JamesShrugged

http://templeofthehumanspirit.wordpress.com/2011/02/17/the-human-condition/ The Human Condition Her head pulled back, By short black hair. Blue eyes gaze up, In a defiant stare. Her body trembles, Beneath my touch. Her hands on me…, Wants this so much. Our souls unite Until at last Our breath becomes, Half moan, half gasp. James Hughes © 2006

Everybody's a critic reminds me of a quote from Roosevelt "It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat."

I am not sure what program you are using, or how to tell you to do it, but you should try moving the tezt down a little from the bottom of the image. If necessary you might thry introducing a very small point line of blank text above "to the glory of man" but there should be some other way to do this. i use this site http://bighugelabs.com/motivator.php and it doesnt give a lot of options. :-/

Changed it up a bit, thanks to Teds suggestions

Thanks guys for your comments, be sure to check out the link because there are about 15 more posts, if you like it. If you dont, Oh well

I wanted to share my blog with you. I've had it up for some time now, but i wanted to get quite a bit of content added before i started linking it it is at http://templeofthehumanspirit.wordpress.com/ here is an example of the content Let me know what you think

Yeah, that was AFTER this statement: (04:00:53) knast: Hey fuckface A K A WeDontNeedGod, read "Doesn't Life Require Compromise?", "The Question of Scholarships" by mega-pragmatist Ayn Rand. THEN... IF, and that is a big if, you managed to READ that stuff, you can listen on this lecture by Tara Smith on pragmatism so you at least understand the philosophy of pragmatism better and how it differs from Objectivism. You can and should also read OPAR, especially the chapter on integrity. That should do it. Do you regularly take people who call you fuckface seriously? (Even if, in this case, his underlying point, except for the advice to read OPAR, was correct?) You get what you pay for. In this case you are engaging in a free chat room with people whose comments are the results of under ten milliseconds of forethought. Do yourself a favor and avoid fora where the participants don't write in full paragraphs. Thats very true. And now I am banned from the chatroom for posting this chatlog here. Apparently someone wasnt too happy that their bad behaviour was exposed.

Yeah, that was AFTER this statement: (04:00:53) knast: Hey fuckface A K A WeDontNeedGod, read "Doesn’t Life Require Compromise?", "The Question of Scholarships" by mega-pragmatist Ayn Rand. THEN... IF, and that is a big if, you managed to READ that stuff, you can listen on this lecture by Tara Smith on pragmatism so you at least understand the philosophy of pragmatism better and how it differs from Objectivism. You can and should also read OPAR, especially the chapter on integrity. That should do it.

So I got on the topic of open immigration and smoking in this objectivist chat room, and it quickly degenerated into hateful name calling and rude insults. Might be interesting to see: (I am "WeDontNeedGod") (02:50:55) WeDontNeedGod: I think the proper approach is: repeal the welfare state. (02:51:03) Axiomatic: He is not advocating for the welfare state, he is saying that if there is a welfare state then it changes ones priority with regard to immigration policy. (02:51:06) Kirota: ^^ (02:51:14) Dwayne: Well it could choose NOT to give someone that clearly doesnt deserve welfare any welfare benefits... (02:51:15) WeDontNeedGod: not, accept the welfare state as a given, and modify your policies accordingly (02:51:25) Dwayne: That would be one case of a proper action. (02:51:58) Axiomatic: In some cases, such as in the UK, the immigration issue is more primary becuase it directly affects the feasibility of rolling ack the welfare state (02:52:04) Mikee: perhaps you can demand that the immigrants don't accept help for x no. of year in return they don't pay taxes (02:52:07) Kirota: The only moral thing to do is get rid of the welfare state (02:52:08) Dwayne: It doesnt make the welfare state proper....it just means it has acted properly in that case.. (02:52:35) Mikee: the UK has a shitload of islamists (02:52:55) WeDontNeedGod: When I listen to Peikoff, I feel that I don't understand Objectivism very well. (02:53:05) Dwayne: And possibly it might act properly in other cases..I dont know. (02:53:20) WeDontNeedGod: I generally don't draw the same conclusion when I read other Objectivists >.< (02:53:53) Dwayne: Perhaps you need to read more? Listen to something like Understanding Objectivism? Or have you read OPAR? (02:54:31) WeDontNeedGod: Yes, I've read OPAR (02:54:34) Dwayne: Cause a lot of people feel the same way until they read OPAR and or listen to UO. (02:54:47) WeDontNeedGod: Honestly, I just think that Peikoff is wrong sometimes :-/ (02:55:07) Dwayne: Maybe..maybe. No instances come to mind offhand.. (02:55:12) WeDontNeedGod: Very often I think his positions are pragmatic. (02:55:23) WeDontNeedGod: this is one of those (02:55:29) WeDontNeedGod: Smoking is another (02:55:32) Dwayne: But he is obviously not infallible, so im sure hes wrong sometimes, even if not on the stuff we get to see (02:55:45) WeDontNeedGod: yeah (02:55:49) Dwayne: No, no...not "very often". (02:56:02) Dwayne: Actually never pragmatic..that I can remember. (02:56:37) Dwayne: Though sometimes he does adjust his views when he has more information, or has given things more thought... (02:56:50) Dwayne: But of course, thats not pragmatism. (02:56:54) Kirota: Proof? (02:57:51) WeDontNeedGod: sec, im looking for the podcast (02:58:21) Kirota: ok (02:59:44) WeDontNeedGod: ah i found it (03:00:03) knast: 1. For years Peikoff argued that the solution is to repeal the welfare state, not to restrict immigration; well in the long-term he still thinks that is the proper solution. I think that what has changed is that he simply thinks it is easier, today, to restrict immigration than to repeal the welfare state. In his podcast I think he mentions a recent ruling by the courts that make it more or less illegal for states to not give welfare to (illegal) immigrants. He also seems to think it is utterly hopeless that the welfare state and this ruling will go away any time soon. And in that context the conflict between rights as created by the welfare state gives you a reason to choose and then he thinks that if one is selfish one should choose the property rights of Americans above immigrants to move to America. I guess that what position should take in this case depends on what you thinkis in your rational self-interest. (03:00:26) Dwayne: Carl (03:00:53) WeDontNeedGod: "he simply thinks it is easier, today, to restrict immigration than to repeal the welfare state." that is compromise, that is pragmatism. (03:01:07) Axiomatic: Hej Carl (03:01:12) Dwayne: Yes Carl..he does..I beleive. (03:01:21) Dwayne: No it is nott. (03:01:27) Axiomatic: I do like it when you interject with walls of text (03:01:37) Axiomatic: (03:01:38) knast: 2. Pragmatism? Peikoff is not pragmatic about anything. I think you are confusing being pragamtic with being OBJECTIVE, i.e., with taking into account the actual context. (03:01:41) WeDontNeedGod: doing something, not because it is right, but because it is easier?? (03:01:42) Kirota: there is no morality in compromise (03:02:21) WeDontNeedGod: "this is easier than the right thing to do" (03:02:25) Dwayne: No...that isnt the sole basis for Peikoffs position. (03:02:39) Kirota: yes it is (03:02:43) knast: Now you engage in context-dropping. If you wait I will give you a new wall of text that will explain it all. (03:03:02) Dwayne: Hit them Carl (03:03:22) Dwayne: Kirota has been doing that all evening.\ (03:03:31) WeDontNeedGod: ok, full sentence: "I think that what has changed is that he simply thinks it is easier, today, to restrict immigration than to repeal the welfare state." (03:03:35) Dwayne: Ignoring the context of his own statements...lol. (03:04:04) Kirota: im listening to the podcast (03:04:09) WeDontNeedGod: here is that podcast i disagree with (03:04:11) Dwayne: And the context which I kept establishing in our discussion before...lol (03:04:13) Kirota: he has made his position very clear (03:04:14) WeDontNeedGod: http://www.peikoff.com/2008/06/3​0/episode-019-6302008/ (03:04:17) WeDontNeedGod: on smoking (03:04:20) Kirota: he believe in compromise (03:04:49) Dwayne: Sigh... (03:04:55) Dwayne: You are really pissing me off now. (03:05:00) Dwayne: Care to prove that ? (03:05:01) Mikee: you are fool (03:05:36) WeDontNeedGod: me? (03:05:46) Dwayne: Kirota. (03:06:13) WeDontNeedGod: ok (03:06:17) Kirota: proof? he says its better to do what is easier (03:06:38) Dwayne: Wait for Carls answer. (03:06:51) Dwayne: But your not accounting for the full context. (03:07:28) WeDontNeedGod: those words were actually knast's not Dr Peikoffs (03:07:47) WeDontNeedGod: I imagine that Dr Peikoff would disagree with that wording of his position (03:08:02) Dwayne: Not really. (03:08:14) Dwayne: Carl never to my knowledge misrepresents people. (03:08:28) Dwayne: So I doubt it anyway.. (03:08:45) WeDontNeedGod: the right thing for me to do is to get a job and work, but with the welfare state and taxation its easier to just get on unemployment.. (03:08:56) Dwayne: James : The smoking part was the "pragmatic" part right? (03:09:10) WeDontNeedGod: I believe so (03:09:30) WeDontNeedGod: well maybe thats not the right word (03:09:32) Dwayne: I just listened to that part...I see no sign of pragmatism there. (03:09:51) Dwayne: And I agree with what he has to say on that issue. (03:09:54) WeDontNeedGod: he said "if smoking benefits your life then do it" (03:10:11) WeDontNeedGod: be we all know for scientific fact that smoking does not benifit your life (03:10:19) WeDontNeedGod: apply that reasoning to anything else (03:10:28) Mikee: certainly doesn't (03:10:34) WeDontNeedGod: "if dropping acid benifits your life then do it" (03:10:44) Kirota: i support smoking (03:10:48) Dwayne: Well...I think it was more along the lines of "if you need to do it to live for some reason" or even if you think it helps and are not aware of the arguments against it ....it can be just fine. (03:11:02) WeDontNeedGod: its like he is making a statement without the context of what the narue of smoking is and does (03:11:08) knast: 3. To begin with: compromising does NOT mean pragmatism. It is moral to compromise when you compromise on a concrete within a rational framework. Simple example: Both of us agree on the principle of property rights and that you are the owner of the house I want; what we compromise on is the price. That is a compromise and what could possible be wrong about that? Nothing. The problem today is that pragmatists believe that to compromise means to abandon principles and be willing to abandon principles. To trade one principle for another. Now Peikoff says that IN REALITY there is no conflict between the rights of American citizens and the rights of immigrants. But the welfare state has created a conflict between our rights. If you then are FORCED to choose between by the welfare state then you are not forced to a "compromise" but to A SACRIFICE. Peikoff is simply saying that you should go by your self-interest and choose the lesser of two evils forced upon you. So what is done here is the COMPLETE OPPOSITE of a compromise. (03:11:09) Dwayne: Its all a matter of the context... (03:11:16) WeDontNeedGod: nature* (03:11:57) Dwayne: The context of ones knowledge about the benefits / costs, whether one has evidence of either of those, whether or not it actually benefitsd your life etc... (03:12:31) Dwayne: No it isnt like he is doing that. (03:12:47) WeDontNeedGod: I like Dr Hsiehs view on smoking much better: "its bad for you, i dont recommend it. dont do it" (03:13:00) Dwayne: He clearly expects one to look at the context of the facts available to one before making the call as to whether smoking is moral or not. (03:13:11) WeDontNeedGod: (taken from her Atlas Shrugged podcast) (03:13:14) Dwayne: So the reverse of what you claim. (03:13:49) Kirota: im going to go buy my first pack of cigs next month (03:13:54) WeDontNeedGod: what he says is crap, honestly, in that situation (03:14:11) WeDontNeedGod: it is not in any way related to reality, because he ignores or shooses to ignore what smoking is (03:14:20) Dwayne: Though I agree extreme cases aside, smoking is not something that one should rationally choose given they have certain facts... (03:14:21) WeDontNeedGod: chooses* (03:14:51) Dwayne: No...it is related to reality. He mentions several facts which one can martial to make a rational choice either way. (03:14:55) WeDontNeedGod: I totally agree that you have to judge a particular according to the context (03:15:10) Dwayne: Though he seems to lean towards choosing not to do it... (03:15:27) WeDontNeedGod: and this particular (smoking) is easy to judge, and in no case would you be able to say "smoking is good for me" (03:15:38) Dwayne: It seems he thinks that it could be moral at least in extreme cases..or at lesat not immoral. (03:15:54) knast: Yeah, Peikoff who only smoked for 30 years had no idea what smoking was all about. (03:16:01) WeDontNeedGod: just like no human can say "eating poison is good for me" (03:16:02) Dwayne: The case of someone that is terminally ill or whatever and smoking actually helps them get through..somehow. (03:16:21) knast: The dose makes the poison. (03:16:27) Dwayne: Its unlikely , but itsd not totally impossible or anything. (03:16:29) WeDontNeedGod: somehow... (03:16:40) knast: Here is an analogy re my wall of text above: In every election you can either choose to vote for one who will "only" violate all your rights 95 out of 100 times. Or you can vote for a guy who promises to violate them 98 out of 100 times. Whatever you choose, you will get your rights violated. None of them stand for the principle of individual rights. But if forced to choose between these alternatives, because the chance of a real pro-freedom candidate to win in the near future is ZERO, then the best choice, the selfish choice is to go with the first guy. (03:16:45) Dwayne: Also he mentiosn that in small doses, it is not always irrational. (03:17:18) Dwayne: Perhaps like one cigarette now and again...thats probably perfectly finbe and moral. One a month say? Not irrational. (03:17:36) WeDontNeedGod: remember what Craig Biddle said: "everything counts" (03:17:48) WeDontNeedGod: \everything is either good or bad for you and nothing is neutral (03:17:54) WeDontNeedGod: as far as actions you take... (03:18:19) WeDontNeedGod: in that light, could smoking ever be said to be a + (03:18:24) knast: I see, you will ignore everything I have said. (03:18:32) WeDontNeedGod: or will it always detract to some degree from your health? (03:18:49) WeDontNeedGod: sorry knast, I was talking with Dwayne (03:18:56) Dwayne: Oh come on, one cig a month is irrational now? (03:19:01) Dwayne: Get off it. (03:19:37) WeDontNeedGod: It would be for me (03:19:52) Dwayne: Or some other small dose..maybe every twop months..but the point is : There comes a pont where the odd cigarette isnt enough of a problem to be irrational. (03:19:53) WeDontNeedGod: I wouldnt want to put that stuff in my body, even once a month (03:20:04) WeDontNeedGod: i wouldnt want to smell like that, i wouldnt want to waste the money (03:20:05) Dwayne: for you? Perhaps...perhaps (03:20:21) Dwayne: But for a lot of people, I dont think it would cause any serious issue. (03:20:28) Kirota: people that smoke look sooo cool though (03:20:30) WeDontNeedGod: in the context of i want to be as healthy as possible (03:21:08) Dwayne: Now, note I am not trying to pimp smoking I will never do it myself I imagine...but still... (03:22:03) WeDontNeedGod: haha (03:22:34) Dwayne: The point is that : You need to look at the context and then decide whether it is rational to smoke and if so how much. Granted I think generally never or almost never is probably the best choice... (03:22:36) WeDontNeedGod: i suppose i just look at things in a very black and white way (03:22:37) knast: Since in reality the dose makes the poison, it would be an irrational EVASION to ignore this basic law of nature and PRETEND that one cigarette will kill you. It might kill you under extra-ordinary circumstances. But so can peanuts. Or anything, if you choke on it. You can also die by drinking too much water. Etc. (03:22:51) ChatBot: RandyG has been logged out (Timeout). (03:23:07) Dwayne: Carl, they make every cig with a fatal dose of ricin...DUH (03:23:15) knast: So if you want to be black and white, which is proper, then at least recognize the facts. (03:23:45) WeDontNeedGod: When did I say that one cigarette would kill you? (03:23:47) Dwayne: Almost anything you do MIGHT kill you under the right circumstances :LD (03:23:49) Dwayne: (03:23:54) WeDontNeedGod: I said it wouldnt be good for you. (03:24:08) Dwayne: Or wrong circumstances if you prefer...lol. (03:24:20) WeDontNeedGod: as in if at that moment your lungs could have been full of fresh air, but instead ar filled with poisonous gas (03:24:49) knast: Dwayne: I was more thinking if you had serious heart-issues, then one cigarette can actually make the difference. (03:25:14) Dwayne: Well...if it helps one in some other way..perhaps it helps one relax or something...it might be worth inhaling a small amount of those toxibns. (03:25:30) Dwayne: Hehe...yeah I know Carl, I was just being flippant (03:25:31) knast: Well, when I have smoked I have only done it when I have taken a whisky or two, and then it does help me feel relaxed. It is good for me to relax. (03:25:43) WeDontNeedGod: >.< (03:26:03) WeDontNeedGod: there is no other way to relax except breathing toxic smoke? (03:26:03) knast: It is good for my MENTAL health to relax. (03:26:07) WeDontNeedGod: get a massage (03:26:08) WeDontNeedGod: have a bath (03:26:10) knast: There are. (03:26:20) WeDontNeedGod: play cards lol (03:26:32) Dwayne: Sure there are other weays...but that doesnt mean it is immoral / wrogn to choose THAT way (in moderation).; (03:26:37) knast: But this is a very pleasant way for me to relax. (03:26:42) Dwayne: er wrong. (03:26:55) Dwayne: Perhaps smoking is more effective than other ways in certain contexts? (03:27:04) knast: In any event, you have still not read anything I wrote above where I refuted the idea that it is pragmatism to compromise. (03:27:07) Dwayne: Or just more pleasant...as Carl says. (03:27:14) WeDontNeedGod: so if there is a healthy alternative, and an unhealthy alternative it is acceptable to choose the unhealthy? (03:27:43) WeDontNeedGod: not really buying it (03:27:58) Dwayne: Look...yes unhealthy things are not automatically unacceptable. Especially in the proper moderation. (03:28:05) knast: Well, since I do not think it will hurt me if I do it in moderation, I do not think it is so unhealthy that I should avoid it at all cost. But you have to determine that on your own. (03:28:13) Dwayne: Not if they have some sort of benefit anyway. (03:28:28) WeDontNeedGod: does that extend into the moral realm as well (03:28:37) Dwayne: And enough benefit to offset the possibly unhealty aspect.. (03:29:27) Dwayne: And if it is VERY mildly unhealthy in the right moderation...its not likely to be a big deal is it? No.. (03:29:50) WeDontNeedGod: i take it this way "In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win." (03:30:05) WeDontNeedGod: In any compromise between air and poison, it is only death that can win. lol (03:30:25) knast: That is rationalism. (03:30:35) knast: A cute example, but nevertheless it is rationalism. (03:30:40) Alish: Given that tobacco products are being taxed to outrageous extent, there is no way of telling whats more harmful - nicotine addiction or financial consequences. (03:30:43) Dwayne: Bingo Carl. (03:30:45) ChatBot: Error: Unknown command: /sigh (03:30:58) ChatBot: Error: Unknown command: /sigh (03:31:06) WeDontNeedGod: knast what you sad is rationalism (03:31:08) knast: Alish: Good point. (03:31:15) WeDontNeedGod: said (03:31:30) Dwayne: No...it isnt ... (03:31:39) knast: WeDontNeedGod: If that is your response, then I will not argue about it with you. You are wrong. Period. (03:31:39) Dwayne: But I knew you would say that it is. (03:31:44) Dwayne: Not prove it...come on. (03:31:53) WeDontNeedGod: oh im sorry i thought we we just throwing out terms with no justification (03:32:09) knast: I see you do not know me. (03:32:14) Dwayne: No...though I thought you were doing that. (03:32:30) Dwayne: The onus of proof here is really on you anyway. (03:32:36) Dwayne: If anyone... (03:32:40) WeDontNeedGod: you can just say "your rationalizing" and thats fine? (03:33:05) Dwayne: Given your doing it yet? Sure, I have no problem with that...its clear to me. (03:33:18) Dwayne: * it? (03:33:26) WeDontNeedGod: I did it to prove a point lol (03:33:30) knast: But you see, I do not write things without a justification. As my famous walls of text should tell you, that is the complete opposite of the truth. But what is the point of explaining things for you, basic Objectivism 101, when you do not even bother to read what I write. (03:34:06) Dwayne: Carl has amply demonstrated that you this IS rationalism. (03:34:08) WeDontNeedGod: I read it, ive heard it before, and I disagree because i think it is pragmatism (03:34:08) Alish: The most ironic thing is that people who demand anti-smoking legislation are from the same crowd that supposedly cares for the poor considering that the poor are the first ones to get hit by tobacco tax hikes. (03:34:11) knast: Besides, I was not accusing you of rationalizing. I said you engaged in rationalism. Two different things. (03:34:14) Dwayne: His comments make that clear. (03:34:21) knast: Well you are completely wrong. (03:34:39) WeDontNeedGod: I disagree. (03:34:55) knast: No, no. I have not proven you engaged in rationalism, I was never given the chance. (03:35:18) Mikee: yeah thats a good point alish (03:35:21) knast: WeDontNeedGod: Then I guess you are right. You do not understand Objectivism. (03:35:28) knast: Which is fine. (03:35:28) Dwayne: OK..Im done with this too...aomeone else that doesnt even bother reading ones arguments, or refuses / is unable to understand. (03:36:02) WeDontNeedGod: I did read them, and I disagree (03:36:12) Dwayne: Carl...walk away ...walk away... (03:36:13) WeDontNeedGod: Just because I disagree with it doesnt mean I didnt understand it. (03:36:34) WeDontNeedGod: haha (03:36:41) knast: Yes it does mean that because my argument is Ayn Rand's argument. You know, ... (03:36:42) Dwayne: Well you have not demonstrated any understanding then. (03:36:56) knast: But hey! What does she know, right??? (03:37:00) WeDontNeedGod: No, I dont think it is, (03:37:04) Dwayne: So what do you expect? (03:37:11) WeDontNeedGod: I think your argument is Leonard Peikoffs argument (03:37:27) knast: I see you did not read what I wrote. (03:37:39) WeDontNeedGod: and sadly i think he is wrong in thic case (03:37:41) Dwayne: No, its Carls argument But that might happen to agree with AR. (03:37:56) knast: Because when I argued that it is not pragmatism to compromise, I got that from Ayn Rand AND my own studying of the history of philosophy, including pragmatism. (03:37:59) WeDontNeedGod: lol Dwayne, true (03:38:15) knast: So. (03:38:23) WeDontNeedGod: You equivocated on the term compromise (03:38:28) knast: No. (03:38:33) Dwayne: when? (03:38:53) WeDontNeedGod: you know we were discussing compromise on basic premises, and you made it seem as if we were talking about buying a car (03:38:54) Amaroq: Random and offtopic. http://estic.deviantart.com/art/​RE5-Treasure-Hunt-178116630 This actually happened to us while we were playing RE5. xD (03:38:58) WeDontNeedGod: Which is wrong. (03:39:08) Dwayne: (whispers) can we make this crap against the rules too? lol. ...sometimes I think that would be great..sometimes. (03:39:08) Axiomatic: Watching this has made me so frustrated that I must now go and smoke a cigarette, brb (03:39:29) knast: WeDontNeedGod: I SAID THE COMPLETE OPPOSITE!!!!!!!!! (03:39:35) Dwayne: Alex, you immoral person! (03:39:39) knast: *ARG* (03:39:39) WeDontNeedGod: supporting welfare statism immigration policy instead of open immigration is a compromise on basic principle. (03:39:52) knast: Reading comprehension... (03:39:54) knast: *siiiiiigh* (03:39:59) Dwayne: Your poisoning yourself, I lost all my respect for you now (03:39:59) WeDontNeedGod: (whispers to Dwayne) what crap? (03:40:07) knast: I know English is not my first language, but I do not think I was that unclear. (03:40:18) knast: Hey! (03:40:22) knast: You did not READ WHAT I WROTE. (03:40:29) Amaroq: You're also poisoning yourself when you have a beer after work. (03:40:31) Axiomatic: LOL (03:40:33) knast: Stop repeating that, just read. (03:40:52) Dwayne: This is just what Kirota was doing to me befo.re. (03:41:10) Dwayne: Failing to respond to the actual meaning of anything I actually said.. (03:41:11) Alish: Statement: A willful act of self-destructive behavior is irrational, but not moral or immoral due to the subjects own conscious decision to pursue what he/she considers self-interest. Am I right or wrong? (03:41:19) Axiomatic: OK, this is very quickly approaching all out facepalm territory (03:41:26) Axiomatic: lol (03:41:40) Dwayne: Tell me about it Alex... (03:41:47) Dwayne: Picard time (03:41:48) knast: I need coffee, before I break something. OR A CIGARETTE TO TAKE OFF THE EDGE!!! (03:41:53) WeDontNeedGod: "It is moral to compromise when you compromise on a concrete within a rational framework." You know we are not talking about a rational framework, we are talking about within a welfare state. (03:41:55) Dwayne Picards really hard.. (03:42:02) Axiomatic: Hehehehe (03:42:13) knast: WeDontNeedGod: AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!