Psychic FRAUD


KacyRay

Recommended Posts

Have you noticed that you're the only one that goes on and on about this? Everyone else is approaching my arguments and ideas (and disagreeing with them) on their individual merits or lack thereof. You're the only person who incessantly tries to lump my entire worldview in with a tribal association.

Listen, I'm trying to tell you this nicely. Either discuss my ideas and what you feel is right tor wrong about them, or don't. But I am telling you right now, you're the only person here who is stuck on making tribal associations. You can't seem to open your mouth without the word "Progressive" or "Liberal" coming out. There's seriously something wrong with you and it's wearing on me. I'm trying to be as patient with you as I can.

I'm beginning to think Doug Bandler over at SOLO-P has it right when he bemoans how the Objectivist community has been hijacked by the Progressive borg.

This renders them impotent as they blah blah blah over minutia in the face of very real, very powerful forces amassing around us.

"Look where all this talking got us, baby."

In lieu of this, I find it useful to both NAME and IDENTIFY exactly WHEN and WHERE such progressive tendrils make inroads into Objectivist thinking -- for example, by dissecting some of Kacy's thinking online for all to see.

(Well, that's only part of it. The other part is my "wicked" impulse and glee in getting people to lose their shit by pointing out their blind spots in abstruse philosopical theory. :smile: )

I have no attachment to labels of libertarian or objectivist or anything else. I'm happy to dispense with all such labels.

And now you're admitting to being a troll.

You are not pointing out blind spots. You're projecting them and insisting they are there. I've asked you to stop enough times now.

In an earlier thread (or it might've been in my echo-chamber) I referred to MSK at a conservative (or right-winger, or something), and he told me politely that he rejects all such tribal associations and would prefer that I simply address any of his positions on their own merit rather than trying to lump him in with a group.

Being a socially intelligent person, I am happy to comply with his request. It's how you treat people. If they explicitly reject association with a particular tribe, it's plain rude to continue lumping them in with it.

So don't mistake my aggravation - it is with your insistence on doing something I've asked you not to do that has aggravated me to no end. It isn't some uncomfortable truth that you've pointed out that is making me shake in my boots. It's the fact that you continue lumping me in with an association that I reject.

But if you enjoy it, I hope that you enjoyed it a lot. I hope it was worth it for you. It's in perfect keeping with your lifelong habit of being the biggest dick you can possibly be. Since you're making it clear that being provocative for the sake of provocation (also known as trolling) is something you do because you enjoy it, I'm not going to be a part of it.

See you in Miami.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 68
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Kacy, I understand your point about "tribal associations," but I think you're extending the concept too far and glossing over some distinctions that are relevant to the discussion. There is a world of difference between the base and vacuous Red Team versus Blue Team dichotomy and discussing a person's core values according to meaningful philosophical concepts. Your dispute with SB seems to be largely semantic in nature because he is saying essentially the same thing as MSK, only in different words and perhaps to a different degree. We've established in this thread that you disagree with what looks to be just about everyone on this forum on the proper scope of government in the economy. There's nothing wrong with disagreement in itself, but the question now becomes "why" we have this disagreement. There must be some underlying difference in how we approach problems; how we feel about them; or what our core values are. The rest of us are all firmly on the laissez faire side of this issue, so what is it about your thinking that places you on the opposite side? SB is suggesting it's because you have liberal values, i.e., you are a liberal. I don't see this as equivalent to the petty insult you are interpreting it as being.

As an aside, you might consider asking yourself why SB's behavior bothers you so much. I can assure you he isn't a significantly different person in my conversations with him, but I enjoy those conversations because he exposes me to new ideas and provokes me to self-examine at times. Obviously not every suggestion is useful to me, but it's not all that difficult to pan out the gold and discard the rest, which is my approach to people in general. I know you've convinced yourself that verbally lashing out at people who frustrate you and publicly threatening to ignore them is the correct/adult/appropriate way of handling such situations, but Dale Carnegie pointed out that this can actually be counterproductive to your goals. Besides being a provocation in itself, your behavior is essentially an admission that the target of your anger has power over you. If their words were truly irrelevant, then you wouldn't bother responding at all, much less in a lengthy counterargument. In other words, it's an implicit invitation to continue the debate. I'd also suggest that from a social dynamics perspective, if you make a threat to someone, then you MUST carry it out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Absorbing hit list. Thanks for showing. Trouble is, it reflects a 'one or the other' approach. If you don't "care" - and who knows that, the thought police?- you must mean "harm"?? And also does not go far enough, conceptually. Psychological cardboard cutouts (and I have a lot of respect for some psychology.)

It hands over (without a fight) the "care" and "fairness" 'higher morality' to the very people who would harm and cheat fellow citizens the most, ultimately.

I for one, will not hand the moral high ground to the 'carers'.

There's a point at which the greatest self-interest comes round to meet the greatest benevolence; and I'm not even including in this economic-political freedom for everybody.

You're not thinking about this the right way. For example, "care/harm" is not meant to imply that liberals favor care and conservatives favor harm! LOL. No, that's just one of the 5 "foundations" (or modules if you will) that are scored. Liberals score highly on this particular measure, whereas conservatives might score moderately.

Since most people here are probably nerds, think of the way characters are created in Dungeons and Dragons, with various traits being weighted along a spectrum. Hope this clarifies.

It hands over (without a fight) the "care" and "fairness" 'higher morality' to the very people who would harm and cheat fellow citizens the most, ultimately.

I agree, but note that the consequences of such beliefs/motivations are not at issue. Yes, very often an undue concern for "care/harm" leads to unintended consequences, as we all know. However, it is a bit of propaganda I think, to assume that liberals are always operating with these consequences in mind. Haidt's studies focus only on intimate, immediate psychological motivations -- he is not a political theorist or strategist.

You'd probably be better served by reading his recent book on the topic:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Righteous-Mind-Politics-Religion/dp/0307455777

Serapis, You are correct - I jumped the gun somewhat. In its own context, Haidt's study is worthy of close attention.

As you perceived, I tend to see or seek consequences too quickly I know, and I suppose the triggers are that tired old liberal-conservative false alternative, along with a sort of 'psychological collectivism', and scorecards that leave people with the smug feeling of being on the side of the superior angels.

Still and all, I have always maintained that one disdains or overlooks psychology (own, and others') at one's peril.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is this simple...should an analyst, doctor, lawyer, Indian shaman, etc. be held to the KacyRay standard?

Under the principle of caveat emptor, the buyer could not recover damages from the seller for defects on the property that rendered the property unfit for ordinary purposes. The only exception was if the seller actively concealed latent defects or otherwise made material misrepresentations amounting to fraud.

Before statutory law, the buyer had no express warranty ensuring the quality of goods. Common law requires that goods must be "fit for the particular purpose" and of "merchantable quality"[citation needed], but this implied warranty can be difficult to enforce and may not apply to all products. Hence, buyers are still advised to be cautious.

United States

The modern trend in the US, however, is one of the Implied Warranty of Fitness that applies only to the sale of new residential housing by a builder-seller and the caveat emptor rule applies to all other sale situations (i.e. homeowner to buyer).[2] Many other jurisdictions have provisions similar to this.

In addition to the quality of the merchandise, this phrase also applies to the return policy. In most jurisdictions, there is no legal requirement for the vendor to provide a refund or exchange. In many cases, the vendor will not provide a refund but will provide a credit. In the cases of software, movies and other copyrighted material, many vendors will only do a direct exchange for another copy of exactly the same title. Most stores require proof of purchase and impose time limits on exchanges or refunds. Some larger chain stores will, however, do exchanges or refunds at any time, with or without proof of purchase, although they usually require a form of picture ID and place quantity or dollar limitations on such returns.

