Why did Dagny and Hank assume the motor had been invented by a single man?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dragonfly,

I don't know how to separate the idea from the method with Xray. God knows what she really thinks since she communicates so dishonestly.

That's why I talk about her methods. I see consistency there that I do not see in her ideas (which she used to change in past posts to mask the fact that she didn't really have any when she started.)

Anyway, I don't give much cognitive importance to ignoring someone's meaning and repeating dogma like Xray does constantly. You want us to address that? What, pray tell, is there really to address?

In other words, why, according to your standard here, should only one side of a discussion actually discuss while the other side can play games? You give Xray a pass on her childish game-playing, but you do not the others.

The way I see it, people are simply giving her back what she dishes out, but in a slightly different form.

So why the inequality? Because she parrots your own opinions without understanding what on earth she is talking about?

Sorry, but that's not much of an intellectual standard for me.

Michael

[Xray]

The OL wolfpack is busy again, a nice example of the tribal mentality here. As always the pack is busy denouncing Xray as a person and psychologizing her, not her arguments. And in the rare cases that the arguments are mentioned, they are only used for some "Gotcha!" playing and in claiming spurious victories. At such moments OL is really not better than SOLO. I do have the suspicion that they cannot answer Xray's arguments and therefore try to discredit her as a person and her methods of discussing.

Dragonfly:

I am still surprised you see it that way,but so be it. At any rate, we would have to be a wolfpack...Ms. Xray is German...I mean come on, when at Buchenwald do as the Buchenwaldans do.

Adam

trying to recruit more killer wolf cubs to the Ms. Xray Jihad!

"Jihad", ah yes. Religious "objective values" shine through. No surprise there.

Edited November 15, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

The OL wolfpack is busy again, a nice example of the tribal mentality here. As always the pack is busy denouncing Xray as a person and psychologizing her, not her arguments. And in the rare cases that the arguments are mentioned, they are only used for some "Gotcha!" playing and in claiming spurious victories. At such moments OL is really not better than SOLO. I do have the suspicion that they cannot answer Xray's arguments and therefore try to discredit her as a person and her methods of discussing.

Dragonfly:

I am still surprised you see it that way,but so be it. At any rate, we would have to be a wolfpack...Ms. Xray is German...I mean come on, when at Buchenwald do as the Buchenwaldans do.

Adam

trying to recruit more killer wolf cubs to the Ms. Xray Jihad!

"Jihad", ah yes. Religious "objective values" shine through. No surprise there.

[Xray]

I’m sure someone has recommended you read the essay Isn’t Everyone Selfish? and the rest of The Virtue of Selfishness, if not, read them and then make an intelligent critique of ethical altruism vs egoism. This is newbie stuff, a crashing bore.

I have read Branden's essay, and also the rest of TVOS.

It contains the Objectivist presentation of the "correct" ethics ("egoism" as opposed to "altruism"), and is therefore no different from other ideologies presenting their subjectve moral choices as "objective values".

After making the general remark that "Ethics is a code of values to guide man actions", Rand disciple NB quickly switches to telling the reader what man's self-interest "should" be. In short, it is arbitrarily decided for others what the "right" moral values are. Everything not fitting the Objectivist mold is dismissed as "blind whim", "mood", "impulse".

As for me discussing altruism, this has been done in detail here at the Cardinal Values thread in Ethics.

You were mocking the Stolen Concept in earlier posts, you can read the original essay for free here: http://www.nathanielbranden.com/catalog/articles.php?tPath=2&page=2#

What Rand and her disciple NB call "stolen concept" is simple conntotative use of language. Both Rand and NB seem to know very little about linguistics.

When someone says "All property is theft", it is a subjective value judgement.

There are countless examples in language where its audiovisual symbols are used in a metaphoric sense.

In the sentence "The reverend spoke to his sheep", shall we cry "stolen concept" too, arguing "but sheep are four-legged animals, while these are humans?

The "stolen concept" is my objectivist pet term, my favorite. Oops, I'm guilty of theft again, having "stolen" the term "pet" from the animal kingdom. And "kingdom", stolen too. Animals clearly don't have that form of government.

