HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: fulton@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Ben Fulton)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: A = A. Isn't this obvious?
Date: 1 Oct 92 14:06:06 GMT
Organization: Indiana University

Getting deep, now...

In <BvE6Ls.75C@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:

>Are you saying that his point is that words are irrelevant to reality, or 
>is that what YOU believe?  

I'm saying words are irrelevant to external reality.  That is, the table next
to me is not going to change into something else even if everyone in the world
calls it a dilithium extractor.

>If words are unrelated to reality, why bother with them?  

Words are descriptive of reality.  You know there's a table next to me, so
you have some idea what it looks like, based on your interpretation of my
words.  You don't have a very GOOD idea, though.
 
>Does that conclusion apply even to the words "Words are irrelevant to to
>reality."?

Only to the extent that the words describe reality :-)  I hope my definitions
of the words I'm using are similar enough to your definitions that the
concept that is formulated in your mind is similar to the concept I formulated
in my mind.  But no matter how I use words to divide the world up, the world
still is.  Isn't this actually tending towards Wittgenstein rather than
Rand?

-- 
ben                                     fulton@silver.ucs.indiana.edu

"A tight bunch of bastards who want to win while loving each other"
- Dave Hasbrook, about the Indiana Ultimate team
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: A = A. Isn't this obvious?
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 22:18:38 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.185324.3368@linus.mitre.org> bwise@hemlock.mitre.org (Barry Wise) writes:
>> You are doing what you are doing.  The words you use to describe it are
>> not relevant to the identity argument.
>But the words _are_ important to a discussion involving those things. When  
>using logic things are considered eternal. A=A. In the real world the A of the  
>present is not the A of a day or a year ago. All A's are the same and  
>interchangeable. Are all apples?  Apple= Apple? Is the apple I hold in my right  
>hand the same as the one in my left? Almost?

A=A is not a statement about words.  It does not mean that you can replace the
A with the word "apple" on each side, and that therefore anything meant by the
word "apple" is identical to everything else meant by the word "apple".

What it is is a statement about _concepts_.  
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
From: daq@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Doug Quarnstrom)
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 15:30:39 GMT
Subject: Re: Re: Stability of Libertaria (was Free market stuff)
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: alt.individualism

In alt.individualism, atfurman@cup.portal.com (A T Furman) writes:

> 
> In message <10260022@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM>, you state:
> 
> >In the real world, A is, most assuredly, never equal to A.
> 
> Since your opposition to the Holocaust is not equal to opposition 
> to the Holocaust, you do not oppose the Holocaust.

Fatuous.  That is the nicest thing I can say about your tactics.
I have been aware of the holocaust since I was a child, and
it has shaped my awareness in ways you cannot guess.  The fact
that it occured is one of the most horrifying and distressing
lessons granted us by the twentieth century.  The millions
that died are noble martyrs to the truth about human nature, and
I honor them in my thoughts frequently.  

doug
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
From: rdippold@qualcom.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Subject: Re: California Election Review
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 02:15:00 GMT

tcox@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (Tony Cox - (415)926-3105) writes:
>I was all aflame with interest when I heard on NPR's "California Election
>Review" program (KQED, San Francisco) that they were doing a special on the so
>called "Minor Parties".

>Imagine my surprise when in that article there WAS NOT ONE REFERENCE TO THE
>LIBERTARIAN party!

>The LP is on all 50 state ballots, right? So what the fuck is going on here?

This is NPR.  They don't like libertarianism of any kind, and with
Libertarians in power they'd probably get their funding axed.  They
never pretended to be objective...
-- 
In the shopping mall of the mind, he's in the toy store.
From: tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM (Todd Hoff)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: A = A. Isn't this obvious?
Date: 26 Sep 1992 19:11:18 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: oogoody.corp.sun.com

In article 717438214@exu.ericsson.se, exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell) writes:
>No no no. It isn't denials of nonexistence--or contrapositively, 
>affirmations of existence--that presuppose assuming anything. It
>is the formal rules [e.g. identity and noncontradiction] themselves
>that can't be denied without presupposing them.  Statements expressing
>these rules don't apparently have existential import.  

This sound suspiciously like arguments with religious folk who
say the same thing about the existence of god as you do about A=A.
Frankly I find both unconvincing.
From: pjohnson@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (Peter Johnson)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: gold standard
Date: 2 Oct 92 20:37:00 GMT
Organization: University of Waterloo

In article <66933@cup.portal.com> atfurman@cup.portal.com (A T Furman) writes:
>The Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy, a free-market think
>tank in San Francisco, published a collection of papers called _Money in
>Crisis_ around 1983.  One of the authors reported that a commodity
>mix he called ANCAP (ammonium nitrate, copper, aluminum, and plywood, 
>weighted in some particular way) had had rock-steady purchasing power
>for 30 years!  During this period, the Federal Reserve Note shriveled
>and gold gyrated.
>
>A trust structured as a mutual fund, with encrypted electronic
>clearing and smart cards, could offer a very attractive private money,
>without the fluctuations which individual commodities are heir to.
>All four commodities are actively traded on mercantile exchanges with
>lots of futures speculators, which means that they are highly liquid,
>uniform between exchanges (thanks to arbitrage), and computerized
>clearing, quality standards, bonded warehouses, and other infrastructural
>elements are already in place.
>
>As for the risk of getting an armed escort to a little room with
>bars ("legal tender laws"), I invite anyone familiar with this stuff
>to comment.
>
>    Alan T. Furman 

	If those commodities were actually used as currency (even in the
way you describe), wouldn't their value AS CURRENCY by definition change
the demand for them, making their purchasing power less rock-steady?

-- 
Peter Johnson	       "There are times, sir, when men of good conscience	
Independent Studies     cannot blindly follow orders." --Capt. Jean-Luc
University of Waterloo  Picard (Patrick Stewart) to Adm. Haftel, STAR TREK:
	   		THE NEXT GENERATION, "The Offspring"
From: gimble@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (David Caruso II)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Are You a Misanthrope?
Date: 4 Oct 92 00:13:30 CDT
Organization: America, Planet Earth

	I have a good friend (who does not have internet access) who wishes 
to pose a question to this forum.  She is a serious naturalist who is 
concerned about her views concerning mankind's actions as a whole.

	To anyone who considers themselves a true misanthrope:  Why?  Why 
are you misanthropic?  What do you believe so much that you would term 
yourself as misanthropic?  What are your reasons for your beliefs?

	My friend has many misanthropic viewpoints, mostly related to 
humankind's destruction of the environment.  She wishes to supplement her 
viewpoints with others' after carefully analyzing each reason and opinion of 
those who respond to this post.

	I will print responses and give them to her, and allow her to respond 
through my or another account.

	Thank you!  :)


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 David Caruso II                               Email: gimble@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
From: eder@hsvaic.boeing.com (Dani Eder)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Currency systems
Keywords: gold_standard money
Date: 30 Sep 92 17:25:43 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Boeing AI Center, Huntsville, AL

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

>As Russ points out, you can return your personal finances to the gold
>standard by exchanging all those fragile dollars at your local bank. You
>can also trade with like-minded folks by swapping gold options and gold
>futures. The fact that this is not a commonplace occurrence should tell
>you something about what others think of the gold standard.

You will note that the US government still holds 200,000,000 ounces
of gold at Fort Knox, and another 20% of the world's gold is in
the vault at the Ferderal Reserve Bank in New York, owned by various
other countries.  If gold were considered useless, why do large
countries own so much of it?

My college issued dormitory constuction bonds in the 20's payable
in gold coin.  In 1933 gold coins were forcibly removed from
circulation and clauses like the one above were declared void.
Why was it necessary to stop people from using gold in their
transactions at the point of a gun?

Dani Eder


-- 
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.***
From: eder@hsvaic.boeing.com (Dani Eder)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Currency systems
Keywords: n
Date: 30 Sep 92 17:15:28 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Boeing AI Center, Huntsville, AL

rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:


>If you want to use a silver as a store of value, buy silver.  You can
>then conver to the "fiat" currency at the market rate.  So if the
>government tries to inflate the "fiat" money supply, the value of
>your silver should inflate (in nominal dollars), maintaining the 
>silvers real value.

I in fact DO own silver dollars and subsidiary coinage as a store
of value, and they have held up rather well compared to the fiat
currency.  But protecting my personal wealth was not the original
issue. 

An inflating fiat currency takes wealth away from those who save
and lend, and gives it to those who borrow.  It encourages a short
term investment outlook by increasing interest rates.  The rates
are higher becuase lenders must add a premium to their rates to
cover the inflation, and then an additional premium to cover the
income taxes on the inflation premium.  

The government reaps a windfall tax simply because the value of
assets denoted in dollars increases.  All of these things distort
the economy and lead to inefficiencies.  There is also the matter
that the government stole all the silver that was on deposit
backing silver certificates in the 1960's.  Returning to a
precious metal backing for currency wold be a form of restitution
for that theft.

Dani Eder

-- 
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.***
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
From: bwise@hemlock.mitre.org (Barry Wise)
Subject: Re: A = A. Isn't this obvious?
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 18:53:24 GMT

In article <BvCJzt.87p@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> fulton@silver.ucs.indiana.edu  
(Ben Fulton) writes:
> This argument is getting really strange.  Someone else, I think Chris Holt,
> brought up the denotation / connotation point.  The point here is that words
> are irrelevant to reality.
> 
Words are irrelevant to the object they describe. Calling a horse a goat  
doesn't make it one. They are important in the world of discourse. however.  
Words are one way of mapping the external reality we perceive to our internal  
model of that world.  Our understanding of the external world is based upon  
that model. If the mapping is poor then our ability to interact with the  
external world is impaired. 

> You are doing what you are doing.  The words you use to describe it are
> not relevant to the identity argument.
> 
But the words _are_ important to a discussion involving those things. When  
using logic things are considered eternal. A=A. In the real world the A of the  
present is not the A of a day or a year ago. All A's are the same and  
interchangeable. Are all apples?  Apple= Apple? Is the apple I hold in my right  
hand the same as the one in my left? Almost? When you discuss something you  
must abstract those qualities from it that are relevant to the discussion and  
the definitions must be understood by all the parties in the discussion or you  
are only generating noise.

--
Barry Wise

"I yam what I yam"--Popeye
Xref: sparky alt.individualism:5584 sci.econ:7808 talk.politics.misc:48075
From: tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM (Todd Hoff)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism,sci.econ,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Currency systems
Date: 27 Sep 92 19:35:22 GMT
Reply-To: tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: oogoody.corp.sun.com

In article 21728@samba.oit.unc.edu, Robert.Vienneau@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Robert Vienneau) >On the other hand, the American economist Irving Fischer proposed tying
>the monetary unit to a basket of commodities. I know nothing about the
>practical details of his scheme.
>

I've never read this before. It's kind of an intriguing idea. Do you have
more details? Why did you not like it as an idea?
From: Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Prove something (was A = A. Isn't this obvious?)
Date: 4 Oct 92 19:11:18 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, NE1 7RU

brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
>In article <1992Sep30.142819.12092@srd.bt.co.uk> tregan@srd.bt.co.uk writes:
>>	OK, suppose I give you (for the duration of this debate) that
>>in all forms of discourse anything equals itself (which does sound
>>reasonable to me). What can you prove from that?

>Well, directly, you can't prove anything.  What you can do is rely on this
>axiom to prove certain other statements true or false.  Any statement
>of the form A is NOT(A) does not represent reality.  In other words, there
>are no contradictions in reality.  It also leads to a corrolary which is
>that anything that exists has to be something specific, and not something
>general, infinite, or non-existent.  There are no infinite existents, no
>fuzzy facts, and no entities about which nothing can be said.  This might
>all see perfectly obvious and pedestrian, but many philosophers have arrived
>at conclusions much different.

"Infinity is the fixed point of the equation x=succ(x)."
"John is tall."
"Unicorns have exactly one horn."

Each of these statements is meaningful, in one way or another; and
they refer to infinite, fuzzy, and non-existent things.  Actually,
I can understand what you mean if you define "existence" to have
only real-world referents; but (not wanting to go back to the
question of concepts existing, which we did a couple of years
ago) it's a very risky stance to say that there are no fuzzy facts.
Why should the universe be precise?

>>PS This is my first brush with Objectivism although I read "The
>>Fountainhead" on a friend's recommendation. I didn't realize she'd
>>spawned a movement.

>Indeed she has, and it is actually growing quite quickly these days (my
>guess is that there are probably close to 200 objectivist philosophy
>students out there in the US) and tens of thousands of "non-professional"
>admirers.

"Growing quite quickly"?  Are there really more people interested
now than there were two decades ago, when I first met it?  Something
else to blame the Reagan administration for. :-)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk      Computing Lab, U of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Still shone the candlelight on the empty screen, after the power went.
From: jfh@reef.cis.ufl.edu (James F. Hranicky)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Fuzzy logic.  Was: Re: Re: Stability of Libertaria
Date: 3 Oct 92 21:45:57 GMT
Organization: Univ. of Florida CIS Dept.

In article <BvB6Ap.3y4@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> hrubin@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:
>In article <lcc1p4INN3d@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM writes:
>>In article 8nI@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca, pjohnson@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (Peter Johnson) writes:
>>>	Could you please explain what "fuzzy logic" is?  Note that any
>>>assumptions which must be made for a fuzzy logic solution to be "valid"
>>>should be enumerated now rather than when someone catches a contradiction
>>>and someone has to say, "But it's understood from the fuzzy logic model
>>>that...."

Is fuzzy logic really a form of logic? True logic rests on using the process
of elimination to find an answer which contains no contradictions, right?

Isn't fuzzy logic merely an attempt to represent the degrees in value
judgements which can be made by humans?

Jim Hranicky (jfh@reef.cis.ufl.edu)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
From: keithl@klic.rain.com (Keith Lofstrom)
Subject: Re: Measure 9 in Oregon
Organization: Keith Lofstrom Integrated Circuits
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 22:38:57 GMT

In article <BvMsE4.LAq@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> pjohnson@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (Peter Johnson) writes:

>	To the Oregonians reading this newsgroup:  what are you doing to
>oppose Measure 9?

Oh, the usual - wearing the button, sporting the bumper sticker, arguing on
the net, small donations, and moral support.  The urban areas are pretty
strongly against - what little support there is for this *&(^#%@$! is coming
from the rural areas of the state.  There was a 10,000 person rally against
it in Portland yesterday - since Portland has about 600,000 citizens, that
is a pretty significant fraction.  Us individualist types avoid rallies, of
course ;-).

For those of you who don't know, Oregon's ballot measure 9 is intended to add
language to the Oregon Constitution defining homosexuality as unnatural and
perverse.  It was put on the ballot as an initiative measure by the Oregon
Citizen's Alliance, a medium-powerful local pressure group mostly made up of
rural fundamentalists.  The measure is opposed by the major newspapers, most 
businesses, the unions, most churches, the ecumenical council, the catholic
archdiocese - in fact, just about every major organization except the OCA.

Interesting story:

I was stopping by my mother's house last night, for other reasons.  As an
older christian woman, I wasn't sure how she would react to all this, but
I brought along a spare "No On 9" button for her anyway.  When I got there,
it turned out she had a spare button to give ME - they were distributing
them in her church.  She is spitting mad about the whole thing.  I think
we will smash this thing flat - one small ray of hope in an otherwise dreary
election.


Keith
-- 
Keith Lofstrom         keithl@klic.rain.com       Voice (503)-520-1993
KLIC --- Keith Lofstrom Integrated Circuits --- "Your Ideas in Silicon"
Design Contracting in Bipolar and CMOS - Analog, Digital, and Power ICs
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
From: fulton@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Ben Fulton)
Subject: Re: A = A. Isn't this obvious?
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 15:50:17 GMT

This argument is getting really strange.  Someone else, I think Chris Holt,
brought up the denotation / connotation point.  The point here is that words
are irrelevant to reality.

In <1992Sep28.122203.7922@linus.mitre.org> bwise@hemlock.mitre.org (Barry Wise) writes:

>I'm standing on the border of California with one foot in Nevada. Am I in  
>California or not? 

You are where you are.

I'm typing this on a typewriter (containing a microprocessor  
>and a disk drive). Is it a computer or not?  

It is what it is.

>I'm using a voice synthesizer
> to output your message. Am I reading it or not?  Answers to the above  
>questions: Yes.

You are doing what you are doing.  The words you use to describe it are
not relevant to the identity argument.

-- 
ben                                     fulton@silver.ucs.indiana.edu

"A tight bunch of bastards who want to win while loving each other"
- Dave Hasbrook, about the Indiana Ultimate team
Xref: sparky alt.individualism:5669 alt.politics.marrou:1439 talk.politics.misc:49676 alt.politics.democrats.d:148 alt.politics.bush:7806 alt.politics.clinton:8585 alt.politics.libertarian:569
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.generalpa.general
Subject: Economic Crisis Talk
Date: 4 Oct 92 02:20:57 GMT
Distribution: pgh
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon


   How government is contributing to our impending economic crisis,
		  and what should be done about it.

A presentation by Robert Chamberlin, CFP, author of  
_The_1990's:_Decade_of_Depression_, who was rated one of "the best
financial planners" in the nation by Money Magazine.

		     Thursday, October 8, 7:30 pm
	Graduate School of Public Health Auditorium (Room G23)
		   University of Pittsburgh Campus
		       DeSoto Street, Oakland.

			    Free Admission

Sponsored by Pittsburgh Chapter, Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania.
Call 422-5361 for details.
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
From: tcox@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (Tony Cox - (415)926-3105)
Subject: Re: A = A. Eat my shorts
Organization: SSRL, Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Lab
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 05:42:57 GMT

For those US readers, Objectivism has just hit "The Simpsons".
(for those outside, check you local satellite TV listings).

Not very flattering, I'm afraid. The "Ayn Rand school for tots", in a parody of
that wonderful movie, "The great escape".

"Babies who seek their bottles are Leeches. We aim to develop the bottle
within".

Nice posters on the wall, including "Helping is Futile" and the rather topical
"A is A".

On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being the lowest and 10 being the highest, I'd
give it a 3.

Tony Cox, Stanford, CA
	"Lets go and watch TV son"	- Homer
	"Why? is something good on?"	- Bart
	"It just doesn't matter"	- Homer