Recent Comments

(Comments RSS Feed)

Title or First Words Author Post Date
you're comparing an objective to a method. it's kinda like saying that scoring touchdowns is more important than throwing passes. passes are a way to score touchdowns. you can do both at the same time. Anonymous If I Were President... 2017/10/20
closing down the welfare system is more important than creating forums! Anonymous If I Were President... 2017/10/20
fixed, thx Anonymous Discussion 2017/10/18
This link is broken https://curi.us/files/podcasts/pq-always-have-to-be-productive.mp3. Anonymous Discussion 2017/10/18
When I said "Rand's ideas are central to BoI" I didn't mean the book but the Beginning of Infinity that is the topic of the book. Deutsch may or may not agree, I don't know. Who cares? What's important is what is true. And what I think is true is that Anonymous IQ 3 2017/10/16
what moral philosophy in BoI, exactly, with quotes, do you think is super Objectivist and central? Anonymous IQ 3 2017/10/16
Ok, thanks for clearing that up regarding Deutsch and gw. Regarding Rand and BoI, I am thinking that there can be no BoI without Rand's moral philosophy. Her ideas are central in that respect. I don't think you disagree that moral philosophy is imp Anonymous IQ 3 2017/10/16
DD presents a socially acceptable reason to oppose destroying the economy over global warming, which doesn't depending on standing up to the "experts". that argument is worthwhile, but not the only one he's aware of. why did he choose that argument Anonymous IQ 3 2017/10/16
Wake me up when Trump starts building a wall or Obamacare is dead or Iran is dead. But I'll wait (not like I have a choice), it's not hopeless that he'll get stuff done later. Cruz would have been better at draining the swamp and some other things. Anonymous Don't Trust Trump, He's Not a Conservative 2017/10/16
Do you think Trump has lived up to the hype now? Is he as squishy as you thought? Also what happened to Cruz? Why is he so silent? He ought to be supporting Trump much more. I say thank God Trump won rather than Cruz. Trump is awesome. Anonymous Don't Trust Trump, He's Not a Conservative 2017/10/16
Why has Deutsch made only "limited public comments" about Rand? Why didn't he discuss her at some length in his books? Rand's ideas are central to BoI right? I would be interested to know what he has said publicly. Can you point me to that? Re. gl Anonymous IQ 3 2017/10/16
I have talked with DD about Ayn Rand many times, so I can tell you he read a lot of her work, liked it, knows a lot about it, etc. He also gave me explicit permission to public say he's a fan of Ayn Rand, specifically b/c of his limited public comment curi IQ 3 2017/10/14
> FYI Deutsch is a fan of Ayn Rand If he is a fan of Ayn Rand he has kept it hidden. Some fan. If this is only something he has told you in personal communications then I am suspicious that he wasn't just lying. > an opponent of global warming Anonymous IQ 3 2017/10/14
> Update: They also banned anyone from posting a link to anything I wrote. Jesus christ. Think they'll ever update the written rules so members can be aware that some views about CR are being censored!? Anonymous Banned from "Critical Rationalist" Facebook Group 2017/10/14
What are some ways to set up your life so that changes are cheap? I'm thinking about stuff like avoiding long-term commitments or other restrictions on your freedom. Also, don't tie "being right" to your self-image. Having to deal with defensiv Kate Do Thousands of Error Corrections 2017/10/13
sorry, fixed Anonymous Do Thousands of Error Corrections 2017/10/13
The last two paragraphs you quoted me as writing were not written by me. Anne B Do Thousands of Error Corrections 2017/10/13
Guess Luc Castelein Discussion About the Importance of Explanations with Andrew Crawshaw 2017/10/13
logic is not your strong suit oh my god it's turpentine Discussion About the Importance of Explanations with Andrew Crawshaw 2017/10/13
Testability and testing are different things. Anonymous Discussion About the Importance of Explanations with Andrew Crawshaw 2017/10/13
Just to remind you Luc Castelein Discussion About the Importance of Explanations with Andrew Crawshaw 2017/10/13
Now I understand Luc Castelein Banned from "Critical Rationalist" Facebook Group 2017/10/13