Laidlaw v. Organ,[3] a decision written in 1817 by Chief Justice John Marshall, is believed by scholars to have been the first U.S. Supreme Court case which laid down the rule of caveat emptor in U.S. law.[4]

Can you folks imagine how repressive his regime would be?

A....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you are quoting, Adam, I wish you'd say so and who. If you don't reference such material, it's basically dead-ended here.

--Brant

My error.

It was a basic Wiki section...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caveat_emptor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kacy, I understand your point about "tribal associations," but I think you're extending the concept too far and glossing over some distinctions that are relevant to the discussion. There is a world of difference between the base and vacuous Red Team versus Blue Team dichotomy and discussing a person's core values according to meaningful philosophical concepts. Your dispute with SB seems to be largely semantic in nature because he is saying essentially the same thing as MSK, only in different words and perhaps to a different degree. We've established in this thread that you disagree with what looks to be just about everyone on this forum on the proper scope of government in the economy. There's nothing wrong with disagreement in itself, but the question now becomes "why" we have this disagreement. There must be some underlying difference in how we approach problems; how we feel about them; or what our core values are. The rest of us are all firmly on the laissez faire side of this issue, so what is it about your thinking that places you on the opposite side? SB is suggesting it's because you have liberal values, i.e., you are a liberal. I don't see this as equivalent to the petty insult you are interpreting it as being.

As an aside, you might consider asking yourself why SB's behavior bothers you so much. I can assure you he isn't a significantly different person in my conversations with him, but I enjoy those conversations because he exposes me to new ideas and provokes me to self-examine at times. Obviously not every suggestion is useful to me, but it's not all that difficult to pan out the gold and discard the rest, which is my approach to people in general. I know you've convinced yourself that verbally lashing out at people who frustrate you and publicly threatening to ignore them is the correct/adult/appropriate way of handling such situations, but Dale Carnegie pointed out that this can actually be counterproductive to your goals. Besides being a provocation in itself, your behavior is essentially an admission that the target of your anger has power over you. If their words were truly irrelevant, then you wouldn't bother responding at all, much less in a lengthy counterargument. In other words, it's an implicit invitation to continue the debate. I'd also suggest that from a social dynamics perspective, if you make a threat to someone, then you MUST carry it out.

As an aside, you might consider asking yourself why SB's behavior bothers you so much.

Probably for the same reason it bothered MSK when I referred to him as a conservative (or right-winger - I can't remember which). It's an association he rejects. He asked that his ideas be considered his own, individual ideas and not tied to an entire ideology that he may or may not accept in toto. It was a reasonable request and I regarded it as such.

I can assure you he isn't a significantly different person in my conversations with him, but I enjoy those conversations because he exposes me to new ideas and provokes me to self-examine at times.

It was that way for me for about 25 years. I guess it isn't anymore. He hasn't really provided me with any material worth ignoring the deliberate provocation. He certainly isn't impressing me by seeing a progressive boogeyman under every rock. The trade-off just isn't there anymore, I guess.

Obviously not every suggestion is useful to me, but it's not all that difficult to pan out the gold and discard the rest, which is my approach to people in general.

When I see some gold, I'll let you know.

I know you've convinced yourself that verbally lashing out at people who frustrate you and publicly threatening to ignore them is the correct/adult/appropriate way of handling such situations, but Dale Carnegie pointed out that this can actually be counterproductive to your goals.

And this is how you've been interpreting my almost infinite patience? I've been patiently asking for a very long time (years now) that he stops lumping me into a category of people with whom, while I may have certain values in common, I do not share a common goal or worldview. My patience is at an end. And you interpret this as lashing out? Really?

Oh well. I'll have to live with that.

Besides being a provocation in itself, your behavior is essentially an admission that the target of your anger has power over you.

He's been a friend of mine for longer (I think) than you've been alive. Yes, it irritates me that I can no longer discuss ideas with him, but what alternatives do I have? It's to the point where if I were to discuss whether rock and roll is better than disco, he'd insist that my preferences are perfectly consistent with my deep-seated liberal bias. It's to a comical point.

If their words were truly irrelevant, then you wouldn't bother responding at all, much less in a lengthy counterargument.

Which is exactly what I do to people who people that I hardly know (some folks here, for example).

But for you to suggest that I do that to everyone equally, even lifelong friends of mine, simply reinforces my conviction that your *knowledge* of social dynamics bears very little relation to your *grasp* of social dynamics.

No - the right thing to do is exactly what I've done. When a friend continues with the ad homs, the tribal associations, the misrepresentations, and the disrespect, you exhaust every measure at your disposal to impress upon them that it is damaging and inappropriate for as long as you can handle it. Then, if they are clearly unwilling to change, you adjust accordingly.

And the limits of your patience should be a reflection on that persons relevance in your life. So it was with you, so it is with him, so it shall be with everyone. For example, there are folks here that I've never met that, if they started that sort of thing, I would ignore without warning. With you, it took a pretty long time, but it eventually happened. With SB, it has taken several years. But no one should be expected to endure that kind of behavior without limits.

And if you disagree, that's fine. We'll all be content with our decisions.

In other words, it's an implicit invitation to continue the debate.

Really? When I say "no more. We are done with this.", you interpret that as an implicit invitation to continue? I'd hate to a woman out on a date with you.

I'd also suggest that from a social dynamics perspective, if you make a threat to someone, then you MUST carry it out.

I know, which is why I resisted making this decision for so long. SB and I pretty much became friends based on mutual interest in issues of critical thinking in an environment where that value was quite undervalued and under-appreciated.

To be clear - I'm not breaking contact with anyone. I don't drop friendships that way. But in terms of discussing intellectual issues, political issues, philosophic issues... I'll have to reserve that for folks who are interested in an honest exchange of ideas. Honest exchange of ideas requires some sort of benefit of the doubt that when someone says they reject a particular ideology, that they actually mean it.

I see that benefit of the doubt coming from pretty much everyone here - including you now - except for SB.

Yes, it appears I disagree with pretty much everyone on this forum on this issue. That's fine - I don't mind being the dissenter (despite your former attempts to characterize me as a guy who surrounds himself with either liberal automatons or knuckle-dragging tea partiers who I can humiliate to impress my liberal friends). In fact, i can be a dissenter all damn day long, and there's nothing wrong with that. I'd be willing to bet that even guys like Selene and Dennis May like having me around because a forum filled with people who think exactly alike is about as boring a prospect as I can imagine. There is nothing wrong with disagreeing on issues, and I don't suspect anyone here minds a good, honest disagreement.

But there's difference between disagreeing and antagonizing. I know that you recognize SB's behavior as antagonizing. I know he recognizes it as well. But you both seem to be continuing to justify it, as though I'm at fault for refusing to be continually antagonized. This is consistent with narcissistic tendencies.

This thread serves as a good learning point, actually. Notice my OP. Now notice the first substantive comment, made my MSK. It was a speculation on my motives, but it did not lump me into an entire ideology that I reject. It focused instead on me and what I was saying.

Now notice the second substantive point, make by dldelancey. Again, absent of antagonistic language. It provided useful information on the topic.

Then, after I expressed a bit of surprise that I couldn't find anyone at all to agree at least with my sentiment (if not my proposition), jts chimed in. Again, expressing disagreement. Again, absent of provocation.

All of your comments were similarly absent of provocation.

As was Brant.

As was WhyNOT

And on and on. So I'm not crazy, I'm not making this up, and I'm not somehow miscalibrated.

A troll is someone who antagonizes a person or group of people for the sake of antagonism, with any exchange of ideas being only a by-product of secondary relevance. That's why I would take great offense at being considered a troll - the implication would be that I have nothing better to do with my time than to antagonize people just for fun. I actually enjoy bouncing my thoughts and ideas off of people whose intellect I respect. It's a sort-of peer-review process for my thoughts.

