CastleBravo

My girlfriend is a perfect example of apathy. I try and mentally challenge her as often as possible (without being pushy, of course) and her fiends think i am a bad guy. The other day I asked her views on God and she said she did not know. I proceeded by asking her why she thought this and if the question of "is there a god?" is even worth investigation. I received little interest in answering the question and some hours later a Facebook post by a friend of hers denouncing me for making her friend (my partner) "feel like a dumbass". I attempted to argue, but rational arguments with irrational people are the grandest waste of time i have ever experienced, so i clarified; i do not challenge people on an intellectual level to feel smart. I do it because i know that intellectual inactivity is equivalent to death and if you care about the people around you then surely you would want them alive. I do it because i value intelligence and critical thinking in a person. I have also expressed this in many cases to my partner. She's somewhat lazy and is doing little with her life. I told her that i can not be with a person with no ambition. Ive also made it clear that i do not want her change for my sake, but for hers. Is encouraging others to think about things on a deeper level and to cultivate their lives with ambition 'bad'? By my standards, certainly not, but is there a more effective way at doing so and refuting arguments against it? I discovered Objectivism halfway through my relationship (i have been with this girl for about a year and a half). Upon reading Oism's views on sex, critical thinking took hold and i began introspection based on the values my partner held. At times, she seems to value little other than me. She has little interest in intellectual expansion and making something of herself, these things have become clear. I have met several women that echo the values i hold most dear; intelligence, ambition, will, creativity and the determination to stay true to these values. These women drive me. They stimulate me and make me want to keep pushing harder for my goals. They amplify my craving for life. Our activities are usually laying around and watching movies. I love (some) movies, but I'm always thinking critically about them. When they end i usually ask her if she liked it and why. I don't expect 3.5 paragraph essays, but she falls short of giving any reason other than "i just did". I am always the one to suggest culturally relevant events such as the symphony or a Jazz club. She does suggest events like the wool festival (petting zoos, bluegrass music, delicious apple cider ) and they are fun, but i consider them a distraction. Whats stopping me from breaking it off? Continually second guessing my reasoning (which is why I'm here). I do not like hurting people (surely no sane person does) and i know that she is highly dependent on me for happiness. I however, am more dependent on myself for happiness and when i show this it clearly hurts her feelings. I don't think she understands me. She doesn't quite grasp why i do the things i do and say the things i say. I am a conundrum wrapped in a quandary placed in a quagmire packed in a rebus neatly tucked away in a clever ruse located in the center of an epic maze, it would seem (No, that doesn't make sense, but it made me chuckle as i was writing it). Do i give it time and see if she really wants things out of life or do i cut my losses and pursue the women whose company would benefit me greatly? Do i continue to try and show her what is really important to me and let her make her own deductions of the implication of our different values? Are my emotions relevant in this situation? Are hers? Am i a complete asshole or are my gripes founded in reason? How long do you think i can grin and bare it before i go insane?

Im going to state that i am on the side of intentions being entirely unknowable unless they are stated and/or logically inferred based on prior action. I can not see any other way to determine an individuals motives. I can speculate about a man's intentions until my hair falls out, but i am never going to know them until he has either shared with me the intentions in question or learn of them after his plans come to fruition. If an individual is a member of a criminal organization, since we are speculating, why would they want guns legally purchased? Logically, they would not, and being that most already have records i highly doubt they would be able to do so anyways. Suppose they have no criminal record; what right do you have to deny them individual property rights? Based on the grounds of what they are wearing? To me, that seems to be another arbitrary definition of "intent". If i threw on a gang uniform tomorrow, what of it? Perhaps i like to dress like a jackass. You simply can not know what I'm thinking without my words or my actions. Inferring things from the way people dress is absurd. I have many times met people that dress a way to indicate certain behavior, and then later I turn out to be entirely wrong. The lesson learned was that speculation on an individuals behavior based on their clothing is not a reliable way to know them. I actually own a shirt made by the "Outlaws" (biker gang). I bought it (years ago) because it had "Fuck the other team" written on it, not because i identified with the Outlaws or had criminal intent. It was abrasive and pissed my parents off, and that's what high school was all about! Am i flawed in my thinking? (Keep in mind im new )

What states require permits (forgive me for assuming you are in the USA if you are not)? Buying a gun in KY requires nothing more than a 5 minute background check to make sure you arent a felon or a fugitive. The only things that require permits are class 2 and 3 weapons. I do believe we are in agreement. Thank you for clarifying. That makes sense now.

As soon as i am re-employed i plan on reactivating my account. It was a good deal of fun. Complex and challenging. TONS of control. The graphics are simply amazing too. From what i understand, it is run centrally on a supercomputer. Mining was mind numbing to start out with, but once you get a bigger ship and some drones its not quite the PITA.

This is the basis of the castle doctrine. Showing intent and merely thinking it though are two different things. As long as a man refrains from showing his intentions through action or speech, we can only speculate what he wants to do with the gun he just bought. This is also the reason the secret service take threats so seriously. When someone announces a threat, they can not take the risk that harm to the president is not the intent of the person making the threat. I believe i agree wholeheartedly with the 2nd paragraph. By selling the gun to the man, knowing of his intentions, he is engaging in the denial of the right to life of the man's victim but only if the man's intentions are to be truly executed. Now, FIND ANOTHER LOOPHOLE IN MY WORDS!!!!!

Pelican - Last Day of Winter from "Fire in our Throats Will Beckon the Thaw" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOfLvBq9ggg...feature=related

Youve pretty much nailed it. I totally agree that nonviolent felons do not deserve to have their right to bears arms infringed. A while back, my mother was with a man who drank a lot. My mother is an alcoholic. Needless to say, things escalated frequently. The man was never violent and always sought the path of least resistance but one night my mother came at him with an aluminum bat. Of course, when the police were called, they were both arrested and spent the night in jail. My mother filed charges against him and he recieved a felony and 3 years of probabtion. Does he deserve to have his rights infringed? I think not. I didnt necessary invoke the motive fallacy as we both conceded there was no way to determine a man's motives, but i wanted to point out that it would be fallacious to care about his motives in any case. Maybe? I think i did gain something from opening my mouth other than practice, so it was a good experience. Sometimes i feel as though im better off arguing with my pets though. Living objectively in a subjective world is extremely frustrating at times, but if it were a sacrifice i wouldn't be doing it.

Isnt this subjectivity? Or is there a certain classification of actions that warrant the relevance of motive? Why would it matter what an individual is going to do with a gun permit but not with a gun? Were George Bush's intentions for going to war with Iraq more relevant than the facts? I use this example because it's how i learned about the fallacy. People wasted so much time asking why and coming up with crazy ideas instead of analyzing the facts and the outcome of the situation. Castle, The argument wasn't explicitly about gun control. I made the comment that if the police were allowed to do their job and the law were more objective than we could keep guns out of the wrong hands. By wrong hands, i meant people who had committed a felony and were breaking the law by possessing a gun (proving to society that they were the "wrong hands"). The argument digressed and he went on to say that there was no way to determine, when guns are bought legally, a man's intentions with said gun (which is true) and ergo there was no "right hands v. wrong hands" argument. I explained there was and argument because of convicted persons and then explained the appeal to motive (the real reason the motives of a person buying a gun are irrelevant), which applies to the lawful purchase of firearms. I then began to wonder if i had explained the Motive fallacy erroneously. Im kind of new to debate and critical thinking in general. Im considering shutting my mouth entirely.

Isnt this subjectivity? Or is there a certain classification of actions that warrant the relevance of motive? Why would it matter what an individual is going to do with a gun permit but not with a gun? Were George Bush's intentions for going to war with Iraq more relevant than the facts? I use this example because it's how i learned about the fallacy. People wasted so much time asking why and coming up with crazy ideas instead of analyzing the facts and the outcome of the situation. Castle, The argument wasn't explicitly about gun control. I made the comment that if the police were allowed to do their job and the law were more objective than we could keep guns out of the wrong hands. By wrong hands, i meant people who had committed a felony and were breaking the law by possessing a gun (proving to society that they were the "wrong hands"). The argument digressed and he went on to say that there was no way to determine, when guns are bought legally, a man's intentions with said gun (which is true) and ergo there was no "right hands v. wrong hands" argument. I explained there was and argument because of convicted persons and then explained the appeal to motive (the real reason the motives of a person buying a gun are irrelevant), which applies to the lawful purchase of firearms. I then began to wonder if i had explained the Motive fallacy erroneously. Im kind of new to debate and critical thinking in general. Im considering shutting my mouth entirely.

Why? I cant defend him because i haven't read enough. I did read "Of Clocks and Clouds". I thought it was a well presented argument against physical determinism. A lot of people seem to like "The Open society and its Enemies". Ruby is definitely on my list. None of his books are ever in book stores though. It is truly depressing to walk to the Philosophy section and see "Twilight and Philosophy" and no Ruby. It is a blatant sign of the times, i suppose. Depressing, really... I read the first essay in "The Anti-Industrial Revolution" and, as with everything else ive read by Rand, it spoke volumes to me. She absolutely nailed it every time she put her pen to paper. I always wondered when/where/how the left got their hands on our schools...

Im really terrible about reading multiple books. It stems from my tendency to buy interesting books when i see them. Then i get them home and i start reading them. I have started 6 books this week. Here are the books i recently bought; Objective Knowledge - Karl R. Popper - If it isnt obvious why i bought this one, get off this forum now (yes, i know it has nothing to do with Objectivism) Methods of Logic - W.V. Quine Crimes Against Logic - Jamie Whyte The Coming Insurrection - The Invisible Committee (don't tell me what you think about this one. I want to form my own opinion) How to Win Any Argument - Madsen Pirie Return of the Primitive - The Anti-Industrial Revolution - Ayn Rand If you're noticing a pattern, its because there is one. Ive recently taken an interest in formal logic. What are some other good books on learning it? My girlfriend is supposed to get me the complete works of Aristotle for xmas

Forgive me if this is in the wrong section, but i reasoned that since logic is an epistemic vehicle and fallacy is a part of formal logic, it should go in the Epistemology section. For those that dont know; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_motive I ask because I was just had a conversation (with an irrational person ) about guns being in the "wrong" hands. It started from this video; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8PWIBZtI-c...player_embedded Wrong, of course, means individuals intending to use firearms inappropriately `(i.e. infringing on another's right to life). It was argued that legally bought guns should be kept out of the hands of people wishing to use them for illicit purposes, but is concerning ourselves with the motives of people buying guns legally an example of the motive fallacy? I know the answer seems extremely obvious, and forgive my ignorance in advance, but appeal to motive seems to be almost exclusive to political debates and i was unsure if it applied to situations such as the aforementioned. Another reason i ask is because we are calling into question a third hypothetical party (the gun buyer), not the person actually debating.

Indeed, that was why i tried it. Ill try and perfect it next summer. This summer went by so fast i didnt even give it a second though.

Excellent! I dont necessarily plan on being an economist, but id like to have a solid enough foundation to demolish the layman in a debate and have a good enough grasp of the subject to hold my own in a conversation with an actual economist. I plan on reading Rothbard too. The Mises institute is wonderful. I do plan on reading his longer works.

I just use regular off the shelf condensed milk. The coffee counterbalances a lot of the sweetness (though i do agree... that stuff is canned diabetic coma!) so its actually quite smooth. You should try it. Just mix in the milk until it tastes right, let it chill and pour it over ice. You can drink it hot too, of course. I tried that once too. It wasn't half bad, but i wish i would have mixed at least a little sugar as it was basically a coffee-slushy.

I wasnt aware that Turkish was brewed sweet. And i have not had Mexican style. Sounds interesting though. I forgot to mention that i have had Vietnamese coffee. It is basically just Coffee and condensed sweetened milk over ice. Its cheap to make and it absolutely destroys all the diabetic nightmares Starbucks makes. It is absolutely perfect for a hot summer day when a traditional cup is a bit much. Its also the only coffee i will drink sweet.

Yes. Great band. Another "Post Rock" band that i like a lot is Godspeed You! Black Emperor. ISIS is great too, but darker and more energetic.

Indeed. I like how he showed up in front of the AIG building asking for the bailout money back... Now, who was responsible for giving them tax payer money? I dont recall AIG forcing us to hand it over... It seems that this is going to be his most blatant attempt at misleading the feeble minded cretins further into the realm of ignorance and mental slavery.

I wanted to but cant get to video hosting sites from work.

Clearly, this reeks of totalitarianism. If the opinions are correct (i say opinion because i have not read the bill myself) then this is the Obama version of the Patriot Act, and i can almost guarantee that the ignorant moonbats on the left wont bat an eye.

I slugged through about 5 of them before i literally had to turn off my monitor and count to ten. Ignorance is truly a debilitating disease... Usually, when i dont know what im talking about, i keep my mouth shut. This is apparently not a widely held trait. These people are a prime example of what Yuri Bezmenov refers to as the 'demoralization' of a society. Facts no longer matter. You can show these people the way a million times and they will reject it.

Ill chime in since i consider myself a Purist. The ONLY way to brew is French Press. Dripping it is a waste of good beans. Whole bean is the only way to buy it. The only way to drink it is straight black. I have found that, as far as grocery store selection goes, 8 o'clock is the best, followed by Peets. Starbucks honestly tastes like burnt feet. I can not stand it! Most of the "Gourmet" coffees ive seen commercially available are stump water and are not fit to be called coffee. My favorite roasts so far are Kona and Jamaican Blue Mountain (which are, unfortunately, usually the most expensive beans in the store). I really want to try some Kopi Luwak (remember, im a coffee snob!) but i cant seem to have the money when i remember to order some. An interesting tidbit not many seem to know; Lighter roasted beans have more caffeine as opposed to the darker roasted beans. This is because, as the beans are roasted, the oils and other compounds, including caffeine, are dried up. This is why breakfast blends are always lighter roasts; people need more caffeine in the morning Another Tidbit; Most coffee is stale. The bitterness and musty flavors that a lot of coffee (STARBUCKS!!!! I cant believe people drink that crap!) is caused by it sitting in a warehouse ofr a month or two before being brewed. Fresh coffee is supposedly sweet (though ive never had it). I wish i lived in a climate that supported my own plant. Has anyone here ever tried coffee brewed Turkish style? I cant find a place around here that serves it.

I was unawares that i left out her name. I apologize. Its Monica Bellucci

I believe there is only one true "10" currently on this planet. Every other woman i have ever seen falls short, even if only a little; There are some more provocative pictures out there that showcase her form (which is as perfect as her face). How did she only get mentioned ONE TIME in the past 14 pages?!?!?! Im also a fan on Elisha Cuthbert

Has anyone else here seen "the secret"? Its a movie based on a book of the same name. It is quite possibly the most offended i have ever been after viewing a film (outside of the "Torture Porn" mentioned earlier). It has the same mystic and absolutely insane premises of "What the bleep...". Its basic tenant is that you can visualize whatever you want and it will come to you. If you can "see" yourself in that new car it will come to you. If you can "see" $250,000 in your bank account, it will be there. Its based on the "law" of attraction. Complete rubbish. If you want a good laugh have a look.