Inspector

A mythological creature that is purported to achieve the utterly impossible. (check the thread I linked...)

Oh by all means, if someone wants to post something up for dissection then I wasn't discouraging it. I just mean that this is not a place for those who actually argue for PP to continue arguing, as it is not the debate forum. As for what I consider to be a good highlight... As far as I am concerned, I won the thread with this post. All the rest was just Gary not listening to it - both epistemologically and literally as with the bolded quotation that he never answered, despite being explicitly asked more than twice.

I think it is worth noting that this thread is not in the debate section. As such, it is in the part of the forum that is dedicated to the elucidation and application of Objectivism, and so I would assume that what you're looking for is to see the good arguments which demolish Prudent Predator. As opposed to letting the Prudent Predators have another debate thread. Is that correct?

Isn't it Horton Hears A Who?

Possibly relevant fact about sunflower seeds: 1) They are native to Russia and are associated with Soviet bloc countries. 2) As CF indicated, they were probably one of the only foods available - especially given the shortages under communism. 3) Eating sunflower seeds is a time-consuming process and there is a loose bohemian association with their consumption, even today. The idea is that people who eat them would have to have nothing better to do than sit in the streets all day eating seeds. 4) In addition to being time-consuming, it is also a messy thing, with the constant spitting of shells involved. This is another reason it is sometimes seen as uncouth. Again, half-starving Russians with nothing better to do all day because their government outlaws enterprise would be less concerned with this.

Oh, certainly that much is clear and consistent across OPAR, the Love, Sex, and Romance lecture, and this. It's just that the terminology differs, even if from context you can tell he is saying the same thing.

Ah, flubbed the wording on the quote slightly. Here is how it should read: ""Only the man who extols the purity of a love devoid of desire," writes Ayn Rand, "is capable of the depravity of a desire devoid of love." This brings us to the typical subjectivist approach to sex." That's OPAR, chapter 9.

Actually, you've got me - I don't know. I've heard the term used by Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff in two different ways: one, in which to describe exclusively the absolute pinnacle of human love and valuing (as in what Dr. Peikoff seems to use here), and the other which simply describes love of a high order, and in the romantic category, but not exclusively the absolute highest order as in the former. An instance of the latter would be where Ayn Rand spoke of "...the depravity of sex without love." From the context of her other writing she clearly didn't think that any sex without love-of-the-irreplaceably-highest-order was depraved; she was indicating that sex without love-as-describing-romantic-love-generally was depraved (i.e. people who are "just friends" or even worse: mere acquaintances, strangers or enemies, etc). Generally the question of which one they are using is clear from the context - but still it is less than ideal from the standpoint of clarity. I think the problem is that both uses describe a legitimate concept, but there simply doesn't exist a distinction in the English language between the two.

There aren't any problems with gasoline other than insane or duped political lobbies. And diesel won't satisfy and of the lobbies I know of - it's made from gasoline so it won't help those who are deluded enough to think that not using oil will fix the middle east problem. And it still involves mankind surviving and using industry so it won't satisfy the greens. (Specifically, it still emits the completely harmless gas CO2 if you want the immediate reason on that one, instead of the ultimate cause.)

If anyone seriously think's Gary's argument here or in post 8 "dealt with" what I have presented, you are welcome to ask me and I will give you more of an explanation as to why it certainly has not done anything even remotely of the sort. But I'm not responding to Gary here as he has done exactly as I predicted and isn't bringing anything new to the table.

I've already answered this question a million times over in the other threads in this board so I consider Gary's re-opening of the issue to be in poor form, if even possibly dishonest. For the sake of everyone else I will provide an answer - I don't promise any reply to Gary directly. Assuming this completely insane scenario exactly as worded: Any rational, self-interested human would have seen this thing coming long ago. The nature of dictatorships has been made MORE than clear in history, not to mention in Objectivist literature. Given that a rational, self-interested person would know that this was coming, no rational, self-interested person WOULD CHOOSE TO STICK AROUND IN THE DICTATORSHIP. They would know that death is the inevitable result of living in a dictatorship and so would have left when it was possible to leave or left at great risk later on if for some reason they were crippled and unable to move when the iron curtain was descending. People who expect to go on living under a dictatorship are people who want to have their cake and eat it too. It's an impossible expectation - and not one that these hypothetical Canadians ought to take seriously when they decide whether to push the button. Now of course Gary will cut in with some "Prudent Predator" scenario where he thinks someone is acting self-interested by sticking around under a dictator. And I will ignore him because if he wasn't going to listen to reason about "Prudent Predators" in a thread specifically about that, then he certainly won't do so in a thread about an issue derivative of the "Prudent Predator" idea.

Although there have been several threads on this already that address the exact question of this thread, I think it is important that any such discussion of this kind begin with what Ayn Rand actually had to say on the matter. I think this comes up a lot because many people don't understand what it is like to actually live in a dictatorship. I see a lot of excuses like "poor ignorant Ivan has no idea that when the state steals his goods they are using them to build doomsday weapons." I don't think it is apparent to some the level of staggering ignorance that would require. The dictators make is very plain what they are doing - they parade their armies in the streets and yell at the top of their lungs over the airwaves about who they are going to kill. I've also heard a variation on that argument, that Ivan is ignorant of morality itself and thus couldn't be expected to know the stakes he is involved in. I wonder if people would make the same argument for a murderer. That he was ignorant of morality and therefore not responsible for murdering. I know I sure don't - I can imagine only a few things more unjust. It is simply your responsibility as a human being to know certain things. If you fail in that endeavor, it is not the responsibility of moral and innocent people to bear the burden of your failure. That would be altruism of a high order. Even assuming that someone is completely brainwashed - if such a thing really can happen - then the same logic applies. Whatever the reason, there is someone working to kill me. The proper response is to stop him by force, and his guilt or innocence in the matter doesn't enter into it. The morally necessary action is to stop the threat to my life in the most expedient manner possible - i.e. the way that works most quickly, puts me at least risk, and makes me sacrifice the least of my well being. If that means just happens to involve killing Ivan The Ignorant Brainwashed Zombie-Peasant well, then, it sucks to him - but the ultimate moral responsibility lies with the dictator. And if Ivan had any chance to rebel or leave in the past but chose instead to be a coward and therefore become an agent of my destruction then that represents a choice on his part where he assumed the risk of Being Nuked By Me. So it's a little late for him to cry foul at this point. In fact it would be immoral of him to demand that we sacrifice our safety to accommodate him and his caving in to a dictator.

Endangering others is as much a violation of their rights as physically damaging them is. 60 in a 55 in broad daylight in light traffic is not by any means endangering anyone. Nor is .000000001% BAC. But if you're drunk then you damn well aren't committing a victimless crime if you're driving - because you've committed the crime of endangering everyone who is near you when you drove. So what we have there is a disagreement between you and me as to what constitutes an acceptable risk. This is where we see the real problem with roads not being privately owned. If they were, then it would simply be a matter of the owner deciding what is an acceptable risk and then anyone can choose to either accept it by driving on that road, or reject it and not drive on that road. As it stands, however, nobody owns the roads and so there is no easy way to resolve such differences of opinion as we have here.

Precisely. "Public property" being an invalid concept, there does not currently exist any property rights as concerns the roads themselves. (bold added) See that isn't true, because currently there are no road owners and so there are no property rights for you to violate. Hypothetically speaking if they became privately owned, then your statement would be true but you weren't speaking in the hypothetical. Currently the only rights you need concern yourself with, in terms of ethics, are the rights of the other drivers not to be harmed or have their property damaged - which is quite a separate issue from the arbitrary and often idiotically low speed limits set by the government. On that last point I'd say it's not a moral matter specifically, but rather one of not wanting to be on the bad side of John Law. As you can see, that isn't what he meant. Which is what I thought; which is why I asked.

Watch the emphasis I added - property rights. He didn't say the rights of others, he said property rights. I'd like to know what he meant by that and where he got that conclusion from.

Where did you come to the idea that traffic laws represented property rights? Whose property?

Assuming a man with only rational desires: Only one man is the best choice for the woman. Does the man with rational desires want her to go with him, regardless of whether he is best, or does he want her to go with the better man? Assuming both men are rational, then the issue at stake is simply one of discerning the facts of the matter - i.e. who is actually the better choice. Their true interests do not conflict.

I constructed a "standard reply" to the claims of overpopulationists here.

I don't believe that's the point he made. He was saying that other philosophers - most especially post-Kantian academics - are completely maddening to read because of their (often intentionally) muddled thinking (and therefore writing). It's a real problem - my suggestion is that unless you want to become a professional intellectual, you should just save yourself the madness and avoid them. Life's too short.

I don't believe he said he was interested in disowning them. Actually, I think he was getting at the fact that it would be less than ideal to do so, and was wondering what the alternative was. At least that's how I read him. Anyhow, my response was based on the assumption that he was correct in his judgment that these people couldn't be convinced (at least by him) to change their ways. With the "at least by him" part in there, I don't think this is all that uncommon or implausible. If anything I'd say that your context is the rarer.

My own experience matches that description pretty well - the consonance is that relations with others that are kept on that superficial, functional, level tend to... well, function. So it works out and you can get by well enough without having to concern yourself with most people. (i.e. because most of them are non-threatening so long as they are kept at that distance)

It's normal to feel that way - but it only takes one good friend (or spouse!) to alleviate that. Hopefully you will be able to find that at least, if not more. Once you have that, the rest could all be foaming mad for all you'll care - so long as they stay on their side.

In your hypothetical example, I'd say that while difficult, it is really the only answer. I mean, for the kids you would have to maintain some distant form of diplomatic relations, but that is it. You can't fully ignore them - basically what you have to do is establish your boundaries - that you will be doing your own thing and they will be doing their own thing. That you don't agree with them, but are content to let them live their lives how they please so long as they afford you the same comfort. That despite your disagreement, you bear them no ill will and simply want to live and let live. To become a sort of distant but cordial roommate. (It's important in doing so to be the complete paragon of a roommate - polite and non-imposing in all things. And to be as self-reliant as possible to avoid becoming entangled with any disagreements. Avoid asking any favors so you can avoid being in a position to be asked them - because bad dogs will impose on you badly if given the chance.) Ultimately, you'll want to leave - but in the meantime, the above is probably the best you can hope for. If they are nosy and pushy and won't let you establish that kind of relationship, then I am afraid that leaving sooner rather than later might be necessary.

Am I to assume, then, that this means you have no arguments to offer against Thomas and I?

When confronted with a mad dog, I hear that it is sound advice to back away slowly, without making any sudden moves. I think that as metaphors go, that applies fairly well here. Begin removing yourself slowly from involvement with them, being careful not to get into some kind of big fight.