HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bwise@hemlock.mitre.org (Barry Wise)
Subject: Re :A=A Prove Something
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 13:02:21 GMT

In article <BvwM17.CAq@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K.  
Yoder) writes:
> For a statement to mean something, it must mean something specific.  If I say
> "There might be a some doctors reading this." that DOES mean something 
> specific, not something fuzzy, and it is either true or false in the context
> in which it is written.  Another "objectivist catch phrase" is that "all
> knowledge is contextual".  Have you encountered it before?
> 

Even in context qualitative statements are not necessarily specific. Objects  
described by qualitative statements may have varying degrees of membership to  
that set.  How would you define tall? Since you must have a context, we'll say  
tall for a man. Ok lets set 'tall' at six feet. So we can say a man at seven  
feet is tall, at six one still tall, at six yes still tall, at five nine no  
he's not tall at five eleven not tall (hmmm, well he doesnt fit the definition  
but...) how about five eleven and a half? three quarters? fifteen sixteenths?  
You can make an arbitrary cut off of what is tall but that is not the way  
qualitative statements are used! Why do we have words like 'almost' and  
'about'? It's because there are subjects where we are not dealing with specific  
attributes.

A real world example is the use of fuzzy logic to control trains in Japan. The  
problem is to determine when the train is "at the station. Normal Artificial  
Intelligence systems have an exceedingly hard time determining this because  
there is no exact "at the station" in the real world. Fuzzy logic defines "at  
the station" to be a set with varying degrees of membership possible. A train  
can be programmed to arrive at the station smoothly without having to hit an  
exact point. 

As you say "all knowledge is contextual" and any system of logic used in the  
wrong context is worthless. 
--
Barry Wise
Xref: sparky alt.individualism:5717 alt.activism.d:3689
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism,alt.activism.d
Subject: Re: Environmentalism is not Anti-Individualism
Date: 9 Oct 92 14:59:58 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO

In article <ejohnson.718605352@void> ejohnson@void.ncsa.uiuc.edu (Eric E. Johnson) writes:
>dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>
>>I think you are confusing green with Green.  The traditional environmental
>>movement (essentially synonomous with green) does look to government
>>solutions, which is traditional among liberals.  The _G_reen movement,
>>at least in the US, is for a radical decentralization of government powers
>>to local jurisdictions.
>
>What the greens and the Greens quibble over is who gets to enforce the
>laws.  One says the federal government, the other one says local
>communities.  The debate is over not freedom versus dictatorship, but
>how many dictatorships do we want?  My answer?  Zero.

If you are a hard-core Libertarian, then this opinion makes sense.
Libertarians prefer the dictatorship of the corporate enterprise to
democracy.  This blind faith in the marketplace is just as idealistic
as Marxist attitudes towards property, IMHO.  The inevitablilty of
the concentration of economic power in a Laissez faire system will
eventually leave most people with far less control over their lives
than the current (and imperfect) democracy that we have.
>
>Eric Johnson
>ejohnson@a.cs.uiuc.edu


-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
From: brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder)
Subject: Re: Re :A=A Prove Something
Organization: Quake Public Access
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 11:46:16 GMT

In article <7OCT199211213174@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov> intgrec@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (CHRIS GREB) writes:

>Sorry to beat a dead horse, but in Chris Holt's reply to this post, he 
>comments on the definition of tall.  (John is tall, or whatever).  That's 
>exactly what it is. . .A DEFINITION.  

Sure it is, and if you change the definitions you use in making a statement,
it doesn't have the same referents in reality anymore, does it?  This seems
to be the "last refuge of scoundrels".  If John is 4'6" and no unusual context 
is involved (say, you are on Liliput) then the statement "John is tall." is
false.  Of course, people might try the "clever" strategy of switching the
context and then saying "Ha Ha, you think you are so smart...I found an odd
context in which your statement is false.".  This is so obviously wrong, I
don't have to go through the motions of explaining it in detail, do I?

>By stating that there is no fuzzy 
>logic (another objectivist catch phrase) there, one must assume that your 
>definition is the same as his.  Is this way off base?

