Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


User-Operated Forums
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Eiuol last won the day on August 15

Eiuol had the most liked content!

About Eiuol

  • Rank
    Senior Partner
  • Birthday 05/01/1989

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Sexual orientation
    No Answer
  • Copyright
  • Experience with Objectivism
    Rand related: All major works. (Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Virtue of Selfishness, Atlas Shrugged, etc)

    Peikoff related: OPAR and three lecture series (Objectivism Through Induction, Understanding Objectivism, Unity in Ethics and Epistemology)

    Tara Smith related: Most things, including Viable Values and Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics.

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

24551 profile views
  1. I've already explained to you that this is not what I think. I said that no one knows what the distribution will be. I said that the first time you asked about it. Right, and I explained how this is not vote buying. I quoted the definition you gave. I said fines. I did not include fees, costs, or other restitution. I do not believe that fines are ever any kind of justice, just a means of making crime into simple cost. How did you get from me specifically talking about fines into me talking about all financial obligations related to punishment of crime?
  2. "No issue" is not a fair way to put it. Or at least, the dispute began here with merjet claiming it was a bribe. Bloomberg can be condemned in terms of pandering, or in terms of him being a pragmatic hypocrite, or that he is not transparent about what he thinks. Doesn't mean that he did something illegal or did something he should be legally punished for. He didn't initiate force or coerce people, and that's what counts. This is hardball politics. See, now this resembles something of a coherent argument, rather than the bizarre argument that Bloomberg somehow is offering bribes (merje
  3. Then say "people who have served time for felonies but are now free ".
  4. That part of the post was about if it would even be an effective strategy for Democrats to possibly get more votes. It would be stupid for you or Bloomberg or anyone else to think that most ex-convicts would vote Democrat without any evidence to back it up. "Any reward given to a person for voting in a particular way or for not voting can be called vote buying." What reward? Their fines are being paid regardless of how they vote. Their fines will still be paid if they vote Republican. Their fines will still be paid if they don't vote. In other words, there is no reward for voting or
  5. Well what question would you like me to answer more clearly? Can you rephrase your question then, rather than pulling a Nicky? Not directly, but you are saying things about gifts, suggesting that what someone offers as a gift is "conditional" in the same sense as needing to do something in order to receive the gift. You have conflated conditions of a cause with conditions of an effect. Just read DO's post. Either that, or say what you mean: what you actually don't like is that ex-convicts are being given help in order to vote for whoever the hell they want (Bloomberg might hope
  6. I answered your questions. I mean, your first three questions were a misunderstanding and I pointed that out. The last question I answered was that I had no reason or evidence to believe your claim that ex-felons would be pressure to vote Democrat. I guess birthday presents are conditional and therefore bribes, because I don't get to choose cash on hand instead. Yes that is a condition, but it's not what we're talking about... We're talking about conditions on the cause, not conditions on the effect.
  7. Dude, do you really not understand what "conditional" means? You know, something like "I will pay your fine if..." as opposed to "I will pay your fine". You are entirely dropping the context if you start talking about "I will pay your fines but not give you cash to do whatever you want" as if it's the same as "I will pay your fines only if you follow my instructions, otherwise you will not have your fines paid". I don't care if you disagree, but at least don't be so obtuse... Anyway, I find the assumption that ex-convicts would vote Democrat by large margins to be pretty stupid. I t
  8. I'm saying that no one knows what the distribution is Right, because you gave me no evidence. A condition is a condition for receiving the thing, not a condition on what the thing is...
  9. It certainly wouldn't convince me to change how I vote if they are doing the just thing (it is just that ex-convicts have the right to vote). Most people do something because of some kind of incentive towards their values. There is literally no incentive provided by Bloomberg. There is no gain whatsoever for voting Democrat or Republican. Evidence would be nice.
  10. What conditions are you talking about? There is no implication or requirement that any of them vote for Biden or vote Democrat. If they vote Trump, nothing will happen. You're just being pedantic or deliberately dense about what the meaning of "condition" is. It's not a nudge towards who to vote for. There is literally no advantage to vote Democrat. Worse than that, it probably won't even work in the way he would hope, because we have no idea how many ex-convicts would vote Republican or Democrat.
  11. If you do this, then you would be changing the standard of value to pleasure. Or that the standard of value for some things is pleasure. It's not making sense, because an objective value is something that results in your flourishing or that flourishing comprises it. Of course pleasure can be valuable, just like any emotion, but not that the emotion is the source of the value. Emotions are not tools of cognition, they can't tell you what is or is not good on their own. They can't tell you on their own if what you are doing is part of your flourishing. Simply put, all emotions are subjective for
  12. That book is weird, but so is Sullivan's review. It seems that both of them are somehow stuck thinking that intelligence means IQ. They both miss how the bigger problem is equating grades and test scores with intelligence. Sullivan wants to defend the value of intelligence (and does a bad job at it by the way), but accomplishes that by arguing about school performance and IQ. The book argues about the overvalued of intelligence, but accomplishes that by arguing about school performance and IQ. They both miss the more obvious issue: the tools we used to measure intelligence are a mess and
  13. I don't think it is. I don't think Rand thought it was either. I don't think they mean the same thing. Taken another way, this is how you should frame it instead: I have a pretty complex argument in mind, and I didn't want to write out an essay about it (I appreciate you weighing in, DO). For the most part, Luke, you repeat Rand correctly, but based on your posts here, I'm not sure you understand yet what a standard means epistemologically speaking. As far as standards go, I don't think concrete things (i.e. you specifically) ever do as well as abstract things (i.e. you in genera
  14. You said that "your life" is the standard of value, which isn't what Rand believed, because it would be subjective. "Life" is the standard. The majority of your posts are summarizing Rand, so it's important to be precise.
  15. Yes, I agree. But we certainly should not equate "profitable" with "capitalism". I'd rather think of capitalism in terms of a system where free choice is the entire point, which encourages more rational thinking. I don't think there is any mechanism within capitalism that would make an industry like skin bleaching a meaningful business. It's more of a cultural phenomena largely pushed on by factors that are not about capitalism (it's easy to trace something like skin bleaching to overt racism that denied individual rights). You are right that capitalism can't solve racism. I'm only pushi
  • Create New...