Amaroq

Isn't Yaron Brook ethnically Jewish?

Aw, I missed it. I heard it's going to be posted on the ARC site in a few days. Is this true? I'd love to see it.

She was making a poetic statement, not a philosophical one. Of course reality keeps going on when you die. But you won't be there to see it. When you die, from your perspective, it's as if the world ends. The person who utters such a statement firmly rejects any notion of an afterlife. They know they won't be looking down upon the world or themselves after they die.

Everything you've said about yourself makes me think that you're a great person. Don't listen to what the therapists say about being "childish" and being "accountable to others". You should continue to be independent, and pursue your own happiness, productivity, and self-interest. I admire the fact that you value your freedom so highly. (Statements like that one about being able to go hiking without anyone knowing makes me think that.) I'm single as well, and though I get lonely sometimes, I like it this way simply because I don't know any girls I admire enough to want to commit to a relationship with them. (None that are open to that idea with me anyway.) I could try something romantic with some girl I don't admire if I wanted to, but I wouldn't want to be clung to by someone that I ultimately would probably not want to be stuck with. Having a relationship with someone can add a lot of value to a person's life, but if it's getting in the way of your happiness rather than bringing you happiness, then it sounds like it's simply not meant to be. True love isn't just about being "together" and short-term pleasures such as watching TV and making out. True love is something you feel for someone you admire. Someone whose character brings you such joy that they become an important value in your life. In your relationship with your boyfriend, are you feeling "trapped", so to speak, because you're imposing obligations on yourself? IE, do you feel like you "have to" balance your relationship stuff with your personal goals? If you really do care about him and want to stay "with" him, try not to fall into the trap of thinking you have to do anything with him. Do things with him because you want to or think they're good for you, not out of a sense of obligation. If you're feeling trapped, work it out with him so that you can have your freedom to wander as you see fit and come back to him when you want. I think that if a couple is really good for each other, they shouldn't have to hold on to each other; they should both be able to let the other be free, knowing that they'll come back willingly.

I would've rathered the oil companies had it. I read the article, but there's no clear indicators of who owned the property before this environmentalist guy did what he did. So for all I know, whoever could legitimately win the auction should have kept the land. That environmentalist dude bid money he didn't have in order to "save the land" from being drilled for oil, and that's the only thing about that story that peeves me.

I'm tempted to troll that guy with logic.

I only really read the thread's title. Didn't feel like reading much else at the moment. The fact that scientists and theologians can have a "peaceful coexistence" is because the theologians accept enough reason to not resort to violence. So this isn't pure faith existing peacefully with pure reason. It's a mixture of faith and reason coexisting peacefully with reason.

So the government has banned a couple from feeding the homeless in Houston, Texas. I'm no altruist, but it's rather disgusting that the government is preventing people from -voluntarily- helping the poor. I think it's a very eloquent example of how government regulations can never make anything better. Just as the government makes the economy and various industries worse by regulating them, the government is hurting the homeless by regulating peoples' ability to feed them if they so desire. It's essentially the same thing. And it can serve as a perfect example of this to people who can't grasp how regulations in other areas are a bad thing. Your thoughts?

The transhumanism you're talking about sounds a lot different than the transhumanism I've heard about. But everything transhumanism I've heard about, I heard it from my ex-roommate, whose views are crazy at best. I thought transhumanists are generally altruists and utilitarians. The ones I've been exposed to seem to uphold omnipotence as the standard of judging ability, and omniscience as the standard of judging intelligence. Perfection as the standard of judging human nature. When you take these kinds of standards for your value-judgments, you're going to pronounce everything about humanity to be inferior and imperfect, and not good enough. I don't oppose the quest to improve our lives. I don't oppose the desire to seek value and enjoyment. But the transhumanists I've been exposed to had, in my opinion, disgusting views. They really viewed humanity as damaged goods and seemed to think that the only path to salvation was to try to defeat our own nature long enough to invent nanotechnology and completely alter ourselves to perfection. If the transhumanists you're talking about really start from rational self-interest and all that jazz, then I can hold a higher opinion of them. But you'll have to forgive me for being a little cynical about that movement.

