| | Steven,
Spoiling for a fight? Really?
I stated what I wanted to state about Kat. I stated that she belongs here and I asked you specifically if you had any problem with that.
Well do you? You want to answer that? So far you haven't. (Another blank-out.)
Your opinions about her ideas do not concern me so long as you are respectful, which you have been, except for that crack about her not belonging here. She is a big girl and can take care of herself argument-wise. (Just one of the reasons I love her.)
There is a technique of non-arguing and playing to the rafters that has been going on in this thread and I find it extremely boring. Someone makes a comment. In chimes another, who completely sidesteps (ignores to the limit) what was said, attributes an evil meaning right out of a Rand novel/essay to the person (which was not present, but some word or other was twisted to make it mean that), and parrots Rand to "trounce" the person. Backslapping all round. Cheers. One poster, Andy, not only does this, he adds to it a sheer volume of posts.
He misses so many points of what was said and makes such a tangled mess of a person's arguments that there is just no enthusiasm to discuss an idea with him. You tend in that direction also, but without the volume of posts.
I call it arguing by blank-out.
I can do that too. Just ignore what you say, attribute "evil" meanings to your own words out of a Rand work and parrot Rand just like the next. What she says generally cannot be argued with. Whether or not it has any bearing on what you are talking about is another issue that has been of no value in this thread.
Want an example? In post 124, you state, "It's not a mistake until you admit it as being one."
My "understanding" now of what you said, making you into a Randian villain. Come on. What do you mean? A mistake can only happen in the mind? Not in actions? Are you stating that a mistake cannot be objective, but must be subjective instead? Based only on your admitting it? What a load of crap.
Now the argument. Ayn Rand states to check your premises. Well let's look at the premise. A mistake is a thought or action that is performed, the intent of which is contradicted by reality. Now you state clearly that it depends on your evaluation - it depends on you admitting it. What this misses is that your admission also could be a mistake. Pure subjectivism. A is A - always. Whether you think it is or not is irrelevant. Your statement in itself actually is a mistake and proves that you disagree with Ayn Rand.
In chimes Poster A: Well said, Michael!
Poster B: That really nailed it down. Steven, it is time you admitted the mistakes in your own thinking.
Poster C: In the war of ideas being waged in the present culture, precision of premises is so important. If you do not make your meaning clear, you play into the hands of the enemy. You either make a mistake or think you did. There is no middle ground. I'm not sure Steven really meant to be subjectivist to the extent you claimed, but this needs to be exposed. Kudos, Michael.
LOLOLOLOL... (I'm trying to do this with a straight face, but it's funny.) Look at the over 200 posts and you will see this time and time again.
You want a fight, though, so let's fight. Let me repeat that defending the honesty of con artists the way you did is completely contemptible. You are totally wrong and belligerently dumb in doing that.
Any comments?
Now on to the issue. Are you really interested in this issue, or do you want to find a Randian villain so you can trounce him/her? Is nobody in the real world listening to you, so you have to try to dig one up here on Solo? And if you can't find one, force the villain image on a person who has nothing to do with that?
Let's talk about one other issue concerning Kat. Since nobody defined price gouging starting many many many many many posts ago, she cited laws which do define it. That was her sole purpose of bringing the laws up, although she was not clear in stating this. She just wanted to arrive at a definition so that the problem could be talked about and even she could understand it. Instead of looking at those definitions and trouncing them, you and others wrongly assumed, in a harebrained manner, that she was endorsing those laws and went after her.
All I saw was bloodthirsty Don Quixote attacks at a windmill and nobody - not you - not anybody else - discussed the issue of defining the term until Jody complained about it. It still remains unanswered and the term still remains undefined. But your toy dragons have been attacked on your valiant steed of Ayn Rand bearing down with the fearsome lance of Objectivist economy. Others have chimed in. Congratulations. LOLOLOL... That gives me a general idea of why nobody out in the real world is listening very much.
And it also makes me want to make a crack about blank-outs and social metaphysics running rampant all of a sudden.
You wrote a full article on price gouging and wrote several posts. You call price gouging an anti-concept (which it mostly is, by the way - we agree, but that is beside the point right now). In over 200 posts, price gouging remains undefined. Talk about an anti-concept! Non-arguments over non-issues that are not defined - all passionately quoting Ayn Rand.
One small correction. Jason has suggested that certain definitions among the present posters are not even necessary. So he is one who actually did talk about defining terms and why they do not need to be defined.
LOLOLOL... What a waste of time.
This whole thread is a good start for a new work.
For the New Non-Intellectual.
Or How to Use Objectivism for the Art of Arguing by Non-Essentials.
Michael
(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 9/07, 1:11pm)
|
|
