You're attempting to prove that only irrational people get swayed by irrational arguments by taking as a given that rational people are not swayed my irrational arguments.
rational
adj 1: consistent with or based on or using reason;
How many otherwise rational people have been swayed into irrational opinions or beliefs through the persuasion of an irrational but charismatic individual?
Then they weren't very rational to begin with hm?;-)
It is quite possible to foster a habit of constant questioning and skepticism (especially of "authority figures"). Indeed, it is necessary for any hope of true rationality.
But like I said, I'm not trying to advocate that position, completely. I think, for example, that she was overly optimistic about the universality of the moral compass. It seems to me-- although my mind's not totally made up on this yet-- that most people that I've met have only the most basic moral compass.
I don't think people are born with any "moral compass", but that we are trained in certain responses. All we are born with is absolute freedom, and we must be shown which freedoms to avoid for our own benefit. Throughout our development we are faced with choices, and thinking about these decisions will inevitably lead to self-consciousness. At this point, we recognize the reasons behind morals and then refute them and change if they are nonsense. Once we achieve self-consciousness, we should be able to define an objective moral code based on logic, which is what Rand was trying to do IMO.
They might shy away from armed robbery, but they're not above shoplifting. Of course, I think that's more a problem of nurture than it is of nature, but that's another topic.
Response based on severity of repercussions if caught, probability of being caught and probability of being injured themselves in such a high-risk endeavour weighed against benefits to oneself. Note that all above criteria are based on "self-interest". Even if they take into account not wanting to hurt the cashier, these sentiments are motivated by wanting to avoid feeling guilty, which is again self-interest.
Ken Lay is a supreme capitalist. He followed his own greed. Isn't that what capitalism is about? Isn't capitalism supposed to lead to a perfect universe if everyone just is allowed to be as greedy as they want?
Capitalism is about freedom, not greed. It's about pursuing self-interest, not indulging appetites. What's the difference between "self-interest" and "greed"? Making decisions based on self-interest leads to responsible choices, whereas allowing greed to make one's decisions is blindly sacrificing long-term benefit for short-term gain.
But they also refused to acknowledge that you need information to make a free decision.
Free of what? Free of ignorance? Then you would need information. Make a decision free of prejudice? Then less information may be beneficial. How do you define "free"? By "free", I believe you mean a "best" decision based on knowledge of all possible outcomes and scenarios , ie. to be able to see all the consequences of a choice, and so to freely choose a path fully accepting the consequences (which would necessitate knowledge of all contributing factors and their relationships). But such a scenario is impossible as one cannot ever hope to attain such intricate knowledge even for a single decision.
I tried to point out that a society in which people do not have at least a basic level of education cannot be a free one.
I would like to hear this argument.
In general, absolutists are dangerous and can be easily painted into logical corners.
Perhaps you simply have yet to meet a logical absolutist (as I have yet to meet a logical relativist).;-)
(like not accepting the loss of "freedom" in taxation for public schools although it provides the greater good of actually allowing capitalism to work better, reward talent, and lead to less self-perpetuating power structures).
The problem with the "public" education, is that it must serve the "public interest", however that is defined by the current power holders. That is the problem. The education system does not serve "education", but instead indoctrinates a set of classes to perpetuate the economic systems and values of those in power. People aren't "educated", they are trained into desirable patterns of behaviour and trained in reptitive tasks (a.k.a. "skills") they can perform for the benefit of such a person in power. They are also trained to believe that this is a "successful", and thus desirable, life, and the respect given them by attaining a "successful" career further supports and cements these notions. If that's not a self-perpetuating power structure, I don't know what is. I would rather have a less efficient society of free thinkers over a group of mindless sheep. The public education system as it stands will not provide this.
(Not for rand, her not-for-profit organization doesn't believe in charity, volunteerism or, for that matter, not-for-profit endeavor!)
AynRand.org does not specifiy that it is non-profit. Simply because it is an organization created to spread Objectivism, and which collects contributions to that end, does not classify it as non-profit.
