dream_weaver

I'm running it on Windows 10. If it won't run directly off the cd, there is a way to toggle the install to the 32bit as AlexL indicated in the post prior to yours. I don't want the CD physically in the computer in order to run it, so I copy the contents of the cd to my hard drive and run the install from the copied files.

OO. Noted

As indicated, they have been challenged both on that thread and this one. I asked once, I'll ask again who want to toss their name in a hat to take on a role of moderator?

That approach could be dark, and last for ages.

Looking at the definition of hypothetically as an adverb: adverb by imagining a possibility rather than reality; as a hypothesis. "we talked hypothetically about how cool it would be if we moved" Look at the first part of imagining a possibility, in conjunction with rather than reality. There are at least two ways to take that. 1.) Imagining a possibility that is reality based. 2.) Imagining a possibility that is not reality based. Feed in the 'more daunting challenge'. Scientific consensus becomes that objects do not exist independent of consciousness. Identify what a consensus is. It is a noun meaning: a general agreement. Remember why you don't step out in front of a speeding, oncoming truck. (You'll be struck by an unforgiving nemesis, an absolute reality.)

I did not claim that you did say that it was. What I said might be better expressed as: Hmph! What kind of propaganda site would that turn out to be? Why bother? It's hardly worth the effort. The referenced thread is replete with unanswered calls to justify the links to Russia Today. And if the messenger does not supply the onus of proof, that does not create a requirement to shift the onus to refuting and/or disproving the claim to someone else.

Some propaganda outlet. Objectivism Online, a beacon of an adolescent set of ideas that "most rational folk outgrow" when they realize they have to live in the real world. Other's point to the efforts of Objectivists and shrug. "Repent of the ills of non-thinking, the end of civilization as we know it is nigh." they hear. I think of the character on Gulliver's Travels ... "We'll never make it. We're all doomed." I remember it. Nicky is a pretty spot on there, and in other posts he shared here.

I did a quick search on "if you give s man enough rope" and chose the top google presented return: Proverb. If one gives someone enough freedom of action, they may hang themselves by foolish actions. In general, the folk that come here looking for insights into Objectivism can find it. Those that come to stir the pot are usually don't last long. There can be merit in understanding why something is wrong. I'd like to think I am dealing with people who can distinguish between analysing and advocating an idea. whYNOT's been here since 2009. Has he turned to the dark side? Has he not 'outed' himself until Russia attacked after CoViD swept the world? His discussions of Objectivism were okay enough, but turning to politics have put all that aside? He has shared links to Russia Today. 1.) It is another publication in the world we live. 2.) One can read it, assess it and reply. 3. ) Choose not to read it. Move on. 4.) Shoot the delivery guy for tossing it on your front porch. 5.) ...

There is no metaphysical requirement to justify one's claims if asked to. Neither is there a requirement for an unjustified claim to be accepted by the recipient. As a side note, (from another thread,) I noticed that Nicky had been banned from this site because a moderator did not care for his posting style. Even though I've since rescinded the ban (after I discovered it much later), I don't think the poster has tried accessing the site since.

There is no metaphysical requirement to justify one's claims if asked to. Neither is there a requirement for an unjustified claim to be accepted by the recipient. Given that there are three ways to express your displeasure, I've not taking little umbridge with your approach.

My special interest in any topic I have interest in is to remain as objective as my knowledge and mental capacity allow me to. The notion of having no opinion and dispassionate neutrality flies in the face of what drew me to this philosophy. I think I mentioned earlier, some of this was conference style debating particular. In my previous paragraph addressing the first paragraph of your quote, I couldn't tell you what informal logical fallacy the ideas of having "no special interest in the topic, should have no opinion, should be neutral" fall under. I can understand why a judge ought recuse himself from a case where a relative, spouse, close friend, or owns a financial holding in a company, for example. Last I checked, that isn't what OO is about. I understand that there can be personality conflicts. people can harbor grudges, talking past one another or even be egregious evasions or attempts to mislead. On as small a scale as is being operated on here, little short of calling in an outside arbitrator would seem to fit the criteria. If you think whYNOT's being evasive, why engage with him? If you think someone is a troll, why feed a troll? — Another way of tying this to my first point. You have an interest in resolving something you don't get in what is going on in the Russian/Ukrainian. Do you seek the answer from someone that isn't going to provide it, or spend your days bemoaning how they are not acting how you think they should act? Wouldn't that time be more objectively spent pursuing the answer your seeking in other places it might reside? If you know an answer for certain and someone issues a falsehood, does that alter what you know? State the right answer, then it is there to point to and use for reference. If you think this forum ought be run differently, that's one thing. If it's only about that thread then perhaps the problem is a different one.

@AlexL on that topic in particular, it would help to have someone with an interest in what is being hashed over. In part, I created this thread to pull together some references to moderation, discovering that there are classes folk pay money to help develop the skill. From the members that are relatively active on the forum, I would ask if there is any interest in volunteering for operating in that capacity here.

Philosophy deals in abstraction. Logic, itself, is an abstraction. Forensics draws some of its evidence from particulars such as a finger print, a shoe print, a pollen spore, etc., ultimately connecting a suspect to a victim—where the sum of the evidence adds up to only one conclusion. If the same level of certitude is desired philosophically, arm chair philosophizing might present a bit of a challenge.

A long time favorite of mine has been General Tso's Chicken. While I could bread chicken, or even look for the sauce recipe online, the latest approach to having it without goinf to a local Chinese eatery is to pick up a ~1lb bag of frozen popcorn chicken, a ~1lb bag of stir fry vegetables and a ~12oz jar of General Tso's sauce. For two people, start 3/8 cup of Basmati Rice according to the bag's instructions In a wok, or large sauce pan, add a couple of tablespoons of oil, with 8 oz of the popcorn chicken and the frozen stir fry vegetables of your choice. Cover stirring every couple of minutes or so. About 5 minutes before the rice is done, add 4 to 6 ounces of the General Tao's Sauce. Split rice onto two plates anf top each with 1/2 the sauce. Don't forger an Egg Roll and spicy mustard, if you are so inclines.

Good questions. Obviously without moderator intervention, and such a rule being adhered to, #3 would stand. #2 would depend on the quality of volunteers to a moderator pool. #1. Would insistence for providing justification have more weight coming from the general rank and file, or the voluntary maintainers of the site?