Eiuol

Reply: The universal liar that says he is a universal liar is a hypocrite. Simple.

That first part is really uncalled for, please tone it down. My point is, how do you know? Because you only read Hoppe and Rothbard? That's really insufficient, and an odd place to start. Did you read the wikipedia entry? You seem to be throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I haven't read either Hoppe or Rothbard myself, nor do I care to, but I've read enough about Mises to say I'm inclined towards Austrian economics, and that's about it. Also, no you don't necessarily need to read Das Kapital and form a nuanced understanding of communism to judge, but you would need to understand something of communism to be able to say you know what's so bad about communism. Ad-hoc investigation is no good, lest we turn to merely evaluating by emotion. It's fine to react negatively, but it's important to keep thinking even then! That's why I asked for a specific criticism of ideas.

Your presented reasoning is actually just an emotional evaluation of your first reaction to a few writers, and furthermore, it's not even a reaction to the "founding thinkers" of Austrian economics like Mises or pre-Ausutrians like Bastiat. My impression is that Rothbard is a "second-wave" sort of Austrian. In any case, you didn't point out specific principles you disagree with. That's unproductive. Understanding is not the same as sanctioning. Given that your arguments lack content, what you presented makes it look like you don't know enough to accept *or* reject Austrianism.

I don't blame one specific person, it's several (well, actually, it's more on ParahSalin/Bogomolist/Ropoctl/whatever-his-name-is-now largely), and I acknowledge that it's more open, but there were not quality discussions by and large. But frankly it was just too much of not-Objectivist stuff that I lost interest - I'm more into epistemology, and there's not much of it there. It's a variety of reasons, yet part of subreddits is common basis of ideas (and hopefully people don't take it to be insulation from other ideas). Just understand your own perspective and know that it is in fact quite different than Objectivism broadly construed. As to your topic, I think it's counter-productive to advocate striking. What are you getting out of it? Is it really true that your productivity is wholly leeched away? I truly don't think it's that bad.

Board members probably. The whole anti-IP stuff and anarchism ruined the Objectivism subreddit basically, so I think it's safe to say that posting in this manner is unproductive to this site's stated objective. You can hold any idea, but it's rather dishonest to say that you're just fixing Rand's own inconsistencies. If it's different, keep it as such - saying "Genus: Objectivism, Differentia: Anarchism" doesn't even make sense. Bottom line, the "us" here is not different than saying people here would not think well of someone who would just spout all of it as authority rather than discussion. Any person who does that isn't just let off the hook. No collectivist connotation need be implied by Nicky's post. AnarchNonObjectivism isn't an offshoot of Objectivism any more than Paul Ryan's belief in god as "TheistObjectivism" is just an offshoot of Objectivism. Inspiration is insufficient to claim there is logical entailment.

There were sensible, honest, non-hostile questions, Critical of you, yes, but it is kind of amusing that the only questions you really answer are when you can give a one-liner, or the person generally agrees with you anyway.

It's more that beauty/strength refer to the same thing in this context, they just crop out of an unnecessary distinction within a concept of "moral fortitude". People used to think that a moral man is different than a moral women, relating to masculinity/femininity. If you mean physical characteristics, I don't see how that relates to an abstract essence of what leads to attraction.

Crows point is more that Republicans take a stance of "Do what is right though the world should perish." In other words, it's an intrinsic view of morality which only fails miserably in the long run. In terms of game theory though, the rational (read: least bad) thing to do is for both sides to make concessions. It's all the prisoner's dilemma here. I'd make a chart of it even, but no time right now.

All Jonathan did is post a very similar test/survey. I would say "cutouts" of art aren't helpful, but it's interesting to note that there are rarely obvious answers. Is Jonathan really picking backgrounds? If it's so obvious, point it out - or do they just seem to be backgrounds? Also, how do you know anyway what the most identifiable parts were? You (anyone even) can't make assumptions like that before seeing the whole image. The point to me seems to be that while the buzzfeed thing could be fun, it doesn't prove anything. Cropped images never do art justice. You seem to be saying cropped images too easily crop out important parts. That's the point. Please, less assumptions about art theory absent of content (what is the most identifiable part of a painting, and how do you find it?) , and more making reasoned arguments. A topic like this shouldn't be a character assault.

