RoR: Forum

John Wagner: You are one angry teenager.

The believing mind is externally impervious to evidence. The most that can be accomplished with it is to induce it to substitute one delusion for another.

Nature abhors a moron.

Post 121

Wednesday, July 4, 2007 - 7:21pm

MFD posted: "John Wagner: You are one angry teenager.

"The believing mind is externally impervious to evidence. The most that can be accomplished with it is to induce it to substitute one delusion for another."

"Nature abhors a moron."

Does this mean that Michael is a Victor in training?

Guy

Post 122

Wednesday, July 4, 2007 - 7:44pm

Guy Francon (Oops! I meant Stanton) wrote:

If we [Stanton and Wagner] were truly mindless you would be stupid to respond�and since you did, that means you hold us in higher regard then you are admitting to.

And if we were as Platonist and non-Objectivist as you imply, wouldn't you also be stupid to respond? And since you have, does that mean that you hold us in higher regard than you are admitting to?

I asked: "So, why are you on this forum, Guy?"

You replied,

That is simple to answer. I have lots of affection for and interest in ideas that affect the world. I also love Rand�s work, and the heroism of her characters. Which, in theory, should make my time here pleasurable and rewarding. But, the reality is that a great many online "Objectivists" are really Platonist standups in Objectivist drag.

Okay, in what respect? If you are intending to offer constructive criticism and not simply condescending one liners, then you need to be specific. Otherwise, you cannot expect us to take you seriously.

Regardless, I like to touch base once in awhile looking for special people.

And do you think you'll attract them, given the attitude that you're projecting? If your initial posts are nothing but undefined insults, why would you think that they'd be interesting in touching base with you?

- Bill

Post 123

Wednesday, July 4, 2007 - 8:17pm

John: "I'm waiting to hear your arguments why that is...1) stupid...and...2) if not stupid why that would mean I hold you in high regard?"

If you value your time (like in the time and effort it takes to write a response), then arguing with a mindless person is a waste of time. Therefore, if you post a thorough reply then you value the person you engage in. If you post a reply to a mindless troll then you do not value your time. In other words you cannot have your cake and eat it too. Either you are stupid because you are wasting your time arguing with someone you have decided is mindless, or you are engaging with someone because you find them to be of some value.

"Which Objectivists? And how specifically did they act as "Platonist standups"?"

Sure, I will give you one example. Dean. I believe he is a science student? He was justifying infant murder, on this site, because infants are not active producers of society. Hopefully, he is a Platonist in Objectivist Drag, a PLOD�meaning, someone who never intends to implement their theories in real life. And then one wonders what a science student is doing propagating moral theory. I think as a scientist, eugenics would be much more in his line of work. Again, hopefully, as a PLOD. So, you see, being an PLOD can be good for an Objectivist who is not too good at implementing ideas that benevolently work in reality.

Guy

Post 124

Wednesday, July 4, 2007 - 9:18pm

Bill: "And if we were as Platonist and non-Objectivist as you imply, wouldn't you also be stupid to respond?"

There is a great distance between a mindless troll and a PLOD. Some of the most interesting people are PLODs, but a mindless troll taken literally, is of no value at all.

"And since you have, does that mean that you hold us in higher regard than you are admitting to?"

Of course. At least, while I continue to post...and perhaps, even if I do not post anymore.

"If you are intending to offer constructive criticism and not simply condescending one liners, then you need to be specific. Otherwise, you cannot expect us to take you seriously."

Who said anything about offering constructive criticism or to be taken seriously? Haven�t you had enough of Phil C.? I am not sure that you see the full value of condescending one liners: they economically convey displeasure, like a no vote�and they could imply that the poster has a concise, dynamic mind, and may have more important things to do then post constructive treatises.

"And do you think you'll attract them, given the attitude that you're projecting? If your initial posts are nothing but undefined insults, why would you think that they'd be interesting in touching base with you?"

