[an error occurred while processing this directive]
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 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7


Sanction: 23, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 23, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 23, No Sanction: 0
Post 140

Friday, April 16 - 4:51pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mike, perhaps you and Ted can create your own forum as you suggested some of us "geniuses" do in another thread.

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 4/16, 4:54pm)




Sanction: 18, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 18, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 18, No Sanction: 0
Post 141

Saturday, April 17 - 9:16amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mike: "Steve Wolfers' statements are grossly unfair, inaccurate, self serving and are not worth addressing."

Then why are you addressing those statements if you feel that they are not worth addressing? Just ignore them if you feel that they are so obviously wrongheaded that everyone else will see them the way you do.

Enough with the pissing matches.



Post 142

Saturday, April 17 - 5:44pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jim,
Steve Wolfers remarks are unjust and false. The archives prove this assertion for anyone interested . Are you of the opinion that a person should not speak up in the face of falsehoods? I expected almost exactly your remark from Bill Dwyer, he proved to be not quite as predictable as Mr. Setzer. I'm sure he is delighted to have such an apt student as yourself.

I've reviewed my post #133 and find no fault with it. Ted can sometimes be irascible if provoked. By all accounts Ayn Rand was the same, as was Isaac Newton. No doubt, if either of these personages were to visit RoR they would be banned as well. Enjoy your forum, a "nice" place.

Thanks to Robert Bidinotto mostly, for his insights that helped me to solve the rights problem to my satisfaction. There are no intrinsic values in nature. The defining characteristic of man is reason, which, as Ayn Rand pointed out, is volitional. Rights are an invention of man to solve the problem of predation. Rights follow necessarily from man's nature as a reasoning animal but are not inherent. The concept of "inherent" rights is a grave error. It is "something for nothing", implying an unearned value and is the basis of "positive rights" and pacifism and passivity in the face of injustice. It is the cause of the entitlement mentality that is destroying our culture. It is the cause of the contempt for the defenders of our Constitution and the Rule of Law. Rights would literally not exist without the defenders of rights and they should be greatly respected. I say this for the benefit of the people who have sanctioned me many times on this forum so they might better know my premises on this subject. Hopefully for their thoughtful consideration and not chagrin. To those who assert I "know nothing about rights" ask yourself if I really care what you think.

I have things to do. Luke, you win.



Post 143

Saturday, April 17 - 5:56pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit




Sanction: 17, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 17, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 17, No Sanction: 0
Post 144

Sunday, April 18 - 1:53pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mike,
To those who assert I "know nothing about rights" ask yourself if I really care what you think.
That was Rick Pasotto (not Bill Dwyer) who said you didn't know what you were talking about when it came to talking about individual rights. It was February11 of 2006 when Rick said this to you:
Mike,

(Oops! I inadvertently click on the check mark instead of 'Reply'.)

I know very well what a contract is and does and its purpose. You, however, were talking about some "social contract". What is that?

You wrote, "I don't care about justifying anything to "rights" violators." Exactly correct. The justification is to others who might very well regard you as an aggressor.

Then you wrote, "How can you talk about "rights" as a inherent property of human beings..." Well, I have never written any such thing. Rights exist only in a social context, that is, when there is more than one person involved. Rights are not a property of the individual alone but of the individual in society.

If you think that a society of 100% non-aggressors would have no need of the concept of rights you are very much mistaken. Perhaps you are considering only intentional aggression?

Unfortunately, your understanding of the concept of rights is quite lacking.
He said your understanding was quite lacking -- not that you didn't know anything about the subject.

Ed

See:
http://rebirthofreason.com/Forum/Dissent/0051.shtml




Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 145

Monday, April 26 - 5:00amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I'm not swayed much by the numbers argument, other than as evidence of a much, much easier 'sell.'

The political formula is transparent: the promise of near infinite return, in exchange for believing/signing up. And the qualifications for signing up are, admitting you are an imperfect sinner. The price of admission is not even 'be good.' The price of admission is the admission that we are imperfect sinners incapable of always 'being good', but know we 'should' be. Redemption is always an "I fucked up and I admit it" breath away.

Talk about running downhill; no wonder the numbers are what they are. This is evidence only of 'gravity' -- that, the universe has coldy arranged for it to be easy to run downhill, and hard to run uphill.

