Inspector
-
Posts
4032 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Inspector
-
-
As BlackSabbath says, all commies are eventually revealed as irrationalists. It all depends on how much effort you want to put into the matter. The "sisyphean effort" he describes are for cases that are before the rules, or where exceptions have been made. It's quite easy if done right (which I'm getting better at).
-
The sad part is that Keyes is the most consistant free-marketer in the entire Republican party.
-
Singh, I have yet to find an exercise forum that is not full of blithering idiots who are not more interested in dogma than science. Please, please lets talk about this here where I at least know that people are rational.
-
I think Moller's SkyCar will come before a tube network (and will be cheaper and readily available once mass produced):
Yay Skycar!!! Everything good I said about the car goes TRIPLE for the skycar!
Note that with a car, you are still bound to the property of others by the road. The skycar overcomes this quite nicely.
RUMBA looks cool and scary at the same time. It would need some crazy failsafes. If there were skycars, I could see a need for short-range transport along those lines.
Electric bikes are a neat solution to short-range travel, but the problem with anything that light is: how do you prevent thieves from walking off with it? You might ride one to work, but not to a museam, unless they had a "coat-check" for them...
I would wonder what kind of developments we might find if the achology people emphasized privacy and individualism instead of "community."
-
Have you ever visited Thailand, or other places where roads are rarely built by government? In general most places are close together, and jutneys, tuk-tuks, motorcycle-cabs, and busses dominate the streets (without subsidy). This could be a cultural nature, but even then it wouldn't describe the dominance. I assume the main reason is that it is many many times cheaper to use those methods of transportation.
Yes, I would guess that the economies of scale apply there and that given their level of development, that is the best solution. Naturally, it would be as it sounds like the result of a free market!
I can only wonder at what we would have here in America with a free market. Best guess: EVERYTHING would be better, faster, cheaper, and less congested.
-
If we're throwing in fiction for the rational egoist, I would be remiss not to mention Robert A Heinlein. He gets a bit nutty at times, though.
-
But he isn't a Democrat, he supports Bush more then I do.
That would follow. Ceasar-admirers tend to lean to the right, more than the left. This is a good reminder that the right would be your master just as readily as the left.
-
Listen, ex_banana-eater, I recall our conversation on the Capmag forum. I do not advocate subsidies for cars or roads. But trains and busses are HEAVILY subsidized.
Further, public transit only makes sense in specialized conditions, as for those who live AND work only a few blocks from the train station. Even then, those people would still want to own cars for all their other needs.
Cars are tools of convieniance, privacy, and being in control of your own destiny. I would rather pay double to drive than to ride: between the privacy, the ownership, the ability to choose my own schedule and destination... it's no contest.
-
Yes, I am. I read his words and in my judgement, those are his motives.
In my prediction, car use would go up because people value their privacy and their ownership of automobiles. They don't like being squished in with "the community."
Of course, in a purely Capitalist society, maybe everyone wouldn't be a bunch of jerks, so maybe that would be less of a factor. But people love owning their own cars, and most of them who object to cars do so on the grounds that congestion has been created by anti-car commies who deliberately block the construction of roads because public transit is "more social."
-
I wouldn't say to ban Communists, per se, but rather to ban irrationalists. How to do that?
Well, these are the rules that we use over at CapitalistParadise, which I came up with:
http://s7.invisionfree.com/capitalistparad...wtopic=183&st=0
There are a few others, where we insist that the Marxist definition of Capitalism NOT be used:
It is a standard Marxist argument that everything that is related to "business" is necessarily "Capitalist." But Capitalism is an ideology, not an economic status.Any attempt to use this argument, that "x was done by a business and therefore it is the fault of Capitalism," should be edited out of any post that attempts it. A link should be provided to this post, with perhaps a short explanation.
To further clarify:
(from www.capitalism.org)
And we also have a rule that insists complaints about the board and the management be in their proper place:
http://s7.invisionfree.com/capitalistparad...p?showtopic=261
You folks are welcome to use these if I am given credit.
-
I remember reading Soleri and hearing him say something along the lines of, "The single idea that must be wiped out from the human mind is the single-family suburban home." He said that if it wasn't, civilization was doomed.
That man HATES individualism, freedom, and capitalism. He wants to squish people into each other and FORCE them to live communally. I can't get any more specific, but having read an interview with him, I am sure his motives are not efficiency, but Communism.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Cars are freedom. You find me a man who hates cars and the privacy of the suburbs, and I'll find you a man who hates freedom, individualism, and capitalism. Whatever vices the suburbs may have, Soleri doesn't attack them for their vices: he attacks them for their virtues: freedom and private property.
-
I've read a bit of Heinlein. He really spoke to me in my youth, at least. I drifted away from him for the same reason that Betsy gave. That, and his polygamy. Yuck!
I've generally like the Science-Fiction genre, as it tends toward philosophical ideas and is generally pro-reason pro-technology. Asimov, Niven, Herbert, Heinlein, etc. I suppose some day I should re-visit it all with the more discerning eye that Objectivism gives.
-
Gary Zukav wrote "Seat of the Soul". Objectivism is replacing that as the source of my primary values. Anybody has an opinion of Zukavs ideas?
I picked up "seat of the soul" once and leafed through it. Pure Hegelian social metaphysics. A total denial of individualism. Pure evil.
Good for you for choosing to replace it with more rational ideas.
-
My favorite painter is Rapheal. Favorite painting-by far- School of Athens. Prints I have found here.
$95-$185 framed prints.
How about that! I have a large print of that very work framed in my dining room!
-
Is psychology something that can be 'fixed' by a correct philosophy and can it be 'fixed' by oneself or is it something that relies on a trained professional?
Yes, Yes, and No, respectively. It does not require a professional, though an objectivist professional would certainly help you a lot. Dr. Hurd is in my evaluation such an individual. (He has a website)
Perhaps I'm confused on the subject, but I am currently under the impression that a disciplined philosophy is all one needs to handle the issues of now, your past, and the future (which includes psychological issues).Yes that is correct. Of course, a trained professional can greatly help you to understand what is going on, but 99.9% of psychologists are trained by BAD philosophy so I'm sure they would be no help.
-
There's nothing wrong with the PLOT of Kill Bill. It's the focus of the movie on crudeness, profanity, and violence-worship that is the problem. It does borrow heavily from earlier, better films and does a good job of doing so, but it is not original, nor does this compensate for the overall sickness of the production.
I did admire the positive sense-of-life hidden in earlier Tarantino films, but Kill Bill vol 1 had none of that. It was pure malevolance and in my opinion it was the true colors of Tarantino shining through his earlier attempts to hide them.
-
Most HST objections to HIT are, from what I can tell, derived from a misunderstanding of HIT. For instance, HST claims that the load must be progressive and changing or else the body will form a resistance (if I understand that right).
But in HIT, you NEVER lift the same weight for the same reps. Since you always train to failure, you do more reps each time, until you have done enough to increase weight. An increase of weight is then tied to a decrease in reps. So I fail to see how HIT does not achieve the principle of progressive load.
As for hypertrophy vs strength, I am in fact training for strength. If I need bigger muscles to be stronger, so be it. But I am training for strength as the primary goal.
And training to failure is not meant as an end unto itself; Mentzer has said that. It is a means to the end of ensuring maximum tension on the muscle.The tension on the muscle is what actually causes growth.FrequencyVery interesting idea, and not entirely out of line with Mentzer's theories. I would call this a DEVELOPMENT of his theories, and not a contradiction to them. The trouble is, does this at all differ with genetics and even it were true, you have to remember that HIT uses 4-5 exercises per session MAX and does do an upper/lower body split (i.e. 1 session arms, next legs, then arms). If you're looking to squeeze the maximum growth into a given time period, HIT is STILL better than HST. If the principle is true, I do see a possibility that a THIRD system could be developed that would be better than EITHER. But HIT still wins.
4) Strategic DeconditioningDeconditioning is a part of HIT. Mentzer recommends that if you are unable to continuously increase your weight/reps, then you need to take a week off (or more). So this is nothing new.
-
Also, I have read that telomeres are an essential defense against cancer. People with longer telomeres are more likely to develop cancer because the cells have a weaker safety mechanism.
-
-
But, in another thread.
Amen to that! I wouldn't mind letting the mods clean this up. I know I would.
-
No, really, I never meant to put words in your mouth. I wasn't saying that as an evasion, but as an explanation that I would never do something like that.
Honestly, I am sorry that this has gone so far wrong and that I have snapped at you. I fear that stresses from elsewhere are getting the better of me. I have sat down with others and worked through it now, so I can tell you I will be less caustic in the future.
Must they be exclusive, and are those my only two alternatives?Of course not. That's what I was saying before: only you know your own mind, so you tell me. You proably just were giving me the space to finish my own thought. You probably meant nothing insulting from it, and you probably only called me an idiot just now because I was practically asking for it. Am I right?
-
I thought that it was implicit in what I said that I was aware that I did not make myself as clear as I should have. Why else would I go back and edit my post? If you want me to be explicit, I am sorry I did not make myself clear.
Now what about the things you said about me? Do they stand? Am I an idiot or was I just giving you an opportunity to participate in the formation of an amusing analogy?
-
-
You're seriously mistaken if you thought I was using quote marks to indicate a direct quote in that case it was a paraphasing and a rather accurate one at that. I thought that, since your words were RIGHT THERE that nobody would be foolish enough to think it was a direct quote.
As for the rest: did you stop to think that I would easily see through your attempt to "be nice" and that you couldn't conceal the insulting implications of your conclusion about me? At least now you're being honest.
As I said, it was a curious notion and it is not meant to represent a consolidated theory. I made the grievous mistake of posting an unfinished thought and actually trying to work it out in a intellectual forum. That is indeed my idea of fun, but if you are not interested in being "in" on the ground floor, then that's your choice. It doesn't make me an idiot.
I will edit my original post to clarify.
Edit: For some reason I cannot edit it. I assure you that it was meant as a paraphrase and not a direct quote.
Ban Communists?
in Website Policy and Announcements
Posted
The idea behind "controversial or inflammatory" was "statements whose entire purpose is to elicit an emotional response and incite controversy." Now that I examine it, it is a bit fuzzy.
The intent of the rule is to prevent people from hiding or refusing to divulge their communism. Basically, they will come on and say "capitalism is bad because it is unequal" or somesuch. It makes things easier if the rules require them to say "capitalism is unequal; I offer as the alternative: Communism and mass murder."
If someone said that they honestly can't figure out what the right solution is, then I would not consider it against the intent of that rule.
Stephen, do you consider it unnecessary? How would you solve the problem of "snipers" who won't reveal their own ideology? You seem to have a pretty good handle on these things, so I would welcome your input. Did you read the rest of the rules?