Good friends can come from anywhere. But no one makes a good friend, being a POC, politically and objectivistly correct. But, aside from that, I don�t buy your interpretation of my posts as "nothing but undefined insults." For example, if I make fun of you for offering me unsolicited advice as a guise for constructive criticism, would you consider that a mindless insult?

Guy

Happy 4th of July.

Post 125

Wednesday, July 4, 2007 - 8:50pm

7.5 million murdered by the Communist Vietnamese government and its proxies after the United States abandoned Indochina is pretty clear cut to me.

Do you have a source for this information? I've never read of any political executions by the Vietnemese government after the South Vietnam takeover.

Hong, the West knew damn well by 1975 the cruelty the communists were capable of.

Any government or individual is capable of murder, it's a choice they make.

Post 126

Wednesday, July 4, 2007 - 10:15pm

Here is the Wikipedia summary, it implies 1.32 Million deaths after the U.S. withdrawal. The article is noted as unsourced and uncited. Thanks for asking about something actually relevant to the thread.

Post 127

Thursday, July 5, 2007 - 1:02am

Guy Stanton wrote, "If we [Stanton and Wagner] were truly mindless you would be stupid to respond�and since you did, that means you hold us in higher regard then you are admitting to."

I replied, "And if we were as Platonist and non-Objectivist as you imply, wouldn't you also be stupid to respond?" He replied, "There is a great distance between a mindless troll and a PLOD. Some of the most interesting people are PLODs . . ."

Earlier I asked, "So, why are you on this forum, Guy?"

He replied, "That is simple to answer. I have lots of affection for and interest in ideas that affect the world. I also love Rand�s work, and the heroism of her characters. Which, in theory, should make my time here pleasurable and rewarding. But, the reality is that a great many online 'Objectivists' are really Platonist standups in Objectivist drag." Which do not make your time here pleasurable and rewarding, correct? Yet you now say that "some of the most interesting people are PLODs." So, which is it?

I continued: And since you have [responded], does that mean that you hold us in higher regard than you are admitting to?"

Of course. At least, while I continue to post...and perhaps, even if I do not post anymore.

What?? Then why are you criticizing us for being disingenuous, when you admit to being so yourself?

I wrote, "If you are intending to offer constructive criticism and not simply condescending one liners, then you need to be specific. Otherwise, you cannot expect us to take you seriously."

Who said anything about offering constructive criticism or to be taken seriously?

Oh, so you're not writing to be taken seriously, but just to provoke and harass other list members? Thanks for letting us know.

Have a nice day, Guy!

- Bill

Post 128

Thursday, July 5, 2007 - 1:22am

What's brown, and sounds like a bell?

"Stanton" and "Wagner" have yet to offer more than dung. Continuing to poke this pile does little more than worsen the smell and attract flies.

Ted

Post 129

Thursday, July 5, 2007 - 1:36am

7.5 million murdered by the Communist Vietnamese government and its proxies after the United States abandoned Indochina is pretty clear cut to me.

Do you have a source for this information? I've never read of any political executions by the Vietnemese government after the South Vietnam takeover.

Robert my sources come from R.J. Rummels website who is a professor emiritus of political science at Hawaii university. He has done extensive historical research in the subject of democide committed by governments. All his research is very thoroughly documented and you can find some more information here:

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/welcome.html

Please note I am including figures for deaths as a result of not just the Vietnamese communists but as I said in the comment you quoted me also their proxies. Which include Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge which was supplied and put into power by the Vietnamese communists. I also misstated the figure and should be 7 million, and not 7.5.

It is estimated between 1975 - 1987 2.5 million people were killed by the Vietnamese communists in Vietnam. They killed another 1.5 million in Laos and Cambodia which brings the number up to 4 million. And 3 million were murdered by Pol Pot's regime in Cambodia bringing it up to 7 million.

Post 130

Thursday, July 5, 2007 - 1:54am

(Edited by John Armaos
on 7/05, 9:35pm)

Post 131

Thursday, July 5, 2007 - 4:54pm