Objectivism

[Sitspot]

Because it's fun to watch the visceral hatred towards of Objectivism towards those who neither understand it nor have the inclination to put forth the effort on their own initiative to understand it themselves. In such situations, such a response is totally irrational, and so this helps me learn to recognize irrational people.

No-one actually hates objectivism with any great passion. They simply dislike your pathetic parody of what it actually is. Read a few threads, you'll find that everyone who is unable to present coherent arguments gets much the same treatment.

[Conserative Morality]

I don't misrepresent it; I just fail to explain it fully.

Failing to explain something fully is misrepresenting it.

I don't see anything violent...

You seem to have trouble with multiple definitions.

[Bluth Corporation]

Oh, I'm not a fake Objectivist. I most certainly am an Objectivist.

I just consciously choose not to make particularly strong arguments for it, in this particular venue.

Have you at any time attempted on this forum? Could you link me to it?

Don't know if I have or not, but I doubt it.

If you haven't at least attempted, why not?

See above.

Why not do it now, as I am obviously ready to stick up for at least fair argument?

I have better things to do with my limited time than to spoon-feed explanations to those who obviously don't actually care that much (because if they did they'd be taking the initiative to go out and study Objectivism on their own).

[Neo Art]

What else am I supposed to take from this other than "if your philosophy is so poor that you can't justify it, then it's a shit philosophy"

You don't think that when someone judges a philosophy by those who are not able or willing to explain its precepts, that someone is being shortsighted?

Not in the slightest. Ones unwillingness to justify his philosophy speaks far louder than anything anyone could say in efforts to justify it.

[Aririn]

Blah.

[Vittos Ordination]

and this is where we veer off the tracks and into the land of bullshit. This thread is nothing more than an intellectual mastubatory effort to try to pass of a too cute by half "if you just understood it, you'd agree with me".

I'm not an objectivist. I have known a great deal of individuals who were very smart who actually were. They never convinced me of the value of objectivism, but they convinced me it isn't a ludicrous position to hold.

meanwhile I'm firmly convinced that there is an extraordinary irony in any philosophy that so strongly promotes "rationality" to be predicated on such wholly irrational prepositions. The whole philosophical underpinnings is builty on such illogical and nonsensical propositions that it's the metaphysical equivalent to the belief that if you polish a turd enough, it becomes a diamond.

Could you be more specific?

[Bluth Corporation]

Because it's fun to watch the visceral hatred towards of Objectivism towards those who neither understand it nor have the inclination to put forth the effort on their own initiative to understand it themselves. In such situations, such a response is totally irrational, and so this helps me learn to recognize irrational people.

No-one actually hates objectivism with any great passion. They simply dislike your pathetic parody of what it actually is. Read a few threads, you'll find that everyone who is unable to present coherent arguments gets much the same treatment.

No, I get these kinds of responses from people who have absolutely zero experience with me.

[Sitspot]

Incorrect

Actually it is very hard to argue with an unfounded statement because you have to address all possible justifications for the statement.

Incorrect

I learnt this from Bluth, he says its fun. Don't you agree?

[Gauntleted Fist]

Because it's fun to watch the visceral hatred towards of Objectivism towards those who neither understand it nor have the inclination to put forth the effort on their own initiative to understand it themselves. In such situations, such a response is totally irrational, and so this helps me learn to recognize irrational people.

So you badly misrepresent some form of Objectivism (Obviously not Peikoff's or Kelly's)

I don't misrepresent it; I just fail to explain it fully.

Then why engage at all?

I fail to understand why you would choose this specific venue.

I don't see anything violent...

"Violent" to mean "acting with or marked by or resulting from great force or energy or emotional intensity".

[Bluth Corporation]

Because it's fun to watch the visceral hatred towards of Objectivism towards those who neither understand it nor have the inclination to put forth the effort on their own initiative to understand it themselves. In such situations, such a response is totally irrational, and so this helps me learn to recognize irrational people.

So you badly misrepresent some form of Objectivism (Obviously not Peikoff's or Kelly's)

I don't misrepresent it; I just fail to explain it fully.

Then why engage at all?