She simply was justifying why men that rise to the top of the capitalist world, like Ken Lay, are a better sort of people, period.
Actually, no. In her books, the people on the top (the ones in power) were the "bad" people if you recall. Simply because you are on top and have the power, does not mean you are a "better sort of person". She tried to say that everyone should have the freedoms to pursue their own self-interest without interference from other men.
This "rant" of yours is fine if all you want to do is spout off a non-factual "opinion", but until you can demonstrate inconsistency or problems with her philisophy (which you have not done in the above), you're just blowing smoke out your arse.
If you are too stupid to drink coffee, you should be put into a geriatric clinic (or equivalent) but you should not be honored for your stupidity.
This has little to do with rewarding stupidity but is about responsibility and acceptable safety precautions. Did you even read the link? I truly dislike arguing with the uninformed.
Now, while McDicks ought to be more responsible for what goes into the cup, don't think they had no reason whatsoever for heating the water that far.
Indeed they did: it was cheaper operating the machine consistently at the same temperature than allowing the coffee to cool to acceptable levels before serving it.
I thought as you did on this issue until I read the details of the case. The coffee was over 180 degrees Fahrenheit capable of causing third degree burns; well over commonly accepted safe temperatures. It was also not the first complaint McD's received on this issue, yet they did nothing about it. McD's was malicious in many other areas and deserved to lose (see here for details).
In the world of business, there is no right and wrong in the moral sense, only "right" as in following the law and making money.
It's this misguided viewpoint that's causing many of our modern headaches. Why don't you think about this:
"It is evident that most lawyers and legal scholars feel that their ethical obligation to put forth the best defence of a client is the highest principle in law. Agreed, it is a high principle. However, should it be a higher principle than what the system is supposed to achieve - namely, justice? Of course not. If the ethic of a good defence insists on obscuring or hiding the truth, it needs to be reevaluated, because it is then immoral." ~ Ed Weathers ~
Similarly, the highest imperative of a corporation should not be profit at any cost except where prohibited by law; ultimately, this philosophy is self-defeating and benefits no one while in fact harming many. It is immoral. All human actions should be directed by morals and ethics. The purpose of all human activity should be in the best interests of the race as a whole.
I feel disappointed [...] in the general population who are obviously not paying attention to the actions of their government or thinking critically about its actions.
Me too, but I have to question whether "not thinking" is actually a new habit or that the people in power have finally figured out the extent of the people's ignorance and how to properly exploit it.
>AC is much better for distributing power, thats why Edison lost.
No, high voltage is much better for distributing power. Changing voltages used to be much harder with DC. It may still be for really high currents and voltages, I dunno.
AC is also better for distributing power over large distances. Line failures due to spikes, etc. are local and isolated instead of distributed as they would be in a DC power grid. The calculations sure are alot more complicated for AC though...
I've been running my machine without a floppy for months now. Then again, it never had a floppy to begin with, so maybe the "law" should be extended to include only machines that had a floppy in the first place.
I love getting into completely hypothetical discussions like the one you had. Honestly, I feel they are great mind-expanders. Arguing religion with someone is an incredibly fun thing to do, because both sides have such strong cases.
You'd probably like the discussions at these forums then. Particularly this one (feel free to skip the first few posts, they were transcribed from e-mails).
self enslavement? Come on people would not ask to be monitored for their own good. People would not beg to be given filtered news. What are you talking about?
Have you looked around you lately? You really think the media is unbiased? You think people care? We're already there.
Check out a power systems book. They'll most likely have something in there about it. At the very least they'll describe the extreme fine-tuning the power companies due to the line frequencies (fraction of a percent changes).
Slashdot Mirror
You're attempting to prove that only irrational people get swayed by irrational arguments by taking as a given that rational people are not swayed my irrational arguments.
rational
adj 1: consistent with or based on or using reason;
How needlessly complicated would you make it?
Unfortunately, some people need that much drilling to get the correct idea into their heads. ;-)
It's the only way to resolve the contradiction.
p: person is rational
q: person is swayed by irrational arguments
p->~q <=> T
~p OR ~q
Can only be true when p is false.
How many otherwise rational people have been swayed into irrational opinions or beliefs through the persuasion of an irrational but charismatic individual?
;-)
Then they weren't very rational to begin with hm?
It is quite possible to foster a habit of constant questioning and skepticism (especially of "authority figures"). Indeed, it is necessary for any hope of true rationality.
Relativists can escape any constraints. But they can't bring their principles with them.
:-)
Ooo... good one. Mind if I quote you on that?
But like I said, I'm not trying to advocate that position, completely. I think, for example, that she was overly optimistic about the universality of the moral compass. It seems to me-- although my mind's not totally made up on this yet-- that most people that I've met have only the most basic moral compass.
I don't think people are born with any "moral compass", but that we are trained in certain responses. All we are born with is absolute freedom, and we must be shown which freedoms to avoid for our own benefit. Throughout our development we are faced with choices, and thinking about these decisions will inevitably lead to self-consciousness. At this point, we recognize the reasons behind morals and then refute them and change if they are nonsense. Once we achieve self-consciousness, we should be able to define an objective moral code based on logic, which is what Rand was trying to do IMO.
They might shy away from armed robbery, but they're not above shoplifting. Of course, I think that's more a problem of nurture than it is of nature, but that's another topic.
Response based on severity of repercussions if caught, probability of being caught and probability of being injured themselves in such a high-risk endeavour weighed against benefits to oneself. Note that all above criteria are based on "self-interest". Even if they take into account not wanting to hurt the cashier, these sentiments are motivated by wanting to avoid feeling guilty, which is again self-interest.
Ken Lay is a supreme capitalist. He followed his own greed. Isn't that what capitalism is about? Isn't capitalism supposed to lead to a perfect universe if everyone just is allowed to be as greedy as they want?
;-)
Capitalism is about freedom, not greed. It's about pursuing self-interest, not indulging appetites. What's the difference between "self-interest" and "greed"? Making decisions based on self-interest leads to responsible choices, whereas allowing greed to make one's decisions is blindly sacrificing long-term benefit for short-term gain.
But they also refused to acknowledge that you need information to make a free decision.
Free of what? Free of ignorance? Then you would need information. Make a decision free of prejudice? Then less information may be beneficial. How do you define "free"? By "free", I believe you mean a "best" decision based on knowledge of all possible outcomes and scenarios , ie. to be able to see all the consequences of a choice, and so to freely choose a path fully accepting the consequences (which would necessitate knowledge of all contributing factors and their relationships). But such a scenario is impossible as one cannot ever hope to attain such intricate knowledge even for a single decision.
I tried to point out that a society in which people do not have at least a basic level of education cannot be a free one.
I would like to hear this argument.
In general, absolutists are dangerous and can be easily painted into logical corners.
Perhaps you simply have yet to meet a logical absolutist (as I have yet to meet a logical relativist).
(like not accepting the loss of "freedom" in taxation for public schools although it provides the greater good of actually allowing capitalism to work better, reward talent, and lead to less self-perpetuating power structures).
The problem with the "public" education, is that it must serve the "public interest", however that is defined by the current power holders. That is the problem. The education system does not serve "education", but instead indoctrinates a set of classes to perpetuate the economic systems and values of those in power. People aren't "educated", they are trained into desirable patterns of behaviour and trained in reptitive tasks (a.k.a. "skills") they can perform for the benefit of such a person in power. They are also trained to believe that this is a "successful", and thus desirable, life, and the respect given them by attaining a "successful" career further supports and cements these notions. If that's not a self-perpetuating power structure, I don't know what is. I would rather have a less efficient society of free thinkers over a group of mindless sheep. The public education system as it stands will not provide this.
(Not for rand, her not-for-profit organization doesn't believe in charity, volunteerism or, for that matter, not-for-profit endeavor!)
AynRand.org does not specifiy that it is non-profit. Simply because it is an organization created to spread Objectivism, and which collects contributions to that end, does not classify it as non-profit.
