Sockpuppet Garbage


Serapis Bey

Recommended Posts

Regarding Mr. Weird Rand, I agree with those who say his gratuitious insults are beneath him. And I say this as someone with sympathies towards trolls. If you're going to light up a place, you don't do it with schoolyard taunts. "Michael 'Stewed' Kelly"? Come on Weird Rand, I know you can do better than that.

On the other hand:

Honestly, Stewed, it's difficult to do the former without simultaneously doing the latter on a site like this. Apparently, you prefer contributors who dumb themselves down in order for you and other regulars to protect your egos, and keep your fragile self-esteem intact[...] I'm selfish enough to believe that other people's self-esteem is best kept intact by them, not by me.

I'm Serapis Bey and I approve this message.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 77
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

..

If this is your understanding of the natural leader, then I simply don't see how one can avoid separating 'natural leaders' from bullies.

And, like you, I hate bullies.

(PS: I can't believe it, I actually agree with We Erred Rand here... well, with WER's basic point, not with WER's uncivil rhetoric)

We share 98 percent of our genetic structure with Chimpanzee who are not cute and comical like Tarzan's Cheetah, but are in fact killer apes. Chimps are nasty brutes and we have an embarassing resemblence to them.

1) There's no known causal link between the genome and the body-plan, or shape, of an organism.

2) There's no known causal link between the genome and behavior — at least, not human behavior. Correlations perhaps. But correlation is not causation.

3) The 99% genomic similarity between chimps and humans was at first downgraded to 95% similarity, and now there are calls to throw out the chimp genome mapping altogether as simply being a scientific embarrassment. First of all, the chimp map was purposely turned upside down (with the long arm of the map on top and the short arm on bottom, which is the opposite way in which these maps are normally oriented), and many of the blank, unmapped regions were simply deleted altogether. This was done for the express ideological (not scientific) purpose of making the chimp gene map line up with the human gene map. And that was done for the propagandistic purpose of declaring, "Look! Darwinian evolution must be true! Observe how close the human genome is to the chimp genome! That proves common descent!"

Sure. If you fudge the data.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding Mr. Weird Rand, I agree with those who say his gratuitious insults are beneath him. And I say this as someone with sympathies towards trolls. If you're going to light up a place, you don't do it with schoolyard taunts. "Michael 'Stewed' Kelly"? Come on Weird Rand, I know you can do better than that.

On the other hand:

Honestly, Stewed, it's difficult to do the former without simultaneously doing the latter on a site like this. Apparently, you prefer contributors who dumb themselves down in order for you and other regulars to protect your egos, and keep your fragile self-esteem intact[...] I'm selfish enough to believe that other people's self-esteem is best kept intact by them, not by me.

I'm Serapis Bey and I approve this message.

>>>Come on Weird Rand, I know you can do better than that.

Maybe it was his genes that made him do it. Maybe it was the material particles comprising his consciousness (particles that simply obey deterministic physical laws) that made him do it.

Maybe his otherwise vibrant imagination failed him, and he reached for an easy win. Quien sabe?

I am Endymion* and I approve of Serapis Bey.

*A thing of beauty is a joy for ever:

Its lovliness increases; it will never

Pass into nothingness; but still will keep

A bower quiet for us, and a sleep

Full of sweet dreams, and health, and quiet breathing.

— "Endymion" by the great romantic poet, John Keats

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brant wrote:

Argument against Christianity: No evidence for a Supreme Being ...

Lots of evidence. But if a priori you claim that anything explainable by means of purposive intelligent action is also just as easily explain (in principle) by means of physical matter, energy, and some combination of chance and deterministic law, then you are claiming that no argument for the existence of a Creator is even possible. You've simply closed yourself off to it.

For the record,

The biochemical evidence is overwhelming. The recently published results in the prestigious British journal Nature of the ENCODE project (which studied the functionality of the genome) shows that about 90% of DNA is functional, i.e., is transcribed onto RNA, and therefore has some kind of function within the cell. The researchers claimed that they expect 100% of DNA to be functional. It appears that only a small part of DNA actually codes for amino acids in the process of protein synthesis. The rest of the DNA strand does other stuff, apparently controlling much of the "formatting" (to use a term from desktop publishing) of the coding part. The significance of all this (aside from the fact that scientifically it's interesting in its own right) is that the notion of "junk DNA" — i.e., long, non-coding, NON-FUNCTIONAL, stretches of DNA apparently being preserved "errors" [the DNA equivalent of fossils] of random variation and natural selection over millions of years of genomic evolution — is out the window. None of it is junk. All of it is functional. It's quite funny to read many of the Darwinists backpeddle on this issue now: "Oh, we NEVER used the phrase 'junk DNA' in the first place! That was just the popular press exaggerating things!" Etc. Anyway, the ENCODE results have hammered the final nail in the coffin of junk DNA, an important element of the Darwinian scenario on evolution.

Additionally, a company called "Agilent" has successfully used DNA as an actual storage medium for jpeg images and text (they encoded all of Shakespeare's sonnets and some images on a few grains of DNA). The DNA was flown to their sister office in the U.S., which successfully decoded the data and read it off with near 100% fidelity.

