Unbranded; without a registered trademark.

 

World peace? Sometimes you have to break a few eggs, Jesuits. Sheesh.

World peace? Sometimes you have to break a few eggs, Jesuits. Sheesh.

365digitalia:

Matador Torero Alvaro Munera: “And suddenly, I looked at the bull. He had this innocence that all animals have in their eyes, and he looked at me with this pleading. It was like a cry for justice, deep down inside of me. I describe it as being like a prayer - because if one confesses, it is hoped, that one is forgiven. I felt like the worst shit on earth.

365digitalia:

Matador Torero Alvaro Munera: “And suddenly, I looked at the bull. He had this innocence that all animals have in their eyes, and he looked at me with this pleading. It was like a cry for justice, deep down inside of me. I describe it as being like a prayer - because if one confesses, it is hoped, that one is forgiven. I felt like the worst shit on earth.

Why (in excruciating detail) Ayn Rand’s Ethics are Wrong

Objection (vii):
This is probably the most egregious error. Premise 10 begs the question. Rand claimed to have an argument, a proof even, for ethical egoism. Yet 10 is one of the required premises of that ‘proof’—and 10 essentially just is ethical egoism!
Some will dispute that this is really one of her premises. The reason I say it is is that without 10, the subsequent steps 11 and 13 do not follow. All Rand established up to that point, even if we ignore all the above objections, was that there is one and only one thing that is good for you, and that is your life. But obviously it does not follow that you should only serve your life unless we assume that you should only serve what is good for you. So, if 10 is not included as a premise, then Rand simply has a non sequitur.
Obviously, someone who held a non-egoistic theory—an altruist, say—would respond to the news of 8 and 9 (assuming Rand had demonstrated them) by saying: “Ah, so therefore, we should promote all life” or, “I see, so that means I should serve everyone’s life. Thank you, Miss Rand; I previously thought I should serve other people’s pleasure or desires (or whatever), because I thought that was what was good for them. But now that you’ve convinced me that life is the sole intrinsic value, I see that it was their life that I should have been serving all along.” What argument has Rand given against the altruist, then? None.

(via the always interesting axinomancy)

Why (in excruciating detail) Ayn Rand’s Ethics are Wrong

Objection (vii):

This is probably the most egregious error. Premise 10 begs the question. Rand claimed to have an argument, a proof even, for ethical egoism. Yet 10 is one of the required premises of that ‘proof’—and 10 essentially just is ethical egoism!

Some will dispute that this is really one of her premises. The reason I say it is is that without 10, the subsequent steps 11 and 13 do not follow. All Rand established up to that point, even if we ignore all the above objections, was that there is one and only one thing that is good for you, and that is your life. But obviously it does not follow that you should only serve your life unless we assume that you should only serve what is good for you. So, if 10 is not included as a premise, then Rand simply has a non sequitur.

Obviously, someone who held a non-egoistic theory—an altruist, say—would respond to the news of 8 and 9 (assuming Rand had demonstrated them) by saying: “Ah, so therefore, we should promote all life” or, “I see, so that means I should serve everyone’s life. Thank you, Miss Rand; I previously thought I should serve other people’s pleasure or desires (or whatever), because I thought that was what was good for them. But now that you’ve convinced me that life is the sole intrinsic value, I see that it was their life that I should have been serving all along.” What argument has Rand given against the altruist, then? None.

(via the always interesting axinomancy)

chalant asked
How about an etiquette question? Friend of mine moved to DC on questionable pretenses (he was overall questionable, being a Neo-Con, but I don't tend to enjoy one-sided conversations and I live in SF, so what could I do?), started working for a conservative think tank.
So I enjoy our conversations from across the country, but then he sent me a picture: him sitting next to Cheney at a dinner. The way I see it, this puts me a degree away from the devil. Do I keep talking to him, or drop him because he's going to grow cloven hooves? Thanks in advance!

Etiquette refers to polite behavior. I think you’re talking about morality.

Frankly, I don’t know enough about your friendship. I’m not the political version of Dear Coke Talk — I’m not going to assume stuff. Is there an equal exchange of views between the two of you? Is he a completely unreconstructed Neocon? How tight is his cocoon? Have the events of the past 10 years had any impact on his politics? And if so, why is he still a Neocon? Does he budge in the face of a convincing argument? Or does his paycheck require that he adhere to a certain party line?

I guess what I’m asking is: Is he a hack? Is he working for one of the big ones or the smaller ones? All think tanks are not equal. There are 3 strands to American conservatism: the bible-thumpers, the money-grubbers and the war-mongers. If he’s at Christian Coalition or something, you might make some headway on social justice or the environment. And the libertarians over at Cato are fucking nuts, but at least you can smoke a joint with them after-hours. But if he’s at Heritage or (shudder) AEI, if he’s a true dyed-in-the-wool Neocon, then he’s in the heart of the beast. He’s in the intellectual nerve center of the 2nd Bush Presidency. And we’re not just talking about massive deregulation or a gutting of the social safety net. We’re talking about preemptive war and torture. And they just excommunicated the very last intellectually honest thinker they had.

I, myself, wouldn’t cut ties just yet. Shunning is for the Amish. But keep your North Star. You have a friend who consorts with, and advances the interests of, war criminals.

(via choose-life)
Lashon hara  לשון הרע; “evil tongue” is the prohibition in Jewish Law of telling gossip. Speech is considered to be lashon hara if it
says something negative about a person or party,
is not previously known to the public,
is not seriously intended to correct or improve a negative situation, and most importantly,
is true.

One can be guilty of evil tongue, regardless of the method of communication, whether it is through face-to-face conversation, a written letter, telephone, or email. Statements of lashon hara, by definition, are true.
Ethics ≠ religion.  Sometimes the Old School has some nuggets, y’all.

(via choose-life)

Lashon hara לשון הרע; “evil tongue” is the prohibition in Jewish Law of telling gossip. Speech is considered to be lashon hara if it
  1. says something negative about a person or party,
  2. is not previously known to the public,
  3. is not seriously intended to correct or improve a negative situation, and most importantly,
  4. is true.
One can be guilty of evil tongue, regardless of the method of communication, whether it is through face-to-face conversation, a written letter, telephone, or email. Statements of lashon hara, by definition, are true.

Ethics ≠ religion.  Sometimes the Old School has some nuggets, y’all.