Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

necrovore

Regulars
  • Content Count

    187
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

necrovore last won the day on November 5 2020

necrovore had the most liked content!

About necrovore

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday 07/04/1975

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Florida
  • Chat Nick
    Necrovore
  • Interested in meeting
    Looking for friends.
  • Relationship status
    Single
  • Sexual orientation
    Straight
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted
  • Experience with Objectivism
    I discovered Objectivism in 1997, read all I could about it, and promptly adopted it. However, I don't know if I'm very effective at advocating anything.
  • Occupation
    Software Engineer

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Jacksonville, FL
  • Interests
    Programming (Scheme, F#, C#, C++, Forth, Java, Assembly), Music (Reason 5.0), Writing (Plot, Literary Theory, Science Fiction, Fantasy, Horror).

Recent Profile Visitors

3245 profile views
  1. I don't think it's right to call them "Trump supporters." They may have been wearing the logos but their actions did not support Trump, either in fact or in theory. If a bunch of idiots put on Ayn Rand paraphernalia and went on a rampage -- would it be right to constantly refer to them as "Objectivism supporters"? As if all supporters of Objectivism are like that? As if Objectivism supports rampages like that?
  2. I condemn them regardless of what they advocated for. Some of them were Antifa and I think it's wrong to evade that. Why should Republicans and Trump be embarrassed? They didn't do it. They didn't ask for it. They couldn't have benefited from it. Their ideas don't support it. They can't control, or be responsible for, the choices or actions of other people. If a bunch of idiots wear Ayn Rand paraphernalia and go on a rampage, should Objectivists be embarrassed? Why? Isn't it collectivism to say that if some members of a group do something, all the members of the group
  3. I do want to add one more thing. People are asking whether now is the time for violence -- or if not now, when. I think Ayn Rand already answered that question: the initiation of force is wrong, but retaliatory force is a "moral imperative." The Democrats are getting more and more abusive toward Republicans. Some of this is through the government and some of it is through "cancel culture" and riots and the like. Now that they are in power, this will probably continue. I could be wrong -- the Democrats are divided into moderates and extremes. However, the moderate position is inconsis
  4. I think David Kelley was saying that you can condemn an action but you have to "tolerate" an idea. Peikoff's position is the correct one, I think: you can, and must, condemn an idea on the basis of the actions to which it necessarily leads (and the results of those actions). However, where I differ from you seems to be, I don't think the ideas of Trump or Republicans necessarily lead to the storming of the Capitol. For one thing, Trump and the Republicans have been supporters of "law and order" all through the BLM and Antifa riots, and even through the election challenges they tried
  5. How so? (I haven't read Fact and Value in a while, but I remember disagreeing with it.)
  6. I think I'm pretty familiar with OPAR and the section on the arbitrary in particular. If I go with the idea that it was all a bunch of frenzied Trump supporters, then that leaves me unable to explain the presence of the Antifa and BLM people. If some Antifa and BLM acted as "agents provocateur," I'm unable to explain why Trump supporters would listen to them. Even if they lied online and said they were Trump supporters, some of them were dressed as Antifa and BLM people even at the Capitol, which ought to have tipped off any real Trump supporters. It would have been a case of "str
  7. If someone is taking deliberate steps to conceal or destroy evidence of a crime, that concealment can itself be used as evidence of the crime. (Not proof, but evidence.) It can also be a crime on its own -- "obstruction of justice" or the like. The whole reason for having observers in the first place is to ensure that the election is fair. If the observers are not allowed to do their job, then that speaks volumes about the fairness of the election in question.
  8. What you're saying would be true -- if there were a way to guarantee that there was only one Biden vote for each Democrat in Detroit. Since outside observers were not allowed, there's no way to make that guarantee. It would have been easy for them to slip in thousands of Biden votes which don't correspond to actual voters at all, and that could have been enough to flip Michigan, and if similar fraud could be accomplished in other states, that could have been enough to flip the election.
  9. Some people seem to have a misunderstanding about the nature of the arbitrary. A statement (or a proposition, as logic calls it) can be true, false, or arbitrary. A true statement corresponds to reality. A false statement can be connected to reality but is found not to correspond to it. An arbitrary statement cannot be connected to reality. However, a fact is not a statement. Some people seem to think that if you cannot integrate a fact into your worldview, then you are entitled to dismiss that fact as "arbitrary." That is absolutely wrong. All facts are true; no fact can ever be "ar
  10. More evidence that it was a false-flag. Apparently even a CNN reporter was helping to fake it.
  11. You mean like BLM and Antifa supporters being there, being photographed there, and being arrested for being there -- but the media and the Democrats saying that they were all Trump supporters?
  12. That would require ignoring actual evidence.
  13. What happened to "Question with boldness even the existence of a God"? (Thomas Jefferson) You should be able to question anything. Why won't Democrats allow the question to be asked (or answered)? That's what I want to know. I mean, if they didn't cheat, surely an investigation would prove that, and then the question would be answered, and would go away. But they won't allow an investigation, and they are actively trying to silence people who bring up evidence or even "red flags." Intimidation of witnesses -- or pundits -- is not the kind of thing that innocent people do. What t
  14. Actually, the whole problem with not having a separation of state and economics is that you can't be sure a company is really a private company. You can't tell whether some aspect of the company's behavior is controlled by private interests alone or whether the government is quietly using a carrot and/or stick to obtain behavior it wouldn't otherwise be able to get. Further, the fact that it is hard to determine or prove whether the government is doing anything, is part of the point. Fascism isn't about ownership, anyway, it's about control. So just because a company is privately owned do
  15. On another note, I think banning Parler is shameful behavior on the part of AWS (even if it is legal). It means that AWS is much less reliable than they advertise themselves to be -- at least for certain people. I did not realize that Amy Peikoff was the Chief Policy Officer at Parler. I wonder if companies like Parler should start demanding a contractual guarantee that they won't have their service canceled for lawful conduct, no matter how controversial. Would providers be able to make such a guarantee? A provider that did make such a guarantee could take a lot of business awa
×
×
  • Create New...