This is a test of my offensive Avatar Image

[Fence_Sitter]

well you were the one who was being condescending...chalk it up to being karma?

[rbw1966]

No condescension was meant my friend. I just don't see the use of nuclear weapons on a par with conventional bombing of military institutions.

 

I also don't agree with the use of conventional weapons (or nuclear wewapons) against non-combatants a la Afghanistan. This is not winning their hearts and minds.

[Necronomicon]

An August, 6 1945 White House press release called the Hiroshima bombing "the greatest acheivement of organized science in history."

 

But hey, isn't my avatar image more offensive than that?

[MtnGoat]

"The giardia in the Nalgene bottle of MtnGoat's cultic devotion to philosophy of Objectivism is not in the use of reason, or in the emphasis on individuality, or in the belief that humans are self motivated, or in the conviction that capitalism is the ideal system."

 

so far so good!

 

"The wet runout rhetorical slab that faces MtnGoat is the belief that absolute knowledge and final Truths are attainable through reason, and therefore there can be absolute right and wrong knowledge, and absolute moral and immoral thought and action."

 

This is a brilliant point you make, and entirely valid. The counter to it is that while it is evident that in real life, compromises must be made to allow absolutes to not rule the show but be tempered with practicality.

 

This method of chasing unknowns and deducing principles and facts has proven itself time and time again as the most effective method of determining reality when compared with competing ideas. I do not expect this method to reveal all unassailable truths, but I do maintain it is the *least* flawed method we have for figuring things out.

 

"For MtnGoat, once a principle has been discovered through reason to be True, that is the end of the discussion. If you disagree with the principle, then your reasoning is flawed."

 

Not only for me, and other Objectivists, but anyone who follows classical scientific method, which underlies objectivism.

 

The devil in the details is deciding when Truth has been arrived at. I cannot claim to be better able to discern this than anyone else, I can only lay out a rational claim for an issue and engage in the inevitable debate to follow.

 

"So, MtnGoat, let's hear the objectivist take on bolting issues and sport climbing. Using Reason, what conclusions of absolute Truth or moral Right or Wrong have you arrived at in regards to these topics?"

 

Since these issues are entirely value based in personal views, with no way of determining objective positions (Since objectivism rejects feelings as proof) there is really no way to comment.

 

You must understand that Objectivism is intended as a synthesis tool that explains the physical reality of the world and our physical interactions but *intentionally* stops at the border of feelings and interpretations because these are not objectively measurable. This is why objectivists insist each man's view of "goods" are impossible to disprove, and this is why he is entitled to them.

[Poseur]

Muir on Saturday

[iain]

quote:

---

Originally posted by MtnGoat:

"For MtnGoat, once a principle has been discovered through reason to be True, that is the end of the discussion. If you disagree with the principle, then your reasoning is flawed."

 

Not only for me, and other Objectivists, but anyone who follows classical scientific method, which underlies objectivism.

---

The scientific method is a tool to explore new ideas and concepts rather than to cast them aside when they are inconvenient or improbable. Scientific method brought the radical hypothesis of plate tectonics to established theory (GPS brings it to fact). This was a radical concept with not so many facts to support it at first, but there were hints of its validity. The method was then used to move from educated hypothesis to supported theory, rather than throwing it in the garbage due to lack of evidence. Why can you not apply this to anthropogenic climate change as many people have done already?

[Dr_Flash_Amazing]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Greg W:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dr Flash Amazing:

Is America not founded on the idea that if one does not like the way things are being done, one might use the means legally afforded as a citizen to change them?

---

Yes, that is true. However, your posts give the impression that there is a lack of understanding about the uniqueness of such a system and how wonderfully lucky we all are to be living in the USA. There, literally, is no other system like ours in the world. I think it is important to accept and appreciate that before embarking on change.

 

$.02 from Greg W

---

Greg, Dr. Flash Amazing agrees with you to a point. The Doctor also believes, however, that many elements of what could be a great democracy have slipped a bit, and feels that to simply accept that we've got it pretty damn good leads to complacency.

 

You got any more change, though? DFA could use a soda about now.

[allthumbs]

WTF?? This thread is degenerating to the macabre.

[Greg_W]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Necronomicon:

But history tends to repeat itself

---

Yes, how far did Chamberlain and Daladier get in appeasing Hitler? Can you not see THAT history repeating itself.

 

Oh, and on your Japanese being close to surrender thing. That isn't true. Hirohito had ordered defense to the last man; when the Allies landed they found storehouses full of spears, pikes, and other personal weapons in preparation for a final all out battle.

 

Lesson learned: War is horrifying, but Total War WILL subdue the enemy.

[Greg_W]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dr Flash Amazing:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Greg W:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dr Flash Amazing:

Is America not founded on the idea that if one does not like the way things are being done, one might use the means legally afforded as a citizen to change them?