When I listen to dance music, I tend to judge it by the same standard I judge other music. How it makes me feel. I suppose you can say that a piece of music can serve the purpose of being "danceable", but I don't think that makes it good. Though I suppose I must remember that to be good is to be good to someone, for some purpose. The thing is, (if I were to go to a club,) my goal wouldn't be to just find music that has a danceable beat. I want to find music that makes me feel. I'm not looking for music I can move to, I'm looking for music that moves me. I'll give you some examples of (in my opinion) some of the most moving, "danceable" music I know of. DJ Tiësto - Heroes

I'm not going to try reasoning with you anymore The Wrath. I have no more patience for your irrationality.

Sophia, I agree with almost everything you've just posted and I completely understand where you're coming from. I'd like to explain my reasoning to you in return, so you can understand where I'm coming from too. I'm not advocating what I am in order to combat the philosophical threat. I'm advocating what I am to combat the physical threat. We are at physical war with fundamentalist Islam. They are out there attempting to subvert and/or destroy us. This mosque so near the site of Islam's victory against America will inspire the enemy and demoralize Americans. Mind-body integration. In wartime, morale can be a matter of life and death. So in an abstract way, I'm advocating for us to defend ourselves. There can be no right to violate others' rights, and the way I see it, all the people advocating for the rights of the mosque owners are not taking into account that the existence of the mosque serves to help violate the rights of Americans.

I did not accuse Biddle of failing to identify the enemy. Maybe you should read my post again. You've completely missed the point of my entire post. The point is, that everyone I've seen who says the mosque should be allowed has had to disagree with, or misunderstand, at least one of the above points. Craig Biddle appears to understand and accept them all. But I suspect that he fails to apply the context of our war to the existence of the mosque. Particularly, he fails to see how spiritual support for the enemy in wartime is a violation of our rights. So while he acknowledges all the basic premises required to reach the proper conclusion, he doesn't seem to be thinking abstractly enough and/or actually applying every fact he acknowledges in order to reach his conclusion. During the Vietnam war, Craig Biddle would have been writing that we must respect the rights of the hippies, etc to fly the Vietnamese flag. If you're familiar with, and understand, the position Rand took on that, you should be able to grasp this, because it's essentially the same thing.

I never look at dates on posts, so I admit to reviving an old thread.

I agree with Biddle on one thing: Those four points on how average Americans can combat Islam are very good and well thought out. However, I must condemn him for his stance on upholding the "rights" of the mosque owners. Normally when someone takes this stance, I give them the benefit of the doubt. I assume they must be ignorant or they don't fully understand one or more of the important concepts or principles involved. I've seen people take his stance because they misunderstand rights, but he seems to understand them. I've seen people take this stance because they aren't thinking in principles, but he seems to think in principles too. (And even has the gall to assume that people who support government force against the mosque aren't thinking in principles.) I've seen people take this stance because they don't think the mosque gives spiritual support to those who are seeking to destroy America. But Craig Biddle acknowledges that the mosque gives spiritual support to them! I've seen people take this stance because they think Islam is a peaceful religion. But he acknowledges that they aren't. I don't think I've seen anyone claim that we are not at war with fundamentalist Islam, but I'll include that too. Craig acknowledges that we are at war with them, even if the enemy is not identified by our leaders yet. Craig Biddle acknowledges all the facts that should lead him to the same conclusion that I've reached. But he doesn't reach that conclusion! How? While he acknowledges that we are at war, he isn't actually applying that context to this situation I think. If he were, and if he were willing/capable to look at the big picture, he would see how this mosque is a threat to the rights and lives of Americans. He essentially is masquerading as looking at the big picture, but he isn't looking at a big enough picture. He cannot claim ignorance for the stance he has taken.