​!!!!!! (03:42:46) Dwayne: Shh Carl...its not worth it...just walk away. (03:42:47) WeDontNeedGod: "Both of us agree on the principle of property rights and that you are the owner of the house I want; what we compromise on is the price" like i said, you make it sound like we are talking about comprise over the price of something. immigration policy is basic principles. (03:42:55) Amaroq: Let me guess. Misunderstanding about Peikoff's position on immigration in the context of a welfare state? (03:43:03) Dwayne: Come on , you have better things to spend brain calories on. (03:43:13) Dwayne: Bingo.... (03:44:04) Dwayne: WeDontNeedThis... (03:44:08) Amaroq: WeDontNeedGod, let's say you've lost your job and you can't feed yourself, and it seems like the only way to keep from starving is to get food stamps for yourself. What do you do? Do you starve yourself to oppose the welfare state? (03:44:41) Dwayne: Steven...please dont bother. It wont work. (03:44:50) WeDontNeedGod: Amaroq, yes. (03:45:02) WeDontNeedGod: I mean, if you believe in moral principles. (03:45:09) Amaroq: xD I disagree. (03:45:25) ChatBot: CapitalistSwine logs into the Chat. (03:45:39) Dwayne: See? (03:45:42) WeDontNeedGod: let's say you've lost your job and you can't feed yourself, and it seems like the only way to keep from starving is to steal it from your nieghbor. What do you do? (03:45:43) CapitalistSwine squeals (03:45:50) WeDontNeedGod: same question to me. (03:46:00) Axiomatic: LOL (03:46:11) Axiomatic: You would starve yourself rather than taking a welfare check!? (03:46:12) Axiomatic: LOL (03:46:15) Dwayne: Oh dear.... (03:46:17) Axiomatic: That is immoral (03:46:25) Dwayne: The futility of trying to reason with him on this... (03:46:30) Dwayne: is ...staggering. (03:46:35) WeDontNeedGod: so you think its differnet if you steal it yourself, or if you have the government steal it for you? (03:46:55) WeDontNeedGod: sorry Dwayne i believe in morality (03:46:56) CapitalistSwine: oh god we aren't having THIS debate are we? (03:47:02) CapitalistSwine: (03:47:20) Dwayne: So do I actually. I just differ on how i define it I guess... (03:47:23) Axiomatic: I'm assuming that losing ones jobs means, I dunno, that one had a job and one got taxed, correct? (03:47:25) Dwayne: Sorry we are Ryan... (03:47:25) Amaroq: I would take the food stamps while still opposing them. (Also, I'm just getting my money back. But that's a side point to the point I was trying to make.) (03:47:26) WeDontNeedGod: I wouldnt compromise the principles of independence, and rights, to my needs, no. (03:47:32) Dwayne: for the 2222222222th time...in some guise. (03:47:34) CapitalistSwine: you believe in morality of your poor understanding of it? (03:47:38) Axiomatic: Taking welfare checks is like a tax rebate (03:47:45) WeDontNeedGod: Amaroq, so you would steal while opposing theft? (03:47:51) CapitalistSwine: or* (03:48:07) knast: Rationalism, context-dropping ^2 (03:48:07) Axiomatic: Ugh, your thinking is so messed up WeDontNeedGod (03:48:13) Dwayne: Yeah cause thats JUST tyhe same thing...wait no its fucking not. (03:48:24) WeDontNeedGod: would you steal if you needed to to survive? (03:48:25) Dwayne: That is a horrible package-deal... (03:48:27) knast: +lacking understanding of Objectivism. It is a car accident waiting to happen. (03:48:34) Dwayne: Absolutely disgusting. (03:48:47) WeDontNeedGod: your right Dwayne having someone else steal money for you to live on, is different than you stealing it yourself. (03:48:47) Alish: WeDontNeedGod, assuming that loss of job and inability to find another job was caused by government enforced burdens on private industry in the first place, I don't see anything objectionable with going on welfare. That kind of compromise isn't hurting your moral principles. Government stole from you, then you steel back from the government. (03:49:17) Amaroq: Alish just put it pretty nicely I'd say. (03:49:17) WeDontNeedGod: mmm tasty pragmatism. (03:49:27) Alish: steal* (03:49:29) Dwayne: You would know I guess.. (03:49:56) WeDontNeedGod: interesting to see the ways the proponents of absolute moral values, independence and property rights can come to justify accepting a welfare check. (03:50:04) Amaroq: Theft is different than taking advantage of a service that you paid for anyway. (03:50:05) Axiomatic: (03:50:08) Dwayne: Or not..give n you have no clue what that word really means it seems. (03:50:10) WeDontNeedGod: Dwayne, your being a jackass, (03:50:18) Dwayne: Thanks Alex ;D (03:50:26) CapitalistSwine: if you think that is pragmatism then you really don't understand philosophy. (03:50:51) Dwayne: Am I? I think I am being understandably exasperated by your stupidity (03:51:05) WeDontNeedGod: CapitalistSwine if yo think its not, you dont really understand philosophy. (03:51:12) Dwayne: And am treating you no worse than what you deserve. Does that make me a jackass? Not really. (03:51:26) Dwayne: Or at least your apparent stupidity. (03:51:36) WeDontNeedGod: Dwayne then do the rational thing and put me on ignore so you are not subjecting yourself to it, instead of making childish coments to impress your friends. (03:51:46) Amaroq: The moral is the practical. Your views create a moral-practical dichotomy. Being willing to starve yourself to uphold your morality shows that there's something wrong with your morality I think. (03:51:56) Dwayne: Childish? Nope. (03:52:06) Dwayne: And I wasnt trying to impress my friends. (03:52:13) Axiomatic: Amaroq: Yup! (03:52:19) CapitalistSwine: or maybe you don't understand the philosophy of Objectivism. (03:52:34) CapitalistSwine: on even a basic level, and so are critiquing something you shouldn't be. (03:52:36) WeDontNeedGod: Amaroq, first of all, I dont think in reality there would be a situation between starve and theft (03:52:46) Dwayne: over the top? Maybe...maybe..but your really annoying me...perhaps I shall ignore you. (03:52:47) WeDontNeedGod: there is private charity, there is wild game. (03:52:58) WeDontNeedGod: so the thing is a lifeboat situation to begine with (03:53:07) Amaroq: I don't think there would be either WeDontNeedGod. Like you said, there's private charity, etc. (03:53:21) WeDontNeedGod: thanks Dwayne, take care now, bye bye then. (03:53:22) Amaroq: I actually wasn't the one who introduced theft into the equation. (03:53:25) CapitalistSwine: dammit my screen is scrolling up to that picture now. (03:53:41) knast: WeDontNeedGod do not understand Objectivism OR pragmatism. His thinking is extremely rationalistic. (03:53:47) Axiomatic: I have taken welfare checks in the past, I may need to take welfare checks in the future (03:53:48) Amaroq: The picture is more than ten lines away, so you can reload if you want. xD (03:54:00) Axiomatic: Now are you going to call me a pragmatist for that!? LOl (03:54:00) knast: I do not know how to explain the simplest things to him because his reading comprehension is also pretty bad. (03:54:04) Dwayne: LOL...that seemed a bit patronizing...meh oh well.. (03:54:12) Dwayne: As I said..guys...WeDontNeedThis (03:54:17) CapitalistSwine: i did reload, I think I will just switch browsers (03:54:39) knast: Dwayne: HA! (03:54:44) ChatBot: CapitalistSwine logs out of the Chat. (03:54:51) ChatBot: CapitalistSwine logs into the Chat. (03:54:52) WeDontNeedGod: amazing, here I am ready to learn, and what do I get. not an attempt to correct a percieved error, just a bunch of crap (03:55:19) CapitalistSwine: how do you learn by context-dropping (03:55:20) Amaroq: From what I gather, they did try to correct a perceived error. (03:55:30) Dwayne: umm...lol...wow...where to start with that.. (03:55:38) knast: I tried to correct you. (03:55:38) Axiomatic: If you were here to learn you would be learning by now, lol (03:55:50) knast: But you ignored what I said and/or failed to read what I wrote. (03:55:58) WeDontNeedGod: anyways Axiomatic, i dont know if you are a pragmatist, but i would think that accepting stolen money would be a compromise of your basic values if you are an Objectivist (03:56:03) knast: But sure. Maybe I am bad at explaining things. (03:56:06) Dwayne: I dont know how ignoring what we are telling you and the facts as well, demonstrates readiness to learn. (03:56:24) Axiomatic: Attempts at correcting you were numerous but you ignored them and continued with your erroneous thinking. (03:56:31) Dwayne: But what would I know...I tend to go off that pesky thing called reality. (03:56:39) knast: So I will leave it to the experts. Since you do not understand why compromising as such is NOT pragmatism I will refer you to two articles that are very much relevant by Ayn Rand. (03:56:44) WeDontNeedGod: knast, i read your pragmatic-under-the-guise-of-con​textualism stuff, and I stated the reasons why I disagree (03:56:52) Dwayne: Damn facts..they really hinder learning so much.. (03:57:09) WeDontNeedGod: and all i got was a lot of hehe haha and no answer (03:57:14) knast: Oh yeah. (03:57:26) knast: Crap like that do not make me any more interested in treating you as a rational being. (03:57:34) WeDontNeedGod: "oh god can you guys imagine he doesnt even understnad hehe haha lets post some pictures to show how ironic we are" (03:57:51) CapitalistSwine: wedontneedgod where do ethics come from? (03:57:57) WeDontNeedGod: and all high five each other because we are all so smart (03:57:59) Dwayne: No answer. Except for the dozens of attempts to correct your multitude of errors. (03:58:00) Amaroq: WeDontNeedGod, the money was stolen from you in the first place. But let's consider a different situation where you benefit from stolen money. Do you drive to work? If so, you drive on a road, which was paid for by tax dollars. Will you stop driving on roads and walking on sidewalks? Will you walk to work in a ditch to uphold your moral opposition to taxes? (03:58:46) Axiomatic: I think he should go into the forest and live like a ferrel animal to avoid breeching his 'morality' any further (03:58:46) Dwayne: So Carl....what history are you looking at today? (03:59:00) WeDontNeedGod: Amaroq, i think you are the only one I like here, and who has a sincere desire to discuss this, so im only talking to you from this point forward. (03:59:05) Dwayne: Preferably somewhere with lots of bears xD (03:59:32) WeDontNeedGod: In those cases you are forced to drive use those things (03:59:32) Amaroq: The government forces its benefits on us, either through our inability to not use them such as roads, or creating conditions where we have to use them, such as welfare in a bad economy. (03:59:40) Dwayne: Ok...maybe that is a little harsh (03:59:45) WeDontNeedGod: there is never a case where you are force to go down and apply for welfare (04:00:14) WeDontNeedGod: more idiotic knee slapping from Dwayne, good job. (04:00:53) knast: Hey fuckface A K A WeDontNeedGod, read "Doesn’t Life Require Compromise?", "The Question of Scholarships" by mega-pragmatist Ayn Rand. THEN... IF, and that is a big if, you managed to READ that stuff, you can listen on this lecture by Tara Smith on pragmatism so you at least understand the philosophy of pragmatism better and how it differs from Objectivism. You can and should also read OPAR, especially the chapter on integrity. That should do it. (04:01:08) Dwayne: Sure...that one was a bit silly I give you that But meh..I am just so disgusted by you...it is infuriating.. (04:01:22) Axiomatic: When you need to pay your next months rent and you are out of work there is certainly a need to claim welfare. The fact is if I were not taxed in that situation I would have vastly more funds saved up and would be able to afford my rent while I search for new employment, thus I would claim welfare. (04:01:37) WeDontNeedGod: hold on a sec while i ignore some of these people (04:01:37) Dwayne: And you said you werent talking to me. Stick with it. (04:01:54) Axiomatic: *not (04:02:17) WeDontNeedGod: Dwayne the "context" demanded that i forget everything i ever believe about morality lol (04:02:30) WeDontNeedGod: "need to claim welfare." (04:02:36) Dwayne: Oh well, I no longer wish to acknowledge that fucker. My night is too short. (04:02:43) WeDontNeedGod: suddenly my need is a claim on other people money.... (04:03:24) ChatBot: Added Dwayne to the ignore list. (04:02:45) knast: See he does not want our help at all. (04:02:50) knast: He is not here to learn. (04:02:59) Amaroq: I'm actually currently making use of food stamps. I didn't go so far as to get welfare because I still have a job and I'm capable of paying the rent, though late. But my work is not very consistent and I can't wait for weeks for work because I have to feed myself. So I try to work as many hours as they have available for me to scrounge up the money for rent, while accepting food stamps so i can feed myself. (04:03:02) Amaroq: I* (04:03:02) WeDontNeedGod: Dwayne, very intellectual of you (04:03:16) Axiomatic: No, the Gov already stole the money from you and you have a need to support your life so you claim it back (04:03:26) WeDontNeedGod: knast, no, just not from some condesending chat room asshole (04:03:32) Axiomatic: Sheesh (04:04:14) ChatBot: Removed Dwayne from the ignore list. (04:03:39) Axiomatic: Its not that difficult to understand (04:04:03) WeDontNeedGod: Axiomatic do you really believe that? (04:04:10) Axiomatic: Taking back what was stolen from you is not being parasitic and is not advocating for the welfare state (04:04:16) Dwayne: Though I see nothing that is non-intellectual bout facing the fact that I have no real reason to acknowledge your presence. (04:04:24) WeDontNeedGod: Axiomatic do you then keep receipts to see exactly how much they owe you? (04:05:07) ChatBot: Added Dwayne to the ignore list. (04:04:25) knast: Dwayne: Well. (04:05:16) ChatBot: Added knast to the ignore list. (04:05:01) WeDontNeedGod: and only make sure to take that amount? (04:05:18) WeDontNeedGod: or do you use that as a free lisense to collect on whatever kind of hand outs you can get? (04:05:19) ChatBot: CTrain logs into the Chat. (04:05:24) Axiomatic: That is not important, between periods of unemployment when I would claim I would be working and getting taxed, the taxes throughout my life VASTLY outweigh any temporary unemployment checks claimed (04:05:29) Alish: WeDontNeedGod, it's not just taxes, sir. Every dollar you spend on products and services includes hidden costs of government regulations. So, I'd say they stole alot! (04:05:52) WeDontNeedGod: how do you know if you dont keep receipts? (04:05:53) Axiomatic: Yeah, good point tooo Alish (04:06:09) WeDontNeedGod: i think through tax breaks ive paid very little in income taxes. (04:06:41) WeDontNeedGod: Alish that is true.. but is it unlimited? (04:06:44) Axiomatic: Good for you (04:07:10) WeDontNeedGod: honestly i dont see how someone can use something they oppose (04:07:19) WeDontNeedGod: it seems like hypocricy to me

