Rand would not oppose transgernderism

>it's very well known that rand loved kant
She said she hated him- but it seems she misinterpreted his work- obv she did not read him in the original Germ*n.

Reality is a delusion. You do not see reality. All life is from experience. Like a dream, that seems real, is just experience. Knowledge as we know it is something objective that we can measure and compare but even that is marginally subjective.

True objectivism is actually fiction.

We can share knowledge, to a point. There is limitations. If you take a measurement and I take a measurement and they're the same that's knowledge. But if someone comes along and takes a better measurement with better tools and techniques and a higher level of accuracy it puts both of us wrong. But we presuppose that we're correct.

You might not think that happens that often, but every time you use Pi to calculate it's there. We usually only deal with very open, very general ideas. Details themselves become almost a secondary aspect, if the prevalent results is sufficient for the objective.

You put too fine a point on an objective and it either becomes impossible, or becomes too difficult to confirm as knowledge.

Pi is exactly 3 according to Rand.

Rand:
>denigrates Kant
>praises Mises
Really gets the noggin joggin

... wat

>You do not see reality. All life is from experience.
Fuck off Hegel

i'd be impressed if i didn't hear this same shit from every braindead stoner i've met

Not sure what you want explained. The last part is a joke of sorts.

She was not that smart, but she is a product of being a women in a male dominated world. Kant was both with the subjective and imperial, but he hatred of religion is the same for Kant.

I think she just failed to understand the results of the religion he was raised on. She blames smoking dope on Kant tho.

Thing is that that text is miscategorization and strawmanning.

>I think she just failed to understand the results of the religion he was raised on.
Yes- and Rand undoubtedly held unspoken premises that she assumed people held at the time- the desire to live- in her later interviews, she attempted to slyly include them as part of her work.

And her work is also a product of the time, directed for society at that time- when scientific socialism was still a thing.

You have never seen the color red ever. You eyes have, your brain has interpreted it. It's like listening to a translation of Japanese. You understand what their saying, but you're not actually listening to Japanese.

There is a lot of lost information. A LOT of lost information. We infer almost every fact that we've ever learned, and even worse we almost forget it as soon as it happens. Hell even our own thoughts are lost to us.

You tell me when an eyewitness is reliable, and then i'll agree.

>We can share knowledge, to a point. There is limitations. If you take a measurement and I take a measurement and they're the same that's knowledge. But if someone comes along and takes a better measurement with better tools and techniques and a higher level of accuracy it puts both of us wrong. But we presuppose that we're correct.
Mises addresses this- and states that the fact that we act means that our evaluation of ends (goals) is positive (in our estimation).

>we aren't able to perceive all information
>therefore we can't perceive reality

Ya, but so is Rand. She blames Kant as the villain of philosophy.

Oh.

channel
eight
faggots
must
die

Attached: Linetrap Minnie_Mouse cosplay.jpg (682x1024, 196K)

TBH Desu, you can't really understand Kant if you don't read him in the original German, during the time he wrote.

>You have never seen the color red ever. You eyes have, your brain has interpreted it.
this is literally just what it means to "see" scientifically

Rand seems to have read Kant with a preconceived notion- perhaps she was swayed by the typical read of Kant.

Something that common objectivists get caught up in, especially Peikoff, is in precision- they don't understand that lack of precision is alright- and that you can't ever be sure- but that doesn't mean you shouldn't take information in- Hayek explains this well:

"The resistance against being guided by something that is unintelligible to them (the common intellectual) is, I think, quite understandable in an intellectual. Go back to the origin of it all: Descartes of course explicitly argued only that we should not believe anything which we did not understand. But his followers immediately applied it to we should not accept any rules which we did not understand. And the intellectual has very strongly feeling that what is not comprehensible must be nonsense. And to him the rules he's required to obey are unintelligible and therefore nonsense. He defines rational almost as intelligible, and anything which is not intelligible to him is automatically irrational, and he's opposed to it."
-Hayek (youtu.be/9KER-KYK0-0 @ 1:37)

>this is literally just what it means to "see" scientifically
I'd say 'conceptually.'

All these faggots want to do is to find a reason to not act- b/c they can never be sure.

I think she is the villain of philosophy. The delusion of the individual persists because people think Rand was onto something. We are a society with individuals, not individuals that made a society. Society existed since probably the birth of the first human. Even monkey and rats have society. Morality only falls into place because of society.

It's like the same delusion that man is not an animal. Sort of a duality in identity maybe, but not a separation. Still her ideas propagate the fallacy of 'pulling yourself up by your bootstraps' which is in itself, a paradox. She's continually destroying the fabric of society, by people thinking society helping the individual is destroying the fabric of society.

And she does it by denouncing the most prolific philosopher of our modern times. Youtubers do the same thing now, punching up makes you look bigger because the only way to be derogative is by an assumed power of authority.

Attached: 1548868528032.jpg (480x360, 30K)

But they're just estimations. Estimates are only as objective as it relates to each other, not to reality. To say that reality is objective, like Rand does, is misleading. You cannot actually learn anything with perspective and logic.

