curi blog comments http://curi.us/comments/recent Explanations for the curious en-us DD on meditation Alisa Open Discussion (2019)
In [*Making Sense with Sam Harris #52 - Finding Our Way in the Cosmos* at 1:07:30](https://youtu.be/hitrSsLS6IY?t=4050), David Deutsch says to Sam Harris:

> I know nothing about meditation more than what you've just told me. It could be the whole thing's an illusion, but since it's you, I doubt it.

> So, most thinking is actually unconscious. What we're consciously aware of is just the tip of the iceberg. And even in our conscious thoughts, they're supported by a rich infrastructure of unconscious thoughts. And those obey exactly the same epistemology as the conscious ones. So they can be creative, they can be un-creative, they can be irrational, they can be rational, they can make progress or not. And it depends on the same conditions — conditions which either promote or inhibit the growth of knowledge in various ways.

> So, assuming that at the end of this process you are a better person—that is, your mind is a better mind—that means that that better-ness has been created by something. And if you're not consciously aware of the process, then it's been created by your unconscious mind. And it could be that under certain circumstances, deliberately preventing your conscious mind from doing anything clears some obstacles to creativity in your unconscious mind. Obstacles are themselves ideas. And it could be that there are, in fact—the unconscious mind almost certainly goes wrong more often than the conscious one. So this could be simply a way of enhancing creativity after all.

If the unconscious mind goes wrong more than the conscious mind, why would deliberately preventing your conscious mind from doing anything clear obstacles to creativity in your unconscious mind? Deutsch didn't explain how this would work.]]>
Fri, 20 Sep 2019 23:04:56 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13575 http://curi.us/comments/show/13575
Anonymous Open Discussion (2019) This video could be used to learn about lying and mistakes. There's a lot to analyze in it.]]> Fri, 20 Sep 2019 16:14:56 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13574 http://curi.us/comments/show/13574 Anonymous Fear of Future Employers Fri, 20 Sep 2019 12:27:00 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13573 http://curi.us/comments/show/13573 Kate Fear of Future Employers
Some of my notes from the video:

You are going to pay a price for *everything* you choose to do or choose to not do. Don't give selective attn to risks of speaking up without also realizing the huge risks to your soul of being too afraid to speak. It's more risky *not* to speak up and share your thoughts and values.]]>
Fri, 20 Sep 2019 12:23:04 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13572 http://curi.us/comments/show/13572
Anonymous Open Discussion (2019) Fri, 20 Sep 2019 11:09:12 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13571 http://curi.us/comments/show/13571 Anonymous Open Discussion (2019) Fri, 20 Sep 2019 11:06:46 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13570 http://curi.us/comments/show/13570 Dagny Fear of Future Employers Fri, 20 Sep 2019 09:58:37 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13569 http://curi.us/comments/show/13569 Kate Fear of Future Employers
I'm unclear on the last sentence. When I think of sharing values, I imagine sharing what you judge to be good and important to your life. You are sharing *moral* values. So, I agree with the idea that by sharing these moral values, ppl fear that they are being impractical (e.g. they'll end up not getting a good job and as much money).

But I don't understand how the sharing of moral values leads to thinking that you are immoral (above you said *immoral* or impractical).]]>
Fri, 20 Sep 2019 09:43:28 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13568 http://curi.us/comments/show/13568
N Open Discussion (2019)
> 1 does not say anything about the case where X *has not* written at least one thing that is great, only about the case where X *has* written at least one thing that is great.

> So 1 leaves open the possibility that X could be great and not have written at least one thing that is great.

> Maybe you meant to write something different for 1: “X is *only* great if X has written at least one thing that is great.”

Thank you for pointing out and explaining my mistake. I see what I did wrong now and your example ("X is *only* great if X has written at least one thing that is great.") captures what I was aiming for.]]>
Fri, 20 Sep 2019 05:38:07 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13567 http://curi.us/comments/show/13567
greatness logic Anne B Open Discussion (2019)
> This is my reasoning:
> 1. X is great if X has written at least one thing that is great.
> 2. Brook has not written anything that is great.
> 3. Brook is not great.
> (I have no training in logic. Feel free to correct the above implication (I believe it is an implication))

This logic is not correct.

1 does not say anything about the case where X *has not* written at least one thing that is great, only about the case where X *has* written at least one thing that is great.

So 1 leaves open the possibility that X could be great and not have written at least one thing that is great.

Maybe you meant to write something different for 1: “X is *only* great if X has written at least one thing that is great.”]]>
Fri, 20 Sep 2019 04:01:05 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13565 http://curi.us/comments/show/13565
Anonymous Open Discussion (2019) Fri, 20 Sep 2019 02:01:10 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13564 http://curi.us/comments/show/13564 N Open Discussion (2019) Thu, 19 Sep 2019 22:15:57 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13563 http://curi.us/comments/show/13563 Alisa XVII
> Seeing a behavior we associate with an emotion does not mean the person is feeling that emotion. There is an assumption there that he thinks like us, and expresses ideas and emotions just as we would. But the whole idea here is this child does not yet think like us, and doesn't know about emotions. So if you see a behavior you do not know what the thought process behind it is. It isn't like yours. There is, prima facie, no evidence the child is being emotional.

What do babies or young children experience when they cry? Do they experience anguish, similar in degree to -- or even more serious than -- the anguish felt by an adult when an adult cries?]]>
Thu, 19 Sep 2019 21:22:53 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13562 http://curi.us/comments/show/13562
curi Open Discussion (2019)
https://georgereismansblog.blogspot.com/2014/07/pikettys-capital-wrong_28.html

also on Kindle:

https://www.amazon.com/Pikettys-Capital-Theory-Destructive-Program-ebook/dp/B00M0D69S2]]>
Thu, 19 Sep 2019 14:51:57 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13561 http://curi.us/comments/show/13561
N Open Discussion (2019)
> You're mistaken. You did not write that.

You are correct. My mistake.

> Did you reread what you wrote? Going by incorrect memory is a common error, but actually reading the text you wrote and misunderstanding it is also a common, *different* error. It'd be good for you to know which type of error you made. That'd be a step towards doing better in the future.

Thank you. I will work on improving on these mistakes.
This time it was due to incorrect memory.

Misunderstanding one's own text would be a poor writing problem, right? A "not being able to express what one meant in a clear way" kind of problem?

> It doesn't appear to be an economics book. Is it?

I would put it more in the "pop-econ" category. It does argue against minimum wage, Piketty's *Capital in the Twenty-First Century*, and stuff like that, but it does not go too deep into any of it, as far as I can remember.]]>
Thu, 19 Sep 2019 14:11:40 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13560 http://curi.us/comments/show/13560
A Relevant Discord Reply curi Lots of Thoughts
It depends what type or respect, or how you do it. This post has some info on my attitude to DD when I was new: http://curi.us/2033-lots-of-thoughts


> it seems like we should assume a lot of background thought and knowledge has gone into almost anything you say,

yes

> but on the other hand it seems like you'd want us to try to exercise critical thinking as much as possible and treat your ideas independently of you as a person.

yes. you can do both at once. don't assume i don't have reasons. but you can e.g. have doubts about something and ask for more reasoning that i haven't said yet.


> It's been tough for me to separate a respect for your ideas from a respect of you as a person, so how do you generally avoid being biased towards certain people? After reading some of your criticisms of DD lately, it makes me realize I afford any DD idea much more respect than most other ideas, simply because I respect DD as a thinker, rather than because I'm judging the idea independently.

Sadly this is unreliable with DD's Twitter today. But his books and old emails are still great. They have mistakes, but the quality is very high compared to pretty much anyone else.

> It seems like the process of learning to make better judgments relates to error correction somehow, but it also seems like it's worth learning how to suspend your own judgment long enough to understand why someone else's judgment is different and might even be more right than your own?

I don't think of being curious as suspending judgment. But yeah it's kinda related. Being sure of your judgment, thinking of it as final, is incompatible with curiosity about different ideas. But if your judgment is thought of in a fallible, tentative way, then you can have it and also be curious about criticism and alternatives.]]>
Thu, 19 Sep 2019 13:10:08 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13559 http://curi.us/comments/show/13559
Anonymous Open Discussion (2019)
You're mistaken. You did not write that.

Did you reread what you wrote? Going by incorrect memory is a common error, but actually reading the text you wrote and misunderstanding it is also a common, *different* error. It'd be good for you to know which type of error you made. That'd be a step towards doing better in the future.

> Do you have any criticism of that book?

It doesn't appear to be an economics book. Is it?]]>
Thu, 19 Sep 2019 12:20:22 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13558 http://curi.us/comments/show/13558
N Open Discussion (2019)
Ok. My mistake.
Was there a reason to believe that I could answer anything but "no" to such a question after I wrote that I do not think that Brook is great? If no, what was the purpose of the question?

I think it would help if we define what makes one "great".
This is my reasoning:

1. X is great if X has written at least one thing that is great.
2. Brook has not written anything that is great.
3. Brook is not great.

(I have no training in logic. Feel free to correct the above implication (I believe it is an implication))

If at least one great work makes one great, then I think my reasoning above (not being able to answer anything but "no" to your question) follows.

Edit:
After looking up the definition of *great* ("1. of an extent, amount, or intensity considerably above average; 2. of ability, quality, or eminence considerably above average") I might have to revisit my position. Since much of today's economic stuff is not of Austrian character, it is possible that some of Brook's writing is "above average" (Brook being pro Austrian econ) and thus great.

> Can you link one *economics* thing Brook has written which you think is good?

I have only read *Equal Is Unfair* by Brook. I do not recall any particularly bad parts in it. On a whole, I would consider it good, from what I can remember. Do you have any criticism of that book?]]>
Thu, 19 Sep 2019 06:30:19 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13557 http://curi.us/comments/show/13557
Anonymous Analyzing How Culture Manipulates You by Pulling Your Puppet Strings
>I'm already forgetting a lot of what i watched.
>The boy was praising his society but acted like there was some in group joke about it being really rough and macho. It didn't seem genuine, it seemed like there was something about the society that was alien. he was saying "some might not like this society" after saying enthusiastically his society was great. I'm forgetting kind of what he was talking about. He was embarrassed and ashamed about his society for some of its flaws but also enthusiastic about how great it is.
>It's a bit strange that the dragons choose to be ridden by the humans, it's kind of a slave relationship
>And the second clip, I totally found way too boring to comprehend what was happening, and I'm also a bit tired (like i had trouble just before figuring out a programming puzzle so even this was a bit too complex for me to handle right now). These two people are riding dragons, the cinematography makes it seem like they're in the middle of some sort of action. I don't know if this is my personal bias but it seems like they were putting the girl in some sort of more powerful role intentionally
>and the guy was being quirky and it was supposed to be banter and I don't understand what it was
>I didn't really pay much attention to the second clip, I don't tend to like dialog with their tones of voice, i ignore it usually
>and it was irrelevant to the plot
>And why are they thinking about this kind of stuff when they're clearly in the middle of something else, I prefer when movies are more focused on my interests
>Like i don't understand why the viewers should care about what I estimate that dialog was, but I'll replay it since I didn't really catch more than a vague impression of what was going on.
>Before replaying it. I think they were talking about some sort of personal thing. I think the guy was talking about something quirky he would do, and I think the girl was talking about some sort of goal she had???
>It was a goal she had or it was something about the race they were doing (i think they were racing since in the first clip he says that's what they do there)
>ok replaying now
>I didn't mention it, but i was gonna say she was giving playful reproach to the guy
>I didn't want to say it cuz I was afraid it was my bias
>but that's what she's doing I think
>but it's like, she can give this reproach but it's playful and in this weird realm of serious but not serious
>the guy is quirky and irrational and there's no straight man in the situation
>there's no straight man because the girl is only being playful, she's condoning this
>He's getting buried alive for 2 hours by someone who he's worshipping as his princess who gets to do whatever she wants, he surrenders all his power to her and she does life threatening stuff to him
>and he's excusing this behavior in response to the other girl who's expressing some sort of concern/reproach/criticism with really irrational deceitful "it was only for 2 hours" and then the scene ends as if it was just playful banter
>it definitely seems wrong. I don't like this weird behavior of pretending like things should be bad
>it's giving up]]>
Wed, 18 Sep 2019 19:16:20 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13556 http://curi.us/comments/show/13556
status report Anne B Anne Discussion
I'm up to Homework 4, Part 2, Question 10.]]>
Wed, 18 Sep 2019 15:41:19 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13555 http://curi.us/comments/show/13555
unbounded criticism Anne B Anne Discussion
http://curi.us/2033-lots-of-thoughts

> I can break anyone. I can ask questions, criticize errors, and advocate for more progress until they give up and refuse to speak. No one can handle that if I really try. I can bring up enough of people’s flaws that it’s overwhelming and unwanted.
>
> There are limits on what criticism people want to hear, what demons they want to face, what they want to question. Perhaps they’ll expand those limits gradually. But I, in the spirit of BoI, approach things differently. i take all criticism and questions from all comers without limiting rules and without being overwhelmed.

[...]

> occasionally people here ask for full, maximum criticism. they don’t like the idea that i’m holding back – that i know problems in their lives and their thinking that i’m not telling them, that are going unsolved. (or that i could quickly discover such problems if i thought about them, asked them some questions, etc). i’ve often responded by testing them in some little way which was too much and they didn’t persist in asking for more.
>
> it’s difficult b/c i prefer to be honest and say what i think openly. i generally don’t lie. but i neglect to say lots of things i could. i neglect to energetically pursue things involving other ppl which could/should be pursued if they were better and more capable. i could write 10+ replies each to most posts here with questions and arguments (often conditional on some guesses about incomplete information). there’s so much more to be said, so many connections to other stuff. people don’t want to deal with that. they want bounds on discussion.


I'm imagining what would happen if I asked for unbounded criticism... People would give me a long list of things that I'm doing wrong. Some of the things on the list I would already know about and know that I wasn't willing to face yet. Many of the things on the list would be new to me. Would I be able to read through the list, pick out one or two things to work on next, put the rest aside for now, and remain optimistic about making progress? I'm tempted to try even though I may not succeed.

TheRat interpreted my mostly posting about grammar these days as meaning that I'm afraid to post about anything else for fear of being wrong and getting more criticism. That has some truth to it.


Potential problems with asking for unbounded criticism:

1) I might not know how to decide what to work on first.

2) I might feel overwhelmed and give up.

3) I might feel overwhelmed and make less progress than I would have by just continuing with grammar.

4) There might be so much criticism that I don't even have time to read it all. (Actually, that's not really a problem. And it's unlikely.)

5) Something might get posted publicly that I don't want other people to know about. (This in itself is an issue I know about and don't want to face.)

6) I might not get unbounded criticism. People might not want to give it.


Potential good things about asking for unbounded criticism:

1) I might make faster progress.

2) Some things I already know I'm not facing might feel less scary if I saw them in black and white.

3) The whole idea of unbounded criticism might feel less scary if I tried it.]]>
Wed, 18 Sep 2019 15:38:03 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13554 http://curi.us/comments/show/13554
Anonymous Open Discussion (2019)
That was a question, not a representation of your beliefs. You're allowed to say "no".

Can you link one *economics* thing Brook has written which you think is good?]]>
Wed, 18 Sep 2019 11:05:25 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13553 http://curi.us/comments/show/13553
Archive of my comment linked at the top of my blog post curi People are Wrong then Ignore Criticism
Elliot Temple Says:
Comment #145 June 22nd, 2014 at 12:34 am

Scott #47:

> No system for aggregating preferences whatsoever—neither direct democracy, nor representative democracy, nor eigendemocracy, nor anything else—can possibly deal with the “Nazi Germany problem,” wherein basically an entire society’s value system becomes inverted to the point where evil is good and good evil.

In _The Beginning of Infinity_, DD explains:

HERMES: Imagine a specific case, for the sake of argument. Suppose that they were somehow firmly persuaded that thieving is a high virtue from which many practical benefits flow, and that they abolished all laws forbidding it. What would happen?
SOCRATES: Everyone would start thieving. Very soon those who were best at thieving (and at living among thieves) would become the wealthiest citizens. But most people would no longer be secure in their property (even most thieves), and all the farmers and artisans and traders would soon find it impossible to continue to produce anything worth stealing. So disaster and starvation would follow, while the promised benefits would not, and they would all realize that they had been mistaken.
HERMES: Would they? Let me remind you again of the fallibility of human nature, Socrates. Given that they were firmly persuaded that thievery was beneficial, wouldn’t their first reaction to those setbacks be that there was not enough thievery going on? Wouldn’t they enact laws to encourage it still further?
SOCRATES: Alas, yes – at first. Yet, no matter how firmly they were persuaded, these setbacks would be problems in their lives, which they would want to solve. A few among them would eventually begin to suspect that increased thievery might not be the solution after all. So they would think about it more. They would have been convinced of the benefits of thievery by some explanation or other. Now they would try to explain why the supposed solution didn’t seem to be working. Eventually they would find an explanation that seemed better. So gradually they would persuade others of that – and so on until a majority again opposed thievery.
HERMES: Aha! So salvation would come about through persuasion.
SOCRATES: If you like. Thought, explanation and persuasion. And now they would understand better why thievery is harmful, through their new explanations.
HERMES: By the way, the little story we have just imagined is exactly how Athens really does look, from my point of view.

Society already is massively wrong about many very very important thievery-equivalent things. Morally inverted, or whatever you want to call it. Good systems of organizing people, dealing with ideas, or whatever else have to be able to deal with massive entrenched error and irrationality. When you give up on that specific case – which is the real world – you invent dangerous systems which don’t worry enough about error correction.

What you specifically wrote about was a “system for aggregating preferences”. You may be right that a system *of that type* can’t solve the problem, I haven’t considered that carefully. But there are other things to be considered instead, rather than accepting this unacceptable weakness.]]>
Wed, 18 Sep 2019 10:59:37 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13552 http://curi.us/comments/show/13552
curi Alisa Discussion Wed, 18 Sep 2019 09:45:19 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13551 http://curi.us/comments/show/13551 curi Social Rules Wed, 18 Sep 2019 09:44:25 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13550 http://curi.us/comments/show/13550 Postmortem for my almost-blank comment (#13541) Alisa Alisa Discussion
I created my comment by clicking "reply" on the comment to which I wanted to reply (the parent comment). That created a comment box containing only a link to the parent comment. The cursor was at the end of the link. Very soon after that, I tried to add a newline after the link to the parent comment. To do this, I pressed Tab and then, without waiting to see the effect, I pressed Enter, thinking it would add a newline. However, Tab changed the input focus to the "Post Comment" button and Enter effectively clicked the button.

Pressing Tab was a mistake. I don't remember exactly why I pressed it. It wouldn't have done anything useful for me. Maybe I thought it would take the cursor to the end of the line. However, in the comment box that results from clicking "reply", the cursor starts out at the end of the first line. So maybe I had hit the up arrow earlier for some reason. That would have moved the cursor to the beginning of the line.]]>
Wed, 18 Sep 2019 07:56:00 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13549 http://curi.us/comments/show/13549
"instead of" vs "rather than" Alisa Alisa Discussion
I see what you mean about parallelism. In light of that, I propose replacing "instead of" with "rather than". The result is:

> Social rules cause people to take offense rather than rationally analyze what was said.

That preserves the parallelism, while also sounding grammatically correct to my ear.

I did a web search and found multiple GMAT study pages claiming that "instead of" can govern only a noun, while "rather than" can govern a noun or a verb. One example is https://magoosh.com/gmat/2013/gmat-idioms-of-comparison/ , which says:

> [**Instead of**] is a [compound preposition](https://magoosh.com/gmat/2013/gmat-idioms-compound-prepositions/), and, as such, could only take a noun as its object. By contrast, **rather than** can act as either a preposition (taking a noun) or a subordinate conjunction (followed by a full clause). **Instead of** could only put nouns in parallel, but **rather than** can put nouns or verbs or entire actions in parallel.]]>
Wed, 18 Sep 2019 07:34:25 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13548 http://curi.us/comments/show/13548
Typo alert N Social Rules
People who violate those rules still use many social customs such *as* greetings (“hi”), farewells (“bye”), or understanding and using the conversational dynamic of questions and answers.]]>
Wed, 18 Sep 2019 06:41:01 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13547 http://curi.us/comments/show/13547
Kate Alisa Discussion
I wonder if the prepositional phrase "instead of X" affects the attempt at a parallel structure. If the sentence just used a conjunction, e.g. "Social rules cause people to take offense and get mad.", then you'd want a parallel infinitive situation.

But with the sentence in question, I also think it's better to use a gerund to serve as the object of the preposition: "instead of analyzing" ("rationally" is just a modifier).]]>
Wed, 18 Sep 2019 06:30:13 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13546 http://curi.us/comments/show/13546
Anonymous TheWorldOfParmenides Reddit Conversation Is there a way to search on a particular persons posts on Reddit? I tried to look for any criticism of Rand by TheWorldOfParmenides on Reddit but I couldn't find any.

After that I tried to ask him in the very thread that Curi links to what his (TheWorldOfParmenides) criticism of Rand is, but my post got deleted because I only have 1 karma on Reddit. To post in that thread one needs at least 10 karma apparently. That stopped me from trying harder.

If anyone does find out what TheWorldOfParmenides's criticism of Rand is, please post the link and / or the reasons here.]]>
Wed, 18 Sep 2019 06:24:49 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13545 http://curi.us/comments/show/13545
N Open Discussion (2019)
I still haven't said that Yaron Brook is great. This is a misrepresentation. I said: "But why don't you [curi] respect Yaron intellectualy? I don't find him that bad." (#13531)

I think that him (Yaron) arguing against the left's "equality fairness" issue is, on the whole, correct (https://www.amazon.com/Equal-Unfair-Americas-Misguided-Inequality-ebook/dp/B015CKO1DY).
There might be some bad parts in the book, but I do not recall any really bad parts.

