Welcome to Objectivism Online Forum

Welcome to Objectivism Online, a forum for discussing the philosophy of Ayn Rand. For full access, register via Facebook or email.


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Plasmatic

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Contact Methods

  • ICQ 0

Profile Information

  • Gender Male

Previous Fields

  • Country Not Specified
  • State (US/Canadian) Not Specified
  • Relationship status Married
  • Sexual orientation Straight
  • Copyright Copyrighted

Recent Profile Visitors

9052 profile views
  1. Laika, I'm sure NB's foolish comments lead you to think that I am questioning the veridity of your comments on Marxist doctrine (regardless of the doctrines falsity) but that is not at issue here, at all. A agree with your last statement and thats why I object to the things I quoted that are contrary to it.
  2. So, because some irrational people don't value truth an Oist should use a non-rational method similar to the way religions spread, to "persuade" others???? OK, has anyone checked to see if Grames' account has been hacked?
  3. If they have something to gain from doing so. And this is not even the issue being contended with.
  4. You threw it out because you wanted to make a strawman without having to argue the merits of the actual discussion, or what ideas within the link may or may not have merit. Do you have any idea how your last statement is dealt with in Oist philosophy and how it informs my question initially posed?
  5. This is not just any philosophical forum and what you suggest is ridiculous. It may be your only reason for being here but there any number of reasons for folks to visit this Oist forum. Nowhere have I claimed that mere disagreement makes one guilty of "holding evil beliefs" nor have I claimed Laika is not questioning Marxism. But not on their terms, conceding their errors as praiseworthy and without moral tolerationism. Your clearly ignorant of the wider debate on this front. Nor the understanding, clearly....
  6. Regarding my response to your comment I excerpted previously; there is no such thing as non-rational persuasion. To persuade is to make rational arguments such that another accepts your premises as true. This should not be a controversial claim. As to the erroneous comments of Laika's I was referring to, lets see: Is it the case that "appealing to ethical absolutes" "wouldn't work with anyone"? and is it true that "trying it with a marxist serves as evidence of how little respect you have for them as people trying to reason there way through the world." If one is "trying to reason their way through the world", then why is it the case that "truth will not persuade them"?? (your "merit of fact") If self esteem can only be gained by virtuous action then how is pretending that a marxists "dedication" to the immoral cause of marxism is a source of true self worth and worthy of "respect"? Is it the case that one should treat the belief in marxism as "not a big deal" because a marxist is suffering from the psychological and emotional weight of the fact that their beliefs DO reflect on them morally and there "self" is in a state of moral debasement? Is it the case that "Marxism is primarily (but by no means exclusively) an emotional response to people's suffering"? Is the marxist view of social justice an instance of a "humane" condition"? Is it the case that the marxist myths of "out of control market forces", "anarchy of competition", "exploitation of the ruling class" and a "lack of property" are "oppressing" the Marxist into "militancy" and robbing them of individuality? Is it really "selfish" "at its core" to choose marxism because one is "grappling with legitimate personal problems" that Marx claims "they cannot change or control."? Do I need to go on?
  7. You have any non-strawmen comments, sweetheart?
  8. First, I don't expect you to appreciate the Oist position on dealing with people who hold evil beliefs, or even be aware of what my reasons for asking my initial question even is. Second, I have a strong interest in Marxist doctrine and study it quite a bit. Particularly the Frankfurt school and the neo-marxism within postmodernism. I think anyone who doesn't understand Marx cant possibly grasp what is happening all around us with much detail. See my playlist on the topic here: https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLmJ5QMr7eqvScV0kCa7UwgMz-d0F_x6vD Read the description.... Maybe its true that you have equal value to gain by exchanging your "opinions" with a marxist on their terms but that is an affront to anyone with a moral compass.
  9. Yet, Laika argued nothing like the above.
  10. Why would an Oist grant this ridiculous premise? Almost nothing Laika said is remotely true. Has anyone else observing this and other recent threads been at least struggling to countenance how some have been responding to Laika? (Qualitativley, the nature of the responses)
  11. Invalid concepts are not the same as anti-concepts. Fictional characters are not anti-concepts either.
  12. Dude, you beat me to it. After warning them of the consequences of such barbarism, no choice but to meet this kind of situation with what terms the managers insist on bringing on themselves.
  13. You're missing the point Mindborg. Let me put it this way. There has never been a state which has in principle separated economics from interference of the state. Black markets presuppose the state is involved in economics.
  14. See Equal is Unfair by Don Watkins and Yaron Brook for some Oists views on this alleged problem. https://www.amazon.com/Equal-Unfair-Americas-Misguided-Inequality/dp/125008444X
  15. For those whom capitalism is still an unknown ideal, capitalism is the complete seperation of economics and state and that has never existed. This clear, non-foggy, definition of capitalism is the basis for Rand's argument, that Laika just led himself to discover, on the difference between economic and political power.