---

Yes, that is true. However, your posts give the impression that there is a lack of understanding about the uniqueness of such a system and how wonderfully lucky we all are to be living in the USA. There, literally, is no other system like ours in the world. I think it is important to accept and appreciate that before embarking on change.

 

$.02 from Greg W

---

Greg, Dr. Flash Amazing agrees with you to a point. The Doctor also believes, however, that many elements of what could be a great democracy have slipped a bit, and feels that to simply accept that we've got it pretty damn good leads to complacency.

 

You got any more change, though? DFA could use a soda about now.

---

The primary mistake that a lot of people make is one you inadvertantly made in talking of a "great democracy". This country was never established as a "democracy", but a republic. Start from that premise and the picture changes. I do agree that we are plagued with complacency, but also with ignorance.

 

Greg W

[MtnGoat]

Democracy exists whereever men have choice to order their own lives, it's institution as a method to force men to change their lives because a mob says so, does not represent democracy I for one am interested in furthering.

 

We already know slavery was wrong wether or not a majority demanded it, so the idea that some things are not within the purview of democracy is already a given.

 

At that point, it becomes entirely legitimate to resist "democracy" as it encroaches on other issues of self determination.

[Uncle_Tricky]

Mtngoat wrote:

quote:

---

Since these issues are entirely value based in personal views, with no way of determining objective positions (Since objectivism rejects feelings as proof) there is really no way to comment.

---

So where do the paths of objectivism and climbing cross?

 

Is it true the Objectivist axioms are set up in such a way that they are irrefutable?

 

Does anyone trying to object to them have to implicitly assume them even before he or she can formulate a counter-argument?

 

Where is the line that divides things that are based on objective Truth and those that are based "entirely on personal views" as you say? Does it depend on where you are standing?

 

How bout giving me three example of each and explaining where Truth stops and personal views take over.

 

I'm also curious about objectivism would operate in a universe devoid of human existence. Is it a natural law?

 

Is man really a tabula rasa upon birth?

 

Is it possible to refute the so-called Universal Refutation of Philosophy?

 

Is it logically impossible for me to be aware of anything unreal?

 

Is the identity of a thing identical with its properties?

 

Is there is only one reality, namely the way things are?

 

Do you regard phenomenology as the dookie in the pool at the objectivist barbecue?

 

Are we really the only animals capable of logic, and therefore supposedly acting on the basis of rationality rather than some chaotic evolutionary biological imperitive?

 

So objectivism will show you the Truth! and provide you with a unified field theory for making moral and rational judgements when it comes to eveything besides climbing?

 

Bummer, I was hoping you'd just finished the tedious task of supergluing the 11th commandment back together!

 

[ 09-17-2002, 04:41 PM: Message edited by: Uncle Tricky ]

[Fence_Sitter]

you ask if bombing pearl harbor was on par with hiroshima? well think of it this way... pearl harbor was unprovoked...hiroshima was just an attmept to subdue world domination by the axis power...

[Off_White]

Pish, Hiroshima was an opportunity to use the nifty thing we built. It would have been just as effective to vaporize a few million tons of water about 5 miles offshore as to cook the people, and Nagasaki was pure overkill, but a completely different toy, so it really needed to be used too. I think the Japanese would have surrendered with a less lethal display. I do think it is true we did a pretty good job (in the long haul) of putting our enemies back together, and one East Germany was quite enough.

 

Hey, this thread is quite stunning in both its rapid growth and volume of content. I think Muir on Saturday may still have the edge in terms of pages, but there's a lot more meat and real debate here, so everyone involved reach around and pat yourself on the back.

[Fence_Sitter]

off white...they did test the bomb in the water first...not the same one...but one incredibly close in size....

[Off_White]

I didn't mean a test, I meant a demonstration for the Japanese just offshore of a major city in Japan, showing what could happen rather than actually doing it. I think we could have accomplished the same goal with much less loss of life.

[AlpineK]

Off White an idiotic debate over smoking pot in the Muir Hut is way better than this crap.

 

Shit man while us working guys are driving around killing trees you desk jockies sure can waist time. Thank god someone is keeping this country working.

 

Oh and Fence Sitter if you love America so much what are you doing in Canada you closet communist.

[Fence_Sitter]

yuo tool...canada is in the U.S.A. those that dont knwo that are not in teh loop... seriously it is the same country except their "president" is dumber than ours and there are more homos in the east than in teh west (opposite of in teh states). that and i got an athletic scholarship to go here... so blow it out your ass tree raper

[Off_White]

quote:

---

Originally posted by AlpineK:

Off White an idiotic debate over smoking pot in the Muir Hut is

way

better than this crap.

 

Shit man while us working guys are driving around killing trees you desk jockies sure can waist time. Thank god someone is keeping this country working.

 

Oh and Fence Sitter if you love America so much what are you doing in Canada you closet communist.

---

Hey, I guess the recent unemployment statistics for Washington, moving us into the front of the country with 7.2%, bode well for spray fests in the future. Truth be told, I'm working too much this week to even be able to keep up with the reading on this thread. Here's to the working class:

[iain]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Uncle Tricky:

Are we really the only animals capable of logic, and therefore supposedly acting on the basis of rationality rather than some chaotic evolutionary biological imperitive?

---

Whoa dude that's some deep stuff right there but the above is interesting. There don't seem to be many organisms that have developed abstract reasoning. You can see children develop it. When a kid gets a cut and it bleeds he/she doesn't think "it will be better in the future, I just need to take care of it" he/she thinks "this hurts really bad right now and I'm scared, make it go away."

 

Other animals appear to plan for the future, such as snaffles , but this doesn't seem like complex abstract reasoning (getting cold, must gather nuts, getting colder, gather nuts faster). Maybe we are acting on similar low-level, visceral keys like this, but the sheer complexity of our behavior makes it appear as if we act differently. Difficult to analyze your own behavior. Kind of like wrapping your 3D brain around those 4D hypercubes you doodled in calc.

[Fairweather]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Necronomicon:

The Japanese civilians were at the point of pushing the militarists to surrender. Even the emperor was pushing to surrender. We bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, in part, to end the war quickly so that the USSR would have no claim to occupying Japan, as they had yet to declare war against Japan. We also sent a message to the Soviets saying "Hey, look what we have and you don't."

---

Ever heard of Sakalin Island? They still hold it. Your theory is bunk.

 

I am undecided on the whole Iraq thing. Lets instead invade Saudi Arabia and install a government that allows women to drive cars and citizens to attend secular schools that don't teach their citizens to hate the west.

 

We should just assasinate Saddam and his close associates and let the chips fall where they may.

 

Judge Judy for president!!!!

 

[ 09-17-2002, 09:18 PM: Message edited by: Fairweather ]

[Greg_W]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dr Flash Amazing:

Of course, it may be moot anyway, since it seems that Mr. Hussein is letting NATO come in and have a peek.

---

And why? Because Bush made it very plain he wasn't going to stand for any shit. What will it take for people like you to see a threat? "Suitcase" nukes in D.C., Chicago, L.A.? Wake up.

 

Greg W

[iain]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dr Flash Amazing:

Of course, it may be moot anyway, since it seems that Mr. Hussein is letting NATO come in and have a peek.

---

The funny thing is, the last thing Bush probably wanted was for Saddam to appear cooperative...

[Greg_W]

quote:

---

Originally posted by iain:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dr Flash Amazing:

Of course, it may be moot anyway, since it seems that Mr. Hussein is letting NATO come in and have a peek.

---

The funny thing is, the last thing Bush probably wanted was for Saddam to appear cooperative...

---

Not fair, Iain. I don't think anyone, especially Bush, WANTS war.

[Uncle_Tricky]

Let's face it, humanity is a plague upon the globe, a cancer on the planet, a pox on all our houses! Too many of the indicators of our growth and destruction of the planet are pegged at "exponential." Will we destroy the earth? Hell no. We will destroy ourselves and the earth will keep on spinning round the sun til it's swallowed by the great horny toad in the sky.

 

Step back one moment, gentle readers, and look at people as just another species of critter running around eating, copulating and crapping. Never has one species been so outta whack with the rest.

 

Naively, we believe that science will save us from biology, so we rush to the future, and whoa, what's that if it ain't air under our feet? Is that the last thot of a lemming before it plunges ass over teacup into mother ocean?

 

Oh yeah, nature has a way of correcting excesses, and we my friends are soon to stand corrected like the lovely Ms. Applebee corrected the crap out of my seventh grade math test. Yup, that dea woman was an avenging angel of red marker destruction.

 

I think we'd all agree that there is a common sensical solution to all of these problems we've discussed for far in this brain bending thread.

 

It's obvious we need one benevolent socialist world government, a world court, and a world army with teeth that will swoop down like a big-eared brown bat in the middle of the darkest hour and save us from ourselves.

 

Yeah, sure there will probably be some people that resist the idea of global enlightenment at first. But there are plenty of gulag archipelagos out there where the world government can send these terrorist dissadents for a period of psychological retraining.

 

While we may disagree as to the exact nature of the problems facing us, it's encouraging that we all agree that an all powerful UN is the solution.

 

"In the next century, nations as we know them will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority. National sovereignty wasn't such a great idea after all."

 

Strobe Talbot, President Clinton's Deputy Secretary of State, as quoted in Time, July 20th, l992.