You are speaking about it from the point of view of a victim. What about as an initiator? Most persons have been on BOTH ends of the deal. when you are 16 or 17, you don't think of all of that. I didn't quit because I wasn't any good at it. I've never been taken out by only one person: and that only happened ONCE. When I was 14, I escaped and evaded 3 grown men in an open field with only tall grass for cover. Now the kicker I have sight in only one eye and at that time it was about 20/200
I have another interpretation of the story of Ibrihim. Most persons take it way out of context. Human sacrifice was the going thing in 2000 BCE. What is significant is that this particular daity brough Abraham just to the edge and called it off. This menat the END of human sacrifice under this deity. Abraham did what any proper leader of that time would do. You might also read Dr. Julius Jaynes TH BICAMERAL MIND (a gross distortion of which is the "left-brain right-brain dominant" thing) His work very closely tracks Rand's "The Missing Link". As a lead-in let me reccomind from a 1983 issue of SCIENCE DIGEST, "Was EarlyMan Schizophrenic?"
Cl Lyman Yes, but why is Abraham revered? Oh, how nice that God doesn’t want human sacrifice (except when he does, but oh well), but why do we revere the person who was ready to commit it?
Abraham is revered as the founder of the Habiru and the first from what I can see. The Christians and Muslims just inherited him being offshoot of the Hebrews. My point in all of this is that there is another interpretation of Abraham, not to get involved in the whoe psychohistory of the time, of which I know little more than the average Yusuf, and Isaac based on a context of fuller knowledge of things as they were at the time. It is likely that Abraham did not even exist as a single person. For instance we are pretty sure that Exodus did not happen at the time and place specified. Whe know that some desert tribes contacted Egjypt in c1700 BCE which match the time that Joseph was said to have gone to Egypt. There was an agreement that these tribes would guard Egypt's border. However these Semites actually took over the Pharoahsy(?) and were expelled c1500 and these events match with some of Exodus More th-cam.com/video/FLviKiEuj30/w-d-xo.html Hearing ths guy brought to mind what Jaynes had to say about the last knowable development of evolution, in that he said, from the study of such matter writings, that this kind of thing was worldwide and the end of the "bicameral mind", which he positied was the result of the evolution of the modern Corpus Colosum that facilitated communication between the left half of the brain and the right half (We get the notion of a "divided" brain from some experiments done a good number of decades ago, where the communication between both sides were cut, the, usually chimp, taught some skill, then the brain was restored, then the de-integrated and the other side was choasen and the chimp could not perform actions related to that skill. This was also used as the "cure" for condtions where one side of the brain had some condition that led to bizarre or criminal behavior. That half could be taken out of the loop and the other lobe used with no further problems. This was a massive improvement over prefrontal lobotomy. Even in the days of this lobotomy, we knew the exact nerves that we wanted to cut, we just did not have the precision surgical techniques to do the job at the time th-cam.com/users/results?search_query=sci+show+dominant+brian james Steven Valiant put up a post on facebook that, using brain studies, shows the path of an action from the conscious will in the Cerebrum to the carrying out in the Cerebellum Actually, the Christians are a bit un Biblical in their treatment of Satan. Among the Jews, he is not an evil being. Also, I have a surprise for you th-cam.com/video/-xfoHUI91Ig/w-d-xo.html Raffi aka Metatron, has a good reputation amoungst the TH-cam "Community of the Sword" that also includes history buffs. language buffs and some odds and ends. Other names are Lindybeighe, Shadaversity and Scholgladiatoria. But to continue. I had suspected that the Abrahamic religion was not monotheistic because the First Commandment is "...Thou shalt nnot have strange gods before me" He said nothing about after him or even that he was the only show in town. Also, from what we know of how God operates, he would not have permitted Moses to engage the High Priest in a magic smackdown if the Priest's powers were demonic since it would be giving stature to evil. So these gods must have had validity. Also, one section of the Israelites called God "Elohim"
The closest I get to an abstract foundation of Libertarian is "The Principle of non-aggression". Now, if you hold to "A is A", how can you have a "principle" based on a negative? You have to either demonstrate the factual premises of your principle, which if it si founded on a negative, it is founded on the NON-existence of something, or you have to prove the concepts of your principles, which since your principle is founded on a negative, the concepts cannot be based on something that is true and therefore must be false. So you principle is based on a falsehood or something that does not exist. I dunno about you, but I'm getting a headache
That is the Objectivist idea of individual rights, in the context of objectivity in Metaphysics and Reason in Epistemology and does violence to Rothboard, who, while claiming to be Aristotelian, held that to even argue rationally for one's position is a form of coercion because it leads to only one correct answer [REASON: 1980 or '81]: He must have DESPISED mathematics in the form of "What do I care for the fact that one plus one equals two, when for some reason, I don't like it". Following that (il)logic, can you imagine what trying to IMPLEMENT what you have said would be in the full Libertarian mythos? Given the fixed nature of reality, Rothbard would consider anything in line with that to be "coercive" since it would follow logically and be absolute
"the enforcing of social conditions that enable individuals to pursue what is true and what is the good"......totally awesome. Thank you!
One of the best lectures from the Ayn Rand Institute.