What is *great* enough to warrant respect intellectually?
Originality? Something else?]]>
Tue, 17 Sep 2019 23:15:37 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13544 http://curi.us/comments/show/13544
Anonymous Open Discussion (2019)
> I can not. I didn't say that he was great. I also think that he usually is good at making sure to say that he is not a philosopher, but that his expertise is in economics.

Can you link one *economics* thing Brook has written which you think is great?]]>
Tue, 17 Sep 2019 22:23:13 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13543 http://curi.us/comments/show/13543
N Open Discussion (2019)
I can not. I didn't say that he was great. I also think that he usually is good at making sure to say that he is not a philosopher, but that his expertise is in economics.

As for economics I think he is good for the most part, agreeing with Mises. I can not recall anything really bad being said by Yaron regarding economics.

> Here is some Brook criticism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=995Riq8JdUo

Thank you for the link. I will watch it.

> It has been rebutted by Charles Tew and others. Also some by me if you search the archives.

Thank you. I will search the archives to learn more.

> I have done extensive criticism of the (allegedly) more serious intellectual leaders associated with ARI: Peikoff and Binswanger. **I think that's more important and interesting.**

I agree.

> Also Brook's choice to do this show with Shaprio – in a friendly manner which evades most of Shapiro's problems instead of confronting the issues (judging by the table of contents which e.g. doesn't cover Shapiro's hypocrisy and betrayal of the right related to the Roseanne tweet, nor Shapiro's falling out with hero David Horowitz) – discredits him.

I was not aware of the mentioned issues regarding Shapiro. I agree that that would have been more important that what they ended up discussing.]]>
Tue, 17 Sep 2019 22:15:49 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13542 http://curi.us/comments/show/13542
Alisa Alisa Discussion Tue, 17 Sep 2019 20:49:00 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13541 http://curi.us/comments/show/13541 Kate TheWorldOfParmenides Reddit Conversation
> Of course, there’s a reason she isn’t taken seriously. No one is saying there is no reason and the situation has happened arbitrarily.

I think the comma after the word "course" should be omitted.

https://www.dailywritingtips.com/how-to-punctuate-introductory-phrases/

> Emphasis: “Of course, she’ll be there, too.”

> (An exception can be made for this particular phrase: There’s a subtle but distinct difference between “Of course, you’ll want to do it your way” and “Of course you’ll want to do it your way.” In the first sentence, your is stressed; in the second, course, perhaps accompanied by a sneer, is emphasized, with a secondary stress on your — and likely an exclamation point to signal emotion.)

In my sentence above, the word "course" is what I'm stressing.

Here's more discussion on this point: https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/348666/comma-usage-with-of-course

> Using 'of course' without commas can imply a refutation of prior skepticism. In these cases, the speaker emphasizes 'course.'

When read literally, WOP's statement conveys skepticism or the idea that he's answering some sort of controversial question as to whether there is a reason that Rand is not taken seriously by professional philosophers.

My statement implies a refutation of this prior skepticism. So, I think omitting the comma is better. I'm emphasizing the word "course", and there would be no pause in speech.]]>
Tue, 17 Sep 2019 20:02:08 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13540 http://curi.us/comments/show/13540
curi Alisa Discussion Tue, 17 Sep 2019 19:14:56 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13539 http://curi.us/comments/show/13539 Alisa Social Rules Tue, 17 Sep 2019 17:57:03 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13538 http://curi.us/comments/show/13538 Form of verb following "instead of" Alisa Alisa Discussion
> Social rules cause people to take offense instead of rationally analyze what was said.

To my ear, that use of "analyze" should be replaced by "analyzing". I don't know enough grammar to explain why that is.

In the sentence after the one above, a verb ending in "ing" ("evaluating") follows "instead of":

> Social rule following involves a way of evaluating statements as polite or rude, which people do before and often instead of evaluating whether the statement is true.

That sounds grammatically correct to me.

I thought the example below from https://www.englishgrammar.org/adverb-preposition/ was helpful:

> **Instead of** can be followed by an –ing form. Infinitives are not normally used.
>
> * I spent the whole day in bed **instead of going to work**. (NOT I spent the whole day in bed instead of to go to work.)]]>
Tue, 17 Sep 2019 17:39:49 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13537 http://curi.us/comments/show/13537
Anonymous TheWorldOfParmenides Reddit Conversation
>Of course, there’s a reason she isn’t taken seriously. No one is saying there is no reason and the situation has happened arbitrarily.

i read that thru a social lens and didnt even realize what the actual meaning of those words together is, until i read your response. i only thought of it as being a diss.]]>
Tue, 17 Sep 2019 17:07:57 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13536 http://curi.us/comments/show/13536
Pronouncing "Alisa" Alisa Alisa Discussion
> 2) I pronounce Alisa with a long 'i', like it does here: https://www.pronouncekiwi.com/Alisa%20Zinov%27yevna%20Rosenbaum
> I don't know how FI's Alisa pronounces it.

I have been pronouncing "Alisa" with a short "i" -- like "Alyssa" in Alyssa Milano's name. This pronunciation has contributed to me mis-spelling "Alisa" as "Alissa" on multiple occasions. Examples can be found [on FI list](https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/fallible-ideas/alissa%7Csort:date) and [on curi.us](https://www.google.com/search?q="alissa"+site%3Acuri.us).

From now on, I'll try to remember to pronounce "Alisa" with a long "i". The name "Lisa" is pronounced with a long "i", so I think that pronouncing "Alisa" with a long "i" will help me remember to spell "Alisa" correctly.]]>
Tue, 17 Sep 2019 17:02:37 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13535 http://curi.us/comments/show/13535
curi TheWorldOfParmenides Reddit Conversation
Also, TheWorldOfParmenides won't give any anti-Rand arguments...

Also, I take it he found my blog posts criticizing Sowell and Hayek. That's where that's coming from, I think. Those posts give reasons and arguments. But TheWorldOfParmenides doesn't engage in debate about the issues.]]>
Tue, 17 Sep 2019 13:22:45 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13534 http://curi.us/comments/show/13534
curi TheWorldOfParmenides Reddit Conversation
https://www.reddit.com/r/IntellectualDarkWeb/comments/cq0ex8/scholarly_criticism_jordan_petersons_sloppy_cite/f0m0yd8/?context=3

![](https://curi.us/img/1FVprdOTSS6OYud-1139x644.png)]]>
Tue, 17 Sep 2019 13:20:18 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13533 http://curi.us/comments/show/13533
curi Open Discussion (2019)
Here is some Brook criticism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=995Riq8JdUo

> If it is wrong and comes from an ARI "front figure", doesn't it merit a rebuttal so that we that miss the bad parts can learn better?

It has been rebutted by Charles Tew and others. Also some by me if you search the archives.

I have done extensive criticism of the (allegedly) more serious intellectual leaders associated with ARI: Peikoff and Binswanger. I think that's more important and interesting.

Also Brook's choice to do this show with Shaprio – in a friendly manner which evades most of Shapiro's problems instead of confronting the issues (judging by the table of contents which e.g. doesn't cover Shapiro's hypocrisy and betrayal of the right related to the Roseanne tweet, nor Shapiro's falling out with hero David Horowitz) – discredits him.]]>
Tue, 17 Sep 2019 12:22:36 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13532 http://curi.us/comments/show/13532
N Open Discussion (2019) > [#13526] Two people I don't respect intellectually – and don't think deserve the attention they get – talking with each other. Why watch and make content about them?

I agree regarding Ben Shapiro. But why don't you respect Yaron intellectualy? I don't find him that bad. What am I missing regarding Yaron?

Regarding content:
For that very reason - them getting the attention. Since they (Yaron) do get much attention, that is what many learn about Oism. If it is wrong and comes from an ARI "front figure", doesn't it merit a rebuttal so that we that miss the bad parts can learn better?]]>
Tue, 17 Sep 2019 12:03:19 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13531 http://curi.us/comments/show/13531
curi TheWorldOfParmenides Reddit Conversation
> >Better yet, spend 2 years as intellectual historian and read actual philosophers and realize that **Objectivism stole from some of the best** and Rand added her own poorly thought out ideas.

> this sentence is hard for me to reply to for some reason so im gonna move along, i was trying to reply specifically to the bolded part.

For this, I think the main thing to say is he did not argue or explain his claim. He didn't give examples, details or evidence. He just *asserted* a *conclusion* (stole ideas) with no reasoning. He did the same thing with the conclusion that Rand's ideas were poorly thought out.]]>
Tue, 17 Sep 2019 10:32:06 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13530 http://curi.us/comments/show/13530
curi Open Discussion (2019) Tue, 17 Sep 2019 10:29:48 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13529 http://curi.us/comments/show/13529 Kate TheWorldOfParmenides Reddit Conversation
> Your email group is not what I am looking for at this time. Good luck to you.

BTW, throughout the conversation (even here at the beginning) TheWorldOfParmenides (WOP) includes social signals indicating that he wants the conversation to be wrapped up, e.g. “Good luck” and “Thanks again but no thanks”.

He’s not approaching the conversation with an attitude of trying to figure out if he should post to FI. He's not trying to do error correction on that question. Instead, the problem he’s trying to solve is more like “How can I end this conversation in a way where I can act on my desire to not post to FI while still convincing myself that I’m rational and smart?”.

> curi: You can start topics.

WOP didn’t address this refutation by curi of WOP’s concern. Maybe because WOP’s idea that the current FI topics are uninteresting to him was only an excuse he made up to rationalize his desire to not post. This concern about uninteresting topics wasn’t the *actual* issue keeping him from posting. So, when curi addressed this (fake) concern, it didn’t matter. It was only an excuse he made up, a decoy. And when that excuse didn’t work, WOP moved onto other excuses. Such as:

> TheWorldOfParmenides: Looks like you also violate people's privacy and post their emails publicly if they ever leave your little group.

“your little group” is mean; it indicates hostility.

> You also attacked David Deutsch in defense of a shoddy Philosopher like Rand.

Here WOP engages in name-calling instead of giving any arguments against Rand. Also, the tone here is people-orientation. WOP is saying you attacked person A while defending shoddy person B. What about focusing on ideas? WOP tries to come off as wanting to focus on ideas (he attacks Oists for judging people). Ok, so then why isn’t he doing it?

(Now, perhaps WOP does have written arguments to back up what he wrote here. But then why not link them?)

> Lot of downsides, no real upsides. Thanks again but no thanks.

> curi: Well, let me know if you develop any counter-arguments to anything I said, or to Objectivism, instead of just ad hominems.

> Also I didn't violate anyone's privacy. When you email to a public email group, your email is publicly available to anyone. There are archives of all the emails, whether someone left or not, which include the email addresses that sent every email. People can use an email address that isn't attached to your real name (many people do).

WOP doesn’t address curi’s explanation regarding privacy. Again, one reason could be that WOP’s privacy concern was a rationalization he made up so that he could act on his desire to not post.

> TheWorldOfParmenides: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

> You should read what an ad-hominem is before you talk about things you don't understand.

Does anyone know where he’s coming from here? Isn’t calling someone “shoddy” in place of giving arguments ad hominem?

> Better yet, spend 2 years as intellectual historian and read actual philosophers and realize that Objectivism stole from some of the best and Rand added her own poorly thought out ideas.

BTW, my understanding is that Rand gives Aristotle tons of credit.

Also, what WOP is doing here seems like ad hominem. Instead of criticizing the content of curi’s ideas with arguments, he’s trying to discredit curi’s character by implying that he has not read enough intellectual history. He’s trying to attack the characteristics of the source instead of criticizing the content of ideas.

If curi actually does need to read more intellectual history, then there will be flaws in curi’s ideas. These flaws can be criticized. There’s no good reason to try to discredit the source as WOP is trying to do. Instead, WOP can focus on criticizing ideas, which he doesn’t do.

> There is a reason that Rand is not taken seriously by professional Philosophers.

Of course, there’s a reason she isn’t taken seriously. No one is saying there is no reason and the situation has happened arbitrarily.

However, you aren’t supposed to read his statement literally in this way. You are supposed to read it through a social lens. When you do that, you see that WOP again is flaming Rand by implying that the reason she isn’t taken seriously is because she’s bad. But, as usual for WOP, there are no arguments, no criticisms of ideas. Instead, we just get attacks on people.

> The fact that you thought what I said was ad-hom.

This is a sentence fragment.

> Typically, (don't feel too bad this is very common) Randians have a very hard time separating ideas from people. If you do embark in an intellectual journey you'll quickly realize this.

More condescending flame of curi.

Notice that throughout all of this, WOP doesn’t tell us *why* what he said wasn’t ad hominem. Instead of giving actual explanations (note: if he had them, why wouldn’t he share them?), he wants to convey that he’s right and the problem is that Oists are too people-oriented and wrong to see it for themselves.

This reminds me of the Argument from Intimidation. VoS:

> The essential characteristic of the Argument from Intimidation is its appeal to moral self-doubt and its reliance on the fear, guilt or ignorance of the victim. It is used in the form of an ultimatum demanding that the victim renounce a given idea without discussion, under threat of being considered morally unworthy. The pattern is always: “Only those who are evil (dishonest, heartless, insensitive, ignorant, etc.) can hold such an idea.”

WOP wants the reader to think that only those who are dumb Oists can’t see that what WOP said wasn’t ad hominem. Instead of just giving an explanation as to why it wasn't ad hominem, he's trying to psychologically pressure the reader into agreeing with him.

Ppl rely on these tactics when they *lack* arguments. WOP is admitting his own intellectual bankruptcy.

> Good luck!

This seems dishonest considering this guy is hostile.]]>
Tue, 17 Sep 2019 10:13:48 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13528 http://curi.us/comments/show/13528
N Open Discussion (2019)
Correction: "Intro Objectivism".]]>
Tue, 17 Sep 2019 08:43:48 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13527 http://curi.us/comments/show/13527
N Open Discussion (2019)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z55TXWTRHW0

Have you seen it, Curi, and if so, do you have plans to do video commentary on it?

Content:
00:00:48 - *Objectivist intro*
00:05:13 - *Selfishness*, *capitalism*, and *altruism*
00:13:00 - *Values*
00:17:40 - *Free will*, *religion*, and *reason*
00:26:54 - *The Enlightenment* and *ethics*
00:35:18 - *Hierarchy of values*
00:39:30 - *Atlas Shrugged*
00:42:31 - *Morality*
00:46:12 - *Externalities*
00:56:21 - *Role of Gov. and social institutions*
01:02:36 - *Teaching children*
01:04:35 - *Objectivist morality vs conventional morality*]]>
Tue, 17 Sep 2019 08:30:50 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13526 http://curi.us/comments/show/13526
Anonymous TheWorldOfParmenides Reddit Conversation
>curi: You can start topics.

so curi refuted his "Looks like what is discussed is not of interest to me" point, and then he never responded to that refutation.

>TheWorldOfParmenides: Looks like you also violate people's privacy and post their emails publicly if they ever leave **your little group**.

so hes dissing FI cuz of the popularity of it.

>You also attacked David Deutsch...

criticism as violence.

>spend 2 years as intellectual historian and read actual philosophers and realize that **Objectivism** stole from some of the best...

>**Randians** have a very hard time separating ideas from people.

>You **Randians** are so predictable.

so he says "Objectivism" instead of "Randism", but he calls its followers "Randians" instead of "Objectivists", i wonder why.

>Better yet, spend 2 years as intellectual historian and read actual philosophers and realize that **Objectivism stole from some of the best** and Rand added her own poorly thought out ideas.

this sentence is hard for me to reply to for some reason so im gonna move along, i was trying to reply specifically to the bolded part.

>Typically, (don't feel too bad this is very common) Randians have a very hard time separating ideas from people.

why is he mentioning specifically "Randians" having "a very hard time separating ideas from people.", when he said that it is very common? i think its to make it seem like a criticism of a specific group, when its actually a criticism that applies to most groups, but hes just trying to target that specific group.

>You should read what an ad-hominem is before you talk about things you don't understand.

>Better yet, **spend 2 years as intellectual historian** and read actual philosophers and realize that Objectivism stole from some of the best and Rand added her own poorly thought out ideas.

>The fact that you thought what I said was ad-hom. Typically, (don't feel too bad this is very common) Randians have a very hard time separating ideas from people. If you do embark in an intellectual journey **you'll quickly realize this.**

so it will take *2 years* as an intellectual historian to realize that Objectivism "stole from some of the best", but if you embark in an intellectual journey you will *quickly* realize that "Randians" have a very hard time separating ideas from people. whats with the time differential?]]>
Tue, 17 Sep 2019 00:55:01 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13525 http://curi.us/comments/show/13525
curi Open Discussion (2019)
if ur bored by it, then either 1) you shoudn't read it; or 2) you should read it but don't know how/why well enough, you're missing some knowledge about why it's interesting and useful, or missing some skill, or there is otherwise some unsolved problem. therefore, either you shouldn't be reading it or the problem should be solved so that you can read it without being bored.

this is generic rationality stuff which schools egregiously violate.

this is an incomplete criticism. schools also do other stuff wrong, including being cruel. that's harder to argue/explain in some ways.]]>
Mon, 16 Sep 2019 21:23:57 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13524 http://curi.us/comments/show/13524
Alisa Alisa Discussion
> You don't talk about relationships.

Good point. One exception to my lifespan-related goal is that I might do something risky to save a loved one who is, say, trapped in a burning building or something. That should be a really unusual situation, though. I guess one way to mitigate the risk of something like that happening would be to try to arrange things such that my loved ones are rarely in dangerous circumstances.]]>
Mon, 16 Sep 2019 06:04:21 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13523 http://curi.us/comments/show/13523
Anonymous Submit Podcast Questions Sun, 15 Sep 2019 22:51:21 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13522 http://curi.us/comments/show/13522 Anonymous Food
People don't actually think the price of something tells you the amount it matters.

People don't conserve stuff based on its price.

People have *social metaphysics*. They are second-handed. They care about what other people care about. Caring about food waste is a cultural trend. It's not related to logical reasoning.]]>
Sun, 15 Sep 2019 21:21:28 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13521 http://curi.us/comments/show/13521
Anonymous Food
oh wait, actually maybe its frowned upon by culture in general. i looked up "why do old people get annoyed when you waste food" all the links were recent, and based off the title they were not talking about elderly people, and seemed to have a consensus that "food waste" is bad.

i can understand it somewhat for older people, cuz maybe they grew up when food wasnt as easily available, so seeing it not being used reminds them of those times. but why tf is it so common of an opinion today? food is cheap, its not that big of a problem if you waste it.

i wonder how many people care about iphone waste, and all the iphones destroyed due to accidents, and how that compares to how much they care about food waste.]]>
Sun, 15 Sep 2019 17:53:34 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13520 http://curi.us/comments/show/13520
N TheWorldOfParmenides Reddit Conversation
I agree. I made an error skipping this step in my thought process, jumping to the below step directly.

> However, he's suggesting I do it for *revenge* to *punish* people who leave my group. That's about my bad intentions. It's also factually inaccurate (not that he brought up facts).]]>
Sun, 15 Sep 2019 03:59:09 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13519 http://curi.us/comments/show/13519
Alisa Alisa Discussion
> You don't talk about relationships. Friends, family, socializing, etc. Maybe you have goals for that?
> Other big ones for many people are prestige, reputation and career.

I guess I have some goals in those areas, but they aren't my most important goals. I would have to think hard before sacrificing one my most important goals for any of those things.

> Also maybe you'd want to have kids and treat them well, or treat your existing kids well.

Those aren't goals of mine.

> Maybe you should also have a section for some major things you disagree with, some non-goals.

Good suggestion. Some people have important goals relating to the following things, but I don't:

- God
- Having a good physique (for its own sake, beyond what's helpful for achieving a reasonably long expected life span)
- Not eating meat or animal products
- Eating a lot of delicious food (I expend energy on this, but I like to think I would give it up if it became necessary for my health)

Off the top of my head, I can't think of any important goals to disavow beyond those.]]>
Sat, 14 Sep 2019 21:45:31 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13518 http://curi.us/comments/show/13518
curi TheWorldOfParmenides Reddit Conversation Sat, 14 Sep 2019 10:04:07 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13517 http://curi.us/comments/show/13517 curi TheWorldOfParmenides Reddit Conversation
>> Looks like you also violate people's privacy and post their emails publicly if they ever leave your little group.

and

> "Looks like you also violate people's privacy" is referring to Curi's intentions (according to TheWorldOfParmenides). It implies that Curi has bad intentions.

I don't think whether or not I violate people's privacy is about my intentions. I think that's about the facts of my actions.

However, he's suggesting I do it for *revenge* to *punish* people who leave my group. That's about my bad intentions. It's also factually inaccurate (not that he brought up facts).

And he's calling me a privacy violator, which is a typical ad hominem like calling someone a bastard or rapist. It's something that could be considered in a truth-seeking manner (just like one can genuinely seek the truth about someone's parentage or what crimes they've committed), but he isn't doing it that way, he's dealing with it like it's an insult/flame.]]>
Sat, 14 Sep 2019 10:00:02 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13516 http://curi.us/comments/show/13516
Deutschian Brandon Cropper Is Not an Objectivist
It could be referring to "Ayn Rand's philosophy" or "The idea that males are innately or genetically are predisposed to violence is incompatible with Ayn Rand's philosophy".

The latter seems more appropriate to me, but the former is the closest referent. By the way, does a philosophy argue? Or does a *philosopher* argue for a philosophy?

> curi's typical audience doesn't need explanation on that point. It is impossible to make writing entirely self-contained and explain everything.

I am not suggesting to "explain everything" and I understand that curi's typical audience will not need explanation. I am simply pointing out some implicit assumptions that I believe could easily be clarified and make the article understandable even to those who know little about Objectivism and its connection to Ayn Rand. Why introduce a synonym anyway?

> > The referent for the word "he" is ambiguous unless the reader knows that Ayn Rand is female. Nothing in what you have written gives that information.
>
> The title of the piece is "Brandon Cropper Is Not an Objectivist." curi also refers to Cropper twice by name in the body of the article.

I am not sure how this response relates to my criticism.

> "Paragraph" should be plural, "paragraphs."

I spotted that after I posted the comment, but I couldn't find any way to edit it. A typo like that doesn't seem to me to significantly harm readability or comprehensibility. Why did you think it worth mentioning?]]>
Sat, 14 Sep 2019 09:47:30 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13515 http://curi.us/comments/show/13515
curi Brandon Cropper Is Not an Objectivist
Yes. I've deleted it.

>> Do you agree that you have made many mistakes in just these two paragraph?

No. The post wasn't trying to be a basic introduction to Objectivism that informs people about topics like whether Rand was male or female and what the meaning of the word "Objectivism" is. If someone doesn't know anything about that, they aren't the target audience, and they can look it up, skip the post, or take an interest in the main point of the post (about obeying speech restrictions as a method of adhering to a philosophy).

>> What lessons might you learn from this?

The post has other writing flaws which you didn't point out. I already knew what the quality of writing for this post was (understandable, much better than most people can write, but not my personal best). I have already considered issues like which posts I should or shouldn't do editing passes on, and why. This was a quick, informal post that I thought was much better than nothing, but did not want to put a bunch of effort into. I don't regret it. You haven't given me unexpected information, so I have no new reason to change my mind about something.]]>
Sat, 14 Sep 2019 09:34:43 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13514 http://curi.us/comments/show/13514
Anonymous Brandon Cropper Is Not an Objectivist
> This writing is poor. You have carelessly repeated the word "are", which makes the sentence hard to parse.

The second "are" looks to be a typo/editing error.

> The word "its" is ambiguous.

What are the potential referents that you see for "its"?

> You have introduced "Ayn Rand's philosophy" as a synonym for Objectivism, without any explanation or justification.

curi's typical audience doesn't need explanation on that point. It is impossible to make writing entirely self-contained and explain everything.

>> But what stands out to me more is that he's intentionally trying to avoid saying what he thinks.

> The referent for the word "he" is ambiguous unless the reader knows that Ayn Rand is female. Nothing in what you have written gives that information.

The title of the piece is "Brandon Cropper Is Not an Objectivist." curi also refers to Cropper twice by name in the body of the article.

> Do you agree that you have made many mistakes in just these two paragraph? What lessons might you learn from this?

"Paragraph" should be plural, "paragraphs."]]>
Sat, 14 Sep 2019 08:44:30 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13513 http://curi.us/comments/show/13513
Poor quality writing Deutschian Brandon Cropper Is Not an Objectivist
This writing is poor. You have carelessly repeated the word "are", which makes the sentence hard to parse. The word "its" is ambiguous. You have introduced "Ayn Rand's philosophy" as a synonym for Objectivism, without any explanation or justification.

> But what stands out to me more is that he's intentionally trying to avoid saying what he thinks.

The referent for the word "he" is ambiguous unless the reader knows that Ayn Rand is female. Nothing in what you have written gives that information.

Do you agree that you have made many mistakes in just these two paragraph? What lessons might you learn from this?]]>
Sat, 14 Sep 2019 08:32:14 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13512 http://curi.us/comments/show/13512
N TheWorldOfParmenides Reddit Conversation
> TheWorldOfParmenides: I saw the email discussion group. Decided against participating. Looks like what is discussed is not of interest to me at this time. I appreciate the invitation but grammar, Rand, Apple and image analysis are not interesting to me.

TheWorldOfParmenides chose some topics that do not interest him and used that as rationalization to not post to FI. There are plenty of threads that discuss ideas of Popper and DD, if that is what interests TheWorldOfParmenides.

> curi: You can start topics.

Curi also criticizes TheWorldOfParmenides's argument for not wanting to participate to FI.

TheWorldOfParmenides drops the "no interesting topics on FI" argument.

> TheWorldOfParmenides: Looks like you also violate people's privacy and post their emails publicly if they ever leave your little group.

TheWorldOfParmenides changes from arguing for "no interesting topics on FI" to a misinformed argument of privacy violation, which Curi explains (FI is an *public email group*).

"Looks like you also violate people's privacy" is referring to Curi's intentions (according to TheWorldOfParmenides). It implies that Curi has bad intentions. This is ad homimen (from TheWorldOfParmenides's link, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem):
"... argumentum ad hominem, typically *refers to a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character*, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself."

> [TheWorldOfParmenides] You also attacked David Deutsch in defense of a shoddy Philosopher like Rand.

TheWorldOfParmenides calls Rand "a shoddy Philosopher" and gives no arguments for why he considers Rand "a shoddy Philosopher". This is ad hominem.

> [TheWorldOfParmenides] Lot of downsides, no real upsides. Thanks again but no thanks.

Not sure what downsides TheWorldOfParmenides is referring to as Curi told him about availability to start own topics and addressed the privacy issue. (See below or OP.)

> curi: Well, let me know if you develop any counter-arguments to anything I said, or to Objectivism, instead of just ad hominems.

> [curi] Also I didn't violate anyone's privacy. When you email to a public email group, your email is publicly available to anyone. There are archives of all the emails, whether someone left or not, which include the email addresses that sent every email. People can use an email address that isn't attached to your real name (many people do).

> TheWorldOfParmenides: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

> [TheWorldOfParmenides] You should read what an ad-hominem is before you talk about things you don't understand.

Calling Rand "a shoddy Philosopher" and leaving out an argument as to why he consider her to be this, is ad hominem, as far as I can tell.
Appeal to Curi's intentions (posting e-mail address), is ad hominem.
If I am wrong on these two, please explain why.

TheWorldOfParmenides does not explain what was wrong with any of these two issues.

> [TheWorldOfParmenides] Better yet, spend 2 years as intellectual historian and read actual philosophers and realize that Objectivism stole from some of the best and Rand added her own poorly thought out ideas.

TheWorldOfParmenides gives no arguments.

Appeals to authority ("read actual philosophers") yet gives no information to who he considers a "real philosopher" or why.

"... realize that Objectivism stole from some of the best ..."

What did it (Oism) steal, and who are "the best"?
Philosophers build on previous ideas. Is TheWorldOfParmenides saying that this is stealing? Is it only stealing if Rand does it?

"... Rand added her own poorly thought out ideas."

What "poorly thought out ideas"? TheWorldOfParmenides gives no examples, so how can we know?

> [TheWorldOfParmenides] There is a reason that Rand is not taken seriously by professional Philosophers.

What is that reason? TheWorldOfParmenides does not say.

> [TheWorldOfParmenides] The fact that you thought what I said was ad-hom. Typically, (don't feel too bad this is very common) Randians have a very hard time separating ideas from people. If you do embark in an intellectual journey you'll quickly realize this.

Not one single example was given of the many stated statements throughout TheWorldOfParmenides communication.
TheWorldOfParmenides leaves with yet another ad homimen: "Randians have a very hard time separating ideas from people. If you do embark in an intellectual journey you'll quickly realize this."

Not a single argument against Oism or Rand where presented by TheWorldOfParmenides.

> [TheWorldOfParmenides] Good luck!

This is dishonest. Based on what TheWorldOfParmenides has written above, he is not wishing Curi good luck.]]>
Sat, 14 Sep 2019 01:21:16 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13511 http://curi.us/comments/show/13511
Introductory Stuff Anonymous FI Posting Tips https://curi.us/files/keynotes/phil1.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HglYnzSbcI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epbIaGltSHs
http://fallibleideas.com/reason]]>
Fri, 13 Sep 2019 23:26:02 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13510 http://curi.us/comments/show/13510
Dagny Alisa Discussion
You don't talk about relationships. Friends, family, socializing, etc. Maybe you have goals for that?

Other big ones for many people are prestige, reputation and career.

Also maybe you'd want to have kids and treat them well, or treat your existing kids well.

Maybe you should also have a section for some major things you disagree with, some non-goals.]]>
Fri, 13 Sep 2019 22:04:28 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13509 http://curi.us/comments/show/13509
Serious potential problems in my life that I'd like to prevent Alisa Alisa Discussion
- Having an unreasonably low expected value for my lifespan
- Disengaging from public criticism of my ideas
- Lacking sufficient money
- Lacking sufficient free time

This is just a high-level draft. Any big problem areas I'm missing?]]>
Fri, 13 Sep 2019 21:57:09 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13508 http://curi.us/comments/show/13508
Dagny FI Posting Tips
Concretely: if someone says you did something incorrect, dishonest or immoral, *you can ask why they think that, or what their reasons are, or whatever*. If you don’t, you are preventing truth-seeking about the matter, and you’re showing your disinterest in understanding criticism.]]>
Fri, 13 Sep 2019 21:06:19 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13507 http://curi.us/comments/show/13507
curi FI Posting Tips Fri, 13 Sep 2019 19:20:07 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13506 http://curi.us/comments/show/13506 curi Open Discussion (2019)
Write, YouTube, podcast.

> A good example is education. Is there an approachable way an individual can take to tilt it towards better philosophy

Approachable in what sense? You don't specify which obstacles you're concerned with. I don't know how to make school boards approachable.

I think writing, YouTubing and podcasting about education are approachable.

> (assuming they've learnt about the philosophy beforehand, which would be the first step)?

For most people, learning the philosophy beforehand is by far the least approachable step. Almost no one ever does that.

Learning it correctly requires error-correcting discussion, not just reading stuff and thinking you get it. And there's a lot to learn.

Also, hardly anyone learns *both* Critical Rationalism *and* Objectivism. But disliking either one indicates a major problem (there's some reason one dislikes one of the best things that exists) and major ignorance (missing out on tons of the best philosophy knowledge that exists).]]>
Fri, 13 Sep 2019 09:22:43 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13505 http://curi.us/comments/show/13505
Kate Sucking In Your Gut
Is his statement true or false? Also, he's not saying women *should* suck in their gut and care about makeup. He's pointing out what actually happens. That's helpful information in order for people to improve the situation.

Why do you think it's misogynistic?]]>
Fri, 13 Sep 2019 06:59:48 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13504 http://curi.us/comments/show/13504
Anonymous Open Discussion (2019)
> So a very reasonable option is to work a non-special job

That's a really good point. Don't have to be rich to become a better thinker.


I also listened in the 'Humans matter' podcast. I liked it. I was wondering, do you think there is a general purpose way an individual can engage in to help mainstream institutions error correct?

A good example is education. Is there an approachable way an individual can take to tilt it towards better philosophy (assuming they've learnt about the philosophy beforehand, which would be the first step)?]]>
Thu, 12 Sep 2019 21:56:29 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13503 http://curi.us/comments/show/13503
Proposal for a personal list of big problems & solutions Alisa Alisa Discussion
If applicable, for each problem, I could list some alternative solutions I considered and rejected, along with why I rejected them.]]>
Thu, 12 Sep 2019 21:49:48 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13502 http://curi.us/comments/show/13502
Anonymous Sucking In Your Gut Thu, 12 Sep 2019 18:50:01 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13501 http://curi.us/comments/show/13501 Anonymous Open Discussion (2019)
[4:15 PM] TheRat: curi clearly has autism and has no idea how to socialize, take jokes or even understand what people are saying in-explicitly. Trying to build a philosophical world view based on his failure to understand people is a ridiculous endeavor. Now I know why DD wants nothing to do with this wanna be nonsense. This isn't Philosophy, this is a cult!

I am out. Gl to the rest of you who have drank his holy kool-aid. I hope you can deprogram yourselves and see him for the farce that he is. Can't even tel Discord Warrior is a troll.]]>
Thu, 12 Sep 2019 16:39:19 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13500 http://curi.us/comments/show/13500
Anonymous Open Discussion (2019) Thu, 12 Sep 2019 15:03:56 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13499 http://curi.us/comments/show/13499 curi Sucking In Your Gut
The post is about some of the pressure women are under, and is criticizing that pressure. You don't seem to have understood it.

> Also, the implication that you can't be traditionally feminine while pursuing knowledge and education is disgusting. Think about if you were told your masculinity was getting in the way of your education. You would be outraged.

Conventional masculinity *is terrible and gets in the way of education*.]]>
Thu, 12 Sep 2019 14:28:35 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13498 http://curi.us/comments/show/13498
Anonymous Sucking In Your Gut Also, the implication that you can't be traditionally feminine while pursuing knowledge and education is disgusting. Think about if you were told your masculinity was getting in the way of your education. You would be outraged.]]> Thu, 12 Sep 2019 14:23:33 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13497 http://curi.us/comments/show/13497 Misogyny Anonymous Sucking In Your Gut Thu, 12 Sep 2019 14:20:46 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13496 http://curi.us/comments/show/13496 curi List of Fallible Ideas Evaders Thu, 12 Sep 2019 11:05:12 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13495 http://curi.us/comments/show/13495 kevin List of Fallible Ideas Evaders Thu, 12 Sep 2019 11:00:22 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13494 http://curi.us/comments/show/13494 curi Critical Review of Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature Thu, 12 Sep 2019 09:58:03 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13493 http://curi.us/comments/show/13493 curi FI Posting Tips Thu, 12 Sep 2019 09:56:57 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13492 http://curi.us/comments/show/13492 N Critical Review of Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature
That link is not working anymore.]]>
Thu, 12 Sep 2019 08:21:09 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13491 http://curi.us/comments/show/13491
N FI Posting Tips
(My emphasis.)

How about when quoting from a video talk / lecture? Should we just link with a time stamp?

I think manually typing the quote, as well as linking the source, would make a *second exception* for manual typing of quotes. Am I wrong?]]>
Thu, 12 Sep 2019 07:57:50 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13490 http://curi.us/comments/show/13490
curi What To Read Thu, 12 Sep 2019 00:57:36 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13489 http://curi.us/comments/show/13489 Hotels/motels without air conditioning Alisa Alisa Discussion
As an example of a hotel without air conditioning, consider [Marin Suites Hotel](https://www.marinsuites.com), which is [rated 3.5 on tripadvisor with 657 reviews](http://archive.is/WHSiw). (This is an example hotel I found by [searching tripadvisor for "no air conditioning"](https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=%22no+air+conditioning%22+site:tripadvisor.com)). The [hotel's own page describing their rooms](https://www.marinsuites.com/suites) doesn't mention air conditioning among the amenities, but it also doesn't mention it as something missing. In contrast, the hotel's tripadvisor page (linked above) says the rooms *do* have air conditioning.

Regarding the hotel, someone on tripadvisor [asked](https://www.tripadvisor.com/FAQ_Answers-g32252-d76626-t721255-Is_it_true_that_there_is_no_air_conditioning_in.html):

> Is it true that there is no air conditioning in this hotel? I have a reservation in June, and I do not want to stay without air conditioning!

A hotel representative replied:

> Yes it is true that we do not have air conditioning in the hotel. We have a portable cooler that we have in the living room and provide one for each bedroom. Please let me know if I can help you with any other questions.

Judging by some other comments on that page, the "cooler" provided by the hotel is either a fan or a [swamp cooler](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evaporative_cooler):

> They provide fans in each room including front room. We were there this past weekend for the fifth time in a row each time in July.

> No AC........The swamp coolers don't work when its hot. Stay there in June, 2017 and the rooms were 95 degrees.]]>
Wed, 11 Sep 2019 23:28:46 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13488 http://curi.us/comments/show/13488
curi Open Discussion (2019)
Philosophy – rational thinking, how to learn, how to judge ideas, etc. – is the best skill to power up in. It lets you learn programming, among other things.

For *financial* skills, programming is the best. It's not the best for everyone – it depends on your situation – but overall, on average, I can't think of anything superior.

I still get the majority of my income from programming – at home, on my own schedule, and also I do projects alone, I haven't worked with other programmers for years.

> Like, people could choose also freelance journalism, that sounds flexible too.

I think it's really hard to make much money doing that.

I have a more favorable opinion of YouTuber, Twitch streamer, or, hell, freelance philosopher. Charles Tew had his Patreon income up to $1500/month after like two years of making podcasts and videos like once or twice a week. Surely, with skill, there are ways to do better – *if* you're good at philosophy, *then* that doesn't sound to me like a harder or worse option than freelance journalism.

If you need an income *while* you learn philosophy, the problem with learning programming and getting going in a career in it is that it's a huge distraction, a big delay on learning philosophy, a big piece of your life where you aren't prioritizing your philosophy education. You may make tons of decisions, some lasting, before getting around to doing more philosophy.

So a very reasonable option is to work a non-special job. Just something that isn't too tiring and lets you listen to audio books a lot of the time. And be poor. Or if your family has some money – or really even if they don't – that can work pretty well especially if you live very cheaply at home, then maybe you can work part time or not at all for a while, or maybe you can spend your college fund but skip college – it'd be for the purpose of getting an education, anyway. But your parents might not be supportive – they might be skeptical and think you're lazy.

What if you're older? Well then I imagine you already have a career of some sort, or at least a job. If you've already got a job, and bills to pay, maybe even kids, and you're going to learn something on the side, I'd generally recommend just doing philosophy over the three-part plan of learning programming then changing careers then doing philosophy.]]>
Wed, 11 Sep 2019 22:39:10 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13487 http://curi.us/comments/show/13487
curi What To Read
I read *The Warrior's Apprentice* by Lois Bujold. I liked it a lot! I recommend it! And now I see that it's a series. There are like 30 books by this author in this world! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vorkosigan_Saga#Works

It wasn't intellectual or "hard" sci-fi, but it was fun and had a positive sense of life. It was a hero's journey.

(I got several books at once and had totally forgotten which were standalone and which weren't. The book reads find as a standalone book but also introduces a world where more could happen.)]]>
Wed, 11 Sep 2019 22:01:07 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13486 http://curi.us/comments/show/13486
How Long To Learn FI Basics? curi FI Posting Tips
> @AnneB I'd like to ask you a few things if that's okay. You said you got better at discussing things, I can see that being the case. My question though is how long have you been with FI? And after that time have you finally started talking about CR and Popper? I ask because I recall seeing an older email or curi website post in where you said you want to do this but you felt not ready. My assumption, and please forgive me if I am wrong and correct this assumption, is that after perhaps years you still aren't discussing Popper but still in the process of *getting ready to* discuss Popper.

K-12 school is 13 years of getting *partially* ready to discuss Popper. It’s not enough. Throw in 10 more years to get a philosophy PhD and people are often worse at it than when they graduated high school. It takes a lot of knowledge to be ready to discuss Popper productively, as well as unlearning some of the bad ideas of our culture.

K-12 is not focused on teaching the minimal stuff needed for Popper discussions. But I don’t think it has a lot extra, either. Being well-rounded matters. I don’t think sports and art are irrelevant anymore than I’d think getting good at chess or Overwatch was irrelevant. I think sports and art aren’t taught very well or usefully in K-12, and pushing them on people who don’t want them is bad, but the same thing would happen with chess or Overwatch if they were taught in K-12. The problem isn’t inherent in sports or art.

Could people on FI get to Popper discussions faster? Sure. Anne *has been voluntarily choosing* not to go for Popper ASAP. She’s not in a hurry. She’s acting in a way that is OK with her. Anne has been doing grammar stuff productively for a few months. That’s not that long. And she’s gotten dramatically better at it. The difference is really visible. She considered moving on to something else a few weeks ago, which would have been OK, but decided to continue with more grammar (using the Peikoff materials).

To have a productive discussion about Popper, people ought to have like ten substantial, productive discussions first. Maybe fewer would do but I don’t think ten is too much to ask. That could be done in under a month if it goes well.

What happens with some people is they resist the introductory steps, and skip them, and spend months not doing them. They do a bunch of unproductive stuff when they could have learned the basics in less time if they hadn’t refused.

People are allowed to post about Popper at the start but what usually happens is they make a bunch of discussion and method mistakes *and* a bunch of mistakes about Popper. And it’s hard to deal with so many mistakes, of multiple types, at the same time, while also dealing with a person who doesn’t know discussion methods for handling such a thing.

Most people don’t want to face reality regarding how ineffective their education was, how ignorant they are, and how far they are from being a productive philosopher. Their *professors* (or middle school teachers) are not productive philosophers, and there’s a *big* gap from their professors to someone like me or DD, so they should have low expectations about their starting place.

It’s not that Popper is so hard, inherently, but that people have a lot of bad ideas from our culture that get in the way. Those are what make ten successful discussions – even about easier topics – take months or years (or usually just never) to achieve. E.g. Rat is already predisposed to think accurate quoting isn’t important. He’s coming to us with bad attitudes to scholarship standards. And he isn’t neutral on the matter and open to finding out what the right standards are, he’s actually adversarial about it.

To have successful conversations, you need some baseline understanding of what those look like, what they take, how they work. This includes e.g. a reasonable understanding of how to use quotes and engage with people, rather than talking past them or responding to in inaccurate summary of what you remember them saying. And it includes some understanding of how to ask questions about problems, or otherwise bring them up, rather than making a bunch of silent (not communicated) assumptions with no way for problem solving to happen. And it includes being able to ask and answer clear, short, direct questions, including a bunch in a row that clarify small things. And it involves having an attitude to discussion where you respect error correction instead of dismissing it as a minor – or if you actually have an argument why certain errors don’t matter to the goals at hand, you say the argument. But without an argument for some error not mattering, *and* the other guy thinking it matters, you should be *happy* to address it and view it as progress. Without that sort of attitude, lots of errors accumulate in a complex discussion and destroy it.

Having some *examples* of successful conversations gives you some guidance for how to discuss. It gives you something to aim for. It gives you targets and experience with what works and doesn’t work. It’s best if you have at least one successful prior conversation with complexity of at least 80% as much as your target conversation. That is, don’t increase conversation complexity by more than 25% at a time. That’s fast and lenient, and is too much in many cases, but it gives some guidance that I think people should be able to agree is reasonable. Success rate matters too. If you have one success in one try at 80 complexity, that’s different than one success out of five tries. It’s also different if you failed 4 times, then got it on the 5th try – maybe you figured out a few key things – vs. if you failed twice, succeeded once, then failed twice more (your reliability of conversation success at that complexity level is definitely still bad).

