ALEXANDER R. COHEN | The Virtue of Benevolence

Weakest Link - (Music Special) - 1st May 2002

Stephan Hansen v Mike Schloesser – compound men’s bronze | Nimes 2019

PBA Bowling Hall of Fame Classic 01 06 2019 (HD)

This show was televised on Fox Sports. The USBC, PBA, and Fox own the all the rights, I do not. This upload is for those that don't have that channel available and would like to watch the show.

NoReset x DreamHack Montréal 2018 - Super Mario RPG by pidgezero_one

NoReset x Next Level 2018 - Super Mario RPG Randomizer by Pidgezero_one

2018 CTWC Side Matches Top 32 - Part 1

Gad Saad & Yaron Brook on evolutionary psychology, Altruism, State of academia & more!

On November 1, 2018, Yaron and Gad Saad sat down to discuss Donald Trump, birthright citizenship, immigration, idea pathogens, evolutionary psychology, objectivism (Ayn Rand), altruism, consilience, and interdisciplinary pursuits.

Follow Gad Saad on YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCLH7...), Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Dr.Gad.Saad, and Twitter: https://twitter.com/GadSaad (@GadSaad)
______________________________________

Like what you hear? Become a Patreon member, get exclusive content and support the creation of more videos like this! https://www.patreon.com/YaronBrookShow or support the show direct through PayPal: paypal.me/YaronBrookShow.

Want more? Tune in to the Yaron Brook Show on YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/user/ybrook). Continue the discussions anywhere on-line after show time using #YaronBrookShow. Connect with Yaron via Tweet @YaronBrook or follow him on Facebook @ybrook and YouTube (/YaronBrook).

Want to learn more about Objectivism? Check out ARI at https://ari.aynrand.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.

Myles Power | Debunking the AIDS Denialist Movie House of Numbers - FULL VIDEO

In 2009 Canadian-born director and producer, Brent Leung, released the film ‘House of Numbers’. The documentary consists of interviews with scientists and AIDS denialists discussing the link between HIV and AIDS, the severity of AIDS in South Africa and, unbelievably, whether or not HIV exists at all. Brent claims that the documentary gives an “objective examination of the idea the HIV causes AIDS” but nothing could be further from the truth in this sneakily edited piece of propaganda. After viewing it myself, and realizing how the movie tried to mislead viewers, I made a series of videos debunking several of the claims it made.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Support Myles
Patreon: http://patreon.com/powerm1985
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Additional information
Mass Murders by Proxy
https://mylespower.co.uk/2014/06/01/m...
Anti-retroviral Medication
https://mylespower.co.uk/2014/04/18/a...
The Sad Case of Joyce Ann Hafford
https://mylespower.co.uk/2014/03/30/t...
FUCK the Foo Fighters!!!!
https://mylespower.co.uk/2013/08/26/f...
Number-Gate
https://mylespower.co.uk/2013/07/08/n...
Time Travel and HIV Tests in the Movie ‘House of Numbers’
https://mylespower.co.uk/2013/06/09/t...
Infantile Views on Evidence and More Shady Editing in the Documentary House of Numbers
https://mylespower.co.uk/2013/05/24/i...
Outright Lies in the Documentary House of Numbers
https://mylespower.co.uk/2013/05/22/o...
Vital Information Missing in the Documentary House of Numbers
https://mylespower.co.uk/2013/05/20/v...
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Twitter: https://twitter.com/powerm1985
Facebook: https://facebook.com/powerm1985
Website: https://mylespower.co.uk
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Intro Music by Michael 'Skitch' Schiciano
http://bio.skitchmusic.com 
http://www.soundcloud.com/skitchstudio
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Earthbound Pajama% by pidgezero_one in 2:24:57 - STR 2017

This is a speedrun of Earthbound Pajama% by pidgezero_one from Smash The Record 2017, located in Ontario, California from September 14th, 2017 to September 17th, 2017.

Objectivism is it a closed or open system? Case Closed

I have written on previous Objectvism based articles that there is two different ways to look at the philosophy. One way being that it is a closed system and cannot have anything added or removed to it. The other way is as an open system open to change and revision while still being called Objectivism. Some people think the split is only about associating with libertarians, but, that is not the case it is two different ways of looking at the philosophy as a whole. However, what is the correct answer? Is it an open system open to revision, change and new additions? Or is it a closed system and only The Philosophy as discovered/espoused by Ayn Rand nothing more or less?