I've explained that already; pay attention.

[Obama Jugen III]

What else am I supposed to take from this other than "if your philosophy is so poor that you can't justify it, then it's a shit philosophy"

You don't think that when someone judges a philosophy by those who are not able or willing to explain its precepts, that someone is being shortsighted?

Not in the slightest. Ones unwillingness to justify his philosophy speaks far louder than anything anyone could say in efforts to justify it.

But Objectivism is not BS's philosophy. It's Ayn Rand's. And yet the suggestion is that it should be judged by what BC has to say.

[Vittos Ordination]

I have better things to do with my limited time than to spoon-feed explanations to those who obviously don't actually care that much (because if they did they'd be taking the initiative to go out and study Objectivism on their own).

Then cease to argue. "I'm an objectivist" is no justification for any position other than itself.

[Conserative Morality]

I've explained that already; pay attention.

Yes you have, you've admitted that you perform these posts in order to provoke a hateful reaction.

I think there's a word for that.

[Bluth Corporation]

I have better things to do with my limited time than to spoon-feed explanations to those who obviously don't actually care that much (because if they did they'd be taking the initiative to go out and study Objectivism on their own).

Then cease to argue. "I'm an objectivist" is no justification for any position other than itself.

I have every reason to continue arguing. Please pay attention to what I've posted elsewhere: it serves my interests in other ways.

[Sitspot]

Because it's fun to watch the visceral hatred towards of Objectivism towards those who neither understand it nor have the inclination to put forth the effort on their own initiative to understand it themselves. In such situations, such a response is totally irrational, and so this helps me learn to recognize irrational people.

No-one actually hates objectivism with any great passion. They simply dislike your pathetic parody of what it actually is. Read a few threads, you'll find that everyone who is unable to present coherent arguments gets much the same treatment.

No, I get these kinds of responses from people who have absolutely zero experience with me.

People respond to you before they have actually read your posts?
Psychics come here just to do that? I'm sorry I didn't realize you had it so bad!

[Gauntleted Fist]

Because it's fun to watch the visceral hatred towards of Objectivism towards those who neither understand it nor have the inclination to put forth the effort on their own initiative to understand it themselves. In such situations, such a response is totally irrational, and so this helps me learn to recognize irrational people.

So you badly misrepresent some form of Objectivism (Obviously not Peikoff's or Kelly's)

I don't misrepresent it; I just fail to explain it fully.

Then why engage at all?

I've explained that already; pay attention.

I seek further clarification.

You deliberately choose this specific venue to portray Objectivism in a manner not fitting with any Objectivist philosophy that I have had experience with.

I seek to understand what school of Objectivism you come from in which you can justify this sort of activity.

[Bluth Corporation]

Because it's fun to watch the visceral hatred towards of Objectivism towards those who neither understand it nor have the inclination to put forth the effort on their own initiative to understand it themselves. In such situations, such a response is totally irrational, and so this helps me learn to recognize irrational people.

No-one actually hates objectivism with any great passion. They simply dislike your pathetic parody of what it actually is. Read a few threads, you'll find that everyone who is unable to present coherent arguments gets much the same treatment.

No, I get these kinds of responses from people who have absolutely zero experience with me.

People respond to you before they have actually read your posts?
Psychics come here just to do that? I'm sorry I didn't realize you had it so bad!

They respond in this manner to my very first mention of Objectivism, having no history with me prior to that (or history only in areas where I do bother to argue coherently, fully, and reasonably).

[Sdaeriji]

Incorrect

Actually it is very hard to argue with an unfounded statement because you have to address all possible justifications for the statement.

Incorrect

I learnt this from Bluth, he says its fun. Don't you agree?

No, it's just as stupid and obnoxious and childish and trolly as when he does it. Please stop.

[Treznor]

What else am I supposed to take from this other than "if your philosophy is so poor that you can't justify it, then it's a shit philosophy"

You don't think that when someone judges a philosophy by those who are not able or willing to explain its precepts, that someone is being shortsighted?

Not in the slightest. Ones unwillingness to justify his philosophy speaks far louder than anything anyone could say in efforts to justify it.