But SB has made it clear that he intends to troll me (if not the forum), and I have no compunction about ending that process.

And I know, in perfect keeping with his character, he will chalk it up to being something wrong with me - evasiveness, or blind spot, or whatever rationale he chooses to use, and that's fine. I am much more patient with antagonism than lots of folks, so I don't feel guilty about setting my own limits. I have the right to do that.

For the record, I am open - and have always been - to being persuaded away from the position I expressed in the OP. In fact, I've been considering all the comments made, and I do feel the dissonance in my mind. I feel myself firmly on the side of those whom I consider the victims of these scam artists, but I also feel that there must be some way to reconcile that with free-market ideology.

But who do you think has generated any real persuasion in my mind? SB? Or everyone else here except for him?

Hint - SB has not spent one moment addressed the OP or it's relative merits (or lack thereof). Every comment has been about me. "Liberals like Kacy..." etc....

MSK had a good point in the Whistleblowers thread:

Kacy,

I don't write you off as a liberal. I see an active mind in you, one that does not agree with me, which is why I discuss things with you.

But I intensely dislike the "you conservatives" form of rhetoric. And I'm happy to revise my dichotomies. Try this:

You conservatives are all alike.

We who are not stupid have the true truth.

How does that sound?

:smile:

By your formulation, when someone says, "You filthy Jews," this does not designate a Nazi. Well that's refreshing. That makes it all right, huh?

:smile:

The truth is scapegoating is ugly and totally collectivist regardless of how you spin it.

Michael

SB's insistence on making every comment about me, about lumping me into a tribal association, about refusing to address the actual substance of the idea and rather focusing on his cherished liberal boogeyman qualify his a a troll. And no matter how much you'd like to absolve him and make it about me, no one has any obligation to subject themselves to trolling. And I'm not going to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My two cents: Psychics ought to have their right to free speech (including 'commercial speech'), and so should James Randi as he goes about debunking them. Same goes for Keynesian economists, Scientology auditors, and peddlers of homeopathic 'drugs', just to pull a few unrelated comparables out of the air.

Someone said 'paternalistic' earlier, and I agree.

Dennis,

Hear hear.

Finally someone is talking fundamentals and not pushing for more government control of the marketplace and over people's conscience.

Freedom of religion (included with freedom of speech under the First Amendment) is a very serious issue. It's precious and when it is not present, if you look back over the years, bloodshed ensues. Whole wars have been fought over religious intolerance ever since recorded history.

Under USA law, People have a God-given inalienable right to be stupid in their religious beliefs.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But for you to suggest that I do that to everyone equally, even lifelong friends of mine, simply reinforces my conviction that your *knowledge* of social dynamics bears very little relation to your *grasp* of social dynamics.

No - the right thing to do is exactly what I've done. When a friend continues with the ad homs, the tribal associations, the misrepresentations, and the disrespect, you exhaust every measure at your disposal to impress upon them that it is damaging and inappropriate for as long as you can handle it. Then, if they are clearly unwilling to change, you adjust accordingly.

If I've mentioned the following anecdote before, please excuse me. I babysat one time for a middle-aged couple with twin boys, maybe in the 5- to 7-years-old range.They politely welcomed me into their home and began going over the usual ground rules. "Bedtime is at 9, no junk food," and so on. As she spoke, I could hear a low rumbling sound from the basement, like a freight train gradually approaching. The quiet was shattered as the twins bounded in like a pack of hyenas, leaving a wake of destruction in their path - "MOMMY MOMMY I'M GOING TO WATCH TV ALL NIGHT WHY CAN'T I HAVE COOKIES NOW HES HITTING ME-" "NO I'M NOT I WANT THE TV WHERE ARE YOU GOING WHY ARE YOU DRESSED UP I'M NOT GOING TO BED AT 9 TONIGHT." The mother's face contorted violently. "Arghh!! Why are you two doing this? We *talked* about this and you promised to be good. You two are being really bad right now! You're going to be punished if you don't stop! I mean it!" The father came in, "Hey, knock it off right now! You two are going to lose television privileges if you don't stop! We're so sorry for this, we told them they have to behave tonight. You two stop it or you're going to lose television for the whole week!" The parents briskly put on their shoes, grabbed their things, and made their way through the front door with the hyena pack jumping, yipping, and snarling in tow. "We're sorry about this, good luck tonight." I swear to you that the split second that door closed, the boys straightened mid-air, fell to the floor, and calmly walked back to me. "Hi. Want to go to the living room? We'll show you our legos. We're building a castle." They played with legos quietly on the floor until 9, at which point they went upstairs and put themselves to bed while I just stood there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See you in Miami.

When are you coming back next? We'll all get together and jam, and give you reason to fear your next urine test results.

Finally someone is talking fundamentals and not pushing for more government control of the marketplace and over people's conscience.

There's some good relevant material in George's new book, I'm thinking of the chapter "Liberalism and the Public Good"; I was thinking of typing out a paragraph or three, but decided I'd spend the time reading more of the book instead.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

See you in Miami.

When are you coming back next? We'll all get together and jam, and give you reason to fear your next urine test results.

Finally someone is talking fundamentals and not pushing for more government control of the marketplace and over people's conscience.

There's some good relevant material in George's new book, I'm thinking of the chapter "Liberalism and the Public Good"; I was thinking of typing out a paragraph or three, but decided I'd spend the time reading more of the book instead.

I hope to be heading out there toward the beginning of next year. My wife and I are going to have a wedding ceremony, which we did not have when we got legally married in Hawaii. Consider yourself invited... it's going to be a bit unconventional, but that's by design. Neither of us wants to get married in a church, so it'll be in some place much more relevant to our interests. Plus we're going to work a plan so that we don't have to limit our guest list based on financial constraints.

And it won't be this horribly formal thing in which everyone has to wear uncomfortable tuxedos and such. I expect it to be a rather festive occasion.

Hoping to have all my friends there - RB, I realize it's a long way, but you are certainly invited. I hope SB can find time... if he isn't busy rooting out all the progressives!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you, Kacy. My visits to Miami are less frequent now, but they are also more flexible. Keep us apprised of scheduling.

Your plan is admirable and probably achievable for you two. It's what I would have preferred for my own wedding this summer. We both wanted to keep it small and informal, but the parents took over and blew up the guest list. Keeping the peace won out over our own wishes in an incremental encroachment. Every guest has found some way to add to our difficulties ("Sure, I'll come, and my boyfriend you didn't invite will come too!) It hasn't been a fun process - lots of tears and drama.

We're still under $10k for the total, which I understand is incredibly cheap by modern wedding standards. The average cost is now over $30k.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is cross-posted in both "Psychic" threads under News and Interesting Articles and under Ed Hudgins Corner and then I have nothing else to say.

1. I underwent surgery in 2010 after a round of diagnostic tests including blood chemistry and ultrasound. The last consent for I signed said that I understand that medicine is an art, not a science and that outcomes cannot be predicted.

It has been suggested at economics is also voodoo. Many false beliefs operate among the billions on this planet. How do you regulate their practice?

2. I followed D. L. DeLancey's link about the court ruling on the regulation of psychics. Not every appeals court ruling is correct or even insightful. Justice John Marshall Harlan was known as the Great Dissenter for his minority opinions, most famously in Plessy v. Ferguson. In this case, the court ruled that the Miss Psychic did not belong to an organized religion, or to a recognized system of beliefs. I would say that she does in the same sense that many religions (Buddhism, for instance) are practiced daily by millions of people who have never been inside a recognized, organized temple.

2.a. In ruling against Mormon polygamy, the U S Supreme Court said that you are free to believe what you want, but you are not free to do whatever you want in the name of religion, otherwise, we would be tolerant of human sacrifice. (Reynolds v. United States in Wikipedia. Quoting 98 U.S. 145 (1878) courtesy of Justiicia here: "Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. Suppose one believed that human sacrifices were a necessary part of religious worship; would it be seriously contended that the civil government under which he lived could not interfere to prevent a sacrifice? Or if a wife religiously believed it was her duty to burn herself upon the funeral pile of her dead husband; would it be beyond the power of the civil government to prevent her carrying her belief into practice?")

3. As for "psychic powers" (so-called) police departments hire psychics. Now, in my view that would discredit the police, but, clearly, it works to the credit of the psychics who claim some success and seemingly can produce some official validation of that.
3.a. We all can "predict the future" with some success. I see myself at work in six hours.
3.b. How can you claim that we can put sensors on your head and make a machine move record the activity in your brain, but then claim that one human cannot directly perceive the thoughts of another? (ESP)
Crimes are harms involving persons or property. The facts in the case prove the prosecution's case or not. When it comes to beliefs whether religions, philosophies, and beliefs, all that can matter under law is an actual harm provable according to the rules of evidence.
In the book She's Such a Geek! one of the authors tells of talking to her advisor about picking a school for a Ph.D., and he tells her that she does not have the skills or talents for a doctorate. He refused to help her. She was crushed. She ended up in another career, of course. Is that not the kind of fraud perpetrated by a cult? They took her life, took her money, gave her hope, and then, for some unspecified reason, kicked her out when she was no further use to some middling temple manager? You can interpret events many ways. Finding the cogent explanation is the salient challenge.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you, Kacy. My visits to Miami are less frequent now, but they are also more flexible. Keep us apprised of scheduling.

Your plan is admirable and probably achievable for you two. It's what I would have preferred for my own wedding this summer. We both wanted to keep it small and informal, but the parents took over and blew up the guest list. Keeping the peace won out over our own wishes in an incremental encroachment. Every guest has found some way to add to our difficulties ("Sure, I'll come, and my boyfriend you didn't invite will come too!) It hasn't been a fun process - lots of tears and drama.

We're still under $10k for the total, which I understand is incredibly cheap by modern wedding standards. The average cost is now over $30k.

Vegas, my boy, Vegas. Elope and hope. Have a post-wedding party in the local beer hall!

--Brant

tongue firmly in cheek

$30k? Each kid will be +$250k: hope and pray for a cheaper day

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But there's difference between disagreeing and antagonizing. I know that you recognize SB's behavior as antagonizing. I know he recognizes it as well. But you both seem to be continuing to justify it, as though I'm at fault for refusing to be continually antagonized. This is consistent with narcissistic tendencies.

Actually, it's consistent with me being a dick and not caring about about how other people feel about my pronouncements.

That's not narcissism. That's INTEGRITY.

It would be narcissism if I considered other people's mistaken thinking in any way relevant to my own independent judgement.

I consider it a form of honor to think of others as similarly independent minded and not easily cowed by my opinions.

This thread serves as a good learning point, actually. Notice my OP. Now notice the first substantive comment, made my MSK. It was a speculation on my motives, but it did not lump me into an entire ideology that I reject. It focused instead on me and what I was saying.

Now notice the second substantive point, make by dldelancey. Again, absent of antagonistic language. It provided useful information on the topic.

Then, after I expressed a bit of surprise that I couldn't find anyone at all to agree at least with my sentiment (if not my proposition), jts chimed in. Again, expressing disagreement. Again, absent of provocation.

All of your comments were similarly absent of provocation.

As was Brant.

As was WhyNOT

And on and on. So I'm not crazy, I'm not making this up, and I'm not somehow miscalibrated.

A troll is someone who antagonizes a person or group of people for the sake of antagonism, with any exchange of ideas being only a by-product of secondary relevance. .

But SB has made it clear that he intends to troll me (if not the forum), and I have no compunction about ending that process.

[...]

But who do you think has generated any real persuasion in my mind? SB? Or everyone else here except for him?

Hint - SB has not spent one moment addressed the OP or it's relative merits (or lack thereof). Every comment has been about me. "Liberals like Kacy..." etc....

What you are missing is that all the OL folks you reference above have not spent YEARS engaging you in many of the same debates, topics, arguments, etc.

On the other hand, I (and to a lesser extent RB) have done just that. He and I have gone round and round with your liberal tendencies, and despite whatever protestations of yours to the contrary, we have good reasons to support our position.

I suspect that if the individuals you mention above had the same time and experience (and frustration) arguing with your liberal tendencies, that they too would reach a point were it became obvious that further discussion would be fruitless. There is nothing wrong with throwing your hands up in frustration. It doesn't mean one has "abandoned reason" or one has "conceded the argument". It merely means a point has been reached where further discussion would simply be a masochistic and altruistc act to help another person out of their incorrect thinking -- in short, one would be attempting to correct a "cybernetic program" as MSK puts it, for...what exactly? What would be the payoff?

I'm quite sure there are numerous examples in Objectivism-Land where individuals reach an impasse and realize that further good-faith debate would merely serve to sanction the legitimacy of the other side. In such cases, all that one can do is merely state one's disagreement, name the "Other" for what he/she is, and leave it at that.

I simply go one step further and indulge my sadistic impuse to keep poking that salty stick into the wound for my own amusement.

But none of this should be construed as "trolling" in the sense of saying things that are untrue just to get a rise out of people.

I say things that are IN FACT true, precisely to get a rise out of people. Sorry you don't see it that way.

p.s. YOR a fucken liberal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps a propos...(?)

I was just reading one of my liberal-leaning Facebook friend's status updates. He linked to an essay discussing a recent controversial article which relayed (in detail) the goings-on of a public "sex party" in San Francisco -- said "party" involving the consent of a young girl to be violently and sexually "abused" by a dominatrix, Dom, and members of the audience. (Link here. NSFW)

I don't mean to get into a discussion of the ethics involved at the "party". I bring it up because this friend of mine is generally sensible (even though a liberal), and in the discussion he tagged one of his (I presume) more "out-there" progressive/liberal female aquaintances. In the ensuing discussion about "consent", he linked to the infamous Armin Meiwes sexual cannibalism case. (Link here, NSF LIFE )

I'll call this female progressive Natalia. Natalia writes:

It has nothing to do with morals, or religion, or social acceptance. It's in our evolutionary makeup to find people who gain pleasure from the same things that give us pleasure. There isn't more "extreme sex" happening, it's just more widely talked about. The people who are interested in violent or degrading behavior aren't going to suddenly going to stop wasting it because you tell them it's wrong and the people who aren't interested in those interactions aren't going to suddenly wake up one day and decide to be beaten, humiliated, and violated because society thinks it's ok. It really is all about consent.

Ok, somewhat muddled thinking as we usually find among progressives (particularly the female version), but really not much different than the Oist/Libertarian emphasis on individualism and free choice.

Natalia continues:

That said, I don't think Armin Meiwes should have been convicted. It was a victimless crime, despite how the families feel about it. Armin didn't /take/ the other man's life, the other man /gave/ his life for the benefit of mutual pleasure.

Wow. That's pretty "out-there". An obvious application of "consent" thinking to the extreme. But I'll reserve judgement for the moment.

What I found most interesting however was when another commenter brought up the issue of religious groups and the phenomenon of persuasion in said groups. Her reply:

IMO, all religious activity should be considered fraudulent and punishable by law.

WHA....???????

I'm not sure how much of this is relevent to Kacy's personal philosophy, so I'll leave it at that for others to discuss.

Coincidence? I dunno. But I'm sure their motives are pure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I called her out. Her response:

And no, I didn't say that religious belief should be punishable, I simply think that religious organizations should not have the right to convince bodies of people into any action without a burden of proof of some result.

Sounds like your kinda gal, Kacy!

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