The problem with your approach is that you are assuming that consciousness is inextricably linked with physical bodies, and your only evidence to support this assumption is that we don't know of any such. Unfortunately for you, not knowing of any is not, in logic, the equivalent of there are none such (unless you have omniscience, of course). Your assumption is a simple assertion, and your basic argument evaporates. As for your final point that a non-embodied consciousness would not have anything to be aware of, it would in fact have at least one thing to be aware of: itself. (Obviously,I changed my mind about replying.) That is not true. In the essay I give various example of the minds dependence on the brain and matter in general. Not only does all the evidence we do have support the thesis that the mind and body are in fact integrated, but the theoretical philosophical argument supports it as well. As for your last objection, I'll let Ayn Rand answer, since that is where I learned the idea: "If nothing exists, there can be no consciousness: a consciousness with nothing to be conscious of is a contradiction in terms. A consciousness conscious of nothing but itself is a contradiction in terms: before it could identify itself as consciousness, it had to be conscious of something." Galt’s Speech, For the New Intellectual, 124.

That is not what I have said. I stated that instances of "pure spirit" are impossible, given the nature of consciousness. I did delete posts from my blog: they were off-topic, or otherwise contributed nothing to the discussion. I did leave the first post from the objector intact, as it contained what he repeated over and over.

Hello Everyone! I just wanted to share with you my latest essay, and I would be happy to answer any questions! http://wedontneedgod.wordpress.com/2010/03/12/the-nature-of-consciousness-vs-religious-concepts/

I do not like to discuss individuals, But I would like to discuss something I have noticed in Leonard Peikoff's podcast's. There seems to be a level of pragmaticism in his answers to questions, and it isn't isolated. His discussions of smoking (individual preference) and soldiers having "meaningless sex" (LP justifies this) both display such attributes. Smoking particularly, which Peikoff says every person must judge for themselves, and it may be rations to conclude that smoking is acceptable at some level, depending on the health, the values, and the frequency of smoking. This is opposed to Ayn Rand's statements regarding compromise, particularly apt is the quote "There can be no compromise between food and poison." It could also be stated as "There can be no compromise between air and smoke." I contrast LP approach with Dr Hsieh's, where in a podcast she says "Smoking is bad; don't do it." *The title should read "Pragmaticism is LP's Podcasts"

Thank you, everyone, for your welcomes I'll try to answer some of your questions. Reidy - Psychological Operations is a branch of the military that attempts to influence foreign populations thoughts and actions to be favorable to US positions. In practice we either issue surrender appeals, or attempt to persuade locals to not participate in, and actively oppose insurgency. Selene - No, I am not developing my own theories; I am still attempting to master Objectivism. As to Ft. Hood, I don't know what decision was made on Jan. 16th. Again, thanks to all for the warm welcomes, I hope I can contribute to the value provided by the board.

Thank you David. I have read "How to Raise your Self-esteem" and "The psychology of Self-esteem" by Dr. Branden, but I was extremely put off by the latter due to the inclusion of the concept of "child-selves." I understand self-acceptance, but not the idea that a person has multiple "selves." I would like to read "The Six Pillars of Self-Esteem" though. I understand that it was written before Dr. Branden embraced those concepts.

Hello, my name is James Hughes and I am a 25 year old Psychological Operations Specialist with the US Army from Arkansas. I have been interested in Objectivism for about 4 years now, and am especially interested in the personal development aspects of the philosophy, as opposed to the political. I look forward to talking with you all.