Great stuff.
Individuals are units. Just individuals are rational.
I loved this 3rd lecture!!!
You are speaking about it from the point of view of a victim. What about as an initiator? Most persons have been on BOTH ends of the deal. when you are 16 or 17, you don't think of all of that. I didn't quit because I wasn't any good at it. I've never been taken out by only one person: and that only happened ONCE. When I was 14, I escaped and evaded 3 grown men in an open field with only tall grass for cover. Now the kicker I have sight in only one eye and at that time it was about 20/200
You're too willing to accept the claims that women are being sexually abused.
I have another interpretation of the story of Ibrihim. Most persons take it way out of context. Human sacrifice was the going thing in 2000 BCE. What is significant is that this particular daity brough Abraham just to the edge and called it off. This menat the END of human sacrifice under this deity. Abraham did what any proper leader of that time would do. You might also read Dr. Julius Jaynes TH BICAMERAL MIND (a gross distortion of which is the "left-brain right-brain dominant" thing) His work very closely tracks Rand's "The Missing Link". As a lead-in let me reccomind from a 1983 issue of SCIENCE DIGEST, "Was EarlyMan Schizophrenic?"
Cl Lyman Yes, but why is Abraham revered? Oh, how nice that God doesn’t want human sacrifice (except when he does, but oh well), but why do we revere the person who was ready to commit it?
Abraham is revered as the founder of the Habiru and the first from what I can see. The Christians and Muslims just inherited him being offshoot of the Hebrews. My point in all of this is that there is another interpretation of Abraham, not to get involved in the whoe psychohistory of the time, of which I know little more than the average Yusuf, and Isaac based on a context of fuller knowledge of things as they were at the time. It is likely that Abraham did not even exist as a single person. For instance we are pretty sure that Exodus did not happen at the time and place specified. Whe know that some desert tribes contacted Egjypt in c1700 BCE which match the time that Joseph was said to have gone to Egypt. There was an agreement that these tribes would guard Egypt's border. However these Semites actually took over the Pharoahsy(?) and were expelled c1500 and these events match with some of Exodus More th-cam.com/video/FLviKiEuj30/w-d-xo.html Hearing ths guy brought to mind what Jaynes had to say about the last knowable development of evolution, in that he said, from the study of such matter writings, that this kind of thing was worldwide and the end of the "bicameral mind", which he positied was the result of the evolution of the modern Corpus Colosum that facilitated communication between the left half of the brain and the right half (We get the notion of a "divided" brain from some experiments done a good number of decades ago, where the communication between both sides were cut, the, usually chimp, taught some skill, then the brain was restored, then the de-integrated and the other side was choasen and the chimp could not perform actions related to that skill. This was also used as the "cure" for condtions where one side of the brain had some condition that led to bizarre or criminal behavior. That half could be taken out of the loop and the other lobe used with no further problems. This was a massive improvement over prefrontal lobotomy. Even in the days of this lobotomy, we knew the exact nerves that we wanted to cut, we just did not have the precision surgical techniques to do the job at the time th-cam.com/users/results?search_query=sci+show+dominant+brian james Steven Valiant put up a post on facebook that, using brain studies, shows the path of an action from the conscious will in the Cerebrum to the carrying out in the Cerebellum
Actually, the Christians are a bit un Biblical in their treatment of Satan. Among the Jews, he is not an evil being. Also, I have a surprise for you th-cam.com/video/-xfoHUI91Ig/w-d-xo.html Raffi aka Metatron, has a good reputation amoungst the TH-cam "Community of the Sword" that also includes history buffs. language buffs and some odds and ends. Other names are Lindybeighe, Shadaversity and Scholgladiatoria. But to continue. I had suspected that the Abrahamic religion was not monotheistic because the First Commandment is "...Thou shalt nnot have strange gods before me" He said nothing about after him or even that he was the only show in town. Also, from what we know of how God operates, he would not have permitted Moses to engage the High Priest in a magic smackdown if the Priest's powers were demonic since it would be giving stature to evil. So these gods must have had validity. Also, one section of the Israelites called God "Elohim"
The closest I get to an abstract foundation of Libertarian is "The Principle of non-aggression". Now, if you hold to "A is A", how can you have a "principle" based on a negative? You have to either demonstrate the factual premises of your principle, which if it si founded on a negative, it is founded on the NON-existence of something, or you have to prove the concepts of your principles, which since your principle is founded on a negative, the concepts cannot be based on something that is true and therefore must be false. So you principle is based on a falsehood or something that does not exist. I dunno about you, but I'm getting a headache
That is the Objectivist idea of individual rights, in the context of objectivity in Metaphysics and Reason in Epistemology and does violence to Rothboard, who, while claiming to be Aristotelian, held that to even argue rationally for one's position is a form of coercion because it leads to only one correct answer [REASON: 1980 or '81]: He must have DESPISED mathematics in the form of "What do I care for the fact that one plus one equals two, when for some reason, I don't like it". Following that (il)logic, can you imagine what trying to IMPLEMENT what you have said would be in the full Libertarian mythos? Given the fixed nature of reality, Rothbard would consider anything in line with that to be "coercive" since it would follow logically and be absolute