Objectivism

[Sitspot]

The Objectivism views strong property rights as a better alternative of social orders (perhaps that's less loaded term than "society"?) rather than as a natural occurrence.

No, it doesn't.

And we go back to the same question that you have ducked every time. What is your definition of property?

[Bluth Corporation]

If I said "black people," how many people would assume I'm being serious?

[Sitspot]

If I said "black people," how many people would assume I'm being serious?

I for one wouldn't. But you are still ducking the key question. What is your definition of property?

[Bluth Corporation]

But you are still ducking the key question.

Yes, I am.

My question to you is, if you care to know so much, why don't you just go to a library and read up on Objectivist theories of private property?

This is why I don't bother to answer, or provide good answers or good arguments: it's not that I can't but rather that it's not worth my time. If you don't care enough to go study the matter on your own, I don't care enough to help you with it, so instead I'm just going to have some fun with you.

[Sdaeriji]

If I said "black people," how many people would assume I'm being serious?

It would certainly be out of character.

[Sdaeriji]

But you are still ducking the key question.

Yes, I am.

My question to you is, if you care to know so much, why don't you just go to a library and read up on Objectivist theories of private property?

This is why I don't bother to answer, or provide good answers or good arguments: it's not that I can't but rather that it's not worth my time. If you don't care enough to go study the matter on your own, I don't care enough to help you with it, so instead I'm just going to have some fun with you.

In other words, you're trolling.

[Gauntleted Fist]

But you are still ducking the key question.

Yes, I am.

My question to you is, if you care to know so much, why don't you just go to a library and read up on Objectivist theories of private property?

This is why I don't bother to answer, or provide good answers or good arguments: it's not that I can't but rather that it's not worth my time. If you don't care enough to go study the matter on your own, I don't care enough to help you with it, so instead I'm just going to have some fun with you.

In other words, you're trolling.

Which is why I called him a fake in this very thread, earlier.

It's ridiculous.

[Sitspot]

But you are still ducking the key question.

Yes, I am.

My question to you is, if you care to know so much, why don't you just go to a library and read up on Objectivist theories of private property?

This is why I don't bother to answer, or provide good answers or good arguments: it's not that I can't but rather that it's not worth my time. If you don't care enough to go study the matter on your own, I don't care enough to help you with it, so instead I'm just going to have some fun with you.

And I know the answer to everything, because its in my big book of Knowledge my daddy bought me. But I'm not going to tell you because you eat worms. I'm going to sit and tell you little bits out of my book and if you don't believe me I'm going to hold my breath until my face turns purple. Then my daddy will go round and beat up your daddy, because my daddy is bigger. So there

[Bluth Corporation]

But you are still ducking the key question.

Yes, I am.

My question to you is, if you care to know so much, why don't you just go to a library and read up on Objectivist theories of private property?

This is why I don't bother to answer, or provide good answers or good arguments: it's not that I can't but rather that it's not worth my time. If you don't care enough to go study the matter on your own, I don't care enough to help you with it, so instead I'm just going to have some fun with you.

In other words, you're trolling.

Which is why I called him a fake in this very thread, earlier.

It's ridiculous.

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.

[Neo Art]

But you are still ducking the key question.

Yes, I am.

My question to you is, if you care to know so much, why don't you just go to a library and read up on Objectivist theories of private property?

This is why I don't bother to answer, or provide good answers or good arguments: it's not that I can't but rather that it's not worth my time. If you don't care enough to go study the matter on your own, I don't care enough to help you with it, so instead I'm just going to have some fun with you.

I think the OP's question has been well answered.

[Vittos Ordination]

It's a religion. Ultimately, the fundamental premises of Rand rely on a person simply accepting them as true. While this is amusing given her views of religion, it is nonetheless true. Completely broken down, objectivism relies on the assumption that negative rights are natural, objective functions of the universe, rather than constructs of human consciousness.

No such assumption is present.

Vittos can take note of these posts by BC as an explanation why objectivism is routinely mocked on this forum.

Why would BC be obligated to explain why your unfounded statement isn't true.

You say these things:

Its a religion.

A person must accept them as true.

This is true.

Objectivism requires one to assume rights are natural.

Why are any of these statements true?

It is hard to respond to unsupported statements.

[Sitspot]

It's a religion. Ultimately, the fundamental premises of Rand rely on a person simply accepting them as true. While this is amusing given her views of religion, it is nonetheless true. Completely broken down, objectivism relies on the assumption that negative rights are natural, objective functions of the universe, rather than constructs of human consciousness.

No such assumption is present.

Vittos can take note of these posts by BC as an explanation why objectivism is routinely mocked on this forum.

Why would BC be obligated to explain why your unfounded statement isn't true.

You say these things:

Its a religion.

A person must accept them as true.

This is true.

Objectivism requires one to assume rights are natural.

Why are any of these statements true?

It is hard to respond to unsupported statements.

Incorrect

[Obama Jugen III]

You are gonna have to define "right to life" for me. I don't think anyone has a right to an impossible. And everyone is going to die. So can you be clear on what you mean by "right to life"?

"Right to life is a phrase that describes the belief that a human being has an essential right to live, particularly that a human being has the right not to be killed by another human being."

from wiki

Ok

Is this going to get into some masturbatory semantic argument? Because, if so, please let me know so I can just remove myself now. You knew full well what I meant by "right to life"; playing dumb is unflattering.

I'll dismiss the rightful indignation, because without rightful idignations this just wouldn't be fun.
To answer your question, I haven't read Peikoff, so I don't know what he claims. I am not aware of Rand making a claim that right to not be killed is a natural occurrence. She may claim that it is a better alternative than not having such a right, but if she does, I can't think of where. The fundamental choice of treatment of other human beings that she advocates is non-coercion -- what Covey designates as win-win. This may imply the right to life, but I am speculating off the top of my head right now.
Given that she was clearly a proponent of a right of self-defense, I don't think she would take it to the extreme that under no circumstances can a human being take a life.

[Gauntleted Fist]

But you are still ducking the key question.

Yes, I am.

My question to you is, if you care to know so much, why don't you just go to a library and read up on Objectivist theories of private property?

This is why I don't bother to answer, or provide good answers or good arguments: it's not that I can't but rather that it's not worth my time. If you don't care enough to go study the matter on your own, I don't care enough to help you with it, so instead I'm just going to have some fun with you.

In other words, you're trolling.

Which is why I called him a fake in this very thread, earlier.

It's ridiculous.

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

Your actions offer no proof for me to consider this statement valid.

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

Then why remain?

[Bluth Corporation]

But you are still ducking the key question.

Yes, I am.

My question to you is, if you care to know so much, why don't you just go to a library and read up on Objectivist theories of private property?

This is why I don't bother to answer, or provide good answers or good arguments: it's not that I can't but rather that it's not worth my time. If you don't care enough to go study the matter on your own, I don't care enough to help you with it, so instead I'm just going to have some fun with you.

In other words, you're trolling.

Which is why I called him a fake in this very thread, earlier.

It's ridiculous.

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

Your actions offer no proof for me to consider this statement valid.

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

Then why remain?

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.

[Vittos Ordination]

And again, the exact reason why objectivist arguments are routinely mocked. The argument presented is nothing more than "we don't ASSUME things, we KNOW them."

That is not at all what he said.

He is entirely correct that he doesn't assume rights to be natural. They are derived in objectivism from far more basic metaphysical assumptions. Assumptions which, I might add, are not all that different from the assumptions necessary for science.

[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) to draw violent reactions from others for your own amusement?

[Neo Art]

And again, the exact reason why objectivist arguments are routinely mocked. The argument presented is nothing more than "we don't ASSUME things, we KNOW them."

That is not at all what he said.

He is entirely correct that he doesn't assume rights to be natural. They are derived in objectivism from far more basic metaphysical assumptions. Assumptions which, I might add, are not all that different from the assumptions necessary for science.

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".

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.

[Neo Art]

And again, the exact reason why objectivist arguments are routinely mocked. The argument presented is nothing more than "we don't ASSUME things, we KNOW them."

That is not at all what he said.

He is entirely correct that he doesn't assume rights to be natural. They are derived in objectivism from far more basic metaphysical assumptions. Assumptions which, I might add, are not all that different from the assumptions necessary for science.

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".

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.

[Vittos Ordination]

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?

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

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

[Sdaeriji]

Why would BC be obligated to explain why your unfounded statement isn't true.

Why should I take you seriously when you clearly do not care enough about your position to argue for it? If I'm wrong, show me why. Otherwise, all I have to go on are my own observations based on my own research. Have some courage for your convictions.

[Neo Art]

And again, the exact reason why objectivist arguments are routinely mocked. The argument presented is nothing more than "we don't ASSUME things, we KNOW them."

That is not at all what he said.

He is entirely correct that he doesn't assume rights to be natural. They are derived in objectivism from far more basic metaphysical assumptions. Assumptions which, I might add, are not all that different from the assumptions necessary for science.

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".

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 standpoints. The whole philosophical underpinnings is built 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.

[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.

to draw violent reactions from others for your own amusement?

I don't see anything violent...

[Vittos Ordination]

Incorrect

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

[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?