Mike11

Oh wow. Oh wow. Oh wow. This will be interesting to watch. This would be the first time an ARI affiliate has crashed and burned on this scale wouldn't it? I honestly don't know, being new to the LULZ and all. Or maybe that college was bigger.

"It takes two to tangle". Discussions about who started what are juvenile. What's more important is who stops fighting. True. Unfortunately Kolker met some people in the Death Camps as a child who penetrated his being with new substances and thoughts. Sometimes he feels guilty, other times quite happy. Its this contradiction he tries to resolve, I mean, what does a chimney look like? One so inclined should want to see them as often as possible. It's okay Robert, I :heart: You.

I haven't seen SiCKO but the op-ed is still crap. You know how I know this? Because its written the same way ARI people think. 1) When opposing a position either do not define it for maximum straw man or define it badly. This article does not contain a single argument made in Moore's film. Not one. While I'm not a MM fan I heard he made arguments about health insurance etc... When countering a position at least have the decency to say how you're countering it and what the position is, k? 2) Use arguments from fear a lot, "wait for months before she receives the surgery and chemotherapy she needs, with the cancer cells multiplying rapidly as each week goes by.", "Canadian patients routinely suffer and die while waiting for their 'free' health care." ... 3) Typical ARI inability to see counter arguments to their points or rhetorical excesses (See Point 1). 4) An inspiring degree of logical structure, though granted Hsieh is far better than the higher level members, especially Peikoff, its still bad, let's look - A) The system is not free B) The system is exclusive, making it "difficult" or "impossible" to find other sources of treatment C) The system costs people time But not in America, I guess, Though no proof was offered D) The used time makes people die (But not in America, I guess) D2) "This tax on time is especially cruel because the burden falls hardest on the sickest patients, i.e., those with the least time to spare." Now THAT is an interesting definition, those who are sickest are just the ones most in a hurry. Nice sloppy writing as always, I get the point but only by ignoring that sentence. E)"With bureaucrats deciding who receives what, the individual is therefore forbidden from spending his money according to his own rational judgment (and the advice of his doctors) as to what's best for his health." Wait, forbidden, where did we get forbidden from, I thought it was "difficult"; makes a nice last line flourish though. Now, in that whole op-ed can anyone find ONE SINGLE LINE that compares America's Health Care success with Canada's, with numbers? Lots of numbers about how we're taxed more and the number of casualties but if you're trying to prove America is better such a comparison would be pretty important. Nor, as I mentioned, outside of it being funded by tax is there mention of Canada's system being morally inferior to America's, maybe because they had no stats, maybe because when preaching to your own little choir everything is self evident, I don't know. 5) A personal issue, quoting P.J. O'Rourke at the end (A former COMMIE! and Republican!!!) versus the ARI common attack on EVERYONE outside their little cult. 6) Look at what this is in response to. Michael Moore went to Cuba to prove how their system is better. Environmental issues are treated as counters to Earth First, a 2 State Solution in Israel is treated like endorsing Hamas rule in both States.... Their material is consistently aimed at the radical, idiotic, opposite pole. They Never engage the rational center. Know why? Its because idiotic ideologically insular morons only recognize their opposite number. I'm against Canada's Health Care system and want it Americanized but saying "The dog outside can fly so must be made of moon rock proves white is white " is still garbage.

deleted.

That's absolutely true. Mark Tessler wrote that when discussing the conflict it usually turns into finding one's virtue exclusively by not sharing the vices of the fantastic "Other". Which is a great way to look at the world, when the other group has no virtue or capacity to reason its easier to talk about wiping out the "Other" with the associated psychological and economic benefits. Must often these people have made no attempt to understand the "Other". I spoke to some Muslims (to just take an example) a while back and asked "Do you know why the Jews are there?" "Sure, they wanted our Land." "Do you know why?" "Yah, they're Evil!" As for studying Judaism and Islam for an understanding of the conflict you'd be better served studying Zionism, Judaism in itself would be largely useless until the Orthodox colonials ramped up in the 70s -90s and even then required the support of other Zionist groups.

