If you google “save ferris spam lyrics” you’ll get a Google knowledge card for the lyrics, and you will discover that the deadname has been changed to “Bruce Jidder”. Hardly anybody remembers the song; it wasn’t a hit and it’s completely unimportant, but they CHANGED IT. Who changed it? Was it Brian Mashburn, who wrote the song, or someone else?

The only reason I noticed this is that the lyrics were also changed on Spotify, and when “Bruce Jidder” rolled by on my TV screen I did a double take.

Based on my readings, Rand wants very much to insist that objective truth exists, but has only circular reasoning to assist her.

The link below takes you to “The Ayn Rand Lexicon: Objectivism from A to Z,” to her discussion of values.

She writes, “It is only the concept of ‘Life’ that makes the concept of ‘Value’ possible. It is only to a living entity that things can be good or evil.”

Okay, so values depend on life. Got it.

Then, further down, she writes, “Values are the motivating power of man’s actions and a necessity of his survival, psychologically as well as physically.”

Okay, so life depends on values. Got it.

The circularity of Rand’s reasoning is not really Rand’s fault, though not noticing it is. All philosophies, at some point, beg the question. For philosophy to work, same as in math and science, people must start with something that cannot be proven. Logic can help prove a number of propositions, but it can’t be used to prove logic itself is valid; that must be assumed true.

I credit Rand with trying to accomplish something at which both Hume and Kant failed, namely, deriving objective values from rational thought.

If objective values can be derived from anything, it will need transcendence, and therefore an eternally and morally absolute God. Without transcendence, values die, same as the beings that advocate for them.

Morality is objective; about that, Rand is right. But it needs to be more than just animal behavior.

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/values.html

They were quite popular, even decades after their publication. Check them out!

I’m gonna guess who you’re talking about as there have been rumors about her for quite a long time. IMO, she was handsome 30 years ago (though not my cup o’ joe). In recent years age and her idiosyncratic grooming have made her look from the neck up like a man. No understanding why women want hair of that length. It never looks anything but suboptimal.

Her mother and father contracted nine marriages between them. She and her oldest sister have managed to keep it to one each.

What I do object to is the taxpayers being obliged to pay for it. There was a series of cases in California in which child molesters requested castration to allow them to be paroled after their fantasies were gone. The state refused them but I wonder if that has changed. There is pretty good evidence that pedophiles who have acted on their fantasies, lose the fantasy or at least the urge to act with castration.

These “gender change” requests by prisoners are mostly scamming by sociopaths.

No, Neo pretty much pointed out that the EXACT definition of “criminal” includes the definition she is using, and arguing that Peterson is using…

Perhaps your problem is that your “feelz” — note usage of “don’t give a fuck about your opinion” quotes — are that Doctor Peterson’s usage, as well as Neo’s usage — of language is not as sloppy and ineffectual as your own…?

Put more simply: Your “feelz” are what matters here, not reality, right? So projecting your own behavior onto them is “ok” with you…?

}}} There is no law against removing breasts. It’s unethical and absurd, and I would be in favor of medical boards making that clear and civilly punishing doctors who do that, but that is not reality.

… And clearly you have not bothered to read the comments here, or you would know how you possibly-to-most-likely are wrong on this.

I tend to believe in body autonomy, so personally don’t like the idea that it can be or should be restricted, BUT, that said, it’s clearly possibly a function of true mental illness, so it isn’t as entirely unreasonable as it might seem. If you are not clearly in your own right mind, then possibly you should not be making irreversible decisions at this point…?

Simple solution to this.

Anyone who seriously believes this is true should be expected to prove it:
Go step in front of a moving bus and tell it ‘you don’t believe in it’.
Anyone refuses, clearly, they are lying, to themselves if not everyone else as well.

And anyone who survives will have opened up a very interesting new realm of scientific inquiry.

Win win for everyone.

I believe he posts there for 2 reasons. The first is that it reaches an enormous number of people, and the second is that he is purposely trying to demonstrate the way Twitter operates by tweets such as this one.