do it too.
  6. Tu quoque isn't about who has a right to denounce something. It's about whether something is denounce-worthy or not. And often times, the conclusion being repeated is not even merely "you have no right to complain about this bad thing because you also do this bad thing," it's "therefore were going to do this bad thing too." They cannot tell the difference between these things because there literally is no mind there. They repeat what their respective source tells them.
  7. By "you" you mean you and fellow right wingers. What's the downside?
  8. Let's rally in January and really show our strength! That wasn't us maybe antifa Okay that was us but antifa made us look bad But I still support it But actually we should've done more
  9. It's a bad argument. In the first place, Rand never used "the NAP." You won't find the words in her corpus. And libertarians themselves don't even agree on what is entailed in, or if there even is, a NAP. Suffice it to say, there is no "the" NAP. So it is quite open to Rand to say, "So what? I am not committed to 'the NAP' so I am not bothered if you think I'm breaking it." But more importantly, it begs the question. What counts as initiation of force depends, partly, on what rights people have. Assuming people have the right to exercise their own extrajudicial force is the very question
  10. Actual train of thought: Premise 1: Anarchism is a political philosophy that opposes rulers and States. Premise 2: Those who stormed the Capitol did so with the explicit goal of keeping Donald Trump as the ruling head of state. Conclusion: Those who stormed the Capitol are defined by anarchy.
  11. Extremely uninterested in being helpful to you or them
  12. I think it's more imaginative possibility. If something is conceivable, where conceivable is taken to be its imagination doesn't entail a logical contradiction, then it's possible. So on this view, it's equally as possible that I had coffee this morning as I didn't have coffee, as it is possible I have 3 eyes, or am immortal. But squared circles aren't possible. I think necro is shifting the goalposts. He's actually changed what he said. He's said at first, "probably," and his hunch is based on something else that happened in the past. That's just a basic logical fallacy. And I think it'
  • Create New...