Hey Spademan

[JOhnWaters 0]

lol.i find you stupid and childish and don't feel like engaging you in conversation. you aren't here to discuss, you're here to argue and attack in some weak attempt to feel good about yourself. i am in no mood to indulge your low self esteem.

you are an emotionalist. you are withdrawing because i hurt your feelings.

[antistuff 0]

you haven't made a good movie since serial mom.

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

you are an emotionalist. you are withdrawing because i hurt your feelings.

LOL just like a ****ing robot.

[vbnautilus 48]

I think any reasonable position that is presented here will have someone to agree with it. For some reason no on seems to be on your side, "JOhn Waters". To alienate everyone is really not much of an accomplishment though, so I encourage you get beyond this little experiment of yours.

[Frisco d’Anconia 0]

This is my thread, so rather than step aside, how about you go fuck yourself instead. If I want to talk about objectivism, I'll start a thread called 'Hey, Douchebags."

You know I normally like you, and though your enjoyment of Surrealism and other nonRomantic art gives me hints that you are completely irrational, I have generally ignored it to get along with you, in favor of what is "practical." But stupid shit like this shows me I should never have let it get this far. You are illogical. You don't own this site, and you have no intellectual rights to this thread. He's well within his rights to post here, and your scare tactics and terrorism aren't going to control him.

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

You know I normally like you, and though your enjoyment of Surrealism and other nonRomantic art gives me hints that you are completely irrational, I have generally ignored it to get along with you, in favor of what is "practical." But stupid shit like this shows me I should never have let it get this far. You are illogical. You don't own this site, and you have no intellectual rights to this thread. He's well within his rights to post here, and your scare tactics and terrorism aren't going to control him.

Racist, surrealistic charactures by a beatnik are what passes for romantic realism these days?

[Frisco d’Anconia 0]

You are being irrational yet again. I enjoy the work of Dr. Susses. His stories show idealized lives. It's not like I can't have a sense of humor just because I am logical. I think Everybody Loves Raymond is about my favorite show ever.

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

You are being irrational yet again. I enjoy the work of Dr. Susses. His stories show idealized lives. It's not like I can't have a sense of humor just because I am logical. I think Everybody Loves Raymond is about my favorite show ever.

Well, you didn't understand them very well, 'cause seuss was a socialist, and his racist warmongering cartoons appeared in the New York PM, which was maybe the biggest leftist newspaper of all time. It makes the new york times seem like the National Reviewhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PM_(newspaper)

[Frisco d’Anconia 0]

hi, i'm ayn rand. i read nietzsche when i was in high school, got it wrong, and started fucking up his understanding of the world in book form and got rich doing it.shit, that would have been better as a joke account. damn laziness.

God you are such a dummy. Just being a prick doesn't make you right. Let me guess: HS drop out, read some illogical fags like Gödel on your own, and think that makes you smart, even though you're night manager at the Chick-fil-A. HAHAHAHA...dumbass. You guys are the most irrational people I've ever seen.Let me break some shit down for you fascists on a level you can understand:Ayn Rand = rational.Not understanding this = irrational.Irrational = evil.Any questions?

[Frisco d’Anconia 0]

Well, you didn't understand them very well, 'cause seuss was a socialist, and his racist warmongering cartoons appeared in the New York PM, which was maybe the biggest leftist newspaper of all time. It makes the new york times seem like the National Reviewhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PM_(newspaper)

LOL HAHAHAHA...you don't even understand what you are saying...just walk away dummy, just walk away.

[antistuff 0]

everybody loves raymond?and you expect anybody to take you seriously?

[checkymcfold 0]

for all the ayn rand hating that exists ive never seen a single person refute any part of her philosophy. considering you can easily do that with people like nietzsche, aristotle, plato, kant, or really any other philosopher, thats something to consider. everyone just writes stuff like this or calls her 'followers' a 'cult'. no explanation necessary. as usual. nietzsche may have influenced her in some vague way, but aristotle more so, by far. im thinking you dont know anything about nietzsche OR ayn rand, and probably are just repeating what a professor once told you.

ayn rand thinks that you have control over everything.nietzsche understands that this is not true, and that you only have control over how you interpret what you experience.aristotle never gave a shit about control.kant doesn't think that the human will has any import outside of the realm of morality.done. that took me nearly a full minute.or, if you like, the easy version: sometimes i both cry and have orgasms without thinking things through. this is a good deal of what makes me human.

