• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Arnold

  1. I'm no expert here, but that looks like a definition to me because of what it excludes. It can only be read one way. For example, "Faith" cannot integrate the material of the senses, and is thus excluded from substitution. At the same time "identifies" and "integrates" are isolated differentia that form the definition of reason. That is my understanding anyway.

  2. By purchasing the book itself, one owns the book and has all rights to that property. If you were to copy the book, then you would be extending your use beyond the book itself. The same could apply to the apple, if the seeds were patented, allowing you to use the apple itself, but not profit from genetic engineering done by others. Otherwise one wants not just the particular book or apple, but all the work that went into producing them. Clearly one cannot claim one ever paid or had a right to that, so in that sense one's rights are NOT restricted in the ownership of the book since that is all one purchased.

  3. Are you saying that if farmer Jones had started to use the stream flowing on his property to water his cows after AJ company had long been discharging the toxic waste water that Jones would have no legal recourse under an Objectivist ethics ?

    That's correct. In law, it is called the Doctrine of Coming to the Nuisance (link).

    Why would any court rule again AJ company if they had prior stream water use rights to legally discharge the wastes products derived from activities that resulted in productive actions, products to sell, jobs, etc ?

    The court shouldn't rule against the AJ Company.

    AJ company only has the right to pollute his own property, not his neighbours cows. Once the pollution moves off AJ's property, he should be held accountable for damages done by it. Unless one grants the government the right to allow some to do harm to others.

  4. I don't use social sites like facebook. Their content is disorganized, they are cumbersome to navigate, and they are designed to destroy privacy through their tracking, accumulation, and selling of almost everything they find out about you. You are the 'product', not the user.

    I also don't use the other two sites you mentioned because they are dominated by a terrible sense of life, unintelligent posts, and/or hostility to Ayn Rand. It would be a terrible mistake to turn the Forum over to either of them. The Forum is the only serious site worth consistently following and posting on.

    I feel the same way about social media sites. They use you.

  5. If an actual written version of his presentation ever turns up, it may indicate more about his degree and level of understanding or his intellectual evaluation of the philosophical principles formulated by Ayn Rand, but this summary of his methodology is not promising (it does, however, provide a straightforward but very brief summary of her political philosophy regarded seriously, though not the "moral foundations".)

    It seems to me that he is overlooking the foundations of freedom, namely individual rights. How else could he entertain a conflict between freedom and family life? (" We anticipate that Capitalism has had a negative effect on the family structure in the West, but we will see.") The implication that family structure suffers more from Capitalism than the welfare state is troubling.

  6. Thanks for posting this. Most interesting example of intelligence in animals. On a perceptual level they can be very clever. I suspect it was trained in reverse so that memory, not planning is involved. Once it had success with the long stick, it was trained to overcome the obstacles to get to it.

  7. Here's the video from the debate:

    In many ways the creationist side loses by default, especially when Ken Ham attempts to ground his case in shoddy evidences which he would later admit are of no concern to creationism anyway. On the other hand, Bill Nye did a good job of explaining the concretes that are the basis for evolution. This, however, is not the video to watch for a principled defense of science and reason.

    Thanks for posting this. Trying to defend against the Creationist, using science, was rather futile when the Creationist was not challenging observable science per se. He was challenging assumptions made by science - which leads to endless and rather futile debate. Clearly the attack should have been against the foundations of the Creationist argument. There was simply no way for the Bible to be verified, and that alone should have sunk the whole case for that world view. The conflating of the word "faith" used in 'trusting a logical conclusion' about the past, with "faith" meaning 'trust with no evidence' should have been exposed. It is futile to point out absurdities in the Bible to a mind that worships the absurd.

  8. The argument should not JUST depend on logic. First the principle that the argument is based on should be put to the test, and that test determines how well it is tied to reality. That in turn depends on their metaphysics, or their understanding of reality. IOW one cannot use logic against someone with a mystical metaphysics. As I often say to the JWs that come to the door, I can only offer you evidence from this world, while you claim I must accept evidence from a world only you can see.

  9. The attitude of criticizing someone else for doing something in their interest which does not harm themselves is so frustrating to encounter. Some people sincerely don't want others to succeed but I suspect others just get parts of this attitude by osmosis - especially in regards to the profit motive.

    It has been drummed into their dear little heads that nobility lies in suffering, and one doesn't suffer if self interest has any say. It is their twisted moral code that leads them to say these things.

  10. except that's not WHY they spy, as we all know,now that Snowden has revealed it. The taxation on imported goods here is certainly a legitimate imposition on those who MADE a ton of money by starting here, and then bailed out for cheaper labor. Import duties imposed upon corporations are a FAR better way to get monies than taxing income of private citizens, certainly.

    You clearly don't believe in "Live and Let Live".

  11. I saw it and it's silly on the face of it. You might as well say that lack of water doesn't cause dehydration. It's obvious that more people will use more resources. Now, you can argue that fewer people MAY well demand more resources, but it's not nearly as likely. Indeed, having more people DEFINITELY must increase the demands on the Earth. how could that not be the case? People exist without eating, drinking, eliminating wastes? 2 +2 does NOT =4, because you don't WANT it to =4?

    What you are overlooking is that the more people there are, the more is usefully created. Iron ore in a mountain is a physical resource of little use unless a human resource is applied. Without the intellectual resource of millions of humans, the iron will remain in a useless form. Better for humans that it is turned into bridges, computers and buildings. This planet is full of material available for the human intellect to put into useful form. The world doesn't shrink when this material is rearranged into more useful order. I assure you that without the human resource, you would not live as well as you do. We have the most people we have ever had on this planet, and we live better now than we ever have. What does that tell you?

  12. That is especially true of US companies that moved overseas with our jobs, but still want to market their goods here!

    No one owns a job. A job is a voluntary contractual arrangement. And why shouldn't people be free to sell where they want? Are you for intervention and regulation in business? By the way, spying for national security is a legitimate function of government. It is their job to protect their citizens.