Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

SapereAude

Regulars
  • Posts

    1734
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    13

Everything posted by SapereAude

  1. That's where I would tend to disagree. "The man doth protest too much" comes to mind. If God does not exist let him be irrelevent. People who spend their lives in vicious mockery of a thing often give that thing almost as much power as those that worship it. It seems to me the earliest recorded form of Alinsky tactic.
  2. Wow! All the contradictions make the head spin! I can't believe so many people see this as plausible.
  3. Obviously not an Objectivist, but a favorite thinker nonetheless "Never let the future disturb you. You will meet it, if you have to, with the same weapons of reason which today arm you against the present." - Marcus Aurelius
  4. If you think you may be experiencing depression it could be SAD given the timing. Here are the criteria http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/seasonalaffectivedisorder.html
  5. Never got around to this one. What were your impressions?
  6. I believe you've hit the nail on the head Nicky. Improper use of "underlying" in this context is what is causing so much sturm und drang here. I tried explaining it earlier in the thread but it didn't stick.
  7. Actually I, unlike many Mods, never personally reprimand or delete when I am having an argument with someone on a post. I will only warn in the post that forum rules are being violated and that likely action will be taken. At that point I hit "report" like anybody else and let the other mods decide. So much for the conspiracy theory. As to your taking issue with my stating "you don't anger me, you bore me" that was in direct response to *your* personal attack and assumptions about my emotional state. You stated a false presumption, I corrected it. As it turns out you are partially correct, when some mods have already warned you repeatedly about the same thing they don't contact you multiple times. I guess we'll split wo's right on that 50/50. I know I have personally wasted a great deal of time attempting to politely get you to follow forum rules so that you don't have to feel so frequently persecuted and the rest of the forum doesn't have to listen to your seemingly ceaseless complaining. I did not take part in that and therefore am not qualified to comment. I believe SWN made the decision to split it off and if you message him perhaps he will take the time to explain. Private messages of explanation are often not given for splitting topics because it is an organizational choice, not a disciplinary action. Simply inaccurate. I have no problem with libertarians and I explained already why your argument didn't work. I do not enjoy repeating myself as much as some people do, so I will decline to do so here. Their books are on my fireplace, and I reread them frequently stop making ridiculous assumptions. Well, we've already determined that I do not take moderator action when I am personally engaged in an argument so your point is moot already. I assure you, I do not regard you as a shark. I cannot explain why that is silly without getting personal. As to chum, offense is in the eye of the beholder and you do take offense more frequently than I have seen in most people. In using "chum" to mean a lure I was referring to trying to get others to respond to your question. By throwing out the names of some I've read I'd hoped others would respond with more. You do so constantly and have been constantly warned about it. You complain of bias when ironically it is only a slight bias in your favor that allows you to keep posting as you do despite constant breach of forum rules. At no time did I taunt you. I reminded you of forum rules as many here often need to do. That you believe your attacks to be facts does not make them so, as you have been repeatedly warned of by moderators other than my self on multiple occassions. And again, I repeat, I do not take mod action in arguments in which I engage so again, moot point. I have edited to remove typos + an error I made in framing the quotations
  8. I'm about to unlike this post just so I can like it again.
  9. SapereAude

    Abortion

    The off topic tit-for-tat needs to end here. Please. It serves no purpose. I'll be deleting the next off topic personal remark.
  10. SapereAude

