HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tyadav@athena.mit.edu (T.Y.)
Subject: answers and Questions....(Re: Letting Someone Drown
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 19:30:55 GMT

==================================
 hugh@mks.com (Hugh Brown) writes:
>
>The ethical question is not central to the debate. Resolution of this
>question could not be satisfactorily achieved without gaining agreement on
>Objectivist epistemology, knowledge, rationality, and objectivity. It is
>pointless to continue any discussion of the moral questions unless a
>corresponding effort is made to address the logically prior question.

 This is Really Important. And I so very very much wish that individuals
 (objectivists incl) understood what Hugh writes here.

 Too many, far too many presume (often implicitly, always incorrectly):
 [0.0] All questions are rational, objective, valid.
 [0.1] All questions are primary.
 [0.2] That reason works automatically. Premises are nonessential.
 [0.3] ......

 Perhaps, initiators of future threads would do a great service to themselves
 and their cause if they would define/describe what their philosophical terms
 and concepts mean. 

T.Y.
----
tyadav@athena.mit.edu
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: czeller@ih-nxt05.cso.uiuc.edu (Christopher M Zeller)
Subject: re: Does it really matter? (if God exists...)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 22:49:19 GMT

In article <93025.185006SXB134@psuvm.psu.edu> <SXB134@psuvm.psu.edu>  
writes:
> Would someone out there (preferably a "believer") please explain
> to me why it really MATTERS if God exists at all, given the fact
> that he sure as HELL doesn't show any predilection for intervening
> in every day life?  

	Well, I'm an atheist for one thing, sorry I'm not the believer 
that you were looking for. (although it's not likely that you will 
find one on this service) But I will offer my opinion anyway. Assuming, as  
you have that god doesn't interviene in everyday life, I don't
really think it matters if god exists or not as long as you are alive. But
an atheist will be the first one to admit that none of us lives forever.  
Once we are dead, you had better believe that it matters. As I said, I'm  
an atheist so, if I'm wrong and there is some sort of god, then I know  
exactly where I'm going. The REAL question is, "Does it really matter if  
god intervienes or not, as long as he has his say in the end." And for  
that reason I hope I'm right. 

                    Chris Zeller
 
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: Collectivist Quotes
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 19:56:35 GMT

In article <1jvahaINNko@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> cl836@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Geoff Stark) writes:
>
>As part of our daily ritual of self torture, my wife an I read
>the newspaper in search of some glimmer of hope for this self-
>less socialist world.  (I must admit that Sandy (my wife) reads
>more of the paper than I do.  I often skip to the comics. :-) )
>
>We clip out letters or articles that REALLY offend our
>objective moral ethic and have been saving them as examples of
>the media's (sorry for generalizing) tendency to spurn
>individuals who achieve or think for themselves.   Call it our
>'Catalogue of Collectivist Quips'.
>
>Does anybody else do anything similar?  It need not be newspapers
>or even media.  For example, we have included most of the text of
>the Charlottetown Accord. (The Canadian government's latest
>attempt to entrench statist dogma in our constitution -
>thankfully shot down by a national plebiscite last October)
>
>I'll include some examples, but I would like to know if other
>localities have the same media/governmental bias towards statism,
>altruism and the end of individual freedom.  I think it would be
>helpful to see examples of this material in
>alt.philosophy.objectivism.
>
>[interesting, but frustrating examples of statist dogmatic crap deleted]

great idea. i have always seen these but never collected them up.
i call these things "From the file of '_Atlas_Shrugged_ in our day'"...

here's a couple for your collection:

1. a recent article in the Toronto Star described a case where a woman
is suing a financial institution because they won't give her a mortgage
because she doesn't pass the 30% requirement for income expenditure.
her income is all state social assistance and federal tax rebates, and
the mortgage she wanted would have had monthly payments exceeding
50% of her income.

she is suing on the ground of "discrimination against single mothers
and social assistance recipients". she is being supported by the
"Centre for Equality Rights in Accomodation", the leader of which,
one Bruce Porter, claimed: "We have to get banks and trust companies
and others to recognize what economic discrimination can do and get
them to take some responsibility".

["economic discrimination"? where the hell do people come up with this
crap? how is it "discrimination" if the basis for the decision
is the specific attribute used to judge merit?]


2. not quite as interesting. some jerk in New Hampshire wants to institute
a new tax to support high school athletics. he was interviewed on a radio
talk show, and here was his plan to raise the funds for this: a new tax on
golf green fees (!!). when asked the obvious question, he claimed something
along the lines of "only rich people can play golf, so they can afford
it".

[P.S. the New Hampshire state motto is "Live Free or Die". hopefully
this proposal will do the latter.]

--
charles
From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: LAST POST!
Date: 23 Jan 93 23:38:23 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

In article <C1AL1t.3HL@news.cso.uiuc.edu> jlamb@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Jeffrey Richard Lamb) writes:
>Unfortunately, (or as some would say, fortunately), I can't keep up with
>all these posts. I have college work to do after all. Because of this I
>am going to have to exit stage left. I have a couple more comebacks, but
>after those get posted I will be finished.
>I'd like to thank everyone who answered my post. It made me think. Some
>things made me want to do a little more research.
>As to changing my mind, I didn't see much encouragement in my views from
>you all, but I didn't expect any so that's no big deal. I have always
>held that truth isn't a matter of math. (Ayn Rand). Though I stand alone
>I still stand. I doubt I have convinced anyone to adopt my view, but
>again that wasn't my purpose. I wanted to put my idea up against some
>really sharp minds (consider yourselves complimented). I was able to
>answer all your attacks (sufficent for me if not for you), and I guess
>what I wanted from the whole thing. Thanks again. Be forewarned, I will
>be working and I will return some time when I can devote a week to answering
>all these challenges with the time they demand. Until that time I shall
>wish you all a great life, and after if you believe in such things. :-)
>Later all.

well, thanks for putting something interesting in the newsgroup,
but frankly, i was quite disappointed with your arguments. your position
has many serious holes in it, and i can't seriously believe that
you actually think you have answered them sufficiently.

the fallacy of equating truth with non-falsehood (which you use
indirectly, though you don't come right out and say it)
is so fundamental that any high school logic student
can demonstrate it. the fallacy of assuming that 
because much of a book is true that all of it is, is probably worse --
it doesn't even pass the muster of common sense.

if you can actually make an argument like this, and still think
after reading all the counter-arguments that your "proof" is valid,
well, that must be the best way i could think of of demonstrating
that belief in God requires faith -- because that is the only way
an intelligent person could stand by your arguments.

thanks for your efforts though.

--
charles
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: pjnelson@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (nelson peter j)
Subject: Re: Active vs. Passive Injury of Others
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 04:03:47 GMT
Keywords: Ayn_Rand,Abortion,Georges_Sorel

hugh@mks.com (Hugh Brown) writes:

>In article <C162Hr.32B@news.cso.uiuc.edu> pjnelson@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (nelson peter j) writes:
>>>I think that Ayn's opinion on abortion runs somewhat along these
>>>lines: it is absurd to call a 'potential' human being, a mere
>>>lump of protoplasm, 'fully human' and accord it rights.  I believe
>>>that she goes on to equivocate a sacrosanct fetus with any other 
>>>group of cells, in your arm, for instance, of human flesh, for
>>>which you could make a similar claim.
>>
>>>Sounds fine for the morning after - but how about those embarrassing
>>>ill-timed third-trimester jobs?  Hmmm...
>The Objectivist position (elaborated only by Peikoff in lecture as far
>as I know) is that abortion even up to birth is legitimate but
>indicates a certain immorality (for lack of a better word) because the
>woman could easily have decided much earlier than that late date.
>As such, it is indicative of a failure to think or decide.

>>
>>Ayn's above view on abortion referred only to the first-trimester
>>abortions.
>Please provide a reference for this.  I am unfamiliar with this
>qualification.
 "One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the 
  essential issue concerns only the first three months. To
  equate a _potential_ with an _actual_ is vicious; to advocate
  the sacrifice of the latter to the form, is unspeakable..."
	       "A Last Survey", Ayn Rand Letter, IV, 2,3.
	       As quoted in the "Ayn Rand Lexicon"
		  edited by Harry Binswanger
  Peter J Nelson
>>
>>>cg
>>Peter J Nelson

>Mortice Kern Systems
>35 King Street North
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: gambit@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu ()
Subject: Re: what i think of ayn rand
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 00:13:49 GMT

In article <93025.135012RMACMIL@auvm.american.edu> Robert B. MacMillan <RMACMIL@auvm.american.edu> writes:
>after having read the fountainhead, i can honestly say that i think she
>is one of the most talented writers in the western world.
>that was my first opinion.  my second is that she has the shittiest most
>reprehensible, pseudo-fascist philosophy i have ever had the misfortune to
>read.  i am glad she's dead.
>help, someone, please recommend me something that will make me feel different
>about this cold-hearted bitch who can write like no one i've ever seen...

"Pseudo-fascist"?????  I know how you can feel different about her.  Reread
the book, and PAY ATTENTION this time!

You are not the first person I've heard say this.  Someone please explain to
me how in the hell you can read her works and get the idea that she is
advocating facism (as you said), or communism (one I heard before).  Such an
evaluation is in absolute contradiction to EVERYTHING she wrote!

------------------------------------------------

Benjamin W. Lagow
Grad Res Asst, Dept. of Materials Science and Engineering
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Subject: Re: God exists. Proof within.
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 18:56:03 GMT

In article <1993Jan23.163143.8923@athena.mit.edu> tyadav@athena.mit.edu
 (T.Y.) writes:

    >Well,
    >that night saw me cruising thru Spinoza. Spinoza neatly proceeds to merge
    >the concept of god with harmony, nature and universal laws.

  Which statements of Spinoza's implied to you that he merged the concept of
god with harmony, nature and universal laws?
From: Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Evidence for the market
Date: 21 Jan 93 14:55:58 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, NE1 7RU

violett@indiana.edu (Andrew J Violette) writes:
>Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt) writes:

>>Hee hee.  Then why do I have such faith in the free market, in
>>limited circumstances?

>I am a little bit confused as to what your definition of free market is.  A
>free market defined only under "limited circumstances" is not a free market,
>it is a regulated market.

It is possible to have a free market in beans and a regulated market
in medical care, side by side.  It is possible to have a free market
in porkbelly futures, regulated by the constraint that one cannot
leverage beyond a given percentage.  The point is that modelling a
free market, one makes assumptions (sufficient diversity among
suppliers and buyers for supply/demand curves to be continuous and
monotonic, sufficient information about a product that the buyer
can act rationally); the less likely the assumptions are to hold,
the less accurate the model, and the more it is necessary to add
other constraints.

> I guess in this context Gorbachev, Clinton, and
>anybody else more liberal than Stalin, is pro-free-market.

Not particularly relevant.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk      Computing Lab, U of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Distributed object-oriented causal transition systems burble glug glug...
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: shou1@cicero.spc.uchicago.edu (Roger Shouse)
Subject: Re: Fountainhead: The Motion Picture
Organization: U of Chicago, SSPPCC
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 21:29:38 GMT

Another aside:  Has anyone besides me ever noticed how much Gary
Cooper's dentures make during the courtroom defense scene?  I assume
it's his dentures because there's this awful snapping noise every
time he talks. Or did I imagine this?

Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: bil@okcforum.osrhe.uoknor.edu (Bill Conner)
Subject: Re: Deliberate Ignorance
Organization: Okcforum Unix Users Group
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 01:44:43 GMT

Tim Starr (starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu) wrote:
: In article <C1FyKE.FqH@darkside.osrhe.uoknor.edu> bil@okcforum.osrhe.uoknor.edu (Bill Conner) writes:
: }Logic can describe
: }how one thing (thought, etc.) compares to another, but it of no use in
: }determining which thing or thought or idea is "true".
: 
: Nonsense.  Where do you get this idea?  Sounds positivist to me.  And where
: do you get the false notion that Objectivism is mechanistic?
: 
Tim,

   I freely admit that most of what I write here probably is nonsense,
but considering the postings I've seen in this group, I didn't think
anyone would know the difference. Much as I'd like to take your
critique of my point at face value, I think it might be more useful if
you would demonstrate how said point is nonsense. Merely declaring my
reasoning nonsense really doesn't carry much weight.


Bill
From: sulkom@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Mark Sulkowski)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Evidence for the market
Date: 26 Jan 93 01:25:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1993Jan23.210811.1399@netcom.com>, abell@netcom.com (Steven T. Abell) writes...
>svanegmo@cantor.math.uwaterloo.ca (Stephen Van Egmond) writes:
> 
>>Actually, it has been shown, and is accepted (at least by my ECON 101 text,
>>which on the whole is a balanced assessment of free-market behaviour), that
>>there is a type of good called a "public good" which, if left to the market,
>>would not be provided.
> 
>>The typical example is military defence.  I recognize that in an Objectivist
>>world, the military would have little or no place.
> 
>Not true. Defense is one of the few "public goods" required from the
>government by objectivism. It is a necessity, but is not provided by
>a legitimate market because it is neither constructive nor based on
>service to individuals.

	Excuse me?  Did I understand you correctly?

	Most people would agree with you (as do I) that defense is a "public
good" and it is necessary in a world filled with aggressive militaries.
But I don't understand your point that it is neither "constructive"
or a "service".

	Defense most certainly is a service.  Its job is to protect
your life and property.  How is this not a service?

	Perhaps you mean that it is not "constructive".  But what does
that have to do with anything?  If defense serves a purpose for you,
you would be willing to pay for it.  You would pay based upon the
degree of protection you want from foreign aggression.

	The reason that "public goods" are difficult to provide is
that its benefits are difficult to internalize to paying customers.
This leads to people free riding off of their paying neighbors.

	Constructiveness has absolutely nothing to do with it.


Mark Sulkowski
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: pandit@ssd.intel.com (Milind Pandit)
Subject: Re: God doesn't exist
Organization: Supercomputer Systems Division (SSD), Intel
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 19:00:24 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.225310.29640@crash> mdc@crash.cts.com (Milo D. Cooper) writes:
>In article <C1FqD7.Hos@news.cso.uiuc.edu> gambit@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
>=
>=The fact that every entity does not require a cause is obvious, because the
>=Universe (if we take it to be the totality of existence) obviously did not
>=have a cause.  There could be nothing to cause existence, because it would
>=have to exist itself.
>
>	How is it, then, that from such a nihilistic origin of life
>emerged conscious life aware of its past, and thus concerned with its
>future?  Logic is subject to the dictates of experience.

If you explore exactly what we mean by "consciousness," "awareness,"
and "concern," you will realize that these things are not magical, and
could evolve in organisms over millions of years.


-- 
Milind S. Pandit			| pandit@ssd.intel.com
Operating Systems Engineer		|
Intel Supercomputer Systems Division	| Standard Disclaimers Apply
From: sulkom@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Mark Sulkowski)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: God doesn't exist
Date: 26 Jan 93 01:59:00 GMT
Followup-To: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <ked-240193222625@m248-104.bgsu.edu>, ked@2001.bgsu.edu (Burly) writes...
>Thomas Aquinas, a most influential Roman Catholic theologian and
>philosopher come up with the First Cause Argument also known as the
>Cosmological Argument.  In it he stated several arguments that he believed
>makes it clear that God does exist.  Let's study his argument for a minute:
>	1.  Everything thtat exists had a cause of its coming into existence
>	2.  Nothing can be the cause of itself
>	3.  There cannot be an infinate series of causal chains
>	4.  Therefore, there most be a first cause
>	5.  The First Cause must be God
>-----------------------]
>	6.  Therefore, God exists.

	Excuse me, but (2) contradicts (5).  If "nothing can be the
cause of itself" it MUST follow that God cannot be the cause of Itself.
Where did God come from?  Do we have to postulate ANOTHER God to create
the first one?  Ad infinitum?


Mark Sulkowski
From: abell@netcom.com (Steven T. Abell)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Deliberate Ignorance
Date: 28 Jan 93 16:15:32 GMT
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)

sals@random.uchicago.edu (red-head fancier) writes:
>I also disagree that math is  
>something above man. 2+2=4 is indeed true in the manner we define 2 to be,  
>however, in more abstract math I wonder if there are actually physical  
>entities which correspond to our mathematical constructs. In fact  
>scientists and mathematicans have construted theories which are internally  
>consistent, but which do not correspond to reality. For example Euclidean  
>geometry. Approximately true yes, however, exactly true no. Or on a  
>different note what about and infentesimal, does one real exist?

Here are two X's: X X
Got it?

Is there an infinitessimal?
Yes, and it's apparently between your ears.

Steve abell@netcom.com
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: solan@smaug.uio.no (Svein Olav G. Nyberg)
Subject: Re: What is "Good"
Keywords: Good
Reply-To: solan@smaug.uio.no (Svein Olav G. Nyberg)
Organization: University of Oslo, Norway
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 09:14:59 GMT

In article <C155vy.1vK@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, vedder@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
(vedder julie ann) writes:
|> What Rand was indicating in this passage was that Galt placed a higher
|> value on not having Dagny tortured than he did on his own life.  What
|> it boils down to is the heirarchy of values.  Usually, one's own life
|> is the highest value, but in some cases another's life can supercede
|> that.  The "good" in this case is acting according to that heirarchy
|> of values, ie, not sacrificing a higher value for a lower one.

He could hardly have placed a HIGHER value on Dagny, as that would
crash the whole argument about Fundamental Alternative etc. What
must have been the case, is that he would find values impossible to
pursue from then on if Dagny was tortured.

Honestly, I don't understand Galt's sentiment. But then again, I am
another person than he is.

|> "I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake 
|> of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."  -Ayn Rand

The first time I read this was in a book in High School, in the
Religions/Ethicxs class. It was contrasted with a UNICEF plea-for-
help poster. Then we were supposed to discuss these two ethical
orientations as opposed to one another. In practice, we were asked
to debate ethics without being allowed to refer to Cauality.


Solan

	"Nothing is more to me than myself."
					-- Max Stirner

Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: rich@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Rich Schwartzman)
Subject: Re: i/I and you/You
Organization: Sometimes
Distribution: alt
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 17:39:29 GMT

In article <ELIAS.93Jan28094600@fitz.TC.Cornell.EDU> elias@fitz.TC.Cornell.EDU (Doug Elias) writes:
}
}Bottom-line:
}The use of "i" constantly reminds me to treat others with as much
}consideration and respect as i would have them treat me....whether
}they do or not.
}
}For those who haven't run into the term before:
}"Rational Anarchist" was informally defined, in Robert Heinlein's
}"The Moon is a Harsh Mistress", by Prof. Bernardo de la Paz as
}follows ( this is a quote, so forgive the "I"'s (;-) )
}
}     I am free, no matter what rules surround me.  If I find them
}     tolerable, I tolerate them.  If I find them too obnoxious, I 
}     break them.  I am free because I know that I alone am morally
}     responsible for everything I do.
}
}i'd guess, then, that this last phrase, "...I alone am morally
}responsible for everything I do", is a large part of why i choose to
}distinguish myself from Randites and Libertarians: i hear, from them,
}a great deal of discussion concerning "Rights", but little more than
}lip-service regarding "Responsibility" -- c'mon, folks: you have the
}former to no greater degree than you accept the burden of the latter.
}

Well said, Doug.  The reminder is appreciated.

}"Tanstaafl", and "Have a good day" (no, really!  i mean, what does it
}cost me to hope that you do?)
}
}doug
}--


-- 
   ---------------------------------------------
  | Richard B. Schwartzman, RBS Communications  |
  |  Media Coordinator, DE. Libertarian Party   |
  |         rich@genie.slhs.udel.edu            |
  |              (302) 455-0354                 |
   ---------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism