Total Posts:36|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

You decide

bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2015 2:50:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
holy sh1t child

figure it out
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2015 2:52:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
They (Native Americans) didn't have any rights to the land, and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights which they had not conceived and were not using. What was it that they were fighting for, when they opposed white men on this continent? For their wish to continue a primitive existence, their 'right' to keep part of the earth untouched, unused and not even as property, but just keep everybody out so that you will live practically like an animal, or a few caves above it. Any white person who brings the element of civilization has the right to take over this continent.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
RevNge
Posts: 13,835
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2015 2:53:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/13/2015 2:50:49 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
holy sh1t child

figure it out

Does this have something do do with Objectivism?
RevNge
Posts: 13,835
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2015 2:53:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/13/2015 2:52:57 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
They (Native Americans) didn't have any rights to the land, and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights which they had not conceived and were not using. What was it that they were fighting for, when they opposed white men on this continent? For their wish to continue a primitive existence, their 'right' to keep part of the earth untouched, unused and not even as property, but just keep everybody out so that you will live practically like an animal, or a few caves above it. Any white person who brings the element of civilization has the right to take over this continent.

Oh. Never mind.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2015 2:55:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Because nature consists of all that is logically relevant to perception, and logic consists of the rules of thought and therefore comprises an essential theory of cognition, the CTMU couples mind and nature in a way suggestive of Ouroboros divided and reunited - two intimately entwined constrictors, estranged centuries ago by mind-body dualism but now locked in a renewed embrace, each swallowing the other's entailments. Perhaps this reunion will deter the militant torch-bearers of scientific naturalism from further reneging on their explanatory debts and fleecing mankind of its millennial hopes and dreams after all. And if so, then perhaps mankind can snuff the rapidly dwindling fuse of its insidious ontological identity crisis while these hopes and dreams still have a fighting chance of realization, and the intrinsic utility of mankind is still salvageable.
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2015 2:55:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/13/2015 2:53:21 PM, RevNge wrote:
At 4/13/2015 2:50:49 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
holy sh1t child

figure it out

Does this have something do do with Objectivism?

I was coerced to make this thread.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2015 2:56:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/13/2015 2:55:11 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Because nature consists of all that is logically relevant to perception, and logic consists of the rules of thought and therefore comprises an essential theory of cognition, the CTMU couples mind and nature in a way suggestive of Ouroboros divided and reunited - two intimately entwined constrictors, estranged centuries ago by mind-body dualism but now locked in a renewed embrace, each swallowing the other's entailments. Perhaps this reunion will deter the militant torch-bearers of scientific naturalism from further reneging on their explanatory debts and fleecing mankind of its millennial hopes and dreams after all. And if so, then perhaps mankind can snuff the rapidly dwindling fuse of its insidious ontological identity crisis while these hopes and dreams still have a fighting chance of realization, and the intrinsic utility of mankind is still salvageable.

I think it's a monstrous thing " the whole progression of everything they're doing " to feature, or answer, or favor the incompetent, the retarded, the handicapped, including, you know, the kneeling buses and all kinds of impossible expenses. I do not think that the retarded should be ~allowed~ to come ~near~ children. Children cannot deal, and should not have to deal, with the very tragic spectacle of a handicapped human being. When they grow up, they may give it some attention, if they're interested, but it should never be presented to them in childhood, and certainly not as an example of something ~they~ have to live down to.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2015 2:58:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/13/2015 2:56:56 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 4/13/2015 2:55:11 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Because nature consists of all that is logically relevant to perception, and logic consists of the rules of thought and therefore comprises an essential theory of cognition, the CTMU couples mind and nature in a way suggestive of Ouroboros divided and reunited - two intimately entwined constrictors, estranged centuries ago by mind-body dualism but now locked in a renewed embrace, each swallowing the other's entailments. Perhaps this reunion will deter the militant torch-bearers of scientific naturalism from further reneging on their explanatory debts and fleecing mankind of its millennial hopes and dreams after all. And if so, then perhaps mankind can snuff the rapidly dwindling fuse of its insidious ontological identity crisis while these hopes and dreams still have a fighting chance of realization, and the intrinsic utility of mankind is still salvageable.

I think it's a monstrous thing " the whole progression of everything they're doing " to feature, or answer, or favor the incompetent, the retarded, the handicapped, including, you know, the kneeling buses and all kinds of impossible expenses. I do not think that the retarded should be ~allowed~ to come ~near~ children. Children cannot deal, and should not have to deal, with the very tragic spectacle of a handicapped human being. When they grow up, they may give it some attention, if they're interested, but it should never be presented to them in childhood, and certainly not as an example of something ~they~ have to live down to.

The precious, carefully cultivated orchids of academia often forget in the course of their well-referenced but ultimately omphaloskeptical self-explorations that they very much belong to an intellectual closed shop, and that their own cognitive gaps preclude definitive judgments on the cognitive adequacy of the weeds that grow wild and free beyond the sheltering walls of their ivory tower hothouses.
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2015 2:58:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/13/2015 2:58:00 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/13/2015 2:56:56 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 4/13/2015 2:55:11 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Because nature consists of all that is logically relevant to perception, and logic consists of the rules of thought and therefore comprises an essential theory of cognition, the CTMU couples mind and nature in a way suggestive of Ouroboros divided and reunited - two intimately entwined constrictors, estranged centuries ago by mind-body dualism but now locked in a renewed embrace, each swallowing the other's entailments. Perhaps this reunion will deter the militant torch-bearers of scientific naturalism from further reneging on their explanatory debts and fleecing mankind of its millennial hopes and dreams after all. And if so, then perhaps mankind can snuff the rapidly dwindling fuse of its insidious ontological identity crisis while these hopes and dreams still have a fighting chance of realization, and the intrinsic utility of mankind is still salvageable.

I think it's a monstrous thing " the whole progression of everything they're doing " to feature, or answer, or favor the incompetent, the retarded, the handicapped, including, you know, the kneeling buses and all kinds of impossible expenses. I do not think that the retarded should be ~allowed~ to come ~near~ children. Children cannot deal, and should not have to deal, with the very tragic spectacle of a handicapped human being. When they grow up, they may give it some attention, if they're interested, but it should never be presented to them in childhood, and certainly not as an example of something ~they~ have to live down to.

The precious, carefully cultivated orchids of academia often forget in the course of their well-referenced but ultimately omphaloskeptical self-explorations that they very much belong to an intellectual closed shop, and that their own cognitive gaps preclude definitive judgments on the cognitive adequacy of the weeds that grow wild and free beyond the sheltering walls of their ivory tower hothouses.

All your life, you have heard yourself denounced, not for your faults, but for your greatest virtues. You have been hated, not for your mistakes, but for your achievements. You have been scorned for all those qualities of character which are your highest pride. You have been called selfish for the courage of acting on your own judgment and bearing sole responsibility for your own life. You have been called arrogant for your independent mind. You have been called cruel for your unyielding integrity. You have been called anti-social for the vision that made you venture upon undiscovered roads. You have been called ruthless for the strength and self-discipline of your drive to your purpose. You have been called greedy for the magnificence of your power to create wealth. You, who've expended an inconceivable flow of energy, have been called a parasite. You, who've created abundance where there had been nothing but wastelands and helpless, starving men before you, have been called a robber. You, who've kept them all alive, have been called an exploiter. You, the purest and most moral man among them, have been sneered at as a 'vulgar materialist.' Have you stopped to ask them: by what right?"by what code?"by what standard?
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2015 3:03:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/13/2015 2:58:51 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 4/13/2015 2:58:00 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/13/2015 2:56:56 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 4/13/2015 2:55:11 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Because nature consists of all that is logically relevant to perception, and logic consists of the rules of thought and therefore comprises an essential theory of cognition, the CTMU couples mind and nature in a way suggestive of Ouroboros divided and reunited - two intimately entwined constrictors, estranged centuries ago by mind-body dualism but now locked in a renewed embrace, each swallowing the other's entailments. Perhaps this reunion will deter the militant torch-bearers of scientific naturalism from further reneging on their explanatory debts and fleecing mankind of its millennial hopes and dreams after all. And if so, then perhaps mankind can snuff the rapidly dwindling fuse of its insidious ontological identity crisis while these hopes and dreams still have a fighting chance of realization, and the intrinsic utility of mankind is still salvageable.

I think it's a monstrous thing " the whole progression of everything they're doing " to feature, or answer, or favor the incompetent, the retarded, the handicapped, including, you know, the kneeling buses and all kinds of impossible expenses. I do not think that the retarded should be ~allowed~ to come ~near~ children. Children cannot deal, and should not have to deal, with the very tragic spectacle of a handicapped human being. When they grow up, they may give it some attention, if they're interested, but it should never be presented to them in childhood, and certainly not as an example of something ~they~ have to live down to.

The precious, carefully cultivated orchids of academia often forget in the course of their well-referenced but ultimately omphaloskeptical self-explorations that they very much belong to an intellectual closed shop, and that their own cognitive gaps preclude definitive judgments on the cognitive adequacy of the weeds that grow wild and free beyond the sheltering walls of their ivory tower hothouses.

All your life, you have heard yourself denounced, not for your faults, but for your greatest virtues. You have been hated, not for your mistakes, but for your achievements. You have been scorned for all those qualities of character which are your highest pride. You have been called selfish for the courage of acting on your own judgment and bearing sole responsibility for your own life. You have been called arrogant for your independent mind. You have been called cruel for your unyielding integrity. You have been called anti-social for the vision that made you venture upon undiscovered roads. You have been called ruthless for the strength and self-discipline of your drive to your purpose. You have been called greedy for the magnificence of your power to create wealth. You, who've expended an inconceivable flow of energy, have been called a parasite. You, who've created abundance where there had been nothing but wastelands and helpless, starving men before you, have been called a robber. You, who've kept them all alive, have been called an exploiter. You, the purest and most moral man among them, have been sneered at as a 'vulgar materialist.' Have you stopped to ask them: by what right?"by what code?"by what standard?

Tuukka:

Please bear in mind that over the last couple of decades, many people - some having extraordinary IQ"s, and some claiming to be professional academics but strangely unwilling to come clean about their actual identities and qualifications " have tried to find "errors" in my work. Not one has succeeded.

I don't give a flying fvck about that. :D

There is a very simple reason for this: my work is exactly what I say it is, and by the nature of its design, it is absolutely bulletproof.

But my work is better than yours.

....

Langan:

So I guess that's it for Tuukka then. He bravely took his best shot, and missed by a mile.
Tuukka, I enthusiastically applaud your courage, if not your encyclopedic comprehension of logic and analytic philosophy, and wish you Godspeed on the road to whatever kind of insight may inspire you.
But wait a minute ... as far as philosophy and for that matter entertainment are concerned, this really isn't a very satisfactory outcome at all, is it.
After all, we know by reading the glowing references for 3 Quarks Daily that several highly qualified big-name academic atheists count themselves as readers (Dawkins, Dennett, Pinker, and so on - no surprise there, as it's an interesting and attractive site). But it just doesn't seem right that every single one of them would let the Tuukkas of the world go up against mean, God-believing intellectual bully Chris Langan all alone like this.
Are we really to believe that not a single big-name academic atheist reading this blog, while operating honestly and forthrightly under his real, illustrious, and fully verifiable name, has the compassion, intestinal fortitude, and sheer academia-certified brainpower to help poor Tuukka out of his jam?
Isn't one of these dedicated crusaders willing, for example, to defend Tuukka's belief that the CTMU is nothing but an incomprehensible "poem", or that it fails to nontrivially describe the structure of reality, or that it does not imply the existence of God?
Come on, now. Won't the atheistic bedrock of academia send out its best man so that we can see whether or not he, it, and its obedient cash cow, the commercial (technical nonfiction) publishing industry, are all that they crack themselves up to be on the subjects of God, religion, and reality theory?
Yes, yes, I know. Big-name atheistic academics are exceedingly busy "defending science" and debunking religion and all that. Why, it's their public duty!
But still, as almost anyone with half a sniffer is aware, it smells a bit off ... almost like something may be rotten in Denmark, so to speak.
Well, I guess we'll just have to see what happens, won't we.
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2015 3:06:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/13/2015 3:03:56 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/13/2015 2:58:51 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 4/13/2015 2:58:00 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/13/2015 2:56:56 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 4/13/2015 2:55:11 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Because nature consists of all that is logically relevant to perception, and logic consists of the rules of thought and therefore comprises an essential theory of cognition, the CTMU couples mind and nature in a way suggestive of Ouroboros divided and reunited - two intimately entwined constrictors, estranged centuries ago by mind-body dualism but now locked in a renewed embrace, each swallowing the other's entailments. Perhaps this reunion will deter the militant torch-bearers of scientific naturalism from further reneging on their explanatory debts and fleecing mankind of its millennial hopes and dreams after all. And if so, then perhaps mankind can snuff the rapidly dwindling fuse of its insidious ontological identity crisis while these hopes and dreams still have a fighting chance of realization, and the intrinsic utility of mankind is still salvageable.

I think it's a monstrous thing " the whole progression of everything they're doing " to feature, or answer, or favor the incompetent, the retarded, the handicapped, including, you know, the kneeling buses and all kinds of impossible expenses. I do not think that the retarded should be ~allowed~ to come ~near~ children. Children cannot deal, and should not have to deal, with the very tragic spectacle of a handicapped human being. When they grow up, they may give it some attention, if they're interested, but it should never be presented to them in childhood, and certainly not as an example of something ~they~ have to live down to.

The precious, carefully cultivated orchids of academia often forget in the course of their well-referenced but ultimately omphaloskeptical self-explorations that they very much belong to an intellectual closed shop, and that their own cognitive gaps preclude definitive judgments on the cognitive adequacy of the weeds that grow wild and free beyond the sheltering walls of their ivory tower hothouses.

All your life, you have heard yourself denounced, not for your faults, but for your greatest virtues. You have been hated, not for your mistakes, but for your achievements. You have been scorned for all those qualities of character which are your highest pride. You have been called selfish for the courage of acting on your own judgment and bearing sole responsibility for your own life. You have been called arrogant for your independent mind. You have been called cruel for your unyielding integrity. You have been called anti-social for the vision that made you venture upon undiscovered roads. You have been called ruthless for the strength and self-discipline of your drive to your purpose. You have been called greedy for the magnificence of your power to create wealth. You, who've expended an inconceivable flow of energy, have been called a parasite. You, who've created abundance where there had been nothing but wastelands and helpless, starving men before you, have been called a robber. You, who've kept them all alive, have been called an exploiter. You, the purest and most moral man among them, have been sneered at as a 'vulgar materialist.' Have you stopped to ask them: by what right?"by what code?"by what standard?

Tuukka:

Please bear in mind that over the last couple of decades, many people - some having extraordinary IQ"s, and some claiming to be professional academics but strangely unwilling to come clean about their actual identities and qualifications " have tried to find "errors" in my work. Not one has succeeded.

I don't give a flying fvck about that. :D

There is a very simple reason for this: my work is exactly what I say it is, and by the nature of its design, it is absolutely bulletproof.

But my work is better than yours.

....

Langan:

So I guess that's it for Tuukka then. He bravely took his best shot, and missed by a mile.
Tuukka, I enthusiastically applaud your courage, if not your encyclopedic comprehension of logic and analytic philosophy, and wish you Godspeed on the road to whatever kind of insight may inspire you.
But wait a minute ... as far as philosophy and for that matter entertainment are concerned, this really isn't a very satisfactory outcome at all, is it.
After all, we know by reading the glowing references for 3 Quarks Daily that several highly qualified big-name academic atheists count themselves as readers (Dawkins, Dennett, Pinker, and so on - no surprise there, as it's an interesting and attractive site). But it just doesn't seem right that every single one of them would let the Tuukkas of the world go up against mean, God-believing intellectual bully Chris Langan all alone like this.
Are we really to believe that not a single big-name academic atheist reading this blog, while operating honestly and forthrightly under his real, illustrious, and fully verifiable name, has the compassion, intestinal fortitude, and sheer academia-certified brainpower to help poor Tuukka out of his jam?
Isn't one of these dedicated crusaders willing, for example, to defend Tuukka's belief that the CTMU is nothing but an incomprehensible "poem", or that it fails to nontrivially describe the structure of reality, or that it does not imply the existence of God?
Come on, now. Won't the atheistic bedrock of academia send out its best man so that we can see whether or not he, it, and its obedient cash cow, the commercial (technical nonfiction) publishing industry, are all that they crack themselves up to be on the subjects of God, religion, and reality theory?
Yes, yes, I know. Big-name atheistic academics are exceedingly busy "defending science" and debunking religion and all that. Why, it's their public duty!
But still, as almost anyone with half a sniffer is aware, it smells a bit off ... almost like something may be rotten in Denmark, so to speak.
Well, I guess we'll just have to see what happens, won't we.

You, who have lost the concept of the difference, you who claim that fear and joy are incentives of equal power-and secretly add that fear is the more "practical"-you do not wish to live, and only fear of death still holds you to the existence you have damned. You dart in panic through the trap of your days, looking for the exit you have closed, running from a pursuer you dare not name to a terror you dare not acknowledge, and the greater your terror the greater your dread of the only act that could save you: thinking. The purpose of your struggle is not to know, not to grasp or name or hear the thing. I shall now state to your hearing: that yours is the Morality of Death.
"Death is the standard of your values, death is your chosen goal, and you have to keep running, since there is no escape from the pursuer who is out to destroy you or from the knowledge that that pursuer is yourself. Stop running, for once-there is no place to run-stand naked, as you dread to stand, but as I see you, and take a look at what you dared to call a moral code.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
Buddamoose
Posts: 19,448
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2015 3:08:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Is this like, flirting or something? Y'all some sort of twisted perverts that get off on verbose ramblings?
"Reality is an illusion created due to a lack of alcohol"
-Airmax1227

"You were the moon all this time, and he was always there to make you shine."

"Was he the sun?"

"No honey, he was the darkness"

-Kazekirion
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2015 3:11:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/13/2015 2:52:57 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
They (Native Americans) didn't have any rights to the land, and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights which they had not conceived and were not using. What was it that they were fighting for, when they opposed white men on this continent? For their wish to continue a primitive existence, their 'right' to keep part of the earth untouched, unused and not even as property, but just keep everybody out so that you will live practically like an animal, or a few caves above it. Any white person who brings the element of civilization has the right to take over this continent.

I think it's a huge mischaracterization to view the native americans as extremely primitive. After the European diseases came, natural selection favored those wild tribes who lived nomadic lives in small bands rather than in cities as many of the ones Mesoamerica did. Without smallpox, there's no way Cortes wouldn't have been steam rolled by the Aztecs, for example.

I also think it's a huge mischaracterization to view the white people as uniquely evil or something...they just acted like people. Anyone with even a tiny knowledge of history would've guessed that it would eventually come to conflict.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2015 3:11:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/13/2015 3:06:49 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 4/13/2015 3:03:56 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/13/2015 2:58:51 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 4/13/2015 2:58:00 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/13/2015 2:56:56 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 4/13/2015 2:55:11 PM, dylancatlow wrote:

You, who have lost the concept of the difference, you who claim that fear and joy are incentives of equal power-and secretly add that fear is the more "practical"-you do not wish to live, and only fear of death still holds you to the existence you have damned. You dart in panic through the trap of your days, looking for the exit you have closed, running from a pursuer you dare not name to a terror you dare not acknowledge, and the greater your terror the greater your dread of the only act that could save you: thinking. The purpose of your struggle is not to know, not to grasp or name or hear the thing. I shall now state to your hearing: that yours is the Morality of Death.
"Death is the standard of your values, death is your chosen goal, and you have to keep running, since there is no escape from the pursuer who is out to destroy you or from the knowledge that that pursuer is yourself. Stop running, for once-there is no place to run-stand naked, as you dread to stand, but as I see you, and take a look at what you dared to call a moral code.

...But of course, all of this will be completely lost on you. Why? Because some people can't tell their colon from a skunk burrow, and for the life of me, you often look like you might be one of them. Therefore, I dedicate the information contained in this response not to you, but to the brave contributors who continue to attempt to converse with you as though every word out of your mouth isn't a veritable fertilizer bomb of errors waiting to explode in a chaotic blizzard of fizzling conceptual confetti. (As for me, I've about had it with you.)

Now please stop wasting my time. Like our host Mark Chu-Carroll, you generate errors faster than you write - maybe even faster than Mark. But unlike Mark, you lack the courage to share your real identity with those whom you attack, and as you surely know deep down inside, that makes you - well, I naturally hesitate to say "a contemptible, belly-crawling gutless wonder completely unworthy of respect or consideration of any kind, despite any phony rationale you may append to your intellectual cowardice". So instead, I'll leave it up to you and other readers to decide how well that shoe may fit.

But in any case, I hope I've made myself clear. God will be coming again soon to a theater near you, and no self-preserving child of the corn wants to get caught with his ankle garters and Wall Street boxers showing. Please consider yourself and your friends to have been warned, this time on a very logical, very precise basis on which not a single one of you will be getting over no matter how hard you try, full stop.

And now, having allowed this response to eat up half my morning - it's a very rainy day here in the American Heartland - I must bid you all adieu.
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2015 3:12:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/13/2015 3:11:11 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 4/13/2015 2:52:57 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
They (Native Americans) didn't have any rights to the land, and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights which they had not conceived and were not using. What was it that they were fighting for, when they opposed white men on this continent? For their wish to continue a primitive existence, their 'right' to keep part of the earth untouched, unused and not even as property, but just keep everybody out so that you will live practically like an animal, or a few caves above it. Any white person who brings the element of civilization has the right to take over this continent.

I think it's a huge mischaracterization to view the native americans as extremely primitive. After the European diseases came, natural selection favored those wild tribes who lived nomadic lives in small bands rather than in cities as many of the ones Mesoamerica did. Without smallpox, there's no way Cortes wouldn't have been steam rolled by the Aztecs, for example.

But that lifestyle really wasn't all that different than, for example, the white people in many parts of Ireland or the Highlands at the time or only shortly before. We tend to remember the great civilizations of the past but not the not so great ones


I also think it's a huge mischaracterization to view the white people as uniquely evil or something...they just acted like people. Anyone with even a tiny knowledge of history would've guessed that it would eventually come to conflict.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2015 3:15:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/13/2015 3:11:18 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/13/2015 3:06:49 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 4/13/2015 3:03:56 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/13/2015 2:58:51 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 4/13/2015 2:58:00 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/13/2015 2:56:56 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 4/13/2015 2:55:11 PM, dylancatlow wrote:

You, who have lost the concept of the difference, you who claim that fear and joy are incentives of equal power-and secretly add that fear is the more "practical"-you do not wish to live, and only fear of death still holds you to the existence you have damned. You dart in panic through the trap of your days, looking for the exit you have closed, running from a pursuer you dare not name to a terror you dare not acknowledge, and the greater your terror the greater your dread of the only act that could save you: thinking. The purpose of your struggle is not to know, not to grasp or name or hear the thing. I shall now state to your hearing: that yours is the Morality of Death.
"Death is the standard of your values, death is your chosen goal, and you have to keep running, since there is no escape from the pursuer who is out to destroy you or from the knowledge that that pursuer is yourself. Stop running, for once-there is no place to run-stand naked, as you dread to stand, but as I see you, and take a look at what you dared to call a moral code.


...But of course, all of this will be completely lost on you. Why? Because some people can't tell their colon from a skunk burrow, and for the life of me, you often look like you might be one of them. Therefore, I dedicate the information contained in this response not to you, but to the brave contributors who continue to attempt to converse with you as though every word out of your mouth isn't a veritable fertilizer bomb of errors waiting to explode in a chaotic blizzard of fizzling conceptual confetti. (As for me, I've about had it with you.)

Now please stop wasting my time. Like our host Mark Chu-Carroll, you generate errors faster than you write - maybe even faster than Mark. But unlike Mark, you lack the courage to share your real identity with those whom you attack, and as you surely know deep down inside, that makes you - well, I naturally hesitate to say "a contemptible, belly-crawling gutless wonder completely unworthy of respect or consideration of any kind, despite any phony rationale you may append to your intellectual cowardice". So instead, I'll leave it up to you and other readers to decide how well that shoe may fit.

But in any case, I hope I've made myself clear. God will be coming again soon to a theater near you, and no self-preserving child of the corn wants to get caught with his ankle garters and Wall Street boxers showing. Please consider yourself and your friends to have been warned, this time on a very logical, very precise basis on which not a single one of you will be getting over no matter how hard you try, full stop.

And now, having allowed this response to eat up half my morning - it's a very rainy day here in the American Heartland - I must bid you all adieu.

From the rites of the jungle witch-doctors, which distorted reality into grotesque absurdities, stunted the minds of their victims and kept them in terror of the supernatural for stagnant stretches of centuries"to the supernatural doctrines of the Middle Ages, which kept men huddling on the mud floors of their hovels, in terror that the devil might steal the soup they had worked eighteen hours to earn"to the seedy little smiling professor who assures you that your brain has no capacity to think, that you have no means of perception and must blindly obey the omnipotent will of that supernatural force: Society"all of it is the same performance for the same and only purpose: to reduce you to the kind of pulp that has surrendered the validity of its consciousness. But it cannot be done to you without your consent. If you permit it to be done, you deserve it.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2015 3:17:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/13/2015 3:08:51 PM, Buddamoose wrote:
Is this like, flirting or something? Y'all some sort of twisted perverts that get off on verbose ramblings?

