RoR: Forum

Brad,

Unless they are identical twins, one person probably has, to some extent at least, innately better ability to comprehend and retain information than the other (human genetic variation isn't limited to outward appearances). Rand would say that one person chose to focus his mind more than the other, because she rejected innate mental ability as being important.

But you are forgetting that Rand, herself, came up with the pyramid of ability -- wherein some folks are assumed to have greater innate mental ability.

Peikoff believed Rand had to possess at least some special innate talent to write Atlas Shrugged. Rand insisted she didn't.

I could have written Atlas Shrugged, Brad. And my IQ is only 129. I'm not even 2 standard deviations above the mean for intelligence, and I could have written that epic novel. I have written several (smaller) things here, in this forum, that are in the same ballpark -- as far as being insightful and entertaining -- as Atlas Shrugged. I've seen it in others, too. I've seen it from both Objectivist top-dogs (L. Peikoff, D. Kelley, N. Branden) and even from some underdogs. It's not a holy book, Brad. We don't need a messiah-genius to save us.

In the words of the 'great Obama': "We are the ones we've been waiting for."

:-)

Brad, Luke makes good points and I invite you to consider listening to your 'intellectual superior' on this matter. Luke is a real genius; he even quit Mensa, because they were not smart enough for him (now that's saying something)!

Ed

Post 41

Monday, August 29, 2011 - 8:28pm

Ed, your claim that you could have written Atlas Shrugged is arbitrary. If we had a time machine and the ability to switch out Ayn Rand's genetic code for yours at the time of her conception so that you were born into that same environment, we could then test to see whether you'd come up with Objectivism. If we ran that experiment a million times, putting you in a million different environments in 1905, and not once did you author anything approaching the scale, significance, or originality of Atlas Shrugged, then I think we could conclude that in practical terms you were not capable of writing it. We'll never know! I tend to doubt it, though. Peikoff thinks he knows his mind well enough to know that Atlas Shrugged would have been beyond his abilities. I tend to believe him on that.

Luke, the principle of individual rights does not mean that a nation at war can't drop a bomb on an enemy nation's city unless it first judges all persons to be killed by the bomb as individually guilty. Individual rights pertain to citizens under the jurisdiction of a government. Foreign policy has to relate to nations and populations as collective entities. Collective judgments in immigration policy are also necessary, but they are far more benign than war judgments. I don't advocate war on any Muslim countries at this time, but I do advocate restricting the flow of immigration from Muslim countries into secular countries. A nation has a legitimate interest in conducting risk assessments on sources of immigration. Nationality is a useful indicator. Race is also a useful indicator. Those nations and those populations that tend to bring terrorism, gang rape, property crime, disease, or other threats to a country ought to be given less consideration than those that tend to be healthy, peaceful, and productive.

The introduction of Somalis tends to bring down a nation's standard of living. Japanese tend to lift it up. Call this observation "racist" if you want, but the alternatives to "racism" are either: a) willful ignorance (evasion) of the very predictable adverse effects Africans and their offspring will have on a society; or b) an acceptance of moral altruism in service of the desires of any and all foreigners no matter what the costs. U.S. immigration policy is overtly altruistic, most blatantly so in the form of its refugee resettlement program specifically for Somali Muslims on the basis not of their value, but of their troubles.

At the time Ayn Rand came to the U.S., it was the nation's policy (and had been since its inception) to favor immigration from white European countries. The U.S. (and much of Europe for the matter) is too firmly in the suicidal grip of altruism to assert any such policy of unashamed self-interest today. Sweden of all places is being introduced to rampant urban hooliganism and to such horrors as assault rape (the perpetrators of which are almost exclusively non-European) courtesy of third world immigration that the Swedes feel a moral duty to accept under the reigning ideology of political correctness.

Perhaps Japan won't succumb to this evil ideology. I have been to Japan, and the thought of it being flooded with Africans frankly horrifies me. Take a good look at what happened to Detroit after it went from 90% white to 90% black. In spite of Japan's economic woes over the past two decades, there are no Detroits anywhere in Japan, no race riots, no violent flash mobs of the sort that now plague Sweden, France, Britain, Canada, and the U.S., whose African populations are on the rise.

So in sum, Luke, sweeping statements about race are very useful in judging foreign populations from the standpoint of immigration policy and in predicting the effects of immigration on nations based on the populations from which they draw.

Post 42

Monday, August 29, 2011 - 8:38pm

Brad: "Peikoff believed Rand had to possess at least some special innate talent to write Atlas Shrugged. Rand insisted she didn't."

I only recall LP reporting that AR said her distinctive attribute was intellectual honesty and that she didn't think of herself as a genius (that doesn't mean she wasn't one though). But I don't recall seeing where she said she didn't have any special talent to write Atlas Shrugged. Where was this?

Ed: "I have written several (smaller) things here, in this forum, that are in the same ballpark -- as far as being insightful and entertaining -- as Atlas Shrugged. I've seen it in others, too. I've seen it from both Objectivist top-dogs (L. Peikoff, D. Kelley, N. Branden) and even from some underdogs. It's not a holy book, Brad. We don't need a messiah-genius to save us."

Atlas Shrugged isn't a "holy book," no. But although I read this site on a regular basis and I've read all the works of the aforementioned intellectuals, I've never read anything by you or the others that I'd classify as "in the same ballpark" as AS, which is an incredible achievement of both philosophical and literary originality and integration. Sorry.

Post 43

Monday, August 29, 2011 - 10:52pm

Ed,

I don't want to rain on your parade, but you don't have the intellectual capacity to write something at the same level as Atlas Shrugged. You're right that it isn't a holy book, but it is an accomplishment that is beyond the abilities of anyone that I know of who has posted here.

And you were doing so well till you wrote that :-)

Post 44

Monday, August 29, 2011 - 11:56pm

Brad wrote,

Luke, the principle of individual rights does not mean that a nation at war can't drop a bomb on an enemy nation's city unless it first judges all persons to be killed by the bomb as individually guilty.

True, but if it can avoid killing non-combatants while attacking armed combatants and their supporters, then it should do so.

Individual rights pertain to citizens under the jurisdiction of a government.

Does that mean that if a person is not under a jurisdiction of a government, he has no rights? Or does it mean that only a person's own government is obligated to respect his rights and that foreign governments are not so obligated? Clearly, a person has individual rights in virtue of being human, not in virtue of being a citizen of a government. And just as clearly, his rights deserve to be respected by foreign governments as well as by his own. That means that if a peaceful person who is not shown to be a danger to others wants to come to the U.S. from another country, he has a right to do so. The government cannot interfere with his freedom of movement; otherwise, it is violating his rights.

Foreign policy has to relate to nations and populations as collective entities.

Does this mean that the enslaved citizens of a foreign dictatorship are morally inseparable from their government and that the U.S. is therefore under no obligation to respect their rights, because it's under no obligation to respect the dictators?

Collective judgments in immigration policy are also necessary, but they are far more benign than war judgments. I don't advocate war on any Muslim countries at this time, but I do advocate restricting the flow of immigration from Muslim countries into secular countries. A nation has a legitimate interest in conducting risk assessments on sources of immigration.

Yes, if the prospective immigrant is a radical Muslim who has terrorist affiliations, in which case, he should be denied entry, because he is a threat to the rights of American citizens.

Nationality is a useful indicator. Race is also a useful indicator. Those nations and those populations that tend to bring terrorism, gang rape, property crime, disease, or other threats to a country ought to be given less consideration than those that tend to be healthy, peaceful, and productive.

This is collectivist thinking. People are individuals. Neither nationality nor race is proof that a person is a threat to others and that he may therefore be denied freedom of movement into a foreign country. If that were all that's required, there would be nothing wrong with incarcerating someone simply because he or she is a member of a certain race or nationality. You could reduce the crime rate dramatically simply by incarcerating all young men between the ages of 16 and 30. The only problem with doing that is that incarcerating them in order to prevent crime would itself be a crime, because it would violate their rights.

The same is true for denying immigration to people who are members of groups that have a statistically higher incidence of crime than other groups. And just where do you draw the line in deciding which group to accept and which to reject? If Italians are more crime prone than the French, do you allow the French to immigrate but not the Italians? If the French are more crime prone than the Germans, do you allow the Germans to immigrate but not the French? If the Germans are more crime prone than the Japanese, do you allow the Japanese to immigrate but not the Germans? There is no way to implement this form of discrimination on any kind of a rational or consistent basis. It quickly degenerates into arbitrariness.

I agree that if the person is a radical Muslim who is suspected of being a terrorist, he or she can be denied entry; otherwise, I don't think you can deny immigration rights to a person based simply on his belonging to the Muslim religion. Nor, by the same token, can you deny immigration rights to Mexicans or Africans based simply on the higher incidence of crime among blacks and Hispanics. You cannot make a person's rights contingent on his membership within a racial, ethnic or religious group. The only exception would be a religion that supports and encourages criminal activity, in which case, it becomes a criminal gang.

(Edited by William Dwyer on 8/30, 12:06am)

Post 45

Tuesday, August 30, 2011 - 1:22am

William, I don't agree that there is a universal right for anyone on the planet who is not specifically known to be a threat to immigrate to any country. Did the 9/11 hijackers have a fundamental human right to live in the U.S. up until they revealed themselves to be threats? I don't think so. A government exists to secure its citizens rights and interests, not the entire world's. It is not an act of aggression nor is it tantamount to incarceration for a government to deny a foreigner entry or the privileges of citizenship on any grounds, including nationality or race or religion or shoe size. Certain criteria could be considered arbitrary or irrational, but denying aliens entry on those grounds would still not be violating their rights.

It would be bizarre to suppose that the moment any baby is born in Uganda, the baby acquires a moral and legal right to be a U.S. citizen. Where would such a right come from? If it isn't in Americans' rational self-interest to automatically recognize Ugandans as Americans, and if the Constitution doesn't allow for such recognition, then in no sense do Ugandans have what could be described as a right to immigrate to the U.S.

A country's immigration policy is contextual. Israelis are not bound by any morality I recognize to open their borders to the hostile Arabs who surround them in large numbers. To the contrary, what's moral for Israelis is what's in their own self-interest. What any number of Palestinians or Somalis or Canadians want Israel's immigration policy to be isn't directly relevant. It is in Isrealis' rational self-interest to task their government with implementing an immigration policy that will secure a sustainable future for the country as the non-Arab oasis it is. To put it bluntly, that means preventing an Arab majority from taking root. It's right for Israel to ensure its survival qua Israel, and it's right for the U.S., the nations of Western Europe, and all civilized nations to do likewise.

Is advocating national survival in demographic terms indicative of collectivist thinking? Well, then anyone who advocates age of consent laws is guilty, too. So is anyone who advocates any war in which innocents are to be sacrificed (as in every war, inevitably). If my aim is to prevent my country from being overrun by primitive collectivist aggressors through a selective immigration policy that takes identities and probabilities into account, and your primary concern is that in so protecting my country from primitive collectivist aggressors, I'm being a collectivist, you have strange priorities.

If all nations of the world were full of rational, productive, peaceful people, then maybe you'd have a case against my position. But it's not, and I don't think you do -- at least not on the moral terms you're attempting to base it on.
(Edited by Brad Trun on 8/30, 1:53am)

Post 46

Tuesday, August 30, 2011 - 4:46am

Ed paid me an unearned compliment in Post 40 of this thread. Though I feel profoundly flattered, I want to assure readers that I am no genius, though I try to do the best with what I have. My measured IQ is around 130 (measured 129-132 depending on the test used), which this site labels as the low end of "moderately gifted." This explains my struggles at the North Carolina School of Science and Mathematics (NCSSM) where I suddenly found myself at the left tip of the bell curve of the school population. It was a shocking and humbling contrast against my departure from an average high school where I enjoyed occupying the right tip of the bell curve.

I quit Mensa because of the lack of wisdom rather than intelligence I witnessed. Fans of role-playing games (RPGs) will tell you of some games that characterize players in part based on two distinct factors: intelligence and wisdom. The former amounts to "processing speed" and the latter amounts to "most effective use of that processing speed." Objectivism provides the wisdom needed to make the most of our brains. Mensa honors intelligence but not wisdom.

Brad, I can see where you are going with this and I actually agree with the idea of employing statistics as a factor in immigration policy -- not the sole factor but definitely a key factor in the face of great risk and many unknowns. However, these statistics still need to look beyond race at deeper factors, namely culture. An impoverished white Muslim poses a greater security risk than a wealthy black Objectivist, for instance.

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 8/30, 5:08am)

Post 47

Tuesday, August 30, 2011 - 9:56am

I figured my post 40 would turn some heads. Let me explain myself.

Think about Brad's unstated premise (unstated, but implied by everything he has written). It is to this unstated premise of Brad's that I was responding:

"Only an Ashkenazi Jew (such as Ayn Rand) could have written anything like Atlas Shrugged."

Brad believes this "Eugenics" premise because he thinks that mental abilities are mostly genetic -- a proposition that I proved false.

So when I said I could have written Atlas Shrugged, I didn't mean to say that I'm a genius -- I even admitted that I'm not, and referred to Luke as an example of a genius. And when I said I could have written Atlas Shrugged, I didn't mean to say that it would be a menial task -- which would detract from the intelligent creativity required in order to write that book.

Ed

p.s. Besides being for eugenics, Brad is very likely a transhumanist as well. All of this knowledge, while never explicitly stated (admitted to) by Brad, is available from close inspection of his writings.

Post 48

Tuesday, August 30, 2011 - 10:10am

Brad wrote,

William, I don't agree that there is a universal right for anyone on the planet who is not specifically known to be a threat to immigrate to any country. Did the 9/11 hijackers have a fundamental human right to live in the U.S. up until they revealed themselves to be threats? I don't think so.

Oh, come on, Brad! That's a ridiculous ex post argument. Did Charles Manson have a right to freedom up until he revealed himself to be a mass murderer? Yes. A person is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

A government exists to secure its citizens rights and interests, not the entire world's.

Yes, to secure -- i.e., to protect -- its citizens rights and interests, not the entire world's; but it has no right to interfere with or violate the rights of non-citizens. There is a big difference between an obligation to protect and an obligation not to violate.

It is not an act of aggression nor is it tantamount to incarceration for a government to deny a foreigner entry or the privileges of citizenship on any grounds, including nationality or race or religion or shoe size. Certain criteria could be considered arbitrary or irrational, but denying aliens entry on those grounds would still not be violating their rights.

Oh, yes it would! A person qua human being has the right to freedom of action and the right to freedom of association regardless of where he or she lives. If a foreigner wants to trade or associate with a U.S. citizen, he has a perfect right to do so. The government has no business interfering with a voluntary relationship between consenting adults whether they're from different countries or not.

It would be bizarre to suppose that the moment any baby is born in Uganda, the baby acquires a moral and legal right to be a U.S. citizen. Where would such a right come from?

An adult human being, regardless of where he lives, has a right to freedom of action and freedom of association. Where does such a right "come from"? It comes from his nature as a human being. That's why we call them "human rights," Brad. Governments, nations or states don't "give" people rights; they have only to recognize them.

If it isn't in Americans' rational self-interest to automatically recognize Ugandans as Americans, and if the Constitution doesn't allow for such recognition, then in no sense do Ugandans have what could be described as a right to immigrate to the U.S.

The issue is not one of recognizing Ugandans as Americans, but of recognizing the right of Ugandans to travel to the U.S. and to freely associate with American citizens. Is it in Americans' rational self-interest to respect individual rights, including those of foreigners? Yes, because it's in our interest to be consistent practitioners of our moral and political principles. Citizenship does require something more than residency status, but a foreigner certainly has a right to immigrate to the U.S. and do business here, and he certainly has the right to acquire citizenship by displaying the necessary knowledge to qualify for it. There is nothing bizarre about an Ugandan's having that right any more than there is about an Englishman's having it.

(Edited by William Dwyer on 8/30, 10:19am)

Post 49

Tuesday, August 30, 2011 - 10:57am

Ed, your assertions are growing ever more arbitrary and bizarre. I am perfectly willing to state my premises rather than have you infer them through giant leaps of faith.

I hold that it took a genius to write Atlas Shrugged (at the time it was written). There have been geniuses throughout history who weren't Ashkenazi Jews. That's a total red herring. I don't think you or me or Peikoff or Luke are or would have been geniuses. Peikoff, Luke, and me state explicitly that we aren't geniuses, yet you continue to contradict Luke on his own self-assessment, even after he provided evidence that he is only "moderately gifted." Is he lying? Or are IQ tests invalid or insufficient? Or is he not smart enough to recognize how smart he is or too humble or what? Possibly he's just correct and you're wrong.

If you want to attribute Ayn Rand's intellect mostly to her environment rather than her genetics, you are free to make an argument for that position. You haven't proven it, though. Growing up in Russia seemed to provide her with motivation she might not have gotten had she been born on a farm in Kansas, but motivation is useless without ability. Ayn Rand's explanation that she chose to focus her mind is still a variation of the genetic argument, because volition comes from within the mind, which is inseparable from the brain.

p.s. I don't even know what it would mean to be a transhumanist. I put a lot of time into the arguments I did make, so it's disappointing that Ed responded to me in the form of arguments he made up.

Post 50

Tuesday, August 30, 2011 - 11:02am

I do not know if Ayn Rand had a young childhood of exposure to learning methods similar to (though clearly preceding) those of Montessori. But Montessori herself said those "sensitive years" make all the difference in brain development. Combine that with the "motivation" Brad described and you have a formula for Ayn Rand. Genetics do play a role. I admit that. So do other factors.

By the way, I was raised on a farm in North Carolina and that did provide me with burning motivation to escape!

Post 51

Tuesday, August 30, 2011 - 4:57pm

Good responses, Bill.

Brad,

Sorry that I jumped the gun and called you a "transhumanist" without even asking you first. I still think you are an apologist for eugenics -- because you essentially argue for eugenics (your arguments are properly characterized as arguments for eugenics). Also, much of the reason that Ayn Rand was such a genius likely had to do with her environment, specifically her ingestion of 2 chemicals (nicotine and amphetamine). There are studies showing that the combination of these 2 chemicals can make you pretty smart. I'm not saying that, if you take these 2 chemicals, that you will be able to write Atlas Shrugged ...

:-)

I'm only saying that they are factors which I would predict that you would accidentally overlook or prematurely dismiss (because of your untoward focus on genetics).

Ed

Links:
Chronic L-deprenyl or L-amphetamine: equal cognitive enhancement, unequal MAO inhibition.

Correlations between the effects of CNS stimulants on memory processes and open field behavior of rats: the importance of brain cholinergic activity.

Nicotinic effects on cognitive function: behavioral characterization, pharmacological specification, and anatomic localization.

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 8/30, 6:06pm)

Post 52

Tuesday, August 30, 2011 - 6:04pm

A person is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

You are switching contexts, William.� Denying entry to the 9/11 hijackers because they fit into a risk profile isn't the same as pronouncing them guilty...or incarcerating them.�

Is it in Americans' rational self-interest to respect individual rights, including those of foreigners? Yes, because it's in our interest to be consistent practitioners of our moral and political principles.

You're making reference to rational self-interest while stripping it of any substantive meaning.� You're attempting to�deduce it from�moral proclamations that you've already presupposed we are duty-bound to follow.� It's a circular,�dogmatic,�rationalistic conception of self-interest.� In practice, what�you are prescribing is altruism and globalism.��You are saying all nations must welcome all comers, regardless of whether the citizens of those nations value all comers.� What is the point of having sovereign nations at all? The logic of your universal human rights argument suggests the need for a single global government to make sure no nation puts up any immigration restrictions.

Islamists are intent on�invading Western Europe in a demographic conquest with the objective of destroying Western values.� Brussels�is already nearly 50% Muslim, and the whole country of�France is heading that way fast.� Your concern is not with�securing Western values, but in making sure�Islamic migration is fully accomodated by every last country in Europe.��It is what the jihadists, the anarchists, the radical left, and every other member of the anti-West, anti-reason coalition�desire.� It is not what�self-respecting people who value their own�freedom and culture�desire.� Failing to put up defenses against a slow-motion invasion from hostile populations of�Muslims is tantamount to being a pacifist in the face of an enemy who is killing you.� It is suicidal.

I often have problems with Peikoff's dogmatic approach to some�issues, but on immigration I commend him for taking a contextual approach and giving some substantive meaning�to the defense of individual rights:

http://libertarianrealist.blogspot.com/2010/07/peikoff-on-immigration_6927.html

(Edited by Brad Trun on 8/30, 6:10pm)

(Edited by Brad Trun on 8/30, 6:15pm)

Post 53

Tuesday, August 30, 2011 - 10:41pm

I wrote, "A person is presumed innocent until proven guilty." Brad replied,

You are switching contexts, William. Denying entry to the 9/11 hijackers because they fit into a risk profile isn't the same as pronouncing them guilty...or incarcerating them.

All right. Let's back up here. To the extent that any of the 9/11 hijackers were recognized as potential terrorists -- insofar as there was preliminary evidence to support this -- they could properly be denied entry. But you can't claim that they should have been denied entry simply because they were subsequently discovered to have been terrorists. Of course, denying someone entry isn't the same as incarcerating them. The point I was making is that you have to have at least some evidence that the prospective immigrant is not a peaceful individual before you can deny him entry, because denying a foreigner entry into the United States is an interference with his liberty, which in the absence of any evidence that he is physical threat, violates his rights.

I wrote, "Is it in Americans' rational self-interest to respect individual rights, including those of foreigners? Yes, because it's in our interest to be consistent practitioners of our moral and political principles."

You're making reference to rational self-interest while stripping it of any substantive meaning. You're attempting to deduce it from moral proclamations that you've already presupposed we are duty-bound to follow. It's a circular, dogmatic, rationalistic conception of self-interest.

So what then is your concept of individual rights, since you apparently don't believe that they apply equally to each and every individual? As I understand the concept, individual rights serve to protect everyone's freedom to pursue his or her self-interest free from interference by others. They allow people to interact freely with each other and trade value for value, across states, across countries and across continents.

In practice, what you are prescribing is altruism and globalism. You are saying all nations must welcome all comers, regardless of whether the citizens of those nations value all comers.

I'm saying that if a U.S. employer wants to hire a teacher from Uganda, he doesn't need the approval of everyone else in the country to do so. The Ugandan has the right, as an individual, to travel to the U.S. and accept the job offer.

What is the point of having sovereign nations at all? The logic of your universal human rights argument suggests the need for a single global government to make sure no nation puts up any immigration restrictions.

No, it doesn't, and I wouldn't want a single global government; the ones we have are bad enough. What is the point of having a sovereign nation? Quoting Jefferson in The Declaration of Independence, "To secure these rights, governments are instituted among men." "To secure these rights" does not mean to violate them. It does not mean that the government can do whatever it chooses to its own citizens or the citizens of other countries -- that it can prevent people from entering or leaving the country at its arbitrary discretion. Sovereignty does not give the government carte blanche when its raison d'etre is simply to protect the individual sovereignty of the citizens under its jurisdiction.

Islamists are intent on invading Western Europe in a demographic conquest with the objective of destroying Western values. Brussels is already nearly 50% Muslim, and the whole country of France is heading that way fast. Your concern is not with securing Western values, but in making sure Islamic migration is fully accomodated by every last country in Europe. It is what the jihadists, the anarchists, the radical left, and every other member of the anti-West, anti-reason coalition desire. It is not what self-respecting people who value their own freedom and culture desire. Failing to put up defenses against a slow-motion invasion from hostile populations of Muslims is tantamount to being a pacifist in the face of an enemy who is killing you. It is suicidal.

The problem here is unlimited democracy, not freedom of immigration. Muslims don't have a right to vote in Sharia law. The solution to that is a limited constitutional republic that would prevent such laws from being voted on and passed. In the absence of a constitutional republic, the solution may be to disallow this kind of immigration. I'm not sure, but it's not the ideal solution, which is to change the form of government to a limited democracy, one which is prohibited from passing laws that violate people's rights.

(Edited by William Dwyer on 8/30, 10:44pm)

Post 54

Wednesday, August 31, 2011 - 2:54am

William, I'm glad you are also a fan of Jefferson's ideas. He believed black slaves should be freed and then deported. Yes, deported. He wrote in 1821:

"Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people are to be free. Nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government. Nature, habit, opinion has drawn indelible lines of distinction between them. It is still in our power to direct the process of emancipation and deportation peaceably and in such slow degree as that the evil will wear off insensibly, and their place be pari passu filled up by free white laborers."

Do you think the Declaration of Independence means open immigration for Ugandans? I don't derive that meaning from the text, and I'm quite certain that the author didn't intend you to do so.

Post 55

Wednesday, August 31, 2011 - 5:56am

Brad Trun = Racist

Enjoy your irrational hate Brad.

Post 56

Wednesday, August 31, 2011 - 6:47pm

Brad,

Originally, when I compared you to an anthropogenic global warming alarmist, I had forgotten about this RoR link from a few years ago. It is relevant to our discussion here.

Ed

Post 57

Wednesday, August 31, 2011 - 7:44pm

<sarcasm>
I remember back in my college years... Out in the country of upper Michigan, there were groups of militants going around raping and piling the villages. They were taking in the male children to train them into their militia and taking the female children for sex slaves.

My room mate was into that, but I was more studious. I didn't get into the rape (yea I know I'm prude), but I did a good share of pillaging on the weekends.
</sarcasm>

Post 58

Thursday, September 1, 2011 - 5:16pm

I always seem to see the wheelbarrows, never the straw.

Why would a libertarian ever use a term of totalitarian religious art like 'social construct' for anything other than diagnostics, as in, an autopsy of the latest human constructivist failure run amok somewhere on earth?

People believe in all kinds of things that none of us can see:

ghosts
holy ghosts
a "S"ociety that constructs things.

As close as I can determine, a 'social construct' is some political con that some handful of aparatchiks managed to slip by on the tribe while most folks were mainly just living their lives and otherwise behaving themselves.

Themselves, as in, the plural of self.

Wheelbarrows. Straw.

A guard at a factory sees a worker leave the plant everyday with a wheelbarrow filled with straw. The guard inspects the straw carefully every day, but never finds anything, and lets the man pass. This goes on everyday for months.

The guard sees the man at a bar, and they strike up a conversation. After they've each had a few beers and some laughs, the guard says, "I know you have to be stealing something from the factory."

"Yes, I am."

"What is it?"

"Wheelbarrows."

'Race' is the straw. 'Social construct' is the wheelbarrows.

A thousand articles just like this are not about the straw in the least. They are about the wheelbarrows.

regards,
Fred

Post 59

Thursday, September 1, 2011 - 5:22pm