Ignorance vs Irrational

Lately, a few blogs where I attend have gone to closing off their public’s replies.

It is a sad situation.

Their positions have all failed scrutiny, so their only response is censorship. They cannot debate or dialogue rationally, so they opt for the delete key so to maintain their illusion that “they are still right”.

The Universe is not fooled, however. Their positions cannot stand, and eventually the Universe will correct them – and as it typically does to those that refuse reason, it will correct them harshly.

Advertisements

24 Responses to “Ignorance vs Irrational”

  1. Judy Sabatini Says:

    Same thing with face book too. If they don’t like what you post, it just disappears after you put it up. Guess they don’t like truth.

  2. Francois Tremblay Says:

    No debate will be had between us on a comments section. That is not the proper place for it. If you wish to debate time preference, then write an entry on your blog about it, and I’ll reply to that. Indeed, if you want the long comment of crap you wrote on my blog, I will gladly copy it for you, although I recommend you get some real criticism instead of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting “LA LA LA I’LL JUST IGNORE THE CONTEXT OF PEOPLE’S ACTIONS EVEN THOUGH FRANC ALREADY MENTIONED THAT IN HIS OWN ENTRY.”

  3. Black Flag® Says:

    Francois,
    Since you deleted my comment, it could not be a debate. It appears you only prefer comments that agree with you, no matter how badly reasoned your position happens to be.

    I expect your typical style is to delete comments, and then offer your opinion on them – hoping, somehow I guess, that people know what you are talking about.

    I further expect you have nothing real to say.

  4. Francois Tremblay Says:

    Why are you answering me in bad faith? My offer was genuine, and I have not “offered my opinion” about any deleted comment, including yours. You claim to be an Anarchist, but you don’t seem to be into cooperation very much!

    If you do decide to post your comment on your blog, then I will have “something real to say,” although to be honest your comment, in addition to being argumentative, ignored a lot of my entry, so I would mostly have to repeat what I wrote in it.

    • Black Flag® Says:

      Francois,
      You deleting my post was inappropriate, but your right.

      Your comment here was inappropriate and further aggravating by the fact you deleted my post, then decided to give an insulting opinion on it. [“LA LA LA I’LL JUST IGNORE THE CONTEXT OF PEOPLE’S ACTIONS EVEN THOUGH FRANC ALREADY MENTIONED THAT IN HIS OWN ENTRY.”]

      As far as the proper place for a debate, it belongs on your blog – for you are the one who raised the issue.

      However, if you are unable to entertain a debate on your blog for whatever your reasons, my blog will suffice.

      I did focused on one part of your post – addressing socialism itself. I have ample complaints about other parts of your post and your rather interesting twists on his article.

      As you have my text, you can post it here

      • Francois Tremblay Says:

        Francois,

        “Time preference” is a concept used in Austrian economics to rationalize usury in general,

        You error in your understanding of Austrian economics in general.

        Austrian economics does NOT rationalize a thing – to do so would require a judgement of “right or wrong” and that being subjective is irrelevant to economic understanding.

        Austrian economics explains economic outcomes – usury exists because of time preference.

        In general, time preference represents how much people value receiving a certain amount of goods today as opposed to receiving it later on.

        People prefer to have things now, and not later.
        Example: You would rather solve your hunger problem soon than later.

        Why would I delay satisfying my hunger so that you can satisfy yours RIGHT NOW? What is my benefit?

        So, you offer me a benefit for the delay because you want to eat right now. So you trade me MORE “food” in the future so that you can not be hungry today.

        The amount of “extra” food you will deliver to me in exchange for solving your hunger today is merely negotiation.

        Low time preference means that one values getting the goods later, while high time preference means that one values getting the goods right now.

        Incorrect, and hence, your argument proceeds from this point badly.

        Low time preference means that one is willing to delay satisfaction so to receive more in the future.

        High time preference means one is unwilling to delay satisfaction into the future.

        Period.

        One is not “better” than an other.

        Both are human choices based on individual subjective wants and desires.

        Here is an example of Austrian propaganda made on this basis:

        Please cite your source for this example.

        I know of no Austrian trained economist – not one – who would say this in reference to time preference and economics.

        The basic Austrian principle is simple: low time preference = good, civilized, productive, high time preference = bad, criminal, waster.

        False.

        Austrian economics holds no judgement of good or bad on any human action.

        Austrian economics merely states that “if you do this, this will happen” – it does not judge the “do” – as that is a subjective choice of a person. Austrian economic merely describes the consequence of that choice.

        If you want “this” and “do that” to get it, Austrians make this statement:
        “If what you do does not achieve your stated goal, then what you are doing – by definition – is wrong”

        So, if you want to retire by 55, you cannot consume all you earn – you must save.
        If you do not save, you will not be able to retire at 55. If your goal is still to retire, then your current action is wrong

        But if your goal has no care about retiring, but by having a “good time” right now, then you do not need to save. Then your action of consuming all your earnings accomplishes your goal of “having a good time” – and that’s your choice, and you have it.

        Neither is good or bad, it is merely your choice.

        But being disappointed that you cannot have a good time AND retire is idiocy.

        Whether you have low or high time preference is heavily influenced by your socio-economic condition.

        False.
        All people must make choices, and all choices have trade offs.

        To have or do one thing means you cannot have or do another thing.

        Everyone has different choices – no one is ever presented the same choices for their life as someone else. NO ONE.

        The Trouble With Socialist Anarchism. In it, he argues that the trouble with Anarchism is that we don’t take into account time preference:

        The trouble with Socialist Anarchism is socialism.

        Socialism destroys economic calculation.

        There are only two ways – and only two ways – to distribute scarce resources:
        (1) by price.
        (2) by ration.

        Socialism chooses (2) – everyone is allotted a share, based on another person’s subjective measure of “what is enough”. But who is the person who get’s to make that judgement?

        If it is the consumer that gets to choose how much he takes, then the resource will be consumed to total exhaustion resulting in broad poverty. If you can eat all of my bread, I will eat all of my bread – and there will be no bread for either of us later

        IF it is the producer who chooses then you have a capitalist, free market – who uses PRICE as the measure to distribute resources – highest bid wins.

        But if it is neither the consumer or the producer, then who is the one that decides? Ah, then you are not an anarchist – for you now argue that there is a “king” who decides on what someone gets or not.

        So “Social Anarchism” is either a contradiction or will result in social collapse and poverty.

        Time preference is not a proof that usury is valid or justified

        .

        Correct. It is the other way around.

        Because time preference exists, usury exists. It is time preference that creates usury – the judgement of right/wrong/justified is meaningless here.

        Time preference is, at best, a way to look at the time frame of people’s goals, but it is important to remember that this time frame is dependent on socio-economic and psychological factors.

        Time preference is wholly and completely dependent on one thing and one thing only – human choices, which creates tradeoffs

        it fails as a proof that socialism is invalid.

        I agree. Socialism and time preference are not correlated.

        Socialism cannot work (a better way of saying then “Socialism is invalid”) because it has no pricing mechanism capable of distributing scarce resources.

        Socialism requires violence to enforce its rationing.

        When violence is the measure to obtain goods, then the higher the violence, the more goods obtained.

        Eventually Socialist systems always degrade as violence is rewarded. The thief eventually loses to the murderer, and society devolves it a mass slaughter and collapse.

        • Black Flag® Says:

          Ah, poor Francois, he can’t argue himself out of a wet paper bag and resorts to censorship.

          He should be consistent and apply his antinatalism upon himself first – to see if it solves his problem!
          Here is my “offending” post:

          lying

          A lie is a contradiction to the truth.
          All evil is a consequence of contradictions.

          Reason and compassion put together lead to the love mentality and to a society which minimizes harm. Irrationality or lack of compassion can only lead to greater and greater harm.

          Though favorable in society compassion is not necessary or required.

          Compassion is a subjective emotion – thus, what you are saying here would be equal of saying “Reason and irrational emotion……together minimize harm”

          economic power imposes harm, bigotry imposes harm,

          Hierarchies are neither good nor bad – whereas I agree with your assessment regarding institutions.

          Hierarchies exist as a consequence of choice.

          There is a near-infinite “right” answers to every human problem, but it takes but one of those answers to solve the problem. Thus choice (“a cutting away”) of all the others is necessary. But which one choice? The mechanics of arriving at such a choice creates hierarchy. It is in the manner that this hierarchy is enforced that may creates imposition.

          Further “economic power” does not impose “harm” by your definition. My saying “no” to your deal is not “imposing” on you.

          If I did not exist, you could not make a deal – thus what you have remains static. Nothing changes for you. You would be irrational to complain that a man who does not exist imposes on you.

          Thus, equally, with me saying “no” to your deal – what you have remains static – what you started with before the deal is what you still have, nothing changes for you. Thus, you would be equally irrational to claim I imposed upon you.

          Now some argue that what changes is your disappointment – but you say would be as disappointed of a man who does not exist not giving you what you want (angry at “God”) – so is the same nature of disappoint at not getting what you want from me – the problem remains yours from the beginning to the end.

          Likewise with bigotry – which is merely another means of saying “no, I do not wish to deal with you”.

          Any institution which does not seek to impose harm wouldn’t need to be arranged in a hierarchical structure in the first place! That’s the whole purpose of it.

          The purpose of (moral) hierachies is to provide mechanics to decision making.

          Not all solutions are equal, nor can all solutions be applied at the same time to solve one problem.

          One of the central arguments of antinatalism is precisely that bringing new human beings into the world inevitably causes harm

          Humans define harm.
          If there were no humans, the concept of harm/good/evil/beauty/love make no sense.

          Antinatalism is anti-human, offering the idea that without humans, good/beauty/love would improve – but that is irrational for it is humans that define these things . Thus, it an argument that cannot conceive of harm/good/evil/beauty/love to begin with.

          Further, the reasons of advocates of antinatalism offer such as: “overpopulation, famine, and depletion of non-renewable resources” simply do not hold up to reality.

          Overpopulation is a non-problem as doomsayers forget that though more humans create some problems, there are more humans to solve these problems too, and by observational fact, we are more prosperous, healthy and long living then when the population measured a meager few million – we are very good at solving problems, and obviously better at doing that then creating them.

          Paul Ehrlich world does not exist, nor ever will.

          David Benatar asserts that the birth of a new person always entails nontrivial harm to that person – but what an utterly bizarre argument – that lack of life is preferred to living.

          Such an argument is contradictory to any and all life and essentially contradictory to the base underlying core of life – that is, to make more of itself. It is utterly bizarre to believe that an underlying core of all life is assumed to be immoral.

          As such antinatalism is self-contradictory – and, as with all contradictions, manifests evil.

          If it is wrong to impose harm, then it is wrong to impose harm through religion, it is wrong to impose harm through any hierarchy, and it is wrong to impose harm by creating new human beings.

          But you are twisted into a mobius strip here.

          Harm is defined by humans.
          You argue for no humans.
          Without humans, the concept of harm simply does not exist.
          The argument against the existence of humans to stop harm is a nonsense argument.

          Being human creates choices – some which are harmful.
          Being capable of harm does not mean a necessity of acting upon it.
          That is what being human is about – choices.

          Rather, it is the drunk driver who must justify his behavior, because he is the one imposing the risk of harm on others.

          This is false.
          Harm is an action that must create harm.

          You are arguing that potential is equal to the actual which is nonsense. Intentions count.

          As for “do unto others,” it is merely a dysfunctional, self-oriented version of not imposing harm, insofar as if we do not wish to receive harm (which is a reasonable assumption), then we should not inflict harm on others either.

          It is not dysfunctional at all. It rather is an outcome of compassion that understands harming another creates harm upon one’s self.

          But other than some of your rather bizarre thoughts, I do like your Prime Directive – if it really caught on over society, humanity would expand and prosper exponentially.

  5. Francois Tremblay Says:

    An old canard that I have already disproven on my blog.
    http://francoistremblay.wordpress.com/2011/06/15/why-dont-you-kill-yourself/
    Antinatalism is about not creating new human lives, not about ending human lives already existing. If you don’t get something this simple, then why even try to talk about it?

    And again I repeat, if you don’t agree with the Prime Directive, then there’s no point in you reading or commenting on my blog. So why do you stick around? At this point I have to conclude that it’s just a grudge, and that you are a childish . Well, GET A LIFE. I will keep censoring you because we don’t share any premises and we have no reason to talk to each other.

    • Black Flag® Says:

      Francois,

      I don’t disagree with your Prime Directives.

      It is some of your extensions that I disagree with.

      You seem to believe rhetoric is replacement for reason.

      And, PS: I have a life – thank God that the vast forces of life in the Universe do not agree with your fatal anti-natalism.

  6. Black Flag® Says:

    Oh, yes, your old “canard” is as irrational as the concept of anti-natalism itself.

    If you believe that the mere existence of human life creates harm, and you posit that eliminating harm is a worthy goal, then by reasoning you should do such act upon yourself as proof!

    But, no rush, nature will do that for you on its own and in its own time.

  7. Francois Tremblay Says:

    No… again, I refuted this in the entry. If you don’t get it, you are an idiot.

    And don’t fake to agree with the Prime Directive. If you can’t condemn actions and structures which clearly impose harm, then you DO NOT AGREE THAT WE SHOULD NOT IMPOSE HARM. PERIOD.

    DO NOT IMPOSE HARM. What is so hard to understand about this,

    • Black Flag® Says:

      Francois,

      If you continue to be profane on my blog, I will block you.

      It is unnecessary and demeans yourself.

      You did not refute anything -except in your mind – and since you cannot argue, you attempt to excel in using ad homenien.

      I can condemn your argument as irrational while agreeing with your principle – but such a position does seem to confuse you badly.

      Imposing harm is an action – demonstrate the action, and condemn the action – but it is irrational to argue that no action causes harm

  8. Black Flag® Says:

    PS:
    One thing about antinatalism – it is self-eliminating, if the proponents of such a belief system are consistent with their belief.

    • Francois Tremblay Says:

      That’s retarded. No one comes to antinatalism through their childhood indoctrination. We were all converted by data. So how is it self-eliminating? If that was so, there would be no antinatalism in the first place, you dumbass.

      • Black Flag® Says:

        FT,

        It is self-eliminating as it is destructive to the life that breeds it.

        Hence, it is naturally evolved out of the species.

        • Francois Tremblay Says:

          You are not listening, are you, dumbass? NO ANTINATALIST WAS BRED THAT WAY. WE ALL CAME TO IT OF OUR OWN FREE WILL. YOUR THEORY OF SOCIAL DARWINISM IS .

        • Black Flag® Says:

          FT,

          I did not say it was bred – but you do come from breeding (unless you were dropped here by aliens).

          Regardless of how you came to hold such a anti-live belief, it is self-eliminating.

          You have no children to teach your anti-children theories to, therefore, you will die off naturally and -to the species- are of no concern or threat.

  9. modestypress Says:

    Hmm…

  10. modestypress Says:

    Greetings. I read this post, and then went back to the beginning, and started reading posts from the beginning, until I got back to this post, traveling over a moebius strip in the process.

    The thing about cyberspace is that the amount of storage for endless blather is almost endless, or at least until the huge storage farms on sites such as google, msn, yahoo, and so on run out of electricity. If they do, it will no doubt be the fault of the statists.

    Even though I have read this far, I am not sure what you believe. When I was about the age of 15 or so (long story) I read Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. Reading this book at such an early age probably caused life-long harm to me.

    I am pretty sure Ayn Rand never had any children. However, perhaps she had a “spiritual” grandson or two or thousand or so, and you perhaps may be one of them. What do you think? Do you think Rand had anything on the ball?

  11. Black Flag® Says:

    Modesty,

    I am a simple man, so my beliefs are equally simple, and generally can be summed up in a word.

    Freedom.

    After that, I follow science and universal law .. which isn’t so much a belief as merely paying attention to cause/effect and using that to my advantage.

    Reading Ayn at that young age probably did harm you – if it changed your thinking or made you immune to the manipulative thinking of others, you’d become somewhat of an outcast … sort of like having three eyes embedded in your face instead of the normal two.

    As far as I know, Rand had no children – it is quoted of her that “she did not wish for that responsibility”.

    I am no Randian – though often accused to be one.

    This does not mean that some of her thinking is unaligned with mine – one could even say a lot of it is aligned, if that is what you are looking for.

    But if you decide to look for the differences, you’d find a lot of that too.

    However, not many people seem to look for the dissimilarities for whatever reason – I think it is because human psychology tends to require a need to put people into “neat little boxes with labels” – so people want to box “you are a Randian” or “you are a Marxist” or “you are a Statist” or “you are an archo-capitalist-neatherandal” as if that label wholly defines everything you need to know about that person.

    It never does, of course, but I suppose it gives a default frame of reference in understanding some one else.

    But I didn’t derive myself from Rand or anyone else in particular. I derived myself from my own thinking exercised over many years. No doubt such thinking was influenced or motivated by the writings and teaching of many, many others, historical and current – but to point to even one or two or three, beyond my parents and my wife, nah.

    If someone holds “Freedom” as dear, that person cannot be accused of being a copy of anyone else. Freedom doesn’t work that way.

    Freedom is an interesting thing – it rarely creates similarities – it creates great and powerful diversities because everyone is different and chooses different things.

    The freedom to make those choices creates things that are different because no one chooses the same path as anyone else.

    But with Freedom, these massive diversities co-exist simultaneously with each other, providing opportunity to share all their benefits to everyone. This the essence of chaos – unpredictable, diverse, self-organizing order.

    This is powerful, for you do not have to try to do “everything” so to benefit from other things. You can do what you want to do, yet, benefit from what others do differently.

    That’s darn powerful.

    That’s one reason why freedom is so darn important.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: