Yaron Brook | How Would A Government Gain Revenue Without Taxes?

Harry Binswanger | Logic; The Method of Reason

Atlas Shrugged has been aptly described as “a hymn to logic.” But today what one finds in logic textbooks are sterile, formalistic diversions from real-life issues. This course, in contrast, will focus on the most personally important — and most neglected — topic in logic: concepts. It is proper conceptualization, not facility with syllogisms, that makes the difference between clarity and confusion, rational and irrational functioning, adhering to reality and wandering through dreamland. Drawing on Ayn Rand’s revolutionary identifications in logic, these five classes focus on the proper formation, definition, maintenance, and use of concepts. Emphasis will be given to working on practical exercises. The course is based on the material in chapters six and seven of How We Know, with class exercises to practice applying the principles to concrete cases.

SUBSCRIBE TO NEW IDEAL, ARI'S ONLINE PUBLICATION
https://aynrand.us12.list-manage.com/...

SUBSCRIBE TO ARI’S YOUTUBE CHANNEL
https://www.youtube.com/subscription_...

ABOUT THE AYN RAND INSTITUTE
ARI offers educational experiences, based on Ayn Rand's books and ideas, to a variety of audiences, including students, educators, policymakers and lifelong learners. ARI also engages in research and advocacy efforts, applying Rand's ideas to current issues and seeking to promote her philosophical principles of reason, rational self-interest and laissez-faire capitalism. We invite you to explore how Ayn Rand viewed the world — and to consider the distinctive insights offered by ARI's experts today.

SUPPORT ARI WITH A DONATION
https://ari.aynrand.org/donate/credit...

EXPLORE ARI
http://www.AynRand.org 

FOLLOW ARI ON TWITTER
https://twitter.com/AynRandInst 

LIKE ARI ON FACEBOOK
https://www.facebook.com/AynRandInsti...

EXPLORE ARI CAMPUS
https://campus.aynrand.org/

INFORMATION ABOUT OBJECTIVIST SUMMER CONFERENCES
http://objectivistconferences.com/ 

LEARN ABOUT AYN RAND STUDENT CONFERENCES
http://aynrandcon.org/

X said Y is not an argument that your position is founded in reality

Sometimes when people have themselves a philosophical home they will begin to look up to and even admire the intellectuals in their philosophy. This will not only be the discoverer of their philosophy, but, also people that help to spread the philosophy as well. Sometimes it might even be people that were in the private circles of the philosopher, but, not the philosopher themselves. They will argue that you must agree with said people about everything or else. They will in fact become a second-handed person of a cult mentality. 

Craig Biddle did a great job of addressing this in his article, "Ayn Rand Said is not an argument." However, there is more than just Ms. Rand that has had this issue take place those that followed her as well have been adorned with almost supernatural Omnipotence by people that have become obsessed with people like Leonard Peikoff. There is people that would defend him if he told people to go out into the street and butcher the community. Similarly, some are the same way with Harry Binswanger and Yaron Brook. 

However, I have found things that all of these men have said that was inaccurate due to numerous things that have been said. I do not think they say inaccurate things to intentionally lie anymore than the times Ms. Rand was wrong. I think that they are ignorant on certain topics,. but, yet they continue to speak on them as if they know they can dismiss them. Whether it is evolutionary psychology which is not at odds with us having the ability to be reasonable; nor is determinism, but, is painted that way by these folks. Or Harry Binswanger being a fucking Cartesian Duelist when it comes to how the mind works. 

Nor does me stating that they like anyone else are only human and can be wrong mean they are wrong on everything or even most things. Also, sometimes people can say things in ways that come across as not what they had intended to be overheard as being meant. However, it is not what these or anyone else says that is an argument. It is the facts of reality that make up arguments. Just like you do not shoot the messenger you also should not jump to believing the messenger either. Or as Craig Biddle so aptly said it in his own article, "Truth is not recognition of Ayn Rand’s (or her students/friend/followers) words; truth is recognition of reality."