i have no records of who has been banned at what times in the group. do you? the group has low activity, mostly docile people who defer to mild social pressure and aren't doing much. Anonymous Banned from "Critical Rationalist" Facebook Group 2017/10/13
>something like this happening was inevitable If it was inevitable, why didn't it happen to anyone else? Anonymous Banned from "Critical Rationalist" Facebook Group 2017/10/13
In the US, you can read public FB groups while logged out. Anonymous Banned from "Critical Rationalist" Facebook Group 2017/10/12
blocking on cr forum Luc Castelein Banned from "Critical Rationalist" Facebook Group 2017/10/12
>There has always been an unwritten rule on the cr-forum that you don't ban others. It's a basic principle of cr that you listen to others. why unwritten? especially if it's a "basic principle"? btw the proper, rule-of-law way of dealing with f Anonymous Banned from "Critical Rationalist" Facebook Group 2017/10/12
> If you block me (which you did), I can't see your posts anymore. I even can't see my owm post replying to your comments any more. I didn't know that. That's dumb. FYI you can still see stuff if you open a private browser window (or otherwise Elliot Banned from "Critical Rationalist" Facebook Group 2017/10/12
AC said: > It was interesting, yet you still refuse to concede my point that inventions can be created without explanations. What invention was created that didn't have an explanation about how it worked? He should read Feyman's essay on carg Anonymous Discussion About the Importance of Explanations with Andrew Crawshaw 2017/10/12
why? Luc Castelein Banned from "Critical Rationalist" Facebook Group 2017/10/12
Andrew, Do you think arguments or evidence have weights or amounts? Do you think Miller thinks arguments or evidence have weights or amounts? Do you think Popper thinks arguments or evidence have weights or amounts? I'm saying arguments an curi David Miller Doesn't Want To Discuss 2017/10/11
The first claim can also be made more precise by stating that just because there is more evidence against a theory it does not follow that it is worse, it just follows that it should not be preferred over the one with less evidence against it. Anonymous David Miller Doesn't Want To Discuss 2017/10/11
>being below zero doesn't change that. Miller does not state because a theory has been criticised that it is worse. He states it should not be preferred. It logically follows from the the state of the discussion, that you could have a stance of ind Anonymous David Miller Doesn't Want To Discuss 2017/10/11
If it was possible to measure verisimiltude, then it would be possible to see which theories are closer to the truth. The weight that Miller was talking about was not epistemological but logical. It is not an amount of epistemological "goodness". Noti Anonymous David Miller Doesn't Want To Discuss 2017/10/11
> Is mistaken to believe that a theory of verisimiltude might not be possible? Can you rephrase without a double negative? Or, better, don't open a new can of worms and instead, for the first time in the whole conversation, reply to the main iss Anonymous David Miller Doesn't Want To Discuss 2017/10/10
correction Anonymous David Miller Doesn't Want To Discuss 2017/10/10
Temple already did that. The third paragraph of his article reads: > These views share a mistake. They both attempt to judge which non-refuted idea is better using an amount (support or criticism-survival). I'll call that amount epistemological goo Anonymous David Miller Doesn't Want To Discuss 2017/10/10
It's not Miller's burden to locate how Temple's criticism applies to his theory. It is up to temple to draw on Miller's work. Represent it properly and explain how his criticism applies. Elliot needs to do the hard work here. Until that is done, then Anonymous David Miller Doesn't Want To Discuss 2017/10/10
Is mistaken to believe that a theory of verisimiltude might not be possible? Anonymous David Miller Doesn't Want To Discuss 2017/10/10
ET criticized all weight of evidence (and "epistemological weight" as you now bring up). Are you familiar with his argument? Do you agree that if ET is right about that then Miller is mistaken? Anonymous David Miller Doesn't Want To Discuss 2017/10/10
