...where they could be capped in less than TWO MONTHS. Also, congrats to the greens for preventing drilling in ANWR, on 1% of 1% of a people-less sheet of ice. Because caribou self-esteem is more important than energy dependency.


>> ^entr0py:

You're absolutely right. This disaster is the best proof yet that environmentalists were insane to not want oil rigs close to the shoreline.

Off your meds again?

In reply to this comment by campionidelmondo:
No worries. Now if you get some more people to pity-upvote your video it might restore your self-esteem. Must be difficult to take everything so personal.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Sorry to offend you, grandpa.

No worries. Now if you get some more people to pity-upvote your video it might restore your self-esteem. Must be difficult to take everything so personal.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Sorry to offend you, grandpa.

That's alright, I failed physics GCSE, you can stay a step ahead in the self-esteem stakes.

In reply to this comment by dannym3141:
Oh my god. Fundamental FAIL. QUICK DELETE MY COMMENT.

(Seriously though, i'm a fucking mong, can you believe i do a physics degree?)

>> ^NaMeCaF:


Also, what's the song in the background he's "dancing" to at the start of the clip?


Offspring - Self Esteem

I'm all for these women improving their self-esteem. I just don't understand how taking a bath in makeup, and putting on an outfit that would make most drag queens blush does it. I'm pretty sure some stills were literally from porn videos. Does this really inspire or empower anyone? . . . if it works I guess it's okay. You just wouldn't think they'd benefit from objectifying their bodies further.

Though I do think the one at 0:31 was both sexy and self-respecting.

>> ^dag:
Google's recent activity is worrying. Maybe I should be alarmed by them, but I'm not. Probably because Google is built on a core of innovation instead of copycatting and lawsuits. If Microsoft was a person (and I guess it is, according to the SCOTUS) then I would say it suffers from poor self-esteem. There must be a recognition of that within the company- that they have little innovation to be proud of - and that's what drives their company ethos. Oh and this of course.>> ^Croccydile:
>> ^campionidelmondo:
I'm more worried about Google to be honest. They're starting to control too much information, spreading into every sector. They just launched a social network, will launch their own phone as well as operating system and so on... Not that M$ doesn't suck, but then again most corporations are evil. Yes, Apple too.

Speak of the devil... http://www.gaborcselle.com/blog/2010/02/remail-acquired-by-google.html
This is only one small company, but that is even beyond Microsoft to not only buy them, but remove the product. At least when Microsoft bought Visio they kept selling it!



I understand your concerns given Microsofts history, but at the same time you cite copycatting when you point to DR-DOS... which was well after the fact. Really that was just poor Gary Kildall trying to recoup the old glory that was CP/M since nobody else was using it by that point.

"IBM originally approached Digital Research, seeking an x86 version of CP/M. However, there were disagreements over the contract, and IBM withdrew. Instead, a deal was struck with Microsoft, who purchased another operating system, 86-DOS, from Seattle Computer Products."

Sorry Gary, you had the chance for what was the deal of the century and lost it to Microsoft who saw someone had already made a clone of CP/M, bought it, spruced it up, licensed it to IBM and made billions off a $50,000 investment. Are we really supposed to feel that bad for those who missed that boat in the 80s? Imagine how pissed the dude who sold 86-DOS must be right now.

(Sorry, just nitpicking because even though MS has been a copycat at times... you gave probably the worst example Don't worry we still love you. I would hardly say Microsoft is lacking innovation as well with all of the side projects they have been churning out lately. But I digress I am the Microsoft apologist since they are an easy target I feel the need to make a counterpoint)

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Google's recent activity is worrying. Maybe I should be alarmed by them, but I'm not. Probably because Google is built on a core of innovation instead of copycatting and lawsuits. If Microsoft was a person (and I guess it is, according to the SCOTUS) then I would say it suffers from poor self-esteem. There must be a recognition of that within the company- that they have little innovation to be proud of - and that's what drives their company ethos. Oh and this of course.>> ^Croccydile:
>> ^campionidelmondo:
I'm more worried about Google to be honest. They're starting to control too much information, spreading into every sector. They just launched a social network, will launch their own phone as well as operating system and so on... Not that M$ doesn't suck, but then again most corporations are evil. Yes, Apple too.

Speak of the devil... http://www.gaborcselle.com/blog/2010/02/remail-acquired-by-google.html
This is only one small company, but that is even beyond Microsoft to not only buy them, but remove the product. At least when Microsoft bought Visio they kept selling it!

do guys really have this problem?
wanting to fuck women who are equally horny,yet desire for a partner that is a passive,meek door mouse for a relationship?
and then get confused to why there seems to be a sexual schizophrenia in their life?
it is not that complicated.
if you do not desire your girlfriend in the beginning,yet stick around because she has great "susie-home-maker" qualities,you might as well prepare for the divorce now.
the same goes for the opposite.
having fantastic sex with a woman only to find she is an idiot who looks banging in a t-back.
look,
i am not telling anyone how to run their business but for you guys out there consider this:
as men we are visual.
give us something to look at and some friction and we be happy lil dudes.
women are wired totally different.
while they can be visual,they are not as single-minded as men.(we have all seen the ugly dude with the hottie and thought wha???).
for women the two strongest components are sensual (touch) and emotional.
the emotional is the biggest key for a woman.this component decides how far she will surrender to you.
i use the word surrender specifically for a purpose.
because at it's core that's what it is.
as men we do not think of sex as "opening up" but that is EXACTLY how a woman views it.if i have to explain that further you need help.
a woman surrenders to you,she allows you access.
she is the gatekeeper..(sorry..gozer reference.i'll stop).

now do not confuse a hook up with the sex a woman craves.
women get just as horny as men but in our culture it tends to be frowned upon.so they use excuses like being drunk or whatever to ease their conscience.a hook up is a woman using YOU for something she needs,something we all need.
touching,kissing,caressing and yes..orgasms!
and you thought it was due to your irresistable charm..you go right ahead and keep telling yourself that.
unless the woman is mentally deficient she just needed sex.
*hint* if you can keep your trap shut and not brag to your buddies 5 seconds after she leaves your room she will come back...and often.
BUT..this arrangement will never be long lasting because at it's heart it only serves the purpose of the body and a woman needs to have the heart nourished also.
this is where i do not understand the question put to mr savage:
when a woman feels safe and secure in not her emotions but YOURS,this is when she will surrender to you.
she will open up and give you everything.
so even miss meek quiet doormouse will reveal a sexual experience to you that you thought not possible.
ALL women have this in them.
she will reveal a side of her that NOBODY else,including YOU,knew existed.
be prepared for the ride of your life.not only will be the best sex you ever had with her but from anybody!
so yes..even missus susie home maker can be a porn star if she trusts you enough.
*note* by the way.you might as well get prepared because you my friend are getting married.

so the only thing i can surmise from this question is:
1.the questioner is young,most likely early 20's
2.he watches waaaay too much MTV and thinks thats how a young man is supposed to act.what up dawg?!?
3.does not realize that women pay attention to EVERYTHING.
4.so while he may be attractive and fun,they consider him a DAWG and will only let him in so far.being very aware of his promiscuous nature.
5.predominantly the women he experiences are other predators with breasts(girls can be just as DAWG as dudes,dont kid yourself),while the girls with things like:self-esteem,strong personality and a strong sense of self avoid him like the plague.
6.the quiet meek women this man has encountered are also buying into a lot of the media,socialized Bullshit and see him as a notch into a particular crowd.future stalkers of america!
7.has never been with a real woman because a real woman would only play with him like a cat does a mouse.
8.i could totally be off my rocker and just spouting nonsensical bullshit.
9.while that may be true...woman utterly fascinate me.

what was the question again?

--vive in all such circumstances.

(32)


25,6-7: "The three cardinal values of the Objectivist ethics ... are: Reason, Purpose, Self-Esteem, with their three corresponding virtues: Rationality, Productiveness, Pride.

"Productive work is the central purpose of a rational man's life..."

NA. Earlier, Rand told us that life is the only end in itself, and that one's own life is the purpose of each individual (25,2). She contradicts this by declaring something else to be the purpose of life.

Moreover, we have already seen that there is no reason within Rand's scheme why productive work is more morally virtuous than looting (comments 28-31).

(33)


25,7: "Rationality is man's basic virtue, the source of all his other virtues."

I agree with this; however, Rand can give no adequate basis for it. (See comments 20-24.)

(34)


25,7: "Irrationality is the rejection of man's means of survival and, therefore, a commitment to a course of blind destruction; that which is anti-mind, is anti-life."

I quote this to emphasize that Rand's view is that rationality is good only because it serves the end of 'life'; life is the only end in itself.

(35)


26,1: Rationality means a commitment to the principle "that one must never place any value or consideration whatsoever above one's perception of reality."

NA. How does this follow from her view of ethics? Rather, 'life' is supposed to be the highest value--one must place that above everything else. One's 'perception of reality' is only a means to furthering one's life, yet Rand seems to be saying that accurate perception is the ultimate end in itself.

