Enter the Dean

[deanwins]

Jules, The issue with animal abuse was about whether an owner can abuse his own animal. Yea definitely if someone other than you was to hurt your dog without your consent that would be a crime (initiation of force).

[Jules Troy]

Jules wrote:

If some sick c!@#$%%^er tried to eat my dog they would find themselves wearing a pair of cement shoes.

end quote

I thought you were a friend of Dean's on his site Return on Revenue? Oh. I get it.

[Jules Troy]

I do like Dean, Actually my last statement I believe he would agree with. If someone were to break and enter into my house and attempt to steal my dog in order to eat it that would be a violation of my property rights. I am pretty sure down there in the good ole USA I would be fully within my rights to make said perpetrator eat a shotgun, no cement shoes required.

Also yes, animal abuse of your own animals is reprehensible I do not think they should however be accorded the same rights of a person though.

I also believe that public condemnation and humiliation of animal abusers might do more to dissuade animal abusers. If everyone refused to trade/ sell goods and services to these people it would be more effective than making the actual act illegal.

[deanwins]

Jules, I moved to Texas. "Don't mess with Texas."

[Jules Troy]

Haha cool how is the Lone Star state treating you?

[deanwins]

I've lived in many places in the US. I tried New Hampshire for a while, going along with the Free State Project, although I didn't sign up for it (they were trying to herd cats). New Hampshire was all right but after living in So-Cal for a while I was spoiled and didn't like the winters. And Taxachussets people were moving there faster than FSP people (for jobs, but they bring their taxing politics), which with majority vote wins didn't look like good future prospects to me.

So I decided to try Texas, which I think has an even more rugged individualist image than New Hampshire. Neither have state income tax... which is important to me. Anyways, I visited the major cities and looked at where all the companies I could potentially work for were (I'm a software engineer). North Dallas was the best for my job prospects, there are lots of company HQs around there. I looked around for a city that had more outdoor recreational areas... North Dallas is actually quite incredible in that its just like a 40 mile diameter area of suburbs and commercial businesses. Ok, there are a few parks here and there, but not many. Not until you get to the fringe of the suburbs, such as Frisco. So I decided to move there. It just so happens that actually Frisco has been the fastest growing city in the US for a few years, unknowing to me even until after I bought a house here.

I do like it here. The people are competitive and yet still respectful towards each other. The police I feel are actually helpful rather than trying to find ways to dick you over... although there is still the drug war here too . Jobs... well lets just say that if I put my resume on Monster.com, then I wouldn't be able to talk to all of the businesses and head hunters who would be asking me for an in person interview... because my phone would be ringing while talking. Its ridiculous how strong the demand is here for software engineers.

My main complaint is the ISD (government school) taxes. The property taxes would be low, if it weren't for the government schools... like 2.1% taxes total, and 1.9% goes to school (don't quote me on that). My wife and I live very frugally, and we are rewarded well in our corresponding careers, and actually we rather like the idea of devoting a lot of time to helping foster our children's education through direct care. So I don't even know if we'd even send our kids to government school, despite how highly rated Frisco schools are (many say they are of the best in the state, not just people in Frisco, but by test scores and whatever).

I'm finally living in a place where riding a motorcycle is practical sometimes... so I got a CBR600RR. That's fun.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dean

I'm still traveling, so this has to be short.

But the cult that starves babies?

Not even interested?

Too far-fetched?

There are cults that refuse to allow medical procedures on babies.

Don't even want to give it a shot as you keep telling folks how I want to "violate NIOF"? If you only said that once, that would be one thing. But you say it a lot, which makes me start to suspect ideas are not the point.

I'll give you a more in-depth discussion later this week, but I would appreciate it if you said what you believe human beings are. I've asked you in different forms, but you've ignored them so far. Now I'm making an open request.

In your conception, what are human beings?

Michael

[Peter]

Words requoted from Dean:

Given that I take evolution as undeniable truth . . . . And over time, successful species diversify in nature as their population grows and various individuals with common properties such as ability, ambition, efficiency, and goals find themselves deciding to form differing ecological/social niches . . . .

end cobbled quote

One last crack, Dean and then I will disengage. Is Dean writing under pseudonyms? The co-author of the following paper is Robert Deaner. The Dean is everywhere:

The scientific reason why a guy’s eye wanders

A study conducted by Duke University suggests that we’re biologically compelled to stare at sexy and powerful people. Researchers monitored the eye movements of male rhesus monkeys as they looked at photographs of their fellow primates. When a monkey fixed his gaze on an image, he was rewarded with a squirt of fruit juice. What they found was that the monkeys were drawn to power and sex, choosing to look at the faces of alpha monkeys of both genders and the hindquarters of potential female mates. (The sight of a female monkey’s rear signals sexual availability.) The test subjects showed this preference even though they were given more juice to entice them to look at lower-ranking, less attractive monkeys.