> Furthermore, it seems to me that you are mistaking [...] who is "you"? me???? David Miller Doesn't Want To Discuss 2017/10/10
A friend and I went for food. I am not upset. The presumption that pointing out my errors makes me upset is incorrect. Furthermore, it seems to me that you are mistaking the task that a theory of verisimiltude would carry out; it woild for instan Anonymous David Miller Doesn't Want To Discuss 2017/10/10
When you ask "Which chapter?" people think you're being pedantic and looking for a word lawyer fight, regardless of whether it's a reasonable question. So they go into fighting mode (if they weren't already – some people just show up in that mode, o Anonymous David Miller Doesn't Want To Discuss 2017/10/10
do u think AC got mad at the implication that he isn't a threat or challenge to Miller, and that frustration informed the rest of the discussion from there? Or maybe he got mad at the very first thing said to him: > Which chapter? He never ac Anonymous David Miller Doesn't Want To Discuss 2017/10/10
> Why did you open a new debate with ET when you have an open one pending your reply? Andrew has at least two previous open discussions with ET pending Andrew's reply. Now, with this one, he has three. See: http://curi.us/2054-discussion-about-t Anonymous David Miller Doesn't Want To Discuss 2017/10/10
Andrew was constantly ignoring things that were said to him. e.g. early on: > And you aren't being responsive to e.g. what I already said in the blog post. He apparently didn't understand that (based on him never doing it) and didn't ask. He ju Anonymous David Miller Doesn't Want To Discuss 2017/10/10
> well, let's be real. there were on-topic non-meta points *in the original blog post* which he ignored the entire time! right. his inability to meaningfully engage with the material was one of the reasons the conversation developed a meta part. Anonymous David Miller Doesn't Want To Discuss 2017/10/10
> there were on-topic non-meta replies to him which he also ignored... well, let's be real. there were on-topic non-meta points *in the original blog post* which he ignored the entire time! Anonymous David Miller Doesn't Want To Discuss 2017/10/10
there were on-topic non-meta replies to him which he also ignored... Anonymous David Miller Doesn't Want To Discuss 2017/10/10
the argumentative visitor was emotionally caught up in the chat and now he stopped replying entirely literally couldn’t sort out quoting issue b4 RIP let alone sort out the actual topic partly b/c he *didn’t want* to sort out quoting issu bystander David Miller Doesn't Want To Discuss 2017/10/10
See also #9120 #9121 and the open question: > Why did you open a new debate with ET when you have an open one pending your reply? Anonymous David Miller Doesn't Want To Discuss 2017/10/10
> Actually, I did not quote it wrong. That's exactly what it says in my copy. By which you meant you didn't quote wrong on your third attempt (and no one said you did)? Anonymous David Miller Doesn't Want To Discuss 2017/10/10
See #9125 #9127 #9129 Anonymous David Miller Doesn't Want To Discuss 2017/10/10
The quote in #9126 is accurate wording. Your claim remains criticised. Anonymous David Miller Doesn't Want To Discuss 2017/10/10
maybe he’s upset and flailing badly as you puncture his self-image Mysterious Jabroni David Miller Doesn't Want To Discuss 2017/10/10
> If you look at my quote it says "empirical evidence". It is you who is failing to read it properly. What you first posted was: > "[T] he combination of evidence and deductive logic offers no advice concerning [...] what theory or course of act Spooky Ghost David Miller Doesn't Want To Discuss 2017/10/10
If you look at my quote it says "empirical evidence". It is you who is failing to read it properly. Anonymous David Miller Doesn't Want To Discuss 2017/10/10
> Actually, I did not quote it wrong. That's exactly what it says in my copy. This is unclear. You wrote it two different ways. So you have two copies, which you refer to as "my copy"? Anonymous David Miller Doesn't Want To Discuss 2017/10/10
> I missed out "empirical". Sorry. Your claim about Miller remains criticised. Have you actually read all the comments? You've been answered already. Also tripling down on misquoting is not a "Sorry." and move on matter, it's a big deal. Being h Anonymous David Miller Doesn't Want To Discuss 2017/10/10
Actually, I did not quote it wrong. That's exactly what it says in my copy. Anonymous David Miller Doesn't Want To Discuss 2017/10/10
You need to figure out how to stop making mistakes so issues can get sorted out, and progress can be made. When you pile mistake on mistake, outstanding issues build up and become overwhelming instead of being resolved. In order to do this, you need t curi David Miller Doesn't Want To Discuss 2017/10/10
I missed out "empirical". Sorry. Your claim about Miller remains criticised. Anonymous David Miller Doesn't Want To Discuss 2017/10/10
Andrew, I developed my standards and methods of arguments in thousands of hours of one-on-one discussions with David Deutsch. I find your standards and methods for discussion are inadequate to the task at hand. The truth requires better methodology to curi David Miller Doesn't Want To Discuss 2017/10/10
It does exist. I will quote it in full. >"Given our aims and abstract predilections (for truth over falsehood, for truthlikeness and >accuracy over inaccuracy, for success over failure) the combination of empirical >evidence and deductive logic Anonymous David Miller Doesn't Want To Discuss 2017/10/10
> > > Indeed, [science] may also allow falsified hypotheses to be retained, provided that there is some weight of negative evidence that would eventually cause them to be banished. > I am not sure this links up with prefererences. You would have to Anonymous David Miller Doesn't Want To Discuss 2017/10/10
Why did you open a new debate with ET when you have an open one pending your reply? The text "combination of evidence and deductive logic" does not exist in *Out of Error*. You're literally repeated a misquote after being told it's a misquote. W Anonymous David Miller Doesn't Want To Discuss 2017/10/10
> > Indeed, [science] may also allow falsified hypotheses to be retained, provided that there is some weight of negative evidence that would eventually cause them to be banished. I am not sure this links up with prefererences. You would have to exp Anonymous David Miller Doesn't Want To Discuss 2017/10/10
You say that critical rationalism states > "The better an idea survives criticism, the more preferred it is over competing ideas" This does not apply to Miller since accepts that that is wrong. He claims ...[T]he combination of evidence a Anonymous David Miller Doesn't Want To Discuss 2017/10/10
You're saying: not all of ET's arguments apply, with their exact wording, to Miller's revision of CR. So what? The main point applies. Anonymous David Miller Doesn't Want To Discuss 2017/10/10
You're omitting the italics and you didn't fix the second quote. You don't see to care about scholarship. You're still marking quotes wrong. How about you respond to the blog post: > > Indeed, [science] may also allow falsified hypotheses to be Anonymous David Miller Doesn't Want To Discuss 2017/10/10
Sorry, the quote in the above is wrong. Let me quote the last part again. "All that may be derived from the empirical report that T1 is refuted and T2 is not refuted (together with a statement of our preference of truth over falshood) is not that Anonymous David Miller Doesn't Want To Discuss 2017/10/10
Also please use ">" for quoting here so quotes are colored. It's way more readable. Anonymous David Miller Doesn't Want To Discuss 2017/10/10
Neither quote you give matches my copy of the book, and the first quote appears to have a typo in the first sentence. If you choose not to use an ebook and copy/paste, it's your responsibility to get quotes 100% exactly right. And you aren't being curi David Miller Doesn't Want To Discuss 2017/10/10
It was not major. You are misunderstanding his view of CR. "This is what leads Popper to say that, since we prefer truth to falsehood, we prefer the refuted theory to the one that is not. But this preference is not a logical consequence, since it Anonymous David Miller Doesn't Want To Discuss 2017/10/10
> This claim of yours is refuted in the chapter. Which chapter? Can you provide a quote or some indication of what you're talking about? I'm guessing I would read it and disagree (or I already did) and be unable to guess which part you meant and wh curi David Miller Doesn't Want To Discuss 2017/10/10