(36)


26,1: "... It means one's acceptance of the responsibility of forming one's own judgments and of living by the work of one's own mind (which is the virtue of Independence)."

NA. How does this follow from the value of life? Why can't people survive while being dependent?

(37)


26,1: "It means that one must never sacrifice one's convictions to the opinions or wishes of others (which is the virtue of Integrity)--that one must never attempt to fake reality in any manner (which is the virtue of Honesty)..."

NA. I skip over the rest of her elaborations on what rationality means, about which I would say the same thing. Granted, dishonesty and lack of integrity may sometimes lead to one's death (though not very often), but how can Rand justify these "must never" claims? She makes no attempt to argue that these things one allegedly must never do will, all of them, automatically kill you. That is what she would have to argue, given that life is the only ultimate standard of value.

I skip over her similar remarks about productiveness and pride.

(38)


27,3: "The basic social principle of the Objectivist ethics is that just as life is an end in itself, so every living human being is an end in himself, not the means to the ends or the welfare of others--and, therefore, that man must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself."

Above (comments 7-8) we saw that Rand adopts a purely agent-relative conception of value: that is, a thing cannot be said to be good simply. Rather, a thing can only intelligibly be said to be good for (or: good relative to) someone. This is what the ethical egoist has to say.

Since "is an end in itself" means "is good for its own sake," it follows that nothing can be said to be an end in itself in any absolute sense; rather, one can only say a thing is an end-in-itself for someone or other.

Now, what does Rand mean in saying "life is an end in itself"? This appears to be using "end in itself" in an absolute sense, but perhaps she means only that each particular life is an end in itself for that particular living thing. What does she mean by saying every human being "is an end in himself"? Again, is she using this in an absolute sense, or a relative sense?

Case A: Assume she is using "end in himself" in an absolute sense here. In that case, she is contradicting her earlier claim that value is agent-relative (comment . Furthermore, it would seem to follow that every person has a reason for promoting the welfare of everyone, as an end in itself. That is, utilitarianism would seem to follow, which is not what she wants. She thinks one should promote one's own life as one's sole ultimate value. Which brings us to the second case.

Case B: Rand must mean this in an agent-relative sense: i.e., each individual human being is an end in himself for himself (but not for other people). So for me, my life is the only end in itself, whereas for you, your life is the only end in itself. This is consistent with what she has said up to now. But now what about the rest of the passage: "not the means to the ends or the welfare of others." Well, of course for me my life is an end in itself. But for other people, it is not; we just established that. So why wouldn't my life be for them just a means to their own ends? Why wouldn't my life from my neighbor's point of view be good only as a means to promoting my neighbor's life?

Similarly, what about the remark, "man must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself"? Clearly, given that my life is, for me, the only end in itself, I would be irrational to sacrifice it for the sake of others. But why would I not be rational to sacrifice others to myself? True, their lives are ends in themselves for them; but what has that to do with me? For me, their lives are not ends in themselves, since only mine is. So why wouldn't it be good, for me, to sacrifice their lives for the sake of my own?

What seems to have happened here is that Rand slipped from the agent-relative theory of value into the absolutist conception.

(39)


27,4: "In psychological terms, the issue of man's survival does not confront his consciousness as an issue of 'life or death,' but as an issue of 'happiness or suffering.'"

I think she means that, even though the good is in fact what serves our life (our survival), we aren't always aware of it as such; instead, we are aware of it as what makes us happy. In fact, what makes us happy does so because it promotes our life, but we're immediately aware of it only as what makes us happy.

(40)


27,4-5: "Emotions are the automatic results of man's value judgments integrated by his subconscious; emotions are estimates of that which furthers man's values or threatens them ... [T]he standard of value operating his emotional mechanism is not [automatic]. Since man has no automatic knowledge, he can have no automatic values; since he has no innate ideas, he can have no innate value judgements."

NA. There are a number of problems here.

First, Rand's claim that emotions result from value judgements is evolutionarily implausible. The other animals all have certain emotions, which we share (though we have a wider range of emotions)--e.g., fear, anger, love for one's offspring. But Rand would probably agree that the other animals do not make value judgments. Therefore, what she is saying is that at some time in our history, as humans broke off from the primate line, the emotional mechanisms of the animals got selected out, and then replaced by other mechanisms that induce us to have the same emotions.

Alternately, perhaps Rand would say that the other animals do have value judgments, but of a different kind: theirs are automatic and instinctive, whereas ours are not. Then again, she would be saying that the mechanisms that give the animals instinctive value judgments got selected out, and then replaced with mechanisms that lead us to make many of the same value judgments. (Cf. comment 21.)

Second, people can often have emotions that conflict with their value judgments, for instance, a person who experiences a fear of flying even though he knows that flying is perfectly safe.

Third, in order to claim, rationally, that people (a) have no innate knowledge, (b) have no innate values, and (c) have no innate ideas, Rand would have to cite some actual scientific evidence. This is armchair cognitive psychology. (Cf. comments 24, 25.)

(41)


28,5: "Happiness is that state of consciousness which proceeds from the achievement of one's values. ... [I]f a man values destruction, like a sadist--or self-torture, like a masochist--or life beyond the grave, like a mystic--or mindless 'kicks,' like the driver of a hotrod car--his alleged happiness is the measure of his success in the service of his own destruction. It must be added that the emotional state of all those irrationalists cannot be properly designated as happiness or even as pleasure: it is merely a moment's relief from their chronic state of terror."

28,6: "Neither life nor happiness can be achieved by the pursuit of irrational whims."

29,2: "Happiness is a state of non-contradictory joy--a joy without penalty or guilt, a joy that does not clash with any of your values and does not work for your own destruction. ... Happiness is possible only to a rational man..."

The initial claim is that happiness simply results from attaining one's values. But this is followed by the claim, apparently, that a person with the wrong values cannot experience happiness (or 'true' happiness).

Why wouldn't the 'irrationalists' experience happiness when they attained their goals? Perhaps Rand is saying that it is impossible for the irrationalists to attain their goals. Why? Rand implies that the 'irrational' goals are ones that lead to one's own 'destruction.' Now, there are two alternatives:

Case A: Suppose Rand means this literally: that those values, if attained, result in your being literally dead, i.e., not existing. Then we could understand why people with those values could not experience happiness (since they would be dead first). However, she has given no indication of why this would be true. Apart from the 'mystic' case, the other kinds of people she mentions do seem to be alive and to often get the things she says they seek (e.g., drivers of hotrod cars do get kicks). Why, therefore, are they not 'really' happy?

Case B: Suppose Rand meant their 'destruction' metaphorically, e.g., their ceasing to live the life proper to man. In that case, she has given no explanation for why these people would not experience happiness when they attain this improper state, given that it is what they value.

The third quotation suggests that perhaps Rand believes these people's pseudo-happiness is always tainted by guilt. But she has just told us (comment 40) that all our value judgements are chosen, not innate. So if someone chose the improper values, how would they feel guilt upon attaining them? Guilt would seem to presuppose that they somehow knew those values to be wrong; but by hypothesis, they don't, since they have such knowledge neither innately nor by choice.

The significance of this is that it is another example of Rand's failure to explain, in terms of her theory, why sadism, masochism, or various other things she believes to be wrong, are wrong.

(42)


29,3: "The maintenance of life and the pursuit of happiness are not two separate issues. ... [W]hen one experiences the kind of pure happiness that is an end in itself ... one is ... affirming ... the metaphysical fact that life is an end in itself."

It is possible for a person to be alive but not happy, so how can it be that the maintenance of life is not a "separate issue" from the pursuit of happiness? Further, since Rand has said that life is the only end in itself, how can it also be that some kind of happiness is an end in itself?

This apparent contradiction could be resolved if and only if we assume that happiness is (that is, is exactly the same thing as) life. This is false, since a person can be alive but not happy--unless Rand wants to simply define "life" to mean "a happy life." But then her initial argument for why life is the ultimate value would not apply to this new sense of "life". (Cf. comment 27.)

Happiness, on Rand's theory of the emotions, is simply a signal that one is attaining one's values. It is the values themselves that are valuable; why would the mere signal be intrinsically valuable? Given the rest of her view, happiness could only be valuable as a means to furthering one's life.

(43)


29,5: "This is the fallacy inherent in hedonism ... 'Happiness' can properly be the purpose of ethics, but not the standard. The task of ethics is to define man's proper code of values and thus to give him the means of achieving happiness. To declare, as the ethical hedonists do, that 'the proper value is whatever gives you pleasure' is to declare that 'the proper value is whatever you happen to value'--which is an act of intellectual and philosophical abdication..."

First, it is unclear how happiness, rather than life, can be the purpose of ethics, according to what Rand has said earlier.

Second, it is unclear what the distinction is supposed to be between the 'purpose' and the 'standard' of ethics. If one's purpose is X, then why wouldn't one's standard be simply: that which achieves X? Here is everything Rand has to say about this:

25,3: "The difference between 'standard' and 'purpose' in this context is as follows: a 'standard' is an abstract principle that serves as a measurement or gauge to guide a man's choices in the achievement of a concrete, specific purpose. 'That which is required for the survival of man qua man' is an abstract principle that applies to every individual man. The task of applying this principle to a concrete, specific purpose--the purpose of living a life proper to a rational being--belongs to every individual man, and the life he has to live is his own."