But Objectivism is not BS's philosophy. It's Ayn Rand's. And yet the suggestion is that it should be judged by what BC has to say.

And yet, BS is the most prolific advocate of Objectivism in the forum. He ends up representing Objectivists. If you don't like that, then find a way to drown him out.

Still, I haven't seen any alternative arguments that haven't amounted to anything more than "I got mine. Fuck you."

[Bluth Corporation]

What else am I supposed to take from this other than "if your philosophy is so poor that you can't justify it, then it's a shit philosophy"

You don't think that when someone judges a philosophy by those who are not able or willing to explain its precepts, that someone is being shortsighted?

Not in the slightest. Ones unwillingness to justify his philosophy speaks far louder than anything anyone could say in efforts to justify it.

But Objectivism is not BS's philosophy. It's Ayn Rand's. And yet the suggestion is that it should be judged by what BC has to say.

And yet, BS is the most prolific advocate of Objectivism in the forum. He ends up representing Objectivists. If you don't like that, then find a way to drown him out.

Still, I haven't seen any alternative arguments that haven't amounted to anything more than "I got mine. Fuck you."

Even my arguments (pathetic though they are) amount to much more than that.

Now you're just being dishonest.

[Vittos Ordination]

I have every reason to continue arguing. Please pay attention to what I've posted elsewhere: it serves my interests in other ways.

Reasons that are against the rules.

But I still don't see why people mock you, even if you do sound like a complete douche.

[Bluth Corporation]

I have every reason to continue arguing. Please pay attention to what I've posted elsewhere: it serves my interests in other ways.

Reasons that are against the rules.

I'm not entirely convinced of that yet. When a mod orders me to stop arguing Objectivism in this manner, I'll stop.

[Sitspot]

Because it's fun to watch the visceral hatred towards of Objectivism towards those who neither understand it nor have the inclination to put forth the effort on their own initiative to understand it themselves. In such situations, such a response is totally irrational, and so this helps me learn to recognize irrational people.

No-one actually hates objectivism with any great passion. They simply dislike your pathetic parody of what it actually is. Read a few threads, you'll find that everyone who is unable to present coherent arguments gets much the same treatment.

No, I get these kinds of responses from people who have absolutely zero experience with me.

People respond to you before they have actually read your posts?
Psychics come here just to do that? I'm sorry I didn't realize you had it so bad!

They respond in this manner to my very first mention of Objectivism, having no history with me prior to that (or history only in areas where I do bother to argue coherently, fully, and reasonably).

OK if this has happened so often that you need to assert it - lets have a few sources please? A few examples of first encounters where people were unreasonable to you before you made any points. Thats exactly what everyone would be asked in these circumstances.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Not in the slightest. Ones unwillingness to justify his philosophy speaks far louder than anything anyone could say in efforts to justify it.

Do you say the same of mathematics? Do you think that a field of mathematics is invalid unless every single person that works under that field can justify it to you?

[Neo Art]

Could you be more specific?

*sigh* if I must. Rand begins with a core philosophy that is almost Descartian in its basic presumptions. Namely that conciousness can not exist in the vacuum without being able to be conscious of SOMETHING (for Descartes, that was the sense of self).

She then proceeds to a general sense of morality and ethics. Which is to say that if ethics govern how we live, then only those such things that live are bound by ethics. Inanimate objects, facing no course to life, have no need for an ethical system that governs said life.

OK, fair enough, a rock has no need for ethics.

From that point, she basically states that therefore existence is the predicate for any other functions. That our desire to do ANYTHING must be framed within the understanding that we must exist in ORDER to do it.

Again, fair enough, dead men tell no tales.

From there however she proceeds with a fairly nonsensical proposition. She basically postulates that since existence is a choice of only living things, and that all OTHER choices that living things make is predicated on continually existing, that all choices a living being make must be viewed within the broader choice to continue existing. That since “doing” depends on “being”, that “to be” because the greatest possible goal, because without “being” there can be no “doing”.

At this point she loses any claim to be able to intuit from point to point, and at this part of the philosophical circle jerk, basically just starts stating shit as fact. It pretty much goes to hell from then on.