Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


User-Operated Forums
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Eiuol last won the day on March 28

Eiuol had the most liked content!

About Eiuol

  • Birthday 05/01/1989

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location

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.

Recent Profile Visitors

27074 profile views

Eiuol's Achievements

Senior Partner

Senior Partner (7/7)



  1. Grames was saying that Russia is an imperialistic force, and that imperialism is bad. I agree with that. But I'm not trying to argue with you, it's not worth my time. Not because I like the disagreement, but because you've never had the ability to offer a captivating or worthwhile argument. Crimea, ties with China, lack of any cohesive pro-Western strategy, lack of any goal of individual rights, Putin's track record of opting for assassination where convenient rather than diplomacy (always with plausible deniability of course), having the same overall MO since at least 2000, need for natural resources, etc. not one individual thing. Which isn't imperialism then. Imperialism is necessarily a type of subjugation. Argument by analogy is always an unhelpful way to argue.
  2. I wouldn't have that much hope. If a person truly falls for it, then I really doubt that they are capable of responding to any arguments. The question has been answered for you, you just didn't like it. Russia is an imperialistic force. Imperialism is bad.
  3. I was responding to your question "why would it matter", I'm not arguing that the words/images/etc. constitute an initiation of force. I'm saying that it is destined to fail at objectivity, or inclines people to think non-objectively. I probably wasn't very clear about what I meant by government force being behind RT. Perceived authority is granted by the government's monopoly on force, not that RT can wield force. You said propaganda works as well regardless of source, which doesn't make sense, because the source directly impacts either what other people think of the message, or the objective of the message. I'd be glad to get into it in a different thread, it's getting really off-track now. Right, but you would be completely wrong if you thought I was trying to say that words are force.
  4. I don't know why you think I believed this. All I said is that state run media is worse. I have no idea what you're trying to say. Who says something is part of how you judge the meaning of what was said... I'm judging the message. It's crucial to knowing when and if someone is trying to manipulate you.
  5. I don't see how, the recipient of any message is affected by the messenger. The nature of the messenger affects what kind of message they want to get across. It's fine if the government wants to express its internal operations to the public, but molding current events for the public to consume with the power and authority of force behind it adds to the quality of the propaganda. Or in other words, the mind of the person receiving the message is just as important - and the air of authority the government grants affects many people in a profound way.
  6. If you really think a privately run media propaganda outlet could ever be worse than a state run media propaganda outlet, then I don't know what to say. RT is run by an authoritarian government, not figuratively, literally. CNN has no implicit government force behind it, RT does. RT has literally no interest in the truth, so when you say refreshingly blunt, it simply means truthiness has reached maximum levels. Now I just await you saying that Xinhua is refreshingly blunt whenever it is that China finally invades Taiwan. I'm calling it here first. 🤡
  7. You clearly don't know the difference between a state run propaganda outlet, versus a state funded media outlet. RT isn't the Russian equivalent of BBC. We are talking about something like Chinese news media. BBC tries to provide some attempt at the truth, while something like RT has an overall interest in promoting all Russian interests as its goal, instead of the truth. And even if you disagree about my comparison about the BBC, RT has a far greater degree of state propaganda, and does propaganda better. Trusting the message of RT is like trusting the message of Chinese media. I'm obviously not saying that privately run and owned media can't be wildly non-objective, but state run media propaganda is far worse, and historical record shows the same thing. If I have to explain to you why the government being involved with private matters is especially bad, it's like you never read Rand. Yeah, that's RT, and backed by an authoritarian government, this is what you get.
  8. What are you talking about? RT is a known state propaganda outlet, I've never heard of state propaganda that was a purveyor of truth. Contestable portrayal of facts (ie the Ukraine was committing mass murder in Donbas) are portrayed as obvious truths (even though the deaths did happen, that doesn't mean the Ukraine could not have been acting out of self-defense). Effective propaganda uses facts but throws in a twist to the interpretation that the interpretation ends up looking like unquestionable fact. The question isn't if RT makes some true statements, but what message it intends to convey. "The truth" isn't the message. I didn't even disagree about some impulse towards self-sacrifice. I don't see anyone who disagreed actually. I said that doing anything now with regard to the Ukraine is probably a waste of money, and even said that Ukraine should be used as a pawn. The ideal would be harming Russia, but that can't always be done with impact, although some kind of support towards Ukraine can help that end. You and others seem to accuse people who think that Russia is an aggressor that they are brainwashed by Western media. Except there are other ways to reach that conclusion without even reading Western propaganda or reading any of the bad sources that you mention. "Russia is the bad guy" doesn't mean I also believe "the West is responding to Russia correctly". Did you not notice that when he was asked, he refused to provide any evidence, to even bother showing us what he has seen? He didn't make an attempt, he didn't link to something that would show he tried even if everyone denied what he said was true. You've been trying to justify concepts from the ground up, without realizing that you aren't even arguing about the same topic. You are explaining things that don't need to be explained.
  9. But the Russian Federation deserves a bigger fuck than the other 2 combined.
  10. How stupid do you have to be to talk against propaganda of all kinds, but then literally promote propaganda? It would be like you unironically posting CNN links. Could you post some evidence then? Nevermind, it doesn't matter, q-leivers can't be reasoned with, because any such person is trapped inside a cult. Not figuratively, I mean a literal cult. Share some. You should know that "look it up" doesn't work, Google searches are tailored towards individuals, so we will literally get different information. As much as I get combative with you, I trust you to provide something better. JL certainly won't. I can't get into Donbas, I didn't research it extensively, and like most countries involved with geopolitical things, there is probably a prior act of aggression by Russia, then back and forth until the beginning of Russian history. RT is about as helpful as Chinese media talking about Tiananmen Square. As in, not at all, and would as a matter of routine deny any negative implication as either nonexistent or as actually an act of self-defense.
  11. People repeatedly ask you for information, you don't provide information, but report what it says. We can never become informed because you will not provide the information, and when people ask you for the information, you accuse them of evasion or not being engaged or something to the effect of being unwilling to understand.
  12. He has never shown the slightest amount of honesty. There isn't anyone to liberate (if you have evidence, show something besides RT, since state run media organizations are the least reliable type of journalism), Ukraine isn't Nazified (if you look, you could find some Nazis, but you could do that in any military, US included, meaning that there is no meaningful political or military presence). Of course you saw that I agree that both sides are not angels, but compared to Russia, the Ukraine is an angel. I just get sick of the stupidity from you, JL, tad, and other random new people that stop around. Mostly just asking questions, putting forth ideas of things that are to be questioned by governments, but then stopping short of any meaningful analysis. It's like, I get it, you are giving an edgy take, but at least provide some good sources. I don't mind a layperson's discussion of geopolitics and all that, but speaking about geopolitics as if you want to explain what Russia's motivations are and suggest we should be more sympathetic, that's a bit deluded. To whose interests are you speaking here? For South Africa, sure, it probably doesn't matter, but I don't think anyone is really interested in South Africa's position in geopolitics anyway. It's boring. I imagine you want to talk about the interests of the US, in which case understanding the motivations of Russia only matters for asking how that can be used to damage Russia's geopolitical position. Or perhaps you could give an argument that Russia could be very useful for US interests. Here's an edgy take: for the geopolitical interests of the US, every country should be used as a pawn. The geopolitical discussion is interesting. But talking about topics like a Nazified Ukraine or Russia liberating some repressed Russians, that's just trivial and pretty meaningless for figuring out how to respond to the invasion of the Ukraine. Especially since those topics are highly speculative.
  13. Seriously, you are a true believer in Q, and your Savior never showed up, after which you abandoned posting for a very long time. I don't think you know what evasion is, or even epistemological principles. You haven't even mentioned the fact that people don't like, and when Alex requested more details about the fact that you claim, you didn't bother to post evidence or mention anything about these alleged eyewitnesses and the veracity of their testimony. I mean, I guess you haven't read enough of his posts.
  14. It looks like you have posed some questions, then provided preliminary answers, and others including me have responded to those questions. But I don't think the discussion progressed from there, with you speaking further as if the answers were arbitrary (as in based on nothing but assertions), and you were committing fallacies like equivocation, and throwing around red herrings. Then you claim things like reading Rand for over 50 years, despite making some very common mistakes for people who have only read very little by her except a few essays. So it doesn't look like you are trying very hard. I mean, it isn't a general philosophy forum, the intent is to learn a particular philosophy. Of course you have no obligation to explore everything, but you are trying to explore a hard subject without very much focus.
  15. All the above from this sentence sounds good to me. Although my opinion is that the Ukraine is lost, it doesn't matter anymore. At this point it's a waste of money.
  • Create New...