Sorry, but the ability to use DNA for human data storage proves that the original molecule was already a kind of storage device, making use of a 4-symbol code (i.e., the nucleotide bases making up the rungs of the DNA helix) instead of a 2-symbol code like binary, which is what our man-made computers "understand." Hard-drives don't appear in nature by means of random processes and deterministic forces; they are the results of intention and purpose. Same with DNA, which is nothing but a very small hard-drive -- literally.

By the way, the compression of DNA storage is fantastic, even given the rough state of today's technology: according to its inventors, 1 gram of DNA (about 1/3rd of a teaspoon) can easily store 1 petabyte of data. 1 petabyte is 1,000 terabytes. So envision 1,000 1-terabyte hard-drives stacked up in your office, completely filled with data. Then compare that to a teaspoon 1/3rd full of powdery specks of DNA.

If the 1,000 hard-drives stacked up in your office couldn't appear by means of a Darwinian process, why would anyone choose to believe the teaspoon full of microscopic biochemical hard-drives were? And again: the only difference between DNA used to store information about JPEG images and text, and DNA actively functioning in your cells is the choice of data: the latter store data on amino acid selection, protein synthesis, and other cellular processes.

>>>you can't have your faith and eat it too for it's not a sub-category of reason

Au contraire. Reason is a subcategory of faith. That's why Dante, in the "Purgatory", required the character of Virgil (the "shade" of the great Roman poet, who symbolically represented reason, and had acted as the benevolent guide for Dante while he was making his travels and discoveries in the "Inferno") to remain behind, unable to enter heaven with Dante as he made his final voyage in the "Paradiso". Since Virgil was a pre-Christian pagan, he could not have had the requisite faith to enter heaven with Dante and act as a guide.

You should read Dante sometime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brant wrote:

A Supreme Being to explain the complexity of most basic life does not address the Supreme Being's Supreme Being, etc. Infinite regression takes you no where except in your own mind.

An infinite regress occurs with any kind of explanation whatsoever — spiritual or material — so long as the causal chain is constrained to "inside" the universe. Obviously, then, for the chain of causes-&-effects to begin, it had to do so from some place that is "outside" the universe, i.e., not part of the universe. That way, whether you posit a creator intelligence or a "big kahuna electron", you needn't explain that as an effect of any prior cause. Whatever it was, it was both a Cause and an Effect of its own existence.

That was actually intuitively understood by Aristotle and those who elaborated his geocentric system of the universe: God, or simply the Prime Mover, was outside the universe, past a wall of "fire" separating him from the rest of the concentric spheres comprising the actual universe. The Prime Mover gave a slight "push" to the outer sphere, setting it in circular motion, which in turn, caused the next inner sphere to rotate, etc. The view here is that God, the Prime Mover, is outside the periphery of the universe, and not actually part of it.

To answer in advance a possible objection:

The reason that sort of explanation cannot be used for the material universe that we inhabit (i.e., Existence was its own cause and its own Effect), is because of our knowledge of things like the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which all matter and energy obey. Things run down over time, and things like 4-symbol chemical codes — codes always being the product of intelligence, and an intelligence that can anticipate future uses for it (such anticipations being strictly verboten under Darwinist assumptions) — do not get built up over time by chance collisions and physical law.

Face it. If your Western Digital 1-terabyte hard-drive — with a functioning operating system installed! — could not have been the product of a tornado throwing scrap-metal together in a junkyard, then neither could a DNA molecule (and, by extension, certainly not a complete living cell) have been the product of random processes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brant wrote:

Non-existence as such is even beyond imagination.

But the contrary is not true: that which is beyond imagination is not necessarily non-existent.

Check your premises. That God, or a Prime Mover is beyond imagination does not, per se, indicate that he cannot, or does not, exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly, Stewed, it's difficult to do the former without simultaneously doing the latter on a site like this. Apparently, you prefer contributors who dumb themselves down in order for you and other regulars to protect your egos, and keep your fragile self-esteem intact[...] I'm selfish enough to believe that other people's self-esteem is best kept intact by them, not by me.

I'm Serapis Bey and I approve this message.

If you don't like the rules of this forum, there's a big Internet out there just waiting for you.

Besides, you are neither Serapis Bey nor Peregrine777. Those are just names to hide behind. I grant you, you have owned up to this before, so you are at least more honest than the jerk you admire.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey now - don't lump me in with Weird Rand. Just because I share trollish tendencies with him doesn't mean I admire him. The old saying, "There is no honor among thieves" is equally applicable here.

On the other hand, I do acknowledge he is quite a bit sharper than myself. I'm not too proud to admit that. And I do find value in some of the things he has posted. My highlighting of the quoted paragraph has nothing to do with him as a person. It was merely an endorsement of a delimited observation of his.

I do find some of the responses to him interesting, however. As far as I can tell, he has not gotten personal with anyone here. His battle lies entirely in the realm of ideas, seasoned with some superficial (perhaps immature) nose-tweaking. It's not like he has engaged in any sort of psychologizing about people's "neuroses" as an explanation for their behavior. He seems to consider the participants here as cyber-entities and judges them solely on the philosphical statements they make. If one truly has the courage of their convictions, then it is only natural to regard those who differ as being inferior, or befuddled, or stupid, or ignorant in some way. That is always a recipe for impatience and frustration.

I understand this is your clubhouse and you make the rules, so you wont hear so much as a peep from me if you decide to throw the riff-raff out. Good fences make good neighbors after all. But I have to wonder about the request (from you? Brant? Selene? I don't remember whom) that Weird Rand provide the details of his life. Why would you need to know his job status or academic credentials or age? How is that relevant? His fight as I mentioned is purely in realm of others' ideas. He is not asking anyone to trust him, or take his statements on faith, so his personal character is not dispositive. How would his divulging this information be in *his* interest in any way? I can see how such information would allow you and others to get a handle on him...

If you don't like the rules of this forum, there's a big Internet out there just waiting for you.

Whoever said I'm not already plying my trade in that big internet out there? I go where the Spirit moves me. Sometimes here, sometimes there...one must seize opportunity wherever it arises.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My highlighting of the quoted paragraph has nothing to do with him as a person. It was merely an endorsement of a delimited observation of his.

SB,

I'm not interested in the sockpuppet, and I was letting your first endorsement of what he said slide. But a second endorsement and all the bla bla bla really interests me.

Let me get this straight. You believe:

1. It's OK to spit on the owner of the site you post on by changing his name to a synonym of drunk.

2. I, me, Michael Stuart Kelly, choose and prefer dumb contributors--or contributors who "dumb themselves down"--so I can protect my little ego and fragile self-esteem.

3. I am surrounded by regulars on the forum who also need to protect their little egos and fragile self-esteem, and I help them do that by getting contributors who like to play dumb, presumably as their form of sucking up to me.

Do I understand that correctly?

I ask because I want to make sure. If you truly believe that OL is a dumbed-down forum and nothing but an exercise in empty vanity and defensiveness, what the hell are you doing here?

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That he's "in the realm of ideas" is an illusion. I think he's Darren because Darren likes to drop elucidation on whom he's talking to as if he's burying you in intellectual manure. It's very sophisticated ad hominem (your ideas aren't important or that interesting) but mostly pretentious. Ayn Rand liked her ability to talk to cab drivers. Darren likes his ability to talk to nobody because he's so above everybody else. So it's at anybody. True faux intellectual pretentiousness plus the hypocritical implicit claim he's saying something important making you wonder if it's all cribbed it's so much.

--Brant

he's smart, all right, real smart, but real worthless

yes, this too is ad hominem, but big ideas aren't involved so I'm indulging

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brant,

After going through his stuff, I don't agree that he's smart.

I do agree that he poses as if he's smart. But that's image, not substance.

I also agree that he's driven, in my opinion, by a massive neurotic itch. (Believe it or not, that is a great memory aid for otherwise boring material.)

Like PDS mentioned, I, too, think he's a serial Googler.

In short, I think he's a dumbass who fakes being smart by regurgitation. A complete waste of time. I get no value from that individual.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can see how such information would allow you and others to get a handle on him...

SB,

A second comment. I have no idea what you're talking about, but I don't think like you do.

I'm sure of that.

If you understood anything about me, you would understand that I would never want a "handle" on someone of that nature. You guys play that game, I don't.

He first irritated me, then bored me with silly behavior that made the forum a lousy place to discuss ideas when he was around, So I just want distance, I don't have any desire to see that individual again under any circumstance, but he's a human being. May he live a long and happy existence.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

".. As far as I can tell, he has not gotten personal with anyone here. His battle lies entirely in the realm of ideas, seasoned with some superficial (perhaps immature) nose-tweaking. It's not like he has engaged in any sort of psychologizing about people's "neuroses" as an explanation for their behavior. He seems to consider the participants here as cyber-entities and judges them solely on the philosphical statements they make. If one truly has the courage of their convictions, then it is only natural to regard those who differ as being inferior, or befuddled, or stupid, or ignorant in some way..."

Oh, come on. This attempt at disingenuity cannot even make it to three sentences without getting personal with the cyber-entities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SB,

Thank you.

I'm still not clear on the following part of the message you said you approved:

Do you think OL is a forum dumbed-down on purpose and nothing but an exercise in empty vanity and defensiveness?

I'm harping on this because sometimes people get believing their own myths so deeply they miss what is right in front of them. I believe this was your case in trying to make a quip.

For instance, I think Stepehn Boydstun would be amused to hear that I have bullied him into dumbing doen his work in order to to suit my vanity. George Smith ditto. Robert Campbell ditto. Roger Bissell ditto, Hell, even ditto for William Scherk.

I could go on and on because there are oodles of smart people around here--truly smart people, not phoney wannabe smart. That's how silly this the "message" you "approved" is.

That makes it disrespectful to the forum and to the members, and doubly disrespectful to repeat the approval.

You're a polite sort right now, so I'm discussing this with you. I normally don't. In my mind, the character and intelligence of OL members is not debatable, so don't expect me to go on and on about this.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My ears have been burning the last couple of days, and sure enough, my name was invoked here in the garbage pile.

Cause/effect?

No. No, of course not. No, but hey -- I am the reigning fantasist here, and though only a pale simulacra of an Objective person, I have five times the gumption of Fakey McFrig and his retinue of defectives.

First, I completely approve the double banning. I would also approve a massive fine for the defective no name pooch and pup.

Secondly, and over the course of my editing "window," I intend to excoriate the pitiful losers who have been sent back to a lower level of stupid.

The useless geese.

EAT-Grand-Guignol-A5a.jpg

SB,

Thank you.

I'm still not clear on the following part of the message you said you approved:

Do you think OL is a forum dumbed-down on purpose and nothing but an exercise in empty vanity and defensiveness?

I'm harping on this because sometimes people get believing their own myths so deeply they miss what is right in front of them. I believe this was your case in trying to make a quip.

For instance, I think Stepehn Boydstun would be amused to hear that I have bullied him into dumbing doen his work in order to to suit my vanity. George Smith ditto. Robert Campbell ditto. Roger Bissell ditto, Hell, even ditto for William Scherk.

I could go on and on because there are oodles of smart people around here--truly smart people, not phoney wannabe smart. That's how silly this the "message" you "approved" is.

That makes it disrespectful to the forum and to the members, and doubly disrespectful to repeat the approval.

You're a polite sort right now, so I'm discussing this with you. I normally don't. In my mind, the character and intelligence of OL members is not debatable, so don't expect me to go on and on about this.

Michael

Regarding Mr. Weird Rand, I agree with those who say his gratuitious insults are beneath him. And I say this as someone with sympathies towards trolls. If you're going to light up a place, you don't do it with schoolyard taunts. "Michael 'Stewed' Kelly"? Come on Weird Rand, I know you can do better than that.

On the other hand:

Honestly, Stewed, it's difficult to do the former without simultaneously doing the latter on a site like this. Apparently, you prefer contributors who dumb themselves down in order for you and other regulars to protect your egos, and keep your fragile self-esteem intact[...] I'm selfish enough to believe that other people's self-esteem is best kept intact by them, not by me.

I'm Serapis Bey and I approve this message.


..

If this is your understanding of the natural leader, then I simply don't see how one can avoid separating 'natural leaders' from bullies.

And, like you, I hate bullies.

(PS: I can't believe it, I actually agree with We Erred Rand here... well, with WER's basic point, not with WER's uncivil rhetoric)

We share 98 percent of our genetic structure with Chimpanzee who are not cute and comical like Tarzan's Cheetah, but are in fact killer apes. Chimps are nasty brutes and we have an embarassing resemblence to them.

1) There's no known causal link between the genome and the body-plan, or shape, of an organism.

2) There's no known causal link between the genome and behavior — at least, not human behavior. Correlations perhaps. But correlation is not causation.

3) The 99% genomic similarity between chimps and humans was at first downgraded to 95% similarity, and now there are calls to throw out the chimp genome mapping altogether as simply being a scientific embarrassment. First of all, the chimp map was purposely turned upside down (with the long arm of the map on top and the short arm on bottom, which is the opposite way in which these maps are normally oriented), and many of the blank, unmapped regions were simply deleted altogether. This was done for the express ideological (not scientific) purpose of making the chimp gene map line up with the human gene map. And that was done for the propagandistic purpose of declaring, "Look! Darwinian evolution must be true! Observe how close the human genome is to the chimp genome! That proves common descent!"

Sure. If you fudge the data.

Regarding Mr. Weird Rand, I agree with those who say his gratuitious insults are beneath him. And I say this as someone with sympathies towards trolls. If you're going to light up a place, you don't do it with schoolyard taunts. "Michael 'Stewed' Kelly"? Come on Weird Rand, I know you can do better than that.

On the other hand:

Honestly, Stewed, it's difficult to do the former without simultaneously doing the latter on a site like this. Apparently, you prefer contributors who dumb themselves down in order for you and other regulars to protect your egos, and keep your fragile self-esteem intact[...] I'm selfish enough to believe that other people's self-esteem is best kept intact by them, not by me.

I'm Serapis Bey and I approve this message.

>>>Come on Weird Rand, I know you can do better than that.

Maybe it was his genes that made him do it. Maybe it was the material particles comprising his consciousness (particles that simply obey deterministic physical laws) that made him do it.

Maybe his otherwise vibrant imagination failed him, and he reached for an easy win. Quien sabe?

I am Endymion* and I approve of Serapis Bey.

*A thing of beauty is a joy for ever:

Its lovliness increases; it will never
Pass into nothingness; but still will keep
A bower quiet for us, and a sleep
Full of sweet dreams, and health, and quiet breathing.

— "Endymion" by the great romantic poet, John Keats

Brant wrote:

Argument against Christianity: No evidence for a Supreme Being ...

Lots of evidence. But if a priori you claim that anything explainable by means of purposive intelligent action is also just as easily explain (in principle) by means of physical matter, energy, and some combination of chance and deterministic law, then you are claiming that no argument for the existence of a Creator is even possible. You've simply closed yourself off to it.

For the record,

The biochemical evidence is overwhelming. The recently published results in the prestigious British journal Nature of the ENCODE project (which studied the functionality of the genome) shows that about 90% of DNA is functional, i.e., is transcribed onto RNA, and therefore has some kind of function within the cell. The researchers claimed that they expect 100% of DNA to be functional. It appears that only a small part of DNA actually codes for amino acids in the process of protein synthesis. The rest of the DNA strand does other stuff, apparently controlling much of the "formatting" (to use a term from desktop publishing) of the coding part. The significance of all this (aside from the fact that scientifically it's interesting in its own right) is that the notion of "junk DNA" — i.e., long, non-coding, NON-FUNCTIONAL, stretches of DNA apparently being preserved "errors" [the DNA equivalent of fossils] of random variation and natural selection over millions of years of genomic evolution — is out the window. None of it is junk. All of it is functional. It's quite funny to read many of the Darwinists backpeddle on this issue now: "Oh, we NEVER used the phrase 'junk DNA' in the first place! That was just the popular press exaggerating things!" Etc. Anyway, the ENCODE results have hammered the final nail in the coffin of junk DNA, an important element of the Darwinian scenario on evolution.

Additionally, a company called "Agilent" has successfully used DNA as an actual storage medium for jpeg images and text (they encoded all of Shakespeare's sonnets and some images on a few grains of DNA). The DNA was flown to their sister office in the U.S., which successfully decoded the data and read it off with near 100% fidelity.

Sorry, but the ability to use DNA for human data storage proves that the original molecule was already a kind of storage device, making use of a 4-symbol code (i.e., the nucleotide bases making up the rungs of the DNA helix) instead of a 2-symbol code like binary, which is what our man-made computers "understand." Hard-drives don't appear in nature by means of random processes and deterministic forces; they are the results of intention and purpose. Same with DNA, which is nothing but a very small hard-drive -- literally.

By the way, the compression of DNA storage is fantastic, even given the rough state of today's technology: according to its inventors, 1 gram of DNA (about 1/3rd of a teaspoon) can easily store 1 petabyte of data. 1 petabyte is 1,000 terabytes. So envision 1,000 1-terabyte hard-drives stacked up in your office, completely filled with data. Then compare that to a teaspoon 1/3rd full of powdery specks of DNA.

If the 1,000 hard-drives stacked up in your office couldn't appear by means of a Darwinian process, why would anyone choose to believe the teaspoon full of microscopic biochemical hard-drives were? And again: the only difference between DNA used to store information about JPEG images and text, and DNA actively functioning in your cells is the choice of data: the latter store data on amino acid selection, protein synthesis, and other cellular processes.

>>>>you can't have your faith and eat it too for it's not a sub-category of reason

Au contraire. Reason is a subcategory of faith. That's why Dante, in the "Purgatory", required the character of Virgil (the "shade" of the great Roman poet, who symbolically represented reason, and had acted as the benevolent guide for Dante while he was making his travels and discoveries in the "Inferno") to remain behind, unable to enter heaven with Dante as he made his final voyage in the "Paradiso". Since Virgil was a pre-Christian pagan, he could not have had the requisite faith to enter heaven with Dante and act as a guide.

You should read Dante sometime.

Brant wrote:

A Supreme Being to explain the complexity of most basic life does not address the Supreme Being's Supreme Being, etc. Infinite regression takes you no where except in your own mind.

An infinite regress occurs with any kind of explanation whatsoever — spiritual or material — so long as the causal chain is constrained to "inside" the universe. Obviously, then, for the chain of causes-&-effects to begin, it had to do so from some place that is "outside" the universe, i.e., not part of the universe. That way, whether you posit a creator intelligence or a "big kahuna electron", you needn't explain that as an effect of any prior cause. Whatever it was, it was both a Cause and an Effect of its own existence.

That was actually intuitively understood by Aristotle and those who elaborated his geocentric system of the universe: God, or simply the Prime Mover, was outside the universe, past a wall of "fire" separating him from the rest of the concentric spheres comprising the actual universe. The Prime Mover gave a slight "push" to the outer sphere, setting it in circular motion, which in turn, caused the next inner sphere to rotate, etc. The view here is that God, the Prime Mover, is outside the periphery of the universe, and not actually part of it.

To answer in advance a possible objection:

The reason that sort of explanation cannot be used for the material universe that we inhabit (i.e., Existence was its own cause and its own Effect), is because of our knowledge of things like the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which all matter and energy obey. Things run down over time, and things like 4-symbol chemical codes — codes always being the product of intelligence, and an intelligence that can anticipate future uses for it (such anticipations being strictly verboten under Darwinist assumptions) — do not get built up over time by chance collisions and physical law.

Face it. If your Western Digital 1-terabyte hard-drive — with a functioning operating system installed! — could not have been the product of a tornado throwing scrap-metal together in a junkyard, then neither could a DNA molecule (and, by extension, certainly not a complete living cell) have been the product of random processes.

Brant wrote:

Non-existence as such is even beyond imagination.

But the contrary is not true: that which is beyond imagination is not necessarily non-existent.

Check your premises. That God, or a Prime Mover is beyond imagination does not, per se, indicate that he cannot, or does not, exist.

Can you believe this crap?

I gotta shut Endymion down because he is Werid Rand.

I'm not going to moderate that account, though. I'm banning it.

EDIT: This jerk is playing some backstage games. So he's going to have to jump through some hoops if he wants to keep using the forum for his games.

Michael


Honestly, Stewed, it's difficult to do the former without simultaneously doing the latter on a site like this. Apparently, you prefer contributors who dumb themselves down in order for you and other regulars to protect your egos, and keep your fragile self-esteem intact[...] I'm selfish enough to believe that other people's self-esteem is best kept intact by them, not by me.

I'm Serapis Bey and I approve this message.

If you don't like the rules of this forum, there's a big Internet out there just waiting for you.

Besides, you are neither Serapis Bey nor Peregrine777. Those are just names to hide behind. I grant you, you have owned up to this before, so you are at least more honest than the jerk you admire.

Michael

Come to think of it, I have a lot of work to do and I just don't have time to play these games.

I'm going to shut We Erred Rand down, too.

It's another sockpuppet account anyway.

Michael

Hey now - don't lump me in with Weird Rand. Just because I share trollish tendencies with him doesn't mean I admire him. The old saying, "There is no honor among thieves" is equally applicable here.

On the other hand, I do acknowledge he is quite a bit sharper than myself. I'm not too proud to admit that. And I do find value in some of the things he has posted. My highlighting of the quoted paragraph has nothing to do with him as a person. It was merely an endorsement of a delimited observation of his.

I do find some of the responses to him interesting, however. As far as I can tell, he has not gotten personal with anyone here. His battle lies entirely in the realm of ideas, seasoned with some superficial (perhaps immature) nose-tweaking. It's not like he has engaged in any sort of psychologizing about people's "neuroses" as an explanation for their behavior. He seems to consider the participants here as cyber-entities and judges them solely on the philosphical statements they make. If one truly has the courage of their convictions, then it is only natural to regard those who differ as being inferior, or befuddled, or stupid, or ignorant in some way. That is always a recipe for impatience and frustration.

I understand this is your clubhouse and you make the rules, so you wont hear so much as a peep from me if you decide to throw the riff-raff out. Good fences make good neighbors after all. But I have to wonder about the request (from you? Brant? Selene? I don't remember whom) that Weird Rand provide the details of his life. Why would you need to know his job status or academic credentials or age? How is that relevant? His fight as I mentioned is purely in realm of others' ideas. He is not asking anyone to trust him, or take his statements on faith, so his personal character is not dispositive. How would his divulging this information be in *his* interest in any way? I can see how such information would allow you and others to get a handle on him...

If you don't like the rules of this forum, there's a big Internet out there just waiting for you.

Whoever said I'm not already plying my trade in that big internet out there? I go where the Spirit moves me. Sometimes here, sometimes there...one must seize opportunity wherever it arises.

My highlighting of the quoted paragraph has nothing to do with him as a person. It was merely an endorsement of a delimited observation of his.

SB,

I'm not interested in the sockpuppet, and I was letting your first endorsement of what he said slide. But a second endorsement and all the bla bla bla really interests me.

Let me get this straight. You believe:

1. It's OK to spit on the owner of the site you post on by changing his name to a synonym of drunk.

2. I, me, Michael Stuart Kelly, choose and prefer dumb contributors--or contributors who "dumb themselves down"--so I can protect my little ego and fragile self-esteem.

3. I am surrounded by regulars on the forum who also need to protect their little egos and fragile self-esteem, and I help them do that by getting contributors who like to play dumb, presumably as their form of sucking up to me.

Do I understand that correctly?

I ask because I want to make sure. If you truly believe that OL is a dumbed-down forum and nothing but an exercise in empty vanity and defensiveness, what the hell are you doing here?

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geez Louise. I think you're reading far too much into this Mike. Let's review:

"Honestly, Stewed, it's difficult to do the former without simultaneously doing the latter on a site like this. Apparently, you prefer contributors who dumb themselves down in order for you and other regulars to protect your egos, and keep your fragile self-esteem intact."

It should be clear that WR was not saying it was you or the regulars here who were dumb, but rather that you had a preference that the contributors here dumbed themselves down. Why would he say this? Probably because he had made an argument concerning The Lord of the Flies which referenced Freudian allegory. His contention was that LOTF was not a parable about real life, but rather a parable about the author's bias towards Freud. And how did you respond to this contention? By asking, "Are you actually making a point, or using the moment to display your reading to the little people?"

Speaking only for myself, when I encounter an intelligent troll, I try and pay attention to the substance of their transmission. Any emotional gloss or gratuitous aggression is brushed aside as I would an annoying mosquito buzzing in my face. I'm here to learn and discover useful things (among other motivations). I happen to think his argument merited consideration, but the irony of it all is that I actually agreed with YOU, and was more inclined to see WR's argument as an extension of his quasi-Christian denial of the reptilian hindbrain.

Allow me take a moment to address the issue of WR. Up to this point I had simply evaluated him on his statements here. I didn't know him from Adam. Apparently he has been outed as this Darren guy. So I did a little investigation and it seems clear to me that Darren is WR. I haven't been following all the internecine gossip in the Oist community, but it is rather obvious to me that the dude has a SERIOUS grudge of the sort that makes my issues with Objectivism pale in comparision. One would think Leonard Peikoff raped his mother and shot his dog or something. I'll give him this: I think he is sharp as a tack, and funny, and occassionally illuminating. I do happen to share some of his concerns about Objectivism's shortcomings. But his harping on so much minutiae within the Oist community, his tedious hair-splitting over non-essentials, indicates there is something wrong there. If one is so inclined to troll Objectivism, there are plenty of juicy targets which have relevance to real life (for example, Objectivism's tendency to sacrifice social cohesion on the altar of free economic transactions), so Darren's behavior shows me he has issues which go beyond mere philosophical disagreement. I hereby rescind my previous insinuation that you (MSK) were psychologizing Darren's "neurosis" as a way of avoiding the substance of his argument. Looks like you were right. I hope for his sake the reason for his behavior is his having too much time on his hands. If his online work is in addition to him having a normal life, then I can only conclude there is a very unhealthy and obsessive dynamic somewhere in his brain. (In such a case I would suggest he allow

aural gestalt to wash over him. I wouldn't expect miracles -- these things take time)

Now, where was I? Oh yes. Darren's statement about the dynamic of fragile self-esteem did not come unbidden, and was not an irrational outburst due to his psychology. He had made a somewhat compelling argument regarding The Lord Of The Flies. Rather than engage him, you decided to imply he was merely showing off. (I realize now this analysis is moot if by that point you had written off any serious discussion with him due to his _personal_ insults, but humor me). This is probably a matter of interpretation, but it would be difficult for a casual reader not to see this as your feeling threatened.

Why do I highlight this statement of his (other than the fact I think it has some merit)? A couple of reasons.

1) You pulled the same move on me in another thread. You sort of tore me a new one when I used the word "bleating" to characterize the Objectivist blind spot regarding the natural and inevitable growth of tendrils between powerful businessmen and the government. And again, it was the same "Are you here to teach all the _little people_?" nonsense. Frankly, I found it irritating and surprising in light of my admiration for the way you comport yourself here in a very balanced and fair manner. (To your credit, you went on to elucidate your thoughts on the topic which I found myself in complete agreement with). But why even go there with the "little people" insinuations? Why not brush my imperious statements aside and get to the meat of the issue? I don't really believe you think I'm another Darren. I'm pretty sure I have stated in another thread that I keep quiet here for the most part because the regulars are more regularly intelligent and informed than I. Nevertheless, even though I follow Socrates and admit I know that I don't know, the things I do know, I KNOW. Can I be forgiven for being aghast at the way some Objectivists carry water for folks who are their actual enemies? If such is my view, I can't help but see the ideological veneration of "productivity" and "business" and the "free market" as naive bleating in certain contexts. More to the point, lets assume I AM in fact teaching all the little people? So what? Do you not acknowledge the existence of your betters? Or does your self-esteem disallow that possibility? It's interesting how a book like Atlas Shrugged has such an aristocratic and elitist tone, yet in certain quarters, everyone is expected to be "equals" with only their commitment to "reason" the only differentiating factor. To think that no one can in principle be your better is not self-esteem, it is VANITY. I seem to recall that a central word in "Anthem" was "EGO". Is it possible this emphasis on EGO could explain much of the behavior we see in the Oist community? My view is that one is better able to absorb information and achieve one's goals if ego is PLASMA and not a SOLID. Otherwise, it is so easily shattered like glass. Every troll worth his salt understands this, and uses it to his advantage.

BTW, Ninth Doctor is right: I have been impressed with your managing of this forum, enough to where I felt the need to verbalize it. Time and time again I would follow a thread, expecting you to veer to the left or right of what I considered Truth, only to find you skate right along that razor's edge of perspicacious objectivity. I can appreciate that your responsibilities here are quite difficult -- you don't have the luxury of referring to some carved-in-stone Orthodoxy to determine who is "in" and who is "out". You are trying to manage a chaotic system, making allowances for the inherent indeterminancy of free-thinking minds. Like herding cats. I rather imagine it to be like attempting to grow a functioning cell without the benefit of a membrane holding the whole thing together. I'm not really the enemy. Try and think of my eructations as mere friendly elbows to your ribs.

2) I highlight this issue because it has ramifications beyond this forum. The issues surrounding "fragile self-esteem" and "egos" and the responsibilities one has towards protecting or not protecting the egos of others is relevant to so much in the world, not just this forum. I can tell you this is an issue my colleague Kacy Ray and I have locked horns over in the past. To what extent should conversation be restrained in the service of the "other" and his or her emotional needs, or rather, their 'self-esteem", or "fragile ego", or "self-respect"? I would refer you to Kacy's thread "Is it altruism to endure disrepect?" for more on this. I would say Rand was rather imperious and arrogant in certain aspects of her behavior. But we find defenders of her behavior right here. Yet, on the other hand, poor Phildo Coates was run out of town for much of the same. Complex, no? What is the difference between self-esteem and an overweening self-regard? I'm reminded here of that Southpark episode lampooning the hippie liberals in San Francisco getting high off their own farts and smug sense of superiority.

Most of the time, Objectivism stands apart from these excesses of both the left and right, but still, there are seeds of the disease, what with their emphasis on ego, and the concommitant "high dudgeon" (new word for me, thanks Brant), we see among Orthodox Objectivists. Like getting high on their own farts, some of these folks get high on their own sense of indignation over the smallest sleights. What a collosal waste of energy, although I understand every person needs their own personal "fix" in order to feel alive. "People seek conflict to the degree they can tolerate" -- Hyatt. The problem is that this seed is the very beginning of the Progressive disease, where "avoidance of harm" is taken to such an extreme that true instinctual independent thought is stifled in the service of not offending anyone. As Jonathan Haidt has catalogued, one of the defining psychological features of liberals is their high score on "avoidance of harm" markers. This tendency finds full fruition in places like Canada (hi Carol) where the feminization of the culture has reached an apex. Canada is civilized, but the argument has been made that "civilization" is primarily a feminine trait. I have not yet had the pleasure of visiting the Great White North, but reports from the field indicate it is a kind of "soft Stasi" where the emphasis on Correct Thinking hangs like a grey pall over people's behavior, gently (and not so gently) nudging them into a conformity of false smiles and insincere goodwill. But since the humanimal has natural aggressive tendencies, these progressive folks find themselves repressing such urges which end up extruding in all manner of passive-agressive and frankly bitch-ass snarky behavior. As an American, I prefer to have my enemies look me in the eye as they throw a right -- I like my punches straight, no chaser.

Whew, I'm really on a tear, aren't I? Reining this back in, the comfortable and stagnant culture of Canada can be contrasted with the anarchic Wild West of the U.S. Should it be any surprise the U.S. and it's (waning) tradition of free and open exuberance is far more dynamic and productive than what we find elsewhere? Isn't that how the Life Process is? Messy, chaotic, containing elements of pain? Try and reduce that pain to zero and you snuff the life force out. OK, now I'm out of orbit. The point is, people need to man up and not be so thin skinned. We are drugging young boys with Ritalin to make them suitable citizens for this new feminized culture. On the one hand, it is understandable we want people to evolve and become more civilized, but it is precisely the pogo-stick which exists in the hearts of men which is the source of all that is creative and new. I understand that one must comport oneself with sensitivity in general social circles, say, during cocktail parties or at work. But we here are on a message board devoted to the discussion of controversial ideas! You realize of course the common rule about not discussing religion or politics at dinner parties. That's because such topics are fraught with passion and consternation! So if you open a forum for such topics, how can you expect the discourse here to remain rational and calm? You want to have your cake and eat it too, it seems. Yes, I'm a jerk. I can be arrogant and dismissive. But I yam what I yam. Why is it that every other minority group gets oodles of compassion and coddling, but we jerks are cast to the wastelands? I was born this way. If you prick us, do we not bleed? We jerks need TLC too, you know. I am not an animal, I am a human being! Darren made a quip about "decadent student" in reference to "studiodekadent". I'll admit that gave me an impish chuckle. No harm no foul. But what if SD got on his high horse and took offense to Darren's troll? Over a silly name? I'd consider SD a little bitch, that's what.

More seriously though, I should clarify that the interpersonal dynamics I have outlined here are meant to apply only to adult males. You will never see me troll some young eager adolescent or college student looking to Rand as a source of direction. I have my issues with Objectivism, but in the vast pantheon of worldviews, I consider Objectivism to be _roughly_ where it's at. It simply wouldn't be sporting to crush such people. But the big dogs like you and your friends are fair game in my book.

I would also lament women taking on the rough and ready mindset I have advocated here. For a woman to consciously thicken her skin in order to play rough with the boys would necessitate a part of her soul dying. It just wouldn't be ladylike. I'll confess to being something of a chauvinist. I'm among that minority who feel that Rand's views on a woman president are _absolutely_ an integral part of Objectivistism, and is to her credit. I lament the Progressive intrusion of women into what were traditionally all-male spaces, where men were free to think aloud without fear of that "high dudgeon."

Welp. I think that about covers it.

(ya hadda acks)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Serrabis Bey... why yoo think everyone here is a stoopids? I don dum dum down the thing what I say... I am smart guy.

My father has said his impression is that folks like you on ships are forbidden from drinking during the entirety of the tour. Is that true? If so, that sucks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SB,

Good Lord!

Do I have to read that thing?

Dayaamm!

:smile:

Michael

Yes Michael, if I have to you have to, and I have already read it, so tough. It's interesting. Just quick impressions - SB, your views on Canada I will discount as admit you have never been here, and your impressions are the common ones of Americans who see us second-hand. Your "feminization of the culture" thesis sounds like a sane Doug Bandler - skewed but not totally unentertainable. You are not boring, that is for sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now