"Love is the expression of one"s values, the greatest reward you can earn for the moral qualities you have achieved in your character and person, the emotional price paid by one man for the joy he receives from the virtues of another. Your morality demands that you divorce your love from values and hand it down to any vagrant, not as response to his worth, but as response to his need, not as reward, but as alms, not as a payment for virtues, but as a blank check on vices. Your morality tells you that the purpose of love is to set you free of the bonds of morality, that love is superior to moral judgment, that true love transcends, forgives and survives every manner of evil in its object, and the greater the love the greater the depravity it permits to the loved. To love a man for his virtues is paltry and human, it tells you; to love him for his flaws is divine. To love those who are worthy of it is self-interest; to love the unworthy is sacrifice. You owe your love to those who don"t deserve it, and the less they deserve it, the more love you owe them-the more loathsome the object, the nobler your love-the more unfastidious your love, the greater the virtue-and if you can bring your soul to the state of a dump heap that welcomes anything on equal terms, if you can cease to value moral values, you have achieved the state of moral perfection.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2015 3:18:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Guys, no one say anything else. This is a really rare opportunity to observe two libertarians in their natural habitat. I think they may be doing some kind of ritual
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2015 3:19:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/13/2015 3:15:48 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 4/13/2015 3:11:18 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/13/2015 3:06:49 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 4/13/2015 3:03:56 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/13/2015 2:58:51 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 4/13/2015 2:58:00 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/13/2015 2:56:56 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 4/13/2015 2:55:11 PM, dylancatlow wrote:

You, who have lost the concept of the difference, you who claim that fear and joy are incentives of equal power-and secretly add that fear is the more "practical"-you do not wish to live, and only fear of death still holds you to the existence you have damned. You dart in panic through the trap of your days, looking for the exit you have closed, running from a pursuer you dare not name to a terror you dare not acknowledge, and the greater your terror the greater your dread of the only act that could save you: thinking. The purpose of your struggle is not to know, not to grasp or name or hear the thing. I shall now state to your hearing: that yours is the Morality of Death.
"Death is the standard of your values, death is your chosen goal, and you have to keep running, since there is no escape from the pursuer who is out to destroy you or from the knowledge that that pursuer is yourself. Stop running, for once-there is no place to run-stand naked, as you dread to stand, but as I see you, and take a look at what you dared to call a moral code.


...But of course, all of this will be completely lost on you. Why? Because some people can't tell their colon from a skunk burrow, and for the life of me, you often look like you might be one of them. Therefore, I dedicate the information contained in this response not to you, but to the brave contributors who continue to attempt to converse with you as though every word out of your mouth isn't a veritable fertilizer bomb of errors waiting to explode in a chaotic blizzard of fizzling conceptual confetti. (As for me, I've about had it with you.)

Now please stop wasting my time. Like our host Mark Chu-Carroll, you generate errors faster than you write - maybe even faster than Mark. But unlike Mark, you lack the courage to share your real identity with those whom you attack, and as you surely know deep down inside, that makes you - well, I naturally hesitate to say "a contemptible, belly-crawling gutless wonder completely unworthy of respect or consideration of any kind, despite any phony rationale you may append to your intellectual cowardice". So instead, I'll leave it up to you and other readers to decide how well that shoe may fit.

But in any case, I hope I've made myself clear. God will be coming again soon to a theater near you, and no self-preserving child of the corn wants to get caught with his ankle garters and Wall Street boxers showing. Please consider yourself and your friends to have been warned, this time on a very logical, very precise basis on which not a single one of you will be getting over no matter how hard you try, full stop.

And now, having allowed this response to eat up half my morning - it's a very rainy day here in the American Heartland - I must bid you all adieu.

From the rites of the jungle witch-doctors, which distorted reality into grotesque absurdities, stunted the minds of their victims and kept them in terror of the supernatural for stagnant stretches of centuries"to the supernatural doctrines of the Middle Ages, which kept men huddling on the mud floors of their hovels, in terror that the devil might steal the soup they had worked eighteen hours to earn"to the seedy little smiling professor who assures you that your brain has no capacity to think, that you have no means of perception and must blindly obey the omnipotent will of that supernatural force: Society"all of it is the same performance for the same and only purpose: to reduce you to the kind of pulp that has surrendered the validity of its consciousness. But it cannot be done to you without your consent. If you permit it to be done, you deserve it.

Many young people go through a phase during which they passionately embrace Rand's philosophy. The typical Rand hero or heroine, a physically attractive nonconformist driven by a combination of iconoclasm, creative innovation, intelligence, productivity, machinelike efficiency and competitive, take-no-prisoners self-interest, can be irresistible to one struggling against social adversity to define one's individuality. It matters not to such a reader that in a world consisting solely of Rand heroes and heroines, there would be neither enough wealth and power to reward them all for their brilliance nor enough individualistic elbow room to go around, forcing them to steamroller each other until the vast majority had been flattened into a seamless backdrop of mediocrity against which the peerless few could shine like stars. Nor does it matter that while such a mindset may be psychologically viable for one whose constructive raison d'"tre demands a radical departure from the beaten path, one of less than stellar ability would be more likely to find it a delayed prescription for self-disappointment. The thing to remember is that it fills a psychological need on the part of the reader, serving as a source of strength in a time of personal need.
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2015 3:23:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/13/2015 3:19:16 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/13/2015 3:15:48 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 4/13/2015 3:11:18 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/13/2015 3:06:49 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 4/13/2015 3:03:56 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/13/2015 2:58:51 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 4/13/2015 2:58:00 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/13/2015 2:56:56 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 4/13/2015 2:55:11 PM, dylancatlow wrote:

You, who have lost the concept of the difference, you who claim that fear and joy are incentives of equal power-and secretly add that fear is the more "practical"-you do not wish to live, and only fear of death still holds you to the existence you have damned. You dart in panic through the trap of your days, looking for the exit you have closed, running from a pursuer you dare not name to a terror you dare not acknowledge, and the greater your terror the greater your dread of the only act that could save you: thinking. The purpose of your struggle is not to know, not to grasp or name or hear the thing. I shall now state to your hearing: that yours is the Morality of Death.
"Death is the standard of your values, death is your chosen goal, and you have to keep running, since there is no escape from the pursuer who is out to destroy you or from the knowledge that that pursuer is yourself. Stop running, for once-there is no place to run-stand naked, as you dread to stand, but as I see you, and take a look at what you dared to call a moral code.


...But of course, all of this will be completely lost on you. Why? Because some people can't tell their colon from a skunk burrow, and for the life of me, you often look like you might be one of them. Therefore, I dedicate the information contained in this response not to you, but to the brave contributors who continue to attempt to converse with you as though every word out of your mouth isn't a veritable fertilizer bomb of errors waiting to explode in a chaotic blizzard of fizzling conceptual confetti. (As for me, I've about had it with you.)

Now please stop wasting my time. Like our host Mark Chu-Carroll, you generate errors faster than you write - maybe even faster than Mark. But unlike Mark, you lack the courage to share your real identity with those whom you attack, and as you surely know deep down inside, that makes you - well, I naturally hesitate to say "a contemptible, belly-crawling gutless wonder completely unworthy of respect or consideration of any kind, despite any phony rationale you may append to your intellectual cowardice". So instead, I'll leave it up to you and other readers to decide how well that shoe may fit.

But in any case, I hope I've made myself clear. God will be coming again soon to a theater near you, and no self-preserving child of the corn wants to get caught with his ankle garters and Wall Street boxers showing. Please consider yourself and your friends to have been warned, this time on a very logical, very precise basis on which not a single one of you will be getting over no matter how hard you try, full stop.

And now, having allowed this response to eat up half my morning - it's a very rainy day here in the American Heartland - I must bid you all adieu.

From the rites of the jungle witch-doctors, which distorted reality into grotesque absurdities, stunted the minds of their victims and kept them in terror of the supernatural for stagnant stretches of centuries"to the supernatural doctrines of the Middle Ages, which kept men huddling on the mud floors of their hovels, in terror that the devil might steal the soup they had worked eighteen hours to earn"to the seedy little smiling professor who assures you that your brain has no capacity to think, that you have no means of perception and must blindly obey the omnipotent will of that supernatural force: Society"all of it is the same performance for the same and only purpose: to reduce you to the kind of pulp that has surrendered the validity of its consciousness. But it cannot be done to you without your consent. If you permit it to be done, you deserve it.

Many young people go through a phase during which they passionately embrace Rand's philosophy. The typical Rand hero or heroine, a physically attractive nonconformist driven by a combination of iconoclasm, creative innovation, intelligence, productivity, machinelike efficiency and competitive, take-no-prisoners self-interest, can be irresistible to one struggling against social adversity to define one's individuality. It matters not to such a reader that in a world consisting solely of Rand heroes and heroines, there would be neither enough wealth and power to reward them all for their brilliance nor enough individualistic elbow room to go around, forcing them to steamroller each other until the vast majority had been flattened into a seamless backdrop of mediocrity against which the peerless few could shine like stars. Nor does it matter that while such a mindset may be psychologically viable for one whose constructive raison d'"tre demands a radical departure from the beaten path, one of less than stellar ability would be more likely to find it a delayed prescription for self-disappointment. The thing to remember is that it fills a psychological need on the part of the reader, serving as a source of strength in a time of personal need.

"But you say that money is made by the strong at the expense of the weak? What strength do you mean? It is not the strength of guns or muscles. Wealth is the product of man"s capacity to think. Then is money made by the man who invents a motor at the expense of those who did not invent it? Is money made by the intelligent at the expense of the fools? By the able at the expense of the incompetent? By the ambitious at the expense of the lazy? Money is made"before it can be looted or mooched"made by the effort of every honest man, each to the extent of his ability. An honest man is one who knows that he can"t consume more than he has produced."

