|
|
Rank: Fecal Impaction For the Win!
Groups: Ogamer, Registered User
Joined: 5/9/2006
Posts: 1,666
Points: 2,478
Location: La Habra, Orange, CA
|
RichardAwesome wrote:Dick Cheney's Mechanical Heart wrote:RichardAwesome wrote:Dick Cheney's Mechanical Heart wrote:Arguing about Objectivism with a Randoid is a waste of time. It's a fantasy ideology for megalomaniacs, narcissists, sociopaths, and greedy smart asses. In the real world the invisible hand is more likely to pick your pocket than jerk you off unless it's shackled to society's oar. Sounds about as much of a fantasy as everyone holding hands and "working for the betterment of mankind" without any personal gain. Except no one actually seriously believes that as far as I can tell except maybe a few old hippies and honestly most of them are pretty fucking jaded, whereas Randoids are almost as bad as Scientologists when it comes to being True Believers. Agreed. Ideals are nothing to rely on. I'm comfortable with the happy medium, even if I like the ideals. Oh, I read about this in school. They call it bend-over-and-take-it'ism, right? Here's the deal. Objectivism is... Ayn Rand wrote:My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man asa heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute. 1. Metaphysics: Objective Reality "Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed." 2. Epistemology: Reason "You can't eat your cake and have it, too." 3. Ethics: Self-Interest "Man is an end in himself." 4. Politics: Capitalism "Give me liberty or give me death." Are the four talking points of her views. Megalomaniacs: meg·a·lo·ma·ni·a
play_w2("M0199200")
(m  g   -l  -m   n  - , -m n y )
n.
1. A psychopathological condition characterized by delusional fantasies of wealth, power, or omnipotence.
2. An obsession with grandiose or extravagant things or actions. nar·cis·sism
play_w2("N0017100")
(när s  -s z m) also nar·cism (-s z m)
n.
1. Excessive love or admiration of oneself. See Synonyms at conceit.
2. A psychological condition characterized by self-preoccupation, lack of empathy, and unconscious deficits in self-esteem.
3. Erotic pleasure derived from contemplation or admiration of one's own body or self, especially as a fixation on or a regression to an infantile stage of development.
4. The attribute of the human psyche charactized by admiration of oneself but within normal limits. so·ci·o·path
play_w2("S0528200")
(s s - -p  th , -sh -)
n.
One who is affected with a personality disorder marked by antisocial behavior.
greed·y
play_w2("G0254000")
(gr d )
adj. greed·i·er, greed·i·est
1. Excessively desirous of acquiring or possessing, especially wishing to possess more than what one needs or deserves.
2. Wanting to eat or drink more than one can reasonably consume; gluttonous.
3. Extremely eager or desirous: greedy for the opportunity to prove their ability.
So, I have an obsession with grandiose or extravagant things, I love myself (within normal limits... and this is under the assumption that I was so named a narcissist because of my love of my actions and therefore the reaping of my own consequences), I am slightly anti-social (probably due to the love of myself and/or my inability to get along with people who would much rather benefit from my work then commit their own successful actions), and I enjoy acquisitions of objects to a gluttonous extent.
Is that it? Yeah, I daresay you're right, but the guise of typically derogatory words could hardly diminish the point you're tried to get across.
Dick Cheney's Mechanical Heart wrote:RichardAwesome wrote:Dick Cheney's Mechanical Heart wrote:Arguing about Objectivism with a Randoid is a waste of time. It's a fantasy ideology for megalomaniacs, narcissists, sociopaths, and greedy smart asses. In the real world the invisible hand is more likely to pick your pocket than jerk you off unless it's shackled to society's oar. Sounds about as much of a fantasy as everyone holding hands and "working for the betterment of mankind" without any personal gain. Except no one actually seriously believes that as far as I can tell except maybe a few old hippies and honestly most of them are pretty fucking jaded, whereas Randoids are almost as bad as Scientologists when it comes to being True Believers. The invisible hand is more likely to pick my pocket than jerk me off? Society's oar? Do you even know what you're trying to say? Stop trying to be metaphorical, it should come naturally. Everybody holding hands and working for the betterment of mankind? Rand states that she merely wants people to try their hardest and achieve their maximum value, and their contribution to society should be equal to the benefits they reap. Yeah, holding hands. Got it. Jaded hippies, scientologists, and True Believers, oh my! Come off it. You have no clue what you're talking about, just posting for the hell of it.
silverwasp wrote:Be careful what you wish for... I have 10 younger siblings and I am only 20....
Yes.... Same parents WarMachine wrote:meh...maybe if he hadn't been handed a burning house he could have done great things, but right now he has won the Prize for what? Damage Control?
|
|
|
Rank: Polio Power!
