dan2100

Members
  • Content Count

    950
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About dan2100

  • Rank
    $$$$$$

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Interests
    Art
    Economics
    History
    Philosophy
    Psychology
    Science

Previous Fields

  • Full Name
    Dan Ust
  • Favorite Music, Artworks, Movies, Shows, etc.
    Beethoven, Brahms, Broken Social Scene, Chopin, Jens Lekman, The Shins, Stars, and Patrick Wolf
  • Looking or Not Looking
    not looking

Recent Profile Visitors

6,797 profile views
  1. Dan, It's not the disagreement that is irritating to me. I welcome disagreement, as is proven all over the forum. It's the total lack of addressing the point I am making, then cherry-picking some detail and going off into tangents of all sorts with questions that often lead nowhere, all with the presumption that I am wrong. For example, I mention an idea, elaborate on it, and give you a bunch of examples. I just don't call them that. Then you make a question like, "Have you thought of... [something I already thought of and clearly addressed], and that it might be different?" and you ask if I
  2. Do you believe your interlocutors don't think for themselves? Do you believe you have a monopoly here on this?
  3. Climate science is a steaming pile of crap put over on the world by scam artists in lab coats. Heh-Heh One must remember phrenology and polywater as once considered by some fairly intelligent people to be scientific. Calling something science should never mean critical thinking about it stops.
  4. It'd be nice if you aimed for the same level of civility I try to give to you here. It seems to me that everytime I disagree with you -- here on your views regarding marketing and human behavior; elsewhere regarding anarchism and whether Beck is a salvitic figure for libertarians -- you resort to condenscension and insults. Don't you think this only poisons the discussion? Or consider Matthew 7:3: "And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?" (King James Version) Dan, I suggest you read Post 78. The answer to your questi
  5. http://mises.org/daily/4577 For those who haven't read any Peake and want to start with something a bit shorter, I recommend Boy in Darkness and Other Stories.
  6. Thanks! I've gotten it and am now enjoying it, though I need to get back to other projects...
  7. Dan, Gimme a break. You're faking it and you know it. Read the damn stuff--or not, I don't care... Obviously, you care enough to bring it up. But if you can't have a reasonable discussion on this matter, fine. I noticed you left out my parenthetic comment: "(Don't you think, too, were these sorts of things correct, no company or political that invested in and used such methods diligently would ever fail?)" Why? Again, if these methods work so well, I'd expect we'd all believe everything the political and corporate ruling class tells us. Ad campaigns, politically and otherwise, would never or
  8. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/books/review/1st-chapter-insanity-defense.html
  9. http://mises.org/store/Nullification-How-to-Resist-Federal-Tyranny-in-the-21st-Century-P10393.aspx I raised this topic here once before. Now there's a book length treatment of it. It's not bad and I recommend it both for the person currently unaware of the topic and those who while well read lack George H. Smith's erudition.
  10. This is akin to saying the DEA (or the IRS or the BML or BATF or pick a government agency) is not in and of itself coercive. It merely can be used coercively. The military is both an arm of government coercion -- that's its reason for being in the first place, no? -- and is funded coercive -- i.e., it wouldn't really exist were it not for taxation. Saying that it's coercive doesn't mean that the military does whatever it pleases or is not subordinate to the state. But your argument here is kind of like saying a policeman is not coercive when he's enforcing laws that clearly are coercive merely
  11. Dan, If you are truly interested in this, please consult the bibliographies of the works I cited. Lots and lots and lots of peer-reviewed experiments all over the world by scientists. And yes, the results in many of them are measurable and repeatable. Why not look at them? Michael Which ones? Have you looked at them? (Don't you think, too, were these sorts of things correct, no company or political that invested in and used such methods diligently would ever fail?) And you didn't answer my question... Let me ask it again: Have you tested the "measurable, repeatable results" against other hyp
  12. Dan, If you are truly interested in this, please consult the bibliographies of the works I cited. Lots and lots and lots of peer-reviewed experiments all over the world by scientists. And yes, the results in many of them are measurable and repeatable. Why not look at them? Michael What a pity so many Objectivists seem unable to grasp the elementary truth that, since human beings possess freedom of will and are not interchangeable units, statistical information about what particular individuals and particular groups of individuals have done under particular circumstances can prove nothing abou
  13. This is akin to saying the DEA (or the IRS or the BML or BATF or pick a government agency) is not in and of itself coercive. It merely can be used coercively. The military is both an arm of government coercion -- that's its reason for being in the first place, no? -- and is funded coercive -- i.e., it wouldn't really exist were it not for taxation. Saying that it's coercive doesn't mean that the military does whatever it pleases or is not subordinate to the state. But your argument here is kind of like saying a policeman is not coercive when he's enforcing laws that clearly are coercive merely
  14. I figured that you were throwing out the soviet union reference just to attach my idea to the soviet union and all that weight that that comes with, as it's something I've witnessed from objectivist in the past. My intention here was, thinking you might see the similarity between your view and central economic planning -- the Soviet Union being the chief example of that in history, though it abounds today (think of what the Fed in the US does: overall central planning of the banking and credit systems) -- that you might either alter your view or show why the analogy didn't apply. So far, it s
  15. Is the illiteracy part of your act as "Herb Sewell"? Of do you actually not know how to spell "there"? Just curious. JR Wouldn't this be a usage and not a spelling error? Their isn't any their their. Their! --Brant actually THEIR is Know, they're isn't.