Context provided here...
.
...How is it possible for one man to make a moral pronouncement about the insanity of Comfort if that pronouncement is void of other opinions? Are you parroting, or is this your own discovery about nutty (Topic of discussion)?
Sorry, Martin, but you must be the stupidest atheist in the world. (Maybe I should copyright that...)
Either morality is a social construct requiring the minds of many to discover and acquire values, or it's a code of values discovered by the work of one mind, of a single individual who's survival depends on what is discovered.
One is an intrinsic J/C/tribal artifact. The other is not.
When so called atheists base their ethical views on dusty Christian/tribal dogma, I'm naturally skeptical of anything they label as "good or evil," "right, or wrong." My life isn't dependent on what you discover about the world, Martin. Nor is your life dependent on mind (sic?).
Our lives are not "social constructs".... Morality isn't something that resides outside of human nature. It's the definition of it on an individual basis.
Don't be so lazy and pick a harder target next time. ...
No hiding here:
Red indicating edits done for OOC comprehension.
I'd like to focus in on the last line
Don't be so lazy and pick a harder target next time
Challenge fucking accepted. Let's see if i can get my snark blog rolling by taking a look at the website they are an "editor" for.
http://rebirthofreason.com/
Quick look shows it's a Objectivist promotion site. Now suddenly the attitude makes sense. Seemingly part of the tenets of Objectivism is to be a gigantic vagina to everyone you meet. Remember if you can go throughout the day without someone trying to punch you in the balls/ovaries, you are not a good objectivist.
The front page of course has a picture of Rand. Since you know, the whole philosophy is basically a creepy cult to her. Seriously, I don't know any other school of thought outside of a religion that glorifies their founder so much. Psychiatrists honestly critique Freud and point out his mistakes, Biologists have perfected Darwin's model for evolution, Ideas of Utilitarianism and the like have been tweaked and changed beyond their founders idea; but going against Rand in objectivism is taboo. I'm pretty sure if you dare even suggest that altruism is not a bad thing they'll take away your Steve Ditko decoder ring.
OK enough content less mocking on my part...on to critiquing content.
The first real channel on the site other than home is labeled "WAR" War on what though?
Their enemy list includes Post Modern art, Nietzsche, Ralph Nader, and Liberals. Real bright bunch here. These are the people who think that a cooperation bribing and lobbying to get special treatment is a "Captalist democratic ideal". Bah. It's not fun to read or to rant about. Really the whole site just bores me. It's a constant mish mash of phillisophical wacking off. Same old for objectivist, nothing new really. Bunch of white over pridvledged, well fed ass hats bitching about hwo the poor are hurting them and sucking them dry. Ah a philosophy which calls for personal responsability, but when people try to get a corperation or rich folk to take responsability for the shit they pile on the rest of us (like the PINTO in the case of Nader) then that's just evil commie talk. I'd be worried about them waging a war for our minds and reason, but frankly I think they're about as militaryly adept as Beetled Baily. Yeah so looks like there's not much material there to write on because like most of objectivism there's no content. Like Rand herself it's vaccuous and self important, inheriently narcisistic and anti-social. I'm reminded of Shakepsear.
http://rebirthofreason.com/
Quick look shows it's a Objectivist promotion site. Now suddenly the attitude makes sense. Seemingly part of the tenets of Objectivism is to be a gigantic vagina to everyone you meet. Remember if you can go throughout the day without someone trying to punch you in the balls/ovaries, you are not a good objectivist.
The front page of course has a picture of Rand. Since you know, the whole philosophy is basically a creepy cult to her. Seriously, I don't know any other school of thought outside of a religion that glorifies their founder so much. Psychiatrists honestly critique Freud and point out his mistakes, Biologists have perfected Darwin's model for evolution, Ideas of Utilitarianism and the like have been tweaked and changed beyond their founders idea; but going against Rand in objectivism is taboo. I'm pretty sure if you dare even suggest that altruism is not a bad thing they'll take away your Steve Ditko decoder ring.
OK enough content less mocking on my part...on to critiquing content.
The first real channel on the site other than home is labeled "WAR" War on what though?
We are in a philosophical war. Instead of bullets and bayonets, we fight with words and ideas. Our enemies are irrationality and the initiation of force, and the people that promote the use of them. The culture is our battlefield, and the stakes are nothing short of the future of Western Civilization. It is a war for men's minds.Ah, I see... Yes I'm sure going on I will find NOTHING crazy or objectionable about their WAR. Might I note that the site the editor trolled and bitched at has the goal of "Education and promoting positive reputation" of their chosen philosophy. They do not declare WAR on every other point of view. Surely I'm exaggerating though.
If this is a war of ideas, who is the enemy? This question is important not just because it's important to identify clearly what you're up against, but also to identify what you're not up against. In other words, by understanding who our enemies are, we can avoid classifying others in that category.I'm really not sure what to make of this. I mean on hand yes bad ideas should be put in their place, and it's good they're making the difference between people who have ideas and the ideas themselves and... Well really they're promoting thought crime. They are not attacking the ideas, they are going against the people themselves. If someone has a bad idea really step one should be trying to educate them. This militaristic language just sounds off to me. What the fuck after all is the difference between holding a bad idea and raising it against them? Really it seems to come down to 'we're right they're wrong, FUCK THEM!"The line I want to draw is between those that believe bad ideas, and those that promote them. In a war to win men's minds, the former are the people we are trying to reach and persuade. The latter are the ones we have to counter and disprove. Or to keep with the war analogy, the former are the battleground, the latter are the enemies.
The distinction is important. Ideas matter, and those that promote them have a moral responsibility to make sure they're right. This is especially true in the area of politics, where ideas translate into the use of force. This is because ideas drive actions. They are a guiding force that shapes our lives. Their impact is real.
The people that promote violence and destruction are morally responsible for the outcomes they preach. Those that promote faith and subjectivism are no less responsible, although the causal link to the actions is longer. When someone decides to promote ideas, they are also deciding to promote the actions that will result from them.
This should help differentiate the enemies from the victims. Just holding bad ideas does not automatically make someone an enemy. But when they raise arms (ideas) against us, they cross the line. We must emphasize the importance of moral responsibility in promoting ideas.
Their enemy list includes Post Modern art, Nietzsche, Ralph Nader, and Liberals. Real bright bunch here. These are the people who think that a cooperation bribing and lobbying to get special treatment is a "Captalist democratic ideal". Bah. It's not fun to read or to rant about. Really the whole site just bores me. It's a constant mish mash of phillisophical wacking off. Same old for objectivist, nothing new really. Bunch of white over pridvledged, well fed ass hats bitching about hwo the poor are hurting them and sucking them dry. Ah a philosophy which calls for personal responsability, but when people try to get a corperation or rich folk to take responsability for the shit they pile on the rest of us (like the PINTO in the case of Nader) then that's just evil commie talk. I'd be worried about them waging a war for our minds and reason, but frankly I think they're about as militaryly adept as Beetled Baily. Yeah so looks like there's not much material there to write on because like most of objectivism there's no content. Like Rand herself it's vaccuous and self important, inheriently narcisistic and anti-social. I'm reminded of Shakepsear.
"...it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."
![](<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j92/ing213/sketchbook/backgroundbanner.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>)
Posts