Most people come to FI with a view that most errors don’t matter much and can and should mostly be ignored, especially small errors. They cannot define which errors are small and don’t have a clear idea of when errors need addressing. But overall their attitude is quite different than the FI attitude. This is the sort of thing where, if you don’t address it, it causes problems in many other discussions on any topic. So it should get some attention early. Lots of people disagree about something like this but then don’t bring it up, they just dislike it without saying so, so they can neither persuade nor be persuaded about it.

People should say their concerns like that dealing with all the errors will be endless hairsplitting. They should talk about that instead of just disliking replies they get but not expressing the problem.

Can I address this kind of thing preemptively with an essay? Sure. I do have relevant essays. But there are many other things too. Even if I write about all of them, people won’t (and shouldn’t) read *and understand* all that before talking. The method of saying disagreements (including things you dislike, people should recognize those as points of disagreement) is crucial to having successful conversations.

There is also discussion organization stuff that’s needed before complex discussions. Can't discuss a 20-part topic if you don't know how to organize a 50+ part discussion (it's gonna branch some). How to (and not to) focus a discussion is a key issue. How branches can and can't be pruned or kept to a low number. How to keep track of them all, set some aside for later, choose which to prioritize, etc.

Also not getting mad is a pretty prerequisite skill.

The view of *everything* as ideas that reason applies to – and getting that to be ingrained in how you think – is one of the basic skills which is really helpful to discussing e.g. Popper productively.

Another thing people do is they don’t like something, don’t reply directly, and then bring it up in passing later. It matters to them, but they bring it up in a negative way that isn’t trying to do problem solving or truth seeking, and assumes the conclusion.]]>
Wed, 11 Sep 2019 12:11:46 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13485 http://curi.us/comments/show/13485
curi Rationally Resolving Conflicts of Ideas
To be clear (since I didn't say anything), my plan is just to wait for this.]]>
Wed, 11 Sep 2019 09:31:22 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13484 http://curi.us/comments/show/13484
Skills to power up Anonymous Open Discussion (2019)
However, those skills are hard to trade (you can't setup a 'reason' store near your house and expect people to pay you) in a market-place. To my understanding, it seems as though the best skill to power up in, is programming. Because, even if you wanted to do more than just support yourself, it is the most flexible high skilled career. That is, if you wanted to help fix the schooling system somehow, because programming as a money earning skill is so flexible, you could spend all your flex time learning about TCS or coming up with plans etc. And, you'd still be able to put food on your table.

Like, people could choose also freelance journalism, that sounds flexible too. But, there seems to be a lot more BS to deal with in that field. And, what constitutes high skill seems less well understood and poorly paid in comparison.

Do people agree? Or, do they have any other suggestions for what could be a great flexible skill to power up in that could also earn them money to live off (in the future)?]]>
Wed, 11 Sep 2019 08:37:45 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13483 http://curi.us/comments/show/13483
Anonymous Open Discussion (2019) Tue, 10 Sep 2019 19:32:32 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13482 http://curi.us/comments/show/13482 Anonymous Open Discussion (2019) Tue, 10 Sep 2019 19:17:23 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13481 http://curi.us/comments/show/13481 k Open Discussion (2019)
#13478 I don't think I would try mindfulness meditation because I don't know what the standard is to judge whether you're doing it in a way where you can make progress. My guess is that it's similar to learning how to pay attention during lecture or when reading books, but instead you're learning how to pay attention to your breath.]]>
Tue, 10 Sep 2019 19:07:31 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13480 http://curi.us/comments/show/13480
Anonymous Brandon Cropper Is Not an Objectivist
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQn1BQL1xws]]>
Mon, 09 Sep 2019 23:40:57 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13479 http://curi.us/comments/show/13479
Anonymous Open Discussion (2019) Mon, 09 Sep 2019 21:36:13 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13478 http://curi.us/comments/show/13478 Brett vs. Rafe curi Open Discussion (2019)
Brett writes (I assume it's Brett Hall):

> Rami, Popperian Epistemology is taught in University Philosophy Departments.
>
> How do YOU know it is not?

Where are all these people who learn Popper in school? Wouldn't I have met a bunch of them. Brett is unreasonable. And, anyway, Rafe Champion investigated this.

RC in 2009:

> I have been perplexed over the years by the number of times that I have read and heard views attributed to Popper which don't sound quite the same as the ideas of the man himself, at least as I understood him.

> This prompted some questions about what was being taught to undergraduates and in 1989 I surveyed the undergraduate courses and reading lists in Philosophy, Politics and Sociology in the (then) 21 Australian universities. The objective was to find what they were being told about Popper and Hayek who I regarded as the twin pillars of anti-scientism and classical liberalism. The short answer is that you had to be very lucky to get more than a passing reference to Popper and the situation with Hayek was worse.

> Round about 1998 I wanted to repeat the survey but there were more than 50 universities thanks to the recruitment of a heap of minor colleges who used to award diplomas in teaching, arts and crafts, rural studies etc. So instead I searched 200+ websites of philosophy schools, mostly in the US but also a few others like Cambridge. The story was the same, Popper rated a mention as a part of the convulsion in the field that involved Kuhn, Lakatos, Feyerabend and the sociology of science. No indication that his contribution was more robust or extended into other fields where he did first order work - evolutionary epistemology, logic and probabililty theory, metaphysics, philosophy of mind, history of ideas, politics and the social sciences. Cambridge at that time was arguable the worst course in the world in terms of keeping positivism alive!

> ...

> So again I wondered about the contents of introductory books on philosophy and promptly borrowed ten or a dozen from the local public library to do a serious study. Some of these books are written for popular consumption, some are written to support uni courses. They are all written by academics and they are published by reputable presses so even if they keep it simple they should also keep it accurate.

> All that I have examined so far present a more or less distorted account of Popper's ideas. Some of the errors are repeated, almost word for word, suggesting that there is some primary source that they are drawing on (not yet identified because they don't tend to quote with citations, they just have reading lists at the end of the book or the chapter).

RC in 2011:

> FWIW I have been making a more or less systematic study of misconceptions about Popper, starting with a survey of about 45 introductory philosophy texts in the three nearest public libraries.

> One of the misconceptions in many texts is that Popper is just a philosopher of science and not an epistemologist, so you will probablyl find Popper mispresented in the philosophy of science chapter but not mentioned at all in the chapter on epistemology!

He also shared detailed info, e.g. many quotes and criticisms. You can find some of his research at http://www.the-rathouse.com and http://www.criticalrationalism.net]]>
Mon, 09 Sep 2019 21:01:16 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13477 http://curi.us/comments/show/13477
Eating when not hungry Alisa Open Thread: Diet and Exercise
> - 3. Normal - would only eat something tasty.

For many years now, I've done most of my eating at hunger level 3 ("normal"). I'm unclear on why. Do I enjoy the taste of food during those times? Do I enjoy something else about the experience? Or do I not enjoy the experience at all, but obtain from it a sense of relief or a distraction from something unpleasant?

Seeking answers, I've been trying to understand my experience when I eat at level 3 ("normal"). I've tentatively concluded that the food tastes good even at level 3, but it's not entirely clear. Also, I realized that eating at level 3 leads to being at hunger level 1 ("stuffed"), which is physically unpleasant.]]>
Sun, 08 Sep 2019 22:13:04 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13476 http://curi.us/comments/show/13476
Alisa Open Thread: Diet and Exercise
My argument about hunger and the enjoyment of food from #13429 treated hunger and tastiness as binary. This is OK, even though hunger and tastiness actually exist in degrees or levels. Here's why:

Hunger levels higher than 4 are irrelevant to my argument, because I don't currently plan to experience them. And tastiness levels of less than the tastiest thing I currently want are also irrelevant, because I can generally, without too much trouble, find something to eat that is about that tasty. (An exception would be if it's 4am and I want something that only a certain restaurant serves, and that restaurant is closed. But if this becomes a recurring issue, I can plan around it.)]]>
Sat, 07 Sep 2019 22:00:29 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13475 http://curi.us/comments/show/13475
Anonymous Open Discussion (2019)
> I thought they added those around because stuff like Animoji's and bitmoji's are popular, and people can use these kinda the same.

oh competing with Animoji and bitmoji makes sense. i saw a bunch of news articles talking about emojis getting more diverse and kinda vaguely thought it was for SJW kinda reasons.

> do you think everything should just be default yellow or white?

before reconsidering, i liked the yellow.

> why is it worse to allow ppl to change the skin tones?

i think maybe i have some negative connotations cuz a lot of the use of skin tone emojis i've seen have been brown/black fists by lefties on Twitter in contexts involving their left-wing politics, violence, etc 👊🏿✊🏾

but that's a biased subsample, vast majority of usage could be fine, nbd. i'll tentatively drop my opposition to skin tone emojis for now.]]>
Sat, 07 Sep 2019 18:55:12 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13474 http://curi.us/comments/show/13474
Anonymous Open Discussion (2019) Sat, 07 Sep 2019 16:49:55 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13473 http://curi.us/comments/show/13473 Anonymous Open Discussion (2019) Sat, 07 Sep 2019 16:49:25 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13472 http://curi.us/comments/show/13472 Anonymous Open Discussion (2019)
The quote link is fine for quoting one comment but if you want to look back over other comments while replying and also read/include stuff from other comments you need to scroll up. Same if you accidently delete stuff while replying.

Focusing the comment box shouldn't cause other text to rescale and go off the side of the screen. When I hit reply/quote the comment box is initially about half the screen width with tiny text. Everything magnifies and rescales after focusing. So I suggest make the comment box have text in the same font as everything above and initially at the width of the screen so it doesn't rescale on focus.]]>
Sat, 07 Sep 2019 16:40:42 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13471 http://curi.us/comments/show/13471
Anonymous Open Discussion (2019)
I thought they added those around because stuff like Animoji's and bitmoji's are popular, and people can use these kinda the same.

do you think everything should just be default yellow or white? why is it worse to allow ppl to change the skin tones?]]>
Sat, 07 Sep 2019 12:48:53 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13470 http://curi.us/comments/show/13470
Justin Mallone Open Discussion (2019)
> But I think you kinda like chats. And you had like a 500 message chat with Freeze after saying this, which seems more than supplementary.

> Seems a bit "Do as I say, not as I do."

That's fair. I had a thought along those lines during the chat. But there aren't many high energy people who come to the chat so I was happy to do heavy chatting for a while.

>> curi's blog comments are better than chat tho not as good as email.

> I think they're about as good as email in terms of format. Some upsides, some downsides. Culturally ppl treat FI list more seriously but I encourage ppl to treat curi seriously, I think it's generally easier to use for ppl (at least if they go find a quiet topic to use instead of using the open discussion one when multiple ppl are talking about multiple things).

ok.

> Freeze: i've been trying to figure out how to think but apparently that's a strange question to ask

> That's a good question, I don't see what's strange.

yeah i agree.

> Freeze: has Elliot ever gone back and criticized some of his old ideas?
> JustinCEO: sure. less so recently cuz he doesn't get much criticism on his current ideas that he hasn't already seen.

> What? I don't get how lack of recent crit would be a reason *not* to self-crit older stuff. Seems like a reason *to* do it.

oh yeah. i had a thought that this reply was mistaken but i forgot to follow up on it.

i think I got confused and was partially replying to something else, like "has curi gone back and revised some of his old ideas?" or something.

> [7:59 AM] JustinCEO: emojis are okay ionno.

> ??? u like emojis!

well they're fine but i dunno that I would say they're awesome. and we were talking about adding emojis, and a lot of the emojis they have added were for like diversity purposes (to make sure everyone can have the right skin tone vampire or whatever 🧛🏿‍♂️) which I had in mind as I wrote my comment and which I think is a bit silly.]]>
Sat, 07 Sep 2019 12:33:23 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13469 http://curi.us/comments/show/13469
Discord Comments curi Open Discussion (2019)
But I think you kinda like chats. And you had like a 500 message chat with Freeze after saying this, which seems more than supplementary.

Seems a bit "Do as I say, not as I do."

> curi's blog comments are better than chat tho not as good as email.

I think they're about as good as email in terms of format. Some upsides, some downsides. Culturally ppl treat FI list more seriously but I encourage ppl to treat curi seriously, I think it's generally easier to use for ppl (at least if they go find a quiet topic to use instead of using the open discussion one when multiple ppl are talking about multiple things).

Freeze: i've been trying to figure out how to think but apparently that's a strange question to ask

That's a good question, I don't see what's strange.



Freeze: has Elliot ever gone back and criticized some of his old ideas?
JustinCEO: sure. less so recently cuz he doesn't get much criticism on his current ideas that he hasn't already seen.

What? I don't get how lack of recent crit would be a reason *not* to self-crit older stuff. Seems like a reason *to* do it.




[6:54 AM] Freeze: this idea of sacrificing yourself for the greater good as ultimately being counterproductive, and that it's better to prioritize yourself first and help others when it's cheap and easy
[6:55 AM] Freeze: seems to run completely counter to effective altruism

I agree!!

> I think I interpret this idea as... if we prioritize the autonomy of people, we will be creative in finding ways to do things easily rather than at great personal cost, which in the long-term will drive progress. Maybe the EA strategy is more short-term effective but long-term counterproductive since it almost stymies progress on making things cheaper/easier?

Yeah the best strategy, in short, is *capitalism*. That is where wealth comes from. Charity stuff is about how to divide up the pie (total wealth). Capitalism is about making the pie bigger. And capitalism is so powerful that it can make the pie so much bigger that everyone ends up with way more pretty regardless of distribution.

Freeze: i think there was one idea i heard about, maybe from deutsch, that was to have large space panels to reflect sunlight away
[6:58 AM] Freeze: and it just made me realize.. as far as i can tell, we've barely been considering ideas that aren't about reducing emissions or ejecting/storing CO2

Be careful mistaking *what you hear about in the press* for *what humanity has considered*. Some people are working on good stuff. There is a scientist bias, but there is a larger press bias than scientist bias. The press (and other mechanisms of mass communcation) make the bias look bigger than it is cuz they are really biased people.

> I had never even considered the possibility of something like blocking sunlight, and it made me wonder what other possibilities are we just not thinking about because we're so focused on certain aspects to the detriment of others?

There are so many ideas people won't even think about. If it gets hot, Canada will be really nice (and it's really got a lot of land for the number of people). Maybe the Mexicans and others nearer the equator can move there... antarctica could become habitable too.

> so in a way I wonder if EA has some of the same pitfalls, in that if we look at maximizing good for people at any cost to the sacrificers, are we missing out on better ways to address the problem because we're allocating our attention/creativity in the wrong direction?

win/win solutions are possible. sacrifice is a sign something is going wrong.

[7:01 AM] JustinCEO: one is that various proposals to cut America's CO2 emissions won't actually do the job of reducing them enough according to the models of the people advocating them
[7:01 AM] Freeze: right
[7:02 AM] Freeze: is it that they just don't know of a better alternative to advocate for?

No, it's that the global warming movement doesn't actually care about the environment, they care about socialism and shutting down industry. shutting down first world industry *is their actual goal*.

JustinCEO: so they just want to reduce industrial production in exchange for nothing

cuz it's an end in itself, it's their goal! and there are reasons for that. there are reasons they are anti-capitalism, anti-technology, etc.

JustinCEO: their goal is to reduce human impact on the earth, and to have a more wild, untamed planet in which humans are less significant, as an end in itself

Yeah that is one of their actual reasons and motiviations. Various pieces of Marxism is another big one.

> i just never knew about >, which is so simple and even looks better

discord just added block quotes recently.

> it's so cool how all of these ideas are so linked

Well I had thousands of discussions with DD. DD was the founder of Taking Children Seriously (where the "coercion" idea you mentioned comes from). There have been ongoing email list discussions for many years where people develop ideas. They are linked because they weren't created separately. Yeah there is the general issue of truth being linked with other truth, and ideas fitting together. That's cool. But the bigger thing here is you're looking at a bunch of ideas developed by the same people (mostly me and DD) who were in communication, talking a lot, so that's why it fits together.

JustinCEO: see i think Alan has in mind there an idea of like, error being an acceptable state, and he's contradicting that

Alan was joking around.

Freeze: is there any such thing as making an error less erroneous but still an error, or are all errors equally erroneous?

Epistemology works better if you formulate clear problems with success and failure criteria which define what is an error (failure) and what isn't. It works better with a focus on two categories. Other problem specifications cause trouble.

> that... a lot of what we know has some elements of truth, and some elements of falsity, and we don't always know how to tell the difference between the two, but we can get better at differentiating between them, and that represents progress towards the truth?

That's fine as an approximation. One of the nuances it approximates is that an idea can solve one problem but fail to solve a different problem – it works in one way but not another.

Freeze: so this means two people discussing something could both have a different idea of the specific problem
[7:52 AM] Freeze: and so one could perceive error and another could perceive no error

Yeah, it's really important not just to talk about solutions or claims, but also what the problem(s) or goal(s) actually are.

[7:59 AM] JustinCEO: emojis are okay ionno.

??? u like emojis!

Freeze: is there any way that eliminating logs could represent progress

Normal mainstream people mostly dislike logs because they don't want to be expected to use them, nor have their old messages stalked, nor have the logs shared. They don't want good records of what they said b/c they contradict themselves and lie and shit. People don't want their own words used against them. They want to be able to misremember things and then agree to disagree about it. Also look at Snapchat and why people use that. It's related.

BTW discord is hostile to bots that do logging, they don't want that.

> but in this case it might be like 20 hours of dev time or

FYI that's an extremely low estimate for adding logging to discord.

Freeze: huh... so on one hand it's like that use of diversity almost segregates people more

Intellectual diversity has merit but that's not what the diversity ppl want. Caring about racial diversity is racist. Caring about gender diversity is sexist. etc. They are collectivist bigots who are seeking special favors for particular groups.

> it's kind of cool that wealth creation is a concept we take for granted today

it's not though. there is so much opposition to it. e.g. the EA community doesn't like Objectivism and capitalism. (and, as is my complaint about most groups for most issues, won't productively debate that matter to a conclusion.)

> so is Ayn saying that the fear caused by whips and guns and threats of life is fundamentally different from the fear caused by economic insecurity/feeling like you'll be homeless/starve if you don't keep your job

yes. this article will help explain our perspective more: https://freeliberalism.com/liberalism


related to the discussion in general, i have some relevant podcasts and videos too, like: https://curi.us/podcast/overreaching-and-powering-up (and note the links in the description, too) https://curi.us/podcast/how-to-learn-philosophy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HglYnzSbcI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0aKChV-X_I]]>
Sat, 07 Sep 2019 12:13:33 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13468 http://curi.us/comments/show/13468
Anonymous Open Discussion (2019) Sat, 07 Sep 2019 09:45:40 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13467 http://curi.us/comments/show/13467 Anonymous Open Discussion (2019) Sat, 07 Sep 2019 02:30:37 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13466 http://curi.us/comments/show/13466 Anonymous Open Discussion (2019) Sat, 07 Sep 2019 02:24:50 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13465 http://curi.us/comments/show/13465 curi Open Discussion (2019) Sat, 07 Sep 2019 01:22:01 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13464 http://curi.us/comments/show/13464 Anonymous Open Discussion (2019) Sat, 07 Sep 2019 00:58:27 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13463 http://curi.us/comments/show/13463 Anonymous Open Discussion (2019)
> ... it has been conjectured that
[ancient Romans] specific plumbing techniques, based on lead pipes, which poisoned their drinking water, contributed to the decline of the Roman Empire.

DD doesn't provide a reference. He just gives an explanationless assertion (ironically, in a chapter emphasizing the importance of explanations). The conjecture is a myth and was known to be so at the time of publication of FoR:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/24633202?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Here is some recent reseach on lead levels in Roman drinking water:

https://www.pnas.org/content/111/18/6594

> This work has shown that the labile fraction of sediments from Portus and the Tiber bedload attests to pervasive Pb contamination of river water by the Pb plumbing controlling water distribution in Rome. Lead pollution of “tap water” in Roman times is clearly measurable, but unlikely to have been truly harmful. The discontinuities punctuating the Pb isotope record provide a strong background against which ideas about the changing character of the port can be tested.]]>
Sat, 07 Sep 2019 00:52:24 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13462 http://curi.us/comments/show/13462
Levels of tastiness and hunger Alisa Open Thread: Diet and Exercise
Yes, there are different levels of tastiness. For example, I regard both chocolate ice cream and frosted chocolate cupcakes as tasty, but I generally consider frosted chocolate cupcakes to be tastier than chocolate ice cream.

I think there are also different levels of hunger. I think about them in terms of what I would be willing to eat. Below are some different levels of hunger, along with some approximate names. They are listed in order of increasing hunger, except for levels 2a and 2b, which I regard as being on the same level.

- 1. Stuffed - wouldn't eat anything, no matter how delicious.
- 2a. Full of non-sweets - would only eat something tasty & sweet (see below).
- 2b. Full of sweets - would only eat something tasty & non-sweet (see below).
- 3. Normal - would only eat something tasty.
- 4. Hungry - would eat something bland or neutral, such as a plain, unsalted boiled potato or porridge without sugar.
- 5. Starving - would eat something gross, such as a worm.

Regarding levels 2a and 2b: it's as if there are two kinds of "full". I can be full from dinner but still have room for dessert. Or say I ate a lot of sweets and don't want any more sweets; there are times when I could still eat some steak.

