About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2


Post 40

Friday, February 1, 2008 - 9:13amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
(Off topic)

Luke Setzer said:
I posted something about this to the RoR UK forum but it generated no response. 
I did read around the site ... thanks for posting. It's the first I've heard of it and, particularly given the amateur nature of the site, assumed it was still a small-time thing. I don't do politics ... yet. Everything's so upside down over here it makes me dizzy to even look ...

(though I do manage to focus on a few issues when I know what I'm talking about ... I'm between government 'consultations' <ha!> re. home ed at the moment ... )

Just didn't like to leave you hanging ...

Jo (UK)





Post 41

Friday, February 1, 2008 - 12:29pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Fascinating news story, Luke.  Alarming and astonishing.  

 

So “British Universal Inheritance is a big meritocratic idea…  Isn’t that what George Orwell described as “doublespeak”?  Meritocracy, of course is the exact opposite of this: a system in which advancement is based on individual ability.




Post 42

Friday, February 1, 2008 - 12:41pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

 

Additional follow-up to my posts  #23 and #36:

 

As I said:

 

No one denies that the concept of greed can carry some unfortunate connotations, but these [Kelley and Scott’s] statements struck me as dangerously close to an apology for unbridled ambition.

 

Unbridled ambition simply means that the individual is determined to make a lot of money.  Why does that goal need to be justified by somebody’s standard of “achievement”?  I think that suggests somebody is not comfortable with rational selfishness and material success—they feel the need to apologize for such wealth by citing accomplishment or "recognition" of the benefits they have provided to others. 

 

What about the glamour model who makes $10,000 an hour?  What is her 'achievement,' aside from being blessed with good genes?  What about exceptionally beautiful actresses who are paid fortunes to do nude scenes?  What about all the talented actors who make enormous sums working in mediocre horror films or doing slapstick comedies because they aren’t offered good scripts in today’s cultural cesspool?  What about voice-over actors who are paid handsomely for doing silly commercials?  Or the producers and directors who do slasher films or toothpaste commercials because they can’t get financing for better projects?

 

There are also a lot of well-paying jobs which involve enormous effort and/or skill but are also pretty tedious. Do plumbers, bricklayers and truck drivers have to see their boring jobs as “achievement” in order to feel that acquiring a lot of money is okay?  What about beautiful women and handsome men who work as professional escorts (not prostitutes)?  What about essentially frivolous but high-paying work: e.g., gossip columnists, paparazzi, professional wrestlers, etc.?

 

The examples of perfectly legitimate work that can be very profitable but may involve virtually nothing that can be seriously characterized as “achievement” are limitless.  I am obviously not contending that such work is entirely devoid of creativity; investing mental effort can always add creative value to almost any enterprise.  In fact, in many cases, creativity may be a major factor in its profitability.  But few would describe the end result in these examples as constituting “achievement.”

 

It would be a mistake to confuse the virtue of productivity with career “achievement”—productiveness entails that the person use his/her mind creatively, but that creative mental activity may not be profitable and, therefore, may have nothing to do with their work.  In today’s mixed economy, it is often not possible to find truly creative, well-paying work that yields genuine personal satisfaction or a sense of achievement.

 




Sanction: 25, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 25, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 25, No Sanction: 0
Post 43

Friday, February 1, 2008 - 9:07pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
INVOICE TO DENNIS:

This constitutes a bill to Dennis Hardin for the value of lost time reading his posts and the neurons killed responding to them - and for the damage done to other people:

*$15 for ignoring or misstating or creatively misconstruing points made by myself, Merlin Jetton, and Robert Bidinotto and David Kelley X 10 for the number of times he did this = $150

*$10 for 'dictionary abuse' with regard to the meaning of the concept 'greed'

$27.50 for using the phrase "dangerously close to an apology for" X when he can't find actual evidence of advocating X yet still wants to levy a criticism

*$57 for adamantly repeating the above errors, even after they were pointed out by several posters

*$12 for posting abuse - too long-winded or too many posts in too few days on what are not really new points & which could be made with greater brevity

*$15 for 'reading into' [as Merlin Jetton pointed out] an opponent's words something other than what the person said

*$50 for repeatedly "cherry picking" [as Robert Bidinotto pointed out] ideas from a long article and dropping the context of them

*$5 apiece from anyone who does not have a sense of humor with regard to this post

*$25 from whoever the idiot might be who posts a "Invoice to Phil" as a clever response to this -- thus stealing my idea in response and not being creative enough to come up with their own form of humor or satire.

*$5,000 in "movement damages" for disillusioning anyone who stumbles on this thread with regard to the quality of thinking and discourse in the Objectivist community.

*$100 - just for generally annoying me and depressing me.

And being a pest.

*Final Penalty: Dennis is required to do the math and compute the above charges himself - I'm too drunk to do it - before cutting a check and send it to TAS.

My favorite charity. Next to the RLTDF (Remedial Logic Text for Dennis) Fund.

--Drunken, Depressed, Frustrated . . . and Not Yet Suicidal . . . Phil


(Edited by Philip Coates on 2/01, 9:25pm)




Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 44

Saturday, February 2, 2008 - 12:08amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ahh c'mon, Phil -- don't let Dennis get you down. Instead, look on the bright side of things. I mean, heck, just have a gander at all those things that you have in common with Dennis; and how rare and beautiful that is or can be! For starters ...

===========
--you're both adult males in the 21st Century (and that's got to count for something)

--you both admire Ayn Rand immensely (seriously now, that counts for a lot compared to, say, what political adversaries may have in common with each other)

--you both find value at RoR

--you both have been ordering at least the last half of your lives according to explicitly-conceptualized principles (and that's saying a lot)

--you both think that reality is fundamentally knowable to man (and, therefore, non-malevolent)

--you both think that man is a potential hero, and deserving of praise whenever he is

--you both think that honesty is practical and selfish
==========

Phil, I could go on and on and on, about all these things you have in common with Dennis. Things you'd have to search through hundreds if not thousands of other people to find. Why, I'll bet that there are over 100 shared values between you and Dennis -- and finding that kind of common ground with another is rare. Yeah, sure, Dennis has got you down. He wears his mind on his sleeve. Go figure. I could say the same thing about you, too, you know. Hey ... that's another thing in common!

As I think I've made my point (and you might otherwise fall asleep in a drunken stupor if I were to go on), I will stop there in the appeal to brevity -- hoping to have achieved plainness and clarity with these few words. And Dennis, if you come back on here and attack me for making an appeal to arbitrary unity, well then, I swear ... I ... I ... I won't publically-acknowledge your intellectual contributions here again for a brief but undisclosed time (as I find it too draining to hold a grudge for very long).

Hmf (so there)!


Ed




Post 45

Saturday, February 2, 2008 - 5:51amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Included in Phil Coates' invoice to Dennis:
$15 for 'reading into' [as Merlin Jetton pointed out] an opponent's words something other than what the person said
No, Phil, it was not an opponent's words; it was Ayn Rand's words. Please send $25 to TAS on my behalf for such a careless error.





Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 46

Saturday, February 2, 2008 - 10:39amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Ed,

 

It’s good to take a positive angle, but I want to state a few things I do not share with others:

 

--I don’t use lame humor to mask ad hominem arguments or camouflage my inability to respond to an opponent’s points.

 

--I don’t ask other people to repeat points when the prior post was clear but not what I wanted to hear (nor do I waste time responding to such posts).

 

--I don’t create posts (or for that matter do anything else) while in a drunken stupor.

 

Time to hit the bottle again, Phil.  And thanks for letting everyone know how critical that is to your posting habits.  That explains a lot.




Post 47

Saturday, February 2, 2008 - 11:09amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Dennis wrote:

--I don’t create posts (or for that matter do anything else) while in a drunken stupor.

 

Time to hit the bottle again, Phil.  And thanks for letting everyone know how critical that is to your posting habits.  That explains a lot.

I sanctioned his post just for this comment.

 

I really thought the "Drooling Beast" thread on this site some years ago would have discouraged such actions, but evidently not.

 

As I said back then, no one should post anything to the Web unless stone cold sober.




Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 48

Saturday, February 2, 2008 - 1:35pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
> lame humor...drunken stupor
> no one should post anything to the Web unless stone cold sober.

Ha, ha!

Actually, that was part of the joke - these posts driving me to drink. I made a similar joke once on SoloP and Linz took it seriously, telling me my posting was better when I was drinking.

More seriously, though, satire-insensitive dudes -- literal-minded, puritanical Luke and umbrageous, "stuporifactitious" Dennis :-) -- my total alcohol consumption averages out to about three glasses of wine per month.

And I don't think I've been drunk more than once in the last ten years.

Phil

PS, If I have to explain the principles behind different varieties of humor to you two dudes, I'll have to tack a surcharge on my invoice:

$25 apiece x 2 =$50.





Post 49

Saturday, February 2, 2008 - 3:32pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I anxiously await Phil's phutile attempts to collect!

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 2/02, 3:33pm)




Post 50

Saturday, February 2, 2008 - 6:30pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thanks for the sanction, Luke.  Isn’t it exciting when a flash of insight suddenly makes sense of all the madness?   I’m sticking to my theory



Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2
User ID Password reminder or create a free account.