Umm, I think you sound like James Valliant, except that your target is ARI rather than the Brandens. Over the last few years I've read maybe 30 or 40 of the o-eds/speeches etc. All have been crap, if you want I can walk you through them.

Umm, I'm preaching to choir here but the ARI has not written an honest word since its founding. Just read their op-eds, they're completely based on lies and misinformation. Frankly, based on the indirect critique Niel is making, I'm surprised by its honesty and scholarship. I mean, they haven't made up any new continents, people, or deities; this is a step up for them. Thanks again to Niel and everyone else going through this book.

The Jewish state was already built in Palestine before WW2 ended. Most White counties refused to allow Jews into their country. Palestine was an ideal location for British interests as it was a point from which to control the Suez and a springboard for White imperialism generally. Jews being in Palestine was the only way 1945-1948 was going to go down.

There is another, similar kind of argument used by Objectivists and other Westerners which privileges technology in the same way. Churchill said about Palestine that the greater crime would be to have the land and not develop it. As if being a better driver lets you kill your neighbor and take his car. 2 Reasons, first the Jews were well on their way to controlling Palestine with a separate Jewish economy, culture, military and immigrants who wanted a nation, second ... um ... white racists maybe? The land purchases were the problem. Someday I'm writing an paper for a class tracing the entire conflict to the Tanzimat's property reforms, my case will be strong. Traditionally land was held communally (Oh NOEZ!!! - sayeth the Randroid) and no one person owned the farms or village, enter the Ottomans and a set of literate landlords in Beirut, Baghdad, Cairo and Istanbul now own them. When the jews bought an area (at "exorbitant prices" goes the refrain) the villagers were not consulted, the jews arrived, presented a dead with the force of law, and a massive population of unemployed and angry peasants emerged. It was not legally possible to ethically buy the land. As for a State, one half Arab, one half Jew, one half tied to the West, the other to Arabia, one Secular one Religious, one Agricultural one Industrial.... Those conditions are worse than those that brought on the Civil War. If it could have happened it would have required the elimination of Revisionism and, more importantly, a far less elitist attitude of the Socialists towards the arabs. Herzl had a point with his ideas of gaining the love and trust of arabs with jewish gold and brains but the Jews were to Modern and Colonial in spirit, the Arabs to tribal (literally, not as in "evil").

The Bloomberg article has bad links. This is the pro-war shaming ad: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=R0_M-2WO7pI (not linked to in the article), this is the truthful antiwar ad, which MSK linked to: http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=GwTebMJtJPI There is a tradition of dodging the draft, leaving the army or petitioning the Government, to combat human rights abuses amongst Israelis. The first big one was Peace Now which gained momentum after Israel's Vietnam and then in the Shaking Off. Other smaller movements exist, such as ones adhering to Zionism's non-Imperialist and anti-Racist aspects God I am so damned political about this. Anyway the fact is that Israeli youth are aware of the Israeli Right's campaign to control all of the "Land of Israel" or "Judea and Samaria" in the name of Race or God and are not willing to fight for it. Israel has proven, repeatedly and clearly, that "anti terrorism" is often an excuse for territorial expansion and imperialism (Christian Lebanon backed by Zionist Might, for example) so it is right to be skeptical, especially when called for duties like the defense of Jewish Hebron (now fortunately undergoing deconstruction). Ironically, despite recent depressing immigration stats, Israel is finally letting go of its possessions in the Territories as Hamas mounts continuing attacks. Still Israel's policies of "creating facts" are coming to an end now that the PA has teeth, which they use, to eat themselves.... So they ought to be joining... Sigh. And in the end you just wonder why you care. Edit: Someone beat to pointing out the link, oh well.

On this day we remember why God created whiskey....

I don't know whether we never "batted an eye" for for the Japanese civilians we killed but "Blowback" has a lot of truth to it. You can't explain 9/11 exclusively by it but it does have a large amount of explanatory value. A value many Americans (and Canadians and Brits etc) don't like to admit. As for the Pastor, no American candidate whose close associate said "America's chickens are coming home to roost" is getting within 100 miles of the Presidency (unless the Christian Coalition said it). His being removed from the campaign was political necessity.

I have to say you guys have gone well beyond the call of duty to attack this book. I'll confess I haven't read it (but may someday for the lulz) but the honesty and rationality in the ARI generally makes me believe what you guys are saying. Though I am surprised it was published by a (apparently) disreputable publisher. Has anyone been encountered whose devotion to the ARI has been shaken by these critiques?

Sigh. Anyway, As for those verses in Romans (you could have used the whole chapter) they don't take into account the Evangelical fear of central authority that exists today, for the last several decades Xians have been obsessed with the Antichrist and Last Days. I think its that which RidleyReports was talking about.

The way I understood it, it might help UncleJim to think in this way, is as follows: Let's say I built a computer that can store only a letter or a number at one time, which being stored depends on whether we ask it for a letter or a number. After giving us the letter or number the machine randomizes the next information thus we don't know what the next information it stores is. This problem is further compounded by the fact that the math involved is suspected by our top minds to be beyond what we are capable of as we think it uses 10 dimensional equations to create the information. We would open up the processor but there is a problem that I need to switch metaphors for The processor's electrical system is the system that all other systems are built on top of, it will always be faster than any other system we can make. Being on a ladder trying to count the grains of dirt below, I can climb down but even on the lowest step I'm still to far away to see clearly. The quantum system is the base of what we know anything we use to examine it will be on the macroscopic level and is going to dramatically change it. Is that a good analogy guys?

The difference was likely not clear to her but that is a whole other argument. After all, only Lenny was able to write the essay on Man qua Man while the brain in the room (Nathaniel) said it needed clarification.

This is turning into theology.

Mike11, That's something to be proud of? Michael MSK gets up every morning at the crack of dawn, grabbing some coffee he reads the paper with false enthusiasm. Bored he hits his site and sees Mike11 has posted something new. "Ah! The newb, I'll own him for a bit then tell my friends of the lulz."

Then there is nothing that can be said.

4 years arguing with ARI people; I can Roid at a Binswanger level I think.

"Roughly"? "Roughly" is a term used to designate the texture of matter, I refer you to your copy of Leonard Peikoff's insightful treatise "Table and Supper" for definition. If you have an alternate definition please state it in full here and explain why you feel the Objectivist definition is inferior or incomplete. Also, your use of the word "seems" implies a lack of certainty on an essential aspect of Objectivism, one I personally value greatly. Do you believe knowledge of this sort is forever doomed to the mysticism of uncertainty and materialism? Lastly, I would like to say that "Rates" are not the subjective whims of second handers like yourself, nor are they arbitrary laws from some creator but the objective price determined by the producers of values. They are not an "any" but an objective and non negotiable fact of Reality. /BurgessLaughlin Well, I should leave the thread before it goes too off topic now....

Eh....... He was a value she wanted to maintain, mentally disadvantaged kids on the other hand.... Then again, I'm basically here for anti-ARI lulz and you're the Rand scholar so I'm going to assume you're right and that she wouldn't be inhumane, however much that seems to counter her imagery in her books. I didn't know her so I guess that's somewhere I can't visit.

Well there's the Lexicon online now. Yah, I mean those hard core roids though who argue ceaselessly about "Good Luck" or "Helping people is good." Example.

I'm skeptical of how she would feel about being in a room with them.

Daniel, I suggest you rethink this. It is wrong on so many points I don't know where to begin. I do have to compliment you on the richness of your brevity, however. With two statements, you managed to be wrong on about 20 issues, at the very least. Here is a starter. One of the roles of philosophy in Objectivism is not to explain "the true meanings of words"—as one of the Big Fundamental Two you provide. (There are more than two fundamentals.) The fundamental role of epistemology is to explain how concepts work, i.e., how knowledge is formed. Michael Some on the outside, well me at least, can relate to the meanings argument. Often debating Objectivists, and always those of the ARI stripe, is such an excruciating word game that you just wish Lenny was dead. One of these days I'll make millions on a Rand to English dictionary.