For a statement to mean something, it must mean something specific.  If I say
"There might be a some doctors reading this." that DOES mean something 
specific, not something fuzzy, and it is either true or false in the context
in which it is written.  Another "objectivist catch phrase" is that "all
knowledge is contextual".  Have you encountered it before?

>I realize that words can not give an absolutely accurate account of a 
>concept, but what, exactly, (according to Miss Rand or Mr. Piekoff) does 
>this preciseness gain???

What makes you think that words cannot give an absolutely accurate account
of a concept?  (That is not to say that words are never misunderstood, only
that words CAN convey meaning accurately given the proper method.)  What you 
seem to be saying is that exact communication is not possible.  Is that the
case?

--Brian

Newsgroups: alt.individualism
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Measure 9 in Oregon
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 07:59:58 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.171034.18052@gordian.com> mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas) writes:
}
}  Actually, I think you are wrong. My understanding is that the governor
}signed an executive order forbidding job discrimination based on sexual
}orientation for state hiring alone -- not private sector job discrimination.
}  The governor was completely correct in this respect which makes the
}OCA all the worse. Nobody deserves the OCA.

If so, then you're absolutely right.


Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Voltaire
From: daq@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Doug Quarnstrom)
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 21:06:52 GMT
Subject: Re: Re: A = A. Eat my shorts
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: alt.individualism

In alt.individualism, stu5s33@bcars6f8.bnr.ca (Robert Nychka) writes:

> 
> tcox@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (Tony Cox) says...
> >For those US readers, Objectivism has just hit "The Simpsons".
> >(for those outside, check you local satellite TV listings).
> 
> The worst part about that episode was that it wasn't even funny, except
> for a scene where the head of the nursury (who looks similar to AR) is 
> shown reading a book entitled "The Fountainhead Diet".

Of course it was funny.

The part where the day care lady says, "Maggie, you poor little dullard,"
was quite amusing as was the "Helping is Futile "poster on the wall.

doug

Newsgroups: alt.individualism
From: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism,alt.activism.d,talk.environment
Subject: Re: Environmentalism is not Anti-Individualism
Summary: The spotted owl has been used to stop logging on private land
Date: 11 Oct 92 17:04:26 GMT
Reply-To: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Handmade Designs, Salem, OR

In article <BvrK8p.1u6@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>
fulton@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Ben Fulton) writes:
>But the spotted owl issue is for the most part a debate over _public_ lands,
>not regulation or use restriction on private property.

Obviously you don't live in the Pacific Northwest.  The debate maybe
primarily over public lands (75% of the state of Oregon), the spotted owl
issue has been used to stop or restrict logging on private land, so the
last line of your sentence is not correct.
-- 
orstcs!opac!bug!stevef          I am the NRA              Steven R. Fordyce
uunet!sequent!ether!stevef         . . .  	        Deer are for Dinner
Newsgroups: alt.individualism,alt.activism.d
From: ejohnson@void.ncsa.uiuc.edu (Eric E. Johnson)
Subject: Re: Environmentalism is not Anti-Individualism
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 04:35:52 GMT

dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:

>I think you are confusing green with Green.  The traditional environmental
>movement (essentially synonomous with green) does look to government
>solutions, which is traditional among liberals.  The _G_reen movement,
>at least in the US, is for a radical decentralization of government powers
>to local jurisdictions.

What the greens and the Greens quibble over is who gets to enforce the
laws.  One says the federal government, the other one says local
communities.  The debate is over not freedom versus dictatorship, but
how many dictatorships do we want?  My answer?  Zero.

Eric Johnson
ejohnson@a.cs.uiuc.edu



Newsgroups: alt.individualism,alt.activism.d,talk.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Environmentalism is not Anti-Individualism
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<BvrK8p.1u6@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>
	<1992Oct8.171558.28040@athena.cs.uga.edu>
Date: 8 Oct 92 22:36:12

In article <1992Oct8.171558.28040@athena.cs.uga.edu> brown@pollux (Daniel Brown) writes:

   In article <BvrK8p.1u6@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> fulton@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Ben Fulton) writes:
   >In <1992Oct7.145522.24918@athena.cs.uga.edu> brown@pollux (Daniel Brown) writes:
   >
   >>I have no complaint with a group trying to protect the environments of
   >>_humans_.  However, Greenpeace has traditionally put the interests of non-
   >>human animals before the welfare of human beings (e.g. the spotted owl issue).
   >
   >But the spotted owl issue is for the most part a debate over _public_ lands,
   >not regulation or use restriction on private property.
   >

   Okay -- bad example. :-)  How about sinking whaleboats?

   -- 
   Daniel W. Brown (brown@pollux.cs.uga.edu)

Most of the land in the Western states is public.  This is much too
much.  The Government should sell off most of it.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Xref: sparky alt.individualism:5696 alt.activism.d:3617
From: allens@yang.earlham.edu (Allen Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: [FWd] Products to be banned by the FDA
Date: 9 Oct 92 06:27:37 GMT
 <1992Oct5.203244.19773@yang.earlham.edu> <1992Oct8.065708.19841@genie.slhs.udel.edu>
Organization: Earlham College, Richmond, Indiana

In article <1992Oct8.065708.19841@genie.slhs.udel.edu>, starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
> In article <1992Oct5.203244.19773@yang.earlham.edu> allens@yang.earlham.edu (Allen Smith) writes:
> }In article <1992Oct4.203928.11368@netcom.com>, adamsr@netcom.com (Rick Adams) writes:
> }> Thus spake atfurman@cup.portal.com (A T Furman): 
> }>>VOTE LIBERTARIAN!!  Marrou/Lord in 92!!
> }> 
> }> 	Sure. Throw away a few percent of the votes on Marrou (who, despite
> }> excellent qualifications has no chance whatever of winning), throw a few
> }> more percent of the votes on Parot and his fascist VP, and pretty soon the
> }> Bush opposition will be so splintered that he'll be re-elected by a
> }> minority!
> }> 
> }> 	Clinton is =far= from a treasure, but he's a mile ahead of Bush. Why
> }> not use your vote to get Bush out of office instead of wasting it. Vote for
> }> minority party candidates of other offices - but if you don't want Bush
> }> re-elected then vote Clinton for president.
> }> 
> }	As has been pointed out before, this attitude is one major reason 
> }the LP _doesn't_ have a real chance of winning this year. If you want the 
> }evil choice (whether it be the lesser or the greater of two evils), then 
> }vote for it. If you want something better, vote Marrou/Lord.
> 
> Actually, you're both missing the essentials of this election.  Clinton is
> a shoo-in.  Ever since the Democratic Convention, he's been leading by at
> least 10 points in the polls, and the GOP convention only helped him out.
> 
	Is Clinton showing ahead when one considers the effects of the 
Electoral College? I haven't seen any state-by-state analyses, so I don't 
know.
	-Allen
Xref: sparky alt.individualism:5706 alt.activism.d:3652 talk.environment:4133
From: brown@pollux (Daniel Brown)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism,alt.activism.d,talk.environment
Subject: Re: Environmentalism is not Anti-Individualism
Date: 8 Oct 92 17:15:58 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia

In article <BvrK8p.1u6@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> fulton@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Ben Fulton) writes:
>In <1992Oct7.145522.24918@athena.cs.uga.edu> brown@pollux (Daniel Brown) writes:
>
>>I have no complaint with a group trying to protect the environments of
>>_humans_.  However, Greenpeace has traditionally put the interests of non-
>>human animals before the welfare of human beings (e.g. the spotted owl issue).
>
>But the spotted owl issue is for the most part a debate over _public_ lands,
>not regulation or use restriction on private property.
>

Okay -- bad example. :-)  How about sinking whaleboats?

-- 
Daniel W. Brown (brown@pollux.cs.uga.edu)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism,alt.activism.d,talk.environment
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Subject: Re: Environmentalism is not Anti-Individualism
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 18:26:09 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.145522.24918@athena.cs.uga.edu> brown@pollux (Daniel Brown) writes:
>In article <1asd4kINNe4e@agate.berkeley.edu> jym@remarque.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer) writes (among other things):
>>
>>=o= Indeed, I find a strong streak of individualism within
>>the movement, at least in my country (and, nominally, in the
>>"Green" movements abroad).  Environmentalists are doing more
>>real work to effect individual autonomy and the decentralization
>>of power than anybody else.
>
>I cannot agree with that statement.  Environmentalists have been the driving
>force behind the destruction of property rights in the U.S. (e.g. restricting
>the usage of properties that are defined as "wetlands").
>
On the other hand, environmentalists are trying to protect individuals
from harm that is not so obvious. The wetlands issue, and property
rights in general is more complex than this.  Property owners cannot
use their property in a way which harms others.  The loss of wetlands
in Louisiana is causing huge environmental damage which will have
enormous _economic_ impacts on humans.  Since you don't seem to extend
the value of the individual past human individuals, I won't address that
issue. here.

>>=o= I'm not sure what the comment about a lack of concern
>>for individuals (at least not human ones) is supposed to be
>>in reference to.  A lot of what Greenpeace does involves
>>opposition to things that have a direct an negative impact
>>on human individuals.
>
>I have no complaint with a group trying to protect the environments of
>_humans_.  However, Greenpeace has traditionally put the interests of non-

The issue is not 1 owl vs 1 human.  It is a few hundred (or thousand) human
_jobs_ vs an entire species and its ecosystem.  Furthermore,  non-sustainable
logging negatively impacts jobs in the fishing industry.  Is a loggers job
more valuable than a fisherman's?
>human animals before the welfare of human beings (e.g. the spotted owl issue).
>
>By the way, I am grateful for your civil response to my original posting,
>which really bordered on being flamebait, though I thought it made a good
>point. :-)  Furthermore, I am pleased with the other responses to your reply --
>the discussion has been flame-free so far.  Let's hope this starts a trend!
>
>-- 
>Daniel W. Brown (brown@pollux.cs.uga.edu)


-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
Xref: sparky alt.individualism:5792 alt.politics.marrou:1674 talk.politics.misc:52357 alt.politics.democrats.d:222 alt.politics.bush:9454 alt.politics.clinton:10909 alt.politics.libertarian:924 pgh.general:249 pa.general:348
From: tsf+@cs.cmu.edu (Timothy Freeman)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.libertarian,cmu.cs.general,pgh.general,pa.general,cmu.ece.general
Subject: Debate about Role of Government
Date: 15 Oct 92 19:15:07 GMT
Distribution: pgh
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon


			      DON'T VOTE
		without first attending this event!!!

	  What is the Role of Government in a Free Society?
	Provide food?			Mass Transit?
	License Manicurists?		Set minimum wages?
	Create jobs?			Operate fish hatcheries?
	Retirement plans?		Mail delivery?
	Parks and recreation?		Foreign aid?
	Operate passenger railroads?	Provide daycare?
	Employment services?		Establish food portion sizes?

Four partisan panelists will debate the question:

Democrat: Dr. Irwin Schulman -- Professor of Political Science,
University of Pittsburgh.

Republican: Dr. James B. Burnham -- Murrin Professor of Business,
Duquesne University.

Socialist: Joanne Kuniansky -- U.S. Congressional candidate for the
Socialist Workers Party, 14th Congressional Destrict.

Libertarian: Henry Haller, Membership Chairman, Libertarian Party of
Pennsylvania.

		    Tuesday, October 27, 7:30 P.M.
		      Frick Fine Arts Auditorium
    104 Schenley Drive, Oakland (across from the Carnegie Library)
			    Free Admission
	   Sponsored by the Libertarian Party of Pittsburgh
		  Call 241-3511 for more information.
Newsgroups: alt.individualism,alt.activism.d,talk.environment
From: eder@hsvaic.boeing.com (Dani Eder)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: gold standard
Date: 12 Oct 92 13:33:59 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Boeing AI Center, Huntsville, AL

tcox@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (Tony Cox - (415)926-3105) writes:

>   I believe (and noone has contradicted me so far) that the promise
>   of todays money is _merely_ that it can be used to settle accounts with
>   the government.

Reaching into my pocket and pulling out a Federal Reserve Note, I find no
promises on it whatsoever.  I find a statement that reads: "This note is
legal tender for all debts, public and private".  What is public debt?
It is money that the government owes the public.  If a note is legal 
tender for PUBLIC debt, then the government can pay off it's debts
(treasury bonds) with them.  You have no choice but to accept these
as payment if you hold government debt.  The PRIVATE debt portion
of the statement says that the holders of private debt can be paid off
in these notes and they have to accept them.  

Thus there are no promises, only compulsions.


>> How can the size of the economy be measured without a commodity-based
>> monetary standard?  I don't think it can be.  If this is impossible, then
>> your whole scheme falls through.

>   You are right. If the size of the economy cannot be quantified,
>   then the proposal fails. My argument hinges upon this, and so I'd
>   better do a good job of convincing you, so here goes.

>   It remains an imprecise measure, as it is denominated in that
>   wretched dollar. So you cannot then say that, if next year 500,000
>   cars sell for $12K each (and so on across all the other sectors)
>   that your economy has grown by 20% - of course not.

>   What you would do (and what is done now), is to look at what
>   comparable cars sell for next year (and for all sectors,
>   naturally). If there are 550,000 such cars, your economy has grown
>   by 10% in that area. You use that worthless $ to keep the RELATIVE
>   score on how the different sectors are contributing to the whole.

The problem in using cars as a measure of economic activity is that
they change from year to year, so you can't really compare one year's
model to the next year's.  This is the advantage of a commodity standard
of value, since an ounce of gold, or 10,000 lb of orange juice
concentrate, or 76 lb flasks of mercury will mean the same thing next
year as this year.

The only non-commodity I can think of that has a constant identity over
time is an hour of unskilled labor.  You would establish a bank by
people doing work, and contributing their products to a pool, and
receiving credits on account for their contributions.  Then they can
withdraw the set of products of their choice from the pool, using
up their credits.  


-- 
Dani Eder/Boeing/Advanced Civil Space/(205)464-2697(w)/232-7467(h)/
Rt.1, Box 188-2, Athens AL 35611/Member: Space Studies Institute
Physical Location: 34deg 37' N 86deg 43' W +100m alt.
***THE ABOVE IS NOT THE OPINION OF THE BOEING COMPANY OR ITS MANAGEMENT.***
Xref: sparky alt.individualism:5729 alt.activism.d:3730 talk.environment:4153
From: allens@yang.earlham.edu (Allen Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism,alt.activism.d,talk.environment
Subject: Re: Environmentalism is not Anti-Individualism
Date: 10 Oct 92 06:26:25 GMT
Organization: Earlham College, Richmond, Indiana

In article <1992Oct9.221803.19217@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com>, billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:
> allens@yang.earlham.edu (Allen Smith) writes:
> : 
> : 	Is the job of someone at a horse-and-buggy plant more important 
> : than that of someone at an automobile plant? It would be wrong for the 
> : government when horse-and-buggies are being driven out by automobiles to 
> : intervene to stop the development of automobiles, I believe. What's the 
> : difference? Species? It isn't intelligent, so so what? It's an animal. 
> : Animals aren't intelligent- we should feel ethically free to treat them 
> : about as we would treat a hunk of rock.
> 
> So, you feel it is ethical to destroy a rock - just because it is there
> and cannot retaliate?

	Just because it is there and cannot retaliate? No, because it 
can't/doesn't _think_. Now, obviously one can get into some questions with 
this with: 1. members of a species that cannot yet think (i.e., at what 
point does abortion turn from contraception (meaning preventing a human 
from coming into existence) to infanticide?); 2. members of a species that 
cannot think, although that species can in general (i.e., severe mental 
retardation); 3. at what point one divides species between intelligent and 
unintelligent. My dividing point on the third tends to be closeness in 
level of general intelligence (admittedly a vague term) to human, since 
humanity is the only species that we can generally agree has the requisite 
level of intelligence.
> 
> The Spotted Owl is not the real issue - although you would think it was,
> from all the publicity. The real issue is the rapidity at which the
> forests are being clear-cut. This is threatening to destroy far more than
> the spotted owl. 
> 
	I was objecting in the paragraph you quote to someone claiming 
that it was good to stop lumbering because the lumbering was destroying 
the fishing industry. Economic harm should not be protected against; that 
is the risk one is taking in return for making a profit.
	Now, the question in the clear-cutting issue, as I understand it, 
is the proper usage of public lands. Selling them off is one option, and 
the one I favor.
	-Allen
Xref: sparky alt.individualism:5730 alt.activism.d:3731 talk.environment:4154