Military Technocracy

Umm...the file doesn't work, Vlad...

Post 41

Thursday, December 11, 2003 - 4:20pm

File works, I just downloaded it. You are using outdated version of rar.

OK. Give me time, I will upload non-rared version.

Post 42

Thursday, December 11, 2003 - 5:31pm

Supreme Chairperson unliberated macho scum. How get elected unless appeal to female snipers? I guess your mother wore army boots, nyet? (Old American expression of contempt for adversary's mother)

Supreme chairperson totally reliant on American capitalist, Bill Gates, for Word 9 for web site.
Had to learn English to be able to funtion at all.

Chairperson is collective, ceorcive clown. Time Magazine joke of year. Discloses plan to enslave all populace to pay for pie in sky technological schemes. Believes that creativity can flourish at the point of a gun.

Toodle-oo to you.

Post 43

Thursday, December 11, 2003 - 6:30pm

How does magnificent political party have army with tanks? Does Putin know about you? Can we have some documentation of him endorsing you? Is he you friend or enemy?

Need clarification before bowing before your magnificance.

Put me at the top of your list of those to be eliminated when you enslave the capitalist pigs.

Post 44

Friday, December 12, 2003 - 4:05pm

Vlad

Your production numbers of military stockpiles would demonstrate systemic superiority if they correlated to an overwhelming victory of the Soviet Army, but last I checked the U.S. destroyed your pathetic tyranny without firing one ballistic missile.

Also, it is nice to be able to argue with an "adversary" here instead of always nit-picking details with other objectivists.

Dave

Post 45

Saturday, December 13, 2003 - 2:30pm

It is not only interesting to see the one sided posts by Vladimir, but also the replies by the posters of this site.

Thanks Tommy, I get what you are saying. I was interested if Vladimir had some valid opinions, in spite of his strange way of coming forward. I have started down this path, so I might as well continue. If that makes me a fool, then so be it.

I must disagree with the type of character bashing that many posters on this site engage in, not only in this case but in many other threads, against people who disagree. I musn't generalise, and certainly a great deal of Objectivists, and other atheists, are not like this.

What was it my mother told me? The best way to deal with a bully is to ignore them. The same goes for people with something to prove. Provoking them doesn't do any good. Calling Vlad a fool probably won't do too much good.

We need to take what we can get, and due to the way Vlad has tried to come across (as an intelligent and learned person, if somewhat misguided and aloof) I had thought he might hold some opinions which would be interesting to hear in retrospect.

"Know thine enemy". No matter how detestable such opinions might be to us, that shouldn't exclude us from investigating them. How credible Vladimir is as a source is for you to decide, but I can tell you I have never come across such a person before, and even though much he says is contradictory to common belief, his views might shed some light on attitudes starkly in contrast to our own. The pains Valdimir has gone to to refute the arguments presented to him indicates, to some degree, that perhaps he has method in his madness.

Vladimir, cut the crap. You came to this site because the people here are blindly zealous, and you enjoy watching these worms squirm. While you are here, spread some of your experience, there is always some chance that you can influence people.

If you are playing a joke, shame on you.

You say that this for you is training in the skills of propaganda. Please explain to us the uses of this propaganda skill, and particularly its application in your technate society.

I might assume such a skill is to be used in ensuring the conformance of the individuals in the society, as communism and the islam faith has done previously. Do you have any comment?

I am beginning to doubt you will ever provide some noteworthy, credible opinion. If you don't plan to, then kindly piss off.

Post 46

Saturday, December 13, 2003 - 8:35pm

Vertigo:
"I was interested if Vladimir had some valid opinions"
"We need to take what we can get, and due to the way Vlad has tried to come across (as an intelligent and learned person, if somewhat misguided and aloof) I had thought he might hold some opinions which would be interesting to hear in retrospect."
"perhaps he has method in his madness"

Vlad is either:
(a) a monster who is on the level of Hitler who has declared that he will annihilate all capitalists, and that includes you and me. If he gets into power he will be a mass murderer. He is a megalomaniac. His hero is Stalin. What is there about this that you don't understand?
(b) totally insane with delusions of grandeur.
(c) a very clever joker.
Those are the only possibilities.

And you are telling us that he may be a little "misguided and aloof"? My friend, if you lend any legitimacy to him you are playing into his hands, no matter which category he falls in.

Derision and scorn are proper responses to him. btw do you live in Marin County and how old are you? A bit of sarcasm won't do any harm either.

Post 47

Sunday, December 14, 2003 - 9:56am

Vertigo: There is another possibility:
(d) a sociology professor created "Vlad" as an experiment to see just how tolerant people would be when confronted with the most evil person imaginable.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing". Good people need to speak out with all the vitriol at their disposal. To even consider that this person might have "some valid opinions" is an obscenity ... better ways to gas prisoners in concentration camps, perhaps?

Post 48

Sunday, December 14, 2003 - 2:04pm

No, good people need to understand. Good people musn't shoot off their mouths. As far as the replies go in this thread, it seems that Vladimir's thinking is contrary to anything found before. We call him a fool and make jokes, but do we really understand him? In some twisted way he might believe he is right.

SamErica, I think you have missed my point entirely.

I don't live in Marin County, I have never even heard of it. I live in Port Elizabeth, South Africa, and am 24. I missed whatever you were implying with that retort.

Post 49

Sunday, December 14, 2003 - 3:01pm

Vertigo: Marin County is in California, where John Walker Lindh (Johnny Taliban), grew up and joined El Queda. You appear to have the same sort of liberal tolerance that he had. He was 20 years old at the time.
http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/people/shows/walker/profile.html

"In some twisted way he might believe he is right."
Of course he thinks he's right if he is who he says he is. Hitler thought he was right. If these tyrants didn't think they're right they wouldn't do what they do.

I haven't missed your point. You want to "understand" this thinking that is contrary to anything found before on this discussion group. It's unique because it is so depraved. What's to understand about depravity? It's to be deplored.

Once we "understand" him, then what? Blank.

Post 50

Sunday, December 14, 2003 - 6:46pm

Quote:
"Well, you see, if we win elections of 2008 year, "free world" as you know it will cease to exist in 2025. Mathematically guaranteed by our economists and engineers. America is doomed, my friends (unless you somehow stop us from winning elections, taking in account that average intellect level of us is higher than of any other political forces in Russia and, probably, in world, and taking in account that our Party is closed organisation). "

This was taken from another thread by Vladimir, which I only read today. Needless to say, Vladimir is a fruitcake, and I am know now he is incapable of expounding logical, credible debate.

Generally I expect people who appear intelligent to be so. Vladimir, grow up.

Its a pity he isn't a credible source of information. It is said that it is better to develop a theory by investigating thoeries which disagree with it, than theories which agree. It is rare to find a person who is in favour of socialism, and obviously rarer to find one who is sensible (if that it even possible).

Post 51

Monday, December 15, 2003 - 12:21pm

Vertigo: OK so you hadn't read the other threads before but you're not off the hook. Here are Vlad's quotes from this thread:
"HUMAN DOES NOT HAVE ANY NATURAL RIGHTS!"
"Only expediency of System (civilization) matters."
"He must value survival of his civilization HIGHER than survival of himself, he MUST be able to follow orders of those who are more informed and intelligent."
and he's an avowed Communist.
You've maintained that we must "understand" his position and that we may thus gain some knowledge. Virtually all the members of this board understand collectivism at a very deep level. If you are to make any sense here you'll have to attack collectivism with whatever ammunition you think you have. I have the feeling that you haven't read anything at all of Ayn Rand.

Post 52

Monday, December 15, 2003 - 5:49pm

"I have the feeling that you haven't read anything at all of Ayn Rand."

I haven't. That shouldn't prevent me from participating in this forum though.

Although I could read Ayn Rand I want to start before that, with more contemporary philosophers such as Kant, as there seems to be much criticism of Ayn Rand from the more orthodox philosophers.

You may have realised that I take nothing at all for granted, and if at all possible want to view the information on both sides. On the whole, Objectivists seem a little dogmatic for my liking, I do believe though that this is not true for all Objectivists, or even all who post on this site.

I haven't read much philosophical information at all, as I haven't had much access to it, and only decided recently to become involved. However, I do believe I have something to contribute, and even if you disagree I won't leave.

Quote:
"Vertigo: OK so you hadn't read the other threads before but you're not off the hook. Here are Vlad's quotes from this thread:
"HUMAN DOES NOT HAVE ANY NATURAL RIGHTS!"
"Only expediency of System (civilization) matters."
"He must value survival of his civilization HIGHER than survival of himself, he MUST be able to follow orders of those who are more informed and intelligent."
and he's an avowed Communist."

I know that. I knew that. To me that didn't imply he wasn't capable of rational discussion and debate of his viewpoints. The people that think differently are the most interesting to me.

That is why I didn't denounce him off the bat. When I saw the style of his other threads I realised he is a complete moron. I still have hope for a 'sensible' communism adherent. Who knows if I'll ever find one.

Post 53

Monday, December 15, 2003 - 9:21pm

Vertigo:
"Although I could read Ayn Rand I want to start before that, with more contemporary philosophers such as Kant, as there seems to be much criticism of Ayn Rand from the more orthodox philosophers."

Immanuel Kant died on February 12,1804. How is he more contemporary than Rand? Kant was dead long before Rand was born. If you consider him a more orthodox philosopher how could he criticize Rand?

You have been insistent on "understanding" those advocating a variety of philosophies but you refuse to obtain even a nodding acquaintance with Objectivism while maintaining a sometimes confrontational dialogue with Objectivists. Why do you want to argue with Objectivists before you know anything about them?

btw your posting (and Paul's) on the "Reality is NOT absolute (apparently)" was incomprehensible to Objectivists. Are you and Paul in cahoots?

Post 54

Tuesday, December 16, 2003 - 12:31pm

"btw your posting (and Paul's) on the "Reality is NOT absolute (apparently)" was incomprehensible to Objectivists."

I am truly intrigued. Why was it incomprehensible to Objectivists? Please give me more details, I am interested to know why.

"You have been insistent on "understanding" those advocating a variety of philosophies but you refuse to obtain even a nodding acquaintance with Objectivism while maintaining a sometimes confrontational dialogue with Objectivists. Why do you want to argue with Objectivists before you know anything about them?"

I must confess that Ayn Rand doesn't strike me as being fully in control of her emotions when devising her philosophy. Her criticism of religion seems a little to funded by her personal disagreements with Roman Catholicism.

Unfortunately, it could be seen that my own hesitancy to learn about Objectivism is due my somewhat personal dislike of Ayn Rand.

Therefore I will proceed to learn about Objectivism, as limiting ourselves is wrong.

Why am I so eager to argue? Because I disagree. The only way to learn is to air your disagreements, and follow up with debate on the subject. Disagreeing but keeping quiet about it for some personal reason, like not wanting to look stupid, idoesn't help anybody.

Objectivists seem to me to believe in the rights of the individual, so this view should make perfect sense.

Since I don't know enough about Objectivism, perhaps you could give me some starting text URL. I assume since you recognised I hadn't read up on Objectivism that you have a good understanding of the most valuable material to read.

I was my hope from the start that the people of SOLO were beyond religious zeal, and open to discussion on a variety of philosophical topics. I formed this opinion after reading an article by Joseph Rowlands, and so decided to participate.

By and large, the majority of people have shown the interest to discuss matters openly (you too SamErica after a while), which I am glad about.

Objectivism is not a cult, after all.

Are Paul and I in cahoots? Yes we are. We are both trying to empirically define topics that are potentially misunderstood. If this is a bad thing, too bad. Only in this implicit way are we in cahoots. I feel our goals are similar. Beside that, we have never spoken, and I don't know him from a bar of soap.

Post 55

Tuesday, December 16, 2003 - 2:48pm

Vertigo:
Depending on what level you want to enter Objectivism ...
Anthem
We The Living
The Fountainhead
Atlas Shrugged
Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal
The New Left: The Anti-Industrial Revolution
For the New Intellectual
The Romantic Manifesto
The Virtue of Selfishness
Introduction to Objectivist Epistemolgy

I'd go with "Atlas Shrugged" first.

I'm disengaging myself from further dialogue with you. I have nothing to gain.

Post 56

Wednesday, December 17, 2003 - 9:34am

Sam Erica: don't waste the time. His entire thread over on the "reality is not absolute" pretty much summed it up: standard stuff, along the lines of "we can't know anything, so whatever we believe is true", "everything -- even the stupidest possible thing I can come up with -- qualifies as 'possible' until I have evidence to disprove it, and even then it still sint' disqualified because the evidence against it could all be systematically faked by mad scientists." etc. etc.

Just another noisy troll, undeserving of even the help you gave him so far.

Vertigo: Why doesn't Rand seem "in control of her emotions?" Is it because she -- gasp! -- actually had STANDARDS, by which she evaluated things? What???? You seem to find it really convenient that the more "orthodox" philosophers such as Kant and David Hume can convince you that knowledge is impossible.
It's cute. I feel bad for you, Vertigo, I really do. Apperently for you philosophy is nothing more than an elaborate wordgame, with no consequences to life whatsoever. Apperently the whole thing about "learning about the nature of reality" is totally beyond you (and Hume and Kant). So much for academic philosophy. The "whatever I believe is true, because we can't know anything about anything anyway" school of thought has pretty much swallowed it up.

Go be with some post-modernists, Vertigo: they may be more to your liking.

Post 57

Wednesday, December 17, 2003 - 12:05pm

Quote: "Go be with some post-modernists, Vertigo: they may be more to your liking."

Actually I like it here. You guys are nice to chat to and argue with, etc.

I am interested now. Are you saying I should choose a standard or ideal and then live according to it as much as possible? That doesn't sound too different from any normal religion such as Christianity.

Christianity has a standard of value that must be chosen, and must dominate your life. It seems you are advocating that Objectivism has a standard of value that must be chosen, and must dominate your life.

Posting as I have on this site is enough to get you flamed, it seems. Part of the premise of this site is that there is a battle for people's minds. Doesn't seem you will win too many by chasing people away...

Ignore me if you want, its my loss.

Here's a quote from Immanuel Kant:

"Among men there are but few who behave according to principles -- which is extremely good, as it can so easily happen that one errs in these principles, and then the resulting disadvantage extends all the further, the more universal the principle and the more resolute the person who has set it before himself."

Do you disagree with this statement?

Here's one from Kelley Ross, from www.friesian.com/rand.htm:

"Although David Kelley, Leonard Peikoff, and others now try to develop her (Rand's) thought into a complete philosophical system, nothing can hide the relative shallowness of her knowledge: She despised Immanuel Kant but then actually invokes 'treating persons as ends rather than as means only' to explain the nature of morality. Perhaps she had picked that up without realizing it was from Kant."

Hmm, it seems maybe Kantian ideas aren't so foreign after all.

"'Objectivist' epistemology has not been awakened, as Kant was by Hume, from its 'dogmatic slumber'."

Well I can't comment on that, but Objectivists, at least some on this site, are dogmatic enough...

Please prove me wrong.

Post 58

Wednesday, December 17, 2003 - 12:47pm

Quote: "Apperently for you philosophy is nothing more than an elaborate wordgame, with no consequences to life whatsoever."

What consequences does Objectivism describe? Will we be judged in some pre-heaven judgement day? I thought Objectivism was about the belief that life has no consequences.

Or perhaps you misphrased. Perhaps you meant my philosophy is meaningless because I don't behave differently according to it. If Objectivism demands that, it is no better than all other religions and cults.

Religions and cults prescribe some ideal of reality, which must be followed. I thought Objectivism was different. If I read you correctly, Objectivism is simply the 'right' cult to choose in your mind, because it has more sensible empirical goals, self-preservation and such.

Post 59

Wednesday, December 17, 2003 - 12:58pm