Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Intro (take II)

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Hi,

I’ll try this again. As it’s obvious, I’m new to this board. I chose the username I did, for a specific purpose. I posted an intro that was short that had more than one purpose as I’ve shared with RationalBiker, since it got tossed in the trash, and I got labeled a troll.

Here is what I said in my other intro, which I will explain this time. Then you can decide if you want me to stick around or not. I’ll accept whatever you all decide.

Hi,

What can I say, the username says it all. I’m nobody.

I’m everybody.

I’m anybody.

I’m somebody.

I’m nobody.

Everybody can be nobody to somebody…anybody. I’m you, I’m me, I’m that person begging on the street, I’m that person in the CEO’s office. I’m anybody and nobody. I’m somebody and nobody. I’m everybody who is nobody to somebody.--n0b0dy

There are certain inherent characteristics that make up each one of us. As a group we are everybody, in that group we could be anybody, but make no mistake we are somebody and yet nobody in that group. Although this looks cryptic, and Zen-like as RB expressed to me in our chat. It really isn’t. What it is is a deeper understanding of human nature. Let me explain.

I know that I am capable of anything any of you are. This makes up the group known as everybody in this post. I know that under the right circumstances I am capable of committing murder, and so are you. I know under the right circumstances I am capable of following whatever my hearts desire is. And so are you, even if that included having an affair with your wife or girlfriend, after all, I’d be following one of the core principles of Objectivism. I am, in essence no different from anyone on this board because this is human nature. So this covers the “I’m Everybody” part of that OP.

Because I can’t make up the entire group known here as “everybody”. It’s safe to say, not only am I anybody I am somebody in that group. I am no different from any of you, capable of whatever you are capable of because that’s just human nature.

But at the same time I’m nobody. In a crowd of people I can stand/sit there all day and unless someone speaks to me or I them, I’m just a face in the crowd, I’m nobody to everybody else there. I might as well not even be there, because who really cares if I am?

This is the spectrum used in the last part of my OP. It doesn’t matter if I’m me, or you, or a beggar on the street, or a CEO in an office. If the beggar and the CEO were to trade places, would I treat them any differently? Not really. Because I’m really only looking out for my own self-interest, and unless they have something to offer, they remain, “nobody” to me. Just as I do with you unless I show you I have something to contribute that would be beneficial to your own self-interest. This hits on the understanding of the first 3 core principles of the Objectivist philosophy.

My POV cannot change that fact, because facts are facts. The fact is, it’s human nature to do what we do for our own self-interest and self-preservation.

For the fourth core principle to ever be able to be applied, we would all have to be of one mind, and one agreeable understanding. Which in essence would be the ideal “live and let live” society. But in my years on this planet, I have never seen how it could possibly work, for the simple reason the only “utopia” or live and let live society that would be in my best self-interest, would be one that excluded all of you and everybody else. There would be no need for a government or economic structure. Which creates the haves and the have-nots. (the beggar and the CEO).

Maximus replied to my original opening post. He asked if I was the person who makes him have a headache. I replied, yes, I am. I can’t honestly say that I have never talked to him, nor the fact that this post might not give him a headache. I was being truthful in my remark. Because on the Internet, we all have a certain anonymity that exists (fact). I am everybody, I am anybody, I am somebody, and I’m nobody. That my friend, is the bigger picture in all of this.

The timing of my signing up here is no coincidence. As I have been a “guest” lurker for some time now off and on. Studying your behaviors through your words and actions. I chose this username for a reason. There’s nothing extremely clever about it. It’s a fact, (principle #1) to you, if I don’t think the same way as you, I’m nobody, and I’m to be treated as such. If I don’t think the way you do, the planet would be a better place if I wasn’t here, I am nobody. Because if I’m different, I’m upsetting the applecart. (the application of core principles 2,3, and 4).

But because of my original OP, I got labeled as a troll. And this is where the timing is significant. As I watched the discussion about the situation on this Christian message board. I had to ask myself, as I re-read the rules of this board. What makes this board different from that one? If I violate rules 1 and 2 here, I’m out of here am I not? Honestly, it’s quite possible that this post will get me the same ticket. So you can see why I say, the only possible way for a live and let live society to work, would be one that would exclude all of you and everybody else. Because that would be in my best self-interest.

So I have to ask this question. Am I an Objectivist? Have a demonstrated possibly a deeper understanding of who I am with the confirmation of that fact from watching you? Am I you, and me? The only way you can know for sure, is to look at yourself. There are certain characteristics that indicate we are one in the same in the way we think.

I do however, hope that if this finds it’s way into the trash as well and I am banned. It will not fall on deaf ears. I have been a student of my own self-interest all my life. I will leave you with this thought to ponder.

The hardest thing to explain is the glaringly evident which everybody had decided not to see.--Ayn Rand

Ban me if you must.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting. Why did you choose to be nobody as opposed to somebody? Why did you use as examples murder and an illicit affair as things you could do?

I'll give the benefit of the doubt, since you've asked for it, but I wonder about your sense of life.

I'll never be a nobody because I am a somebody in that I respect my self and my contribution to this world, I am unique and I am special, even if to no one but me. I can create wonders and I can love fully.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What does this mean?

I know that I am capable of anything any of you are. This makes up the group known as everybody in this post. I know that under the right circumstances I am capable of committing murder, and so are you. I know under the right circumstances I am capable of following whatever my hearts desire is. And so are you, even if that included having an affair with your wife or girlfriend, after all, I’d be following one of the core principles of Objectivism.
How do you know that you are capable of doing anything that I can? What is your evidence that I am capable of committing murder? I assert that you are wrong on these two claims, now I'd like to see you prove your claims.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting. Why did you choose to be nobody as opposed to somebody? Why did you use as examples murder and an illicit affair as things you could do?

I'll give the benefit of the doubt, since you've asked for it, but I wonder about your sense of life.

I'll never be a nobody because I am a somebody in that I respect my self and my contribution to this world, I am unique and I am special, even if to no one but me. I can create wonders and I can love fully.

You answered your own question in the bold text. If to no one but myself, I am somebody, even if I am nobody to everybody else.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What does this mean?How do you know that you are capable of doing anything that I can? What is your evidence that I am capable of committing murder? I assert that you are wrong on these two claims, now I'd like to see you prove your claims.
Note that I say, under the right circumstances. Under the right circumstances we as individuals and as a whole are capable of anything.

If I apply myself and learn something, I can do anything you are capable of doing in the business world. And under the right circumstances we are capable of self-destruction as well. Yes, we have the capacity to love and create wondrous things, but not to look at the other side of the coin, would be to say it doesn't exist, and that would be a lie. All we have to do is look at the history of mankind.

So I'll ask again, am I an Objectivist?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OP,

There are certain inherent characteristics that make up each one of us.

Do you mean to say here that the essence of who we are (what we are "made up of" as it were) is inherently given, that is, is determined? If not, what do you mean? If so, then that might explain why you say the following:

I know that I am capable of anything any of you are. ... I know that under the right circumstances I am capable of committing murder, and so are you. I know under the right circumstances I am capable of following whatever my hearts desire is. And so are you, even if that included having an affair with your wife or girlfriend, after all, I’d be following one of the core principles of Objectivism. I am, in essence no different from anyone on this board because this is human nature.

Even at the level of inherent characteristics, people are not all interchangeable-- some have more aptitude for certain tasks and skills than others.

More to the point, people make themselves into who they are, by the choices they make as they live their lives. This is the meaning of Rand's saying that man is a being of self-made soul. Moreover, it is this chosen component of your personality that defines your essence. So you see what kind of a claim it is when you accuse an Objectivist of when you assert that he is capable of murder. If you think that I can commit murder because you think you can, then all I can say is: speak for yourself.

I'll also mention that "following your heart's desire" is certainly not Objectivism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You answered your own question in the bold text. If to no one but myself, I am somebody, even if I am nobody to everybody else.

There is a fundamental difference in the way each of us has presented our point. I did it optimistically as opposed to pessimistically and that points to a fundamental difference in the sense of life and manner of thinking.

I had a friend who when he made a mistake would say things like "I'm such an idiot/moron/dummy/stupid" it wasn't a great leap to discover that he had self-esteem problems in spite of being quite smart and he did not begin to excel until he had dealt with those issues.

As to your assertion that we are saying the same thing I say no. Understand that I am never a nobody, I do not draw my self-worth or even a perception of myself from the judgments of others. I am somebody, I don't give a rats ass what everybody else thinks. Full stop, end of message.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Note that I say, under the right circumstances. Under the right circumstances we as individuals and as a whole are capable of anything.
Under any circumstances, I'm not capable of murder. I'm telling you. And I'm saying that under no circumstances could you write a reference grammar of Kikerewe of the same quality as one that I would write. I'm sure you have many fine attributes, I'm just saying that men aren't fungible. You've made a claim of fact: I understand that you have a particular belief, but I think your belief is mistaken. So I'm asking for your proof of the claim, not a restatement of the claim.

I can answer your basic question: no. To be an Objectivist, you have to grasp and accept the philosophy of Ayn Rand. Based on this brief interaction, I can form a conclusion that you do not both grasp and accept Rand's philosophy. (We can dig deeper to distinguish the "grasp" and "accept" parts, if needs be). You might be interested in aspects of Objectivism, and you might become an Objectivist by stuying Rand's philosophy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But look at this conversation as it has evolved in this short amount of time. The two negatives that were in the OP has been the focus. Am I optimistic that we can understand this side of us, and choose not to follow that path. Yes, I am. As I said, just as we are capable of self-destruction, we too are capable of wondrous things. Optimistic and pessimistic are all in the way you perceive the message at hand. There was only a minute part of that OP that pointed to a negative. What do you really think the intended focus was? Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But look at this conversation as it has evolved in this short amount of time. The two negatives that were in the OP has been the focus. Am I optimistic that we can understand this side of us, and choose not to follow that path. Yes, I am. As I said, just as we are capable of self-destruction, we too are capable of wondrous things. Optimistic and pessimistic are all in the way you perceive the message at hand. There was only a minute part of that OP that pointed to a negative. What do you really think the intended focus was? Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

I'm puzzled by this response. Intended focus notwithstanding, it seems to me you're the pessimist here, given the views of human nature you've set forth in the OP, in particular that everyone is capable of murder irrespective of their character.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know that I am capable of anything any of you are. This makes up the group known as everybody in this post. I know that under the right circumstances I am capable of committing murder, and so are you. I know under the right circumstances I am capable of following whatever my hearts desire is.

Your post is so cute and eyebrow-raising and clever and fluffy. And gibberish. Individual people possess identity. And philosophy is a tool for living, not rationalism. Now be a good somebody and go read some Ayn Rand. Further:

I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together.

See how they run like pigs from a gun, see how they fly.

I'm crying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maximus replied to my original opening post. He asked if I was the person who makes him have a headache. I replied, yes, I am. I can’t honestly say that I have never talked to him, nor the fact that this post might not give him a headache. I was being truthful in my remark. Because on the Internet, we all have a certain anonymity that exists (fact). I am everybody, I am anybody, I am somebody, and I’m nobody. That my friend, is the bigger picture in all of this.

No, you can not be simultaniously one thing and another. You are either who you are, or you present a false persona in which you pretend to be something you are not. Which are you? What makes my head hurt are obscure word games. I am a simple old soldier, and I prefer honesty in dealing with others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want to show you all something. Read what JMegan wrote in this post.

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...st&p=202202

And consider the quote from Ayn Rand in my OP.

Now look back over your answers to me. What do you see?

I have been studying human behavior for 25+ years, there are inherent characteristics we have that are similar. Otherwise words like optimistic and pessimistic would have little meaning. I know what I see in your answers, and JMegan points to it. The first thing we do is discredit the information and berate the person. I have not berated any of you. I've presented the facts about human behavior. Under the right circumstances we are capable of anything. With encouragement and study I could write a much better paper than you David, because I have that capacity in me as well. It's not a matter of optimism or pessimism, it's whether we allow anyone else to hold us back. That's why we all want freedom. The freedom to do what we want to do.

But.... and here's the contrast. This is why I said what I did about the ideal "live and let live" society. Often times we don't realize, that as an entrepreneur, that person who cleans the office or answers our phones, is our slave. We dictate where they live and how they live, and whether they can advance, simply by education alone, or the lack thereof in many cases. We dictate all of this in their lives, simply by how much we pay them.

Now you want to know the sad thing? All of this is true. All you have to do to confirm it, is watch the news and you will hear a story (from time to time) about someone who did something, that friends and family will testify they could never do. All you have to do is go to a mall and watch people do what they do when they think nobody is watching. (N0b0dy has been watching for the last 25+ years). All you have to do is talk to the cleaning person or the person who answers your phones.

Maximus, I beg to differ with you my friend. You are a man, an "old soldier" and a dad are you not? I have played no word games here. I hate them too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But.... and here's the contrast. This is why I said what I did about the ideal "live and let live" society. Often times we don't realize, that as an entrepreneur, that person who cleans the office or answers our phones, is our slave. We dictate where they live and how they live, and whether they can advance, simply by education alone, or the lack thereof in many cases. We dictate all of this in their lives, simply by how much we pay them.

Your are saying that a "live and let live" philosophy causes slavery.

However, in such an ideal society, the law would require people to interact only on a voluntary basis, without the initiation of force. How could that cause slavery?

When I hear slavery, I am thinking of someone being forced to work, against their will, via the use or threat of force. What do you mean by slavery?]

I have been studying human behavior for 25+ years, there are inherent characteristics we have that are similar. Otherwise words like optimistic and pessimistic would have little meaning.

What are those inherent characteristics, and what proof do you have that they exist?

As far as optimism and pessimism having a meaning, due to inherent characteristics, why aren't you naming those characteristics? Which one of them causes optimism, and which pessimism? If they are inherent, shouldn't all humans be either optimists or pessimists?

How can something be inherent and then cause two opposing views on life (optimism and pessimism), in different members of the same group they are inherent to? (I assume by inherent in us you mean an essential/fundamental part of human nature. I can't imagine what else "inherent characteristics we have" could possibly mean.)

Edited by Jake_Ellison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The hardest thing to explain is the glaringly evident which everybody had decided not to see."--Ayn Rand

You have not presented anything that is glaringly evident which we have decided to ignore.

"I've presented the facts about human behavior. Under the right circumstances we are capable of anything."

No, you've suggested that under certain circumstances everyone can do everything equally well, which is false as that society does not exist, nor could it ever existed. I assert that that society does not exist by the fact that people specialize and go into different fields. I assert that society will never be like this because everyone is not equal, and we will never all make the same choices in life. If everyone could do everything equally, humanity would have some really crappy choices in everything from cars to mates.

It's true that others can not hold an individual back, but it is not true that any individual can be equal to another through force of will. We all have mental and physical differences that prevent this. You suppose that any person could have wrote Romeo and Juliet. I ask you then why Shakespeare wrote this play instead of someone else? Furthermore I challenge any dwarf to play basketball like Kobe.

"Often times we don't realize, that as an entrepreneur, that person who cleans the office or answers our phones, is our slave. We dictate where they live and how they live, and whether they can advance, simply by education alone, or the lack thereof in many cases. We dictate all of this in their lives, simply by how much we pay them."

That's the same left-wing bs I hear all the time. A worker, earning a wage is not a slave. None of my employers have dictated where I live or how I may live. Ditto for everyone I know. I have also never been prevented from advancement. If the job required a more skilled person, I would get the education needed. Why should I put someone unqualified for an executive position in an executive position? The company that follows that policy will not exist for long. By the way, I'll let you in on a little secret...you ALWAYS have a choice as to how much you can sell your labor for.

"All you have to do to confirm it, is watch the news and you will hear a story (from time to time) about someone who did something, that friends and family will testify they could never do."

What does that mean? I often hear that phrase when a person commits suicide. Clearly that person could as they are dead and apparently the family and friends did not know the person very well. Stating that a person has done something "they could never do" doesn't make any sense. If a person could never do something, then they didn't do it and that sentence would never have been written. If a person could do something, then that sentence is worthless and doesn't mean anything.

"All you have to do is talk to the cleaning person or the person who answers your phones."

As a person that has cleaned for a living, I would like you to elaborate this statement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want to show you all something. Read what JMegan wrote in this post.

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...st&p=202202

And consider the quote from Ayn Rand in my OP.

Now look back over your answers to me. What do you see?

Your post did not cause me to question my premises it caused me to question your sense of life. So tell me who is doing the evading here?

I have been studying human behavior for 25+ years, there are inherent characteristics we have that are similar. Otherwise words like optimistic and pessimistic would have little meaning. I know what I see in your answers, and JMegan points to it. The first thing we do is discredit the information and berate the person.

I asked you a couple of questions, if you call that being berated you need to develop a thicker skin!

I have not berated any of you. I've presented the facts about human behavior.

You have presented assumptions without a shred of evidence or even trying to prove your point, the two things are not the same.

Under the right circumstances we are capable of anything.

No we are not, we are bound by reality.

With encouragement and study I could write a much better paper than you David, because I have that capacity in me as well. It's not a matter of optimism or pessimism, it's whether we allow anyone else to hold us back. That's why we all want freedom. The freedom to do what we want to do.

You may very well be able to do it, but I'd wager the drooling moron down the street with an IQ of 25 could not, that is the reality we are bound in. The words "Anyone" and "Anything" are a gross exaggeration, admit that anyone can not necessarily do anything and you will have taken a step toward a rational discussion. Otherwise it is all useless hyperbole.

But.... and here's the contrast. This is why I said what I did about the ideal "live and let live" society. Often times we don't realize, that as an entrepreneur, that person who cleans the office or answers our phones, is our slave. We dictate where they live and how they live, and whether they can advance, simply by education alone, or the lack thereof in many cases. We dictate all of this in their lives, simply by how much we pay them.

Bullshit. The acceptance of a wage is not the moral equivalent of slavery. Nor is it the practical equivalent. You are so far off the mark here, you do realize that this is the argument for Marxism do you not?

Now you want to know the sad thing? All of this is true. All you have to do to confirm it, is watch the news and you will hear a story (from time to time) about someone who did something, that friends and family will testify they could never do. All you have to do is go to a mall and watch people do what they do when they think nobody is watching. (N0b0dy has been watching for the last 25+ years). All you have to do is talk to the cleaning person or the person who answers your phones.

The fact that a person "did something that his friends and family testify he could never do" is an indication that the only person that truly knows what a man can do and is capable of doing is that man himself.

The rest of this paragraph is meaningless drivel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've presented the facts about human behavior. Under the right circumstances we are capable of anything.

No, you have not. You have made assertions but have yet to support those assertions with one ounce of proof. As David has asked, provide proof that he is capable of murder. Either that, or rescind the assertion. Don't go on wild tangents about cleaning ladies, what's on the news, or trips to the mall. Provide concrete support for your assertion that David is capable of murder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The timing of my signing up here is no coincidence. As I have been a “guest” lurker for some time now off and on. Studying your behaviors through your words and actions. I chose this username for a reason. There’s nothing extremely clever about it. It’s a fact, (principle #1) to you, if I don’t think the same way as you, I’m nobody, and I’m to be treated as such. If I don’t think the way you do, the planet would be a better place if I wasn’t here, I am nobody. Because if I’m different, I’m upsetting the applecart. (the application of core principles 2,3, and 4).

But because of my original OP, I got labeled as a troll. And this is where the timing is significant. As I watched the discussion about the situation on this Christian message board. I had to ask myself, as I re-read the rules of this board. What makes this board different from that one? If I violate rules 1 and 2 here, I’m out of here am I not? Honestly, it’s quite possible that this post will get me the same ticket. So you can see why I say, the only possible way for a live and let live society to work, would be one that would exclude all of you and everybody else. Because that would be in my best self-interest.

What you are saying here, is that you have lurked and observed, and timed your introduction after the Parson's posts here, with a deliberately provocative introduction to guage our reactions towards you.

To what end? Seemingly, to prove some sort of point. The purpose of this forum is to discuss the different aspects of the philosophy of Objectivism, to learn and expand our knowledge through the free exchange of ideas.

What came you here to do?

So I have to ask this question. Am I an Objectivist? Have a demonstrated possibly a deeper understanding of who I am with the confirmation of that fact from watching you? Am I you, and me? The only way you can know for sure, is to look at yourself. There are certain characteristics that indicate we are one in the same in the way we think.

No, I would not say that you are an Objectivist, going on what you have posted so far.

I do however, hope that if this finds it’s way into the trash as well and I am banned. It will not fall on deaf ears. I have been a student of my own self-interest all my life. I will leave you with this thought to ponder.

The hardest thing to explain is the glaringly evident which everybody had decided not to see.--Ayn Rand

Ban me if you must.

What you seem to want is to be banned. This causes me to suspect that this is your motive for signing up here. I suspect, through your own words, that that is the point that you are, for some reason, trying to prove: That we will ban you as a troll because we disagree with you.

I would perfer you not be banned at this time, because that would be playing into your hands for whatever purpose you have in mind by such an action. You have, so far, not broken any forum rules as far as I can tell. Instead, you have been deliberately provocative, as demonstrated by the last line in the quoted portion of your post above.

You should, however, present your ideas, and frame your questions, in a cogent manner so that they can be adressed in a rational fashion.

Could you perhaps enlighten us as to why you wish to present yourself in a provocative manner?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know that I am capable of anything any of you are.

Really, are you capable of this?

http://www.prairieghosts.com/gacy.html

How 'bout this?

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/susansmithad1.html

Could you have stepped in if Michael Jordan went down and led the Bulls to an NBA Championship?

If you practiced really, really hard and put your mind to it, could you outplay Tiger Woods at the Masters?

If you are truly capable of doing whatever anyone else is capable of doing, why are you 'n0b0dy' instead of 's0mb0dy?'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Under the right circumstances we are capable of anything. With encouragement and study I could write a much better paper than you David, because I have that capacity in me as well.
From all of the evidence that you're given us, I have to conclude that you have no interest in objective reality and thus no concern over relating your rhetorical posture to actual fact. You keep on asserting this position, without giving any actual evidence to support the claim. Hey Tenure, a propos the "look for the evidence" claim, this is a good example. A rational position is one that is founded on objectively observable facts. When you cannot find mention of facts and instead you see just repetition of a position -- coupled with evasion of requests for facts -- then you know that the source is not really credible.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What can I say, the username says it all. I’m nobody.

I’m everybody.

I’m anybody.

I’m somebody.

I’m nobody.

Everybody can be nobody to somebody…anybody. I’m you, I’m me, I’m that person begging on the street, I’m that person in the CEO’s office. I’m anybody and nobody. I’m somebody and nobody. I’m everybody who is nobody to somebody.--n0b0dy

Hi nObOdy,

I'm bluey. My username doesn't say much about me except, by implication, the fact that I like the colour blue. I chose it because I want people to judge and interact with me based on the content and quality of my posts instead of anything I could posit about myself, and I simply don't care to try to come up with a one-word description of myself. Some people on this board have apparently managed or attempted to do that, though, and some just use their real names or some variation of them. Either way since there aren't any other blueys, it serves to identify me as me and my posts as my posts, and allows my fellow forum users to view and evaluate my posts in the context of each other, if they so desire.

I'm myself, not anybody else.

I'm only myself, and I know who that is even if no one else does.

I'm somebody.

I'm definitely not nobody and I can prove it - if I were nobody then I wouldn't be typing this post or watching it appear on the screen in front of me.

Any particular anybody is somebody to somebody, if only to themselves, and that's really sufficient to establish them as somebody instead of nobody. I'm not you, I'm me. You're not me, I assume you're you but I don't really care one way or the other. I've seen plenty of people begging but I'm not them. I work for a CEO and I couldn't do what he does, at least not presently, and since I've never really attempted to learn to I couldn't tell you whether I have the necessary capacity to learn to do his job. I have the capacity to do my job, and he definitely couldn't do my job if he fired me tomorrow, and maybe he eventually could or maybe he couldn't if he tried to learn, who's to say? It really doesn't matter. I could have been a lot of different somebodies but I could only ever have been one particular somebody and I happen have made myself into this particular somebody, and whether you or anyone else knows me doesn't change that fact or make it irrelevant. I identify as fellow humans anybody who is somebody to themselves and, if I need to interact with anyone else for any reason, I implicitly begin with that identification. - bluey

(edited for clarity)

Edited by bluey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Tenure, a propos the "look for the evidence" claim, this is a good example. A rational position is one that is founded on objectively observable facts. When you cannot find mention of facts and instead you see just repetition of a position -- coupled with evasion of requests for facts -- then you know that the source is not really credible.

Duly noted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For my comment to be a valid description of this thread, you'd actually have to be challenging anyone's beliefs, but you're not. You haven't said anything that *meaningful*. It might help you to remember that Objectivists are not people who assume that something is deep and meaningful because it is incomprehensible but sounds important-ish. Objectivists will only conclude that something is deep or meaningful if they first understand it, realize it is fundamental, and agree with it. Challenging someone's beliefs is not the only way to receive vituperation, so the fact that people are annoyed with you does not necessarily mean that you said something that successfully challenges any belief.

People are annoyed because you insist on invading their social club/discussion forum and making nonsensical pronouncements as though they're the Received Word, so they would like you to either a.) try to make sense or b.) go away. It is a measure of just how benevolent people are around here that they give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're capable of a.), giving you every possible chance to prove it.

I can't see that I'd be capable of murder, certainly. Manslaughter, maybe, (and then only involuntary), but not murder. I sincerely doubt your ability to ovulate or menstruate, and my beard isn't coming along very well despite the fact that I've never shaved. Heck, my housemate can't grow a beard, either, and he's actually male.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...