I take it that survival qua man is the same thing as living a life proper to a rational being. The difference between the 'standard' and the 'purpose' in this example, then, seems to be that the 'standard' is something that applies to everyone--it is 'the life proper to a rational being'--while the 'purpose' is made specific to a single person--e.g., 'my living the life proper to a rational being.' Why this is a significant distinction escapes me. In any case, none of this explains why happiness could be a 'purpose' but not a 'standard.' Apparently, she is claiming that 'happiness' can be specific and concrete but not abstract?

Leaving that aside, the complaint against the hedonists seems to be one of circularity. They are not giving a genuine standard of value, since one's experience of pleasure depends on one's already having values; one then experiences pleasure as a result of attaining those values. This, however, is false. Children do not experience pleasure when eating ice cream because they believe that eating ice cream is good; quite the reverse. (Cf. comments 21, 24, 40.)

(44)


30,2: "The philosophers who attempted to devise an allegedly rational code of ethics gave mankind nothing but a choice of whims: the 'selfish' pursuit of one's own whims (such as the ethics of Nietzsche)--or 'selfless' service to the whims of others (such as the ethics of Bentham, Mill, Comte and of all social hedonists, whether they allowed man to include his own whims among the millions of others or advised him to turn himself into a totally selfless 'shmoo' that seeks to be eaten by others)."

This passage is misleading about the history of ethics.

First, it implies that there are some philosophers who held that people should turn themselves into totally selfless shmoos that seek to be eaten by others, but, while she names some 'social hedonists', she does not tell us who she thinks held the 'shmoo' theory. Perhaps she meant Comte (inventor of the term "altruism")--but Comte did not believe that 'altruistic' behavior was self-destructive. Nor did Bentham or Mill think that somehow, other people's pleasure had value but one's own did not.

Second, Rand seems to be using "whim" as a term of abuse. Utilitarians believe that one ought to bring about the most overall pleasure or happiness in the world that one can, but they certainly do not think this amounts to pursuing whims. Rand does, but it is unclear what she is saying is a whim here. The utilitarians advocate pursuing pleasure. So, is pleasure, itself, a whim? Perhaps Rand means that the desire for pleasure is a whim. More likely, she is applying her theory (see comment 43) that one will only experience pleasure when something happens, if one antecedently desired that thing--and it is the desires whose satisfaction causes pleasure that she is calling 'whims'.

Why would those desires be 'whims'? Perhaps Rand's point is simply that some of them are whims--i.e., that people can get pleasure from satisfying whimsical desires, and the hedonists do not discount those kinds of pleasures--those pleasures are just as intrinsically good as any other pleasures, according to the hedonists (except for Mill). This is a genuine objection to some forms of hedonism. Nevertheless, Rand's remarks are at best misleading--they suggest, to a reader unfamiliar with whom Rand is talking about, that these 'hedonists' all say: "A person should just pursue solely whims, of himself or of others, with no exercise of reason." Which, of course, is false.

The significance, again, is that Rand is able to illegitimately make her theory seem more plausible by attacking straw men.

(45)


30,5: "[W]hen one speaks of man's right to exist for his own sake, for his own rational self-interest, most people assume automatically that this means his right to sacrifice others. Such an assumption is a confession of their own belief that to injure, enslave, rob or murder others is in man's self-interest..."

The omission of quantifiers is used to great effect here. When they hear the idea that an individual should always do whatever serves his own interests, most people assume this means his right to sacrifice others. They are thereby 'confessing' their belief that it could be in someone's interest, some time, to injure, enslave, rob, or murder someone else. If one removes the italicized quantifier terms in the above, Rand sounds much more reasonable.

However, Rand has given no evidence for the conclusion that it is never in anyone's interest to harm anyone else (see comments 27-31).

(46)


31,3: "The Objectivist ethics holds that human good does not require sacrifices and cannot be achieved by the sacrifice of anyone to anyone. It holds that the rational interests of men do not clash..."

NA.

This would be a good time for a general remark about all the ethical claims Rand makes about what the life of man qua man requires, or what a rational person would value, and so on--that is, all her ethical claims after the claim that life is the ultimate value.

Not only does Rand gives virtually no argument for any of them, but she has given us no criterion of what is 'rational'--unless we are to take the criterion, 'what serves life is rational.' Let us consider four cases:

Case A: The rational is what serves your life, and "life" means continued existence. In that case, Rand needs to give an argument that you will literally, physically die if you do any of the things she says are wrong, or refrain from the things she says are right. For instance, if you hurt another person, drive a hotrod car (28,5), or marry a slut (32,1), you will die.

Case B: The rational is what serves your life, and "life" means "the sort of life proper to a rational person." This is circular.

Case C: The rational is what serves your life, and "life" means "the life of man qua man," where this does not just mean "the sort of life proper to a rational person." In that case, Rand has given us no criterion for what does or does not serve the life of man qua man.

Case D: The rational is what serves your life, and "life" means something other than (A), (B), or (C). In this case, Rand has not told us what she means.

Case E: The rational is something other than "what will serve your life." In this case, given what she said earlier, what is 'rational' cannot be used as a criterion for ethical judgement, since she already told us that what serves life is the only legitimate such criterion.

I think this problem is extremely significant. The problem is that--whichever one of these cases holds--"rational" and "man qua man" are simply fudge words. That is, their function in the theory is that they enable Rand to claim almost anything she likes as being supported by her theory, and also to reject any attempt to infer conclusions that she doesn't want from the theory.

I give a couple of examples to show what I mean by a "fudge". First, imagine I declare boldly, "No real philosopher has ever denied the law of non-contradiction." You respond: "What about Nicholas of Cusa, who thought that God has all properties, including contradictory ones?" I say, "Oh, he's not a real philosopher. He's more of a theologian." You: "Okay, how about Hegel?" Me: "Oh, he's not a real philosopher. He's much too incomprehensible to be a real philosopher. Only analytic philosophers count." You: "Okay, how about Graham Priest? He's an analytic philosopher, and he denies the law of non-contradiction." Me: "Oh, he's not a real philosopher. Have you seen his book, In Contradiction? It's terrible." Now, you can imagine that in each of these cases, an interminable debate might spawn about whether my stated rationale justified denying the figure in question the status of 'real philosopher.' In the course of the debate, I make a bunch of declarations about who is and isn't a 'real' philosopher, but I never come out with a precise, unambiguous criterion of 'real-philosopher-ness'. In this case, I am using "real" as a fudge word. That is, it is a word that insulates my thesis from decisive testing, because any proposed counter-example can, if I choose, be immediately bogged down in interminable debates about who is real qua philosopher. So I am never forced to give it up. At the same time, at the end of this debate, I can declare victory, since no one found a counter-example to my thesis. I probably won't convince anyone else, unless they were already favorably disposed toward my thesis, but I can almost certainly convince myself that I gave good reasons for rejecting each of the proposed counter-examples.

Second example. This one is more realistic. On a television program investigating his psychic powers, Uri Geller instructed the audience to phone in if anything unusual happened during he program. At the end, several people phoned in reporting bizarre occurrences that took place during the show. Geller claimed that this supported psychic powers (I'm not sure if he meant because he had psychically predicted these events, or because the TV show had psychically caused them, or just because the events themselves were inherently psychical). Of course, we know this is nonsense. But since Geller did not precisely define "unusual", nor was it known how many people were watching the show, no one could calculate the prior probability of unusual events happening during the show, and thus no one could actually prove that what Geller claimed was nonsense. This meant that people who wanted to believe in psychic powers could do so, and could interpret Geller's remark about unusual events as predicting the events the callers described. Geller used "unusual" as a fudge word.

Third illustration, but this one is an example of non-use of fudges. In scientific testing of drugs, it is standard to use "double blind" tests. This means that half the subjects are given placebos, and neither the patients nor the physicians observing the results know who has the placebo and who has the drug. Now, why keep the physicians 'blind'? The answer is, because it is too easy to fudge--that is, to interpret results favorably if you want the drug to be successful. Scientists know this, and they impose this restriction on themselves, to prevent themselves from fudging. (You don't always know when you're fudging.)

So a 'fudge word' is a word that functions to make fudging easy. "Rational" and "man qua man" are Rand's fudge words. She never gives a precise and unambiguous criterion for their applicability. Thus, suppose someone tries to argue that, on Rand's theory, it would be morally acceptable to steal from people, provided you could get away with it. Then she has at least two fudges she can employ (probably more): (a) She could claim that this is not in your interests, because there is always a risk that you might get caught, and it's not worth it. This works because no one knows how to calculate this risk, so no one can actually refute this claim. This is the sort of thing I have seen many Objectivists do. However, Rand doesn't do this in "The Objectivist Ethics"; she goes for the second sort of fudge: (b) She can claim that although you would gain money from this, it would not be in your rational interests, or it would not be serving the life of 'man qua man', or that it would reduce you to a 'subhuman' status. Thus, she can immediately bog down the counter-example in an interminable debate about what is or isn't 'rational', 'subhuman', etc., because no precise and unambiguous criterion of the rational, or the human, has been identified. She gets to make it up as she goes along.

Now, let's look at her definition of "rationality":

25,8: "The virtue of Rationality means the recognition and acceptance of reason as one's only source of knowledge, one's only judge of values and one's only guide to action."

Does this obviate my 'fudge word' charge? Not at all. Whenever she encounters a behavior she disapproves of, she can declare that the person is not accepting reason as his only guide to action. The above 'criterion' just refers the fudge word "rational" back to the fudge concept of what is "supported by reason". If Rand could give us a precise, unambiguous list of what reason recommends and why, then this charge would be answered.

Rand's following list of things that rationality 'means' is filled with further fudge words. Here are some of the concepts that can be fudged: the notion of using full focus in all choices (if x makes a choice I don't like, I can claim he wasn't in full focus), the idea of a commitment to 'reality', the idea that values must be 'validated' and 'logical', the idea of living 'by one's own mind', etc.

Now, I am not saying here that all of those concepts are bad concepts and should never be used--any more than I think the concept "real" or "unusual" should never be used. Often we have no choice but to use vague concepts. But we should recognize that they are not like scientific and mathematical concepts. They are concepts whose application requires interpretation.

(47)


32,6: "[N]o man may initiate the use of physical force against others. ... Men have the right to use physical force only in retaliation, and only against those who initiate its use."

NA. Again, Rand would have to show how this follows from the premise of life as the standard of value--i.e., she would have to demonstrate that if you initiate the use of force, you will automatically die. 'Automatically', because she is saying you must never initiate force, so she must hold that you could never do it and not die.
Notes

1. All references are to "The Objectivist Ethics" in The Virtue of Selfishness, paperback edition (New York: Signet, 1961), pp. 13-35.

2. I have cited passages where Rand mentions the connection between 'is' and 'ought' and where she discusses the standard of 'life' as an action-guiding principle. Unfortunately, she did not clearly distinguish 9 from 12, but it is clear she meant to assert 12.

3. All quotations are from "The Objectivist Ethics" in The Virtue of Selfishness, paperback edition (New York: Signet, 1961), pp. 13-35.

4. The book is Ethical Theories, ed. A. I. Melden (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1967).

5. Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology (New York: NAL Books, 1990), p. 29.

6. "Intrinsically good" in ethics means the same as Rand's "an end-in-itself": i.e. a thing which is good for its own sake, and not merely for the sake of something else to be obtained by means of it.

@mentality - Let me guess, Crossfit?

@mgittle - Let me guess, sports medicine student?

Machines are for people who want to spend 3 hours in the gym wasting their time acting like they are doing something in front of other people - aka people who go to the gym looking for dates or self esteem. Olympic style lifts are for people who want to get in, work hard, get strong for real-world applications, and go home. How many sports, hobbies, or real-life situations involve moving bars over a static range of motion? None. Training strength without the coordination to use it properly is pointless, and a recipe for injury.

Citing scientific studies about ATP is retarded. Go to the gym, try both, see which one works better for you.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Self-deprecation is the most awesome type of humor. Also, the lady was very attractive!


The first time I ran into Matt Damon being the butt end of jokes (Kimmel), I felt bad for him that peoeple made fun of him like that. But after a couple of times and especially this, I realize he's doing it purposely. Hat's off to someone who has such confidence and strong self-esteem that they can do such a thing.

Kudos.

Heres a little from one of the eSCAMilla fan club. Its just so insane I had to share it.
Its long, but well worth the read just to glimpse the mindset of the true conspiracy nut.

Here we go.....

"
PART 1.


mccandlish531
...

Your Jose Escamilla harassment campaign is just about over...
...
Your Jose Escamilla harassment campaign is just about over...
Advisory....
They have your name, number(s) and parent's address.
Everything you've said and done is trace-able and now on
the record. Time to stop and disappear. There are actionable
damages involved.
See: http://www.cyberguards.com/CyberStalking.html
scroll down to "federal cyberstalking laws"...
Up to 5 years in prison (juvenile detention in your case) plus up to a
$250,000 fine. Your mommy and daddy will love that. Because they
are probably gonna be liable. Talk about attorney's fees. LMAO!
Forget about ever owning a computer again. Or getting a real job
with a criminal record.
Bad boy! Bad boy!
What cha gonna do, what cha gonna do, when dey come fo' you?
You're cooked. You just don't know it yet.
Wish I could be there to see you piss your pants
when the FBI puts the cuffs on you right in your parent's home. LOL
You shouldn't mess with people who have friends in high places...

PART 2


mccandlish531
...

Re: Re:Your Jose Escamilla harassment campaign is just about over...
...
Re: Re:Your Jose Escamilla harassment campaign is just about over...
The "advisory" was a heads-up from a disinterested third party to give you a chance to quit before you get yourself truly fucked up. Jose has friends in the intel community; (read: retired spooks). Tor will not save you. They already know who you and your friend(s) are. It's just a matter of time.

Do you really believe that programs like Tor don't have a back door for national security purposes? EVERYTHING DOES. In fact, there is a huge building at Peterson AFB near Colorado springs-- millions of square feet-- filled with super computers. Every telemetric communication made in the world-- and I mean EVERY ONE -is digitally recorded there. It has been so for several decades. Your anonymity is not assured, and never has been, no matter what you believe.

But your continuing actions are only making your eventual fate all the more problematic for you once the hammer falls. It doesn't matter where you are, either. You could be in Red China and they will still find you. Funding is not a problem here. Hell ,they can even get intel on you that the public never could using the Freedom of Information Act. There are lots of ways around the Privacy Act too, for a retired field agent with lots of time on his hands. You're out of your league here, kid.

Just remember this: You had a choice, and you made a series of bad decisions. Now
it's too late. When it's all over and you look back, I can promise you that you will have nothing but regrets for what you have done. It will not have been worth the price you are going to pay. And considering the filth that you have subjected Jose and his site to, there isn't a jury anywhere that will have an ounce of sympathy for you.

No need to reply to this. You were given one last chance and you took a pass. Like I said..... you're cooked. You just don't know it yet.

Goodbye................................
Mac531


PART 3

You have no idea what you are talking about.

Remember Manuel Noriega? The Invasion of Panama?
His arrest, then rotting in a Florida prison, where the press
couldn't even see him? (You're probably not old enough.)
He worked undercover for the DEA monitoring drug traffic
through Panama. But he got greedy and decided to play both
sides. He needed a SSN to get his U.S. "government" paycheck.
Once his betrayal was discovered, that gave them a nexus to
go after him ANYWHERE in the world.

If you pay taxes, in ANY country, that nexus exists.
(It's not a "conspiracy". It's by international treaty.)
It doesn't matter where you are, or who you
are. Now if you were a real, live, non-taxpaying "ghost", then my
hat would be off to you. I am. Not a penny in taxes in over twenty
years in any country where I worked... Can you make such a claim?
I seriously doubt it. And that is why you are cooked.

This is why it is nearly impossible
for most people to hide. It might be easier for a kid like you who
has never had a "real" job, thus no tax record, but for most "adults",
hiding only happens by design or government sanction. Why do I
have such a "sanction"? I was involved in the design and creation of
weapons systems that as of today, (twenty years later) still have not
been declassified.

You seem fairly "bright" and articulate for a kid, but it's really a shame
you're wasting all your time harrassing guys like Jose. His heart is in
the right place. That's why the guys in the intel community appreciate
him. But even Jose doesn't know the whole story. The level of
advancement in weapons technology is beyond the comprehension
of most American citizens. Some folks in my field are concerned that
the control of that technology has gone to a group of people who
do not have the best interests of this country in mind.

The propulsion technologies alone would revolutionize the Earth and
Humanity's reach out into the cosmos-- if they were ever declassified.
But I suppose it props up your self esteem and teenage ego to be a big
fish in a little pond rather than to apply your intelligence in areas that
could have world-wide impact. Like physics. Or literature. You're just
wasting valuable time, kid. You've spent so much time living in your
little computer fantasy world, you've lost touch with the fact that there
are real, live endeavors out in the world you could be a part of IF you
simply applied yourself.

Get a life. Know what I mean? "

WOW... See what I mean ?

Mmmmmm..... low self-esteem tastes delicious.

>> ^TheFreak:
>> ^rougy:
I don't understand why they thought that was necessary.
Pure ego. Martial arts in the US is full of charlatans and egotists. Just the fact that this man uses his former Marine background as a resume indicates that he lacks any substantial success in his life. He's created a world for himself in which he's important by opening a dojo. Someone came along and threatened his personal self image and he reacted murderously. I'd guess he had very low self esteem due to domestic violence until he joined the Marines and found an identity.
Aaaaand, I didn't watch the video. I can't watch that. I believe it's important that it exists but there's no reasonable excuse for me to watch it.


Well said...