Edited November 16, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

I’m sure someone has recommended you read the essay Isn’t Everyone Selfish? and the rest of The Virtue of Selfishness, if not, read them and then make an intelligent critique of ethical altruism vs egoism. This is newbie stuff, a crashing bore.

I have read Branden's essay, and also the rest of TVOS.

The essay is a typical example of one fallacy fighting another: "Egoism" versus "Altruism".

It contains the usual Objectivist presentation of the "correct" ethics and is therefore no different from any other ideologies presenting their subjectve moral choices as "objective value".

After making the general remark that "Ethics is a code of values to guide man actions", Rand disciple NB quickly switches to telling the reader what man's self-interest "should" be. In short, it is arbitrarily decided for others what the "right" moral values are. Everything not fitting the Objectivist mold is dismissed as "blind whim", "mood", "impulse".

As for me discussing altruism, this has been done in detail here at the Cardinal Values thread in Ethics.

You were mocking the Stolen Concept in earlier posts, you can read the original essay for free here: http://www.nathaniel...tPath=2&page=2#

What Rand and her disciple NB call "stolen concept" is simple conntotative use of language. Both Rand and NB seem to know very little about linguistics.

When someone says "All property is theft", it is a subjective value judgement.

There are countless examples in language where audiovisual symbols are used in a metaphoric sense.

In the sentence "The reverend spoke to his sheep" shall we cry "stolen concept" too, arguing "but sheep are four-legged animals, while these are humans?

The "stolen concept" is my objectivist pet term, my favorite. Oops, I'm guilty of theft again, is having "stolen" the term "pet" from the animal kingdom. And "kingdom", stolen too. Animals clearly don't have that form of government.

Ms. Xray:

Is gassing sub-human Jews a simple connotative use of language? And does it make your culture subjectively correct?

Adam

[9thdoctor]

I’m sure someone has recommended you read the essay Isn’t Everyone Selfish? and the rest of The Virtue of Selfishness, if not, read them and then make an intelligent critique of ethical altruism vs egoism. This is newbie stuff, a crashing bore.

I have read Branden's essay, and also the rest of TVOS.

It contains the Objectivist presentation of the "correct" ethics ("egoism" as opposed to "altruism"), and is therefore no different from other ideologies presenting their subjectve moral choices as "objective values".

After making the general remark that "Ethics is a code of values to guide man actions", Rand disciple NB quickly switches to telling the reader what man's self-interest "should" be. In short, it is arbitrarily decided for others what the "right" moral values are. Everything not fitting the Objectivist mold is dismissed as "blind whim", "mood", "impulse".

As for me discussing altruism, this has been done in detail here at the Cardinal Values thread in Ethics.

You were mocking the Stolen Concept in earlier posts, you can read the original essay for free here: http://www.nathanielbranden.com/catalog/articles.php?tPath=2&page=2#

What Rand and her disciple NB call "stolen concept" is simple conntotative use of language. Both Rand and NB seem to know very little about linguistics.

When someone says "All property is theft", it is a subjective value judgement.

There are countless examples in language where its audiovisual symbols are used in a metaphoric sense.

In the sentence "The reverend spoke to his sheep", shall we cry "stolen concept" too, arguing "but sheep are four-legged animals, while these are humans?

The "stolen concept" is my objectivist pet term, my favorite. Oops, I'm guilty of theft again, having "stolen" the term "pet" from the animal kingdom. And "kingdom", stolen too. Animals clearly don't have that form of government.

Absolutely pointless.

[Xray]

[quote name='Selene' date='15 November 2009 - 07:17 PM' timestamp='1258334224'

Ms. Xray:

Is gassing sub-human Jews a simple connotative use of language? And does it make your culture subjectively correct?

The victims of the gassing were-called "sub-human", subjectively disvalued as a group (fallacy of categorial identity) by a mass murderer and madman blinded by the illusion of "racial superiority", and tragically succeeding in blinding many others as well.

Asking me the second question makes about as much sense as if I were asking you if what Andrew Jackson did to the Indians "makes your culture subjectively correct".

The word combination "subjectively correct" makes no sense anyway, but you know that of course.

Edited November 16, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

Absolutely pointless.

And WHY is it pointless in your opinion? If you have found error, please quote alleged error and explain why you think it is in error.

Edited November 16, 2009 by Xray

[Jonathan]

On the matter of art, I am not a typical Objectivist (as you probably already perceived).

Right. I didn't mean to imply that you were among the aesthetically uptight.

J

[Selene]

[quote name=Selene' date='15 November 2009 - 07:17 PM' timestamp='1258334224'

Ms. Xray:

Is gassing sub-human Jews a simple connotative use of language? And does it make your culture subjectively correct?

The victims of the gassing were-called "sub-human", subjectively disvalued as a group (fallacy of categorial identity) by a mass murderer and madman blinded by the illusion of "racial superiority", and tragically succeeding in blinding many others as well.

Asking me the second question makes about as much sense as if I were asking you if what Andrew Jackson did to the Indians "makes your culture subjectively correct".

The word combination "subjectively correct" makes no sense anyway, but you know that of course.

Ms. Xray:

Our culture is objectively better than your culture.

Unless, of course, you can find a madman that Americans followed, as a culture, elected him to the top elected office and then supported him as a dictator. But, of course, and I will quote you here, "...you know that...".

Welcome to the "bigs", kid! ****

Adam

**** This would be a statement made to a rookie - that would be you - who had just come up to the Big Leagues - that would be OL - The Bigs is a very nasty place where 97 mile an hour pitches come in on your head. I refer you to Field of Dreams where the rookie turns to the ump and asks about a warning since the veteran pitcher had just almost killed him with the first two pitches for winking at him. The ump stops and says, "Sure kid, watch out ya don't gel killed!"

Edited November 16, 2009 by Selene

[tjohnson]

Our culture is objectively better than your culture.

This is a contradiction of terms. The word 'better' implies subjectivity and so 'objectively better' makes no sense.

[Selene]

Our culture is objectively better than your culture.

This is a contradiction of terms. The word 'better' implies subjectivity and so 'objectively better' makes no sense.

GS:

We disagree.

No problem.

Adam

[tjohnson]

Let me clarify. The word 'better' by itself has no definite meaning. To determine the meaning one needs to explain better for what, etc. Once we know what the criteria is then we can make some objective observations. So in this case the criteria is "election of madmen" which is not very scientific, but be that as it may, the score is Germany 1 US 0, unless we count George Dubya as a madman.

[Selene]

Let me clarify. The word 'better' by itself has no definite meaning. To determine the meaning one needs to explain better for what, etc. Once we know what the criteria is then we can make some objective observations. So in this case the criteria is "election of madmen" which is not very scientific, but be that as it may, the score is Germany 1 US 0, unless we count George Dubya as a madman.

Fair question as to the "better for what".

As a culture, American has been a "better" culture, on a global standard of raising the standards of living across all cultures, religions and classes. There are others aspects that make it "better", but that one should be a universal standard.

Adam

[9thdoctor]

Absolutely pointless.

And WHY is it pointless in your opinion? If you have found error, please quote alleged error and explain why you think it is in error.

It’s not worth one more minute of my free time to uncoil that snake.

[tjohnson]

It's not worth one more minute of my free time to uncoil that snake.

But apparently it is worth your time to look up interesting icons!

[Xray]

Ms. Xray:

Our culture is objectively better than your culture.

Same old illusion of "objective" value you succumb to time and again. And everyone "should" of course value what you subjectively prefer.

For example, I personally prefer to live in a country where there is public health insurance, no death penalty, and no Guantánamo.

Values are subjective. Therefore what a person considers as "better" depends on his/her personal values.

Edited November 17, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

It’s not worth one more minute of my free time to uncoil that snake.

No indeed, you wouldn't dare to uncoil that snake, even with a ten-foot pole. For some cherised beliefs might be shaken in the process. So you prefer not to go there.