It is a battle of infinities, pure political genius. Raise your hand if you think there is great effort in admitting 'I am an imperfect sinner.' The promise of near infinite return for nearly infinitesimal cost. Win-win all around. How this evolved is easy to understand: not enough incentive? Raise the incentive. The payoff is in the next life, the offerors can raise the incentive all they want. Before there were 72 Virgins, there were 72 raisins; not nearly as effective.

Raise your hand again if you think that the trade off of that realization for the promise of near infinite return is a good trade.

The promise of near infinite return, in exchange for the trivial admission of nearly constant failure.

There may actually be folks who honestly believe all that, and in fact, maybe even most folks honestly believe all that. It's not as if the entire package is filled with bad advice, in many instances -- maybe even most instances, the package comes with good advice. But you can't be surprised at the efficacy of the message -- near infinite retrun in exchange for the admission of failure, especially when that admission of failure is spray-painted as a success -- welcome to the club -- by the sellers.

The numbers are evidence of both a brilliant sell, and a brilliant marketing strategy. Consider: what is the 'cost' of offering near infinite return? It is zero, to the offerors, and they can honestly say "2000 years, and not a single complaint received from any unsatisfied buyers of everlasting life." They are selling afterlife insurance. They cheerfully accept the premiums in this life, and expect you to collect in the next.

OTOH, to the buyers, what is the 'cost' of buying what might be a worthless policy? There is the comfort one feels, as I did, when I thought a plane I was riding in was going to crash. It just so happened I had bought the extra flight insurance, and on the way down I was thinking, "Gee, I'm glad I bought that extra flight insurance. At least my wife will get an extra million dollars out of this." Or, maybe, if I had bought a different policy, the 'comfort' I would have received in what might have been my last moments in this life might have been different. Maybe that is what people 'buy' when they buy the package.

That is a personal choice, more power to those who make it. It is not up to me to dictate to others what does or does not give them pleasure or comfort. For me, in that instance of facing my mortality, the emotion I felt was just gratitude for the life I enjoyed. If this is all there is, it is plenty. If I am grateful just to the Universe, that is plenty, too. I am not about to be an ingrate, and demand a 'better' world after this one. But that just is and always will be 'me.'

As for the pitiful Objectivist numbers, they aren't selling any Escher inspired shortcuts to the top of any hills. Folks are of a mind to look for something that is going to let them let their belts out a little.













Post 146

Tuesday, April 27 - 11:54amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I think the 'reasoning' behind your logic is sound if your limitations are defined by the terms which you rely upon to argue against. If you had no understanding of the 'sin' polemic then you would not be limited by it. Your argument relies on the fact that you are bounded by 'sin's essential tennants and you are thus asserting your 'sin'. And thus your power of reasoning is limited. You should look closer at your own 'faith'.



Post 147

Tuesday, April 27 - 4:26pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
No - the reason is crystalized thus by the nature of the concepts involved utilized by those words - if you are referring to a different concept [which is implied by not liking the concept of the word in use], then use a different word...



Post 148

Thursday, April 29 - 7:27pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
In order to 'really' understand the 'sin polemic' in the context of admission to the next life, I will need access to some fellow human being who claims to Speak For God.

Can you point me to that fellow naked sweaty ape, so that I can ... I don't know, 'wonder' at his huge megolmania?

Who speaks for God?

History is full of answers to that question; basically, anyone with a long weekend to kill.

Even more bewildering is when some/many of these same folks lurch into the area of pronouncing the truly jarring topic of "Rules For God."

God is...God isn't... God Wants...God knows... God Loves....God Hates...and so on.

Amazing, every time I've ever run into it, uttered by some fellow leg lifting naked sweaty ape.

Whenever any of this patent political leg lifting gets too tough, it is best to revert to the 'mystery' schtick, speak in tongues, and so on.

Political World without end...

regards,
Fred






Post 149

Sunday, May 9 - 9:08pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I find it interesting how many of the posts address the mythology of Christ as if it is somehow a fact of history, and take the dogma-myths as represented in our modern day for which to address concepts. This is very limited in scope. It seems objectivism brings one to consider givens as facts. Jesus is portrayed as an ideal, sin an a standard, and through these we extend our liberal ideas and place ourselves as examples of the tenants, essentially arueing against such notions while being invested in them for our identity. Seems a bit fruitless. Quite magnanimous.



Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7
[an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive]