Inspector
-
Posts
4032 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Inspector
-
-
The best I can come up with at this point is that Rand was just further showing how the country was collapsing.
As an interesting addition, I would say that a key feature of a system that institutionalizes the initiation of force is that it makes it nearly impossible for the individual to distinguish exactly who has initiated force against him. This is a very insideous feature which often disarms the morally unsure.
-
Another interesting question: between pacifistic Christianity and warlike Christianity, which is the more consistant interpretation/application?
If you know the mechanics of compromise, you know where I'm going with this...
-
These are two different, almost incommensurable, things. Islamic terrorism represents an immediate physical threat to our country and should be dealt with swiftly by overwhelming retaliatory force. Socialism, and all that it entails, as a long term threat represents a battle of ideas, and that battle must be fought primarily in the universities by Objectivist intellectuals, educating those who will disseminate ideas to the public at large.
Would you say that they have a ranked priority in your opinion (i.e. urgency, overall danger), or are they completely incommensurable?
-
I would view this as a disadvantage. There is a lot pleasure to be had in the interaction between man and machine. The joy of driving a well made car (or perhaps Skycar!) is something no form of mass transportation will ever replace, however efficient or safe.
As would I! I see you're a man after my own heart, at least in automotive terms.
-
I purchased an antique glass sign from an individual about 800 miles away. He had it shipped UPS and paid for insurance (about $300).
He had it shipped and he paid for the insurance? It sounds like UPS is liable to him, not to you, and that HE is in turn liable to YOU.
If your contract with the seller had terms making the property yours before it shipped, then it would have been more proper for you to arrange a pickup rather than him paying for the shipment.
If your contract specified that the transfer of ownership happened when you recieved the goods, then the seller should refund your money.
That's my completely unprofessional opinion. Any lawyer can feel free to come blast it apart.
-
Modern conservatism is an unintegrated mixture
A very good point. Perhaps I need to re-think my application of DIM. Can it be applied to movements, or just to people? I am now starting to think that it is valid only as an individual psycho-epistemological classification. (in which case, conservatism would subsume a large number or D1's, M1's, and M2's)
-
I guess we should pull our troops out of Iraq and start bombing American churches.
I know this is satire, but is it your position that Islam is a major threat to this country: specifically, a greater threat than destruction from within by Socialism?
Don't read too far into that; I'm just making sure where everyone stands.
-
No, the major contenders are Environmentalism (M2), Islam (M2), and modern conservatism (D1). Christianity (M2) is one of the many disintegrated splinters of modern conservatism. Objectivism (I) is gaining ground but is not in major league yet.
Could you explain your reasoning for classifying Conservatism as a D1 and not an M1?
Also, can anyone comment on Peikoff's assertion that "Not even Hillary Clinton [would be as big a threat as Bush]?" I think that someone like Kerry or Bill Clinton (who are certainly "1's" of some sort), is non-threatening (comparatively), but it would be a mistake to put Hillary in this category, as she is clearly a "2."
(And, of course, whatever Kerry's personal number, his strings are being pulled by the "2's" like Hillary, so I'm not so sure we can count him out as harmless just yet. The problem with that man is that when I look at him, I see a vaccuum, which any dark force could fill. The terms "meat puppet" and "hollow man" come to mind)
-
As an Objectivist, my worst enemy is a placeholder for genuine philosophy who will not relinquish its place when a genuine philosophy comes along.
Swig, that's a good summary of Peikoff's position as near as I can understand it. The counter-argument given here seems to go along the lines of: The Democrats, being representatives of "D," will deliver us quickly into the state of the Weimar Republic, where economic disintegration will lead to a counter-movement that is practically ideal for any "M2" to come in as a demagogue and take power.
Literally, we have to survive long enough for Objectivism to offer an "I" alternative for the Republican "M." Bush is in fact an "M1" and Kerry, though himself a "D1," will easily be pulled into the actions of a "D2." Society will then collapse too quickly and the next great philosophical contender will be the largest: in this case, the M of Conservatism.
How would you respond to this assessment?
-
Daley - Tyrant King of Chicago.
Or, in Latin, TyrannoDaily Rex.
-
Free-market...but not free-mind. But of course, you can't really have one without the other.
That's what makes it so sad.
-
I go to the gym twice a week. How about you?
I go on Saturday, then four days later on Wednesday. Then I go on the Sunday after that, and then on the following Saturday, and repeat from there.
It's 1.5 times a week, and I do it to shift most of my lifts to the weekends.
Also, I'm kind of hedging my bets against overtraining by putting in the 6 day rest every other week.
It's great fun!
-
Perhaps someday we will have the technology to defeat death, even bring dead people back to life. Who knows?
How true. And every day billions of people accept and practice moralities and politics that are bent and determined to make sure that we will never reach such a level of prosperity. To think of the countless pains and frustrations in life that simply would not exist in a free and Capitalistic society of Objectivists...
I'm sorry, but that just makes me very angry. To think of what could and should be and to contrast it with the enormity of the smallness of its enemies.
But it is a righteous anger; one that gives me the resolve to keep working for that future.
-
I don't see how coercing these altruists is morally justified.
Well, two things:
1) I don't think that those "common people" who were beating up altruists are meant to be the heroes of the story. They were just regular people who were dealing with the problem on the level that they could understand. Their actions were not meant to be followed, in other words.
2) As this was at the point in the story where everyone had already been stripped of their rights by government decree, I believe Rand would view their actions as "neutral." She has an interesting description of the moral status of the actions of those who live under a dictatorship. I belive it is on one of the FAQ's on the ARI. Maybe someone here can get you a link...
-
They are men of outstandingly strong will, there is no doubt about that. But their jobs don't involve the use of their minds to solve problems. So they're using their minds in one specific way, but not in other ways--a bit "one-dimensional," if you pardon the expression.
I can agree with that. I'm not about to turn to them for intellectual advice!
-
I work in a call center as customer service and basic tech support. It's through a temping agency, so I'm underpaid and have no job security
Apparantly, a Bachelor's in Telecommunications is useless!
I'm currently studying for the LSAT, as I want a career where I can use my intellectual skills for a living, and possibly make a differance in this mixed-economy country.
-
Are you trying to instigate? Look, I've told you that this is not the forum for this. If you really want to do the 'HST/HIT' debate go to the HST forum. You will find all your objections answered. You may not agree but they will give you excellent arguments backed by scientific studies.
And I've told you: I am not interested in debating the subject with non-objectivists. I've seen how people use technical jargon as a cudgel to intimidate and attack, and not as a tool to seek the truth. If you aren't an expert on HST, then I will just have to wait for one to come here.
I'm sorry if my questions frustrated you, but I honestly think that your experiance could just as easily be explained by my theory and that HST is not in fact helping you. It looks like we won't really be able to find it out by ourselves. For now, we will go our separate ways and use our preferred methods.
I consider unneccessary expenditure of effort for no return 'stupid'.So do I! That's precisely why I am wary of HST. I hope someone will be able to clear this up for us. Until then... *shrug*
As an aside, I frankly don't care how hard I have to lift in the gym, or how sore I get afterwards. If it works, I'm going to do it. And I don't want to have to go to the gym three more times a week just to avoid soreness. If it turns out that HST is in fact more productive, then I will switch to that, too.
Until then, good lifting!
-
Sounds like you're in no danger of going the other way, after all. No need to get mad; it was a friendly reminder not to "go too far." Nothing more.
-
So it's entirely possible that you were simply mis-applying HIT and that your current growth may or may not have anything to do with the pre-loading. The pre-loading my be entirely for your psychological benefit. Correct me if I misunderstand, here.
One thing is that I have NEVER failed to be motivated so I am not interested in a system that uses such "crutches" and wastes my time.
Also, I don't understand your comment that "your muscles will be traumatized by the lighter weight" after deconditioning. You earlier said that 4 days was way too long to wait and that recovery was finished in 48 hours. Now you are saying that after 2 weeks of inactivity, a light weight is somehow still capable of "traumatizing" your muscles?
-
From your description, allow me to put forth a theory:
The "light" cycles are in fact non-productive for you. They are doing nothing. The "heavy" workout that you do before the strategic deconditioning is the actual source of your growth. The deconditioning may or may not be too long of a recovery time.
HIT was not working for you because you needed to rest MORE than 4 days, which is what Mentzer advised for advanced bodybuilders.
This is based on the data you have given to me so far. What if Mentzer was right, but you were not properly using his theories? What if your growth under HST is only from an accidental application of proper HIT principles?
-
Gentlemen, let's not swing too far and miss what is right; the mind-body dichotomy is false. I see this conversation quickly going in the direction of "the mind is all; reject the body."
That would be just as incorrect as the corallary you are rejecting.
There are no "achievements of the body." Those athletes had to use their minds to control their bodies in a superlative way. Don't downplay their mental efforts and achievements.
-
I have to admit that the troll rule was at his request.
The request for that rule was by BlackSabbath. I understand that you're not a mind reader. I'm sorry if I gave you the wrong impression. I honestly didn't remember when I posted the link the details of the formation of that rule.
The point is, that wasn't AT ALL what I wanted your opinion on. I wanted it for the other rules.
-
No. I stopped after the first rule.
Thank you for the advice. I can clear up BlackSabbath's rule. Now, what is your opinion of my rules?
-
I don't know about Stephen, but I think "snipers", if they use reason in their criticism, can serve an important role in the discussion. Socrates was one such "sniper" - he pointed out defects in his opponents views, but did not claim to know better than them, or to have a solution of his own. I would welcome a man such as Socrates to this forum.
That's funny, I think BlackSabbath is of the opinion that "the gadfly" was a troll!
I have to admit that the troll rule was at his request.
Quantum Physics / Quantum Mechanics
in Metaphysics and Epistemology
Posted
That's very good. May I use it?