• Announcements

    • Michael Stuart Kelly

      Evil emoticon   04/16/2016

      We now have a devil emoticon. Type colon, evil, colon, all together, then space. See an example by opening this message. Here's the example  .

Jonathan

Members
  • Content count

    4,756
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Jonathan

  • Rank
    $$$$$$

Previous Fields

  • Full Name Jonathan Smith
  • Looking or Not Looking not looking

Contact Methods

  • ICQ 0

Profile Information

  • Gender Male
  • Location Minnesota
  1. OL'S OFFICIAL ANTI TRUMP SAFE ROOM

    Yeah, the snob approach. It's not working. It's actually helping Trump. Got anything else, Grampa? Anything not worn and cliched? Anything original and effective? Cruz didn't either, unfortunately, which is why he's gone. Couldn't think outside the tired old box. J
  2. OL'S OFFICIAL ANTI TRUMP SAFE ROOM

    Or you could always start your own forum where you can moderate to your heart's content! See how that works out for you. J
  3. Rand's Kind of Censorship!

    Bullshit. Nuisance laws involving "offensive," "loathsome" images or verbally expressed ideas are not examples of retaliatory force. They are examples of the initiation of force. A is A, remember? Force means force. Objectivism doesn't play word games where something non-physical counts as something physical. There is no physical force involved in someone's displaying something that you find upsetting on their property. If your (or Ayn Rand's, of Tony's) being offended by certain words or images qualifies as someone's having used physical force against you, then all words and images that anyone and everyone else finds to be offensive also qualify as the initiation of physical force, and therefore nothing may be presented publicly; all ideas and images should be limited to being presented privately where those who don't wish to see them don't have to. That's where your theory logically leads. Well, that is, if it's applied consistently. But that's the trick, isn't it: You want to exempt yourself from having the nuisance law "principle" applied to you (and Rand and Tony)? You, and not others, should be in charge of deciding what's "offensive," "loathsome," and a "nuisance"? J
  4. Donald Trump

    Wow, so Hillary's dangerous puffery and empty personality cult has been effective enough to fool you into believing that its not dangerous puffery and empty personality cult? Heh. Or that she's somehow more competent and virtuous than Trump in any way? Yikes! Political naïveté! But then again, you're the single-issue voter type, aren't you? You gleefully helped to impose Obama on the lesser countrymen whom you're ashamed of and who are so far beneath you, no? And you did so in order to receive a form of recognition from government that the government shouldn't be involved in in the first place? How grotesque. J
  5. Rand's Kind of Censorship!

    As I've been saying, it's amusing watching you discover how much you dislike Objectivism. You're just pissed about it! You're ridiculing the consistent application of the NIOF principle! Totally hilarious! Oh, it's "not censorship" if you can still express your views or show nude images in private? Hmmm. Then it's also "not censorship" to ban public speeches, protests, gatherings, etc., since you can still do those things in private! Under your little half-baked theory, the government could ban all offensive ideas from being expressed verbally, visually or in writing in public, including all political discussions, and it could rightfully limit the exchange of such ideas to special isolated rooms/cells/cages where only those who wished to be exposed to them would. Everyone else would be protected from having to listen to it or read about it. After all, the government's doing so would not actually be "censorship" since you could still write, say or show pictures of anything you want as long as you were in the room/cell/cage. J
  6. Rand's Kind of Censorship!

    Yeah, I understand all of the above. It ain't Objectivism. J
  7. Peikoff's Personal Esthetics Authority

    Your arguing with an imaginary foe. Ellen, dingbat, I've been praising Peikoff for not making an Objectivist Esthetic appraisal, and for giving his personal, subjective reaction instead! I wonder how long it's been since you've read and grasped anything in its entirety and in full context. You're really losing it. Electron-chasing is taking its toll on you. Or maybe it's the other way around: the electron-chasing is a symptom rather than a cause? J
  8. Rand's Kind of Censorship!

    No, Tony, the act of identifying reality does not become "atom-splitting" when you don't happen to like the reality that is being properly identified. Loud sounds can have a physical effect on others' property. They can make walls and floorboards rumble. They can have a physically disruptive and even damaging effect on others and their property. Pictures of nude people cannot have the same effect on walls, floorboards or people, etc. Get it yet? Understand. It's really quite simple. People may object to loud sounds despite any intellectual content that the sounds may or may not deliver. The sounds do not have to be intelligible in order to be physically disruptive. See, the sound could be a loud bang, and not someone yelling obscenities that you don't like. On the other hand, people object to nude pictures specifically because of the content, and not at all because of any physical effect (such as shaking walls or floorboards). These are realities, despite your wishing them not to be. Laws against displaying whatever image you wish on your own property ARE the initiation of force. Such laws would have to be abandoned under and Objectivist system. Heh. It's highly amusing watching you discover how much you dislike Objectivism. No wonder that you evaded answering the questions that I asked in an earlier post: You need to explain why you disagree with the NIOF principle. What metaphysical, epistemological and ethical basis do you have for rejecting it? Explain where you think that Rand erred in arriving at the NIOF principle. Demonstrate that it can be a "principle" yet, at the same time, you can follow Rand in deviating from it at whim. Are there also any other principles of Objectivism that you outright reject or arbitrarily make whimsical exceptions to? Can an A be a non-A only when Rand mistakenly identified a non-A as an A? Is she the only person who is exempt from the laws of identity and of non-contradiction? How did she acquire that exemption status? J
  9. Rand's Kind of Censorship!

    Yes, such things are facts. As is the existence of many other instances in which government initiates force. We're having a philosophical discussion. Under the philosophy of Objectivism, the initiation of physical force is banned from human interactions. Then you disagree with Objectivism's opposition to the initiation of physical force. You prefer to initiate force in some instances. Then the initiation of physical force is acceptable to you. Now, given the choice between your views and those of the average statist, the statist is much better, since he is advocating using the initiation of physical force as a means of taking money from some people and giving it to others so that they may survive. Lives are actually on the line in such circumstances, where the only thing on the line under your philosophical position is your (or others') tender sensitivities. I had thought that the banning of initiatory force was considered the standard of what is "within reason." You seem to have a different view. What is your standard? Your feelings? Rand's feelings? J
  10. Gary Johnson is most appealing candidate!

    Why is Trump Canadian in the image? J
  11. Rand's Kind of Censorship!

    You need to explain why you disagree with the NIOF principle. What metaphysical, epistemological and ethical basis do you have for rejecting it? Explain where you think that Rand erred in arriving at the NIOF principle. Demonstrate that it can be a "principle" yet, at the same time, you can follow Rand in deviating from it at whim. Are there also any other principles of Objectivism that you outright reject or arbitrarily make whimsical exceptions to? Can an A be a non-A only when Rand mistakenly identified a non-A as an A? Is she the only person who is exempt from the laws of identity and of non-contradiction? How did she acquire that exemption status? J
  12. Rand's Kind of Censorship!

    You're the supporter of pornographers! You want children to have access to books with rape scenes! Pervert! You scream "fascism!" when anyone suggests that the novel which contains your fictional rapist hero should be out of reach of innocent children! J
  13. Rand's Kind of Censorship!

    YOU don't have a conceptual foundation. Your foundation is to parrot Rand. When faced with any contradiction between the Objectivist philosophy and Rand, you immediately abandon the philosophy and go with Rand's irrational opinion. J
  14. Rand's Kind of Censorship!

    No one has advocated the idea that the thing ceases to exist! You're arguing with that imaginary straw man that lives in your head. The same irrational argument could be made about relegating "loathsome" material to adult's only sections of shops: Doing so doesn't make it cease to exist, therefore you and Rand are advocating the primacy of consciousness! Idiocy! No one has to agree with my standards of taste. And I don't have to agree with yours or Rand's. I'm not the one supporting the idea of initiating force based on my tastes! I'm opposing it! I'm not the one saying that images that I find to be "loathsome" should be censored! I'm not "dictating" and trying to impose my tastes and sensitivities via government force on others! "Free choice" and "free thinking" do not mean that you are to be guaranteed by government force to never encounter anything that you find to be "loathsome." You're incapable of logic. J
  15. Rand's Kind of Censorship!

    No. "Electron chasing" is when Ellen can't see the forest, but not merely because of focusing on the trees, but because of focusing on one electron at a time in one of the atoms in one of the molecules in one of the cells in one of the leaves on one of the trees. In this discussion, I'm not addressing one minor element, but the "big picture" issue at hand. So, the idea isn't to just throw a term that I've used in my own face because you hope that it's going to be upsetting to me. The term would actually have to apply to the situation. See how that works? I say otherwise. The rape scene was offensive and loathsome. I know loathsome porn when I see it. Why do you want children to have access to porn? What's wrong with you, you fricking pervert? They're innocent and fragile, and you want them to be able to buy books with rape scenes where the rapist is a "hero"? You sick bastard! One can indeed stop looking mid-glance. That's reality. It's very easy to look away. Hmmm. Are you saying that, personally, you can't look away from something that you find to be loathsome? If so, you should work on that. Learn how to exercise your volition. Heh. You're equivocating. No one was talking about bookstores having children's sections distinct from adults sections. The concept being discussed was "adults only" sections. You either left off the "only" part on purpose, or you're a lazy and sloppy thinker. At Barnes and Noble, and any other typical bookstore with children's and adult's sections, children are not prohibited from going into the adult's section. Understand now? See, Rand's idea was to use the initiatory force of government to compel shop owners to put "offensive" and "loathsome" material into a section which would exclude children. Damn, try to pay attention! J