RobinReborn

OK, so this McCain comment has made me like Trump a lot more. I think McCain was a horrible unprincipled compromiser, he played the war hero thing to death. The fact is he crashed a plane (and two others crashed while he was in or around them), and then he was shot down and captured. It's not clear to me why people are given second chances if they crash million dollar planes, it might have something to do with McCain's father and grandfather being Navy Admirals and nepotism in the Navy. Not only is he not a war hero, but I'm sure his judgement was negatively affected by his treatment while he was in Vietnamese custody. Lastly, 'war heroes' who advocate more wars and are too lazy to try to negotiate don't sit well with me. In any case, it's nice that he speaks his mind and defends himself. I'm sure I'll disagree with something else he says but it's useful to have somebody who isn't so afraid of how people will react to what he says. I don't dislike Obama as much as many of the other people here do, but he's a politician that follows the polls and tries to conform his actions to what the people want. Trump is trying to conform the people to what he believes...

@Selene I have no idea why you ask me these personal questions that have no clear connection to the topic at hand (and I think I dodged them earlier) but I'll answer. I live in the US, I am a citizen of the US, my parents immigrated here (not from the middle east). I went to an elite selective college and majored in both Mathematics and Computer Science @William, thanks for the extensive post, though it seems more like a lecture on the Middle East than a reply to me. Regarding security, nothing that you have said has convinced me that the US is less secure if these deal is approved. I do not think Israel's perspective matters, they are a cause of instability in the region. Furthermore the region has always been insecure since the Ottoman Empire fell. Iran may use a nuclear program to flex its muscles more, but I do not think it can acquire territory beyond the Shi'a areas of Iraq. I don't claim to be an expert on the Middle East, if you think any of my facts are wrong please tell me, but I am not going to go through and fact check myself. I suppose my claim of Iran being a democracy is misleading, but it is more of a democracy than any country in the Middle East other than Israel or Turkey. @Baal I'm not sure Iranian suitcase nukes are a realistic problem. Pakistan has nukes and Osama was living a few miles from their biggest military school...

I don't see the issue. This is a private bank offering a specific type of financing.

I'm not looking into the argument, but I don't see the problem with Iran developing Nuclear weapons, nor do I see them as a threat to the USA (the hostage incident was terrible but had Jimmy Carter been more careful/vigilant it wouldn't have been nearly as bad). Let's go over some facts: 1) Iran does not have the missile technology to reach the US. 2) Their air force and navy are insignificant compared to that of the US. 3) Pakistan has had Nukes for a long time and is less politically stable and more violent and lawless than Iran yet has not had any nuclear incidents. 4) There is no evidence that Iran has sponsored terrorism against the US (just against Israel and a few other places). 5) This deal will help keep gas prices down. 6) Forming deals with Iran helps the US negotiate with other countries in the Middle East as we are less dependent on the few (mainly Israel) that we have good relations with. 7) Iran is a democracy and more advanced than most other countries in the Middle East.

I can tell you, but I'd need you to be my servant for five years first ;) But seriously, one way of proving/supporting this is to assume the opposite. See where that takes you.

I concluded some time back that you make stuff up. If you're not twelve years old it's inexcusable. Pardon me if I don't take you seriously but even if 90 % of what you're saying has some merit I don't have the time to separate the wheat from the chaff. There are smarter more honest people, I simply don't need to try to sort you out. Really? Why didn't you call me out on it then? I'm not sure if I can take you seriously, if I met anybody who said things that had merit 90% of the time I'd be incredibly grateful and it would be worth my time to determine the 10% of the time when they're wrong. Where are these smarter and more honest people? I think you have a narrow view of the truth. That or you like to mess around with people because you can't identify with them in a normal way.

I moderate the Objectivism subreddit (reddit is a website where you share links and vote up or down based on whether you like other people's links). There's been quite a bit of controversy due to the Philosophy subreddit banning references to Ayn Rand: Here is a screen shot of the explanation for why a link to Ayn Rand's Playboy interview was banned: http://imgur.com/fDNPLVz Here's the discussion https://www.reddit.com/r/Objectivism/comments/3d1qrt/ayn_rand_is_banned_from_rphilosophy/ I suppose it's not a surprise that Ayn Rand hate pervades all mediums of communication.

Here's a list of alternative views of history... http://listverse.com/2014/03/11/10-controversial-alternative-views-of-historical-events/

@Selene, it's not clear to me that you have the critical reading skills to understand me. It's like you are interpreting with the intention to disagree. I'm not sure how to continue this discussion. I don't have the time to cite every claim I make, I believe people who read this forum are intelligent so I'm not going to waste my time citing things which I believe most intelligent people know. You've cited my claim and given it undue attention. What are you trying to achieve? I have my own style of arguing and it is effective for my personal goals. If you don't like it, fine. But I'm not going to change it just to appease you.

Selene, sorry you aren't interpreting my responses in a more charitable way... I believe that the Bible is a historical document. I do not believe it is 100% accurate, but it is one of the best references we have for events that happened thousands of years ago. I thought of Isaac and Ishmael first because it is one of the most important. Another historical debate is whether China discovered America before Europe did... it's not clear to me which side is right there.

Haven't followed this story too closely but I have a few things to add. In Obama's book he says that when he watched Bill Cosby when he was a kid (this would be in the 60s or 70s, before the Cosby Show) he wondered by he wasn't ever with women on TV First I heard of Cosby raping women was through Hannibal Burress, another standup comedy (who is in my opinion funnier than Cosby) (sorry for the low quality, if Cosby did rape women he did do a good job in covering it up!)

@Michael & Selene Israel does not officially prohibit any group from entering (that I'm aware of) but they do give preference to jews under the law of return. As for the USA, they don't specifically mention race but national origin which is similar to race (moreso in the past than now). Check out this for more details (quotas based on existing population): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Quota_Act There were also laws discriminating against Chinese, not sure if any of those were federal or if they were just California's law. For a period Oregon prohibited blacks from moving there.

Unresolved by anybody, there is no definitive proof about it in any direction because it happened so long ago. Not sure about what sort of professionals you'd be asking.

@Michael, you're right I haven't read the book so I can't argue against the content, but I have read reviews. As for what nation uses race as a criteria for immigration, Israel clearly does, as do most middle eastern countries. The US certainly used to, and I imagine that many bureaucrats still do in an unofficial capacity.

Michael, I read Pinker's Blank Slate Myth ages ago and enjoyed it. I've looked into the book you've mentioned but have read some criticisms of it. Firstly I think his estimates of how violence early humans were could be entirely wrong and biased towards his preconceived notions. Secondly, warfare has changed and all it would take would be somebody launching a nuclear missile/bomb for his hypothesis to be completely disproven. But I've added it to my list of books to read (unfortunately there are over a hundred books on that list!)

RR, Are you interested in solving the problem as your frame or in promoting utopia? Your comments sound utopic, core story and all with an automatic villain: You keep portraying the heroic productive underdog (any collective not white) against a scummy, lazy, brutal, obnoxious, disease-ridden, bullying white class. This sounds exactly like the indoctrination core story they teach in schools nowadays, right out of Howard Zinn. Note: This is not racism per se, although it uses races. This is a typical class warfare perspective. Once again, I myself think in terms of individuals. It's hard to address your comments when the frame is "us against them" as the defining fundament of "good versus evil" instead of "which individuals have merit against which are bad guys." On another aspect of the utopia perspective, I agree that the government is the root of most evils. But it is also the root of some good. Pretending that government will go away, saying that government practices are "impractical" and so on is typical of utopic thinking. You can't change the government by saying it should not exist. Sure, a few utopic people will agree with you, but the rest of everybody--those who make and sanction governments--will ignore you. That means the government you live under will continue and likely grow whether you want it to or not. Utopic visions only work for violent uprisings (like communism). Within a modern cultural context, utopic visions of "us against them" merely become factions jockeying for a piece of the power pie. Ironically they do not result in the promotion of rational principles. Even more ironically, this is one of the fundamental problems of spreading Objectivism as a philosophy. Fact: A government without borders is not a government. Real estate alone is not a country. Michael I am setting an ideal for immigration, once that ideal is set then problems can be solved using rationality and practicality. Right now most people are only using short term practicality to solve the immigration 'problem'. My arguments are against this notion that people like Columbus, the Conquistadors and Andrew Jackson were heroes. I think this is fairly ingrained in people from the USA because of the educational system (books that advocate this narrative are much more common than Zinn's books). As for governments growing, that will happen. But right now the population of Hispanic people is growing faster than the government. These people will start businesses, become elected officials, get PhDs etc, it's happening right now. They will use their power to make it easier for other Hispanics to come into the country. As I've said, this isn't different from any other group. The Europeans (from Ireland and Southern and Eastern Europe) who came to this country around the turn of the century were involved in crime and people complained about them. But I think it's clear that restricting immigration against these groups would have been bad in the long term interest of this country. I don't see myself as advocating utopia, I see myself as advocating long term thinking. What's the difference between Mexicans and Italians/Irish/Polish etc. Race is the most obvious. I suppose that all the Europeans that came here had to buy a boat ticket as opposed to just walking across a border but I don't think that's too significant. I've never advocated getting rid of the borders, but I do believe about 90% of people who want to come to the US should be allowed in. A nation which uses race as criteria for admitting immigrants is fascist. Here are a couple of podcasts on immigration, most of them are in agreeance with my view: http://www.peikoff.com/?s=immigration This one is specifically about Mexicans: http://www.peikoff.com/page/3/?s=immigration#list

There was one wave of Native Americans that crossed the bering straight when sea levels were lower. There were also polynesians who settled the Americas before Columbus. I'm sure there was violence between the groups but there's no evidence of the genocidal conquest that (some) Europeans participated in. It's pretty clear to me that Europeans also exaggerated the amount of violence between Native Americans and that some of it was caused by Europeans (and later Americans) pushing them westward. There were Europeans who peacefully traded with Native Americans but I don't think they were ever the majority. I am not trying to hold the Native Americans as some sort of "noble savage" but I think it's irrational and racist to absolve the Europeans (or more specifically, the hypocritical Christian/nationalistic philosophy they held) from blame. It's not racist to acknowledge that Europeans had Christian values, it's supported by historical facts. The difference between you and a Native American isn't whether you were born here, it's how long your ancestors have lived here. I doubt you could claim American ancestry going back more than 500 years, Native Americans can claim it going back more than 10,000. It's true that in a sense this is irrational, but it's the way land rights, property rights and nationality work in nearly every country in the world.

First conflicting analysis that I can think of actually goes back more than a thousand years and is biblical in nature. Abraham was said to have been told by god to sacrifice one of his sons. Some believe it was Isaac (mainly Christians and Jews), others believe it was Ishmael (mainly Muslims and Bahaii). Of course it is possible that Abraham never existed, but this is still an unresolved debate.

Looks like Donald Trump is beating Rand Paul in terms of discussion here... Let's see if a video can help that: I'm not sure how plausible this tax cut is. And I don't think he's passionate.

Developed it myself.

Stephen, I had forgotten about the Hannibal Lecter stories. I was very into them when I was in my early teens. One thing that distinguishes them from other horror films/books is that they're realistic, there's no supernatural forces or things outside the realm of human knowledge. Hannibal is a strange combination of extreme vice and a few virtues. In a sense Clarice is a Randian hero (in Silence) but ends up dropping out of the FBI due to its corruption and horrible buearacracy. Stylistically the books are good (haven't yet read the last one). Silence of the Lambs and Red Dragon were good movies. I learned a decent amount about psychology and I think the portrayal of the FBI is accurate (though I don't know). The books expose you to interesting information about things like transsexuality...

Actually, many 'immigrants' in the USA's early history (including before it was the USA) had no medical exams and brought diseases which wiped out the Native Americans. They had no safety net other than their religion and Native American generosity. The Pope was their sponsor. Then they wrote racist irrational immigration laws to continue their takeover of this country. As for "Second, we have an absolute right to control who enters our nation and whether we want them to." No, "we" don't. It's completely impractical. Matters of immigration should be determined by principle, not popular vote. Right now there are more criminals in the DEA fighting a destructive drug war which is destabilizing Mexico. Our government is the problem, not the immigrants.

So far, I have not been dazzled by your "reasoning power." I do not particularly care whether everyone of these folks was a perfect person. They still need to be allowed to come into our sovereign country and be subject to a set of rules. End of discussion. If we as a nation choose to reduce the spigot to 100 immigrants per year for the next two (2) years that will be our choice. A... They are subject to a set of rules, in fact its a stricter set of rules than previous immigrants have faced... I've heard that the incomes tax of 1913 was passed to prevent immigrants from accumulating too much money. Whether or not it's true, there's a continuous pattern in the US of each group of immigrants passing laws and regulations that make it harder for the next group of immigrants to enjoy freedom. This is not sustainable. So long as we fear immigrants more than the incompetent Americans who are destroying this country we will never achieve the freedom that our forefathers enjoyed. Ultimately, I think it's ridiculous to claim you deserve some special privilege because you were born in the USA. And I think the people who choose to come to the USA are frequently better citizens than those born here. This comes from Ayn Rand's own beliefs, when she was criticized for not being born in the USA she responded by saying that she made the choice to come to the USA, which made her more American than those born here who did not make an active choice. I lived in California for a few years, by my estimate the illegal immigrants have a better work ethic than most native born Americans. It's truly sad that they've become a scapegoat for politicians based on a few bad apples.

Interestingly enough I never developed a taste for roller coasters.

Michael, I think I understand your position better and think we agree on quite a bit. I wasn't intending to attack Trump, but I decided this would be a good opportunity for me to express extreme pro-immigrant sentiment. I think a wall is overkill, the overwhelming majority of people who come from our Southern border are good people (and I'd bet that's also true of the people who get deported). The criminals/terrorists are a minority and there'd be even less of them if we didn't have a drug war and a horribly interventionist foreign policy. So it's collectivist to be anti-immigrant because of the actions of a few people. I don't take the threat of immigrants taking over very seriously. I think it happens more on the opposite direction, ie Chinese immigrants are coming in increasing numbers but this will probably help the US take over China more than the other way around.