This is what Flat Earther believe in.

>And she does it by denouncing the most prolific philosopher of our modern times.
That boots a really fitting pic

Ya. We have a loose understanding and a general way to function, but most of that is from evolution of survival. Science is the understanding of reality, but when you start looking into math and philosophy you're no longer in reality or science.

Science is just the natural world. Pi itself does not exist anywhere in the natural world. Just like good and bad don't exist anywhere in the world. Morality relates to society, and only insofar as the capacity of intelligence that we have to understand it. The low end is dumb as mud like 'pain is bad' but the high end is almost infinite.

Intelligence has a limit, but stupidity has almost no bottom end, ironically. Once you got the right idea, that's it. But there's an infinite wrong answers.

>trading with others is equal to being slaves to each other

>morality requires society
Since when are parties unable to respect each other outside of society?

>Rand destroys fabric of society
Wrong- cowards destroy fabric of society- and they justify themselves by incorrectly borrowing upon libertarian philosophy

>estimates
Every action is based upon our understanding of what usually follows- there is never certainty, and Objectivism never claims that there is.

kek, the trans actually believe they can change gender, so you actually destroyed your own argument.

Also Rand was a weirdo

As an objectist or subjectivist or whatever they're called you'd be upset with Kant. This is the whole reason Kant wrote his work, to squash the debate between the two. It's both. Objective and subjective. Both have limitations.

It's almost retarded to the point of malicious to debate Kant on one or the other topic, and it presupposes that he just wrote Critique of Pure Reason because he was bored.

Kant regarded himself as showing the way past the impasse between rationalists and empiricists which philosophy had led to. Rand is on the side of empiricists and thinks that this is revolutionary.

It's makes me think that anyone that's into Rand is actually functionally retarded normie.

This actually triggered me for a second. well played.

I agree with all you say here except:

>but when you start looking into math and philosophy you're no longer in reality or science.
The examination of philosophy and math are more logic than natural sciences (chemistry, physics).

But that's the point of morality. You can't say it's based entirely off of reason, because humans as as species are actually to dumb to truly understand the true consequences of our actions.

Thanks to fucking computer, NOW WE CAN. The planet is fucking dying and we're still debating if saving it is worth the money.

Based and probably right

What is 'outside of society' in a global community?

Yes, all true, and it's best to read Rand as you read the Bible- as guides to survival. And it's important to remember that Rand wrote in a certain environment- and was addressing them.

I find that 'Desu' seems like the person you're addressing- it actually feels proper to begin sentences with it.

The people that think the individual exists independent of society do that. Ayn Rand is just the most typical example most of those 'cowards' like use to support this. It might not be her, but honestly I don't know who else would be the bigger influencer.

It's about as toxic of an idea as fascism.

>Thanks to fucking computer, NOW WE CAN.
Wrong- we still only know reality to a certain degree.

Just because we can't 100% know the consequences of actions doesn't mean that we can't try to be moral in the outcomes.

>What is 'outside of society' in a global community?
Outside of consquences imposed by those not participating in a trade.

That's what that saying has ALWAYS meant to the point when people used it UNIRONICALLY. This is almost the example people have to defend capitalism.

Even more so why Rand could say the individual can flourish because she lucked out on a good book deal. It's like anyone famous saying 'just follow your heart' is like a guy winning the lottery saying liquidate all your assets and buy powerball tickets.

>but honestly I don't know who else would be the bigger influencer.
I'm not saying that Rand is not the biggest influencer- but recognize that people use information to justify what they want to do- and they use MUH INDIVIDUALISM in order to avoid taking any responsbility/action outside what is demanded of them.

>It's like anyone famous saying 'just follow your heart' is like a guy winning the lottery saying liquidate all your assets and buy powerball tickets.
This isn't comparable. Did Rand write about how everyone should drop what they're doing and try to get a publishing deal? Of course not. She said you should do what's in your best interest for living a happy life. Nothing about that really gives off the vibes your trying to say they are

The supposed observation is flawless is the claim, inherently. That observation reveals anything that is true. We can only confirm something has happened if it happens repeatedly.

Morality doesn't exist independently of the mind, it is something relating to intelligence which is about as directly relating to the mind as anything can be, which is directly opposite of Objectivism as can be.

We cannot have morality without knowledge. Honestly we cannot know anything without knowledge. Experience is just memories. Knowledge is understanding. You might know about something but until you go over enough times to be able to break it down you cannot say you truly understand it.

If Objectivism was true you'd be able to become a doctor within a week with just having to been told something once and on yourway, no test needed.

Yes, and thus knowledge is not just derived from the external.

I read the bible as a guides to survival as much as I do Archie comics for the same reason.\

>If Objectivism was true you'd be able to become a doctor within a week with just having to been told something once and on yourway, no test needed.
crazy how wrong this is

Rand would oppose speaking for the dead, more than anything.

Except 'desu' is used at the end of a statement as a type of honorific formality, desu.

>We can only confirm something has happened if it happens repeatedly.
Wrong. You can simply increase the accuracy of your observations.

>Rand claimed that morality exists seperate form people
No.

>We cannot have morality without knowledge.
Sure.

>You might know about something but until you go over enough times to be able to break it down you cannot say you truly understand it.
Not sure why this issue of accuracy of understanding is first said to be impossible, then said to be possible- what is true is that understanding is never 100%- never...just get over it.

>Yes, and thus knowledge is not just derived from the external.
True.

>I read the bible as a guides to survival as much as I do Archie comics for the same reason.\
Read the Bible with the understanding that it is a guide to survival... don't accept common interpretations.

Truth is that the Bible can be used to support most any claim- and that's why it survives- it lends credence to the claims of the clergy.

Desu, I like announcing that I'm addressing you before I'm speak to you.
-Desu

Morality doesn't actually relate to choice, but intelligence. But not every choice is moral one. In fact almost most of them are not. There may only be a few times in your life you have a truly moral choice. Maybe everyday, but that's not common. As a society we try to mitigate moral choices as much as possible, this is why laws are not as good of a deterrent to crime as education is.

This is why more intelligent people are weighed heavier with their choices. To be moral, you first have to be intelligent. So intelligence presupposes choices, when it comes to morality.

Who is responsible for your education?

They're also responsible for your morality.

Direct consequences, you mean.

Like the people of Flint that have no drinking water because of fracking agreement between the government and the oil company.

Maybe to extreme of a example but in a society the seven degree of separation link all of the members, even less. Butterfly effect isn't just about weather patterns but all data systems that don't exist in exclusion to each other.

The last economic collapse that happen was a global one because we're not becoming less related as a society...

Every day one is able to act immorally- and not doing so is moral- it's moral to not be immoral.

Yes, education teaches morality, especially to the dumber- they are more efficiently instructed rather than taught.

Ya, but that's the problem. The use of the emotional rationalizing is what everyone does. Rand gives that eact emotion to suppose a detrimental rationalization. Not that emotional rationalization is wrong, if it works it works, but this perpetuates a lie, just like her hatred of religion.

There is more incorrect answers than correct ones.

Threads like this really make me appreciate Yea Forums.

Flint, as a whole, is an net receiver of tax money. As such, they can fuck themselves.

>last boom/bust was global, and was caused by disassociation from others in society

Last boom/bust was global because trade is global...
Also,
>measuring activity in money
Kek

That's what I meant by 'just follow your heart'

just follow your heart=you should do what's in your best interest for living a happy life

It's a great example when it worked for her. That's not actually as functional as you might hope it is. I would be much happier raping a 10 year old. I would be much less happier working a job. Guess which one is going to happen in my life.

Attached: 1537888509701.jpg (750x1290, 733K)

>Not that emotional rationalization is wrong, if it works it works
You can't *know* something works if you only *feel* it.
Per Rand, emotions are properly the results of thinking and acting.

this thread is a testament to post nut clarity

>just like her hatred of religion.
Rand disregarded the social benefits of religion- which, per Hayek, survives/evolves just like any organism- based on its ability to perpetuate itself- through perpetuating its believers.

1. Porn is distraction...
2. ...that increases clarity...
3. ...that improves focus

>what if it makes me happy to do bad things?
Sure, you could- but not for long.

The biggest issue is that humans are so failable, that even realizing we're failable goes by unnoticed. Just understanding our own cognitive fallacy makes seeing an objective world around us almost impossible.

Rand described Objectivism as "the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute" this is all based off of her fictional books.

I mean just look at any soldier or cop and ask them if they are happy with their moral purpose in life. If they have achieved the noblest of activity of productive achievement they will have seen the most dark hell you can imagine.

Morality does not equal happiness. The never even meet, really. Maybe if you were a novelist about half-baked philosophy this would be true. I've known CSI electronic guys that have taken down massive child pornography rings. They were not happy people.

PTSD would replace pot if this was true.

>i want to rape a 10 year old, i'm very abnormal as you can tell
>this proves that most people shouldn't follow their heart, because i personally am retarded
this is a great anecdote that disproves absolutely nothing, if anything it proves my point. when rand said self interest she didn't mean filling every urge that pops in your head. what's the long term gain of raping a 10 year old? 50 years in prison?

Attached: MtE9SNP.jpg (480x425, 22K)

I've been edging for the past week, bud. I also exercise and read. Sentient beings express dynamic behavior. Go schlop yourself.

>what's the long term gain of raping a 10 year old? 50 years in prison?
This.

>Sentient beings express dynamic behavior.
I do not mean to criticize such- I'm showing that the quickest way to the finish line is not necessarily direct.

I just refuse to give in to their delusions

That's what I'm saying, too. How does porn, and jerking off to porn, inhibit "clarity"?

While some are actually confused about sex/gender, most simply want society to treat them according to the gender they present.

>You can simply increase the accuracy of your observations.
The accuracy is not in question but the verification of the accuracy. It's not about what we know, but how we know it. It's about validity.

You might have the world's most accurate measurement of a unicorn down to the micron, but no one will believe you. You confirmed literally nothing at all. This is more about how we learn information reality, because the next person to see the unicorn will be just about as bewildered as the guy after that, but by the 10000th person it'll just seem unreal, by the 10000000th person it'll just be a horse with a horn.

>Rand claimed that morality exists separate from people
Objectivism's central tenets are that reality exists independently of consciousness, that human beings have direct contact with reality through sense perception
Perception is false. No science has ever been done by perception. We write down shit for a reason.

>Not sure why this issue of accuracy of understanding is first said to be impossible, then said to be possible- what is true is that understanding is never 100%- never...just get over it
Because the first guy to discover bacteria was seen as a fool. It had nothing to do with how accurate he was, it comes down to peoples breaking down of information to understand it. I always teach people through repetition, it's the only way to learn.

We spend over a decade in school learning the most basic and idiotic things. It's not about accuracy. It's never been about accuracy. It's about knowledge. Knowledge as opposed to personal experience is only separated by being about independently replicate the experience.

We could both take acid and we would see different things, but the one thing would could confirm is that taking acid makes you see things, because of the experience that's the only replicable aspect.

I don't say that porn inhibits clarity, only that it distracts from non-porn.

Almost any claim can be used to support any claim.

This doesn't mean it's true.

As part of the sentence itself, desu.

>>sentient being

what exactly is a "non-sentient being"? i looked it up and well, some consider anemones to be "non-sentient" but um, anemones "express dynamic behavior". there are some academic articles about such behavior.

did you ever look into the word "pretentious"? "pompous" is also a good word to consider.

Yeah, but if you didn't know if it was moral or not you would not be seen as being either. If you pressed a button and someone died, but you had no knowledge this happened, before, during or after, the act would be seen as moral, by either you or any outside observer that witnessed this.

It's kind of like the tree falling in the forest question, but someone died.

THIS. I hate the common assumption that we think we can change our sex. The very vast majority of us know this. I was just seeking to change the way other people perceive me and also the way I see myself. I get how it's easy to find trans people delusional, but most of us are aware of what we actually are. For those who have fooled themselves into thinking biological sex is a social construct...well I just avoid those people

Money is what has connected those society, not the measurement of the activity. This is why Cuba and North Korea were largely unaffected.

>we can't prove our observations to others
True. Doesn't mean that we cannot act on our observations- and when wishing to deal with others, trade (in money or other ways).

>science is not based on perception
How do you discover measurements and relationships, if not through perception -> reason?

>Objectivism states that morality exists outside consciousness.

Rand claims that "to live on Earth," that her morality exists.

>Objectivism states that human beings have direct contact with reality through sense perception.

Not in the way that Kant warns against.

>but what if people don't believe
As you've stated, they're limited by their education, including at home- and is limited by their intelligence.

What I'm stating is that knowledge is never absolutely 'correct.'

>this is all based off of her fictional books.
this is a thing i keep seeing. she didn't wake up one day after writing her books and think "wait, i could make a belief system from these!" the books were explaining the ideas, not the other way around

>I mean just look at any soldier or cop and ask them if they are happy with their moral purpose in life.
>I've known CSI electronic guys that have taken down massive child pornography rings. They were not happy people.
i'm not going to argue about whether or not people i don't know are moral, since i'm going off a post on Yea Forums lol

>Morality does not equal happiness.
i agree, but i'm guessing you got this from
>with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life
she didn't mean that morality equals happiness, she meant being happy is ideal. and this shouldn't be a big thing people should be arguing on, since what's the alternative? living a life of pain and suffering?

>Almost any claim can be used to support any claim.
>This doesn't mean it's true.
True. And that works both ways...

Anything distracts from you from non-anything

What's your point

Desu, I'm not a grammarian, but I think that this form (Desu, ...) is proper.
-Desu

Desu,

Desu(desu). Desu?

-Desu

>why precede 'being' with 'sentient'
Agree- being- to BE- to BE conscious- BEing

>actions must be moral/immoral
Without knowledge of result, they are amoral.

>It's kind of like the tree falling in the forest question
This question is only argued b/c of lack of definition.

The gender/sex thing is argued in the same way the gay marriage thing is argued- without definitions... that said, I don't believe people are stupid- and that they choose to argue without persuining definitions so that they can retain their righteousness- no one wants to education themselves for fear of having acting on lies- the worst is confronting a life lived on lies (religion).

>Money is what has connected those society, not the measurement of the activity.
OOF

The type of money used, in capitalist and communist countries, is simply different- in capitalist countries, the money is fiat. In communist countries, the money is government priviledge.

>what's the alternative? living a life of pain and suffering?
Per Rand, the alternative is "to espouse no theories, and die."

>Anything distracts from you from non-anything
>What's your point
Showing that you misrepresented my 1. 2. 3. post.

Desu, ?.

What if I got a bunch of people to protect me, and I was well financed. You make it seem like all bad people get stopped at some point.

Stalin lived a full life, killed millions.

Morality is objective if you have the intelligence and the understanding. It's not a thing out there.

Absolutely

Crimes are only illegal if you're caught. You guys keep thinking every child rapist was charged every time. Maybe a bad example, but this is Yea Forums.

Awesome Desu!

>Stalin did what he wanted
>and got away with it
Sure- evil actions can sustain one- but you must also assume that Stalin experienced risk of rebellion. And that Stalin's actions were not sustainable...

>crime can pay
Crime is not sustainable.
>but it might be for a few criminals
Rand was stating that you must produce to consume.

I know, this is why my comparison to the lottery was more accurate. Everyone has dreams, not everyone gets every dream fulfilled. There's no justification for following your dreams if you're not a 10 year old girl. (who wants to be raped) Most cops never wanted to arrest a fat 45 year old man in a trailer jerking off to child prongraphy, and it doesn't make them happy, but they know it's their moral duty to do.

It would be better if no one preformed crime, but the criminal was just following his heart and objectivist seem him as the hero pursuing the highest of goals, so is it the cops fault? Obviously not, but this is why Rand is fucking wrong, and she was wrong before she came up with Objectivism BECAUSE SHE ALREADY READ PURE CRITIQUE OF REASON WHO MIGHT HAVE BEEN WRONG ABOUT MORALITY, BUT NOT ABOUT OBJECTIVITY.

Rand just proves that intelligence is needed to understand morality, because she obviously doesn't. She thinks that because something is based off of reason it's non-existent. Just like money is a social contract the value of money is non-existent but this doesn't mean it has no basis in reality.

If crimes didn't pay, we wouldn't need police.

Police often prevent people from making sure that crime does not pay.

Well, most parenting is feeling. I know you think feelings are lies or something Jordan Peterson would beleive, but the fact is all operate on *feels* because that's how the lizard brain works. Our logical brain takes a lot longer and frankly doubts itself a lot fucking more. We all emotionally rationalize, and usually works out.

I mean almost 99% of parenting is rationalizing, even when it comes to reading the books and buying the best equipment. There's no actually correct way, as long as the kid is alive in the end. Not everything has a right answer. So the emotional rationalization is really the only thing left over.

What foot do you start walking with, you don't even think about it because you start with which ever foot feels right to start with. You don't actually labour over most choices you make in life, don't think about breathing manually, blinking manually, how your body is sitting, how your arms are placed, or even if you're thirst or not.

You make these decisions based off the emotional instincts of the lizard brain. That's normal, that's the quickest thought process we have that exists literally for this purpose.

The only time people have a problem with emotional rationalizing is when you see someone doing something different. Then it's wrong. Because that's how your emotional rationalize brain thinks, it's instinctive. You're using your emotions to go against using your emotions.

It's literally the only way to justify being against emotional rationalization. It's what it's for!

>objectivist seem him as the hero pursuing the highest of goals,
his highest goals aren't rational, and neither is your criticism. objectivism holds that you need to think rationally about your choices to live the best life you can, and i'm really wondering what reasons you can come up with for jerking off to cp other than "pp feel good"

Yeah, and thus evil actions perpetuate evil actions. But morality, based on objectivism, is weighed by 'happiness'. So you can't say Stalin was evil if he was pursuing what made him happy.

This is why Kant would say all immoral actions are irrational, because morality is intelligence.

Attached: 1558848527064.jpg (500x415, 61K)

pp feel good is the rationalization. Mortality is based on intelligence, not observation of the external world. Just thinking, how would that make me feel, is enough justification to think this is wrong.

> But morality, based on objectivism, is weighed by 'happiness'.
No it isn't. Morality isn't weighed by your personal happiness, it's weighed by your actions. Happiness under Objectivism is the moral imperative, achieved by rational actions. >So you can't say Stalin was evil if he was pursuing what made him happy.
Stalin was evil because he infringed the rights of everyone under his control. ask any Objectivist and they'll tell you the exact same thing. What made him happy has nothing to do with it

Attached: 749.png (758x518, 34K)

this is what rand called "whim worshipping". not caring for the long term consequences of your choices, just doing them anyway because they feel good in the moment. this is the anthesis of objectivist morality

We're acting not on our observations but our experiences. That is a lot more common than you think in science. I mean if you were to just cite that gravity made something fall, you would just cite it based on the ground of authority that gravity exists. You would not have done tests to prove gravity before performing your own experiment.s

Science is based off of perception, but only proven with repetition. You know they discovered the Higgs Boson before Jul 2012, but it wasn't until then they discovered the consistent with the theory of the Higgs Boson.

They had the most accurate systems ever, but they had to run repeated tests to be sure.

See, for personal experiences, ONCE is all that it takes to convinced most people. I get you. If you gave me the most accurate measurements of a UFO that doesn't make it knowledge.

Maybe to a retard like you it would if it was written convincingly enough to 5th decimal place even! That's detailed!

Ya, but she was just repeating Imperialist, but made it seem like she disagreed with them. This is the best interpretation. At worst, she's a liar and an idiot. Objectivism is cult like and more akin to a belief system.

Living a life of pain and suffering is what some of the most noblest people do. In fact that almost justifies why they are pursuing the noblest of actions. That most people not motivated with that justification of bettering others through their suffering would be deterred and STOP SUFFERING.

Most people push through suffering to attain their own goals, almost everyone. No one attains something because it's easy and that is seen as the moral and correct choice.

Quit medical school to become a stripper because it's easier and I like the attention. This seems ridiculous, because it is. Suffering through 8 years of some of the most difficult schooling to put through working double shifts and sleeping at work isn't justified because the pay is amazing, but because through that suffering they are making other people suffer to save their lives.

If you believe in Rand, ya. If you believe in Kant, the immoral is irrational. You can only do moral actions with intelligent choices. If you accidentally killed someone as opposed premeditated assassinating someone, there is a different morality to each. To the point that if you did not even intended to harm anyone at all without any forethought it would not even be considered manslaughter, because you were not even aware that immoral action was even possible, thus you cannot even be an agent of morality, since you lack any knowledge of even the POSSIBILITY of harm, let alone the intent. The courts would let you free in those cases as a bystander.

So ya, you can justify anything by any means, but what we see as moral and immoral is only through intelligence, not choice. If the bible is just telling stories about what may or may not happen that affects your feeling of your decision more than it does your actual decisions.

Ultimately you wouldn't break bread into many baskets to feed a homeless guy. You're smarter than that.

Ya, I mistyped shit there. Fuck it.

It comes down to the means of production not the currency used or what backs it that makes the difference, but that's unrelated.

Sure, and the lawyers help the judges decide to punish them or not. That's the child's understanding of how the legal system works.

The police use violence to enforce the will of the government. Each truck of cocaine that's stopped at the US border for example, only makes each truck that gets through worth more!

>I know you think feelings are lies or something Jordan Peterson would beleive
Wrong and wrong. I am not anti-feeling, only pro-thought.

>most of parenting is rationalizing
As with everything, it's a judgement call.
Your thought that emotions direct most actions ignores *why* certain emotions are associated with certain actions- the reason is that we first, through our rationality, chose these actions.

>instinct
You mean the subconscious- still reasoning.

>Yeah, and thus evil actions perpetuate evil actions.
Evil actions are not sustainable.

>immoral actions are irrational, because morality is intelligence

He doesn't mean it in the way you believe. What Kant explains is not so much moral/immoral, but moral/amoral.

This is how leftists see the world: as their position in a hierarchy VS their ability to climb... they never think about producing...their sciences believe that production will always happen NO MATTER what society they choose.

A “whim” is a desire experienced by a person who does not know and does not care to discover its cause.

pp feel good is easy to understand the cause.

This is some low-tier level arguments when you have to make up ideas to argue with. Might I point out that 'theatn' are the evil alien ghosts that make you want to do the wrong things?

L Ron Hubbard was a Sci-Fi writer too.

>Science is based off of perception, but only proven with repetition.
Yes- but this is still perception- I never, with the use of the word 'perception,' claim that single cases of perception form scientific understanding.

>but it has to be accurate exactly!

Accuracy is a naive superstition- complete accuracy is unattainable.

>If you believe in Rand, ya. If you believe in Kant, the amoral is irrational.
ftfy

Leftist don't view the world in hierachy, that's the rightist concept. Leftist see people equally, but rightist see leftist as seeing people in a hierarchy but only PRETENDING to see people equally, just so they can be at the top of the hierarchy because that's what the rightist would do so they suppose the leftist is actually a rightist because how can one not see the world is all about being a LEVEL 100 BOSS instead of a LEVEL 0 GANGSTER.

Production is a subjective term, leftist consider the 'MEANS OF PRODUCTION' the important, the 'AMOUNT OF PRODUCTION' as the imperative that the right would value.

You're so conflicting the ideas that it's really hard to keep this straight. I am sorry if it sounds like the rambling of a mad man, but this is my trying to just repeat what you're saying but with more detail.

Feel free to hit me up with what I am wrong about.

I don' tknow what you mistyped- I'm only saying that that question, in general, is rarely accompanied by definitions.

What I was saying is that government police often prevent people from dolling punishments themselves- and protects many who are associated with officials.

I was actually agreeing with you.

>hierarchy, left/right
I'd say all people act on hierarchy, perhaps as you describe.

>Production is a subjective term, leftist consider the 'MEANS OF PRODUCTION' the important, the 'AMOUNT OF PRODUCTION' as the imperative that the right would value.

I like this.

I am not anti-crime, only pro-police. Ya, rational thinking vs emotional thinking. Thoughts are what it take to rationalize. You're just rephrasing what I said with the opposite. You can deny it all you want, but that's just your emotional thinking kicking in.

Everything is not a judgment call. We choose only the actions that we have thought about first, even then we might ignore the preconceived conclusions. People are told what to do when light on fire but most will just run around.

It's not really a judgment call when you're deciding what to eat for breakfast. I mean maybe you do, strict diet, measuring scale, count the raisins. I dunno. I know not to assume to much with the cult people.

Instinctive, NOT INSTINCT. You dumb shit. Okay, we're done here. You obviously fail to grasp the understanding of english at this point.

Instinct as an adjective means to imbue with ("these canvases are instinct with passion"), instinctive is an automatic and natural reaction to something ("an instinctive writer")

Evil actions can be sustainable, for generations even. Your understanding of morality through Rand has made you think that the bad get punished because they lose happiness in their life by their pursuits? Ya?

I agree with your assessment of Rand's logic, but not her perspective - in reality Rand would begin to talk about the bioeconomic exchange of mating in an uncomfortably realistic way that would cause massive triggering in normal hyper-privileged New York queers.

Why should society treat you the way you wish it to, what do you have to offer it in exchange?

Attached: 588b7f16fbe9eaf03d9b5151ff88c551.jpg (1232x1024, 581K)

>What Kant explains is not so much moral/immoral, but moral/amoral.
That may be, but he still described the immoral as irrational, so you can imply he ment amoral but that's you're own personal twist that the rest of the rational world, that think Rand was a joke, doesn't agree with.

Most actions are amoral, but truly immoral actions are irrational, on the basis that if they were rational, they would not be immoral. It might be immoral to kill a man with full premediation, but if that was hanging of a criminal there's an obvious rational.

The mindless killing of people in the streets of Las Vegas was seen as immoral, because it was obviously irrational.

But maybe Rand thinks that Kant thinks that amoral because that's what she said he said he thinks???

>We can only confirm something has happened if it happens repeatedly.
Wrong. You can simply increase the accuracy of your observations.

That's what Rand thinks Kant thinks.

I know you think that everyone acts on hierarchy, but equality is something people actually believe outside of governments and workplaces, and given the chance to impose their will on other to climb the hierarchy would neither want to be higher or lower than others and would rather be seen as in equal.

Mind blown???

>OGMcC_jewyE
>_jew

Attached: 1498364592808.png (586x352, 394K)

>thoughts are what it takes to rationalize
What I'm saying is that just because you are not conscious of the roots of your actions does not mean that your actions aren't rooted in rational.

>everything is not a judgement call
What I'm addressing is the inability to be certain.

>instinct and instinctive aren't simply different forms of a word

Wrong.
>my definition
The form I used, a noun, is correct.

The range of sustainability does not define morality..

>Rand would begin to talk about the bioeconomic exchange of mating in an uncomfortably realistic way that would cause massive triggering in normal hyper-privileged New York queers.
You're probably right.

>why should society acquiesce to LBGT....

I won't say what society should do, but only that they do so NOT in order to gain anything, but rather to avoid losses... extortion

>>choose only

"for simple (one-word) verb forms, you should try to put the adverb before the verb"

youtube.com/watch?v=BTsW30Ur0sg

Attached: 1551685579941.jpg (783x960, 78K)

>>What Kant explains is not so much moral/immoral, but moral/amoral.
>That may be, but he still described the immoral as irrational, so you can imply he ment amoral but that's you're own personal twist that the rest of the rational world, that think Rand was a joke, doesn't agree with.
You're right.

>But maybe Rand thinks that Kant thinks that amoral because that's what she said he said he thinks???

I believe it important to consider that translation- through time and language- morphs what people say/meant. The following, I believe, will not age well:
"But the language of modern philosophers
and still more that of the modern economists is so precise and straightforward that no misinterpretation can possibly occur."
-Mises, Human Action, p.15

>I know you think that everyone acts on hierarchy

That's now how I view people's motivations, but rather how I can construct certain relations.

>but equality is something people actually believe outside of governments and workplaces, and given the chance to impose their will on other to climb the hierarchy would neither want to be higher or lower than others and would rather be seen as in equal.
I believe they are averse to the tension of such relations, but not the products of such.

If you're not aware of your thinking, it's not rational. It's rationalizing, but it's not rational. It's not according to logic, which is conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.

Without the underlying, you lose the validity.

You might not think that at the time, but that is why this is detrimental, because you become unaware of your own flawless.

It's like running calculator that is always off on every calculations but assuming it's correct because it's a calculator. or assuming the time on a clock is right because it's a clock not even knowing that yesterday was daylight savings.

to have knowledge without context is not knowledge at all.

Instinct has a different meaning than instinctive. Like ration and rational. You want to quote random words out on context, you can fuck off.

I get it Rand made you think that knowledge is something outside of you, but context matters.

No, so I have no fucking clue why you bring it up at all.

>you should try to
Not an imperative, but thanks for the tip I'll tuck that away into 'things I already knew about but didn't think I would need to give a fuck about, and still don't'

>If you're not aware of your thinking, it's not rational.
Just because you're not conscious of why you previously decided X doesn't mean that doing X is irrational- only that you're not conscious of your rationale.

>instinct has a different meaning than instinctive.
merriam-webster.com:

instinct:
2.a: a largely inheritable and unalterable tendency of an organism to make a complex and specific response to environmental stimuli without involving reason

instinctive:
1: of, relating to, or being instinct

OR, maybe the meaning was misinterpreted by Rand much like the rest of her understanding of philosophy? She disregards all previous philosophy in existance to say 'JUST BREAK IT DOWN TO THE BASICS' like most cult/relgions say.

Who knows, german is a weird language.

>we're all masters or slaves
Kinky

>perhaps Rand misinterpreted Kant
Yes.

>break down to basics, 'listen to me' the cult leader
A non-standard type of cult, I'd say.

And who knows, perhaps assuming the forward-moving of time is incorrect- but even then, would it even matter?

Ya that works for me. The majority of thoughts are not rational, but we think they are! Just thinking something is rational, DOES NOT MAKE IT SO! You must show that you have put into the deliberations, much like a court deciding on a case, weighting each and every merit on their own and as they relate to each other.

Conclusion can only be drawn from a rational mind after a considerable amount of time has passed. Most people advocate to write the thoughts down and come back to it later to review the previous throat to help determine if this is truly a thought of with the rational mind because it's so easy to slip into irrational thinking.

Much like most crimes are done without much forethought they are 'crimes of passion' that are done irrationally. Even with the best intentions, immoral actions not properly considered are irrational.

It just begs the question that "If you truly thought about something long enough, would you not do the most genuine good?"

You can't say the problem of the world right now is people 'overthink' everything.

Same in Scientology. That's about as standard of a cult as it gets now. They're all over the planet.

Forward moving time can be show by the law of entropy, that even by observing the most basic of actions like a binary change in a computer would not show heat sucking into the electrical circuit.

It would matter greatly because everything down to the half-life of every atom would collapse.

>must show you deliberated
One can deliberate at one time, then forget their deliberations while acting on them- and this is still rational! Rational action is based on thought, not (current) consciousness of said thought.

>It just begs the question that "If you truly thought about something long enough, would you not do the most genuine good?"

>genuine good

You can't say the problem of the world right now is people 'overthink' everything.
I'd contend that the problem of the world is also prevention of people arranging associations based on compatible incentives.

I'm not a physicist. But I will say that the forward-moving-time framework of thought must affect such determinations.

who the actual fuck is this

Rand was a kike

You mean logic then. You keep saying 'thought' as if a thought is inherently following a strict principle of logic.

Thinking is not the proof of rationale. Most every crazy person has thoughts. I almost guarantee they have thoughts. This shows little to no relation to their intelligence, logic or rationale.

Intelligence is morality. Irrationality is immorality.

Columbine shooters spent over a year planning their massacre. Must be moral, it made them happy!

Determinations as in positive emotional feeling that involves persevering towards a difficult goal in spite of obstacles?

Mind Blown
Wow
You must be in MENSA
Everyone come look at this guy, he thinks this is important enough to warrant commenting .

WHO KNEW!

you bring up an interesting question. is thought following logic?

i would say that it must be. why are dreams so specific? why are they more than swirls of colors or, if more advanced, some fake experience of staring and focusing on shapes or the edge of a microwave? those are amazing experiences that require a TON of data to process on their own but dreams are much more than that. in my dreams, i have experienced flavor and of course, color. i've regularly been able to be wakened by shocking parts, go take a piss and drink some water and go back to sleep multiple times and CONTINUE the "story". my "stories" usually involve a weird video game like adventure involving school campuses and having to get to class and wasting time, or that i remember i had a job but i haven't been there in a long time. real dreams. quality shit. also, i get some real sex.

anyway, if dreams can actually generate that, they're at least as good as a CPU with an ALU and logic gates. you can figure out how all that works on your own.

thoughts must be logical.

>You keep saying 'thought' as if a thought is inherently following a strict principle of logic.
I'd say so.
Perception is consciousness without (conscious) thought.

>proof of rationale
By what metric? You can't prove anyone thought- and by what metrics would you define 'proper' thought?

>positive emotional feeling
>positive
Sure, if by "positive" you mean "what a person chooses."

>delusion of the individual
Found the fascist.

Considering she said her philosophy was just her ideas and some help from aristotle I would be more given to assume her rampant ( in a good way) empircism was from him.

There's no doubt that transgender activism would be among Rand's chief modern rivals. Her message is clear in this regard: supplanting an individual's rational line of reasoning with a societal enforced moral code that preys on human compassion is the worst of evils.

Forcing society to accept trans people, regardless of individual resaoning, is the beginning and end of transgenderism as a politcal movement.

>Forcing society to accept trans people, regardless of individual resaoning, is the beginning and end of transgenderism as a politcal movement.
It wouldn't be a way for men to live on Earth.