-
All responses Most smiled responses
-
No, but I do answer people's questions on practical ethics and the principles of living well on my weekly webcast, Rationally Selfish. You can submit questions for that -- and join the live webcasts or download the later audio podcasts -- here: http://www.rationallyselfish.com/
-
Unfortunately, I've got no recommendations on that score, as I've never used any. But whatever you do, dear god, don't use apostrophes for mere plurals in your profile! You don't wish to alienate those seeking grammatical partners. :-)
-
Yes. It's not copyrighted. If someone asks for credit -- like with blog templates -- then you should give that, however.
-
I do, and I plan to say something about it once I've gathered more facts.
-
Your lack of proper grammar, obviously. It's quite infuriating.
-
-
It looks awesome! The picture of him is fantastic.
-
asked by mtnrunner2
OMG, that's a huge question! I've got some well-developed views, but it will have to wait for an in-person chat sometime. In the meantime, uou might also look up Monty Roberts -- http://www.montyroberts.com/. He's done some really fascinating work on horse psychology, figuring out how to relate to horses so that you act as the dominant mare in the herd. That herd structure, plus the fact that horses are definitely flighty on the fight-flight axis, are the two keys to understanding them, I think. Oh, but you need to be able to read their body language too. It's not terribly complex, but unless you've worked with horses, you're clueless. :-)
-
-
Does this question have any practical importance to your life? When Objectivism takes over the culture, are you hoping to be able to challenge your enemies to a duel?
That's a serious query, in a way. Philosophy is for living on earth. Personally, anything else makes me sleepy. Unless answering some philosophic question will serve my life and happiness, I see no point in working to come to an answer. In fact, I'd say that the tendency to contemplate such fantastical questions stems from and promotes rationalism. (I've certainly indulged in that in years past.)
I don't think that's your motivation. I just think you like to pester the philosophers. :-)
So... I have only two thoughts on the matter, and they're as far as I'm willing to go:
(1) If two morons want to attempt to kill each other by voluntary consent, I won't get in the way. I'm not sure whether the government should or not though.
(2) A culture in which slights of honor must be dealt with by dueling is seriously irrational, self-indulgent, and self-destructive. That's the real problem about dueling -- the culture that promotes it, not the government's response. -
asked by Benpercent
For reasons of cost and convenience, I eat very little pastured meat. The beef that I buy is grass-fed but then corn-finished. I've chosen to buy another quarter cow of that over grass-fed because it's the tastiest beef I've ever eaten... by a long shot.
-
Monster, I think.
-
I've not read him.
-
No. I'm an avid consumer of literature, but I've got no desire to produce it.
As for my life in film... you must be kidding! My life is not dramatic in that way. What's interesting about it is what goes on between my ears and out my fingers. -
You should ask Paul about that. He's the hard-boiled egg fanatic Chez Hsieh.
However, from what I've read, the fresher the egg, the harder it is to peel when hard-boiled. That's why grocery store eggs peel easier than farm eggs. I don't know if anything can be done to fix that. -
That's highly unlikely, not only because "Hsieh" is my married name but also because "Hsieh" (or "Xie") is the surname of about 2 million people. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xie_(surname)
In any case, I'm not aware of any family connection. -
Nope! Mr. Woo is still Mr. Woo. But... butterball is very cute.
-
I wrote about this very issue a while back: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/2009/12/how-to-find-good-therapist.shtml
-
asked by WeDontNeedGod
Oh my god, no no no. That's horrid libertarian drivel. (I wrote that, then I googled the quote. I was right: it's from Murray Rothbard.)
Parents are obliged to care for any child brought willingly into existence (i.e. not aborted) and then brought home (i.e. not adopted). By doing so, the parents create a creature with a right to life, yet utterly dependent on themselves, and they exclude others from caring for it. To do that, then withhold the food, clothing, or education that the child needs to survive in order to become a self-supporting adult -- that would be a monstrous violation of that child's rights.
Parents are obliged to care for their children for the basic reason that the owner of sailboat cannot simply leave a passenger swimming in the middle of the ocean. Contrary to concrete-bound libertarian nonsense, to do that would be an initiation of force and a violation of rights. That's because the captain has assumed responsibility for safely transporting the swimmer, knowing that the swimmer's life depends on his doing so. The swimmer has a right to be returned to land, where he can fend for himself. To leave him in the ocean would be murder.
The child is like the swimmer, except without the benefit of consenting to the journey. His parents created him as a dependent being, and they are obliged to nurture him in some very basic ways (e.g. food, clothing, shelter, basic education) until he can fend for himself. Or they must find someone else willing and able to assume that responsibility.
If people want to know why I recoil from the term "libertarian," the fact that views like Rothbard's on parental obligations are standard fare should be a clue. Sure, he might talk about rights and free markets, but clearly, his whole understanding of those topics is warped by concrete-bound rationalism about initiating force. If implemented, the practical result of his ideas would be a monstrously barbaric society. I don't support that; I oppose it!
The people who advocate views like Rothbard's -- or tolerate them from their political allies -- are not my political allies, except perhaps on some very narrow, concrete issues. And I don't wish to make common cause with them, nor be included among their number. The mere thought of that turns my stomach, and I hope that other lovers of liberty have the same reaction. -
Barbara Branden has an extended discussion of the topic in her NBI lectures, _The Principles of Efficient Thinking_.
(I do recommend that course, as well as her other work done under Ayn Rand. I don't recommend anything else, particularly not her smearing biography of Ayn Rand, _The Passion of Ayn Rand_.)
-
Loading...Diana Hsieh’s Bio
I'm a philosopher (Ph.D, CU Boulder), blogger, podcaster, GTD'er, paleo foodie, backyard gardener, rider of horses, farm gal, capitalist, and Objectivist.