I think level 4 is when I'm *actually* hungry. The fact that I would eat something bland is a sign that I'm not eating just for the taste. I take that as a sign that my body wants nutrition or energy.]]>
Fri, 06 Sep 2019 20:53:53 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13461 http://curi.us/comments/show/13461
Anonymous Open Discussion (2019)
Don't be satisfied with messy solutions. Look for good, simple solutions.

Try to solve things multiple ways and then compare the solutions to see which are better and why.

Don't try to stop early. If you don't know what the key issues are, in simple terms, you could improve it.

These things are crucial for practice/learning, and they also apply most of the time in scenarios where the main goal is to get the project done successfully. But be aware in some cases, getting it done at all and moving on, even with a kinda bad solution, is appropriate.]]>
Fri, 06 Sep 2019 12:13:47 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13460 http://curi.us/comments/show/13460
Anonymous Open Discussion (2019)
> This is because all the labels make claims about where the gold is, so knowing where the gold is makes those claims simple to evaluate.

Ah yes. Agreed. I see what you mean now.

> This is both an extra step, and harder steps, compared to the other method.

Do you know any generally applicable ways to correct for this error? I am interpreting the error as: overcomplicating logical reasoning processes unnecessarily.]]>
Thu, 05 Sep 2019 21:35:44 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13459 http://curi.us/comments/show/13459
curi Submit Podcast Questions Thu, 05 Sep 2019 16:00:36 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13458 http://curi.us/comments/show/13458 Anonymous Open Thread: Diet and Exercise Thu, 05 Sep 2019 13:53:16 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13457 http://curi.us/comments/show/13457 Alisa Open Thread: Diet and Exercise
I was aiming to maximize my total enjoyment from the taste of food over the course of time. However, I haven't been thinking in terms of *degrees* of hunger or *degrees* of tastiness. Instead, I was just treating hunger and tastiness as binary things. That is, I'm either hungry or I'm not at any given time, and any given food is either tasty or it's not. Given that, I was thinking that I would only enjoy the taste of food when all of the following are true:

- I am hungry
- The food is tasty]]>
Thu, 05 Sep 2019 13:49:59 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13456 http://curi.us/comments/show/13456
Anonymous Open Discussion (2019) Thu, 05 Sep 2019 13:45:44 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13455 http://curi.us/comments/show/13455 Anonymous Open Discussion (2019)
> You are right, I did not explain everything in clear or sufficient detail.

That's not what I meant. The two case method you used is still more confusing, and harder, even if you got everything right and explained more. It has more steps and more and longer chains of logic.

If you say "ok, let's assume the gold is in box 1" then you can evaluate each of the three box's labels next and they are all easy at that point. the chains of thought only reach 2 steps. (3 steps chains if you count "let's go through the 3 boxes, 1 by 1" as the first step). This is because all the labels make claims about where the gold is, so knowing where the gold is makes those claims simple to evaluate.

Evaluating box labels given the truth or falsity of other box labels is more confusing. That's because the labels are easy to evaluate in terms of where the gold is. But they aren't directly about the truth or falsity of other labels, so you have to do a two-step chain: figure out what (possibly partial) information you have about gold location from the label truth or falsity, then take that gold location info and use it to evaluate another label. This is both an extra step, and harder steps, compared to the other method.]]>
Thu, 05 Sep 2019 10:10:44 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13454 http://curi.us/comments/show/13454
Anne B Open Thread: Diet and Exercise
Example: You eat once in a day and are hungry so you get enjoyment 10 out of it; total enjoyment that day 10. Or you eat five times that day and are not very hungry each time so you get enjoyment 3 each time; total enjoyment that day 15.]]>
Thu, 05 Sep 2019 04:31:04 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13453 http://curi.us/comments/show/13453
Anonymous Open Discussion (2019)
*Updated solution*

The problem says exactly one of the statements is true. That gives us three cases: Box 1's statement is true, Box 2's statement is true or Box 3's statement is true.

We can rule out Box 2's statement being true because that would imply that Box 1 and Box 3's statements are both false. But, Box 1 and Box 3's statements contradict each other, so both statements can't be both false (or true) at the same time. That leaves us with Box 1 or Box 3's statement being true. Thus, we have two cases.

Case 1: Box 1's statement is true and the other two are false.

This causes a contradiction between the Box 1's statement (which is taken to be true in this case) and Box 2's statement (which is taken to be false in this case). This case leads to a contradiction so we can dispense with it.

So, Case 2 must be correct, we just need to find out where the gold is.

Case 2: Box 3's statement is true and the other two are false.

If Box 3's statement is true then the gold cannot be Box 1. This is good because it doesn't contradict Box 1's statement being false, which itself implies Box 1 doesn't have the gold. That leaves us with Box 2's statement being false, which implies it has the gold. The statements' truth values (in this case) are non-contradictory with the gold in Box 2.



Is this better? It should have all the details that were missing from the last solution.]]>
Thu, 05 Sep 2019 02:02:41 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13452 http://curi.us/comments/show/13452
Anonymous Open Discussion (2019)
> Your division into two cases was disorganized and confusing.

You are right, I did not explain everything in clear or sufficient detail.

> It was a typical approach that can make sense in normal contexts but it wasn't customized for this particular problem where two of the statements are false.

How so?

> If you could actually get stuff like that right I think it'd be an improvement, but in this case reading Brilliant's answer didn't lead you to notice the errors in your own answer, and I fear that would happen with many other problems.

Makes sense. What were my other errors?

> Also Brilliant's answer doesn't explain methodology. It doesn't tell you how to think about the problem. It just jumps straight into details without really explaining what's going on. They don't say why they do the steps they do. So it's not very educational.

That makes sense too - it wouldn't help at all if one didn't notice their errors even after the supposed error correcting mechanism (their explanation) was shown.

> I don't think reading that wrong (or ignoring it), twice, was a skill issue. I think it was *not* illiteracy or bad logic. It's more of an attitude issue, a choice. I don't think practicing with Brilliant will address that problem.

Agreed. I think it is the same error that caused me to write my solution in a disorganized and confused way.]]>
Thu, 05 Sep 2019 01:31:19 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13451 http://curi.us/comments/show/13451
Anonymous Open Discussion (2019)
Also you did the question poorly but I don't think you would have learned that just from doing it + reading Brilliant's answer. Your division into two cases was disorganized and confusing. It was a typical approach that can make sense in normal contexts but it wasn't customized for this particular problem where two of the statements are false. Also the text "This would imply that the gold is not in Box 1 and the other two statements are true." is wrong. Actually your version has multiple errors. If you could actually get stuff like that right I think it'd be an improvement, but in this case reading Brilliant's answer didn't lead you to notice the errors in your own answer, and I fear that would happen with many other problems.

Also Brilliant's answer doesn't explain methodology. It doesn't tell you how to think about the problem. It just jumps straight into details without really explaining what's going on. They don't say why they do the steps they do. So it's not very educational.

Also:

> post examples (problems + your solutions + their answers)

I don't think reading that wrong (or ignoring it), twice, was a skill issue. I think it was *not* illiteracy or bad logic. It's more of an attitude issue, a choice. I don't think practicing with Brilliant will address that problem.]]>
Thu, 05 Sep 2019 00:53:08 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13450 http://curi.us/comments/show/13450
Anonymous Open Discussion (2019)
You are right, I completely forgot about the need for an account to see any of the quizzes.

#13448 Agreed.

I think this is better:

**Example**

*Problem*

There are 3 boxes, exactly one of which contains gold. You can keep the gold if you pick the correct box! On each box there is a statement, exactly one of which is true.

Box 1: The gold is in this box.
Box 2: The gold is not in this box.
Box 3: The gold is not in box 1.

*My solution*

Box 1 and Box 3 can't be true at the same time, so one has to be false. Therefore, we have two cases.

Case 1: Box 1's statement is false.

This would imply that the gold is not in Box 1 and the other two statements are true. Box 3's statement is true. Box 2's statement is false though, which contradicts 'exactly one' of the statements being true.

So, Case 2 must be correct, we just need to find out where the gold is.

Case 2: Box 2's statement is false.

This would imply that the gold is in box 2.

*Their solution*

If Box 2 contains the gold, then

- the statement on Box 1 would be false (it's not in Box 1);
- the statement on Box 2 would be false (it is in Box 2);
- only the statement on Box 3 is true (yes, the gold is not in Box 1).

Thus, it looks like the gold is in Box 2! But, let's rule out the other possibilities to double check.

If Box 1 contains the gold, then

- the statements on both Box 1 and Box 2 are true, so this is impossible.
If Box 3 contains the gold, then

- the statements on both Box 2 and Box 3 are true, so this is impossible.

*Question*

So, what do you guys think of these kinds of questions?

Do you think that if one completed many of them (at the right skill level, not overreaching) their logical analysis i.e. ability to correct logical errors, hold abstract logical chains of reasoning in their head, notice them day to day in their own life etc, would improve? Or is there something that'd be more effective?]]>
Thu, 05 Sep 2019 00:42:36 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13449 http://curi.us/comments/show/13449
Anonymous Open Discussion (2019)
> post examples (problems + your solutions + their answers)

Even if I *made an account* (a step you omitted from your instructions) so that I could see what you're talking about, it would not provide me with examples like that.

You are not listening or cooperating.

> I thought that ^ was implied, but it was wrong to assume familiarity with the website.

You were wrong about what happened. Again. In multiple ways. And you're blaming others instead of looking at yourself for the errors.

These are just the sort of errors you need to learn to stop making. But you don't seem interested.]]>
Thu, 05 Sep 2019 00:09:11 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13448 http://curi.us/comments/show/13448
Anonymous Open Discussion (2019)
> Your alleged follow up on #13416 does not do the thing #13416 said to: post examples.

To see examples, click on any of the three introductory quizzes ('Warmup puzzles', 'Truth-seeking' or 'Strategic deductions'), which one can access via the link in #13433. There you will see the available solutions (they're multiple choice questions) and if you click 'show explanation' you will see their solutions.

I thought that ^ was implied, but it was wrong to assume familiarity with the website.

Therefore, this:

> You ignored what you were told.

, is false.

No big deal though, I think I understand the point of your criticism.]]>
Thu, 05 Sep 2019 00:03:56 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13447 http://curi.us/comments/show/13447
Anonymous Open Thread: Diet and Exercise
> In that case, then, whenever I'm wondering whether I should eat, I should first find out whether I am hungry.

That should be:

If maximizing my enjoyment from the taste of food is the most important thing to me about eating, then, whenever I'm wondering whether I should eat, I should first find out whether I am hungry.]]>
Wed, 04 Sep 2019 22:59:30 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13446 http://curi.us/comments/show/13446
Alisa Open Thread: Diet and Exercise Wed, 04 Sep 2019 22:56:51 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13445 http://curi.us/comments/show/13445 Anonymous Open Discussion (2019)
And #13416 says:

>> brilliant.org has a couple of courses about logic (and STEM subjects) and they write detailed explanations for solutions to problems - any others? Or anything better?

> If you try those, post examples (problems + your solutions + their answers) and see if ppl have criticism.

Your alleged follow up on #13416 does not do the thing #13416 said to: post examples.

You are now asking what people think of questions that you have given no examples of. That would be bad even if you weren't following up on someone specifically asking about examples.

You were told how to proceed. You ignored what you were told.

This is a kind of error I think it's important to get better at.]]>
Wed, 04 Sep 2019 21:42:04 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13444 http://curi.us/comments/show/13444
Brilliant.org Anonymous Open Discussion (2019)
This is the first logic course: https://brilliant.org/courses/logic-deduction/#chapter-puzzles-and-riddles

Every question has a detailed explanation of the solution. The introductory chapter is free, the rest require subscription.]]>
Wed, 04 Sep 2019 21:13:11 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13443 http://curi.us/comments/show/13443
Anonymous Politics Discussion Wed, 04 Sep 2019 10:51:40 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13442 http://curi.us/comments/show/13442 Anne B Anne Discussion Wed, 04 Sep 2019 10:21:55 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13441 http://curi.us/comments/show/13441 Why gun control is unconstitutional in the USA Our founding fathers, past tyrants, etc. Politics Discussion --------------------------------------------------------



What our founding fathers said about guns (2nd Amendment)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I would like to see Gun Control Advocates in Washington, D.C. retire from politics and court. They haven't done anything good for this country as far as I am concerned. They need to check out what our founding fathers said and follow it! There is no exceptions in the 2nd amendment for assault weapons! So, as far as I am concerned, this AWB IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL ANYWAY! Even the words "assault weapons" is classic propaganda. Anything used to hurt someone else could be labeled an assault weapon - even your hand! The other thing that ticks me off is the misrepresentation of what our founding fathers said about 2nd amendment in order to sale gun control. TRY SOME OF THESE QUOTES ON FOR SIZE:

"... arms... discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. ...Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived the use of them." -Thomas Paine.

"On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." -Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p322.

"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms [of government] those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny." -Thomas Jefferson, Bill for the More General diffusion of Knowledge (1778).

"To disarm the people (is) the best and most effectual way to enslave them..." -George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380.

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." -Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-B.

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined...The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun. : -Patrick Henry.

"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" -Patrick Henry

"To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them..." -Richard Henry Lee writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic (1787-1788).

"The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms." -Samuel Adams, debates & Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87.

"...the people have a right to keep and bear arms." -Patrick Henry and George Mason, Elliot, Debates at 185.

"The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well-regulated militia, composed of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country..." -James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 (June 8, 1789).

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves... and include all men capable of bearing arms." -Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169.

"The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age..." -Title 10, Section 311 of the U.S. Code. (see http: //www4 . law. cornel 1 . edu/uscode/)

"The people are nor to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them." -Zachariah Johnson, 3 Elliot, Debates at 646.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950).

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self=defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government,.."- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist (#28).

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." -Tench Coxe, Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution, under the pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1989 at col. 1.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms has been recognized by the General Government; but the best security of that right after all is, the military spirit, that taste for martial exercises, which has always distinguished the free citizens of these States... Such men form the best barrier to the liberties of America." -gazette of the United States, October 14, 1789.

"They that can give up liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania.

"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts(only) as they are injurious)to others." -Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia (1781-1785).

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." -George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426.

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." -Thomas Jefferson.

"(The Constitution preserves) the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." -James Madison. "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria.

"Arms in the hands of citizens (may) be used at individual discretion... in private self-defense..." -John Adams, A defense of the Constitutions of the Government of the USA, 471 (1788).

“Are we at last brought to such an humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms under our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?”-- Patrick Henry, 3 Elliot, Debates at 386.

“False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, the most important of the code, will respect the less important and arbitrary ones, which can be violated with ease and impunity, and which, if strictly obeyed, would put and end to personal liberty--so dear to men, so dear to the enlightened legislator--and subject innocent persons to all the vexations that the guilty alone ought to suffer? Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. They ought to be designated as laws not preventative but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree.” Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book, 1774-1776,
quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and Punishment, 1764.

Statements from tapes that Martin Borman made of some of the pleasant dinner conversations he had been privy to:

“The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country.” Adolf Hitler, dinner talk on April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitler's Table Talk 1941-44: His Private Conversations, Second Edition (1973), Pg. 425-426.

There are probably 35 or more cases in which a SCOTUS justice mentions the RKBA by quoting the Amendment, and in the vast majority of them they only quote the second, actionable clause. (If anybody wants, I can give you the case cites later) Still, I have never ignored the militia preamble. I believe that when we try to understand it we should accept this advice:

“On every question of construction let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning can be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one which was passed.” Thomas Jefferson, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322 (1957) [Letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823].

“My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for the powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen to sixty. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ....[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or the state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People.” Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

“The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.” Noah Webster, "An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution" (1787) in Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States (P. Ford, 1888).

“And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms. . .” Samuel Adams, Debates & Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87 (February 6, 1788).

“It has been asserted by the most respectable writers upon government, that a well-regulated militia, composed of the yeomanry of the country, have ever been considered as the bulwark of a free people. Tyrants have never placed any confidence on a militia composed of freemen.” John DeWitt, The Anti-Federalist Papers, p. 75 (M. Borden ed. 1965)

“Whenever, therefore, the profession of arms becomes a distinct order in the state. . .the end of the social compact is defeated. . . .No free government was ever founded, or ever preserved its liberty, without uniting the characters of the citizen and soldier in those destined for defense of the state. . . .Such a well regulated militia, composed of freeholders, citizens and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen” M. T. Cicero (a pseudonym), Charleston State Gazette, September 8, 1788

Last Monday, a string of amendments were presented to the lower house; these altogether respected personal liberty. . . William Grayson, 3 Patrick Henry, p. 391 (1951) [letter from Grayson to Henry, June 12, 1789]. [remember, it was Henry who complained of the Constitution without a RKBA in this fashion: “My great objection to this Government is, that it does not leave us the means of defending our rights; or, of waging war against tyrants”]

“A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves, and render regular troops in a great measure unnecessary. . . .the constitution ought to secure a genuine and guard against a select militia. . .and include. . .all men capable of bearing arms. . . . But, say gentlemen, the general militia are for the most part employed at home in their private concerns, cannot well be called out, or be depended upon; that we must have a select militia. . . .[of the select militia] These Corps, not much unlike regular troops, well ever produce an inattention to the general militia. . .whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them. . . .The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.” Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer, p. 169-170 (1788)

The SCOUTS has weighed in on the definition of “the militia” in these cases: “The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of the Colonies and the States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.

"A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of a kind in common use at the time” U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 179 (1939).


“It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as the States, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government. . .the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms. . .[B]ut, as already stated, we think it clear that the sections under consideration [prohibiting mass marches by armed men without obtaining a permit] do not have this effect.” Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 267 (1886).

“Mr. Madison has introduced his long expected amendments. . . .It contains a bill of rights [including] . . . .the right to keep and bear arms.” Fisher Ames, 1 Works of Fisher Ames, pp. 52-53 (1854) [Letter to Thomas Dwight, June 11, 1789].

“The rights of conscience, of bearing arms, of changing the government, are declared to be inherent in the people.” Fisher Ames, 1 Works of Fisher Ames, pp. 53-54 (1854) [Letter to F. I. Minoe, June 12, 1789].


How was the RKBA sold to the public? Consider Madison’s good friend, Tench Coxe, who wrote a widely distributed pamphlet explaining the liberties in the Bill of Rights to aid Madison’s push for endorsement of them: “As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear private arms.” Tench Coxe, Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution. Published under the pseudonym, "A Pennsylvanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 Col. 1.

The militia clause is not a limitation, but a preamble which states the universally held principle that "standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty." (from the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia)
Therefore, here is how I (not me, the poster, but another's comment) read the Second Amendment: (I left it in because of the quotes.) 1. Whereas maintaining a standing army is dangerous to liberty, a well-regulated militia, composed of all citizens capable of bearing their private arms, is the best method to provide for the security of a FREE state (ie. A state in which the people need not fear the ambitions of their own government); AND 2. That every citizen has the right to keep and bear private arms; for this right provides the citizen with the ability to defend his life, his liberty, and his property from the "tyranny of irritated ministers" as well as providing him with the means to "discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe." (citing The Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking up Arms and Thomas Paine, respectively)

The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well-regulated militia, composed of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country..." -James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 (June 8, 1789). "A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves... and include all men capable of bearing arms." -Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169.


Here are some statements from the Enemies of Liberty: "Governments begins at the end of the gun barrel." -Chairman Mao

"One man with a gun can control 100 without one. ...Make mass searches and hold executions for found arms." - V.I.Lenin

"If the opposition disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall do it ourselves." - Joseph Stalin

We are taking the law and bending it as far as we can to capture a whole new class of guns." - Jose Carada, (White House official who specializes in gun control policy), The Los Angeles Times

"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans..." Bill Clinton (USA Today, 11 March 1993, page 2A)


"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has FULL GUN REGISTRATION! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!" by Hitler,1935 WHO WAS A SOCIALIST HIMSELF!

“Are we at last brought to such an humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms under our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?”-- Patrick Henry, 3 Elliot, Debates at 386.

“False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, the most important of the code, will respect the less important and arbitrary ones, which can be violated with ease and impunity, and which, if strictly obeyed, would put and end to personal liberty--so dear to men, so dear to the enlightened legislator--and subject innocent persons to all the vexations that the guilty alone ought to suffer? Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. They ought to be designated as laws not preventative but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree.” Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book, 1774-1776, quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and Punishment, 1764.


Statements from tapes that Martin Borman made of some of the pleasant dinner conversations he had been privy to:

“The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country.” Adolf Hitler, dinner talk on April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitler's Table Talk 1941-44: His Private Conversations, Second Edition (1973), Pg. 425-426.






There are probably 35 or more cases in which a SCOTUS justice mentions the RKBA by quoting the Amendment, and in the vast majority of them they only quote the second, actionable clause. (If anybody wants, I can give you the case cites later) Still, I have never ignored the militia preamble. I believe that when we try to understand it we should accept this advice:

“On every question of construction let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning can be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one which was passed.” Thomas Jefferson, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322 (1957) [Letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823].

“My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for the powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen to sixty. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ....[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or the state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People.” Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

“The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.” Noah Webster, "An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution" (1787) in Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States (P. Ford, 1888).

“And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms. . .” Samuel Adams, Debates & Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87 (February 6, 1788).
“It has been asserted by the most respectable writers upon government, that a well-regulated militia, composed of the yeomanry of the country, have ever been considered as the bulwark of a free people. Tyrants have never placed any confidence on a militia composed of freemen.” John DeWitt, The Anti-Federalist Papers, p. 75 (M. Borden ed. 1965)

“Whenever, therefore, the profession of arms becomes a distinct order in the state. . .the end of the social compact is defeated. . . .No free government was ever founded, or ever preserved its liberty, without uniting the characters of the citizen and soldier in those destined for defense of the state. . . .Such a well- regulated militia, composed of freeholders, citizens and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen” M. T. Cicero (a pseudonym), Charleston State Gazette, September 8, 1788

“A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves, and render regular troops in a great measure unnecessary. . . .the constitution ought to secure a genuine and guard against a select militia. . .and include. . .all men capable of bearing arms. . . . But, say gentlemen, the general militia are for the most part employed at home in their private concerns, cannot well be called out, or be depended upon; that we must have a select militia. . . .[of the select militia] These Corps, not much unlike regular troops, well ever produce an inattention to the general militia. . .whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them. . . .The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.” Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer, p. 169-170 (1788)

The SCOUTS has weighed in on the definition of “the militia” in these cases: “The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of the Colonies and the States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of a kind in common use at the time” U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 179 (1939).

“It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as the States, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government. . .the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms. . .[B]ut, as already stated, we think it clear that the sections under consideration [prohibiting mass marches by armed men without obtaining a permit] do not have this effect.” Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 267 (1886).
Regarding the Second Amendment, does the spirit of the debates indicates whether the RKBA was intended to be an individual or a collective state’s right? “Mr. Madison has introduced his long expected amendments. . . .It contains a bill of rights [including] . . . the right to keep and bear arms.” Fisher Ames, 1 Works of Fisher Ames, pp. 52-53 (1854) [Letter to Thomas Dwight, June 11, 1789].

“The rights of conscience, of bearing arms, of changing the government, are declared to be inherent in the people.” Fisher Ames, 1 Works of Fisher Ames, pp. 53-54 (1854) [Letter to F. I. Minoe, June 12, 1789].

Last Monday, a string of amendments were presented to the lower house; these altogether respected personal liberty. . . William Grayson, 3 Patrick Henry, p. 391 (1951) [letter from Grayson to Henry, June 12, 1789].[remember, it was Henry who complained of the Constitution without a RKBA in this fashion: “My great objection to this Government is, that it does not leave us the means of defending our rights; or, of waging war against tyrants”] How was the RKBA sold to the public? Consider Madison’s good friend, Tench Coxe, who wrote a widely distributed pamphlet explaining the liberties in the Bill of Rights to aid Madison’s push for endorsement of them: “As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear private arms.” Tench Coxe, Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution. Published under the pseudonym, "A Pennsylvanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2
Col. 1.

Therefore, here is how I (not me, the poster, but another's comment) read the Second Amendment: (I left it in because of the quotes.) 1. Whereas maintaining a standing army is dangerous to liberty, a well-regulated militia, composed of all citizens capable of bearing their private arms, is the best method to provide for the security of a FREE state (ie. A state in which the people need not fear the ambitions of their own government); AND 2. That every citizen has the right to keep and bear private arms; for this right provides the citizen with the ability to defend his life, his liberty, and his property from the "tyranny of irritated ministers" as well as providing him with the means to "discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe." (citing The Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking up Arms and Thomas Paine, respectively) The militia clause is not a limitation, but a preamble which states the universally held principle that "standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty." (from the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia)
What your founding fathers said about guns (2nd Amendment)


"... arms... discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. ...Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law abiding) deprived the use of them." Thomas Paine.

"On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322.

"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms [of government] those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny." Thomas Jefferson, Bill for the More General diffusion of Knowledge (1778).

"To disarm the people (is) the best and most effectual way to enslave them..." George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380.

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184 B.

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined...The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.: Patrick Henry.

"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" Patrick Henry

"To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them..." Richard Henry Lee writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic (1787 1788).

"The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms." Samuel Adams, debates & Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86 87.

"...the people have a right to keep and bear arms." Patrick Henry and George Mason, Elliot, Debates at 185.


"The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well-regulated militia, composed of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country..." James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 (June 8, 1789).

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves... and include all men capable of bearing arms." Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169.

"The militia of the United States consists of all able bodied males at least 17 years of age..." Title 10, Section 311 of the U.S. Code. (see http: //www4.law.cornel 1.edu/uscode/)

"The people are nor to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them." Zachariah Johnson, 3 Elliot, Debates at 646.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950).

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government,.." Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist (#28) .

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." Tench Coxe, Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution, under the pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1989 at col. 1.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms has been recognized by the General Government; but the best security of that right after all is, the military spirit, that taste for martial exercises, which has always distinguished the free citizens of these States... Such men form the best barrier to the liberties of America." gazette of the United States, October 14, 1789.

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe, the supreme power in America cannot be enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and Constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive. Noah Webster, “An Experiment of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution” (Philadelphia 1787)

"They that can give up liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania.

"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts (only) as they are injurious to others." Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia (1781 1785).

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425 426.


"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." Thomas Jefferson.

"(The Constitution preserves) the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation... where the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." James Madison.

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria.

"Arms in the hands of citizens (may) be used at individual
discretion... in private self-defense..." John Adams, A defense of the
Constitutions of the Government of the USA, 471 (1788).


"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has FULL GUN REGISTRATION! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!" by Hitler, 1935 WHO WAS A SOCIALIST HIMSELF!

"On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322.

"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms [of government] those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny." Thomas Jefferson, Bill for the More General diffusion of Knowledge (1778).

"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts (only) as they are injurious to others." Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia (1781 1785).

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." Thomas Jefferson.


"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria.

"The Aim of an Argument ... should not be victory, but progress." Joseph Joubert (1754 1824)

"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful." Seneca the Younger

"It is often argued that religion is valuable because it makes men good, but even if this were true it would not be a proof that religion is true. That would be an extension of pragmatism beyond endurance. Santa Claus makes children good in precisely the same way, and yet no one would argue seriously that the fact proves his existence. The defense of religion is full of such logical imbecilities." H. L. Mencken

Dictionary definition of NAZI:

Have you looked up NAZI in a dictionary?

1. A member or the National Socialist Germany Workers' Party, which in 1933, UNDER Adolph Hitler, SEIZED political CONTROL of Germany. 2. A person who holds similar views elsewhere.

Have you looked up SOCIALISM in a dictionary?

1 A theory or system of social organization that advocates the ownership and CONTROL of industry, capital, land, etc., by the community as a whole. 2. Procedure or practice in accordance with this theory. 3. (In Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism.

“Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms under our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?” Patrick Henry, 3 Elliot, Debates at 386.


“On every question of construction let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning can be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one which was passed.” Thomas Jefferson, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322 (1957) [Letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823].

“False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, the most important of the code, will respect the less important and arbitrary ones, which can be violated with ease and impunity, and which, if strictly obeyed, would put an end to personal liberty so dear to men, so dear to the enlightened legislator and subject innocent persons to all the vexations that the guilty alone ought to suffer? Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. They ought to be designated as laws not preventative but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree.” Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book, 1774 1776, quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and Punishment, 1764.

Statements from tapes that Martin Borman made of some of the pleasant dinner conversations he had been privy to:

“The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country.” Adolf Hitler, dinner talk on April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitler's Table Talk 1941 44: His Private Conversations, Second Edition (1973), Pg. 425 426.

There are probably 35 or more cases in which a SCOTUS justice mentions the RKBA by quoting the Amendment, and in the vast majority of them they only quote the second, actionable clause. (If anybody wants, I can give you the case cites later) Still, I have never ignored the militia preamble. I believe that when we try to understand it we should accept this advice:

“My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for the powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen to sixty. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth right of an American ....[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or the state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People.” Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.


“The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.” Noah Webster, "An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution" (1787) in Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States (P. Ford, 1888) .

“And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms. . .” Samuel Adams, Debates & Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86 87 (February 6, 1788).

“It has been asserted by the most respectable writers upon government, that a well regulated militia, composed of the yeomanry of the country, have ever been considered as the bulwark of a free people. Tyrants have never placed any confidence on a militia composed of freemen.” John DeWitt, The Anti Federalist Papers, p. 75 (M. Borden ed. 1965)

“Whenever, therefore, the profession of arms becomes a distinct order in the state. . .the end of the social compact is defeated. . . .No free government was ever founded, or ever preserved its liberty, without uniting the characters of the citizen and soldier in those destined for defense of the state. . . .Such a well-regulated militia, composed of freeholders, citizens and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen” M. T. Cicero (a pseudonym), Charleston State Gazette, September 8, 1788

“A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves, and render regular troops in a great measure unnecessary. . . the constitution ought to secure a genuine and guard against a select militia. . .and include. . .all men capable of bearing arms. . . . But, say gentlemen, the general militia are for the most part employed at home in their private concerns, cannot well be called out, or be depended upon; that we must have a select militia. . . .[ of the select militia] These Corps, not much unlike regular troops, well ever produce an inattention to the general militia. . .whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them. . . .The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.” Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer, p. 169 170 (1788)


Last Monday, a string of amendments were presented to the lower house; these altogether respected personal liberty. . . William Grayson, 3 Patrick Henry, p. 391 (1951) [letter from Grayson to Henry, June 12, 1789]. [remember, it was Henry who complained of the Constitution without a RKBA in this fashion: “My great objection to this Government is, that it does not leave us the means of defending our rights; or, of waging war against tyrants”]

The SCOUTS has weighed in on the definition of “the militia” in these cases:



“The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of the Colonies and the States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of a kind in common use at the time” U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 179 (1939).


“It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as the States, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government. . .the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms. . .[B]ut, as already stated, we think it clear that the sections under consideration [prohibiting mass marches by armed men without obtaining a permit] do not have this effect.” Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 267 (1886).

Regarding the Second Amendment, does the spirit of the debates indicates whether the RKBA was intended to be an individual or a collective state’s right?

“Mr. Madison has introduced his long expected amendments. . . .It contains a bill of rights [including] . . . .the right to keep and bear arms.” Fisher Ames, 1 Works of Fisher Ames, pp. 52 53 (1854) [Letter to Thomas Dwight, June 11, 1789].

“The rights of conscience, of bearing arms, of changing the government, are declared to be inherent in the people.” Fisher Ames, 1 Works of Fisher Ames, pp. 53 54 (1854) [Letter to F. I. Minoe, June 12, 1789].


How was the RKBA sold to the public? Consider Madison’s good friend, Tench Coxe, who wrote a widely distributed pamphlet explaining the liberties in the Bill of Rights to aid Madison’s push for endorsement of them:

“As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear private arms.” Tench Coxe, Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution. Published under the pseudonym, "A Pennsylvanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 Col. 1.


Therefore, here is how I (not me, the poster, but another's comment) read the Second Amendment: (I left it in because of the quotes.)


1. Whereas maintaining a standing army is dangerous to liberty, a well-regulated militia, composed of all citizens capable of bearing their private arms, is the best method to provide for the security of a FREE state (i.e. A state in which the people need not fear the ambitions of their own government); AND

2. That every citizen has the right to keep and bear private arms; for this right provides the citizen with the ability to defend his life, his liberty, and his property from the "tyranny of irritated ministers" as well as providing him with the means to "discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe." (citing The Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking up Arms and Thomas Paine, respectively)

The militia clause is not a limitation, but a preamble which states the universally held principle that "standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty." (from the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia)



Notable Quotes
1.
The following quotes are taken from several sources. They provide some
guidance for interpretation of the Constitution.



"It is every Americans' right and obligation to read and interpret the
Constitution for himself."

Thomas Jefferson

"On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the
time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested
in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out
of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in
which it was passed."

Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The
Complete Jefferson, p. 322.

"Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution.
Let us not make it a blank paper by construction."

Thomas Jefferson to W, Nicholas, 1803.

"The true key for the construction of everything doubtful in a law, is
the intention of the law givers. This is most safely gathered from the
words, but may be sought also in extraneous circumstances, provided they
do not contradict the express words of the law."

Thomas Jefferson to A. Gallatin, 1808.



"I had rather ask an enlargement of power from the nation, where it is
found necessary, than to assume it by a construction which would make
our powers boundless."

Thomas Jefferson to W. Nicholas, 1803.

"The particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States
confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all
written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void;
and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that

instrument."

John Marshall: Opinion as Chief Justice in Marbury vs. Madison, 1802

"[E]very act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the
commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act,
therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this,
would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that
the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people
are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of
powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what
they forbid."

Alexander Hamilton

"... God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.
The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is
wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts
they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is
lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ... And what
country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not warned from
time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let
them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon
and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The
tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of
patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

Richard Henry Lee, Senator, First Congress, Additional Letters
from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169.

"Whenever governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the
people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an
army upon their ruins."

Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate
over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17,
1789.

"... the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and
bear their private arms."

Tench Coxe in "Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the
Federal Constitution." Under the pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian" in the
Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1.

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people
always possess arms..."

Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Member of the First U.S. Senate.


"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize
Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of
conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are
peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms..."

Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Peirce & Hale, eds.,
Boston, 1850. 2, col. 2.

"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless

minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds."

Samuel Adams

"Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA
ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve
the state."

Heinrich Himmler.

"The battle, Sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the
active, the brave. Besides, Sir, we have no election. If we were base
enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest.
There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are
forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is
inevitable; and let it come! I repeat, Sir, let it come!"

Patrick Henry, in his famous "The War Inevitable" speech, March,
1775.

"It is in vain, Sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace,
Peace! But there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale
that sweeps from the North will bring to our ears the clash of
resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we
here idle? What is it that Gentlemen want? What would they have? Is life
so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains
and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may
take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"

Patrick Henry, in his famous "The War Inevitable" speech, March,
1775.

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercise, I
advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives
boldness, enterprise, and independence Games played with the ball, and
others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no
character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion
of your walk."

Encyclopedia of Thomas Jefferson, 318 (Foley, Ed., reissued 1967)

"That the Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to
infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or
to prevent "the people" of the United States who are peaceable citizens
from keeping their own arms..."

"Never give in, never give in, never, never, never, never in nothing,
great or small, large or petty never give in except to convictions of
honor and good sense."
Winston Spencer Churchill, address at Harrow School, October 29, 1941.

"Never turn your back on a threatened danger and try to run away from
it. If you do that, you will double the danger. But if you meet it
promptly and without flinching, you will reduce the danger by half.
Never run away from anything. Never!"

Winston Churchill

"The rank and file are usually much more primitive than we imagine.

Propaganda must therefore always be essentially simple and repetitious."

Joseph Goebbels, Nazi Minister of Propaganda

"The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless
one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly ... it must
confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over."

Joseph Goebbels, Nazi Minister of Propaganda

"God grants liberty only to those who love it, and are always ready to
guard and defend it."

Daniel Webster

"Hold on, my friends, to the Constitution and to the Republic for which
it stands. Miracles do not cluster, and what has happened once in 6000
years, may not happen again. Hold on to the Constitution, for if the
American Constitution should fail, there will be anarchy throughout the
world."

Daniel Webster

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do
nothing."

Edmund Burke

"Those who have long enjoyed such privileges as we enjoy forget in time
that men have died to win them."

Franklin D. Roosevelt

"You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I
say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!"

Oliver Cromwell, "Lord Protector of the English Commonwealth",
upon dissolving Parliament

"Whenever people ... entrust the defense of their country to a regular,
standing army, composed of mercenaries, the power of that country will
remain under the direction of the most wealthy citizens..."

"A Framer", in the Independent Gazetteer, 1791

"We, the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts
not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert
the Constitution."

Abraham Lincoln



"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army
pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and
gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional
privilege."

Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878


"The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against
arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now
appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be

always possible."

Senator Hubert H. Humphrey (D-Minnesota)

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look
upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."

Mahatma Gandhi

"The one weapon every man, soldier, sailor, or airman should be able to
use effectively is the rifle. It is always his weapon of personal safety
in an emergency, and for many it is the primary weapon of offense and
defense. Expertness in its use cannot be overemphasized."

General Dwight D. Eisenhower

"Before God I swear this is my creed: my rifle and myself are the
defenders of our country. We are the masters of our enemy. We are the
saviors of my life. So be it until victory is America's and there is no
enemy, but peace!!

From "My Rifle", by Major General W.H. Rupertus, USMC.

"The American Revolution was a beginning, not a consummation."

Woodrow Wilson, 28th President of the United 'States (1856-1924).

"With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but
with tyrants, I will give no quarter, nor waste arguments where they
will certainly be lost."

William Lloyd Garrison

"...to disarm the people is the best and most effective way to enslave
them..."

George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380.

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they
are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America
cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole of the people
are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular
troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States."

Noah Webster, "An Examination into the leading Principles of the
Federal Constitution." in Paul Ford, ed., Pamphlets on the
Constitution of the United States , at 56 (New York, 1888).



"... if raised, whether they could subdue a Nation of freemen, who know
how to prize liberty, and who have arms in their hands?"

Delegate Sedgewick, during the Massachusetts Convention,
rhetorically asking if an oppressive standing army could prevail
... Johnathon Elliot, ed., Debates in the Several State Conventions
on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, Vol. 2 at 97 (2d ed.,
1888).

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over
the people of almost every other nation ... notwithstanding the
military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are
carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are

afraid to trust the people with arms."

James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper
No. 46, at 243-244.

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them,
may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be
occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to
the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the
article in their right to keep and bear private arms."

Tench Coxe, in "Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to
the Federal Constitution." under the pseudonym, "A Pennsylvanian"
in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 Col. 1.

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the
other hand, arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and the
plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property.
The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of
arms, for all the world would be alike; but since some will not, others
dare not lay them aside...Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the
world deprived the use of them..."

Thomas Paine, I Writings of Thomas Paine at 56 (1894).

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation
that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the
difference between having our arms in possession and under our
direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our
defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they
be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own
hands?"

Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State
Conventions 45, 2d Ed. Philadelphia, 1836.

"The ultimate authority ... resides in the people alone."

James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper
No. 46.

"The whole of the Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the
people at large or considered as individuals ... It establishes some
rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no
majority has the right to deprive them of."

Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society, October 7,
1789.

"All military type firearms are to be handed in immediately ... The SS,
SA and Stahlhelm give every responsible opportunity of campaigning with
them. Therefore anyone who does not belong to one of the above-named
organizations and who unjustifiably nevertheless keeps his weapon ...
must be regarded as an enemy of the national government."

SA Oberfuhrer of Bad Tolz, March, 1933.

"There are going to be situations where people are going to go without
assistance. That's just the facts of life."

LA Police Chief Darryl Gates


"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States)
assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise
it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times
armed and that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of
religion, freedom of property, and freedom of press."

Thomas Jefferson

"Enlighten people generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and
mind will vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of day."

Thomas Jefferson



Apocryphal Quotes

The following are often quoted but dubious:

"This Year Will Go Down In History. For The First Time, A Civilized
Nation Has Full Gun Registration! Our Streets Will Be Safer, Our Police
More Efficient, And The World Will Follow Our Lead Into The Future!"

Adolph Hitler 1935 'Berlin Daily' (Loose English Translation)
April 15th, 1935 Page 3 Article 2 by Einleitung Von Eberhard
Beckmann "Abschied vom Hessenland!"

Refuted at http://www.guncite.com/gcbogus.html

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear
arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in
government."

Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950)

"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil
interference they deserve a place of honor with all that is good."

George Washington

"Government is not reason. It is not eloquence. It is a force, like
fire: a dangerous servant and a terrible master".

George Washington

Refuted at http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndbog.html

Ancient Quotes

The following are from ancient philosophers who can inspire our times:

"We can have justice whenever those who have not been injured by injustice are as outraged by it as those who have been.".

â” Solon, author of the Constitution of Athens, 594 B.C.

"More law, less justice."

â” Cicero, De Officiis, 44 B.C.


"So far as the Civil Law is concerned, slaves are not considered persons, but this is not the case according to natural law, because natural law regards all men as equal."

"The precepts of the law are the following: to live honorably, to injure no one, to give to every one his due."

â” Ulpian, Roman jurist, ~222 CE

Quotable Quotes on Gun Control

- A system of licensing and registration is the perfect device to deny gun ownership to the bourgeoisie. -- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

- All we ask for is registration, just like we do for cars.--Charles Schumer

- I stand in support of this common sense legislation to license everyone who wishes to purchase a gun...I also believe that every new handgun sale or transfer should be registered in a national registry --Hillary Clinton

- If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun. -- The Dalai Lama

- The Constitution of the United States of America clearly affirms the right of every American citizen to bear arms. And as Americans, we will not give up a single right guaranteed under the Constitution. -- Malcolm X

- If the opposition disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves. — Stalin

- After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it. I sure as hell wouldn't want to live in a society where the only people allowed guns are the police and the military. -- William Burroughs

- On the morrow of each conflict I gave the categorical order to confiscate the largest possible number of weapons of every sort and kind. — Mussolini

- US Senator, If I could have banned them all -'Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns'- I would have!-Diane Feinstein

- Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.—Ghandi

- I don't know about you, but if you hear that Williams' guns have been taken, you'll know Williams is dead. -- Walter Williams

- I believe in keeping guns out of our inner cities, and that our leaders must say so in the face of the gun manufacturer's lobby.--Barrack Obama

- Gun control has not worked in D.C. The only people who have guns are criminals. We have the strictest gun laws in the nation and one of the highest murder rates.-- Lieutenant Lowell Duckett, Special Assistant to DC Police Chief; President, Black Police Caucus

- You cannot invade mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass.--Japanese WWII Admiral Yamamoto

- All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party.--Mao Tse Tung

- The first step is to take weapons off the streets and to put more police on them.--Hillary Clinton

- By calling attention to 'a well-regulated militia, ''the security of the nation,' and the right of each citizen 'to keep and bear arms,' our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy...--JFK



Famous quote:

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788


But that's not quite enough. Let's go for a few more:

"The militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves,... all men capable of bearing arms;..."
— "Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic", 1788 (either Richard Henry Lee or Melancton Smith).

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People."
— Tench Coxe, 1788.

If we are ready to violate the Constitution, will the people submit to our unauthorized acts? Sir, they ought not to submit; they would deserve the chains that our measures are forging for them, if they did not resist.
— Edward Livingston

How about this from a former SOVIET prisoner in a gulag:
"How we burned in the prison camps later thinking: What would things have been like if every police operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive? If during periods of mass arrests people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever was at hand? The organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt."
— Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Nobel Prize winner and author of The Gulag Archipelago, who spent 11 years in Soviet concentration camps.

“...For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution....”--Bliss vs. Commonwealth,[12 Ky.(2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822)]

"Whereas civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."-- Tench Coxe, Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789.

"The congress of the United States possesses no power to regulate, or interfere with the domestic concerns, or police of any state: it belongs not to them to establish any rules respecting the rights of property; nor will the constitution permit any prohibition of arms to the people; or of peaceable assemblies by them, for any purposes whatsoever, and in any number, whenever they may see occasion."

- ST. GEORGE TUCKER'S BLACKSTONE,(Mr. Tucker was AT the Constitutional Convention).

"In countries under arbitrary government, the people oppressed and dispirited neither possess arms nor know how to use them. Tyrants never feel secure until they have disarmed the people. They can rely upon nothing but standing armies of mercenary troops for the support of their power. But the people of this country have arms in their hands; they are not destitute of military knowledge; every citizen is required by law to be a soldier; we are marshaled into companies, regiments, and brigades for the defence of our country. This is a circumstance which increases the power and consequence of the people; and enables them to defend their rights and privileges against every invader."-- "the Republican", Jan. 7, 1788, Connecticut Courant (Hartford Newspaper).

"17th. That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, INCLUDING the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that the militia shall not be subject to martial law, except in time of war, rebellion, or insurrection; that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and ought not to be kept up, except in eases of necessity; and that at all times, the military should be under strict subordination to the civil power....18th. That any person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms ought to be exempted..."

- Page 160 - Journal of The Senate, Ratification of the constitution by the convention of the state of Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations.(Rhode-Island,Newport, June 9, 1790).

Famous quote:


"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788


But that's not quite enough. Let's go for a few more:

"The militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves,... all men capable of bearing arms;..."
— "Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic", 1788 (either Richard Henry Lee or Melancton Smith).

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People."
— Tench Coxe, 1788.

If we are ready to violate the Constitution, will the people submit to our unauthorized acts? Sir, they ought not to submit; they would deserve the chains that our measures are forging for them, if they did not resist.
— Edward Livingston

How about this from a former SOVIET prisoner in a gulag:

"How we burned in the prison camps later thinking: What would things have been like if every police operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive? If during periods of mass arrests people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever was at hand? The organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt."
— Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Nobel Prize winner and author of The Gulag Archipelago, who spent 11 years in Soviet concentration camps.

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the WHOLE BODY of PEOPLE always POSSESS ARMS, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them." (Richard Henry Lee, Walter Bennett, ed., Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican, at 21,22,124 [Univ. of Alabama Press,1975])

"The people cannot be all, & always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independent 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure. Our Convention has been too much impressed by the insurrection of Massachusetts: and in the spur of the moment they are setting up a kite to keep the hen-yard in order. I hope in God this article will be rectified before the new constitution is accepted."-- Thomas Jefferson, Nov. 13, 1787 letter to William S. Smith.

"The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by ANY rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both." - William Rawle, A View of the Constitution, 125-6 (2nd ed. 1829).(Appointed by President George Washington as U.S. District Attorney for Pennsylvania in 1791).

"Those rights, then, which God and nature have established, and are therefore called natural rights, such as are life and liberty, need not the aid of human laws to be more effectually invested in every man than they are; neither do they receive any additional strength when declared by the municipal [or state] laws to be inviolable. On the contrary, no human legislation has power to abridge or destroy them...."- William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1765–1769.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government...."

"....This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty....The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Whenever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."

"...In America we may reasonably hope that the people will never cease to regard the right of keeping and bearing arms as the surest pledge of their liberty..."

- St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries,(1803).

"Also, the conditions and circumstances of the period require a finding that while the stated purpose of the right to arms was to secure a well-regulated militia, the right to self-defense was assumed by the Framers."-- Chief Justice John Marshall, U.S. Supreme Court.[As quoted in Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846); State v. Dawson, 272 N.C. 535, 159 S.E.2d 1, 9 (1968).]

"From among the rights retained by our policy, we have selected those of self defence or bearing arms, of conscience, and of free inquiry, for two purposes; one, to shew the vast superiority of our policy, in being able to keep natural rights necessary for liberty and happiness, out of the hands of governments; the other, to shew that this ability is the effect of its principles, and beyond the reach of Mr. Adams’s system, or of any other, unable to reserve to the people, and to withhold from governments, a variety of rights."-- John Taylor, Revolutionary Soldier and U.S. Senator,(1792 – 94, 1803, 1822 – 24).[An Inquiry into the Principles and Policy of the Government of the United States: Section the Sixth; THE GOOD MORAL PRINCIPLES OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES,(1814).]

"The right of self-defence never ceases. It is among the most sacred, and alike necessary to nations and to individuals."-- President James Monroe, Nov. 16, 1818 message to the U.S. House and Senate.[Journal of the Senate of the United States of America, November 17th, 1818.]

"No, surely, No! they meant to drive us into what they termed rebellion, that they might be furnished with a pretext to disarm and then strip us of the rights and privileges of Englishmen and Citizens."--George Washington, March 1, 1778 letter to Bryan Fairfax, Valley forge.

“To take from the people the right of bearing arms, and put their weapons of defence in the hands of a standing army, would be scarcely more dangerous to their liberties, than to permit the Government to accumulate immense amounts of treasure beyond the supplies necessary to its legitimate wants. Such a treasure would doubtless be employed at some time, as it has been in other countries, when opportunity tempted ambition.”-- President Andrew Jackson, Message to U.S. House and Senate of Dec. 5, 1836.[Journal of the Senate of the United States of America, 1789-1873. TUESDAY, December 6, 1836.]

"That no man should scruple, or hesitate a moment to use arms in defense of so valuable a blessing [as liberty], on which all the good and evil of life depends; is clearly my opinion; yet Arms...should be the last resort."-- George Washington, 1789 letter to George Mason.[The True George Washington, 10th Ed. By Paul Leicester Ford.]

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government ... The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms..."-- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #28.

""The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta! And Lexington, Concord, Camden, River Raisin, Sandusky, and the laurel-crowned field of New Orleans, plead eloquently for this interpretation!"--Chief Justice Collier, Nunn v. State, 1 Ga.(1 Kel.) 243 (1846).

Have you seen this information I found? What do you think of it?

U.S. Federal Gun Control Legislation, 1968 - present

All Federal gun control legislation in the United States has been written, introduced, and sponsored or co-sponsored by Jewish Congressmen and Jewish Senators.

Emanuel Celler, Democratic Representative from New York(1923 - 1973)
Howard Metzenbaum, Democratic Senator from Ohio(1974, 1976 - 1995)
Herb Kohl, Democratic Senator from Wisconsin(1989 - present)
Chuck Schumer, Democratic Senator from New York(1999 - present), Democratic Represenative from New York(1981-1999)
Dianne Feinstein, Democratic Senator from California(1992 - present)
Arlen Specter, Republican Senator from Pennsylvania(1981 - present)
Frank Lautenberg, Democratic Senator from New Jersey(1982 - 2001, 2003 - present)
Barbara Boxer, Democratic Senator from California(1993 - present), Democratic Representative from California(1983 - 1993)
Carl Levin, Democratic Senator from Michigan(1979 - present)

1968: The Gun Control Act of 1968 comes from Representative Emanuel Celler’s House bill H.R. 17735. It expands legislation already attempted by the non-Jewish Sen. Thomas Dodd. America’s biggest and most far-reaching gun law came from a Jew.

1988: Senate bill S. 1523 is sponsored by Senator Howard Metzenbaum. It proposes legislation turning every violation of the Gun Control Act of 1968 into a RICO predicate offense, allowing a gun owner to be charged with federal racketeering offenses.

1988: Senator Metzenbaum co-sponsors a bill — S. 2180 — to ban, or limit/restrict, so-called “plastic guns.”

1990: Senator Herbert Kohl introduces bill S.2070, the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, which bans gun possession in a school zone. The law will later be struck down in court as unconstitutional.

1993: Senate bill S.653 is sponsored by Senator Howard Metzenbaum. It bans specific semiautomatic rifles, but also gives the Secretary of the Treasury the power to add any semiautomatic firearm to the list at a later date.

February, 1994: The Brady Law, which requires waiting periods to buy handguns, becomes effective. Senator Metzenbaum wrote the Brady Bill. Metzenbaum sponsored the bill in the Senate. The sponsor of the bill in the House was Rep. Charles Schumer.

1994: Senator Metzenbaum introduces S.1878, the Gun Violence Prevention Act of 1994, aka “Brady II.” Representative Schumer sponsored “Brady II” sister legislation [H.R. 1321] in the U.S. House of Representatives.

September, 1994: The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 goes into effect, including a provision that bans the manufacture and possession of semiautomatic rifles described as “assault weapons.” [Note: true assault weapons are fully automatic, not semiautomatic]. That gun-ban provision was authored in the Senate by Senator Dianne Feinstein and authored in the House by Congressman Schumer.

1995: Senators Kohl, Specter, Feinstein, Lautenberg and others introduce the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1995, an amended version of the 1990 school-zone law which was struck down in court as being unconstitutional.

September, 1996: The Lautenberg Domestic Confiscation provision becomes law. It is part of a larger omnibus appropriations bill. It was sponsored by Senator Frank Lautenberg. It bans people convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence from ever owning a gun.

1997: Senate bill S. 54, the Federal Gang Violence Act of 1997, proposes much harsher sentences for people violating minor gun laws, including mandatory prison sentences and forfeiture of property. It was introduced by Senator Dianne Feinstein and Senator Hatch, among others. It returns the idea of turning every violation of the Gun Control Act of 1968 into a RICO predicate offense.

January, 1999: Senator Barbara Boxer introduces bill S.193, the American Handgun Standards Act of 1999.

January, 1999: Senator Kohl introduces bill S.149, the Child Safety Lock Act of 1999. It would require a child safety lock in connection with transfer of a handgun.

February,1999: Senator Frank Lautenberg introduces bill S.407, the Stop Gun Trafficking Act of 1999.

February, 1999: Senator Lautenberg introduces S.443, the Gun Show Accountability Act of 1999.

March, 1999: Senator Lautenberg introduces bill S.560, the Gun Industry Accountability Act of 1999.

March, 1999: Senator Feinstein introduces bill S.594, the Large Capacity Ammunition Magazine Import Ban Act of 1999.

May, 2000: Senate bill S. 2515, Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2000, is submitted by Senators Feinstein, Boxer, Lautenberg, and Schumer. It is a plan for a national firearms licensing system.


January, 2001: Senate bill S.25, Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2001, is sponsored by Senators Feinstein, Schumer, and Boxer. It is a nation-wide gun registration plan [apparently there were two versions of that Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act bill].

May, 2003: Senators Feinstein, Schumer, Boxer and others introduce legislation that would reauthorize the 1994 federal assault weapons ban, and, close a loophole in the law that allows large-capacity ammunition magazines to be imported into the U.S. The ban expired in September, 2004.

October, 2003: Senators Feinstein, Lautenberg, Levin, and Schumer co-sponsor bill S.1774, designed to stop the sunset [ending] of the Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988.

March, 2005: Senator Lautenberg introduces bill S.645, “to reinstate the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act,” in other words, to reinstate the 1994 assault-rifle ban [also known as the “Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994”] which expired in late 2004.

March, 2005: Senator Feinstein introduces bill S.620, “to reinstate the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act,” in other words, to reinstate the 1994 assault-rifle ban [also known as the “Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994”] which expired in late 2004.

July, 2005: Senator Feinstein introduces bill SA1621 - Fifty-Caliber Sniper Weapons. This amendment would convert all .50 BMG firearms to NFA weapons.

July, 2005: Senator Feinstein introduces bill SA1622 - Fifty-Caliber Exclusion to S.397. This amendment would modify SB397 to allow suits when the firearm involved was a .50 caliber weapon.

July, 2005: Senator Boxer introduces bill SA1633 - BATFE Safety Standards SA1633 - BATFE Safety Standards. This amendment allows law suits to continue/be brought if the product did not meet the safety standards as defined by the BATFE.

July, 2005: Senator Boxer introduces bill SA1634 - ‘Sporting Use’ on Domestic Handguns. Applying ’sporting use’ clause requirements to domestic handguns could, almost completely, dry up the handgun]]>
Wed, 04 Sep 2019 08:56:36 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13440 http://curi.us/comments/show/13440
Anonymous List of Fallible Ideas Evaders
Might have been the farmer :) But I think you mean "Chipkin".]]>
Wed, 04 Sep 2019 01:09:50 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13439 http://curi.us/comments/show/13439
Alisa Open Thread: Diet and Exercise
> Hunger is the bottleneck on enjoyable eating experiences per year.

Agreed.

> Overeating (e.g. eating 11 times per 10 hungers) doesn't change the bottleneck.

Yeah. Even if you overeat, hunger is still the bottleneck.

> It just gets a bit more use out of the bottleneck,

Your example of overeating ("eating 11 times per 10 hungers") involves eating when you are *not hungry*. If *hunger* is the bottleneck, how does that kind of overeating actually *use* the bottleneck?

> but it's still an amount of eating proportional to the bottleneck...

Possible counter-example: If you eat often enough when you are not hungry, then you will never become hungry. You will have eaten some non-zero amount of food and yet the number of times when you were hungry would be 0. In that case, I don't see how the amount eaten would be proportional to the bottleneck.]]>
Tue, 03 Sep 2019 23:35:30 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13438 http://curi.us/comments/show/13438
Anonymous List of Fallible Ideas Evaders Tue, 03 Sep 2019 14:18:30 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13437 http://curi.us/comments/show/13437 Anonymous List of Fallible Ideas Evaders
>>So, you teach bad ideas, from a position of authority, to vulnerable students. Fuck you.
>
>Not all schools are alike. The students know what I think of the bad ideas. Typically they come away from discussions about those ideas with better ideas. Better than they would have, if someone else was trying to present that material.]]>
Tue, 03 Sep 2019 12:18:08 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13436 http://curi.us/comments/show/13436
curi List of Fallible Ideas Evaders Tue, 03 Sep 2019 12:01:59 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13435 http://curi.us/comments/show/13435 Anne B List of Fallible Ideas Evaders Tue, 03 Sep 2019 11:48:23 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13434 http://curi.us/comments/show/13434 Anonymous List of Fallible Ideas Evaders Tue, 03 Sep 2019 07:57:24 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13433 http://curi.us/comments/show/13433 Anne B List of Fallible Ideas Evaders Tue, 03 Sep 2019 06:46:29 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13432 http://curi.us/comments/show/13432 Anonymous List of Fallible Ideas Evaders Tue, 03 Sep 2019 03:53:56 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13431 http://curi.us/comments/show/13431 Dagny Open Thread: Diet and Exercise
Overeating (e.g. eating 11 times per 10 hungers) doesn't change the bottleneck. It just gets a bit more use out of the bottleneck, but it's still an amount of eating proportional to the bottleneck (and overeating has major downsides).]]>
Mon, 02 Sep 2019 21:49:03 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13430 http://curi.us/comments/show/13430
Hunger and the enjoyment of food Alisa Open Thread: Diet and Exercise
Eating tasty food is an important part of maximizing my enjoyment of the taste of food. However, the availability of tasty food is *not* a scarce resource for me. I live in an environment of abundant tasty food that can be ready to eat in half an hour or less.

I enjoy the taste of food most when I'm hungry. However, being hungry is a limited resource: there will only be so many times in my life when I'm hungry. Eating when I'm not hungry doesn't give me nearly as much enjoyment from the food's taste as eating when I'm hungry does. Eating when I'm not hungry also has the negative effect of increasing the amount of time that passes until I am actually hungry.]]>
Mon, 02 Sep 2019 21:09:06 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13429 http://curi.us/comments/show/13429
curi David Deutsch Smears Ayn Rand
I don't agree with what I think you mean. His older works remain some of the best there is. E.g. his books and physics papers should absolutely be taken seriously.

For new works, if it's physics it could easily be great. If it's philosophy, well, he's one of the few living people who has done great work in that field, so it's worth a serious look to see if it's any good or not. If it's tweets, those are mixed – some are pretty good (not great, but good for Twitter) and some are bad – which is better than most people that one could follow on Twitter.]]>
Mon, 02 Sep 2019 20:13:24 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13428 http://curi.us/comments/show/13428
curi David Deutsch Smears Ayn Rand Mon, 02 Sep 2019 20:10:42 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13427 http://curi.us/comments/show/13427 curi What To Read Mon, 02 Sep 2019 20:09:39 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13426 http://curi.us/comments/show/13426 AnonyMouse David Deutsch Smears Ayn Rand Mon, 02 Sep 2019 19:26:06 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13425 http://curi.us/comments/show/13425 Grammar Andy David Deutsch Smears Ayn Rand
misleading -> misleadingly]]>
Mon, 02 Sep 2019 17:46:08 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13424 http://curi.us/comments/show/13424
Grammar Andy David Deutsch Smears Ayn Rand
This post critically analyzes it

-or-

This post is critically analyzing it]]>
Mon, 02 Sep 2019 17:43:58 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13423 http://curi.us/comments/show/13423
Dagny David Deutsch Smears Ayn Rand
Yes.]]>
Mon, 02 Sep 2019 15:06:07 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13422 http://curi.us/comments/show/13422
Anonymous David Deutsch Smears Ayn Rand Mon, 02 Sep 2019 14:19:18 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13421 http://curi.us/comments/show/13421 Dagny Open Discussion (2019)
That means two people paying the same price get different service. That's anti-capitalist.

That is a society of *status, not contract*. That's one of the arch evils.]]>
Sun, 01 Sep 2019 16:34:41 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13420 http://curi.us/comments/show/13420
Filthy surgical instruments: The hidden threat in America’s operating rooms Alisa Open Discussion (2019)
Successful surgery requires clean surgical instruments. However, cleaning those instruments is a high-stress, low-wage job. The people doing this job are frequently rushed by doctors and hospital management, and they frequently make mistakes. Even when they follow the manufacturer's cleaning instructions, human gunk frequently remains on the instruments. This can result in surgical infections which, as the [top HN comment](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20849854) says, are especially serious:

>> As I have told my patients and medical students, a surgical infection is a life altering event. There is a good chance that you will never be the same after experiencing it.

Evidence of astonishingly bad cleaning cited in the article:

> Wilkinson said Smith & Nephew inspected 72 [arthroscopic] shavers at eight hospitals and surgery centers, and that all but three of the devices contained “residuals” after cleaning by hospital staff.

> Azizi, at the University of Michigan Health System, said in addition to surgical suction tips, his team also inspected 15 arthroscopic shavers. He found biological material and other debris in all of them.

Apparently the surgical instrument cleaners are told to do an especially careful cleaning job when someone "important" is on the operating table:

> Except when an important person or a doctor’s family member is on the table, that is. “They call and say, ‘Dr. Jones’ wife is having surgery,’” Green-Golden said. “You didn’t call when I was having surgery. You didn’t call when my momma was having surgery.”]]>
Sun, 01 Sep 2019 09:53:49 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13419 http://curi.us/comments/show/13419
Alisa Open Discussion (2019)
(*) I often use markdownlivepreview.com to preview my curi.us comments before posting. The link displayed fine there. I know markdownlivepreview.com is flawed for previewing curi.us comments, but it catches some errors, and doesn't take much time to use.]]>
Sat, 31 Aug 2019 23:29:44 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13418 http://curi.us/comments/show/13418
Dave Chappelle: Sticks & Stones Alisa Open Discussion (2019)
I got interested enough to give Sticks & Stones a try after seeing [Vice's headline and subheading](https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/59ngpb/you-can-definitely-skip-dave-chappelles-new-netflix-special-sticks-and-stones) about the show:

> You Can Definitely Skip Dave Chappelle's New Netflix Special 'Sticks & Stones'
>
> The comedian doubles down on misogyny and transphobia...

After watching Sticks & Stones, I did a Google search for the title. The 6th or so result was [an article with another solid sales pitch for the special]
(https://verysmartbrothas.theroot.com/all-the-worst-white-people-love-dave-chappelles-sticks-1837747273):

> That said, there are also many who consider this to be one of his best performances. And among that group are trolls, professional bigots, white supremacists, Nazi sympathizers and more of the very worst white people; an adoration due to the parallels between their sensibilities and his.

Some of my favorite parts of Sticks & Stones are the part starting at around 14 minutes and the part from around minute 22 to around minute 35. The latter contains the following gem, which I will quote only in part in order to avoid spoiling it:

> ... what I didn’t realize at the time was that I was breaking an unwritten and unspoken rule of show business ... no matter what you do in your artistic expression, you are never, ever, allowed to upset the alphabet people.

(Quote source: the [Washington Examiner](https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/dave-chappelles-brilliant-new-netflix-special-sticks-and-stones-might-get-him-canceled))]]>
Sat, 31 Aug 2019 23:19:26 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13417 http://curi.us/comments/show/13417
Anonymous Open Discussion (2019)
If you try those, post examples (problems + your solutions + their answers) and see if ppl have criticism.]]>
Sat, 31 Aug 2019 18:04:12 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13416 http://curi.us/comments/show/13416
Anonymous Open Discussion (2019) Sat, 31 Aug 2019 17:41:05 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13415 http://curi.us/comments/show/13415 Anonymous Open Discussion (2019) Sat, 31 Aug 2019 06:38:54 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13413 http://curi.us/comments/show/13413 world record paper airplane instructions Alisa Open Discussion (2019)
In the above video, John Collins, a.k.a. [The Paper Airplane Guy](http://thepaperairplaneguy.com), explains how to fold and tape an instance of his paper airplane that [won the Guinness world record for furthest distance in 2012](https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/farthest-flight-by-a-paper-aircraft?fb_comment_id=786239468116352_869588083114823) [[video of winning flight](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wedcZp07raE)].

There are also [pdf instructions for Collins' plane](https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4427293/How-to-Fold-a-World-Record-Holding-Paper-Airplane.pdf) (warning: 264 Mbyte pdf file), named “Suzanne” – it's the first plane in the pdf.

I haven't tried to follow the instructions myself, but I thought it was notable how detailed they were. For example, the pdf instructions call for a specific number of strips of tape, each of which must be a particular size and must be applied in a particular order.]]>
Sat, 31 Aug 2019 00:39:17 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13412 http://curi.us/comments/show/13412
Improving logical analysis Anonymous Open Discussion (2019)
brilliant.org has a couple of courses about logic (and STEM subjects) and they write detailed explanations for solutions to problems - any others? Or anything better?]]>
Fri, 30 Aug 2019 21:17:34 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13411 http://curi.us/comments/show/13411
curi Open Discussion (2019)
http://curi.us/tcs/Articles/DDTCSvsSudburyValley.html
http://curi.us/tcs/Articles/DDNon-coerciveSchools.html
http://curi.us/1793-ray-girn-the-self-made-child-maria-montessoris-philosophy-of-education]]>
Fri, 30 Aug 2019 19:59:43 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13410 http://curi.us/comments/show/13410
Anonymous Open Discussion (2019) Fri, 30 Aug 2019 17:42:39 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13409 http://curi.us/comments/show/13409 Anonymous Open Discussion (2019) Fri, 30 Aug 2019 12:33:40 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13407 http://curi.us/comments/show/13407 Teaching Anonymous Open Discussion (2019) Fri, 30 Aug 2019 05:47:45 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13406 http://curi.us/comments/show/13406 curi Brandon Cropper Is Not an Objectivist Thu, 29 Aug 2019 13:58:36 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13405 http://curi.us/comments/show/13405 Brandon Cropper The Pandering Popularizer curi Brandon Cropper Is Not an Objectivist
Cropper is very accepting. Not only Objectivists but pretty much anyone right wing and anti-collectivism is on his side. This is unlike Ayn Rand or the admissions criteria for Galt’s Gulch (even Eddie wasn’t invited, tons of decent people weren’t invited).

Cropper does politics, contrary to the Objectivist view that philosophy education needs to come first. Politics gets more attention than philosophy.

Cropper says he’s a leader and can solve problems. He announces that he has *fast* answers to major problems, which don’t look that hard to him. And he includes his viewers as part of the solution. Like if they follow him, and people actually do stuff, major political progress can be made fast.

I saw him saying something about how at first he was going to read books or something but now he needs to focus his time on sorting out this political mess or maybe it was the mess with Yaron Brook and ARI being confused. He presents improving the world as something that’s going to happen any day now, not a long term project that people can make small, gradual contributions to. That isn’t fun for dumb people, they want a big impact in the short term, and they want practical results instead of just to develop better ideas and educational resources so that there can be gradual learning in the world. The viewers mostly don’t use educational resources much themselves (listening to people like Cropper, Sam Harris, Jordan Peterson, etc., is not like reading books and studying for real), so they certainly don’t see those educational resources as the path to improving the world. They are on YouTube instead of a longform text platform because they don’t want to think very hard, and they are not going to be very friendly to the idea that they are going to be in the 517th wave of progress (a few people think, make longform text resources, then for wave two a few more people think and help make more resources, and so on, and it takes a bunch of waves before it gets to the masses, and for a long time only the more serious people do much).

Cropper made it sound like, with his efforts, he’ll get things sorted out soon (like within 3 months maybe, and a viewer could easily think it’ll be 3 weeks because that’s enough time for Cropper to make a bunch of videos). This is unreasonable. I talk differently. I’m pretty clear that I don’t expect to have a big impact on our culture this year or next year. I have a small audience and most people are hostile to thinking. The stuff I say is not what the majority want to hear, so it helps keep my audience smaller. My message is not exciting to dumb people (one ought to be excited by philosophy ideas). That’s fine. I’m just comparing because Cropper’s rather different message is trying to attract a bigger but lower quality following. That’s similar to what Gail Wynand did.

Cropper is different than Wynand by being much smaller and less successful. He thinks he’s different in another major way: that he’s sharing the right ideas instead of pandering. But he’s a big tent guy who doesn’t understand significant parts of Objectivism like the blank slate stuff. Ayn Rand loathed the libertarians and thought Hayek and Friedman were enemies. Cropper is nothing like that. He’s sorta like “the right is all good, yay us”. He says some stuff about individual rights and free trade and small government or whatever and then plenty of non-Objectivists and non-philosophers can like that.

Cropper isn’t very good at stuff. He made dozens of videos with a webcam pointed at his computer screen instead of being able to record his screen. When I told him to screencast, he replied “This is stretching my technical skills to their limits.”. So he’s barely able to make videos at all and he’s OK with that or something, not embarrassed about his incompetence. He ought to be strong, capable and able – effective in the world – and learn skills he lacks. He should have an “I can do it” attitude instead of a “this is too hard for me” attitude. And it’s really not that hard to record a computer screen today, there are plenty of easy apps for that. And he managed to figure it out at some point. But he’s not like Francisco or Dagny in attitude or success. If he was less good at stuff than them, but trying to be good, that’d be alright, but isn’t doing his best to deal with the world similar to how they do. He can use most of their methods even if he’s less skilled and knowledgeable than them. He can say “I can do it” and then do it, even if it takes him longer than it would take them.

> Francisco could do anything he undertook, he could do it better than anyone else, and he did it without effort. There was no boasting in his manner and consciousness, no thought of comparison. His attitude was not: “I can do it better than you,” but simply: “I can do it.” What he meant by doing was doing superlatively.

The text “I can do it” is in *Atlas Shrugged* 8 different times. Here’s Dagny:

> She felt the excitement of solving problems, the insolent delight of taking up a challenge and disposing of it without effort, the eagerness to meet another, harder test. She felt, at the same time, a growing respect for the adversary, for a science that was so clean, so strict, so luminously rational. Studying mathematics, she felt, quite simply and at once: “How great that men have done this” and “How wonderful that I’m so good at it.” It was the joy of admiration and of one’s own ability, growing together. Her feeling for the railroad was the same: worship of the skill that had gone to make it, of the ingenuity of someone’s clean, reasoning mind, worship with a secret smile that said she would know how to make it better some day.

Most of this is coming from the conversation between Cropper and Rucka. The other thing I remember from watching a few Cropper videos, a few weeks ago, is that he isn’t very technical. He doesn’t have detailed knowledge of some of the subjects he tries to tackle. He’s just doesn’t know much, by my standards. He’s not much of an expert. There isn’t enough depth to his knowledge. Maybe he knows a lot about some subjects, but not the ones I saw him talk about. He was trying to do some technical philosophy, I think relating to the brain and mind, and he wasn’t able to go into much detail or be very convincing.

I’ve made a lot of video content on YouTube recently and gained few new subscribers. I think the differences are notable. When streaming I do actual, serious philosophy, in depth, for hours. Cropper makes short videos, with more politics and more posturing as an Objectivist. I don’t emphasize being an Objectivist in my videos. Maybe it’d actually be good to make some Objectivist themed stuff. I could stream doing the Galt’s speech analysis that I’ve been vaguely planning to do. I could also stream organizing and editing the quotes for randquotes.com And I could get Justin to make highlight videos from the Objectivist streams and give them Objectivist titles. That seems reasonable (not pandering).]]>
Thu, 29 Aug 2019 13:51:40 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13404 http://curi.us/comments/show/13404
Ayn Rand on man having a "tendency" to evil Alisa Brandon Cropper Is Not an Objectivist
Yeah. For example, in Atlas Shrugged, [Galt says](http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/original_sin.html):

> Do not hide behind the cowardly evasion that man is born with free will, but with a “tendency” to evil. A free will saddled with a tendency is like a game with loaded dice. It forces man to struggle through the effort of playing, to bear responsibility and pay for the game, but the decision is weighted in favor of a tendency that he had no power to escape. If the tendency is of his choice, he cannot possess it at birth; if it is not of his choice, his will is not free.]]>
Thu, 29 Aug 2019 08:09:24 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13403 http://curi.us/comments/show/13403
Anonymous Rationally Resolving Conflicts of Ideas
Do you mean *logically* implies, or did you bring up some other kind of implication (what? vague, ambiguous, maybe-hinting?) in a discussion involving logical deduction, without labelling or explanation, would be a good idea?

It looks like you are not a competent logician and ought not to be making the claims you have about logic b/c you don't know what you're doing.]]>
Wed, 28 Aug 2019 17:28:16 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13402 http://curi.us/comments/show/13402
Anonymous Rationally Resolving Conflicts of Ideas
Making a weaker statement does *not* imply that (the speaker believes that) a stronger statement would be false.

>>> Yes, that FYI is technically false outside CLT, but I did clarify that I was referring to CLT in my follow up response.

> In this quote, did I not agree with you and admit that my original (unclarified) statement was in error?

Your claim was non-technically false (uniform populations are not a rare, technical issue).

You only said it was false "outside CLT" and said you were referring to CLT. None of that is clearly changing your mind. Mentioning CLT upfront would not have helped make the "irrespective" claim true. CLT says *conditionally*, not irrespective, so mentioning CLT + talking about "irrespective" is contradicting yourself rather than fixing the problem.

You seem to be claiming that your clarification that you were talking about CLT meant you were no longer in error, whereas actually at that point you were contradicting yourself.]]>
Wed, 28 Aug 2019 17:23:08 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13401 http://curi.us/comments/show/13401
Spelling error Alisa Alisa Discussion
> Erik Salatan, the guy who harvests all his own meat, seems competent at shooting caribou.

Correction: Erik's last name is "Salitan", not "Salatan". I guess I tried to spell his name from memory without checking it, rather than copy/pasting or checking the spelling carefully.

To see the correct spelling, you can watch the show itself which has text on the screen that spells his name correctly. Also, his name is on his site, http://www.bushwhackalaska.com :

> Owner/Operator Erik Salitan]]>
Wed, 28 Aug 2019 08:19:32 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13400 http://curi.us/comments/show/13400
Life below Zero Andy Alisa Discussion Wed, 28 Aug 2019 07:59:42 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13399 http://curi.us/comments/show/13399 Alisa Alisa Discussion Tue, 27 Aug 2019 22:01:58 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13398 http://curi.us/comments/show/13398 Anonymous Alisa Discussion Tue, 27 Aug 2019 21:43:53 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13397 http://curi.us/comments/show/13397 "pit toilet" and "outhouse" Alisa Alisa Discussion

A [pit toilet](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pit_latrine) is a toilet in which the waste falls or slides into a hole in the ground.

An [outhouse](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outhouse) is a building that provides shelter for a pit toilet.

A pit toilet and an outhouse usually go together, kind of like a toilet and a bathroom. I guess that "pit toilet" slightly focuses on the toilet part of the toilet/shelter pair, while "outhouse" slightly focuses on the shelter part of the pair.

Consider the pairs "pit toilet"/"outhouse" and "toilet"/"bathroom". I guess that, in many cases, either term in a pair can be used mostly interchangeably. For example, you can say either "I need to use the toilet" or "I need to use the bathroom" – they mostly mean the same thing.]]>
Tue, 27 Aug 2019 21:41:45 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13396 http://curi.us/comments/show/13396
curi Podcast Discussion
I have set up some firewall rules with Cloudflare and nginx which are, at least currently, adequately blocking the attack.]]>
Tue, 27 Aug 2019 21:29:16 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13395 http://curi.us/comments/show/13395
N Open Discussion (2019) Tue, 27 Aug 2019 21:21:53 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13394 http://curi.us/comments/show/13394 harari Alan Open Discussion (2019)
https://conjecturesandrefutations.com/2018/11/24/homo-deus-by-harari-a-second-handed-book/

He's a completely worthless hack.]]>
Tue, 27 Aug 2019 13:51:29 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13393 http://curi.us/comments/show/13393
N Open Discussion (2019)
I found a video of Yaron discussing Yuval that I will check in the morning. Maybe he was the Oist that I saw / heard discuss Yuval recently. Looks to be on Yuval's TED talk.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7xiNRNi-QE]]>
Tue, 27 Aug 2019 13:45:31 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13392 http://curi.us/comments/show/13392
curi Open Discussion (2019) Tue, 27 Aug 2019 13:29:59 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13391 http://curi.us/comments/show/13391 Anonymous Open Discussion (2019)
Yuval Harari is the author of *Sapiens* and *Homo Deus*

https://www.amazon.com/Sapiens-Humankind-Yuval-Noah-Harari-ebook/dp/B00ICN066A

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0062464345/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_bibl_vppi_i1

It's been a while since I read them, but if my recollection is decent he was confused on capitalism and has anti-human views. I could be mixing him up with Jared Diamond (*Guns, Germs, and Steel*).
I really need to start keeping notes on books I read.]]>
Tue, 27 Aug 2019 12:30:42 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13390 http://curi.us/comments/show/13390
curi Submit Podcast Questions Tue, 27 Aug 2019 12:06:08 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13389 http://curi.us/comments/show/13389 curi Open Discussion (2019)
> View all posts on one page. (With comments too.)

> View a list of all posts.

Those pages let you search post titles, posts, or posts with comments. The posts will take a while to load, especially with comments too, and I wouldn't try it on mobile. If you have trouble with it, you can right click the link and download the page and then search in a text editor or something else.

But I don't recall the name "Yuval Harari".]]>
Tue, 27 Aug 2019 12:04:58 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13388 http://curi.us/comments/show/13388
Anonymous Open Discussion (2019)
I am looking for *criticism* on **Yuval Harari** that I believe I either read about in a post or saw in a Curi TouTube stream.

I know Harari is really bad on capitalism, but I wanted to check what else was written / said in the post / vid.]]>
Tue, 27 Aug 2019 11:12:38 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13387 http://curi.us/comments/show/13387
Anonymous Open Discussion (2019)
> Facebook has a 'homosexuality' interest in the ad targeting options, including in some counties where homosexuality is illegal. Of course, advertisers don't get any personal data about who sees an ad... except that you could target people with ads that might then try to elicit personal information ('enter your email to get a free pizza!') ... which could be very not good. The law of unintended consequences strikes again.

Article link: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2214309-facebooks-ad-data-may-put-millions-of-gay-people-at-risk/]]>
Tue, 27 Aug 2019 11:03:53 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13386 http://curi.us/comments/show/13386
Popper - Objectivism N Submit Podcast Questions
In it, authors, David Horowitz, and Richard Poe, talk about how Karl Popper was the teacher of George Soros and argued for the idea of the open society (Popper's book: *The Open Society and Its Enemies* (I have not read *OSaiE*)).

Could this, Popper's political views, be why Popper is so disliked by many Objectivists, and not his arguments against induction?

I did not know about Popper having these views before reading *SP*.]]>
Tue, 27 Aug 2019 04:54:44 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13385 http://curi.us/comments/show/13385
Life BelowZero Alisa Alisa Discussion
One thing that stood out to me about S01E01 is the way the subjects seem to exude competence in survival skills. The people catching fish seem competent at it. Erik Salatan, the guy who harvests all his own meat, seems competent at shooting caribou. The guy who rides on a dog sled on the frozen river seems competent at guiding his dogs and at recognizing when the ice isn't safe.

Ayn Rand valued competence extremely highly. In Atlas Shrugged, Francisco says:

> "Dagny, there's nothing of any importance in life-except how well you do your work. Nothing. Only that. Whatever else you are, will come from that. It's the only measure of human value. All the codes of ethics they'll try to ram down your throat are just so much paper money put out by swindlers to fleece people of their virtues. The code of competence is the only system of morality that's on a gold standard. [...]"

What could explain this competence? Here are a few factors:

- North of the Arctic Circle, one mistake can kill you. People who overreach in survival-related matters won't last long there. Learning without overreaching is the quickest path to competence.
- Knowing the dangers of the arctic environment, the people who choose to live there are predisposed to value competence in survival skills.
- In order to make the show more interesting, the show's producers selected competent people to be on the show.]]>
Mon, 26 Aug 2019 19:55:11 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13384 http://curi.us/comments/show/13384
Anonymous Open Discussion (2019) Mon, 26 Aug 2019 12:18:55 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13383 http://curi.us/comments/show/13383 kieren Rationally Resolving Conflicts of Ideas
>Deduction is only *airtight* arguments where there are no details or clarifications left out. E.g.:

>All men are mortal.

>Socrates is a man.

>Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

>Do you have any details or clarifactions to ask about for that? I don't.

I could always ask for clarification about what these terms mean. For example, do you include fictional men under your category of man? Similarly, you asked me if I include extinct animals in my category of small animal species.

> A genuine deduction is *as airtight as that one*. That's one of the archtypical deductions, it's representative of what deduction is like. If your argument is less airtight or less complete or worse in any way, it's not deduction.

> For deduction, all limitations on domain (conditions) should be stated. And all complex terms should be defined in a way that would satisfy the pickiest lawyers or logicians. If you aren't doing that, you aren't doing deduction. (Which would be fine. In most of life, including most science, we don't use deduction much. You're claiming deduction plays a major role in your philosophical system; I'm not. But then because that doesn't work you want to lower the quality standards for deduction, which I object to.)

I’m getting the impression that you limit your concept of deduction to only those arguments which are stated in the precise form of a classical syllogism. What if someone said “My friend Socrates is going to die because he is a man and all men are mortal”? Would you be ok with calling this a deductive argument?

If so, then what about “John has a high chance of suffering memory loss in later life because he is a footballer and 90% of footballers suffer from memory loss in later life”?

>According to you, induction comes into play in a later stage in your epistemology. So how do the early stages work *the first time*, before you've ever done the later stages? Or, in the alternative, as I suggested and you resisted, you could also address how learning about a non-empirical topic works.

I will try to provide a bit of an overview of the steps involved in my model.

1. Create a new hypothesis (creative conjecture)
2. Check hypothesis against existing knowledge
3. Deduce testable consequences from your hypothesis
4. Test the deduced consequences and induce conclusions.
Step 4 is where the induction takes place. We are stuck at step 2 because it involves discussion of existing knowledge, which in order to have been accepted it had to pass each of the steps already (including the inductive step). However, we have a few options to get out of this. One option is to move forward with the assumption that we already have some existing knowledge to work with (perhaps assuming it is instinctive knowledge, or a rule of thumb provided to us by our parents). Another option is to just assume we have no relevant prior knowledge whatsoever, meaning we skip step 2. However I don’t think this second option is realistic as I mentioned previously with the following response.

>> It’s hard for me to give an example without relying on existing knowledge, because I don’t think that is ever the case. Maybe you come across pain for the first time and you conjecture something as simple as ‘falling causes pain’, but I imagine we could always show how some sort of instinctual knowledge of physical objects, the self, time, etc is being invoked.

I’ll try respond to more of what you wrote when I get the chance.]]>
Mon, 26 Aug 2019 05:31:14 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13382 http://curi.us/comments/show/13382
kieren Rationally Resolving Conflicts of Ideas
Because whilst it is false for some cases, which seem to me as special cases (in the context of studying a population for its mean), it is correct for many others.]]>
Mon, 26 Aug 2019 03:48:47 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13381 http://curi.us/comments/show/13381
curi Podcast Discussion
It'll work if you listen in a web browser or download it from my website.

I will try to fix this soon.]]>
Sun, 25 Aug 2019 23:17:36 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13380 http://curi.us/comments/show/13380
Anonymous Podcast Discussion > "Episode Unavailable
> This episode is temporarily unavailable from 'Fallible Ideas Podcast'."

> Not sure why this is happening. It was strange - it worked for a few hours after the new recent episodes were released - but now it doesn't again.

> Anyone else have the same problem?

Yes i am having the same problem]]>
Sun, 25 Aug 2019 23:08:24 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13379 http://curi.us/comments/show/13379
Error in podcast? Anonymous Podcast Discussion "Episode Unavailable
This episode is temporarily unavailable from 'Fallible Ideas Podcast'."

Not sure why this is happening. It was strange - it worked for a few hours after the new recent episodes were released - but now it doesn't again.

Anyone else have the same problem?]]>
Sun, 25 Aug 2019 23:05:29 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13378 http://curi.us/comments/show/13378
Sense of life N Submit Podcast Questions How should one think to get a better sense of the concept, *a sense of life*?]]> Sun, 25 Aug 2019 22:48:47 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13377 http://curi.us/comments/show/13377 N Submit Podcast Questions Sun, 25 Aug 2019 22:41:15 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13376 http://curi.us/comments/show/13376 Alisa Rationally Resolving Conflicts of Ideas Sun, 25 Aug 2019 22:33:37 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13375 http://curi.us/comments/show/13375 1 billion seconds Alisa Alisa Discussion
Answer (ROT-13): [Nobhg guvegl gjb lrnef](http://www.decode.org/?q=Nobhg+guvegl+gjb+lrnef). [1]

A modern CPU can count to 1 billion in less than a second. Comparing the two times gives one way of thinking about of how fast modern CPUs are.

[1] https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1+billion+seconds+to+years]]>
Sat, 24 Aug 2019 22:59:20 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13374 http://curi.us/comments/show/13374
kieren Rationally Resolving Conflicts of Ideas
> It claims "correct in general" then claims what you wrote was "sufficient" in context and then says "could later clarify if it became relevant" (suggesting it's not a problem or error, just a reasonable choice not to include every detail upfront). None of that admits that it was an error.

“Correct in general” implies that it is not absolutely true. Earlier I was more explicit in admitting the error with the following.

>> Yes, that FYI is technically false outside CLT, but I did clarify that I was referring to CLT in my follow up response.

In this quote, did I not agree with you and admit that my original (unclarified) statement was in error?]]>
Sat, 24 Aug 2019 09:02:24 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/13373 http://curi.us/comments/show/13373