She simply was justifying why men that rise to the top of the capitalist world, like Ken Lay, are a better sort of people, period.
Actually, no. In her books, the people on the top (the ones in power) were the "bad" people if you recall. Simply because you are on top and have the power, does not mean you are a "better sort of person". She tried to say that everyone should have the freedoms to pursue their own self-interest without interference from other men.
This "rant" of yours is fine if all you want to do is spout off a non-factual "opinion", but until you can demonstrate inconsistency or problems with her philisophy (which you have not done in the above), you're just blowing smoke out your arse.
If you are too stupid to drink coffee, you should be put into a geriatric clinic (or equivalent) but you should not be honored for your stupidity.
This has little to do with rewarding stupidity but is about responsibility and acceptable safety precautions. Did you even read the link? I truly dislike arguing with the uninformed.
Now, while McDicks ought to be more responsible for what goes into the cup, don't think they had no reason whatsoever for heating the water that far.
Indeed they did: it was cheaper operating the machine consistently at the same temperature than allowing the coffee to cool to acceptable levels before serving it.
people sue restaurants for serving too hot coffee
I thought as you did on this issue until I read the details of the case. The coffee was over 180 degrees Fahrenheit capable of causing third degree burns; well over commonly accepted safe temperatures. It was also not the first complaint McD's received on this issue, yet they did nothing about it. McD's was malicious in many other areas and deserved to lose (see here for details).
It's this misguided viewpoint that's causing many of our modern headaches. Why don't you think about this:
Similarly, the highest imperative of a corporation should not be profit at any cost except where prohibited by law; ultimately, this philosophy is self-defeating and benefits no one while in fact harming many. It is immoral. All human actions should be directed by morals and ethics. The purpose of all human activity should be in the best interests of the race as a whole.
I feel disappointed [...] in the general population who are obviously not paying attention to the actions of their government or thinking critically about its actions.
Me too, but I have to question whether "not thinking" is actually a new habit or that the people in power have finally figured out the extent of the people's ignorance and how to properly exploit it.
>AC is much better for distributing power, thats why Edison lost.
No, high voltage is much better for distributing power. Changing voltages used to be much harder with DC. It may still be for really high currents and voltages, I dunno.
AC is also better for distributing power over large distances. Line failures due to spikes, etc. are local and isolated instead of distributed as they would be in a DC power grid. The calculations sure are alot more complicated for AC though...
Nothing is more engrossing than Tetris!
This means he likes a microkernel-daemon type system for graphics, yet we all know how lame he thinks Mach is ...
Mach is not the only microkernel, nor is it the best by any stretch of the imagination.
"We apologize for the inconvenience"
Rest assured, I know, and I understand.
The "undistributed middle" is not what I was referring to; is that what you were implying? Or were you suggesting I add it to the list? :-)
Using unrealistic extremes to make an idea sound moronic makes you a shithead. Think first.
It's a fallacy of logic called "excluded middle" (considering only the two extremes in a range of possibilities); a common failing of those who do not understand how to construct a logical arugment. See the above link for a list of other common logical fallacies.
I've been running my machine without a floppy for months now. Then again, it never had a floppy to begin with, so maybe the "law" should be extended to include only machines that had a floppy in the first place.
I love getting into completely hypothetical discussions like the one you had. Honestly, I feel they are great mind-expanders. Arguing religion with someone is an incredibly fun thing to do, because both sides have such strong cases.
You'd probably like the discussions at these forums then. Particularly this one (feel free to skip the first few posts, they were transcribed from e-mails).
self enslavement? Come on people would not ask to be monitored for their own good. People would not beg to be given filtered news. What are you talking about?
Have you looked around you lately? You really think the media is unbiased? You think people care? We're already there.
Check out a power systems book. They'll most likely have something in there about it. At the very least they'll describe the extreme fine-tuning the power companies due to the line frequencies (fraction of a percent changes).
I don't think they license Mac OS X per computer like MS. If you buy one Mac OS X CD, that should be good for all your computers.