"Critical Rationalism says ideas are criticized using evidence and argument. The better an idea survives criticism, the more preferred it is over competing ideas" This claim of yours is refuted in the chapter. I have had much interesting conver Andrew Crawshaw David Miller Doesn't Want To Discuss 2017/10/10
they assume you hate them 100x more than you admit, and they saw ET blocking them as a large escalation in how much he admitted hating them. so they went from thinking he was internally civil to estimating him to be internally murderously hateful. Anonymous Banned from "Critical Rationalist" Facebook Group 2017/10/10
#9111, well said A Mysterious Person Banned from "Critical Rationalist" Facebook Group 2017/10/10
the reason they banned ET on FB is they thot he had admitted he didn't like them, and they therefore banned him for breaking the social truce of pretending to like each other. what he did struck them as uncivil in their social metaphysics. Anonymous Banned from "Critical Rationalist" Facebook Group 2017/10/10
@#9107 they would say "omg what if i need to tell ET something and i don't want to email him?" this was addressed in the post already. there is a risk that ET does something wrong and then doesn't get told due to blocking a person who would have Anonymous Banned from "Critical Rationalist" Facebook Group 2017/10/10
Luc, do you think an individual choosing not to hear certain people on a forum. and someone being banned from participating in a forum entirely, are somehow symmetrical situations in which the same analysis should apply? A Mysterious Person Banned from "Critical Rationalist" Facebook Group 2017/10/10
What's wrong Luc Castelein Banned from "Critical Rationalist" Facebook Group 2017/10/10
>Some of Matt's friends, like Justin and Alan, were moderators – so what? What they would they say to that question? From their perspective, what's wrong with participants blocking messages from moderators? Anonymous Banned from "Critical Rationalist" Facebook Group 2017/10/10
Are you serious? Luc Castelein Banned from "Critical Rationalist" Facebook Group 2017/10/10
#9103 I think I understood it. FF Banned from "Critical Rationalist" Facebook Group 2017/10/09
> I would never dream of banning someone from the Fallible Ideas forum because they set up a mail rule to block posts by my friends Justin and Alan. Some of Matt's friends, like Justin and Alan, were moderators – so what? Most groups think you ca FF Banned from "Critical Rationalist" Facebook Group 2017/10/09
I think I understood now. FF Banned from "Critical Rationalist" Facebook Group 2017/10/09
> I would never dream of banning someone from the Fallible Ideas forum because they set up a mail rule to block posts by my friends Justin and Alan. Some of Matt's friends, like Justin and Alan, were moderators – so what? What does this mean? FF Banned from "Critical Rationalist" Facebook Group 2017/10/09
Before considering an idea worth testing, you should consider: do I think it's possible or impossible that this will work? You don't have to consider this at length (how much effort to put into this depends on how expensive the testing is), but you sh Elliot Temple Discussion About the Importance of Explanations with Andrew Crawshaw 2017/10/09
Consider the guess, "X causes Y". OK so far, but there's no human action involved, and I think one should introspect about why he's selected this particular guess instead of others and say the reasoning. Now consider the guess, "It's a good idea to Elliot Temple Discussion About the Importance of Explanations with Andrew Crawshaw 2017/10/09
what if I don't want to get laid? Anonymous Discussion 2017/10/07
> why does it solve that problem? people who want to bang prefer pretty faces Anonymous Discussion 2017/10/07
> the problem of not getting laid why does it solve that problem? Anonymous Discussion 2017/10/06
The previous comment has a partial discussion. The full discussion is now at: http://curi.us/2048-mental-illness-discussion-with-andrew-adams curi Psychiatry Discussion 2017/10/05
Twitter DMs with Andrew Adams curi Psychiatry Discussion 2017/10/04
> And why brain, which is a biological organism like heart and kidney, can't cause a problem that can be called a disease? It seems to me that the fact that we can't diagnose mental diseases the way we diagnose other organs, due to its complexity, mak curi Psychiatry Discussion 2017/10/04
