jordanz

While you're at it don't insulate your homes either, that saves energy too. Is wasting energy a tenet of Objectivism? Oh sorry, I see you're not an Objectivist anymore.

The reason to insulate is to keep your house cool/warm and to save money. That's the only good reason to do it. To do it for the quasi-religious reason of saving energy is irrational.

Well maybe I can stuff his mind (read brain) into my boiler and see how many btu's I can get out it. We ARE running out of fossil fuels, btw.

In a purely literal sense, we're running out of everything. But in any sense that matters we are not. A few points:

• The known reserves of oil will last for at least 50-100 years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves)
  
• By the measure of prices, oil is plentiful. Adjusted for inflation, the price of oil has been fairly steady over the years (http://www.forbes.com/static_html/oil/2004/oil.shtml) - though it has changed a lot in the last year or so.
  
• Technology is active. The amount of oil available for use is a direct function of current technology. So, usable oil will increase in the future.
  
• Oil used to be considered a nuisance/waste product. The point is that current technology determines the usefulness of a resource. If oil becomes scarce for some reason another resource will take its place
  

Jordan, just put in a lot of outlets and then do what you want by stringing cords in out-of-the way places. Meddling bastards.

To show you how nutty things are here: the regulation is called Title 24 and states:

Residential Lighting [§150(k)]. The requirements for residential lighting will be substantially

revised to increase clarity and specificity, require high efficacy lighting equipment or energy

savings controls for permanently installed luminaries in all lighting functions, as well as require

recessed luminaries in insulated ceilings to be airtight. At least 50 percent of the lighting wattage

in kitchens will be required to be high efficacy.

* snip *

The important item here is this: "At least 50 percent of the lighting wattage in kitchens will be required to be high efficacy." Read that again to yourself and you'll soon realize that I can actually have as much standard lighting as I want as longs as I install twice as much wattage of fluorescent! Yes, this law will actually cause me to install about 1000 watts of fluorescent lighting that I will never turn on so that I can install the non-fluorescent that I want! A law straight out of Atlas Shrugged.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=59298

This is driving me insane. My wife and I are remodeling our house and California has utterly irrational laws regarding lighting. I hate fluorescent light and am being forced to use it in parts of house. Makes me want to scream!

Anyway we were talking about a waterway and I don't know that anyone has ever owned a waterway.

A quick Google search will show that this isn't true.

If the cost of operating a factory cleanly and sustainably were factored in the price of the goods would be a lot higher and so now maybe the business is not viable after all.

I believe that these costs are factored into prices. In fact, they are most likely over-factored given the litigiousness of the USA.

Tree-fascists? What have you got against conserving energy? I use fluorescent bulbs to cut down on my power bill and so I'm not replacing bulbs all the time. It seems to me like common sense to conserve energy.

Let's cut to the premise here. There is no reason whatsoever to conserve energy. Energy is a product in the marketplace like any other. The price system will correctly allocate the product. I don't think this needs explaining to the members of this BBS. Further, we are not running out of resources. To paraphrase Julian Simon, there is only one true resource: the human mind.

Jordan; How about the first ten people from the Carmel telephone directory. We might get you or Rita.

;)

I plan on being elated for about a week when I get to see Hillary eat crow and concede. Then, the depression will set in. I have a glimmer of hope, though, that Obama will not have a lot of investment in his stated platform and will govern from the center - there is some speculation that this will happen. Other than that, his presidency will have the one great outcome of lessening the potency of the race-baiters. Along with a shellacking in Congress, it should also cause a re-working of the GOP.

If nothing good comes of it, at least I can watch the video of Hillary conceding over and over. Thank God for small pleasures.

If Hillary wins.... I hear New Zealand isn't a bad place to live.

I think the schedule looks awesome. I'll be there.

He is an empty shell. His issue statements are horrible. Yet, I hope he wins. What a sad state we're in. I view Obama as the least bad of an all bad slate of candidates.

I prefer real football - i.e. the game where you move a ball around the field with your feet:

I've already voted absentee (California) and I voted Obama. I'd registered Democrat this past Summer so that I could have the satisfaction of voting against Hillary. I didn't realize at that time that I'd be voting for my preferred candidate of the ones left. I can't believe how depressing this is. I truly hope that Obama wins, though. If he gets the Demo nomination I will vote for him in November. If Hillary gets the nomination and McCain gets the GOP, I will abstain.

FYI - for those who haven't read it, here's my response to PARC: http://www.jordanzimmerman.com/parc

In all of this, I wish Will had not invited Lindsay. I believe this was a mistake. That said, people make mistakes. I'm not holding it against TAS (I just re-upped my sponsorship) and I will be attending the Summer Seminar. If Lindsay is there, I will ignore him which is more than he deserves.

What I fail to understand is what anyone sees in him to begin with, how it can happen that he keeps attracting people. If any of you who at one point were favorably impressed by him and then became disenchanted would be willing to talk about what you saw in him, I'd be interested to read about it.

There seems to be two Lindsays. There's the one you meet in person and the online Lindsay. I met him a few years ago at a Summer Seminar and had dinner with him and some other people. He was quite charming and entertaining. I was really surprised by his online presence after meeting him.

If someone asks me, "Does this dress make me look fat?" they'd better be looking for an honest answer. I'd expect nothing less if I asked the question, and wouldn't ask it if I didn't want one.

On a similar point, Diana Hsieh (before she became Dyin' O'Shame) gave a talk at an IOS (before it became TOC before it became TAS) Summer Seminar. She made the point that when her Aunt Maggie asks "Do I look good?" she's not asking if she looks like Jennifer Lopez, she's asking if she looks good with respect to herself. So, one isn't lying when one responds positively.

On the "Does this dress make me look fat?" question. My wife asks me this all the time and I ask her the same. Of course I want an honest answer.

Jordan, I'm not suggesting that one should be rude or mean or cruel. Anything but. I'm suggesting that when one frames one's responses to these questions in a kinder way than one thinks them, one is surely at least skirting the truth. For instance, when you say "I can't make the date you propose" to a man you don't care to see, now or ever, you are suggesting something that is not true -- that is, that if you could make the date, you would. And to the boring date who asks, "Did you enjoy the evening" -- a "gentle way" of saying you didn't enjoy it sounds to me like an impossibility.

I would say that you shouldn't skirt the truth. In practice, I haven't found that I need to skirt the truth. I have rarely met someone that I would never see again under any circumstances. If I did meet someone I never wanted to associate with again, I would let them know that.

My point is that it often would be cruel to say what one thinks, and that when we shade our actual reasons, when do not tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in these sorts of instances, we are being quite properly kind.

I think we're in agreement here. I don't believe that "never lying" requires the whole truth. It merely requires not saying something you know to be untrue.

However, I'd like to explain something a bit different, which is the necessity of lying in the workplace.

-big snip-

There is no necessity to lie at the place I work nor I have ever found it to be a necessity anywhere else. That there is a lot of lying in Hollywood maybe true, but that doesn't make it acceptable.

Personally, I NEVER tell the truth.

--Brant

Wasn't there a Star Trek episode where Kirk tells a computer something like that and the computer blows up?

If I had a job, how long do you think I (or anyone else) would be employed, if I told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

My dictionary defines honesty as being free of deceit and untruthfulness; sincere. This is not the same thing as the legal oath required in a court of law.

Guys, if you do start a thread about "lying," might I ask if you'd "define your terms"?

I'm using this definition of lie: an intentionally false statement.

Jordan, if a friend suggests you get together a particular evening, and you're simply not in the mood to see him -- do you tell him so? If an acquaintance suggests it, and you don't particularly like him or find him interesting and therefore you don't care to spend an evening with him -- do you tell him so? If someone you've met says "We must get together soon," but you have no intention of ever seeing him again -- do you tell him so? If a date says, "This has been a wonderful evening. Did you enjoy it, too?" -- and in fact you were bored stiff, do you say so?

Essentially, you're asking about honesty and the necessity of being rude, mean, impolite, etc. It's an important question. I do not think that being honest requires me to be rude. In my experience, there is always a gentle way to tell the truth.

If a friend suggests you get together a particular evening, and you're simply not in the mood to see him -- do you tell him so?

Yes, I do. I say it in a way that I know they will understand and not be hurt by.

If an acquaintance suggests it, and you don't particularly like him or find him interesting and therefore you don't care to spend an evening with him -- do you tell him so?

No, I don't tell them that I don't like them. I tell them that I can't make the date they propose and hope they get the message. If they persist, however, I will have to find a way to tell them that I'm not interested.

If a date says, "This has been a wonderful evening. Did you enjoy it, too?" -- and in fact you were bored stiff, do you say so?

Here I would find a gentle way of saying that I didn't enjoy myself. After all, if the point of the date is a potential romantic partner, honesty is paramount from the beginning.

Moved from http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/in...ost&p=44436

I, too, never lie. I never say an intentionally false statement.

Ppppptht. See post 259

My statement was in the context of everyday living. In emergencies, I believe it's morally acceptable to lie. In normal interaction with others, however, I believe that lying is a type of fraud. In order to achieve values we must be able to identify the facts of reality. In a social context, this requires that others not intentionally try to mislead us. Otherwise, I would have no way of determining reality when dealing with others.

Snicker if you like, but I really do never say anything that I know to be untrue. I haven't always been this way. It is a moral habit that I've inculcated over the last 10-15 years. If someone asks me something that I don't want to reveal, I say that I don't want to reveal it.

Honesty is not a social duty, not a sacrifice for the sake of others, but the most profoundly selfish virtue man can practice.

-Ayn Rand - http://www.aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/honesty.html

Jim,

I was wobbling a little, but you just said you never lie. You must be morally perfect or something.

Gotta think about that one.

Michael

I, too, never lie. I'm not morally perfect. What this means is that I never say an intentionally false statement.

I just got a bootleg copy of the 2008 Summer Seminar schedule, and everything is making more sense now. It appears that there's an entire day dedicated to presentation styles similar to Pigero's.

Excellent

As I understand it, TAS doesn't invite speakers, but they accept proposals. It's not a small point. If TAS actively called Lindsay that would be worse in my book.