No matter where I fall I will turn off people whom have their own stance on the matter in the debate. First of all I need to clarify that if Objectivism is a closed system it does not make it dogmatic, insular or intolerant to other points of view. It does not justify those whom misunderstand Objectivism and treat it like a religion or even a cult. It simply means it is what it is and nothing more nor less. It means that things like benevolence being added as a separate virtue from justice is not correct to the philosophy. It does not excuse forgetting about benevolence and good will as being a form of justice for those around us. It does not mean one loses all form of empathy and sympathy for others. It also does not mean pushing it down peoples throats like religious evangelicals.

It does not mean either that one takes Objectivism as all of philosophy or anywhere near the whole of philosophy in general. It does not mean you even are an Objectivist or agree with the philosophy. It does not mean you get to become a bully that calls anyone that dares to misunderstand Objectivism as evil. It does not even mean you need to not associate with people that take an Open view even if said view is incorrect. It does not mean bashing classical liberals that use other means to their ends. It does not mean that you call every single atheist that disagrees with your views as deluded or irrational. Nor does it mean that you call people suffering from the delusion of a creator to not be fully human for not using reason thoroughly on their own views.

Nor does the closed view require that you be Peikoffinst that takes anything and everything Leonard Peikoff as Objectivist Gospel. Nor does it mean you need to listen and believe that Peikoff is the often sited intellectual heir to Ayn Rand and authoritative on anything either. Nor does it mean you need to agree with the Ayn Rand Institute on any particular matters. In fact, to consider Peikoff to be hair without any evidence from Rand herself in writing or audio/video evidence is in fact saying Objectivism did not consist of only the philosophy discovered/espoused by Rand. It is in itself an Open view disguised as the closed system.

Objectivism is a closed system it is what it is. I agree 110% with this classic episode of Philosophy In Action which I think case closed on the idea that Objectivism is an open system. Objectivism is the philosophy for living a flourishing life on Earth as discovered by and espoused by Ayn Rand in her philosophical based writings. Anything else discovered afterwards is not the Objectivist-this or Objectivist-that. Objectivism the philosophy is a closed system whose ability to alter fundamentals or core virtues and concepts died when Ms. Rand died. Even the so-called Intellectual Hair whom has never been proven as such Peikoff cannot add anything to it nor speak about it with any authority. Reality is the authority per Objectivism's own ethics and Ms. Rand herself in her own writings.

To quote Diana Brickell from the above linked episode of Philosophy In Action;

 The "closed system" view of Objectivism just asks that people respect Ayn Rand's philosophy as her own creation – and differentiate it from their own or others' ideas. Contrary to the advocates of the "open system," that approach doesn't lead to insularity, dogmatism, or intolerance.

Nowhere in the definition of Objectivism as a closed system does it say you need to agree with ARI and Leonard Peikoff. Nor even that you need to agree with Yaron Brook or anyone else on any given matter. Objectivism has a core virtue of independence which means just because someone else also is an Oist does not mean they are automatically right or automatically to be trusted. It does not mean you Worship Ayn as a Goddess or engage in the less than hospitable behavior of her old "collective" inner circle. It simply means Objectivism is Objectivism and that is it A=A.

I also echo Diana in saying that one being an Objectivist or not is not a good measure of a person being nice or reasonable. Nor is it that you can live a life that is full by isolating yourself unless you are around other Objectivist. That would be the worst thing you can do and it is mentally harmful to only deal with people whom you ideologically agree. Look instead for people of good character regardless of their views on your own ideas.

1 Hour of The Funniest Game Show Answers EVER

Weakest Link - (Music Special) - 1st May 2002

Weakest Link - (Comedians Special) - 24th August 2001

Whodunnit!? The Complete Series

Hells Kitchen Season 4 Complete - Marco Pierre White

Five Minutes To A Fortune the complete series

George H. Smith | Ayn Rand and Altruism the full series

Bogosity The Entire Series