When an Objectivist is wrong then other Objectivist's; whom are supposed to take reality as the only absolute should not be afraid to point out others errors. As reality and existence is the only True and real Supreme Being that we have in this world. It is reality that is the judge of an idea being wrong or right not if it was an Objectivist whom makes the claim or not. To live any other way is to be just as dogmatic as a fundamentalist Religion and to turn the independence virtue of Objectivism on its head. To throw it out due to someone talking and it is an appeal to authority no better than an appeal to an evangelical pastor in the Southern Bible Belt of the USA.

If Objectivists want people to stop seeing our philosophy as some sort of Godless Cult we need to be ready and willing to question everyone else that is an Objectivist if we smell ignorance. This includes the discoverer of Objectivism; this includes Ms. Rand herself. Everyone whom makes statements on subjects needs to be open to scrutiny we should not have a listen and believe attitude about anyone we meet. Individualism should not turn into its own form of Lone-Wolf Tribalism.

"The 'Robber Barons'" by Ayn Rand

In this 1966 radio program, Ayn Rand argues that nineteenth-century industrialists were unjustly vilified by epithet “robber baron.” Pointing out the need to distinguish between businessmen who get rich by production and voluntary trade, and those who get rich though government favoritism and legalized coercion; Rand observes that all the evils popularly ascribed to capitalism were actually caused by government interference in the economy. Her detailed historical analysis centers on transcontinental railroads, with discussions of coercive monopolies and the phenomenon of controls breeding more controls. She also argues that antitrust laws are non-objective and unjust.

SUBSCRIBE TO NEW IDEAL, ARI'S ONLINE PUBLICATION
https://aynrand.us12.list-manage.com/...

SUBSCRIBE TO ARI’S YOUTUBE CHANNEL
https://www.youtube.com/subscription_...

ABOUT THE AYN RAND INSTITUTE
ARI offers educational experiences, based on Ayn Rand's books and ideas, to a variety of audiences, including students, educators, policymakers and lifelong learners. ARI also engages in research and advocacy efforts, applying Rand's ideas to current issues and seeking to promote her philosophical principles of reason, rational self-interest and laissez-faire capitalism. We invite you to explore how Ayn Rand viewed the world — and to consider the distinctive insights offered by ARI's experts today.

SUPPORT ARI WITH A DONATION
https://ari.aynrand.org/donate/credit...

EXPLORE ARI
http://www.AynRand.org 

FOLLOW ARI ON TWITTER
https://twitter.com/AynRandInst 

LIKE ARI ON FACEBOOK
https://www.facebook.com/AynRandInsti...

EXPLORE ARI CAMPUS
https://campus.aynrand.org/

INFORMATION ABOUT OBJECTIVIST SUMMER CONFERENCES
http://objectivistconferences.com/ 

LEARN ABOUT AYN RAND STUDENT CONFERENCES
http://aynrandcon.org/

George H. Smith explains why Altruism is evil

Capitalism is a Social System; it is not just "economic freedom."

There is a big misconception out there that Capitalism only means economic freedom in a Nation. This is something that even some people that claim to support free markets say about the system. Libertarians tend to push Capitalism as "the economic freedom." However, this is dead wrong as Economic Freedom is the outcome of Capitalism itself. Economic freedom is simply a corollary of truly being free to begin with. Capitalism is both social and economic freedom it is not separate from the other. In fact, freedom to trade is not even really "economic" freedom at all it is merely one manifestation of personal freedom as pertains to the right to trade with others for mutual benefit to mutual advantage in a consensual manor. If you have a "market" quote un quote, but, then you are told what to eat or whom to date or whom to marry you are in an authoritarian nightmare not Capitalism. 

The separation of Economic Freedom from the broader existence of the defense of individual rights leads to things like the nightmare of Anarcho-Capitalism to be seen as a freedom philosophy when it is the complete opposite. It helps make especially libertarians to be incoherent and philosophically deadly. This is yet another reason that one needs to differentiate between supporting any individual Libertarian Party, institute, group or Individual Candidate for matters of implementing policy VS supporting libertarianism the intellectual movement. Due to their lacking a coherent philosophy or a dedication intellectually to reality or reason there is no "reason" for them to see the error of their way of seeing Capitalism as only Economic freedom scales. 

This is one of the big differences from a broader Radical for Capitalism or even Classical Liberal from the libertarian movement. While some Classical Liberals make the same mistake it at least is not ingrained in the movement or the intellectual caste of the group. This is of course a major difference between Objectivists and Non-Objectivists as well in talking about freedom and Capitalism in general. As Objectivism IS a coherent and reality based philosophy it talks about Capitalism as it really is. Which is that it is in fact the only moral social system that could ever "grace" this Earth. This is because an Objectivist whom really understands their Philosophy has a coherent whole of views that all go together in a hierarchy that fit together into reality based concepts. Whereas most, but, not all libertarians are whim worshiping and subjectivist at heart. They in a fact take NAP this NAP as an abstraction and do not know how to defend the soul use of defensive force. 

This is spurned on because a lot of them while talking about supporting Capitalism do not even fully understand the breadth of what Capitalism is and means. What Capitalism is, is not just economic freedom as a lot of libertarians word it. It is in fact the identity of the only truly humane, free and just; AKA Moral Social System it is in fact defined as follows; 

Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.

The recognition of individual rights entails the banishment of physical force from human relationships: basically, rights can be violated only by means of force. In a capitalist society, no man or group may initiate the use of physical force against others. The only function of the government, in such a society, is the task of protecting man’s rights, i.e., the task of protecting him from physical force; the government acts as the agent of man’s right of self-defense, and may use force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use; thus the government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of force under objective control.

When I say “capitalism,” I mean a full, pure, uncontrolled, unregulated laissez-faire capitalism—with a separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.
The moral justification of capitalism does not lie in the altruist claim that it represents the best way to achieve “the common good.” It is true that capitalism does—if that catch-phrase has any meaning—but this is merely a secondary consequence. The moral justification of capitalism lies in the fact that it is the only system consonant with man’s rational nature, that it protects man’s survival qua man, and that its ruling principle is: justice.

In a capitalist society, all human relationships are voluntary. Men are free to cooperate or not, to deal with one another or not, as their own individual judgments, convictions, and interests dictate. They can deal with one another only in terms of and by means of reason, i.e., by means of discussion, persuasion, and contractual agreement, by voluntary choice to mutual benefit. The right to agree with others is not a problem in any society; it is the right to disagree that is crucial. It is the institution of private property that protects and implements the right to disagree—and thus keeps the road open to man’s most valuable attribute (valuable personally, socially, and objectively): the creative mind.

The essence of capitalism’s foreign policy is free trade—i.e., the abolition of trade barriers, of protective tariffs, of special privileges—the opening of the world’s trade routes to free international exchange and competition among the private citizens of all countries dealing directly with one another.

Laissez-faire capitalism is the only social system based on the recognition of individual rights and, therefore, the only system that bans force from social relationships.

I would recommend anyone that wants a properly explained and essentially defined look at Capitalism to find their nearest copy of "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal," by Ms. Rand. To buy up a copy as quickly as possible to remove any Hobgoblins and residuals from the Anti-Capitalist mentality in your defending of this great system. The only truly moral system for mankind qua mankind. The above passages are all Copyright Ms. Rand's estate and all rights are reserved to the owners of the Ayn Rand Lexicon website. 

Individual Rights IS Capitalism; anything Anti-Capitalism is anti-individual, the anti-human and anti-life.

Whenever an Objectivist or other Capitalism proponent identifies themselves as such others will often misunderstand them. It is unfortunate that Capitalism is misunderstood to be cronyism or corporate welfare. Or that it is thought to be some sort of free for all. The truth is that Capitalism is simply the enshrining and defense of individual rights within a given Nation or Culture. It is not cronyism, not corporatism and not welfare to Big Business either. Capitalism is not simply an economic right it is an entire social system which is in fact the only one congruent with human flourishing on Earth as a human.

Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.

The recognition of individual rights entails the banishment of physical force from human relationships: basically, rights can be violated only by means of force. In a capitalist society, no man or group may initiate the use of physical force against others. The only function of the government, in such a society, is the task of protecting man’s rights, i.e., the task of protecting him from physical force; the government acts as the agent of man’s right of self-defense, and may use force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use; thus the government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of force under objective control.

When I say “capitalism,” I mean a full, pure, uncontrolled, unregulated laissez-faire capitalism—with a separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.

The moral justification of capitalism does not lie in the altruist claim that it represents the best way to achieve “the common good.” It is true that capitalism does—if that catch-phrase has any meaning—but this is merely a secondary consequence. The moral justification of capitalism lies in the fact that it is the only system consonant with man’s rational nature, that it protects man’s survival qua man, and that its ruling principle is: justice.

The action required to sustain human life is primarily intellectual: everything man needs has to be discovered by his mind and produced by his effort. Production is the application of reason to the problem of survival . . . .

Since knowledge, thinking, and rational action are properties of the individual, since the choice to exercise his rational faculty or not depends on the individual, man’s survival requires that those who think be free of the interference of those who don’t. Since men are neither omniscient nor infallible, they must be free to agree or disagree, to cooperate or to pursue their own independent course, each according to his own rational judgment. Freedom is the fundamental requirement of man’s mind.

It is the basic, metaphysical fact of man’s nature—the connection between his survival and his use of reason—that capitalism recognizes and protects.

In a capitalist society, all human relationships are voluntary. Men are free to cooperate or not, to deal with one another or not, as their own individual judgments, convictions, and interests dictate. They can deal with one another only in terms of and by means of reason, i.e., by means of discussion, persuasion, and contractual agreement, by voluntary choice to mutual benefit. The right to agree with others is not a problem in any society; it is the right to disagree that is crucial. It is the institution of private property that protects and implements the right to disagree—and thus keeps the road open to man’s most valuable attribute (valuable personally, socially, and objectively): the creative mind. 

Laissez-faire capitalism is the only social system based on the recognition of individual rights and, therefore, the only system that bans force from social relationships. By the nature of its basic principles and interests, it is the only system fundamentally opposed to war.

Copyright © 1986 by Harry Binswanger. Introduction copyright © 1986 by Leonard Peikoff. All rights reserved. For information address New American Library.

Acknowledgments

Excerpts from The Ominous Parallels, by Leonard Peikoff. Copyright © 1982 by Leonard Peikoff. Reprinted with permission of Stein and Day Publishers. Excerpts from The Romantic Manifesto, by Ayn Rand. Copyright © 1971, by The Objectivist. Reprinted with permission of Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. Excerpts from Atlas Shrugged, copyright © 1957 by Ayn Rand, The Fountainhead, copyright © 1943 by Ayn Rand, and For the New Intellectual, copyright © 1961 by Ayn Rand. Reprinted by permission of the Estate of Ayn Rand. Excerpts from Philosophy: Who Needs It, by Ayn Rand. Copyright © 1982 by Leonard Peikoff, Executor, Estate of Ayn Rand. Reprinted by permission of the Estate of Ayn Rand. Excerpts from “The Philosophy of Objectivism” lecture series. Copyright © 1976 by Leonard Peikoff. Reprinted by permission. Excerpts from Alvin Toffler’s interview with Ayn Rand, which first appeared in Playboy magazine. Copyright © 1964. Reprinted by permission of Alvin Toffler. All rights reserved including the right of reproduction in whole or in part in any form. Used by arrangement with Plume, a member of Penguin Group (USA), Inc.

Bargain Hunt BBC (06, October)

4 Snookers?! Ok, No Problem! Incredible Steal of Snooker Frame!!!

Amazing interesting tactical snooker frame between Marco Fu and Ryan Day | 2017 World Grand Prix Snooker SEMIFINAL

Bob Metz is Just Wrong when it comes to The Essentialized Political Spectrum

Last night I was listening to archived episodes of Just Right Radio when I came across his episode on The Objective Standard's essentials based political spectrum. I have done an article on this previously in which I pointed out the episode was a misinterpretation of the essay attached to the spectrum. However, this time I realized I had missed the most important thing about this episode. The fact that nowhere in the episode does he even mention the essay/article which explained the spectrum he was looking at.

Instead of reading one of the many, many articles on The Objective Standard which explained the views of the periodical on left vs right Bob acted like a stubborn mule. He simply evaded/ignored any explanation given in great detail by Craig Biddle on the subject. This was very wrong on his part and he did not even bother to investigate and/or present anything from Craig's marvelous essays/articles on the subject of the left-right spectrum. I wish to address some of his biggest mistakes below.


1. The Essentialized Political Spectrum ignores the binary nature and polarity of left vs right.

Bob claims that Craig Biddle thinks that there is no binary within politics. That essentially left vs right contains no absolutes or does not define to opposite ideological views of the nature of government. However, this is not the case at all and if he did even 4 minutes of research via looking over the various articles available under the political spectrum tag he would know he was dead wrong on this matter.

When it comes to explaining the problem with the Nolan Chart used by some whom favor liberty Craig points to just this binary polarity.

"The Nolan chart treats the realm of politics as non-binary when, in fact, it is binary. 

Politics is about freedom and force. Freedom is the condition in which a person is free to act on his judgment. Force is the opposite: To the extent that force is used against a person, he cannot act on his judgment; he is forced to act against it. 

In terms of essentials, politics is either-or: Either you are (fully) free to speak your mind about controversial issues—even when doing so offends others—or you are not. Either you and your doctor are (fully) free to contract by mutual consent to mutual benefit—or you’re not. Either you and your lover are free to marry—or you’re not. Either you and a potential employer or employee are free to negotiate wages in accordance with your respective judgment—or you’re not. 

The Nolan chart presents the basic alternatives in politics as non-binary and “nuanced.” But the alternatives are in fact binary and, when presented properly, vivid. The Nolan chart does not clarify the basic alternatives; it obfuscates them."

Unlike what Bob Metz paints Craig Biddle as believing about ideological fundamentals he does understand left vs right correctly in their essentials.


2.  The existence of the middle is a myth and there is no such thing as mixed ideologies or "the center." 

Bob Metz claims that there is no middle in the political spectrum and that a center is in fact a myth. His reason for believing this is the binary nature of freedom vs force, but this is to deny reality. In reality most people are not far left and most people are not on the Right. Most mainstream voters are in fact mixed in their ideological precepts around politics. Most people are not on The Right AKA for Pure Lassiez-Faire as the essentials spectrum defines The Right.

Nor are most people on the actual far left or extreme left. They are not pure Capitalism proponents nor are they pure Socialism proponents. They are for a mixed economy of some sort they are for "a degree" of infringement of the initiation of non-consent principal. Most people are not consistent ideologically because they are not totally coherent philosophically. They are working on mixed premises which leads to being in the very real middle of the left-right political spectrum.

Which means that they are to some "degree" to the left and thus middle not on The Right. Due to not doing research on what the middle means Bob Metz makes it seem as though Craig Biddle, I, or anyone else that uses the essentials spectrum are the ones denying reality. When in fact, it is Bob and his ignorant stubbornness that is causing him to evade the reality of the mainstream being a mixed premises. This is why Capitalism proponents and liberty lovers can find support depending on the policy from people in various parties/think tanks around the Globe.

"Observe the clarity gained by this conception of the political spectrum. The far left comprises the pure forms of all the rights-violating social systems: communism, socialism, fascism, Islamism, theocracy, democracy (i.e., rule by the majority), and anarchism (i.e., rule by gangs). The far right comprises the pure forms of rights-respecting social systems: laissez-faire capitalism, classical liberalism, constitutional republicanism—all of which require essentially the same thing: a government that protects and does not violate rights. The middle area consists of all the compromised, mixed, mongrel systems advocated by modern “liberals,” conservatives, unprincipled Tea Partiers (as opposed to the good ones), and all those who want government to protect some rights while violating other rights—whether by forcing people to fund other people’s health care, education, retirement, or the like—or by forcing people to comply with religious or traditional mores regarding sex, marriage, drugs, or what have you."

Bob Metz is a mule stubborn beyond compare and he needs to learn to admit when he makes mistakes. As much as he seems to think he is unable to be wrong in this case it is Craig Biddle that is Just Right.

The New Atlantis report on Sexuality and Gender an Objective review.

On Thursday evening I ran across an audio book form of the New Atlantis Report on Sexuality and Gender. I decided to give it a unbiased and objective review of what I thought and if it is as horrible as some have said it is. First of all I want to quote from the preface of the report about whom the lead author is for this report. This will help to clarify and set at rest the idea it was written by an ex-gay movement bigot.

Readers wondering about this report’s synthesis of research from so many different fields may wish to know a little about its lead author. I am a full-time academic involved in all aspects of teaching, research, and professional service. I am a biostatistician and epidemiologist who focuses on the design, analysis, and interpretation of experimental and observational data in public health and medicine, particularly when the data are complex in terms of underlying scientific issues. I am a research physician, having trained in medicine and psychiatry in the U.K. and received the British equivalent (M.B.) to the American M.D. I have never practiced medicine (including psychiatry) in the United States or abroad. I have testified in dozens of federal and state legal proceedings and regulatory hearings, in most cases reviewing scientific literature to clarify the issues under examination. I strongly support equality and oppose discrimination for the LGBT community, and I have testified on their behalf as a statistical expert.

An undertaking as ambitious as this report would not be possible without the counsel and advice of many gifted scholars and editors. I am grateful for the generous help of Laura E. Harrington, M.D., M.S., a psychiatrist with extensive training in internal medicine and neuroimmunology, whose clinical practice focuses on women in life transition, including affirmative treatment and therapy for the LGBT community. She contributed to the entire report, particularly lending her expertise to the sections on endocrinology and brain research. I am indebted also to Bentley J. Hanish, B.S., a young geneticist who expects to graduate medical school in 2021 with an M.D./Ph.D. in psychiatric epidemiology. He contributed to the entire report, particularly to those sections that concern genetics.

I

 dedicate my work on this report, first, to the LGBT community, which bears a disproportionate rate of mental health problems compared to the population as a whole. We must find ways to relieve their suffering. 

The lead author of the report is one Lawrence S. Mayer, M.B., M.S., Ph.D.; who's credentials and acceptance/support of the LGBT community is written about in the preface quoted above. Since he was being misunderstood he took the time to write a FAQ about his report which says the following.

Does the report argue that being gay or transgender is a choice?

No. The report explicitly states that “sexual orientation is not a choice,” but demonstrates that, according to currently available scientific research, “biological factors cannot provide a complete explanation” for sexual orientation and argues that “environmental and experiential factors may also play an important role.”

Does the report argue that sexual orientation or gender identity can be changed through therapy?

No. The report argues that “sexual orientation may be quite fluid over the life course for some people” and observes that “only a minority of children who experience cross-gender identification will continue to do so into adolescence or adulthood.” The report does not advocate trying to change — or confirm — a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity through therapy. The report’s authors are especially wary of medical interventions directed at children.

The report argues strongly for better addressing the mental health problems (anxiety, depression, suicide) and behavioral and social problems (substance abuse, intimate partner violence) that non-heterosexual and transgender populations experience at much higher rates than the general population. 

So much for the report being some sort of clandestine undercover ex-gay pushing investigation. Not once throughout the 5 hours it took to listen to the report in full did it support therapy to convert people. Not once in the 5 hours did it support any sort of hypothesis of the ex-gay community. In fact, it said they were incorrect for considering orientation to be a chosen lifestyle choice or somehow being volitional. Not a single study that was vetted for the report was connected to the ex-gay movement in anyway. All 500 plus citations are from mainstream scientific studies and not from any form of therapy group that supported therapeutic conversion.

While the report does actually acknowledge that evidence is on the side of orientation being mutable and changing within people it never says it can be done through therapy and willpower, It instead represents the studies it cites correctly by considering it a natural change overtime in the populations studied. The statement it makes in the summary that 80% of the population in the studies they cited were heterosexual by a certain Wave/Age of study is correct. That is what the cited studies they have in the linked citations in the report says it found. It is simply reporting honestly what these Longitudinal Studies showed.

In fact, out and proud Lesbian Psychologist with the American Psychological Association Lisa Diamond has this same information in her contributions to the APA's LGBTQ Handbook for working with the LGBTQ population. Similarly, also Out and Proud Gay Psychologist also contributing to the research on LGBTQ peoples and the handbook Ritch Savin-Williams said as much as well. There was no disputing that there was more movement in the studies of the population towards an opposite sex attraction being present. I think if people knew that their sources were studies cited by LBGTQ people themselves the accusations that this was an Ex-Gay based report would have never taken off.

In fact, the idea that orientation is a combination of factors is in fact the official statement of the American Psychological Association.

There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.

In other words exactly what The New Atlantis stated in their summary of their findings when they said that it appeared to be a mixture of different factors which affected ones orientation and identity of themselves sexually. However, when The New Atlantis said the research we have supports this view and not the easily digestible have a gay gene be gay narrative people went nuts. Unfortunately, due to the role of the ex-gay movement with trying to squash gay rights by dismissing gay gene hypothesis anyone whom ever says there is more to it than your genes will be mistaken for being on their side.

It is also in the APA Handbook on LGBTQ issues that cross-gender identifying children will indeed the majority of the time not be trans and be identifying with their biological sex by the time they have been through puberty. In order to be considered Trans or gender dysphoric you need to be having it long term and not just as a little child, but, an ongoing issue with your gender of your body./ The New Atlantis is not differing from mainstream psychology or science in this regard either. They correctly articulate the studies they have present in their list of hundreds of citations they used.

A little boy playing with Barbies or even wearing a dress is not determined or destined to be a trans person. Or to have gender dysphoria or to take hormones nor to transition with surgery. Many little kids can play fantasy without really being the sex they are playing as based on their dress or other traits. After all we do not say that all butch, tomboyesque little girls are boys in girls bodies. Cross-sex fantasies and play does not equal being gender dysphoric and needing to be transitioned to the opposite sex. Kids are kids and let kids be kids. They should not be pushed or indoctrinated into thinking that just because they might have differences from others of their sex that means they are trapped in the wrong body.

On the issue of Gender Identity I fully concur with The New Atlantis lead author that we should not be placing labels on kids and assuming they are trans based on their traits alone. The idea that children as young as 2 years old whom cannot even fully reason what the truth of the world is yet are being seriously considered to be not their right sex by their parents is insane. It is not OK to take a young person whom is not yet capable of fully reasoning and confusing them by talking about gender dysphoria or transgender to them. That should be left until they have developed the mental capacity to be able to reason for themselves about such matters. They are more than likely to be just engaging in harmless childhood flights of fancy and not showing signs of gender identity in-congruence. In some instances they might turn out to be LGBQ, but, more than likely not T.

Gender Dysphoria or the state of being Transgender is not something that is likely to be the case for most children that people have. It is a very, very small minority of the overall population. One should not be jumping on the idea that ones kid is this way just based on their habits, or toy preferences, or other interests or the like. Nor should our kids be put into a list for hormones to stop them from going through puberty simply based on these things either. The introduction of hormone blockers in ever growing younger children is an issue for me as well. The vast majority of cross-identifying children if allowed to go through puberty will be identifying with their biological sex once puberty has been allowed to occur. Most of them will not be someone that should ever have been on the blockers in the first place.

If you are an older person and you are not a child. If you want to go on hormones and it has been deemed safe it is your body. However, children are a special case and they are not consenting of age adults. They can be pressured or hell even completely brainwashed by batshit crazy militant parents whom want to push the Trans label onto their non-conforming kids. Young people are susceptible to suggestion and parents whom are pushing their own agenda could easily manipulate a gender atypical child into thinking they are in the wrong body and then say, "see he or she is saying they are not what they were assigned at birth." This is why I recommend that kids be at an age where they have better cognitive capacity before they learn about sexuality and gender identity. It is too easy for them too be confused or downright manipulated by parents that are teaching to push an identity not teach acceptance.

In the end I found upon looking at their citations that The New Atlantis report is far from ex-gay propaganda. Indeed it does an excellent job of giving a summary of the current state of sexuality and gender identity based sciences. I, in fact will link the report at the bottom of this review, so, you can look at it or listen to it for yourselves. However do not just be second handed and believe me nor the report dogmatically like sheep as opposed to humans. Go to all of their citations and read them as well. Then see if it matches the reality of the science articles cited in their 500+ citations. Use your own mind and your own reason. Be objective!


https://www.thenewatlantis.com/docLib/20160819_TNA50SexualityandGender.pdf

Audio Book version

2018 PBA Parkside Lanes Open Finals

2018 OceanView at Falmouth PBA League Elias Cup Finals - Philadelphia vs. Silver Lake

The Philadelphia Hitmen face the Silver Lake Atom Splitters for the 2018 Elias Cup. Originally aired on ESPN May 3, 2018 from Bayside Bowl in Portland, Maine.

Subscribe to Xtra Frame: http://www.xtraframe.tv

Follow the PBA via the PBA Network: http://www.pba.com/PBAnetwork

preNASA 2018 - Dr.Mario (GB) 0-15 Race by pidgezero_one & YumeTsubasaCH

Earthbound by Aurilliux in 1:27:07 - Summer Games Done Quick 2015

Earthbound by UltimoIce in 4:27:53 - SGDQ2017

Dr. Keith Lockitch | Darwin and the Discovery of Evolution

The theory of evolution is often disparaged by its opponents as being “just a theory” — i.e., a speculative hypothesis with little basis in hard, scientific fact. But this claim carries with it the implied accusation that Charles Darwin was “just a theorist” — i.e., he was merely an armchair scientist and that his life’s work was nothing more than an exercise in arbitrary speculation. A look at Darwin’s pioneering discoveries, however, reveals the grave injustice of this accusation. Darwin was not “just a theorist” and evolution is not “just a theory.” In this talk, Dr. Keith Lockitch explores Darwin’s life and work, focusing on the steps by which he came to discover and prove the theory of evolution by natural selection.

Recorded March 18, 2008.

Headquartered in Irvine, California, ARI offers educational experiences, based on Ayn Rand's books and ideas, to a variety of audiences, including students, educators, policymakers and lifelong learners. ARI also engages in research and advocacy efforts, applying Rand's ideas to current issues and seeking to promote her philosophical principles of reason, rational self-interest and laissez-faire capitalism.

Explore ARI: http://www.AynRand.org 
Follow ARI on Twitter: https://twitter.com/AynRandInst 
Like ARI on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/AynRandInstitute

"The Enemies of 'Extremism'" by Ayn Rand

In this 1964 radio interview, Ayn Rand responds to questions about the use of the term “extremism” in political discourse. Rand rejects “extremism” as an undefined term used to smear and discredit one’s opponent without evidence, analyzing several instances of the term’s use in presidential politics. Rand discusses why the term “extremism” is really an attack on consistency of principles, how presidential candidate Barry Goldwater could have defended himself against smears leveled at him, and why it is important to evaluate individuals and movements based on their ideas.

SUBSCRIBE TO NEW IDEAL, ARI'S ONLINE PUBLICATION
https://aynrand.us12.list-manage.com/...

SUBSCRIBE TO ARI’S YOUTUBE CHANNEL
https://www.youtube.com/subscription_...

ABOUT THE AYN RAND INSTITUTE
ARI offers educational experiences, based on Ayn Rand's books and ideas, to a variety of audiences, including students, educators, policymakers and lifelong learners. ARI also engages in research and advocacy efforts, applying Rand's ideas to current issues and seeking to promote her philosophical principles of reason, rational self-interest and laissez-faire capitalism. We invite you to explore how Ayn Rand viewed the world — and to consider the distinctive insights offered by ARI's experts today.

SUPPORT ARI WITH A DONATION
https://ari.aynrand.org/donate/credit...

EXPLORE ARI
http://www.AynRand.org 

FOLLOW ARI ON TWITTER
https://twitter.com/AynRandInst 

LIKE ARI ON FACEBOOK
https://www.facebook.com/AynRandInsti...

EXPLORE ARI CAMPUS
https://campus.aynrand.org/

INFORMATION ABOUT OBJECTIVIST SUMMER CONFERENCES
http://objectivistconferences.com/ 

LEARN ABOUT AYN RAND STUDENT CONFERENCES
http://aynrandcon.org/