"So you think that money is the root of all evil?" said Francisco d"Anconia. "Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can"t exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce. Is this what you consider evil?

"When you accept money in payment for your effort, you do so only on the conviction that you will exchange it for the product of the effort of others. It is not the moochers or the looters who give value to money. Not an ocean of tears not all the guns in the world can transform those pieces of paper in your wallet into the bread you will need to survive tomorrow. Those pieces of paper, which should have been gold, are a token of honor"your claim upon the energy of the men who produce. Your wallet is your statement of hope that somewhere in the world around you there are men who will not default on that moral principle which is the root of money, Is this what you consider evil?
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2015 3:25:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/13/2015 3:23:10 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 4/13/2015 3:19:16 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/13/2015 3:15:48 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 4/13/2015 3:11:18 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/13/2015 3:06:49 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 4/13/2015 3:03:56 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/13/2015 2:58:51 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 4/13/2015 2:58:00 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/13/2015 2:56:56 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 4/13/2015 2:55:11 PM, dylancatlow wrote:



"But you say that money is made by the strong at the expense of the weak? What strength do you mean? It is not the strength of guns or muscles. Wealth is the product of man"s capacity to think. Then is money made by the man who invents a motor at the expense of those who did not invent it? Is money made by the intelligent at the expense of the fools? By the able at the expense of the incompetent? By the ambitious at the expense of the lazy? Money is made"before it can be looted or mooched"made by the effort of every honest man, each to the extent of his ability. An honest man is one who knows that he can"t consume more than he has produced."

"So you think that money is the root of all evil?" said Francisco d"Anconia. "Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can"t exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce. Is this what you consider evil?

"When you accept money in payment for your effort, you do so only on the conviction that you will exchange it for the product of the effort of others. It is not the moochers or the looters who give value to money. Not an ocean of tears not all the guns in the world can transform those pieces of paper in your wallet into the bread you will need to survive tomorrow. Those pieces of paper, which should have been gold, are a token of honor"your claim upon the energy of the men who produce. Your wallet is your statement of hope that somewhere in the world around you there are men who will not default on that moral principle which is the root of money, Is this what you consider evil?

Of course, while governments are often assumed to possess collective intelligence greater than that of the governed, they more often claim to derive their mandates from "the will of the people" - which, again, need not be a will governed by any concerted intelligence. At the bottom limit, governments are composed of brutal tyrants who rule by force and for the good of themselves only. Challenged from without, they uniformly broadcast a tired refrain of national sanctity which, because it harmonizes all too well with the self-justifications and ulterior motives of so many other governments, usually plays well enough. The situation is unconscionable, not only because it offends sensibilities, but because it is in no way consistent with any valid algorithm for world optimization. In fact. it is demonstrably anti-solutative in the computation-theoretic sense, and the need to change it is unequivocal. But change will not come until men possess the intelligence to recognize their need...or until that need has smashed their baseless pride and spurious independence with hammers of catastrophe. Those hammers are ever gaining deadly mass in the form of overpopulation and its attending ills, the depletion of nonrenewable resources, environmental degradation, and an increasing ability to intentionally harm and destroy.
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2015 3:27:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/13/2015 3:25:20 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/13/2015 3:23:10 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 4/13/2015 3:19:16 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/13/2015 3:15:48 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 4/13/2015 3:11:18 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/13/2015 3:06:49 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 4/13/2015 3:03:56 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/13/2015 2:58:51 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 4/13/2015 2:58:00 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/13/2015 2:56:56 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 4/13/2015 2:55:11 PM, dylancatlow wrote:



"But you say that money is made by the strong at the expense of the weak? What strength do you mean? It is not the strength of guns or muscles. Wealth is the product of man"s capacity to think. Then is money made by the man who invents a motor at the expense of those who did not invent it? Is money made by the intelligent at the expense of the fools? By the able at the expense of the incompetent? By the ambitious at the expense of the lazy? Money is made"before it can be looted or mooched"made by the effort of every honest man, each to the extent of his ability. An honest man is one who knows that he can"t consume more than he has produced."

"So you think that money is the root of all evil?" said Francisco d"Anconia. "Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can"t exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce. Is this what you consider evil?

"When you accept money in payment for your effort, you do so only on the conviction that you will exchange it for the product of the effort of others. It is not the moochers or the looters who give value to money. Not an ocean of tears not all the guns in the world can transform those pieces of paper in your wallet into the bread you will need to survive tomorrow. Those pieces of paper, which should have been gold, are a token of honor"your claim upon the energy of the men who produce. Your wallet is your statement of hope that somewhere in the world around you there are men who will not default on that moral principle which is the root of money, Is this what you consider evil?

Of course, while governments are often assumed to possess collective intelligence greater than that of the governed, they more often claim to derive their mandates from "the will of the people" - which, again, need not be a will governed by any concerted intelligence. At the bottom limit, governments are composed of brutal tyrants who rule by force and for the good of themselves only. Challenged from without, they uniformly broadcast a tired refrain of national sanctity which, because it harmonizes all too well with the self-justifications and ulterior motives of so many other governments, usually plays well enough. The situation is unconscionable, not only because it offends sensibilities, but because it is in no way consistent with any valid algorithm for world optimization. In fact. it is demonstrably anti-solutative in the computation-theoretic sense, and the need to change it is unequivocal. But change will not come until men possess the intelligence to recognize their need...or until that need has smashed their baseless pride and spurious independence with hammers of catastrophe. Those hammers are ever gaining deadly mass in the form of overpopulation and its attending ills, the depletion of nonrenewable resources, environmental degradation, and an increasing ability to intentionally harm and destroy.

"Only a brute, a fool or an evader can agree to exist on such terms or agree to give his fellow men a blank check on his life and his mind, to accept the belief that others have the right to dispose of his person at their whim, that the will of the majority is Omnipotent, that the physical force of muscles and numbers is a substitute for justice, reality and truth. We, the men of the mind, we who are traders, not masters or slaves, do not deal in blank checks or grant them. We do not live or work with any form of the non-objective.

"So long as men, in the era of savagery, had no concept of objective reality and believed that physical nature was ruled by the whim of unknowable demons-no thought, no science, no production were possible. Only when men discovered that nature was a firm, predictable absolute were they able to rely on their knowledge, to choose their course, to plan their future and, slowly, to rise from the cave. Now you have placed modern industry, with its immense complexity of scientific precision, back into the power of unknowable demons-the unpredictable power of the arbitrary whims of hidden, ugly little bureaucrats. A farmer will not invest the effort of one summer if he"s unable to calculate his chances of a harvest. But you expect industrial giants-who plan in terms of decades, invest in terms of generations and undertake ninety-nine-year contracts-to continue to function and produce, not knowing what random caprice in the skull of what random official will descend upon them at what moment to demolish the whole of their effort. Drifters and physical laborers live and plan by the range of a day. The better the mind, the longer the range. A man whose vision extends to a shanty, might continue to build on your quicksands, to grab a fast profit and run. A man who envisions skyscrapers, will not. Nor will he give ten years of unswerving devotion to the task of inventing a new product, when he knows the gangs of entrenched mediocrity are juggling the laws against him, to tie him, restrict him and force him to fail, but should he fight them and struggle and succeed, they will seize his rewards and his invention.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2015 3:29:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/13/2015 3:27:57 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 4/13/2015 3:25:20 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/13/2015 3:23:10 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 4/13/2015 3:19:16 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/13/2015 3:15:48 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 4/13/2015 3:11:18 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/13/2015 3:06:49 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 4/13/2015 3:03:56 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/13/2015 2:58:51 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 4/13/2015 2:58:00 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/13/2015 2:56:56 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 4/13/2015 2:55:11 PM, dylancatlow wrote:





"Only a brute, a fool or an evader can agree to exist on such terms or agree to give his fellow men a blank check on his life and his mind, to accept the belief that others have the right to dispose of his person at their whim, that the will of the majority is Omnipotent, that the physical force of muscles and numbers is a substitute for justice, reality and truth. We, the men of the mind, we who are traders, not masters or slaves, do not deal in blank checks or grant them. We do not live or work with any form of the non-objective.

"So long as men, in the era of savagery, had no concept of objective reality and believed that physical nature was ruled by the whim of unknowable demons-no thought, no science, no production were possible. Only when men discovered that nature was a firm, predictable absolute were they able to rely on their knowledge, to choose their course, to plan their future and, slowly, to rise from the cave. Now you have placed modern industry, with its immense complexity of scientific precision, back into the power of unknowable demons-the unpredictable power of the arbitrary whims of hidden, ugly little bureaucrats. A farmer will not invest the effort of one summer if he"s unable to calculate his chances of a harvest. But you expect industrial giants-who plan in terms of decades, invest in terms of generations and undertake ninety-nine-year contracts-to continue to function and produce, not knowing what random caprice in the skull of what random official will descend upon them at what moment to demolish the whole of their effort. Drifters and physical laborers live and plan by the range of a day. The better the mind, the longer the range. A man whose vision extends to a shanty, might continue to build on your quicksands, to grab a fast profit and run. A man who envisions skyscrapers, will not. Nor will he give ten years of unswerving devotion to the task of inventing a new product, when he knows the gangs of entrenched mediocrity are juggling the laws against him, to tie him, restrict him and force him to fail, but should he fight them and struggle and succeed, they will seize his rewards and his invention.