[JOhnWaters 0]

ayn rand thinks that you have control over everything.

this is a terrible interpretation. i have never read anything by her saying something to this effect, and dont see how this could be your general summary of her views. see is for rationality, not control.

or, if you like, the easy version: sometimes i both cry and have orgasms without thinking things through. this is a good deal of what makes me human.

its funny that what you say makes you human is something that many animals do (they may not produce tears emotionally, that we know of, but they do express the same emotions through other means, like a dog whimpering). not a very good point of distinction is it?i would say that it is your ability to think things through rationally that makes you human. objectivism would teach you how to formulate good definitions, by the way.

[JOhnWaters 0]

I think any reasonable position that is presented here will have someone to agree with it. For some reason no on seems to be on your side, "JOhn Waters". To alienate everyone is really not much of an accomplishment though, so I encourage you get beyond this little experiment of yours.

this is a fallacy. reason is not determined by numbers of people agreeing with it. the fact that you resort to this also tells me you have no logical argument against anything i have said. you keep following the crowd. leave the reason to me.3 or 4 people seem to not be on my side here, but they have shown to disagree based on misinterpretations and misunderstandings of what they criticize, and the rest have fallen back and focused on their feelings getting hurt. i dont come here for feelings, and i cant imagine how a bunch of poker players can be so illogical and so feeling oriented. notice what going on tilt does to your game. the same is happening here, feeling replaces logic, unless you logically understand feeling. and finally, it seems that frisco d'anconia agrees with me, and has come through in the clutch like always.

[checkymcfold 0]

this is a terrible interpretation. i have never read anything by her saying something to this effect, and dont see how this could be your general summary of her views. see is for rationality, not control.

it's entirely correct. rand is of the view that you have complete control over everything that goes on in your own mind, which simply isn't true. she may not use that word, because it makes her sound kind of stupid, but it's fairly obviously what she means.

its funny that what you say makes you human is something that many animals do (they may not produce tears emotionally, that we know of, but they do express the same emotions through other means, like a dog whimpering). not a very good point of distinction is it?i would say that it is your ability to think things through rationally that makes you human. objectivism would teach you how to formulate good definitions, by the way.

yes, i am part animal. i am also part "rational being," or whatever terminology you want to use. denying one or the other would be kind of retarded. i mean, honestly, if i was born 100% rational in the sense that you seem to mean it, i'd be god. look, rand just falls into the same trap that basically every premodern philosopher does--she understands that human beings are made up of multiple types of things on one level (rationality, desires, etc.), then takes a die and rolls it to figure out which one she's going to declare more important than the others, and finally writes a bunch of words trying to defend that die roll.it's not like it's uncommon. just adolescent. everyone goes through puberty. i mean, even i had an ugly phase (i know, right?).

[Balloon guy 158]

it's not like it's uncommon. just adolescent. everyone goes through puberty. i mean, even i had an ugly phase (i know, right?).

Should be near the end...any day now?

[checkymcfold 0]

Should be near the end...any day now?

you'll know when you get the call telling you that your daughter has left her fiancee for me.shouldn't you be on the putting green, so that you might break 80 before you, well, turn 80?

[Balloon guy 158]

you'll know when you get the call telling you that your daughter has left her fiancee for me.shouldn't you be on the putting green, so that you might break 80 before you, well, turn 80?

You should know that I set much easier goals to attain...I am getting a lesson soon...could you pray for me? It might be my only hope.

[JOhnWaters 0]

yes, i am part animal. i am also part "rational being," or whatever terminology you want to use. denying one or the other would be kind of retarded. i mean, honestly, if i was born 100% rational in the sense that you seem to mean it, i'd be god. look, rand just falls into the same trap that basically every premodern philosopher does--she understands that human beings are made up of multiple types of things on one level (rationality, desires, etc.), then takes a die and rolls it to figure out which one she's going to declare more important than the others, and finally writes a bunch of words trying to defend that die roll.

you didnt say you were part animal though. thats obvious. you used characteristics that animals have to characterize your humanity. im just telling you that thats a faulty point of distinction. im telling you that rationality is the thing that separates you from animals. that is the essence that makes us different, and there is no argument to this. yes, ayn rand determines, using this information, that rationality is most important. but she doesnt carry that to saying that nothing else exists. she says there are emotions, a subconscious, and feelings, but they shouldnt be placed above rationality. as we have discovered, rationality makes us human. and irrationality is behind every inhumane action in history. saying that she claims you have control of all aspects of the mind is a misunderstanding and a sloppy use of language, and its also not even that relevant. and its just not true. contrary to what post modernists like you believe, you CAN distinguish importance between things. you CAN evaluate. and the fact that you characterize her decisions of importance as random is laughable. before i thought you might be a philosophy major, now im thinking you must be a professor.

[checkymcfold 0]

you didnt say you were part animal though. thats obvious. you used characteristics that animals have to characterize your humanity. im just telling you that thats a faulty point of distinction. im telling you that rationality is the thing that separates you from animals. that is the essence that makes us different, and there is no argument to this.

similar to my sometimes-instinctual nature, i also share a characteristic with most mammals in that i have two eyes. that's not an insult or a complement. it's just a fact.sure, i'm more rational than a snake or a dog or whatever. i also get aroused when i see a hot chick thirteen year old boy, and i can't control that. ayn rand gets hot when she fantasizes about rape. meh.

yes, ayn rand determines, using this information, that rationality is most important. but she doesnt carry that to saying that nothing else exists. she says there are emotions, a subconscious, and feelings, but they shouldnt be placed above rationality. as we have discovered, rationality makes us human. and irrationality is behind every inhumane action in history.

first, what information are you talking about? there are other ways in which i differ from a dog or snake--why not glorify those and make some grand, silly philosophy about how being bipedal is the greatest thing ever?second, lol. one could easily make the argument that it's our rational nature that allows us to do horrific things to one another, like, say, decide that aryans are better than jews and exterminate them, etc. animals don't kill their own species (with very few exceptions), people do. but perhaps that's due to our preference for walking on two legs, i dunno.

saying that she claims you have control of all aspects of the mind is a misunderstanding and a sloppy use of language, and its also not even that relevant. and its just not true.

it's indicative of the fault at the root of her philosophy, and hence altogether relevant. objectivism can't function as a philosophy unless you hold tight to the claim that you can actually control when you're rational and when you're not, and thus place our faculty of rationality on a pedestal far above every other part of ourselves. when one does this, to use the simplest, nietzschean critique, one is simply creating a false god within oneself and saving him/herself the step of projecting it outward onto the heavens or whatever. the problem remains the same--deeming one part of oneself "holy" and another "unholy" without any real reason for doing so (change the terminology of the quoted words if you like--the meaning is the same) is detrimental to one's personal psychology. we are what we are, and that's neither good nor bad. one can strive to make oneself better by whatever metric one might choose without having to call his/her mistakes "evil," or "base," "animalistic," or whatever.

contrary to what post modernists like you believe, you CAN distinguish importance between things. you CAN evaluate. and the fact that you characterize her decisions of importance as random is laughable. before i thought you might be a philosophy major, now im thinking you must be a professor.

of course i can distinguish between things. i do that every day. i just don't always think that whatever i deem more rational should always win. sometimes i just masturbate instead of reading a book, because it feels right.i'm also neither a postmodernist nor a professor, in case you're curious.

[brvheart 1,752]

It's my favorite thing ever when a total nutbag comes in here and takes the heat off the just 'regular crazy' people.Also, I have an answer about the Daniel verse VB. In Jewish times, people were considered 'sons' if they were in the same lineage... so even though he wasn't a direct son of Neb(...cancer), he would have been listed as such in Jewish tradition. Also, Kings and their sons, while not equal in power, were called by the same title by the general populace, especially once they were of age... for instance, Prince Charles... if he was Jewish... and lived 3,000 years old.I don't make the rules... talk to the Jews.

[crowTrobot 2]

animals don't kill their own species (with very few exceptions), people do. but perhaps that's due to our preference for walking on two legs, i dunno.

not qualified to comment on rand, but this statement in itself is wrong. the majority of animals that are physically capable of killing their own species do so under certain circumstances. in fact it's not unusual for some higher mammals to exhibit violent behavior towards their own species that seems to mirror primitive human tribalism (wolves, dolphins, chimps among others).

[crowTrobot 2]

i also get aroused when i see a hot chick thirteen year old boy

you've been watching too much red eye

[JOhnWaters 0]

similar to my sometimes-instinctual nature, i also share a characteristic with most mammals in that i have two eyes. that's not an insult or a complement. it's just a fact.sure, i'm more rational than a snake or a dog or whatever. i also get aroused when i see a hot chick thirteen year old boy, and i can't control that. ayn rand gets hot when she fantasizes about rape. meh.

what im saying is to define something we establish the essential difference between it and every other thing in the universe. not point out similarities it has with other things. yes we have animal and biological drives and instincts, im not saying we dont. a table and a tree can both be made of wood, but the table is essentially different for reasons other than the wood.and i get it now, you just didnt like the fountainhead (which i havent read). her philosophy isnt perfectly set in her novels in my opinion. the virtue of selfishness is a better, clearer, shorter than 5 million pages place to start.

first, what information are you talking about? there are other ways in which i differ from a dog or snake--why not glorify those and make some grand, silly philosophy about how being bipedal is the greatest thing ever?

because those arnt of philosophical interest. we need not waste time arguing obvious biological facts.

second, lol. one could easily make the argument that it's our rational nature that allows us to do horrific things to one another, like, say, decide that aryans are better than jews and exterminate them, etc. animals don't kill their own species (with very few exceptions), people do. but perhaps that's due to our preference for walking on two legs, i dunno.

no. a rational being will not initiate force against another. is it in your rational self interest to go around killing people? no, because eventually someone will do the same to you. and in a modern society youll be thrown in jail/executed. nazism is not rational. it is the definition of irrational. nazism arose from the height of irrationality.

it's indicative of the fault at the root of her philosophy, and hence altogether relevant. objectivism can't function as a philosophy unless you hold tight to the claim that you can actually control when you're rational and when you're not, and thus place our faculty of rationality on a pedestal far above every other part of ourselves. when one does this, to use the simplest, nietzschean critique, one is simply creating a false god within oneself and saving him/herself the step of projecting it outward onto the heavens or whatever. the problem remains the same--deeming one part of oneself "holy" and another "unholy" without any real reason for doing so (change the terminology of the quoted words if you like--the meaning is the same) is detrimental to one's personal psychology. we are what we are, and that's neither good nor bad. one can strive to make oneself better by whatever metric one might choose without having to call his/her mistakes "evil," or "base," "animalistic," or whatever.

ok lets get this straight. you can control when you are rational and when you are not. sometimes you may lose sight of that and be blinded by emotion, fine. but does that mean that if you fly off the handle and kill someone who steps on your foot that thats ok? is that "just the way we are"? no, thats irrationality. we should seek to limit that by looking at the world objectively and rationally. ayn rand is not saying we should be ashamed of having emotions. shes not saying if you make a mistake you need to go kill yourself (that would be irrational). shes just saying you need to rationally learn from those mistakes and try to better yourself by living more rationally, that rational self interest is the key to happiness.shes not saying emotions are irrational. it is rational to feel happy when you acomplish something that is good (something in your rational self interest). she doesnt hold rationality on a pedestal, she holds your own happiness on a pedestal, as per aristotle. rationality is just how you achieve that.

[vbnautilus 48]

im telling you that rationality is the thing that separates you from animals. that is the essence that makes us different, and there is no argument to this.

And I'm gonna tell you that this is incorrect. Pretty much all animals behave rationally to a degree, and it would certainly be hard to come up with a definition of rationality that separates us from all of the great apes. Most cognitive scientists agree that the really unique thing that humans do cognitively is probably something like recursion, which allows for some of the unique properties that our language shows, but is not the basis for all rational behavior.