All Comments

  • Posted by Zenphamy 8 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    john, I won't speak for Dale, but please trust me--I don't use 'guilt by association' in any context in your and my interactions. I simply look at what you use for posting links and your comments, and compare that to Objectivist thinking and writings.

    You fail to realize that you identify yourself in your posts and comments. You continually ask others on the site to compromise the Objectivist principles through understanding of others and compromise. But I do already understand others, and not just from Rand's writings, also through personal observations and interactions with thousands throughout my life. And from all of that, I reject the vast majority of humanity that can't or won't think for themselves, and instead rely on 'other authority' or 'feelings' to guide their life decisions, and the impact on all of man, particularly me.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by johnpe1 8 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    yes, logic matters, and the actual bridge between myself
    and my wife also matters. . it is real, and we are solid.
    and my love for objectivism does not suffer. -- j
    .
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by johnpe1 8 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    so we go back to the "ask the gulch" where you decided
    that no Christians could be welcome. . . okay, I see.
    your disdain makes me feel like my upvotes make you feel.
    nothing. . I am sorry that your view of life is so sour.

    this is not compromise, nor altruism, nor an evasion of
    reality. . it is making the sum of the parts greater than one. -- j
    .
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Exactly...equating it in any way different than Ayn Rand put it to begin are it seems the two wrong choices.


    Anything does not go unless the due diligence of objectivism has been applied and then it still requires constant monitoring to the same standards.


    A tent of any size especially one that is under control of the Plato to Lakoff line of non-reasoning non thinking is not objectivism.

    What it is is called cherry picking facts to fit foregone conclusions like those anti 14th amendment couch potatoes out to make a fast buck off the gullible

    I'm more blunt than the preceding poster.....but after all A IS A and Is is not parsed.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by dbhalling 8 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Another example of what I am talking about. Conservative thinking that logic does not matter.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Zenphamy 8 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    It's just more evidence of your real intent here in the Gulch. Rand was very firm about the proper use of words and proper definitions and identities in Objectivism. As she was equally firm about her antipathy to religionists and the evil done in life to man, particularly the altruism of Christianity. Any man that calls himself an Objectivist would reject that idea at the level of principles.

    You've never grasped why 'building a bridge' to Christianity is the furthest idea or goal of an Objectivist. Such compromise is not compatible with this philosophy nor are those that think that such is desirable or workable. Objectivism is a complete and fully developed philosophy of egoism and individual freedom that has no use for mysticism.

    But then again, you're not an Objectivist.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Keynes himself said bluntly his system would fail if there were no money to pay the interest. This f'n government is solving that by repudiating the debt. Now where in rules including that income tax amendment do they find the right to tax us by stealing 30% of the value of our money? Vote for these fascist f--ks? They are beyond socialists - Enemies Domestic and Nazis is a better term. I would walk across the street to spit on them . Starting with Rand Paul and Cruz and finishing with Obama and a side shot at Trump. think of all the things they said to do in liberal logic....This is the perfect place for the whole article.

    Not likely to find them in FNA though.. don't try to parse or weasel that 30% figure that.s the minimum and it ain't over yet.

    Now go vote for them again all you sanctimonious expletive deleteds.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by dbhalling 8 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    This was part of the split between ARI and TAS. I may be painting the most extreme case, but it will be the easiest way to give you context. Closed objectivism says O is what Rand said and it is complete. Open says that Rand laid out various principles and as long as future research is within the those principles it is O.

    Closed turns O into a historical society at best, and has elements of christianity and other religions where the bible is the final word as an example.

    Open is like the science of Newtonian physics. People can still add to it. Or like Euclidean Geometry (except reality is the ultimate test) where people are still learning more about this area of math.

    Now some closed Os want to say open O is equivalent of the big tent in the republican party. They say open O is anything goes. Of course if that were true it would be illegitimate.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by johnpe1 8 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Thank You!! . you never have understood how the possibility
    of using "their" language occasionally could be a value. . but it is.
    my marriage is proof. . she is Christian. -- j
    .
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by johnpe1 8 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Oh Do I Wish that we were learning how to govern ourselves
    the right way ... if only Midas Mulligan owned the whole place
    and we rented from him! -- j
    .
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by edweaver 8 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Businessmen that don't engage in sound business practices fail. Capitalism has it's own built in solution. But back to my original statement, America was fairly stable until government meddling. Any solution is simply meddling. But then again that is why everything that government touches does not work as well as it could and the only reason we are in such a mess right now is too much government.

    But feel free to share your solutions. I will keep an open mind.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by MountainLady 8 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I will take your comment home and think on't tonight. But I do agree with your last statement wholeheartedly. It is only with reason that man is able to control his environment.

    You probably are aware thought, that man's ability to manipulate concrete objects in space-time-material reality has far out weighed his ability to think abstractly. As in how do we govern ourselves effectively?

    We're still learning that last.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by MountainLady 8 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Perhaps my statement was rather polemic in nature, as to cause and effect.

    I wondered, though, if you attached a time element to the phenomena. Some logicians and researchers don't find it necessary. I believe Cohen and Nagel, in one version, said it could be an invariant relationship between two concepts.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by dbhalling 8 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Here is a simple fact that most of economics confuses, but it falls out pretty quickly if you use Robinson Crusoe economics. You have to invent something before you can re-produce it (manufacturing), you have to re-produce something before you can consume it.

    Note that this is also consistent with the fundamental survival tool of man - his ability to reason.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by MountainLady 8 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    One question, db, how do YOU distinquish cause from effect?

    And although Rand herself had a good grasp of human nature, I'm wondering how many economists do.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    She said much the same thing when saying applying objectivism should be to all possibilities and included zero time restraints making sure you applied the practical tests to ensure each out come did or did not meet the requirement 'does it work' or is it useful in reality.

    the danger there is taking something based on an unproven assumption and then using some outside influence to force it to work, outside of using reason and the senses, and that it does not cause any other violations.

    Fascism works..how do I know? Because if their is non compliance on my demands we kill them.

    If the demand is committing genocide it may work but it's not objectivism. it's fascism..Forced action with no regard to individual thinking.

    Clinton's first reason for invading Kosovo was 'when your president sends troops into harms way you should support him.' Later on the idea of genocide as a reason was used but it turned out there was none.'

    Whatever the reason was to begin with it wasn't presented nor was the War Powers Act followed.

    Maybe it was a purple dress who knows?

    No one demanded an answer.

    However a lot of people started screaming genocide....and continued to do so.

    Fine...it's a good reason IF it's true.

    But when 2003 rolled around and Genocide was one of the reasons listed and was true the voices suddenly stopped and genocide was suddenly no longer acceptable.

    That's the false side road I was referring to earlier.

    or in 1984 terms Some peoples ragheads are more equal than other peoples ragheads.

    The same is true today in Syria....

    And this time there is no purple dress - at least as far as we know.

    Objectivism has not been applied on a continuous bases to all possibilities.

    Unless it's economics and a lot of donations from those making a profit. 'Fancy that?" as me grandmum used to say. which is a polite way of saying "No shit really? You think? Duuuuhhh."

    In this case the real reason have never been divulged especially when it comes to refugees.

    and Obeyme pulled a Clinton going back to Bubba's original reason.

    Far as I know he may have and never had a strategy except powerful rebuking.

    "No time constraints and all possibilities examined."
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo