Matus1976

Because he likes how it looks on him. Maybe, but when he is home alone does he put on all the makeup and black clothes? If you lived alone on island, with plenty of food and water and makeup, would you still don the goth outfit? No, of course it's not, but taste's born truly of individuality ought not to be so easily predictable and generally applicable. 'individuality' is not 'being different from everyone else' (because that is a form of dependance on everyone else) but just being yourself, regardless of others. No, but he pretty much just wore simple clothing, jeans and a plain shirt, etc. Was he doing this to 'conform' or because said clothing was plentiful, inexpensive, and durable?

Translation: Arguing with somebody with basic logic skills and a decent education is far too much for him to handle and it hurts his feelings when his foolish ideas don't stand up to minimal scrutiny. Bob Argue, argue. Argue, argue, argue! --Brant Ah, now you've made me see Bob Mac's post. That is 5 wasted seconds I will never get back in my life. I quite enjoy debating with people who have basic logic skills and a decent education, I also enjoy discussing things with people who have a fundamental respect for a fellow human being, anyone familiar with my discussions here and on RoR would probably attest to that, however Bob is perpetually condescending, deragotory, outrageously arrogant, and lacks the conceptual understanding that allows us to extend a basic amount of courtesy and respect to another human being and the life he has lived and information he has processed; so he loses me as a potential audience for his ideas. If his goal is to communicate and spread ideas, he has failed at that, and ought to change his ways. I think we all know that is not his goal, If his goal is to try to make himself feel superior by insulting people on a silly web forum, well, to each their own. I don't waste time with trolls.

I was trying to identify exactly what irratated me so much about Victor's behavior, and this I think identifies it very well. Victor is clearly an intelligent person and is capable of a rational and interesting discussion, as I had with him on the "talent" thread (although we will now probably find it full of plagiarism as well) its dispicable and disgusting to use a good mind for such rediculous endeavours. And now we see the same thing, over and over again on other Objectivist forums. What in the world could possibly motivate such idiotic behavior? I can't even wrap my head around it. I only hope that for Angie's sake that his personality and sincerity to her were real.

But why is he wearing all that make up and black clothes in the first place, if he actually doesnt care what others think? Goth toutes independence and individuality and that they dont care what others think, but most of the behavior and culture is highly dependant on what others think. If he actually didnt care, he would wear only the minimal required to function, some robes and sandles perhaps. Btw, I recommend not arguing with Bob Mac, this forum allows you to block posts from users. He is a troll on this forum.

This is a rather short sighted application of this technology. Better would be a kind of dynamic EEG sensor which could have simple voice / pattern recognition technology applied to it that would in fact recognize subvocalized words, or even motions for the physically impaired. Perhaps this technology is not yet fine enough in detail to discern those things, but SQUID's certainly will be. We will be able to control our vehicles by thoughts alone, communicate in a manner indistinguishable from telepathy combined with VoIP. Fascinating stuff. *SQUIDS are super conducting quantum interference devices, they can pick up minute magnetic fluctuations (which come from electrical fields) very accurately. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SQUID

This looks like an interesting game, more interesting for gamers is the fact that this is the first fully non-linear first person shooter, allegedly you can roam around and do whatever you want in the city, and what you do alters the course of the game. Most first person shooters require you to follow a scripted path. I am getting the same impression, while the 'every body mutates and tries to kill each other' is not an pro-objectivist theme, it seems like (to me) the game maker wanted to make a Rand inspried city or theme, but then said "well, I want to make a game as well" and so the twist of the mutants and stem cell goo. I'll check it out when it comes out.

You should clarify what you mean by freedom, from my essay A literal society in which everyone is morally justified in doing absolutely anything they want, including attacking other people, is a murderous anarchy and is definately unstable. But is the literal complete freedom of action (including the action of assaulting others) what you mean by freedom? "Pure" 'Political' freedom, from the definition I use above, I do not think would be unstable. What is it you mean by a "utopian" are you suggesting she devised her philosophy on the basis of what an ideal society ought to be like? That couldnt be further from the truth, if you want that look to Plato's Republic. One could easily imagine some particular set of goverment rules, regulations, taxes, force, etc, might produce a society more *ideal* in some arbitrary sense than they type of society that might emerge from the interactions among men and government that Rand advocated. Perhaps, in some utilitarian sense, the median standard of living would be better in this case, or in another sense the average life expectancy could be better, etc. Perhaps if the government forced everyone to excercise, the median life expectancy would be longer. Utopians seek, as an end goal, the manifestation of some ideal they believe is optimal for society, and subsequently, all the individual members of it. Their end goal is society. Rands end goal is the individual. Rand presented a philosophical foundation for the proper interactions among men and the proper role of government, never arguing that such a society would be "utopian" (free of suffering, pain, illness, etc) but it would be as close to a just society as possible. Can you expand more on what you mean by Rand being a "utopian" ? Everything else you write I generally agree with.

nuff said. I have set my profile options to ignore your posts.

Actually, Bob, I found BaalChatzaf's and Brant's comments thoughtful and interesting as well, as well as many of yours in your earlier response, and I was planning on responding today. However, here again, you have devolved back into condescending prick mode, so I have no interest in discussing this further with you. Bob, a little discussion pointer for you. Either you are present to discuss and develop ideas with like minded individuals, or you are here to troll and pander to your own ego, the fact that you so readily and easily resort to pot shots, vague generlizations and insults indicates to me you are of the latter group of people. If you are here to discuss and develop ideas, then doing so in such a pretentious and condescending manner indicates you respect neither my mind, my ability to come to logical conclusions, nor my background of knowledge, interests, thoughts, nor my values or my information set. You are not omniscient, so stop acting like everyone who hasnt come to the same conclusion as you is a trilobyte. I dont particular care what you think of me, but I won't be discussing anything with someone who is incapable of extending the most basic courtersies to another human being. So have fun with your proselytizing, adios.

Gee Bob, I didnt realize there was a difference. The obvious error here is that you take 10 seconds to read my posts and immediately devolve into an 'insult at all costs' mode, wheres the moderator? What happened to that requirement for polite and sincere discussions? all I see here is sniveling pretentious drivel. I don't recognize 'nuanced and complex' topics, implying I am ignorant and simple? Perhaps I was writing about a particular topic in this particular essay (demanding a right to universal health care) and it's consequences, and not every single possible manifestation of health care, apparently I shouldnt write anything unless I write every related thing about it. What you don't get, Bob, is that I am here to discuss and share ideas, not converse with a Jerk bent only on assinine disingeneous attacks. So drop that crappy attitude or don't bother posting to me, because I won't bother responding. Now, if you care to read what you are commenting on, you would have noticed I wrote in this very essay You wrote: Gee, wow Bob, arent you a smarty! I hadnt thought of that!! Of course there is a difference between wanting to provide a minimal level of health care for all humans and demanding we provide all posible medical technologies to everyone who needs them, whether it be a operation with a 1 in a thousand chance at success which costs 10 million dollars or a 1,000 drug with a 1 in a million chance of success. A society / government which seeks to provide a rational minimal baseline is much better than one that either forces everyone down to an equal level (as most universal health care systems do) or demands everyone get's everything they could ever possibly need (which implicitly leads to the previous scenario anyway). While one is 'better' it is still based on a premise of forced slavery, though a system where a minimal level of health care is provided while still allowing those who can afford better health care to get whatever care they want, is not one I would start a revolt over. Now if that minimal level of health care is provided voluntaraly it's all fine, when it comes from coerced taxation, it's not, when a population is wholly enslaved, it is a pure embodiment of evil. Why is there no difference, bceause *you* said so? Who are you? Why should I care what you say? Again, obviously, you didnt read this simple essay. You can not have a *right* to something that comes from the product of someone elses mind or effort, that is a *right* to enslave them, to force them to supply your needs. A right to life, is the right to defend yourself from any attacks on your life, it is not a 'right' to force somone else to sustain it. As I wrote Oopps is right, you obviously compeltely misunderstand what the founders of this nation argued for. You suggest that since this popular phrase says you have a "right to life" that means you have a right to force someone else to provide for you all the things necessary for life, instead of what the founders said, which is that you have right to your own life, or to define the difference more objectively, you have a right to be free from coercion on your life. You have a right to be free from constraints placed upon your life. And again, in this case, 'right' does not mean you get to demand someone provide you with these things, but instead that you are morally justified in defending them or attacking assaults on them. Clearly I can not produce "liberty" and hand it to you, nor can I manufacture "happiness" and give it to you because you demand it, but somehow you think that a 'right to life' is a right to demand the enslavement of all producers of the necessities of life; shelter, health, food and water, even while "right to liberty" and a "right to the pursuit of happiness" makes absolute no sense in that context. I am logically consist, you are the one asserting that we have a *right* to enslave providers. *that* is logically inconsistent, you have no right to enslave anyone, ever, for any reason. Please define 'right' before we continue this discussion, my essay clearly defines what I mean by 'rights' in these contexts.

This is a good OpEd, short, concise, and powerfull. I am very worried at the growing popularity of this "Universal Health Care" movement. It seems to be getting more and more popular across all political spectrums. Universal Health Care will be the death of us all. But OpEd's like this will do little to nothing to change the minds of people who are obsessed with their "right" to Health Care. In that theme, I encourage people to write more pieces directed toward a general audience, post them to blogs, do some pod casts, etc. I wrote my "Four Freedoms" essay as an attempt to gently introduce people (liberals) to the idea that demanding a 'right' to something that is the product of another man's effort is demanding the right to enslave them. Four Freedoms http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/in...ic=3246&hl= It's preaching to the choir here, but you might be able to get a socialist to think twice about some of these concepts with it.

There you are again with your condescending arrogance, as if I have not been discussing ideas all along. You are hung up on a few words, you either are making absolutely no effort to try to understand the very basic aspects of what I have said, are intentionally trying not to understand the most basic aspects of this, or are just looking for oppurnities to demonstrate your 'astounding' intellect. I have been discussing ideas throughout this thread, a particular idea, that death somehow makes life better, is the primary one here being discussed. You are hung up on countering some strange point I never even made. If *you* want to discuss ideas, then please do, but stop playing games. That being said, either this miscommunication stems from 1) you not clearly explaining your ideas 2) you misinterpreting something i said initially and now being unwilling to acknowledge that mistake (playing games) 3) me not explaining my ideas clearly 4) me misinterprating something and being unwilling to fess up and move on, or 5) some various combination of these. Well, I know 4 is not the case. SO if there is anyone else reading through this thread, can you share your opinion on this matter? Does anyone else know what MSK is trying to say here? Why this distinction between stating a fact and making a value judgement is being glossed over? If no one else knows what you are trying to say, than I think 1) is probably the most likely explanation, but hey, I'm certainly willing to admit 3 might be the case as well. Are any readers left confused on the point I am making?

Michael, what is it YOU are talking about? Initially, you wrote "Just because a person perceives a fact, that does not mean that he values it" To which I responded "When did i ever say that acknowledgeing death exists means anyone values it?" to which you responded You did not point out where I said that acknowledging death exists means someone finds value in it. I did not say that, I never said that, I never said anything remotely like that. A point I emphasized when I said: "Do you not see the distinction between saying "Things Die" and "Things ought to WANT to DIE" ?" See for example "the fact that life will end one day—and this fact alone—that imbues their life with vitality and meaning" This is a quote which is EXPLICITLY STATING that there is some value to be found in death, that death ads a value to life, that it 'imbues life with vitality and meaning' that death is, ultimately A GOOD THING. That is a value judgement. Compare these two statements. "the fact that life will end one day" "the fact that life will end one day—that imbues their life with vitality and meaning" One is a fact, the other is an implicated value judgement. Lets try some others "[there is always] the possibility of losing [life]." <-- FACT "the possibility of losing [life]...does create value <-- Value Judgement "[death is an] eventual inevitability" <-- FACT "The eventual inevitability of death does indeed make life precious" <-- Value Judgement. I do not know how simpler I can make it. These statements are not OBSERVATIONS about the FACT of death, like the color of an apple or the smell of a flower are facts. The are value judgements, the red color of the apple is GOOD, not an apple is RED. Or, The fact that an Apple is red is what gives it value. NEVER, NOT ONCE, NOT EVEN REMOTELY, have I ever said that acknowledgeing death EXISTS means someone finds value in it, instead of I have explicitly quoted every opinion here where people EXLPICITY FIND VALUE *IN DEATH* the assert it is *A GOOD THING* I am not 'playing games', you are making no sense, you are attacking some position I have never stated. Please state, explicitly, where I said or indicating that acknowledging that exists means someone finds value in it? When I said (which is what you keep referring to) "you are going to be hard pressed to talk me into thinking that death is ultimately, for some reason, a good thing." I DID NOT say "you are going to be hard pressed to talk me into thinking that death exists" I DID say "[you will not convince me] death is ultimately, for some reason, a good thing" One is acknowledging that death exists, THE OTHER is stating that death is GOOD So, I say again, What are you talking about?

Michael, Here, as I already quoted: A good thing is a normative abstraction (value). I can only go by your words. If you want to say something different, then do so. Michael Michael, see the previous post, THESE ARE EXPLICIT EXAMPLES OF PEOPLE *FINDING VALUE* IN DEATH. These are not mere recognitions of the existence of death, these are arguments presenting the case FOR WANTING TO DIE. They are arguing that DEATH IS A GOOD THING. Do you not see the distinction between saying "Things Die" and "Things ought to WANT to DIE" ? I can only go by your words, so if you want to say something different, then do so.

Huh? I found the rest of your comment irrelevant as well, for example "Just because a person perceives a fact, that does not mean that he values it." When did i ever say that acknowledgeing death exists means anyone values it? I have always specifically stated that people explicitly find value in death, manifested in the things they say and attitudes that have toward it, as demonstrated in this thread and the others I have linked. 'Death gives meaning to life' and 'Living indefinately would rob life of value' is a far far different thing than saying 'things die' What is the point you are trying to get across? This is what has been said in this thread "the fact that life will end one day—and this fact alone—that imbues their life with vitality and meaning" "the possibility of losing [life]...does create value" "The eventual inevitability of death does indeed make life precious" "Mortality has a profound positive effect on the value of life" "Life has little value without the possibility of death" "Living forever would be abnormal" "it's [comparing life with non-life] the only way life has any value at all" etc

I just read a little on this "Bob Mac ideas of long life" nonsense. Its really just a A naive dream world of the 12-year-old. Ah, so the crux of Bob Mac's arguments shows it's true colors. Indefinate life spans are bad because they will contribute to the 'growing gap between the rich and the poor!' Ah, So we must make sure everyone dies young enough so as they won't acquire that much more wealth than their lazy brothers. Bob, you are a utilitiarian social engineer who wouldnt scoff at condemning billions of people to their death to satisfy your arbitrary fanciful notions of 'equality'. Hey, lets just make sure everybody dies NOW, so that they may not in the future be TOO UNEQUAL!!! What are you doing on this forum, exactly? Of course you would argue against indefinate life spans, because to you human lives have no value to their owners, they are only of value to your abstract notions of ideal social arrangements. I dont give a shit about the ideal world and relationship between wealth you think humanity ought to have, it is irrelevant to my life, I do not need to justify my existence by taking some special role within your idea of social order. My life is of value to me regardless of your moronic deadly social engineering tendancies, and I extend that same basic courtesy to every other human being on this planet, unlike yourself, who sees other humans only as tools to carry out your little dreams of social equality. Thankfully you have no power nor influence and are just a troll on some Rand inspired forum. indeed, the attitude you express above is what one would get if they combined Pol Pot with a Luddite

Bob, You have cleary evaded the reality that we may find an intrinsic value in the smallest moment, regardless of our overall potential number of moments. You have placed life and its value on an imaginary pedestal and engaged in all sorts of nonsensical ramblings and rationalizations about its value to suit your unsupportable positions. We all place a clear, precise and measureable value on our lives for one of many reasons. To pretend we don't do this doesn't count as an argument. Then you mentioned something about other's lives which have nothing to do with anything. Bob, all your ramblings seem to be insisting that for life to have any value, it must be limited, correct? How limited ought it be? How long is the optimal age we ought to live in order to maximize, in your view, the value of each moment? Indeed, all moments, even the moments of an indefinate life span, have some value. I don't understand what your problem is here? I can find value in all moments, even if I had billions or trillions of them. Because I exist during these moments, they are of at least a fundamental value. I do not see the point of your discussion, what are you trying to argue here? Scarcity is not the ONLY source of value, and making my life moments more scarce would not make my life, overall, more valuable. And again I don't particularly care about your utilitarian consequences, they are irrelevant. Can you formulate what it is you are trying to say into a logical argument, with premises, conclusions, etc, so I can understand what it is you are trying to say? You are applying economic supply and demand curves to the very concept of life, to the fundamental pillar of the ability to value at all, how much value do you place on the ability to value something? Would the ability to value something ever have no value? The value of items in trade relate to thier relative worth to our material existence and how useful they are to us in living what we consider to be an optimum life. Life is the ability to value, you can not have values without life, you can not find a moment more or less valuyable if you do not exist. Being alive, and existing, will always have value for each moment it is true for me, regardless of how many other moments I may have like it. Well, in short, Bob, I want to simply point out that your argument lacks insight that careful thinking skills combined with a basic undergraduate education should bring. Realistically, you just need one or the other. I'll go way out on a limb and suggest that you have neither.

Thanks James, I respect this point of view, we each must make our own judgement calls on where and how to best spend our limited time on Earth. I would not, for instance, spend my whole life pursuing a magical fountain of youth somewhere in a far away land merely for the hope of living an indefinate life span, the pay off is monumentally unlikely and I'll have wasted the good life I was capable of living now. That being said, however, I think the common perceptions abotu the likelyhood of the successes of anti-aging treatments and technologies are underestimated by the vast majority of people, I so I recommend taking a little bit of time to research the topic (if you have not all ready) you may come to the conclusion that a valuable pay off is more likely than you had previously estimated. You may want to consider contributing to medical / scientific organizations which are explicitly attempting to defeat aging. Even if you do not see the benefit from it, your children or grandchildren might. The fact that you find no philosophical value in death (unlike many people here) means You will, at least, not be opposing any explicit efforts to extend human life spans.

MSK, I do not understand the relevance of this comment. When have I ever attempted to convince people that death does not exist? In fact I am more trying to get people to recognize its true nature. The context of this discussion has been surrounding the idea that death, in some way, give life value, either because it shortens it, or it provides a reference point from which to judge life from, both arguments are fallacious and come from psychological obfuscation.

Fair enough Michael, so I should be more well mannered. But I want to point out that probably everything I have said here, which can be construed as 'ill mannered' is a virtual copy of the things said to me. As I pointed out before, whenever someone levies a silly irrelevant ad hominem at me, or something which nothing more than a over arching generalization, I say it right back to them. In this case, It is Bob Mac who launched with hostility and charges of 'sloppy thinking' Generally I follow the 'tit for tat with occasionally cooperate' model of discussions (as this is the most effective strategy in game theory, it is the most effective I have found in discussions) usually, its gets people to realize how pointless random vague insults like 'sloppy thinking' are and they either move right on to a sincere discussion of ideas, or if they are a troll baiting for emotional responses they get bored and leave. The occasional sincere co-operate gives a person actually interested in sincere discussion the chance to change the tone of the discussion. Bob's favorite is "not thinking correctly" or "sloppy thinking" (when it is in fact pretty clear this topic is new to him) but such statements imply an omniscience. Bob has not read the same things i have read, engaged in the same discussions, attended the same conferences, read the same articles, had the same debates with friends, investigated the same physics and science and economics questions with the same focus, in fact Bob knows virtually nothing about me. Yet he asserts to somehow know that when judging everything *I know* I am in fact wrong in my conclusion. Talk about hubris! I am fully aware that people with the same values may hold entirely different opinions about something, and they may both in fact be logically correct because they may be forming their assessment based on different information sets. Bob, it seems, has some form of an omniscienct crystal ball that lets him instantenously know everything another person knows and then allows him to judge the worth of that persons logical conclusions! I on the other hand see that if someone holds a different logical conclusion yet seems to share a similiar value set, then it is our information sets that ought to be exchanged. I think you did something similiar when you said What does that mean exactly? that I CHOSE to MISJUDGE Wolf? I in fact chose to JUDGE him, not MISJUDGE him, to assert that I chose to MISJUDGE him means you know all the information that I am privy to, all my value sets, all my logical conclusions, and that subsequently you know whether they are correct or not. My ultimate purpose is a sincere discussion and developing of ideas, but I admit that in this particular topic, you are going to be hard pressed to talk me into thinking that death is ultimately, for some reason, a good thing.

Michael, care to elaborate on that point?

You have an interesting definition of nonsense. I have asserted in a very clear way that your ideas are completely opposite to the basic fundamentals of economic theory of value. You have done nothing to address this logical and true objection. Bob, I addressed your objections based on the 'economic theory of value' multiple times, in post 20, In post 32 I wrote (to you) In post 37 Johnny presents some counter arguments to your position as well. And lastly, in post 50 In short, your argument is completely fallacious. The value of life is not based solely on it's 'scarcity', and as I said before, if you derive value *only* in relation to what is scarce and not scarce, then you are living a sad and pathetic existence, one which is focused only on the acquisition of material resources which are 'scarce' (by the way you use 'scarce') But this is all semantics anyway, because you can play the scarce basis of value any way you like, my life is precious and valuable to me because it is scarce, it is unique in the universe, there is only one life of mine, and it is the one I have no, living at this moment, it is nearly infinately valuable to me because it is so scarce. I also recommend my post 51 which addresses the value we place upon a moment, whether scarce or abundant, all moments have at least *some* value. The value we derive from something can not rationally be said to only come from it's scarcity (though this is a major factor) The value I find in things come from many sources, but primarily the value I place on something is how conducive it is toward me living a good life. That is true, our emotions are the logical responses to our deepest convictions, as such life holds a tremendous value for me, and the prevalence and continual promulgation of the idea that death holds some value (see my Leon Kass quotes posted previously) is something that does, in fact, delay progress toward defeating aging. So it is only rational that yes, such attitudes upset me, it is no different than a cult leader trying to brainwash people into drinking poison. Bob, as I said before, I do not consider ruminations on the consequences of indefinate life spans as relevant, we are all each of us the smallest minority, considering the 'implications' of indefinate life spans and then using that to justify keeping indefinate life spans away from living, breathing, life loving people, is *disgusting*. As I said, it is a utilitarian ethical concern and as such of no concern to me, the only relavent point is the life we each live and whether we choose to keep living it. Additionally, however, your 'objections' to indefinate life spans are sophomoric and hardly different that liberals scoffing that Ayn Rand is a selfish brute who says we all ought to step on each other to get ahead. It is clear to me from the rather silly objections you make that you actually havent researched the question to any great degree. Perhaps you can relay to us some of your constructive commentary on that lecture by David Friedman on the economic consequences of indefinate life spans?... oh wait, that wasnt YOU who went to that lecture, that was ME, sorry, my bad. On this topic, your thinking is in fact 'sloppy' as you like to say, but I am not here to discuss the utilitarian consequences of indefinate life spans however, if you wish to discuss that, jump over to a forum dedicated to transhumanism / extropianism / indefinate life spans / etc. I am attacking the philosophical acceptance of death that is prevalent which pyschologically undermines rational attempts to defeat aging. You are arguing, essentially, that death ought to be valued because it makes life scarce, and because from a utilitarian perspective you think making sure people today grow old and die will be better for people who are not yet born. Neither argument is a good one.

Hi Kori, Stephen Boydstun posted a link to that essay earlier, I posted my comments on it here: http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/in...ost&p=28482

Sounds like an interesting book, is it the one by Amir Aczel? I think I own it, but havent got around to reading it yet, from your review I'll have to raise it on my priority list!

Dodger, you are 17 years old? --Brant Yes indeed. I apologize for my emotion filled post (I can write better), but its just I'm so sick of theoretical physics being tainted with these...morons. It is one of my goals to eventually get a Ph. D in theoretical physics, but the more I hear about what these Ph. D holders are wasting their time doing, sometimes I think it would be more productive to be independant. Brant, are you interested in hearing some of my physics endeavours? It looks like we have a Quentin Daniels in the room, Bravo Dogder. I would be interested in hearing of some of your physics exploits, though I am only an amatuer myself. I hope you plan on doing something about how rediculously expensive it is to get into space, and how monstrously slow our ships are!?