You basically said "it's even more socialized!" but how is that so? Is it just because you "have to" buy insurance? That's really not construed exactly right because well, it's not any grand new expense, it's just that it's not funded by taxes. It's more like you're buying insurance, instead of paying it as a tax. So, that's not a new step to socialism. It's just a new program that runs with the same methods and premises. In any case, Obamacare is *not* analogous to the collectivizing of farms by the Soviet Union. Government in that case essentially ran the farms with no private ownership at all. Farms were literally collectivizing because they were decollectivized for ownership by the people. Obamacare doesn't alter private ownership, it still exists, except with sets of regulations that aren't fundamentally new. In fact, it's easier for insurance to sell in more states, so it's not pure socialism. This is basic pragmatic welfare statism really, where there's a safety net funded by taxes paid by citizens. Really, I can't say that Obamacare is a new evil. I don't support it, but I'm worried about things that are more socialized than health insurance. One consideration I've been thinking: is perhaps Obamacare a good system in order to transition into a free-er system? I agree as much as anyone here what I want eventually. However, it's impossible to leap all the way there without major catastrophe. To me, a transition would still have to be socialized to *some* extent to prevent chaos, while regulations are altered to allow for a greater variety of choice, more companies to be chosen from in this case (albeit with government funding to some people). My point is that it's possible to "hijack" a system intended to bring about a welfare system and transform it into a transitional system. "to a pay for anybody's healthcare needs collectively through health insurance pools." You just described how all insurance works.

I'll call it a filibuster just for now then. Still, I see no reason to even say his idea was sensible. Substance over theatrics is what we should seek. Whatever you call it, wouldn't a substantive speech be better? Something about real ideas? Maybe it will work in the short term, but a long-term commitment to ideas and truth is always better. A commitment to truth requires more than what Cruz has done - I have no reason to praise him. I bet someone will say "at least he did something". Except, what good is "something" if he has no message to convey... A short speech is good because people remember that. If Cruz made a rational argument before his stunt, things would be different. He didn't, though.

Probably because he made no case at all when he spoke for 21 hours. Speaking for 21 hours is absolutely not a valid way to persuade anyone to do anything. Filibusters aren't supposed to garner support, but apparently Cruz was hoping a pseudo-filibuster would persuade other people to do a real filibuster? I really have no idea, I can't come up with even a devil's advocate argument to support what Cruz did. I feel as though the argument is that showmanship is better than any rational argument. I'm perplexed how speaking for 21 hours is better than even a 30 minute speech with substance.

It wasn't a filibuster! A filibuster stops a particular vote from occurring. Correct me if I'm wrong, but he wasn't in the way of anything at all.

Blabbing for 21 hours, saying nothing of substance, making poor arguments, failing to use those 21 hours to develop a plan, making a fool of himself, leaving behind no use of facts, no unifying thesis... He failed at many levels to demonstrate that he even cares a tiny bit about reason. Ted Cruz clearly has no commitment to truth, but he's sure good at complaining.

If the only problem at all is that you wish she told you how old she was in the pictures, it's not something I see to go ending an apparently good thing. Look, maybe she had insecurities so she wanted to show you "prettier" pictures of herself. Irrational, yeah, but put it into proportion. One bad action doesn't make her rotten to the core. But if she's a good person, she learned from her mistake. If you ask me, you gave no reason to put a stop to this. What you did demonstrate though is that you should discuss with her how you find this has hurt you emotionally. Still, do you know how old she is in the pictures? You seem to assume it's 8+. Maybe it's only 4 years or so ago, nothing all that big and medications, depending on what they are, could change a person a lot. Sometimes I've shown people a 3 year old picture of myself, but I look mostly the same. What you would evaluate is why she showed her older pictures, *that* she showed older pictures isn't a problem. You can only evaluate what to do once you talked it over with her.

I think the problem with what you said is you are suggesting that love is a relationship like friendship is a relationship. But love is an emotion, friendship is not. Friendship is a type of relationship, love is not. What I'm saying is love needs no reciprocation, although you're right that it's not an "instantaneous" emotion that can happen without time to grow. Many emotions require growth. I don't see why though love can't properly be so without reciprocation. You can even love someone as a friend without any reciprocation, or at different levels, although of course there wouldn't be a relationship of any sort. The only time reciprocation matters if you need consent to do certain activities (watching a movie, rock climbing, sex, business meetings, borrow a car, etc). What is possible to do may impact emotions, sure. Still, if non-reciprocated emotions you feel leads you to demand reciprocation though, that's a problem, but that doesn't mean romantic feelings without reciprocation might be "out of balance" or unhealthy. The bottom line is that reciprocated/nonreciprocated emotions are not emotions that you feel. They are just comparisons of emotions between individuals. It's impossible to feel when an emotion is reciprocated, although someone showing reciprocation may make you feel loved. As for the topic... is the lack of being forward about age the only problem here? At worst this sounds like a mistake on her end. The difficult thing to do is to evaluate if she lied about bigger things. I wouldn't praise her for lying of course, what matters is she has learned from her mistake.

Are you suggesting that sex is only moral if one is prepared for the possibility of pregnancy? If not, then you already agree that incest is not inherently immoral, it's just a matter of the usual questions of if sex would be moral. Plus, an incestuous baby is extremely unlikely to be deformed anyway.

Obama is a racist? What are you talking about?