Edited November 17, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

Ms. Xray:

Our culture is objectively better than your culture.

Same old illusion of "objective" value you succumb to time and again. And everyone "should" of course value what you subjectively prefer.

For example, I personally prefer to live in a country where there is public health insurance, no death penalty, and no Guantánamo.

Values are subjective. Therefore what a person considers as "better" depends on his/her personal values.

Ms. Xray:

So, objectively, to live in a country that has no Guantánamo, public health insurance and no death penalty is better.

Excellent at least you recognize that there is an objective standard. You finally abandoned your fixed intransigent beliefs in subjectivity. You finally made a distinction based on what is objectively better for people.

I knew I could win you over.

Adam

preening with his new convert

[Brant Gaede]

Ms. Xray:

Our culture is objectively better than your culture.

Same old illusion of "objective" value you succumb to time and again. And everyone "should" of course value what you subjectively prefer.

For example, I personally prefer to live in a country where there is public health insurance, no death penalty, and no Guantánamo.

Values are subjective. Therefore what a person considers as "better" depends on his/her personal values.

If I condemn Naziism and praise human freedom that's just subjective value preference? Where is evil in your cosmology?

--Brant

[Backlighting]

Almost 400 replies in this thread, yet so many completely off topic. Geez!

[tjohnson]

Fair question as to the "better for what".

As a culture, American has been a "better" culture, on a global standard of raising the standards of living across all cultures, religions and classes. There are others aspects that make it "better", but that one should be a universal standard.

Adam

What do you mean by 'raising the standards of living'?

[Selene]

Fair question as to the "better for what".

As a culture, American has been a "better" culture, on a global standard of raising the standards of living across all cultures, religions and classes. There are others aspects that make it "better", but that one should be a universal standard.

Adam

What do you mean by 'raising the standards of living'?

This works as a starting point [Wiki]:

"Standard of living is generally measured by standards such as real (i.e. inflation adjusted) income per person and poverty rate. Other measures such as access and quality of health care, income growth inequality and educational standards are also used. Examples are access to certain goods (such as number of refrigerators per 1000 people), or measures of health such as life expectancy. It is the ease by which people living in a time or place are able to satisfy their wants.

The idea of a 'standard' may be contrasted with the quality of life, which takes into account not only the material standard of living, but also other more intangible aspects that make up human life, such as leisure, safety, cultural resources, social life, physical health, environmental quality issues etc. More complex means of measuring well-being must be employed to make such judgments, and these are very often political, thus controversial. Even between two nations or societies that have similar material standards of living, quality of life factors may in fact make one of these places more attractive to a given individual or group."

[tjohnson]

This works as a starting point [Wiki]:

"Standard of living is generally measured by standards such as real (i.e. inflation adjusted) income per person and poverty rate. Other measures such as access and quality of health care, income growth inequality and educational standards are also used. Examples are access to certain goods (such as number of refrigerators per 1000 people), or measures of health such as life expectancy. It is the ease by which people living in a time or place are able to satisfy their wants.

The idea of a 'standard' may be contrasted with the quality of life, which takes into account not only the material standard of living, but also other more intangible aspects that make up human life, such as leisure, safety, cultural resources, social life, physical health, environmental quality issues etc. More complex means of measuring well-being must be employed to make such judgments, and these are very often political, thus controversial. Even between two nations or societies that have similar material standards of living, quality of life factors may in fact make one of these places more attractive to a given individual or group."

Yes, so the US may have championed the cause of "consumerism" but not everyone agrees that is desirable. Having lots of material things doesn't necessarily equate to a better quality of life.

[merjet]

I suppose facing the obligation of explaining how an axiom is not only absolute, but precedes sensory input as the root of all knowledge does tend to dampen the desire to respond.

The only person with any need to explain it is Xray herself. She made it up. She picked some scattered words from Ayn Rand words and mangled them.

How an "absolute axiom", or any axiom, came about without the antecedent process of sensory input, integration and establishing entity identity by difference, I do not know. I was so looking forward to you explaining it to me.

Repeating nonsense while adding more ("identity by difference") is typical for Xray.