SoAMadDeathWish

Well of course. Nowadays when two evil spirits are spooking over the phone, they need to make sure that they're being perfectly clear. Everybody haunts to possess that 4G.

Think about it. The hitman needs to shoot the wife in the mouth, and the neighbor in the dick. He thinks that if he waits a little, he can get both with one shot...

One thing. Is irrational egoism at all possible, or is anything that isn't rationally selfish necessarily a form of altruism?

I'm not trying to. What I want to do is to eventually contrast Newtonian physics with special and general relativity in order to show that general relativity is actually a much simpler theory.

No, No, No .... Newtonian Physics is not Lorentz invariant nor is the space of Newton the right shape. Newtonian Mechanics assumes space is flat, infinite and independent of time. In short, it is Wrong. But it is close enough to be of use. Ba'al Chatzaf Where does it say that Newtonian Physics is Lorentz invariant? It is only invariant under Galilean transformations. Which makes it wrong. The world is NOT Galilean Invariant. Nor is space flat (at least locally). Newtonian Mechanics assumes space is infinite and flat and that time is absolute. Neither is the case. Einstein's genius move was to make mechanics consistent with Maxwell's electrodynamics which is Lorentzian out of the box. It is amazing that the Lorentz Transform leaves much of Newtonian mechanics intact. Ba'al Chatzaf Uhh... yeah... I know. Where did I say otherwise?

No, No, No .... Newtonian Physics is not Lorentz invariant nor is the space of Newton the right shape. Newtonian Mechanics assumes space is flat, infinite and independent of time. In short, it is Wrong. But it is close enough to be of use. Ba'al Chatzaf Where does it say that Newtonian Physics is Lorentz invariant? It is only invariant under Galilean transformations.

Good. That show was just awful.

Part 5: From Newtonian Space and Time to Special Relativity. http://www.mediafire.com/view/89xkq785010t92f/Part_5_Newtonian_Spacetime.pdf EDIT: corrected a typo.

Naomi, Not while you are this way. You have at least started quoting Rand when you talk about her ideas. That's a huge improvement over the past. So... baby steps. But I have faith in you. Michael That is just an excuse to avoid admitting that you were wrong. The truth is that I did not ignore a single fact in the course of making my arguments. All of my opponents, on the other hand, have simply tried to ignore facts which contradict their views, refused to defend their beliefs while implicitly assuming their truth, or dodge the issue in some other way. That is a blank out.

Uh SoMad. This is bigger than you. Sometimes it's wise to understand that one has no understanding of something, and just -leave it.

Name one single specific fact that I've "blanked out".

Michael:It looks like our game-player-extraordinaire has been gamed herself.A con man is the most gullible target of cons, as Greg I think remarks.What I mean, and what I'm intensely concerned about, is that I'm picking up too many signals from too many diverse sources that a propaganda campaign is in full swing over Israel. The original instigators we can surmize without any trouble. The objective is, I believe, too ominous to simply dismiss this time.(And I am the farthest from a conspiracy theorist, ever imaginable.)What's being achieved, I think, is a world-wide sense of Israeli 'injustice' over Palestinians on a scale never seen previously. Throw in "Those Jews, this or that" (but never outrageously anti-Semitic; we wouldn't want to look racist, you know) to further stir up the narrative.Taken all in all, somebody is setting the scenes for what they plan to do. To weaken international resistance when it kicks off - and to have a ready self-justification for after.I can just see the aftermath."Hey, big pity about Israel, wasn't it? But you know, they had it coming. Look how they treated those poor Palestinians..."Israel is always one step away from disaster. One blunder, one hesitation - with no room for tactical manouevre in such close proximity - and that's the end. The fact that Gaza and the West Bank will also be destroyed will go down as unfortunate collateral damage...So you are seeing more of these unthinking cynics who regurgitate all the unquestioned homilies about Israel/Palestine - never realising that they are useful idiots in a bigger plan.If I've been conned as you say, then it should be easy to disprove my claims about the injustice of Israel's policies toward the Palestinians. As it stands, you have failed to provide even a single defense of those policies that doesn't immediately collapse under the slightest bit of investigation of the facts. Instead you resort to ad hominem arguments and conspiracy theories, because you know you don't have a leg to stand on.

There is a variation on this rhetoric. Instead of saying, "You're changing the subject," people now say, "You're right. Others do wrong too, but..." and they go back to talking about Israel in the proportion above. Look on this very thread and you will see it. Michael Yeah, it's totally biased to focus on Israeli policy in a thread about Israel. Also, it's simply true that any criticism of Israel is an attack on Jews. The collectivism is strong with this one.

I was just using that as an example. The Arab-Israeli war began in 1948, about 3 years after the UN charter went into effect forbidding member states from acquiring territory through conquest. Israel had no choice but to give back the conquered territories. This is the reason that the US does not recognize Palestine as a sovereign state and has vetoed its membership in the UN. But what do I know? The UN is just a fiction made up by conspiracy theorists on the internet right?

No, it could not. The US would never allow it. So - to be consistent to your original heart-felt concern, that "They want to capture and control any usable land..." it is all moot. The US would disallow it. So why mention it? This is boring. You're just quoting selectively, which is a dishonest way to argue. I never said that the US would not allow Israel to take any land from anybody. The US most certainly does allow Israel to take whatever it wants from the Palestinians. If Israel was allowed to conquer the entire Middle East, then the US would become entirely dependent on Israel for access to cheap oil in the region. Strategically, being dependent on anybody is a bad place to be. That's why the US would never allow Israel to take whatever it wants. However, the US has no need for Palestinian water resources or land, and so Israel is allowed to take that for itself.

No, it could not. The US would never allow it. And fresh water still beats desalinated water because it's much cheaper to produce. Yes.

The US taxpayers. I don't see why you think it's ok for the US government to steal money from its citizens so it can give it to a foreign power. If Israel was such a good investment, then why not let people decide that for themselves and pay for that investment out of their own pockets? That might be a good idea. But I guess I can understand how dealing with other people on the basis of reason and not force could be considered controversial on a forum for objectivists. And no, I don't believe that Israel imposes tyranny for its own sake. They have a clear agenda with regard to Palestine. They want to capture and control any usable land and water resources in the region, and if any Palestinians get in the way that's just too bad for them. If Israel really wanted peace, they could just let the Palestinians have their own state. But that can't be allowed to happen because the Palestinians might want to be compensated for the use of their resources. Much easier to just take it by force, like any "civilized" or "rationally self-interested" or "enlightened" country would do. Just because you don't think somebody is not useful to you in no way justifies the use of force against them.

Why don't we start with the fact that Israel has received and continues to receive billions in foreign aid from the US? In light of this fact, do you still believe that "Israel has made something of itself out of nothing - completely, from rational self-interest"?

Maybe I'll take your recommendations seriously when you stop believing nonsense that is in blatant contradiction with the facts.

No.

No, the analogy is entirely apt. Palestinians want to be free from tyranny just like anybody else. They don't give their lives because they worship death, they give their lives for the freedom of their countrymen, just as American soldiers did in the revolution. That's good advice. Wow. More than $120 billion. I wonder what your "argument" has to say about that. Meanwhile, Palestinians have endured a decades long blockade by Israel. But yeah, I'm pretty sure that the problem has to do with Palestinians being too self-sacrificing. Yes I have applied the same standard to Palestine, like in this post. That's how peace settlements work. Total victories are rare. Also, I would like to know what specific conflicts you're referring to.

Yes morality is expressed in a set of abstract principles, but those principles are about choices and actions. Morality does not compel us to believe anything. Beliefs are determined by reason and reality, but these are prior to ethics. That's not an argument. You're just saying what you believe is true, but an argument requires you to justify those beliefs. I have not yet seen any argument that defends the morality of Israeli policies on here, probably because any such argument would be an absurdity, hence why Ed resorts to "providing context" instead. Suppose that I applied the same reasoning to the American Revolution. "If the majority in the Colonies had had one day of truly self-interested "conviction" - where do you think they could be? They would be, undoubtedly in a peaceful, advantageous position with their neighbor (Great Britain). But no, it seems they prefer to sacrifice themselves. It gets them the sympathy of idiots, and the support of groups and countries who are enemies of His Majesty the King." Makes about as much sense...

From the Objectivist Ethics: From Galt's speech: Furthermore, I've never even once heard Rand even imply that believing the right things and saying the right words grants you immunity from morality, as Ed seems to argue is the case for Israel.

But not about the morality of Palestinian policies toward Israel. Right. What a blank out. This is exactly what I was talking about. Heh. Michael It most certainly is, and the Palestinian leadership is guilty of many things. I readily admit that. Unlike supporters of Israel, I support individual rights unconditionally, and I don't make excuses for evil.

Let's be clear here. The Israel-Palestine issue is not about the causes of Palestinian hardships. It is about the morality of Israeli policies towards the Palestinians. You seem to agree that Israel does engage in policies that are unjust and wrong, but your article simply presents a long list of excuses. Specifically, that Israel's founding values are consistent with Enlightenment values, that the Jews were persecuted by Arabs and Europeans, that the country was attacked by its neighbors, that its human rights record is comparatively better than Egypt's, that it is economically prosperous, that anti-semitism is on the rise etc. Not one of these things justifies Israel's unjust treatment of Palestinians. Supposedly, you were providing relevant context. However, when you pointed to injustices committed against Israel by its neighbors, you did not provide a similar context. Instead, you simply said that their actions are due to their anti-life values. You also ignored relevant facts in light of which their actions make a lot more sense, as I pointed out in the previous post. This is the opposite of providing context. Which brings us to this: The only person here guilty of using a double standard is you. You admitted that Israeli polices are unjust. But apparently, according to you, if someone merely says that they are for freedom, then they are fundamentally for freedom regardless of what their actions might indicate. May I remind you that morality is about actions and choices, not beliefs and words.