"Agreed. I don't have any experience to relate to here either. When I felt love - once - (out of the hundreds of women I met) it was reciprocated. " Well, I did say it also applies to any emotion, you don't necessarily need to focus only on love type emotions. Take the emotion of anger. You could say that you are angry because someone accidentally knocked your books on the ground. Another person might say it was just strong annoyance, and would be quicker to call noticing that your laptop is stolen is anger. Just because the first person said they are angry means it necessarily refers to different feelings than the second person. The difference in labels may be due to experience, not a difference in actual feeling. You can distinguish between what you *feel* and how you label or describe the feeling. Perhaps that time you fell in love, it was all great, but are you sure it wasn't infatuation? You have thought it was self-evident, but emotions can be very complex concepts! I mistyped the part I wrote with embodiment. I meant it in terms of concretization of values that embody their character. People hold varying values, and those values are expressed in different ways, too. So, the way I see it, sense of life is generally pretty abstract, like a view on life and one's goals. What you fall in love with is more specific, more at their entire being rather than just a psychological evaluation. Along with that goes their and your hierarchy of values. A very basic example of differing hierarchy for this context is say, dancing. You like dancing with your friend, and maybe it's important to share that valuue. Your friend might like dancing with you too, while they find watching old Hitchcock movies a lot more important. You're not a movie buff one bit, nor interested in Hitchcock. So, you're not friends to each other in different ways. Of course, that's an example of friendship at a low level, but it conveys the idea of differing hierarchy affecting interpersonal relationships.

It's Chomsky, not Chompsky. I'm not a Chomsky expert at all. The problem with Chomsky is his universal grammar, though that is big. His lack of explanation of how the human mind actually works is not the issue, because he and basically all people in cognitive science deal with the abstract structure of cognition. That is no error, any more than it is an error to talk about free will without giving the neurological structure of the mind. Infants have innate *faculties*, but unfortunately some people say that is innate *knowledge*.

No! Objectivism is closer to compatibilism by asserting that everything is subject to causality. It's true that Objectivism doesn't support any kind of strong determinism where cognition is irrelevant. Metaphysical liberterianism is more like the view that free will is not caused by anything because it is an "originator" of action with no prior cause. But neurons and all that don't just function from some force of will, your brain operates by means of causality and having an identity. Rand didn't mean free will as "metaphysically liberated", it's more like that people make choices among alternatives with a conceptual method. People aren't like rocks rolling down a hill, nor are they ghosts in a shell.

LB, Looking at your longer quote, it looks like Rand is saying one falls in love with a person's sense of life, but is qualifying it in terms of the falling in love with the embodiment of values that embody their character. When you fall in love with them according to this standard then, there is not necessarily an implication of reciprocation in all cases. Notice that Rand wasn't saying something like falling in love is a matter of getting attention, the focus is on a response to value you see in another person that's so unique to them, how they express themselves. To me, sense of life is a synonym of personality, but it also seems to imply a perspective on life as well that's more about values than personality is. If there are differences and love isn't mutual, the reason may be along the lines of what Bluecherry said because hierarchy of value is quite important to how Rand talks about value in general. Two people can be fond of each other without valuing each other in the same way. A different possibility with some people is not knowing what romantic love refers to. Person A may feel X for Person B. Person B may also feel X for A. But perhaps A calls X romantic love, while B calls X some other emotion like strong fondness. Neither is wrong about the feeling, yet with differences in knowledge or experience, A doesn't understand perfectly well what X is and just calls it romantic love for lack of a better term. Then X might turn into a different feeling due to mistakes/misjudgments though, so I'm not claiming in such a case that doesn't X change form over time. External referents, like trees, are easier to investigate because you can investigate it with someone else. Internal referents, like love, are hard to investigate because no one can help you investigate - other people can't tap into your conscious experience directly. Say if one person had a romantic relationship before, but another person hasn't, it's that much harder to know or investigate romantic love feelings. This applies to any emotion, by the way.

I think a lot of people literally don't understand Chomsky's ideas and presume that there is pre-wired knowledge knowledge of how languages work. While I often dislike how the term knowledge is used, it's really irrelevant when discussing development. What Chomsky claims is that there is an innate "language acquisition device" that establishes an (abstracted) cognitive structure that is sensitive to linguistic input. I think he goes too far in stating that there is a universal grammar, but the very basic cognitive science concept is that people are born with a cognitive structure that makes learning possible. If anything, Chomsky and others only try to explain how is it possible to start learning from apparently nothing at all, which is fine, but they have no theory of how the cognitive structure actually works, at least not a well established theory of performance (how it works)

Well, rules of society are morality to the extent that it is a code to figure out what one ought to do. A proper morality is self-oriented. An improper morality is not self-oriented. Morality is both. In order to keep in mind that principles of morality are discovered, it's important to say that even wrong morality is morality, unless you want to claim almost all people in the world are immoral simply because they know less. Evasion is another story. Evolutionary morality is really just a simplistic state of thinking about morality. Kids have to start somewhere. Unfortunately, some people claim that's all morality is.