Groups: {pDs} Member, Registered User
Joined: 8/1/2008
Posts: 658
Points: 81
Location: SoCal
|
Bend-over-backism sounds more like socialism which I am not in favor of.
|
|
|
Rank: Administration
Groups: {pDs} Member, Registered User, Server Admin, Administration
Joined: 3/27/2008
Posts: 1,793
Points: 3,380
Location: Arizona
|
Cantrip wrote:Without any incentive to reap the rewards of your physical efforts or mental cleverness, there's no incentive to excel. There is no move toward happiness in a communist system because the reality is already defined by the system itself. That's not a failing of the system; that's a failing of the human condition. We're not dogs. We shouldn't need rewards in order to want to do a good job. Pride in ourselves should be motivation; pride in exceeding what we've already accomplished, or even exceeding what others' have accomplished. Pride others have in us for exceeding those same accomplishments. Do I get a cookie when I say "please" and "thank you"? No. Yet I do it because I take pride in the fact I'm polite to others. Such things can lead to social acceptance, however, which is its own reward. Do I get a raise simply because I find a new way to write some code which is leaner and quicker than what I did previously? No. Yet I'm overjoyed by the accomplishment because I learned something new and found a better or more clever way of doing something. I think you'll find that the vast majority of the things we strive to do better in life don't result in monetary gain. So why, then, is the notion of socialism so wicked? Does it dictate your social acceptance? Does it decide which of your accomplishments you or others can take pride in? No. All it governs is your material possessions. How shallow are thee, who fear for their happiness on the basis of material possessions alone?
|
|
|
Rank: Taco Technician
Groups: Registered User, {pDs} Member
Joined: 5/9/2006
Posts: 3,948
Points: 3,636
Location: Hi-Five City
|
The only philosophies with delusions of grandeur are the ones that imply government is useful, for the only people who truly claim that government is positive are lying, misinformed, or demented people. Big government is responsible for all of the bad things in the world: war, theft, and physical and mental enslavement. Prove me wrong. Rikaelus wrote:Cantrip wrote:Without any incentive to reap the rewards of your physical efforts or mental cleverness, there's no incentive to excel. There is no move toward happiness in a communist system because the reality is already defined by the system itself. That's not a failing of the system; that's a failing of the human condition. We're not dogs. We shouldn't need rewards in order to want to do a good job. Pride in ourselves should be motivation; pride in exceeding what we've already accomplished, or even exceeding what others' have accomplished. Pride others have in us for exceeding those same accomplishments. Do I get a cookie when I say "please" and "thank you"? No. Yet I do it because I take pride in the fact I'm polite to others. Such things can lead to social acceptance, however, which is its own reward. Do I get a raise simply because I find a new way to write some code which is leaner and quicker than what I did previously? No. Yet I'm overjoyed by the accomplishment because I learned something new and found a better or more clever way of doing something. I think you'll find that the vast majority of the things we strive to do better in life don't result in monetary gain. So why, then, is the notion of socialism so wicked? Does it dictate your social acceptance? Does it decide which of your accomplishments you or others can take pride in? No. All it governs is your material possessions. How shallow are thee, who fear for their happiness on the basis of material possessions alone? How shallow are thee to think you're a nice person by taking hard-earned wealth from one man and spending it on weapons, war, useless government programmes, lazy people?
|
|
|
Rank: Coathanger Abortion
Groups: {pDs} Member, Server Admin
Joined: 5/17/2006
Posts: 3,487
Points: 1,990
Location: Undisclosed Location
|
Lead Salad wrote:The only philosophies with delusions of grandeur are the ones that imply government is useful, for the only people who truly claim that government is positive are lying, misinformed, or demented people. Big government is responsible for all of the bad things in the world: war, theft, and physical and mental enslavement. Prove me wrong.
It's impossible to prove faith wrong. Government is obviously not all positive and government has been one of the tools used in some of the worst crimes committed in history, but it's an absurd argument to say that government is useless or inherently responsible for all of the bad things in the world. You should really study the formation of the modern nation-state, it's not perfect but tempered by liberal or social democracy it's as good as it gets for now. Would you rather live "free" in Somalia or "enslaved" in Sweden? Razor wrote:Killing people is good therapy.  
|
|
|
Rank: Taco Technician
Groups: Registered User, {pDs} Member
Joined: 5/9/2006
Posts: 3,948
Points: 3,636
Location: Hi-Five City
|
Dick Cheney's Mechanical Heart wrote:Lead Salad wrote:The only philosophies with delusions of grandeur are the ones that imply government is useful, for the only people who truly claim that government is positive are lying, misinformed, or demented people. Big government is responsible for all of the bad things in the world: war, theft, and physical and mental enslavement. Prove me wrong.
It's impossible to prove faith wrong. Government is obviously not all positive and government has been one of the tools used in some of the worst crimes committed in history, but it's an absurd argument to say that government is useless or inherently responsible for all of the bad things in the world. You should really study the formation of the modern nation-state, it's not perfect but tempered by liberal or social democracy it's as good as it gets for now. Government only has one role: protecting individuals from the infringement of life, liberty, and property. Everything else is inherently criminal because it infringes upon combinations of those rights (this is because, from a purely statistical standpoint, there is always one person who does not want to pay the government to do something they disagree with). I like to think of government as a business that charges people for products they either don't want or don't get, or both. Until the government restricts itself to protecting those three rights or offers its citizens the choice to live free or in a state in which they support every single policy, it is a criminal organization. I reject your offer shrouding an empty statement and in rebuttal offer you to watch this simple video explaining the philosophy of liberty. http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.swfDick Cheney's Mechanical Heart wrote:Would you rather live "free" in Somalia or "enslaved" in Sweden? Part of my god-given right of liberty is the right to choose to live freely wherever I want. Therefore I choose to live free in America.
|
|
|
Rank: Fuckstick
Groups: Registered User
Joined: 10/22/2006
Posts: 908
Points: 21
Location: GTFO stalker!!!!!!!
|
Rikaelus wrote:Cantrip wrote:Without any incentive to reap the rewards of your physical efforts or mental cleverness, there's no incentive to excel. There is no move toward happiness in a communist system because the reality is already defined by the system itself. That's not a failing of the system; that's a failing of the human condition. We're not dogs. We shouldn't need rewards in order to want to do a good job. Pride in ourselves should be motivation; pride in exceeding what we've already accomplished, or even exceeding what others' have accomplished. Pride others have in us for exceeding those same accomplishments. Do I get a cookie when I say "please" and "thank you"? No. Yet I do it because I take pride in the fact I'm polite to others. Such things can lead to social acceptance, however, which is its own reward. Do I get a raise simply because I find a new way to write some code which is leaner and quicker than what I did previously? No. Yet I'm overjoyed by the accomplishment because I learned something new and found a better or more clever way of doing something. I think you'll find that the vast majority of the things we strive to do better in life don't result in monetary gain. So why, then, is the notion of socialism so wicked? Does it dictate your social acceptance? Does it decide which of your accomplishments you or others can take pride in? No. All it governs is your material possessions. How shallow are thee, who fear for their happiness on the basis of material possessions alone? Not everything that needs to get done comes with a never ending sense of accomplishment. Especially in modern society.  TripleBam wrote:I was about to correct something but....no...it's all there.
Cantrip wrote:Holy fuck. J-Town is a genius! Brosnan wrote:Whole lotta words that add up to "hey everyone I'm a giant faggot" TripleBam wrote:I just remember chewing it for 5 minutes before giving up. I tried to fit the whole slab into my mouth and some of it started sliding down to where I started to gag on it. I ended up pulling the whole 7" piece by the very tail end from my esophagus before stuffing it under my seat cushion.
|
|
|
Rank: Coathanger Abortion
Groups: {pDs} Member, Server Admin
Joined: 5/17/2006
Posts: 3,487
Points: 1,990
Location: Undisclosed Location
|
Lead Salad wrote:Dick Cheney's Mechanical Heart wrote:Lead Salad wrote:The only philosophies with delusions of grandeur are the ones that imply government is useful, for the only people who truly claim that government is positive are lying, misinformed, or demented people. Big government is responsible for all of the bad things in the world: war, theft, and physical and mental enslavement. Prove me wrong.
It's impossible to prove faith wrong. Government is obviously not all positive and government has been one of the tools used in some of the worst crimes committed in history, but it's an absurd argument to say that government is useless or inherently responsible for all of the bad things in the world. You should really study the formation of the modern nation-state, it's not perfect but tempered by liberal or social democracy it's as good as it gets for now. Government only has one role: protecting individuals from the infringement of life, liberty, and property. Everything else is inherently criminal because it infringes upon combinations of those rights (this is because, from a purely statistical standpoint, there is always one person who does not want to pay the government to do something they disagree with). I like to think of government as a business that charges people for products they either don't want or don't get, or both. Until the government restricts itself to protecting those three rights or offers its citizens the choice to live free or in a state in which they support every single policy, it is a criminal organization. I reject your offer shrouding an empty statement and in rebuttal offer you to watch this simple video explaining the philosophy of liberty. http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.swf Here is where we get to talk about positive and negative liberty. The concept of rights breaks down, especially when you throw property into the mix. It's not a stable basis for a logically consistent ideology. Where do rights come from? What does it mean to say I have a right to a fair trial? Who pays for the fair trial then? And so on and so forth. They provide for righteous talking points and a decent basis for systems of government, but ultimately there is no there there. Setting that aside though, you will never have a government which everyone supports. You say it should only protect individuals from X,Y,Z and another person says it should be P,Y,Z and should include groups and individuals. It's impossible. I don't even agree with myself, and my neighbor doesn't even have an opinion on what government should or shouldn't do. Government is inherently imperfect, it will never reflect the needs or desires of all citizens. I agree that government is in effect a criminal organization, but at least in liberal and social democracies there is a code of conduct, mechanisms for modifying the code of conduct, and the possibility of choosing a different crime syndicate to belong to. Lead Salad wrote:Dick Cheney's Mechanical Heart wrote:Would you rather live "free" in Somalia or "enslaved" in Sweden? Part of my god-given right of liberty is the right to choose to live freely wherever I want. Therefore I choose to live free in America. Nice dodge. What god has given you liberty? Why does your god deny liberty to those who do not have it? Razor wrote:Killing people is good therapy.
|
|
|
Rank: Taco Technician
Groups: Registered User, {pDs} Member
Joined: 5/9/2006
Posts: 3,948
Points: 3,636
Location: Hi-Five City
|
Post back when you've watched the video. I'll be back tomorrow, I'm gonna go get blitzed and watch pineapple express. This isn't over yet!!!
|
|
|
Rank: Administration
Groups: {pDs} Member, Registered User, Server Admin, Administration
Joined: 3/27/2008
Posts: 1,793
Points: 3,380
Location: Arizona
|
Lead Salad wrote:Part of my god-given right of liberty is the right to choose to live freely wherever I want. Therefore I choose to live free in America. God-given right of liberty Funny So you're against the imprisonment of "criminals", right?
|
|
|
Rank: Fuckstick
Groups: {pDs} Member, Server Admin
Joined: 5/9/2006
Posts: 775
Points: 381
|
I'm a little confused. I have the right to have others defend me against those who would do me wrong but they can't take away their life or liberty. So after my group of defenders somehow stops those no good evil doer's, they say "Ok, don't do it again".
|
|
|
Rank: Fuckstick
Groups: {pDs} Member, Registered User
Joined: 12/20/2007
Posts: 681
Points: 6
Location: San Antonio, TX
|
Here is some more garbage to argue about and make no progress. http://www.timecube.com/How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?
|
|
|
Rank: Polio Power!
Groups: {pDs} Member, Registered User
Joined: 8/1/2008
Posts: 658
Points: 81
Location: SoCal
|
When it all comes down to it, we're all social animals driven by the same basic needs that all other social animals are.
|
|
|
Rank: Dutchess of Doodoo
Groups: Registered User, Server Admin, WDFNews.com Official Mapper
Joined: 6/3/2006
Posts: 2,239
Points: 330
Location: $L
|
Rikaelus wrote:No. All it governs is your material possessions.
How shallow are thee, who fear for their happiness on the basis of material possessions alone? Do you consider food, water, shelter and clothing as material possessions? If so, then I am pretty shallow. The problem with the re-distribution of the wealth is that it is never even. You wanna take this to Fuck Town?
Oh gadzooks, yes!
|
|
|
Rank: Taco Technician
Groups: Registered User, {pDs} Member
Joined: 5/9/2006
Posts: 3,948
Points: 3,636
Location: Hi-Five City
|
Rikaelus wrote:Lead Salad wrote:Part of my god-given right of liberty is the right to choose to live freely wherever I want. Therefore I choose to live free in America. God-given right of liberty Funny So you're against the imprisonment of "criminals", right?
What are you saying?
tpractice wrote:I'm a little confused. I have the right to have others defend me against those who would do me wrong but they can't take away their life or liberty. So after my group of defenders somehow stops those no good evil doer's, they say "Ok, don't do it again".
Unfortunately there are always criminals and crazies. In some situations, using violence in self-defence is only logical.
Business wrote:Rikaelus wrote:No. All it governs is your material possessions.
How shallow are thee, who fear for their happiness on the basis of material possessions alone? Do you consider food, water, shelter and clothing as material possessions? If so, then I am pretty shallow. The problem with the re-distribution of the wealth is that it is never even.
No, the problem with redistribution of wealth is that it is blatantly criminal. It's supposed to be my duty to help lazy people who won't get a job by paying for their booze and crack? That's fucking bullshit. I own myself, I own what I earn, and anyone who says otherwise is a criminal.
|
|
|
| Users browsing this topic |
|
Guest
|