| | Oh, God, here I go again feeding the troll. You see, I can't resist either! Claude wrote, Bill is the best known True Believer of Objectivism in Galt’s Gulch. That’s quite an honor! Alas, it doesn’t amount to much in the real world . . . that place where Objectivists fear to tread. Where Objectivists fear to tread? What is that supposed to mean? Claude, you've run this "true believer" stuff into the ground. Everyone who likes Rand, takes Objectivist seriously and posts to this website is a true believer? But people who believe in God and religion, like you and Dinesh D'Souza are NOT?? If there are Objectivist true believers here, then you're their mirror opposite.
I wrote, "Moreover, when you base morality on an irrational foundation, severed from man's earthly needs and values, you can get a grotesquely irrational morality, one that is in radical opposition to those values. Radical Islam, the religious version of Naziism, is a case in point."
Shannon sighed, (Sigh!) If good looks translated into good arguments, you would have won this debate long ago. And if pointless ridicule translated into good arguments, so would you. Btw, I didn't think my picture was that impressive, but you evidently liked it. Unfortunately, you don’t know your facts and you don’t know history, and the argument of this thread turns on facts of history, not on your psychologizing about the damaging effects you believe that religion ought to have on people. For Pete's sakes Claude, can you read?? I said that "when you base morality on an irrational foundation, you CAN get a grotesquely irrational morality. The Muslim religion is a case in point. Are you actually denying this?? I wasn't saying that EVERY religion is grotesquely irrational. I thought I made that clear when I said that Christianity isn't as bad. And speaking of "psychologizing," look who's talking! You've been accusing virtually everyone on this forum of being a true believer and of lacking an open mind. So, as the proverbial pot, I wouldn't be too quick to call the kettle black.
I wrote (to Robert Kolker), "Remember, Claude's original statement wasn't confined to physical theories. He was referring to all theories, whether scientific or philosophical. And since his statement is philosophical, it is self-referentially inconsistent. So your reply, even if true, is not a defense of his statement." LOL! That no theory is immune to improvement, change, dissolution, or eventual destruction is not a theory about theory. It's a simple declarative statement about theories.
"Cigarette smoking is bad for your health" is a declarative statement about a certain kind of behavior. It's not a theory about medicine, health, anatomy, or the commerce of the tobacco industry. The statement "Cigarette smoking is bad for your health" is, by now, a universally accepted proposition. But one could also say that it's a true theory about the effects of smoking on human health. When you say that "no theory is immune to improvement," that's an epistemological theory. You're even kookier than the Gauleiter of Galt's Gulch, WD, hallucinating about philosophical mountains inside of other people's simple declarative statements in the indicative mood. Philosophical theories don't have to be complete systems. "You ought to pursue your own happiness as the ultimate goal of your action" is a simple declarative statement expressing an ethical theory. As a person locked inside of a sensory deprivation tank will hallucinate from lack of sensory input from the outside world, your hallucinations are caused by self-inflicted intellectual deprivation from your self-imposed exile in Galt's Gulch. God, you are so nutty, it's hard to believe that you actually take yourself seriously! You see, I can do the same thing, but what does it accomplish? Do you understand the value of civil discourse? Or is this just a forum for you to vent your hysterical prejudices against Objectivism by repeatedly calling everyone here a "true believer," and trolling out reams of ridicule? Oh, DO anthologize your wonderful writings into a big book, WD! There's nothing better than watching everyone nod his head in agreement with things they've already heard and with which they already agree and haven't been challenged on in years (if at all). Pardon the religious metaphor, but it's known as "preaching to the choir." And you consider your posts challenging?? They might be, if you took the time to engage people in an honest debate. But much of what you write is just silly, inflammatory ad hominems.
- Bill
(Edited by William Dwyer on 4/03, 1:05am)
|
|