According to the study’s co-author, Robert Deaner, Ph.D., humans — like our simian cousins — are probably hard-wired to act this way. “In both human and rhesus monkey societies, individuals vary in their influence and reproductive potential,” explains Dr. Deaner. “So for both humans and rhesus monkeys, natural selection would have favored individuals that valued such information accordingly.” In other words, evolutionarily speaking, paying attention to whoever’s most powerful and eager to mate can really pay off in the long run.

[deanwins]

Michael, I would be Ron Paul "let's not get involved" with the cult. Its not in my favor to generate animosity between myself and insane cultures for the sake of saving innocent members of their population. So if you want to be Team America World Police... then the blowback is on you and hopefully I won't be generalized by that culture as being a willing actor in your intervention, nor die in a future war or anonymous/suicide attack as collateral damage.

Sorry for harping on that you would violate NIOF in that context. The point I was trying to make was that you would violate NIOF in a extremely unlikely situation and you are still a good guy... and that me plainly saying that I would violate NIOF too in some unlikely situations that will probably never happen doesn't make me a bad guy either.

[deanwins]

general-intelligent: capable of accomplishing a vast collection of kinds of goals in a vast collection of kinds of contexts

Human beings are highest (compared to all known life forms) general-intelligent life forms that are capable of even changing themselves (their nature/identity) via mental determination.

That's off the top of my head... potentially I could make that more succinct. Potentially I left out something important. Beyond that definition, we can look at many humans and make generalizations... but must keep in mind that individuals deviate widely from the generalization.

[Brant Gaede]

general-intelligent: capable of accomplishing a vast collection of kinds of goals in a vast collection of kinds of contexts

Human beings are highest (compared to all known life forms) general-intelligent life forms that are capable of even changing themselves (their nature/identity) via mental determination.

That's off the top of my head... potentially I could make that more succinct. Potentially I left out something important. Beyond that definition, we can look at many humans and make generalizations... but must keep in mind that individuals deviate widely from the generalization.

Human Being 101. Made possible by a big brain, speech, the opposible thumb, maybe upright walking, conceptual consciousness and free will choosing.

--Brant

having a woman is a big help, for woman smarter in every way

[Jonathan]

I think my presence is kind of like mirror that you can't look away from, which I think can very much change the mood and cause people to identify conflicts and make things less friendly.

When I was posting on RoR, I easily "looked away" from you. I found you to have a massively exaggerated opinion of yourself, laughed about it, and then went on with my discussions with others.

To share the comedy, I wanted to highlight the irony.

What do you imagine is ironic about it?

J

[deanwins]

Jonathan, Sorry. I'd like to take back that statement. At the time I wrote that irony statement I felt like I was in the right and I was being clobbered by opponents from every direction, and out of the emotion I jumped to conclusions about your character that I shouldn't have.

In some ways I do think I have a very high opinion about myself that is justified. I wouldn't say that my opinion of myself is "massively exaggerated", although sometimes I do stand tall and beat my fists against my chest. Rather I tend to under estimate the intellectual capability of others. Or using your words with my added: "I found you to have a massively exaggerated opinion of yourself [relative to other participants]". I'd agree that I have made this mistake many times... I'm happy to find when I'm wrong. I don't take the time to apologize sometimes when I really should. I know I post my thoughts, many times primitive, but still with cocky attitude, and you find them useless to you. But writing my thoughts out so far has been very useful to me. I hope that some others do find my posts worthwhile to them too.

For one, I thought my above realization that "emergency situation" can be defined as where the person's best-self-interest action contradicts the NIOF principal was pretty insightful... did anyone else like that?

[Jonathan]

Jonathan, Sorry. I'd like to take back that statement. At the time I wrote that irony statement I felt like I was in the right and I was being clobbered by opponents from every direction, and out of the emotion I jumped to conclusions about your character that I shouldn't have.

Apology accepted! Thank you.

In some ways I do think I have a very high opinion about myself that is justified.

I would think that's true: In some ways your very high opinion of yourself is justified. I'm sure that you're very competent, and then some, in certain areas.

I wouldn't say that my opinion of myself is "massively exaggerated", although sometimes I do stand tall and beat my fists against my chest.

Well, My exposure to you is limited to certain subjects that I'm interested in, so I may have distorted view of your smugness. Perhaps you're chest-thumping has happened much more often on threads that I've read, and much less often on ones that I haven't read.

Rather I tend to under estimate the intellectual capability of others. Or using your words with my added: "I found you to have a massively exaggerated opinion of yourself [relative to other participants]". I'd agree that I have made this mistake many times... I'm happy to find when I'm wrong. I don't take the time to apologize sometimes when I really should. I know I post my thoughts, many times primitive, but still with cocky attitude, and you find them useless to you. But writing my thoughts out so far has been very useful to me. I hope that some others do find my posts worthwhile to them too.

Can we address one example? I'd like to know if you've changed.

Here's an article of yours that popped into my head, and which I think is quite silly, but written as if it is supposed to be taken seriously:

http://rebirthofreason.com/Articles/Gores/The_Artistic_Battleground.shtml

It's not so much silly because it "underestimates the intellectual capabilities of others," (although it does do that), but because it was written by someone who appears to have been ignorant of art and aesthetics, and whose exposure to the field of aesthetics was pretty much limited to Rand's peculiar ideas on art without bringing any critical thought to them whatsoever. The mindset behind that article seemed to me to be that of someone who felt that his intellectual competence in some other specific area could be somehow magically transferred to areas about which he knew absolutely nothing.

Now, you say that sometimes you don't apologize when you should. Well, I'm not asking for an apology, since that's not really appropriate to my criticism of your attitude, but a recognition and admission of error. So, what I'm asking is, did you learn anything from the responses on that thread? Do you recognize yet how far Rand had led you astray on the topic of aesthetics, and how much more critical thinking you would have to do before your opinions on art could be taken as anything but laughable?

For one, I thought my above realization that "emergency situation" can be defined as where the person's best-self-interest action contradicts the NIOF principal was pretty insightful... did anyone else like that?

I'm still catching up on this thread, and on others, so I haven't yet read your thoughts on force and emergency situations.

J

[deanwins]

Jonathan,

Wow I completely forgot about that article and thread. I would say that yes, I did learn a great deal from that thread... and that from that I did when later thinking about it think that Rand's sense of life and taste in artistry may very well not be others, and that a piece of art can have different purposes and mean things to different people. Even say a piece of art might not be propaganda by the artist, but then is used as propaganda by someone else.

I generally take excruciating exacting effort to understand what people are trying to say (even when they make logical mistakes like switching the meanings of words mid argument)... and most of the time I will only reply to things I disagree about (in entirety, every disagreement), but I do not take the time or waste the forum space to say that I agree with each of the other statements in the post. I feel like when I am posting "I agree" I'm "wasting a post".

I've been dreaming about making a debate/philosophy website where users can mark each sentence written by others as "agree", "disagree", or "undecided", and then allowing users to share these marks with others.

[Jonathan]

Well, Dean, then I think that I've had a distorted image of who and what you are. My apologies.

J

[dldelancey]

For one, I thought my above realization that "emergency situation" can be defined as where the person's best-self-interest action contradicts the NIOF principal was pretty insightful... did anyone else like that?

Actually, yes. I've long been searching for clarity around this idea of an "emergency situation." I'm still mulling it over, but I think you may have come very close to my own chaotic thoughts on the subject.

If that is too close to an "I agree" then I apologize for having wasted the post.

[Brant Gaede]

An "emergency situation" in ethical or moral conduct is one defined by the actor who will then take the responsibility of consequences of an action that could usually be identified as wrong in and of itself. If I get trapped in a blizzard and struggle to a locked summer cabin and break in to keep from freezing to death might be an example. If I'm hiking by in the summer and break in . . . then I'm a criminal and moral louse.

--Brant

(let's leave the babies out of this)

[Selene]

Definitely time for a group hug...

[Mikee]

I read a novel years ago (The Emigrants?) where a man caught in a blizzard killed an ox to use his hide and warm flesh to save his life. The ox was of great value to him on his farm but he chose the greater value. But it would be very hard for me to accept someone killing another person in the same situation. I accept violating property rights in emergencies, not killing people. Do you agree Dean? Is there an emergency situation where you would kill an innocent person?

[Jules Troy]

Haha Adam that was cute!

I have found through the times I have interacted with Dean that he is a fine upstanding guy. One thing I really enjoy about him is his quest for increasing health and has always been very forthcoming on his views of nutrition. (Ed Thompson as well!)

[Selene]

Interesting...

We do juicing here, most mornings and it does make a difference.

A...

[Mikee]

Paleo diet, intermittent fasting, and Pavel Tsatsouline.

[beats chest, Tarzan yell]

[deanwins]

Paleo diet, intermittent fasting... agreed. Seeds = bad. Refined sugar = bad. Hey by the way... sugar causes/feeds cancer, fructose causes CVD, and sugar causes diabetes. Sugar = primary cause of death in US.

Pavel Tsatsouline: Thanks for the reference I'll have to look into that.

Do you agree Dean [on never killing innocent people]? Is there an emergency situation where you would kill an innocent person?

Only in strange concocted emergency situations where disasters cause a situation where the only way I could survive was to kill or be killed. Or maybe even kill or die. But not in every emergency situation of those kind. So... better not hope to get on a one man life boat with me... because I may very well chose to fight to the death. That is, unless you can clean & jerk really big kettlebells... I've been slacking in exercising lately, both cardio and strength.

[Mikee]

Hey by the way... sugar causes/feeds cancer, fructose causes CVD, and sugar causes diabetes. Sugar = primary cause of death in US.

Yes, I believe it: http://www.bc.edu/sites/libraries/facpub/seyfried-cancer/book.pdf