Josh F

There are some really useful animations kits for adobe after effects that might prove a useful way for someone to animate something without necessarily knowing how to draw. Then again, still need to know how to use after effects.

Its the same thing as the Billboard top 100 telling you that Miley Cirus is the best musician. This is a forum of objectivists, its a little strange to have to explain the difference between objective and subjective. If more people like Chocolate than Vanilla is it objectively better? I'm frankly baffled. Yes, indeed. I remember a girl in high school who was over weight but was amongst the popular girls because her personality was quite special. I would hear again and again "I dont like big girls, but I would date her" (okay perhaps they said that more crudely)

The Derek character was an ideologue, but the prison gangs don't spend their time discussing Hitler or the tenets of national socialism, they mostly make and sell meth. The Aryan Brotherhood, the Nazi Lowriders and Public Enemy no 1 are not ideological movements, they are the byproduct of racism in the gang/prison system. El Eme (The Mexican Mafia) now joined with the Mara Salvatruchas to become MS13. El Eme and now MS13 are the predominant and most powerful prison gang, replacing the Italian (Gambino) and Black prison gangs (Black Gorilla Family, Bloods and Crips), and have historically been allied with the Aryan Botherhood and Nazi Lowriders against those prison gangs. The prison system instantly seperates entrants by race and literally assigns them to particular gangs. The entire prison system is the back bone of the gang recruitment system. Its sick as fuck.

I hope my post made some sense to you, but I don't think it clicked. Trying to psychoanalyze people's preferences across broad generalities only to dismiss them is not how one arrives at objectivity. Let me show you what I mean: the attraction to people who have a golden ratio is based on anal retentive and obsessive compulsive behavior, therefor they prefer mathematical ratios to real beauty. Thus wrong. Does that sound as silly to you as it does to me? I don't know how to explain this any better, but simply put aesthetics are never objective by definition. This is akin to someone telling me Jazz is the best music and anyone who disagrees just doesn't understand music. Its sophistry. Its also insulting to try and diminish someone's subjective preferences. How annoying are people who think their music is the only music thats good and think anyone else is a fool for having another musical preference?

Wow heavy stuff, can't wait for part 2. As a kid I grew up during the first invasion of Iraq. I asked my dad why we were killing those people. He told me it was because they were the bad guys. I felt confused and then I asked him, "but don't they think we're the bad guys?" Its crazy how clear things are from such an early age, no wonder the government had to send me in for reeducation.

this policy should just be called BYOB where the b stands for baby.

Yes, this. Additionally, people with anorexia and bohemia and extreme eating phobias have similar origins. I don't think you clearly understand the differences between things which are objective and things which are subjective. If 99.999% of people prefer skinny girls, it still isn't universal. And certainly the ratio is not even that high. My whole thing on this topic though is that I was a fat kid, and I am still over weight. When people tell me I have white privilege and that kind of horse shit, and how I couldn't possibly understand what its like to be judged on how you look, I just think who the fuck are you kidding?

Certainly agriculture saw the rise of the state as we know it, but under tribalism there was not philosophic anarchy. They didn't have churches or bibles, but one wouldn't say they were free of irrational superstition. The idea, as I see it, is that the family and tribal unit were the birth place of the state. Small groups of people who exclusively maintained social order through violence and mysticism. They don't have many of the modern tools required to maintain a modern state, but they did have hierarchies in the form of chiefs, shamans, etc. The near entirety of ancient fossils were victims of murder, and mothers practiced infanticide rampantly. The monopoly of the threat of violence was always present, even without tools like armies or police or the IRS to subject one another. It was present in families and then in tribes.

I dont honestly know, I just read that somewhere

I don't think this is true at all. If a guy came to me saying he could improve my product based on years of research he did, that is a commodity I would pay for without a doubt.

They're not ignorant to the spread of secularism through education.

Hegel did make a hierarchical argument for the different races. Brett wouldn't be the first to argue that Hegel brought some racism into the Nazi philosophy. Ahhh okay, I missed that. Well I think Kant is critiquable but without knowing the criticism I can't comment. I can't really offer more on that subject, I tend to always be a bit skeptical of those kinds of studies because there is a plurality of them that contradict each other, and rarely is there an unbiased non-political goal. Getting politics out of science is as important as it was to get religion out of politics, in my opinion. I am glad to have provided some more insight into the 'lefty' perspective, because I feel like it is the best potential ally in our causes (and Stef has even mentioned that a few times). When it comes to privacy laws, war, child abuse, and the revolving doors of the states with the largest corporations libertarians and liberals are all on the same page. Now, I understand how the muddied waters of lefty horse shit is disturbing, its relativism may even be the cause. I take this approach to criticizing the left; does the argument fit within the left paradigm itself. So for example, things like "all white people are racist" is a racist statement. Or feminism's intolerance, since tolerance is a liberal virtue feminism fails within the lefty paradigm itself. One doesn't necessarily need to explain its failures from outside its own context (ie objectivism). Like you said above about how forcing laws on people doesn't support multiculturalism or relativism, and is in fact inherently a system based on NORMS enforced by majorities on minorities (and they love defending minorities, right?).

yeah, and worse than an airplane is a helicopter. airplanes at least have two pilots, plus autopilot, plus they're pretty high up normally and not turning much. A helicopter does make it more hazardous. Still 14 year holy crap, I feel like the Nazis would have been more lenient.

blaming and misconstruing libertarians and talking about spanking makes for excellent click baiting. bomb in the brain is a gawker promotional strategy.

I dont think you're accurate about the cost and hazards of dealing with a patent claim in court. It is absolutely complicated, expensive and time consuming. Have you ever sued or been sued by someone over a patent claim? Look I'm against IP, wholeheartedly, but I'm also against the military and if you got drafted I'd tell you to use whatever means necessary to defend yourself.

The video you posted agrees with me, that any kind of permanent damage is incredibly unlikely. "It is extremely unlikely a laser point can cause damage, it would have to be 50ft away and pointed directly in the eye for a long period of time". Thats from the video. We're talking about 14 years of jail time for potentially distracting a pilot for a few seconds. I don't think its a great thing and I don't think people should do it, but I assure you my empathy is not misplaced. 14 years of jail time for people who ding dong ditch flaming bags of poo? I mean you could cause a fire and kill hundreds of people, maybe even children!

Why would shaming only piss you off when its directed at women's issues? What do Kant or Hegel have to do with Brett?

Is there a parrellel between a fictional abstract being and a rational ethical code? No. There is a parallel with the ten commandments and the NAP. Both are different types of ethics, the difference is that one of them is based on superstition and the other one is based on a correspondence to reality. Its like the difference between life and a movie, one of them is fictional.

I like this video, it is a very interesting way to articulate some of the problems with the shaming method.

I think you're exaggerating the potential damage, at the far worst it can cause temporary blind spots... not blindness just blind spots... if it hits them directly in the eye from that range. Its less blinding than someone in opposite traffic using their high beams at night, and no one goes to jail for 14 years for that.

Yeah, I tend to appreciate ideas like that. Also I worked for a company where if you didn't use your sick hours you still got the compensation for them at the end of the year.

There are a lot of ways to handle sick pay. Some unions have an extended sick pool, wherein all employees pay into a pool which can only be accessed by the severely ill in rare cases where they need months off work for recovery. Government is always a day late and a dollar short when it comes to these things, for example unions and workers created the weekend long before government made it mandatory.

Good look spending millions of dollars and years in court trying to prove that. You seem extremely uninterested in any perspective which solves your issues, I genuinely think you're more interested in an excuse for why your invention wont reach the market than promoting your invention. I certainly would not invest in this idea if this is how you think about business.

You used no logic, you only made a statement, I see zero logical proof. I've also already laid out many examples, which you dismissed with more irrational non-arguments. Your definitions of property are not shared with other humans if you think consumptive goods are not property you have an inaccurate definition of property period. So, unlike you, I cited examples of shared ownership and actually laid out a logical proof for it, the ball is in your court I'm not going to respond to the same things over and over again. Your emotional commitment to this bad argument is blinding. When you're ready to tackle this idea without hostility we can talk more.

Just because you own yourself does not mean you can't share ownership of other things. There is no necessary connection, you logic isn't faulty it doesn't exist, you just keep repeating that ownership means something that it doesn't. Thats now how arguments work. I mean look, let me make it axiomatic for you: if you own yourself and property rights stem from that axiom, resulting in you owning the product of your labor, then if two people labor towards one creation they have joint ownership. Wow, not very hard to delineate that reasoning. Oh and of course you own the energy you pay for, I don't even get what "usage" has to do with it, I use my car too, and I own that right?