Another load of garbage

[peterdjones]

He said that Peikoff said "only one possible action", which he did, and What Rand approved his words before publication, which she did.

I was talking about Rand.

...who approved Peikoff's words. Stop evading.

I wasn't aware that all scientists are determinists.

Are they?

No: but you were writing some simplistic boo-hurrah stuff which made it look that way.

Or condemn the science that gives rise to them as "irrational". Objectivists are still arguing against the Big Bang 50 years down the line. To name but one.

What's the point?

The point of my comment was that Objectivists only pay lip service to the revisability of Objectivism. In practice,

where science conflicts with Objectvism, the science in question is condemned on some ad hominem grounds.

This is getting funny. Rand is supposed to be this pragmatic, open-to-correction character, and then

out she comes with "absolute certainty"

Funny? That's funny.

Maybe it helps to be British

That's a contradiction. If something is ever "stated with certainty" that does put a cap on it. OTOH, of everything is open ended, nothing is certain.

So you say.

Maybe it helps to be an English speaker.

Can its nature change?

In your world, I suppose.

If that's a "no" (and not just another evasion), determinism can be founded on the unchanging

natures of entities, and thereby made acceptable to Objectivism.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I tried to do a satire on this poster's posting style, but he just keeps it up, so I am putting it where it belongs--here in the garbage.

The style is one that irritates a lot of posters, me included. Here's how it works.

First you slice someone's post up into small selective chunks. Then you don't say anything of substance in between the chunks, but instead make inane opinions. And to make it more irritating, you generally miss the point.

A few years ago on another forum, we used to call this candy striping an answer.

It's a boring and irritating style, one that tends to shut down interest in discussions, but adherents are usually stubborn in insisting on it.

So now I have a thread open for this kind of garbage. When it happens again (as I have no doubt it will), especially with the snarky disrespect like above, I won't try to send an indirect message through satire, but instead, I have a place to put it so it doesn't derail intelligent discussions.

And if some people like this kind of crap, they can read it to their heart's content. They can even do it here and I won't complain.

NOTE: As with other stuff on OL, this isn't a hard and fast rule. There's flexibility involved, especially if someone is posting stuff with substance to it. But just posting stupid opinions in an irritating style without addressing the meat of the ideas is pure garbage.

Michael

[peterdjones]

Dennis,

I'm not too sure, but this guy's style and opinions (and overgeneralized sloppiness) are very close to those of Kimmler, but without the detours into weirdness.

Maybe he's Kimmler's brother or cousin?

btw - The quote came from a post of his I threw into the Garbage Pile.

Michael

I agree my response lacked substance, but so did the comment, your comment that I was replying to. If you want to get a reputation as hypocritical

board administrator who doesn't play according to his own rules, go right ahead...

[peterdjones]

Objectivists only pay lip service to the revisability of Objectivism.

Who, Peikoff and Harriman? If you’ve spent much time on this site you’ll have read a great deal of criticism of both. I suspect you’ve come to the wrong place. BTW, where does your quote come from?

Please give an example of an Objectivist who has decided that Rand was wrong about something on the basis of scientific evidence

Kind of true. I was thinking more of physics and cosmology.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I don't have time to do this all day, so this poster Peter Jones is going into the 5 posts a day only category.

Michael

[Rich Engle]

The question is why a person would be so angry as to say such things. I ask myself that, when I do it.

rde

[Brant Gaede]

The question is why a person would be so angry as to say such things. I ask myself that, when I do it.

rde

But were you angry? If you were you can answer your own question. Introspection! Introspection!

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

The question is why a person would be so angry as to say such things. I ask myself that, when I do it.

rde

But were you angry? If you were you can answer your own question. Introspection! Introspection!

--Brant

Good advice for one who can introspect. I can barely do it. And the closest to introspection I can manage is to remember what I said or did in some situation. I can very rarely remember how or what I felt. When I have felt sad, what I can usually do is remember if I wiped away tears or some such. But I do not remember the feeling.

Alas. I am now 1/2 deaf (due to damage of the hairy bodies in the cochlea) and 4/5 mind blind. I can still think and see reasonably well, at least for the moment.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[peterdjones]

Ba'al Chatzaf wrote:

I believe the reality is real and it is what it is regardless of our wishes, hopes, prayers, hallucinations and errors. Facts are hard. Opinions are sometimes vapor-ware.

end quote

Exactly. I am an Objectivist. Whatever “is proven,” *IS*. Reality is the constant feedback to the veracity of our philosophy, Mr. Jones.

Are your talking to me? I have no problem with small-o objectivism. I said nothing to indicate that I did.

Errors in phraseology are not flaws in a chain of thought linked to reality.

I don't have to believe someone has a perfect philosophy just because they say so. If you think

something has been misphrased, you need to fix the problem, not whine or ad-hom or psychologise,

or self-advertise...

This is the second time that I have asked you for this "list" of alleged contradictions in Objectivism . . . Please provide the list.

I second that wish.

And I provided the list.

Peterdjones wrote:

"Objectivism cannot be corrected until it admits it has flaws."

and Michael responded:

Do you know anyone named "Objectivism"? I don't.

Your analysis of his posts is good.

It's funny. He complains that I take Objectivism to be dogmatic and unwilling

to take correction, saying it is just a problem with some Objectivists...but he's

one of them!