Whatever you say, gedanken! (I guess this is what happens when logic and precision go
bye-bye.) But please be a gentleman and stop parroting Rex Kerr's half-baked comment
regarding the CTMU. The CTMU associates precision and stability with SCSPL syntax,
allowing for imprecision on the semantic and interpretative levels of reference. I don't expect
you to know what this means, but I don't expect you to pretend that you do either.

Now weren't you going to bed or something?
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2015 3:32:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/13/2015 3:29:15 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/13/2015 3:27:57 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 4/13/2015 3:25:20 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/13/2015 3:23:10 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 4/13/2015 3:19:16 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/13/2015 3:15:48 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 4/13/2015 3:11:18 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/13/2015 3:06:49 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 4/13/2015 3:03:56 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/13/2015 2:58:51 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 4/13/2015 2:58:00 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/13/2015 2:56:56 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 4/13/2015 2:55:11 PM, dylancatlow wrote:





"Only a brute, a fool or an evader can agree to exist on such terms or agree to give his fellow men a blank check on his life and his mind, to accept the belief that others have the right to dispose of his person at their whim, that the will of the majority is Omnipotent, that the physical force of muscles and numbers is a substitute for justice, reality and truth. We, the men of the mind, we who are traders, not masters or slaves, do not deal in blank checks or grant them. We do not live or work with any form of the non-objective.

"So long as men, in the era of savagery, had no concept of objective reality and believed that physical nature was ruled by the whim of unknowable demons-no thought, no science, no production were possible. Only when men discovered that nature was a firm, predictable absolute were they able to rely on their knowledge, to choose their course, to plan their future and, slowly, to rise from the cave. Now you have placed modern industry, with its immense complexity of scientific precision, back into the power of unknowable demons-the unpredictable power of the arbitrary whims of hidden, ugly little bureaucrats. A farmer will not invest the effort of one summer if he"s unable to calculate his chances of a harvest. But you expect industrial giants-who plan in terms of decades, invest in terms of generations and undertake ninety-nine-year contracts-to continue to function and produce, not knowing what random caprice in the skull of what random official will descend upon them at what moment to demolish the whole of their effort. Drifters and physical laborers live and plan by the range of a day. The better the mind, the longer the range. A man whose vision extends to a shanty, might continue to build on your quicksands, to grab a fast profit and run. A man who envisions skyscrapers, will not. Nor will he give ten years of unswerving devotion to the task of inventing a new product, when he knows the gangs of entrenched mediocrity are juggling the laws against him, to tie him, restrict him and force him to fail, but should he fight them and struggle and succeed, they will seize his rewards and his invention.

Whatever you say, gedanken! (I guess this is what happens when logic and precision go
bye-bye.) But please be a gentleman and stop parroting Rex Kerr's half-baked comment
regarding the CTMU. The CTMU associates precision and stability with SCSPL syntax,
allowing for imprecision on the semantic and interpretative levels of reference. I don't expect
you to know what this means, but I don't expect you to pretend that you do either.

Now weren't you going to bed or something?

Madam, when we'll see men dying of starvation around us, your heart won't be of any earthly use to save them. And I'm heartless enough to say that when you'll scream, "But I didn't know it!" " you will not be forgiven.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2015 3:41:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/13/2015 3:32:46 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 4/13/2015 3:29:15 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/13/2015 3:27:57 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 4/13/2015 3:25:20 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/13/2015 3:23:10 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 4/13/2015 3:19:16 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/13/2015 3:15:48 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 4/13/2015 3:11:18 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/13/2015 3:06:49 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 4/13/2015 3:03:56 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/13/2015 2:58:51 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 4/13/2015 2:58:00 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/13/2015 2:56:56 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 4/13/2015 2:55:11 PM, dylancatlow wrote:





"Only a brute, a fool or an evader can agree to exist on such terms or agree to give his fellow men a blank check on his life and his mind, to accept the belief that others have the right to dispose of his person at their whim, that the will of the majority is Omnipotent, that the physical force of muscles and numbers is a substitute for justice, reality and truth. We, the men of the mind, we who are traders, not masters or slaves, do not deal in blank checks or grant them. We do not live or work with any form of the non-objective.

"So long as men, in the era of savagery, had no concept of objective reality and believed that physical nature was ruled by the whim of unknowable demons-no thought, no science, no production were possible. Only when men discovered that nature was a firm, predictable absolute were they able to rely on their knowledge, to choose their course, to plan their future and, slowly, to rise from the cave. Now you have placed modern industry, with its immense complexity of scientific precision, back into the power of unknowable demons-the unpredictable power of the arbitrary whims of hidden, ugly little bureaucrats. A farmer will not invest the effort of one summer if he"s unable to calculate his chances of a harvest. But you expect industrial giants-who plan in terms of decades, invest in terms of generations and undertake ninety-nine-year contracts-to continue to function and produce, not knowing what random caprice in the skull of what random official will descend upon them at what moment to demolish the whole of their effort. Drifters and physical laborers live and plan by the range of a day. The better the mind, the longer the range. A man whose vision extends to a shanty, might continue to build on your quicksands, to grab a fast profit and run. A man who envisions skyscrapers, will not. Nor will he give ten years of unswerving devotion to the task of inventing a new product, when he knows the gangs of entrenched mediocrity are juggling the laws against him, to tie him, restrict him and force him to fail, but should he fight them and struggle and succeed, they will seize his rewards and his invention.

Whatever you say, gedanken! (I guess this is what happens when logic and precision go
bye-bye.) But please be a gentleman and stop parroting Rex Kerr's half-baked comment
regarding the CTMU. The CTMU associates precision and stability with SCSPL syntax,
allowing for imprecision on the semantic and interpretative levels of reference. I don't expect
you to know what this means, but I don't expect you to pretend that you do either.

Now weren't you going to bed or something?

Madam, when we'll see men dying of starvation around us, your heart won't be of any earthly use to save them. And I'm heartless enough to say that when you'll scream, "But I didn't know it!" " you will not be forgiven.

...Many people are under the illusion that Dawkins and company possess a logic-based picture of the world. But they certainly do not. If such a discussion were allowed to proceed without content-free polemics, rhetorical diversions, playing to audience bias, staged disruptions, and so on, this could be unequivocally demonstrated. In fact, it would be a shut-out. In very short order, I'd be washing up while Dawkins and his friends pondered that which haunts their dreams: the new prospects for logical theism and world religious unity unleashed by their fondness for atheistic grandstanding.

No, I wouldn't be looking for a debate between Dawkins and me. He's simply not up to it. Besides, it would amount to something very much like "cruelty to academics", and who wants to be guilty of that? ;-)
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2015 3:51:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/13/2015 3:41:45 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/13/2015 3:32:46 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 4/13/2015 3:29:15 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/13/2015 3:27:57 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 4/13/2015 3:25:20 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/13/2015 3:23:10 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 4/13/2015 3:19:16 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/13/2015 3:15:48 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 4/13/2015 3:11:18 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/13/2015 3:06:49 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 4/13/2015 3:03:56 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/13/2015 2:58:51 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 4/13/2015 2:58:00 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/13/2015 2:56:56 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 4/13/2015 2:55:11 PM, dylancatlow wrote:





"Only a brute, a fool or an evader can agree to exist on such terms or agree to give his fellow men a blank check on his life and his mind, to accept the belief that others have the right to dispose of his person at their whim, that the will of the majority is Omnipotent, that the physical force of muscles and numbers is a substitute for justice, reality and truth. We, the men of the mind, we who are traders, not masters or slaves, do not deal in blank checks or grant them. We do not live or work with any form of the non-objective.

"So long as men, in the era of savagery, had no concept of objective reality and believed that physical nature was ruled by the whim of unknowable demons-no thought, no science, no production were possible. Only when men discovered that nature was a firm, predictable absolute were they able to rely on their knowledge, to choose their course, to plan their future and, slowly, to rise from the cave. Now you have placed modern industry, with its immense complexity of scientific precision, back into the power of unknowable demons-the unpredictable power of the arbitrary whims of hidden, ugly little bureaucrats. A farmer will not invest the effort of one summer if he"s unable to calculate his chances of a harvest. But you expect industrial giants-who plan in terms of decades, invest in terms of generations and undertake ninety-nine-year contracts-to continue to function and produce, not knowing what random caprice in the skull of what random official will descend upon them at what moment to demolish the whole of their effort. Drifters and physical laborers live and plan by the range of a day. The better the mind, the longer the range. A man whose vision extends to a shanty, might continue to build on your quicksands, to grab a fast profit and run. A man who envisions skyscrapers, will not. Nor will he give ten years of unswerving devotion to the task of inventing a new product, when he knows the gangs of entrenched mediocrity are juggling the laws against him, to tie him, restrict him and force him to fail, but should he fight them and struggle and succeed, they will seize his rewards and his invention.