> If you hallucinate and hear sounds in your head, is that due to bad ideas? Or the way your brain is wired? That could have either cause. And your behavior in response is your choice. curi Psychiatry Discussion 2017/10/04
twitter comment curi Discussion 2017/10/04
Is a rock (plain old boring rock i pick up from a beach or field) a constructor for unicorns? if you drop it into the right input scanner for a computer hooked up to an appropriate 3d printer, it will print a unicorn with no change to the rock. > I curi Discussion 2017/10/03
But the result itself is repeatably observable, and it can condition people to construct the extinction of theories which expect something other than it I think universal explainers are part of universal constructors because that's my best explanat Anonymous Discussion 2017/10/03
the problem of not getting laid Anonymous Discussion 2017/10/01
Is beauty important? What problems does beauty solve? Anonymous Discussion 2017/10/01
A piece of paper with the result of a scientific test is not a constructor. It's only capable of constructing any particular thing in very few initial conditions. Just like something is only a replicator if it can replicate in a variety of situations. Anonymous Discussion 2017/10/01
#9084 It also has the Quran not just "A collection of scholarly works about individual liberty and free markets." FF Discussion 2017/10/01
Is matter a constructor? Evan Discussion 2017/10/01
OUP = Oxford University Press Liberty Fund has free books here: http://oll.libertyfund.org Anonymous Discussion 2017/09/30
About 20-30 years ago Liberty Fund made several deals with OUP to publish their Collected Works of various classical writers in paperback. (This was great for those who wanted to read these books, because the paper and printing of Liberty Fund was far Craig J. Bolton on Facebook Discussion 2017/09/30
huh! Larry Discussion 2017/09/27
It'd be better to bring up fewer issues at once. E.g. try to understand FoR/BoI stuff or CT stuff in isolation before mixing them. > constructors which perform extinction of errors (evidence) This doesn't make sense. You should try to think of e Anonymous Discussion 2017/09/27
Is matter a constructor? Evan Oleary Discussion 2017/09/27
Is matter a constructor? Evan Oleary Discussion 2017/09/27
@#9075 There's too much to discuss at once here. I'm going to reply to the first thing, and if we finish discussing it then I can go back and reply to the second thing. > energy is a constructor for tasks that require a change in energy it's Anonymous Discussion 2017/09/25
Is matter a constructor? Evan Oleary Discussion 2017/09/25
> http://beginningofinfinity.com/list_guidelines > Minimize meta discussion (discussion about the discussion), especially in adversarial contexts. That means minimizing statements about other posters, yourself, the list itself, how people should di Anonymous Meta Discussion Isn't Bad 2017/09/24
no. Virtue of Selfishness, Human Action, Capitalism, Conjectures and Refutations, Political Justice, etc Anonymous The Four Best Books 2017/09/24
Would Szasz (The MOMI) book be the 5th best book? FF The Four Best Books 2017/09/24
#9060 How does being sad about being second handed help you? Anonymous The Four Best Books 2017/09/22
> I wouldn't call it "trust", though. Instead, you can be thankful for the clue and then use *reason* to figure out what you should do in the situation and why. yeah, I shouldn't have used the word "Trust". Trusting emotions would be a bad thing. FF Discussion 2017/09/22
Emotions are really helpful. They can give us clues that we are about to violate a value of ours. I wouldn't call it "trust", though. Instead, you can be thankful for the clue and then use *reason* to figure out what you should do in the situation kate Discussion 2017/09/22
Should we trust our emotions when it comes to preserving our Integrity? Eg: Stealing violates my integrity so I start feeling bad when I am planning to steal something. FF Discussion 2017/09/22
#9065 ad spammer! ff What Philosophy Takes 2017/09/22
Fresh Start curi Discussion 2017/09/21
C ff Discussion 2017/09/21
> Is this meant to be an experiment? To see what we discuss? The old Discussion Thread is overflowing! He creates new threads one in while. FF Discussion 2017/09/21
Is this meant to be an experiment? To see what we discuss? MK Discussion 2017/09/21
> some people disagree isn't a criticism, it's a popularity contest. I am second-handed :( FF The Four Best Books 2017/09/21
yay! FF Discussion 2017/09/21
http://fallibleideas.com design updated curi Open Discussion 2017/09/21
k FF stupid liberals 2017/09/20
I just downloaded a pirated copy of Dictator's Handbook. FF Open Discussion 2017/09/20
FF, stop harassing random people, demanding they write comments as dictated by you, and calling them trolls. you will get yourself in trouble. stick to on-topic posts about ideas. Anonymous stupid liberals 2017/09/20
#9045 I don't want to get banned because of your trolling. FF stupid liberals 2017/09/20
#9045 Reveal that you are not Me!! You will get me in TROUBLE!! FF stupid liberals 2017/09/20
> One trait is that Rand's heroes all take themselves really seriously. They think their life matters and don't self-deprecate at all. Roark doesn't get angry. People consider getting pissed off while others don't value his/her work as taking thin FF Open Discussion 2017/09/20
> One trait is that Rand's heroes all take themselves really seriously. They think their life matters and don't self-deprecate at all. Is self-deprecation bad? Leftists promote that a lot. FF Open Discussion 2017/09/20
objectively. if you doubt it, your comments should include naming some other book and giving some criticism of one of these four. some people disagree isn't a criticism, it's a popularity contest. Anonymous The Four Best Books 2017/09/20
> The Four Best Books The four best books for people who value the same things as Elliot? People value different things. There are also some people don't know what to value yet. FF The Four Best Books 2017/09/20
@Rand's heroic characters, the complaint that they all seem the same is a common one Note I am not saying the below explains why Peterson would have the misunderstanding he does. I'm thinking more of regular people. The basic idea is that all Ra Very Mysterious J Open Discussion 2017/09/20
> Roark and Toohey are the purest characters. They're both super interesting because *no characters like them exist in other books*. They're not generic heroes and villains, they're *unique* characters you've never seen before anywhere else. Yes, I FF Open Discussion 2017/09/20
> yeah Peterson didn't understand Rand's books. not even close. and he slanders the quality of her philosophy from a position of ignorance. he's missing out. so sad. A Pro working class socialist woman gave him those Rand Novels mixed with George O FF Open Discussion 2017/09/20
Stupid Conservatives Lesley stupid liberals 2017/09/20
i updated the post. you can now get my notes for the whole course! curi Grammar Learning Process Video 2017/09/19
Peterson's comments, applied to FH, are so stupid. Keating, Wynand and Dominique Francon are all **mixed** characters. Roark and Toohey are the purest characters. They're both super interesting because *no characters like them exist in other boo Anonymous Open Discussion 2017/09/19
> He has read myth of mental illness yes but he apparently didn't understand it very well Anonymous Letter to Jordan Peterson on Antidepressants and Rational Discussion 2017/09/19
yeah Peterson didn't understand Rand's books. not even close. and he slanders the quality of her philosophy from a position of ignorance. he's missing out. so sad. Anonymous Open Discussion 2017/09/19
He has read myth of mental illness ff Letter to Jordan Peterson on Antidepressants and Rational Discussion 2017/09/19
Jordan Peterson's Comments on Ayn Rand https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofVqp-RMDpE ff Open Discussion 2017/09/19
Rand's not like that at all. she argues that capitalism has raised the standard of living for everyone, and that exceptions to capitalism hurt people. for example, you bring up monopolies. Rand, economist Ludwig von Mises, and others point out that it Elliot Temple on Facebook Open Discussion 2017/09/18
Paths Forward and Debating Ayn Rand curi Paths Forward Short Summary 2017/09/18
facial expressions are part of how people focus on social issues instead of intellectual issues, and non-verbal communication instead of clearly thinking and stating what they mean. Anonymous Apple Announcements Commentary 2017/09/18

View All Comments