I personally think it sucks too. Some portions of it I enjoy, some of it is catchy, but overall I don't really like them. When it comes to art, good art or bad art is just about how skilled it is and how well it portrays its subject or whatever. But art conveys a sense of life, and whether you enjoy a particular work of art depends on your sense of life. So it's possible for art to be good, but for you to hate it. So I think there's two criteria for personally judging a work of art. How skilled it is, and how well it agrees with your sense of life. But I may be forgetting other things Rand may have said. I've only recently read The Romantic Manifesto. Art is a selective recreation of reality. Music included. I don't think these pieces should be dismissed as not art altogether just because they're dance music. There is still a sense of life conveyed I think. The artist still selected for what they thought was metaphysically important. A lot of modern music, not just dance music, seems to be disgusting to me. And if we were to dissect it, what kinds of things do they seem to find metaphysically important? In a lot of modern popular music, it seems to be all about partying, getting drunk, getting laid, doing drugs, being a gangsta. But I've also noticed the sort of stereotypical "black man" type of thing going on. The sort of whooping and hollering and "Awww yeeeeah" type of thing going on. I kind of see a hedonistic thing going on, but I also see a sort of blind, frenzied pack-animal type of element in this last thing I brought up. It's done because it's popular, and it's done to be popular. Because it's "cool". I'm having a hard time elaborating on this last, deeper element that I sense in it. Like the pack is what is metaphysically important to them. Maybe someone here will know what I'm talking about. Dante, I think music in a movie is different from music that stands on its own. The movie itself is the work of art. The director's job is to integrate the various elements of the movie into a whole. So in that sense, yeah, you'd judge the music in a movie by how well it integrates with and supports what the director is going for in the movie. But that doesn't necessarily mean that every piece of music can possibly be exempt from being judged as an independent work of art.

Lol, what a moron. At the end there he was listing all the ways a corporation is "antithetical to democracy." He obviously doesn't understand property rights.

Maybe not all humans need air to breathe and nutritious food to live. Maybe it's different strokes for different folks. My personal situation and individual nature is such that I like to eat rubble and drink propane and breathe methane. Silly Objectivists, thinking that certain facts about human nature and reality give rise to the need for certain generalizations and principles.

My biggest worry about the tea party is/has been that it's being hijacked by the religious right. The teapartiers need to be shown the correct, non-religious justification for rights.

There is actually a DotA-inspired game that I already play a lot with my roommates. League of Legends I'll have to admit that I never played DotA, but I really love this game. And it's also free. There's some optional content that you can pay for with real money, and that supports the development, maintenance, etc of the game and servers. Like skins for heroes and stuff. Everything that could give you more power, you can get by winning IP points in-game. If you're interested in trying it out, I'd like you to use this referral link: http://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4ce50ebe75af8789148059 I get goodies for every referral who reaches level 10. If you'd like to play with me and/or my roommates, my summoner name is Amaroq Wolf. Or Amaroq64 if that doesn't work. If a mod doesn't think this should go in the DotA thread, please split my post off into its own topic. I'd like to play with some Oists sometime.

It is currently a static holographic image. But I think Zebra said they're working on coming up with something that can be updated in real time. I agree, this is really badass and I want to see it spread. xD

I actually see the amendment as a protection against something that there does seem to be a risk for. Look at the article Grames linked about a judge actually ruling that it was okay for a man to rape his wife because of his religious beliefs. Look at the fact that judges in the UK already make these sort of rulings. I was saying that even -if- you think it isn't needed, it's a harmless redundancy. There is no moral reason (in my opinion) to oppose this amendment. If you think it's not needed, just leave it alone. What harm could it possibly do? What could you possibly have to gain by lifting a protection against the imposition of Sharia law? If you don't support the imposition of Sharia law, then you have nothing to gain by opposing this amendment. Are our political and judicial leaders too concrete-bound? Yes. Ideally, the principle of individual rights should already prevent judges from making such rulings. But obviously it doesn't, since it happened in New Jersey already. So what if our concrete-bound lawmakers single out Islam? I'll take what I can get. I'd like it if they banned all religious law, including Christianity, but I'll take what I can get. And what we can get right now is a ban on the use of Sharia law in our courts. Which is a good thing. Or so I thought we were going to get a ban on Sharia law in Oklahoma courts. Apparently a Federal judge temporarily banned the amendment from going into effect so they could have a hearing on it. I don't even live in Oklahoma and I am pissed. See this article, which is also currently linked from this website's index page. Way to protect the rights of Americans, U.S. District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange.

http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Oklahoma_%22Sharia_Law_Amendment%22,_State_Question_755_%282010%29 I don't have the full context surrounding this. But apparently Oklahoma passed an amendment to their state constitution that banned the courts from using international or Sharia law to decide cases. A sort of preemptive strike against the possibility of Sharia law coming to the US. In response to this, two days later (November 4th), the Oklahoma chapter of CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) filed a lawsuit against the amendment. As far as I'm concerned, there is no morally acceptable reason to oppose this amendment. If the courts would never use Sharia law, making this amendment redundant, it would be a harmless redundancy. I question the motives of the people who are fighting so hard to overturn it.

He's not a pansy. He's just "less physically imposing".

Yeah, seeing that worried me too.