Whatever you say, gedanken! (I guess this is what happens when logic and precision go
bye-bye.) But please be a gentleman and stop parroting Rex Kerr's half-baked comment
regarding the CTMU. The CTMU associates precision and stability with SCSPL syntax,
allowing for imprecision on the semantic and interpretative levels of reference. I don't expect
you to know what this means, but I don't expect you to pretend that you do either.

Now weren't you going to bed or something?

Madam, when we'll see men dying of starvation around us, your heart won't be of any earthly use to save them. And I'm heartless enough to say that when you'll scream, "But I didn't know it!" " you will not be forgiven.

...Many people are under the illusion that Dawkins and company possess a logic-based picture of the world. But they certainly do not. If such a discussion were allowed to proceed without content-free polemics, rhetorical diversions, playing to audience bias, staged disruptions, and so on, this could be unequivocally demonstrated. In fact, it would be a shut-out. In very short order, I'd be washing up while Dawkins and his friends pondered that which haunts their dreams: the new prospects for logical theism and world religious unity unleashed by their fondness for atheistic grandstanding.

No, I wouldn't be looking for a debate between Dawkins and me. He's simply not up to it. Besides, it would amount to something very much like "cruelty to academics", and who wants to be guilty of that? ;-)

"The good, say the mystics of spirit, is God, a being whose only definition is that he is beyond man"s power to conceive-a definition that invalidates man"s consciousness and nullifies his concepts of existence. The good, say the mystics of muscle, is Society-a thing which they define as an organism that possesses no physical form, a super-being embodied in no one in particular and everyone in general except yourself. Man"s mind, say the mystics of spirit, must be subordinated to the will of God. Man"s mind, say the mystics of muscle, must be subordinated to the will of Society. Man"s standard of value say the mystics of spirit, is the pleasure 0f God, whose standards are beyond man"s power of comprehension and must be accepted on faith. Man"s standard of value, say the mystics of muscle, is the pleasure of Society, whose standards are beyond man"s right of judgment and must be obeyed as a primary absolute. The purpose of man"s life, say both, is to become an abject zombie who serves a purpose he does not know, for reasons he is not to question. His reward, say the mystics of spirit, will be given to him beyond the grave. His reward, say the mystics of muscle, will be given on earth-to his great-grandchildren.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2015 3:51:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/13/2015 3:51:14 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 4/13/2015 3:41:45 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/13/2015 3:32:46 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 4/13/2015 3:29:15 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/13/2015 3:27:57 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 4/13/2015 3:25:20 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/13/2015 3:23:10 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 4/13/2015 3:19:16 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/13/2015 3:15:48 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 4/13/2015 3:11:18 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/13/2015 3:06:49 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 4/13/2015 3:03:56 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/13/2015 2:58:51 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 4/13/2015 2:58:00 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/13/2015 2:56:56 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 4/13/2015 2:55:11 PM, dylancatlow wrote:





"Only a brute, a fool or an evader can agree to exist on such terms or agree to give his fellow men a blank check on his life and his mind, to accept the belief that others have the right to dispose of his person at their whim, that the will of the majority is Omnipotent, that the physical force of muscles and numbers is a substitute for justice, reality and truth. We, the men of the mind, we who are traders, not masters or slaves, do not deal in blank checks or grant them. We do not live or work with any form of the non-objective.



Whatever you say, gedanken! (I guess this is what happens when logic and precision go
bye-bye.) But please be a gentleman and stop parroting Rex Kerr's half-baked comment
regarding the CTMU. The CTMU associates precision and stability with SCSPL syntax,
allowing for imprecision on the semantic and interpretative levels of reference. I don't expect
you to know what this means, but I don't expect you to pretend that you do either.

Now weren't you going to bed or something?

Madam, when we'll see men dying of starvation around us, your heart won't be of any earthly use to save them. And I'm heartless enough to say that when you'll scream, "But I didn't know it!" " you will not be forgiven.

...Many people are under the illusion that Dawkins and company possess a logic-based picture of the world. But they certainly do not. If such a discussion were allowed to proceed without content-free polemics, rhetorical diversions, playing to audience bias, staged disruptions, and so on, this could be unequivocally demonstrated. In fact, it would be a shut-out. In very short order, I'd be washing up while Dawkins and his friends pondered that which haunts their dreams: the new prospects for logical theism and world religious unity unleashed by their fondness for atheistic grandstanding.

No, I wouldn't be looking for a debate between Dawkins and me. He's simply not up to it. Besides, it would amount to something very much like "cruelty to academics", and who wants to be guilty of that? ;-)

"The good, say the mystics of spirit, is God, a being whose only definition is that he is beyond man"s power to conceive-a definition that invalidates man"s consciousness and nullifies his concepts of existence. The good, say the mystics of muscle, is Society-a thing which they define as an organism that possesses no physical form, a super-being embodied in no one in particular and everyone in general except yourself. Man"s mind, say the mystics of spirit, must be subordinated to the will of God. Man"s mind, say the mystics of muscle, must be subordinated to the will of Society. Man"s standard of value say the mystics of spirit, is the pleasure 0f God, whose standards are beyond man"s power of comprehension and must be accepted on faith. Man"s standard of value, say the mystics of muscle, is the pleasure of Society, whose standards are beyond man"s right of judgment and must be obeyed as a primary absolute. The purpose of man"s life, say both, is to become an abject zombie who serves a purpose he does not know, for reasons he is not to question. His reward, say the mystics of spirit, will be given to him beyond the grave. His reward, say the mystics of muscle, will be given on earth-to his great-grandchildren.

Until Mark comes to grips with this fact and desists in his asinine attempts to tell the author of the CTMU (me) what the CTMU says, his understanding of it will remain stunted. As everyone is by now aware, the more blighted and pathetic Mark"s (mis-)understanding of something, the stronger and more irresistible his compulsion to "spread the wealth" by adopting a deceptive tone of authority and brazenly misleading others to the effect that it somehow equates to his own confusion regarding it, when in fact, he has merely attempted to tie his personal confusion around its neck like a squawking, flapping, hyper-opinionated albatross. It is obvious to all but the most deluded of his partisans that this is a brand of folly in which he should not be encouraged, and that those who do so anyway are beneath contempt.
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2015 3:58:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/13/2015 3:51:49 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/13/2015 3:51:14 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 4/13/2015 3:41:45 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/13/2015 3:32:46 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 4/13/2015 3:29:15 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/13/2015 3:27:57 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 4/13/2015 3:25:20 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/13/2015 3:23:10 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 4/13/2015 3:19:16 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/13/2015 3:15:48 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 4/13/2015 3:11:18 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/13/2015 3:06:49 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 4/13/2015 3:03:56 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/13/2015 2:58:51 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 4/13/2015 2:58:00 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/13/2015 2:56:56 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 4/13/2015 2:55:11 PM, dylancatlow wrote:





"Only a brute, a fool or an evader can agree to exist on such terms or agree to give his fellow men a blank check on his life and his mind, to accept the belief that others have the right to dispose of his person at their whim, that the will of the majority is Omnipotent, that the physical force of muscles and numbers is a substitute for justice, reality and truth. We, the men of the mind, we who are traders, not masters or slaves, do not deal in blank checks or grant them. We do not live or work with any form of the non-objective.



Whatever you say, gedanken! (I guess this is what happens when logic and precision go
bye-bye.) But please be a gentleman and stop parroting Rex Kerr's half-baked comment
regarding the CTMU. The CTMU associates precision and stability with SCSPL syntax,
allowing for imprecision on the semantic and interpretative levels of reference. I don't expect
you to know what this means, but I don't expect you to pretend that you do either.

Now weren't you going to bed or something?

Madam, when we'll see men dying of starvation around us, your heart won't be of any earthly use to save them. And I'm heartless enough to say that when you'll scream, "But I didn't know it!" " you will not be forgiven.

...Many people are under the illusion that Dawkins and company possess a logic-based picture of the world. But they certainly do not. If such a discussion were allowed to proceed without content-free polemics, rhetorical diversions, playing to audience bias, staged disruptions, and so on, this could be unequivocally demonstrated. In fact, it would be a shut-out. In very short order, I'd be washing up while Dawkins and his friends pondered that which haunts their dreams: the new prospects for logical theism and world religious unity unleashed by their fondness for atheistic grandstanding.

No, I wouldn't be looking for a debate between Dawkins and me. He's simply not up to it. Besides, it would amount to something very much like "cruelty to academics", and who wants to be guilty of that? ;-)

"The good, say the mystics of spirit, is God, a being whose only definition is that he is beyond man"s power to conceive-a definition that invalidates man"s consciousness and nullifies his concepts of existence. The good, say the mystics of muscle, is Society-a thing which they define as an organism that possesses no physical form, a super-being embodied in no one in particular and everyone in general except yourself. Man"s mind, say the mystics of spirit, must be subordinated to the will of God. Man"s mind, say the mystics of muscle, must be subordinated to the will of Society. Man"s standard of value say the mystics of spirit, is the pleasure 0f God, whose standards are beyond man"s power of comprehension and must be accepted on faith. Man"s standard of value, say the mystics of muscle, is the pleasure of Society, whose standards are beyond man"s right of judgment and must be obeyed as a primary absolute. The purpose of man"s life, say both, is to become an abject zombie who serves a purpose he does not know, for reasons he is not to question. His reward, say the mystics of spirit, will be given to him beyond the grave. His reward, say the mystics of muscle, will be given on earth-to his great-grandchildren.

Until Mark comes to grips with this fact and desists in his asinine attempts to tell the author of the CTMU (me) what the CTMU says, his understanding of it will remain stunted. As everyone is by now aware, the more blighted and pathetic Mark"s (mis-)understanding of something, the stronger and more irresistible his compulsion to "spread the wealth" by adopting a deceptive tone of authority and brazenly misleading others to the effect that it somehow equates to his own confusion regarding it, when in fact, he has merely attempted to tie his personal confusion around its neck like a squawking, flapping, hyper-opinionated albatross. It is obvious to all but the most deluded of his partisans that this is a brand of folly in which he should not be encouraged, and that those who do so anyway are beneath contempt.

"Like the man who discovered the use of steam or the man who discovered the use oil, I discovered a source of energy which was available since the birth of the globe, but which men had not known how to use except as an object of worship, of terror and of legends without a thundering god. I completed the experimental model of a motor that would have made a fortune for me and for those who had hired me, a motor that would have raised the efficiency of every human installation using power and would have added the gift of higher productivity to every hour you spend at earning your living.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2015 4:01:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/13/2015 3:58:46 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 4/13/2015 3:51:49 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/13/2015 3:51:14 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 4/13/2015 3:41:45 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/13/2015 3:32:46 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 4/13/2015 3:29:15 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/13/2015 3:27:57 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 4/13/2015 3:25:20 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/13/2015 3:23:10 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 4/13/2015 3:19:16 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/13/2015 3:15:48 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 4/13/2015 3:11:18 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/13/2015 3:06:49 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 4/13/2015 3:03:56 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/13/2015 2:58:51 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 4/13/2015 2:58:00 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/13/2015 2:56:56 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 4/13/2015 2:55:11 PM, dylancatlow wrote:





"Only a brute, a fool or an evader can agree to exist on such terms or agree to give his fellow men a blank check on his life and his mind, to accept the belief that others have the right to dispose of his person at their whim, that the will of the majority is Omnipotent, that the physical force of muscles and numbers is a substitute for justice, reality and truth. We, the men of the mind, we who are traders, not masters or slaves, do not deal in blank checks or grant them. We do not live or work with any form of the non-objective.



Whatever you say, gedanken! (I guess this is what happens when logic and precision go
bye-bye.) But please be a gentleman and stop parroting Rex Kerr's half-baked comment
regarding the CTMU. The CTMU associates precision and stability with SCSPL syntax,
allowing for imprecision on the semantic and interpretative levels of reference. I don't expect
you to know what this means, but I don't expect you to pretend that you do either.

Now weren't you going to bed or something?

Madam, when we'll see men dying of starvation around us, your heart won't be of any earthly use to save them. And I'm heartless enough to say that when you'll scream, "But I didn't know it!" " you will not be forgiven.

...Many people are under the illusion that Dawkins and company possess a logic-based picture of the world. But they certainly do not. If such a discussion were allowed to proceed without content-free polemics, rhetorical diversions, playing to audience bias, staged disruptions, and so on, this could be unequivocally demonstrated. In fact, it would be a shut-out. In very short order, I'd be washing up while Dawkins and his friends pondered that which haunts their dreams: the new prospects for logical theism and world religious unity unleashed by their fondness for atheistic grandstanding.

No, I wouldn't be looking for a debate between Dawkins and me. He's simply not up to it. Besides, it would amount to something very much like "cruelty to academics", and who wants to be guilty of that? ;-)

"The good, say the mystics of spirit, is God, a being whose only definition is that he is beyond man"s power to conceive-a definition that invalidates man"s consciousness and nullifies his concepts of existence. The good, say the mystics of muscle, is Society-a thing which they define as an organism that possesses no physical form, a super-being embodied in no one in particular and everyone in general except yourself. Man"s mind, say the mystics of spirit, must be subordinated to the will of God. Man"s mind, say the mystics of muscle, must be subordinated to the will of Society. Man"s standard of value say the mystics of spirit, is the pleasure 0f God, whose standards are beyond man"s power of comprehension and must be accepted on faith. Man"s standard of value, say the mystics of muscle, is the pleasure of Society, whose standards are beyond man"s right of judgment and must be obeyed as a primary absolute. The purpose of man"s life, say both, is to become an abject zombie who serves a purpose he does not know, for reasons he is not to question. His reward, say the mystics of spirit, will be given to him beyond the grave. His reward, say the mystics of muscle, will be given on earth-to his great-grandchildren.

Until Mark comes to grips with this fact and desists in his asinine attempts to tell the author of the CTMU (me) what the CTMU says, his understanding of it will remain stunted. As everyone is by now aware, the more blighted and pathetic Mark"s (mis-)understanding of something, the stronger and more irresistible his compulsion to "spread the wealth" by adopting a deceptive tone of authority and brazenly misleading others to the effect that it somehow equates to his own confusion regarding it, when in fact, he has merely attempted to tie his personal confusion around its neck like a squawking, flapping, hyper-opinionated albatross. It is obvious to all but the most deluded of his partisans that this is a brand of folly in which he should not be encouraged, and that those who do so anyway are beneath contempt.

"Like the man who discovered the use of steam or the man who discovered the use oil, I discovered a source of energy which was available since the birth of the globe, but which men had not known how to use except as an object of worship, of terror and of legends without a thundering god. I completed the experimental model of a motor that would have made a fortune for me and for those who had hired me, a motor that would have raised the efficiency of every human installation using power and would have added the gift of higher productivity to every hour you spend at earning your living.

The CTMU is as close to "absolute truth" as we will ever be privileged to get along computative or intellectual pathways. If I might be indulged a bit of testimony: beyond the CTMU ultimate syntax, the lattice which gives shape to the multilayered veil of maya, there is but the light that shines forever.
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2015 4:05:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/13/2015 4:01:49 PM, dylancatlow wrote:

The CTMU is as close to "absolute truth" as we will ever be privileged to get along computative or intellectual pathways. If I might be indulged a bit of testimony: beyond the CTMU ultimate syntax, the lattice which gives shape to the multilayered veil of maya, there is but the light that shines forever.

An open letter to DylanCatlow

You're ignoring the fact that wealth is created. Question: have you actually read any Rand? It doesn't seem like you have, else you wouldn't be making these grade-school-level mistakes.

There is no pie, and if you paid attention in school you would have the critical reasoning skills necessary to see that.

You've said it implicitly in EVERY WORD THAT HAS FALLEN OUT OF YOUR ELONGATED SNAIL-MOUTH.

Denying the law of identity and then saying "Oh, but I really do believe in logic!!!" is not what Objectivism is about, you goat-like imbecile.

Wealth directed away from someone isn't the same as wealth subtracted from them. If the people are not willing to pay x amount to him, then whatever Galt type you're imagining doesn't deserve it. All get exactly what they put in, and that's exactly what they're worth.

I love schooling little kiddos like you who think they know Rand's thought. I'll have you know that I've dedicated my life to Rand and I know enough about her to know that, if she were to ever meet you, she would bitchslap you so hard you'd be mistaken for a goddamn owl.

Good day, monkey. I can't continue to damage my intellect by reading any more of your horse-hooved excuse for reasoning.

As everyone is by now aware, Dylancatlow has some kind of mental illness that compels him to lie about everything, both to himself and to others. I have not adopted a "deceptive tone of authority" - I am probably the closest living human to the image of John Galt. I have become a master of the universe, and I am not suceptable to being tricked by physical means, such as those employed by Dylancatlow, like the throwing of cow sh!t at a whiteboard to see what it spells out. I'm much above that kind of delusion. Our friend, Dylancatlow, seems to enjoy the process, and he just can't bear the notion that he's gotten his hands dirty and has proceeded to give himself an infection by masturbating without having been cleansed by the cold waters of reality.
If you want to be like a sh!t-flinging monkey, be my guest - watching you flail around in it is nothing but entertainment to someone of my magnitude.

Carry on, jester. Make a man laugh as hard as you must have made your parents laugh when your undersized skull first exited your mother.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush