Open Thread (2016)

> 1. I don't need to ask for consent if the info being shared isn't too private (Eg: address, emotions,family info, pictures etc)

the right thing is to assume the thing shared privately is private. if i write to you i don't intend it to be public. you have to ask consent for everything shared privately otherwise you don't care for consent.

you want to rationalize being a common person that likes to gossip. "oh, i'm not just a common person, i know philosophy so it's ok to the same thin common people who don't know philosophy do."

not ok.

there's less harm in sharing what you call "private stuff".

it's people's philosophical ideas that are the most private thing about them. people do not share their ideas with others. for instance, at work, they just talk about menial stuff where disagreement is impossible or expected or irrelevant, like football and etc.

on facebook they post pics of themselves with their mates drinking and on holiday. there's no content. ppl do not speak their minds.

sharing my ideas is are more dangerous that you posting my boob pics.

what is the big deal about address btw. any company you order from knows your address. what can you do about my address that my neighbor can't. i never got this one. it's like not speaking about your children online. but anyone who lives next to you sees your kid and etc? explain. you don't hide your kid and how you relate your kid from strangers in the supermarket.

> 3. The content a person shares with through email is owned by me.

this would make you a copyright owner of anything people ever wrote you which is bad.

there is an aspect that we are part of other people's life experience and become part of their problems so they will have the need to talk about their problems. but doing it publicly without consent is a betrayal and bad and immoral and evil and ugly and stupid.

without privacy is hard for people to discuss issues, solve problems.

it's like samaritans saying "oh, we won't tell anyone you are suicidal" and then the police are at your door.

trust is a tradition.

> #6508

Does anyone want to crit what LG said?

Does FI agree with her? On what points do you agree and what points do you have disagreement?

> there's less harm in sharing what you call "private stuff".

The stuff I listed is what people normally consider to be un-shareable.

btw did you get consent to post here?

#6512 you said the opposite. i'm glad to hear you didn't mean it as written and it was only miscommunication.

> #6512 you said the opposite. i'm glad to hear you didn't mean it as written and it was only miscommunication.

LG understood it the way it was supposed to. Maybe I wrote it with errors.

" 1. I don't need to ask for consent if the info being shared isn't too private (Eg: address, emotions,family info, pictures etc) "

I gave examples for stuff that is too private to share.. not that I don't need consent to share them.

> why are you not posting my crits anymore? i guess it gave pleasure you when it was betrayal but now i turned the tables is not fun anymore.

It didn't give me pleasure.

I was irritated with opposing ideas and wanted to get it cleared. I was being whimsical which is bad. I stopped after a while.

> you want to rationalize being a common person that likes to gossip. "oh, i'm not just a common person, i know philosophy so it's ok to the same thin common people who don't know philosophy do."

lol..

Me posting your essayish rant isn't gossip.

I wanted those ideas to be seen through intelligent minds so that it can either be accepted or rejected once and for all.

Maybe it would help Elliot see his mistakes and create new knowledge or help me not get persuaded by Fake crits by you.

> Me posting your essayish rant isn't gossip.

as i explained, it's gossip.

sharing a person's ideas is gossip.

"essayish rant" dismissing hatefully what my ideas without argument or crit. how cute.

> People on FI had BCC'd you posts and claimed that you have intrusive preferences right?

i can't parse this, what are you saying?

> sharing a person's ideas is gossip.

I think sharing a person's weird actions might be gossip..

EG: Rami Mallone trip and fell near the Big Ben.

1. I like chocolate bars

2. Ayn Rand was influenced by Aristotle.

3. I am a slow learner

4. I lack initiative.

5. iBooks app is good for reading books.

#12781 They want an excuse to promote Marxism. The common theme of environmentalist ideas about catastrophe is not what they are worried about but what they propose to do about it. Their solutions are always the same things: more government authority and government control over the economy. That is not a means to an end for them, it is the end, the goal.

#12783 People largely believe what authorities tell them to believe. They are raised that way by authorities (parents and teachers). Adults mostly believe what scientists and government officials tell them.

And most people have been indoctrinated with a bunch of anti-capitalist propaganda. And they are bad at thinking and judge everything by slogans and popularity, not by truth. People are more interested in getting along with others than pursuing truth.

There is ongoing pressure against the holdouts. They get harassed, fired, ostracized, etc. People call them irredeemable racists. Evil has taken the initiative in this battle and hardly anyone is standing up to it. And many of the leaders on the side of Western civilization are actually traitors. E.g. Trump hasn't done what he was elected to do, and many other politicians have betrayed the voters in similar ways. But it's the traitorous intellectual leaders who do even more harm, overall. People like Milton Friedman, Hayek, and Ben Shapiro are considered right wing and pro capitalist and stuff, and they function as a sort of controlled, limited opposition that is actually sucking up to and legitimizing the bad guys, and undermining the actual good guys like Mises or David Horowitz.

I've taken your question as just sorta "what's wrong with the world?" cuz it's not specific to environmentalism or Marxism.

The most fundamental issue is we destroy children's minds. Children are hurt, over and over, until they obey. It ruins their ability to think well and turns them into second handers who are focused on social dynamics and pleasing other people. The rest is downstream consequences.

Don't know what you're referring to with pragmatism. I think secondhandedness and social ladder. Also willingness to compromise due to lack of strong, clear principles, due to lack of adequate understanding of their fields.

I know what pragmatism is. I meant that I don't know what specific things those people did that indicates pragmatism. What is the reasoning for potentially concluding that pragmatism is the issue here?

I don't think they knew that Mises had better arguments. I think they were prevented from ever knowing that, in the first place, by social metaphysics, dishonesty, and that kinda problem.

E.g. do you think Friedman knew he was mistaken about the negative income tax, and that it was bad, as Hazlitt explains in chapter 12 here?

https://mises.org/library/man-vs-welfare-state-0

Would Friedman somehow advocate that anyway, while fully understanding everything wrong with it that Hazlitt lays out? Knowing it's just going to make things worse, as Hazlitt explains, why would he consider it practical or pragmatic? I think he disagreed with Hazlitt and wouldn't seriously engage in the pursuit of truth about the matter.

And here is Hayek sharing his perspective in an interview after Mises was dead:

http://blog.mises.org/9657/the-ucla-interviews-with-friedrich-hayek/

> At first we all felt he [Mises] was frightfully exaggerating and even offensive in tone [in his 1920 economic calculation paper and 1922 Socialism book]. You see, he hurt all our deepest feelings, but gradually he won us around

and

> I was never quite convinced by his [Mises'] arguments.... If I had come to him as a young student, I would probably have just swallowed his views completely. As it was, I came to him already with a degree. I had finished my elementary course; so I pushed him in a slightly more critical fashion. Being for ten years in close contact with a man with whose conclusions on the whole you agree but whose arguments were not always perfectly convincing to you, was a great stimulus.

You can see the social metaphysics and the lack of understanding that Mises was right and why. Hayek was already indoctrinated with mainstream academia crap before he found Mises. And it's specifically Mises' arguments and reasoning that he questions and doubts.

You can also read their books, see the confusions and crap, and realize they are not wise.

Friedman's son is notably a utopian, utilitarian anarchist who doesn't understand liberalism (and the harmony of men's interests) and dislikes Objectivism.