    Abortion

    I'm about to get the hose.
  11. It's one of 8 different translations I own, I'm at work now but can get back to you with which one it was from- but it was one who took their interpretations from St. Clement of Alexandria so it isn't like some modern hack job. Even so, the ones that leave out specifically "rich" and "poor" the point is made clear. From the same text: "So also let not the man that has been invested with worldly wealth proclaim himself excluded at the outset from the Saviour's lists, provided he is a believer and one who contemplates the greatness of God"
  12. I didn't know this forum was the right place to post speculative fan-fic.
  13. I think those pushing back so adamantly against Moralist are maybe losing the spirit of what he's saying in the way he chooses to frame it. Debt-serfdom and debt-peonage are very real. And on a very real level the amount of debt every American is born with threatens their freedom. You can argue advanced economics that indicate this may not necessarily be so but the fact is that we live in a country where ignorant people vote. And they win. And if you get a slick politician who keeps increasing the debt, and then keeps having people vote for higher taxes on everyone but themselves to pay that debt.....? At what point of taxation that is ostensibly to service the debt are we living in indentured servitude? 2012 numbers indicate the average person works 107 days just to pay taxes.
  14. To your first point, precisely. To your second point, I wouldn't necessarily go so far..... a poor choice of words can have even a rational person appearing to support something they do not. I try to give people the benefit of the doubt on that one as a hastily typed response has left me seeming to conflate unrelated things.
  15. Again, shallow understanding. You conveniently left out the part where his disciples questioned him about it and he responded: ""If you stand by the side of men, and see it as men see it, it appears impossible; but stand by God's side, see it by His side, and all things, even the salvation of both rich and poor, becomes possible". Jesus also states many times how difficult it is for anyone to get to Heaven, rich or poor: This translation from Aramaic to English: "How narrow is the gate and strict the way that leads to life, and few are those who find it!" It helps not to have just read only the most glib and common quotes. Malachi also offers many justifications for prosperity ministry. I'm not arguing for Christianity here. But what I am saying is that many Objectivists use arguments against Christianity that are just as misinformed and uneducated as the arguments people use against Objectivism. edit typos
  16. This demonstrates a very shallow understanding of Christianity as understood through the teachings of Jesus. While Jesus certainly advocated that people with plenty give to the poor there was never a demand that all do so or burn in Hell. Christian materialism is the most common term used for Christians who believe that capitalism holds spiritual value and while the term has only become common usage recently but its origins trace back to Jabez in Chronicles edit:typo
  17. Most Christians that are not socialist/communist leaning would argue that the distinction between Christian communalism and Christian communism is very important.
  18. Christians alligning themselves with socialist/Marxist leanings always surprises me. Between the Christians I know and the Atheists I know (non Objectivist atheists that is) all the Christians are Capitalists and most of the atheists lean toward Marxist thought. Anyone who tells you Jesus was a socialist is just plain wrong. "Parable of the Talents – Matthew 25:14-30 "Again, it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted his property to them. To one he gave five talents of money, to another two talents, and to another one talent, each according to his ability. Then he went on his journey. The man who had received the five talents went at once and put his money to work and gained five more. So also, the one with the two talents gained two more. But the man who had received the one talent went off, dug a hole in the ground and hid his master's money. "After a long time the master of those servants returned and settled accounts with them. The man who had received the five talents brought the other five. 'Master,' he said, 'you entrusted me with five talents. See, I have gained five more.' "His master replied, 'Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master's happiness!' "The man with the two talents also came. 'Master,' he said, 'you entrusted me with two talents; see, I have gained two more.' "His master replied, 'Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master's happiness!' "Then the man who had received the one talent came. 'Master,' he said, 'I knew that you are a hard man, harvesting where you have not sown and gathering where you have not scattered seed. So I was afraid and went out and hid your talent in the ground. See, here is what belongs to you.' "His master replied, 'You wicked, lazy servant! So you knew that I harvest where I have not sown and gather where I have not scattered seed? Well then, you should have put my money on deposit with the bankers, so that when I returned I would have received it back with interest. "'Take the talent from him and give it to the one who has the ten talents. For everyone who has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.'”
  19. He was not yet enslaved but what was done to the productive was indeed slavery. You know, the part where they are not allowed to move, to switch jobs, their property rights taken from them, they are not allowed to quit working. What is slavery if not having your physical movement restricted, your property rights stripped, and being forced to work against your will with the benefit going to others not of your choosing? He simply left before being enslaved because he saw it coming. So the question should be relevent to you. It sounds like you think Galt owed something to those that would destroy him simply by nature of his being able to see a little bit further than they could. You seem to keep coming back to Galt somehow *owing* the very people who sought to destroy him. Now, perhaps a kinder man, a more generous man might take pity and try to teach the masses at his own personal risk. But kindness and generousity are both subjective. It does not seem like Rand intended Galt to be perceived as generous and kind, he was intended to be just. Justice can be divorced from generousity and most certainly it can exist absent kindness. It seems to me you are creating out of thin air an obligation that cannot exist. Your argument, to me, really seems to me to hold echoes of "from each according to his ability to each according to his need" But in this case, the ability and needs being intangibles like intelligence and foresight. How is your claim that he should have shared his knowledge of what was to come with the very people who would destroy him (remember-he did share with many, just the people of his choosing) any different than someone redistributing wealth?
  20. SapereAude

    Abortion

    The same used to be said of sperm. Remember the church's anti-contraception/anti sex for anything but procreation stance? I'm probably more sympathetic to your train of thought than most Objectivists but still, I'd ask you to be as consistent as you'd like others to be. Gradually people moved away from believing that contraception was murder (St. Jerome was probably the most prominent to declare it so), and so too did many move away from believing that aborting while the life is still just a mass of cells murder. So if getting rid of the mass of cells if murder, why do we not go all the way back to any male ejaculation made without attempt at pregnancy the same?
  21. Hello, nice to meet you. Glad you decided to post. Please let me know if I can be of assistance in navigating the forums.
  22. 1) Yes, I caught that after posting the typo was contained in the link I was trying to have the words link to (which I failed to pull off being poor at computers) as many who check out the forum may not be familiar with these terms. 2) I am not angered by you, I am bored by you. 3) I have personally taken part in the many, many, many interactions involving mods warning you about your posts. 4) You are not in fact on topic. Like all the other things you repeat over and over, your repetition does not make the falsehood true. I'll finish by saying that you repeatedly asked that someone name the libertarian philosophers they had read, as you were claiming that the users of this forum criticise things they do not have firsthand knowledge of. I politiely gave you a list and pointed out where you may have erred in interpreting SWN's post. Polite, the whole time. Your response ignored my answer to your question and turned into an off topic attack, yet again, on this forum and Objectivists in general. You are not using this forum in an appropriate manner.
  23. Welcome to the forum 425. Thank you for posting.
  24. Your statements bolded, my response to each follow The same is true of Objectivism. You have all sorts of people claiming contradictory things to be "Objectivism." And I'm not just talking about any old random person who calls himself an Objectivist. Rand contradicted herself. Her heir and his officially designated spokesmen contradict her views. Even the moderators here at OO have contradicted Objectivism. Your tu quoque fallacy does not change the facts of what I just stated about Libertarianism. Please stay on topic. Not only that, but they've occasionally deleted posts of mine in which I've accurately reported the Objectivist position on certain subjects. Your argumentum ad nauseam fallacy in regard to moderator actions fails to impress as well. You have been informed of the reason for every post of yours that has been deleted, and I have in the past often defended you and tried to remain objective with you. And again, this has nothing to do with whether Libertarians can be said to have a unifying philosophy so please stay on topic. Any complaint that can be made about libertarianism and libertarians as a group can also be made about Objectivism and Objectivists as a group. Objectivists' accusations of philosophical inadequacy among libertarians are nothing but emotional sectarianism and the parroting of Rand's jealousies and inappropriate rivalries. And now we have tu quoque ad nauseam? Is that even a thing? Apparently so. >>golf claps<< Again, even if what you are saying about Objectivists was true it would still be irrelevent to the fact it is true of libertarians. You know the forum rules pertaining to your above statement and you know you are pushing it. Please use proper arguments and please stay on topic. I honestly think that a person of your abilities and intelligence would have better things to do than to troll a forum whose beliefs and members you hold in such contempt. I will not use this time and place to speculate on your reasons. But you will stay within the forum rules or your participation will be limited. edit:typos
×
×
  • Create New...