Kardashians vs. the military


Recommended Posts

Kacy,

Of course he didn't ask you to.

He manipulated you into it.

It's a control thing and you fell for it.

btw - Aren't you the guy who broadcasted to the four winds--including right here on OL in about a bazillion posts--that you blocked this dude from communicating with you from everywhere because he was stalking you or something? The dude was bad faith and so on? Wasn't that you?

And here you are telling everyone what gets through and what doesn't get through in his moderated posts. You are in essence making his posts for him.

How on earth did you become aware of what's in them?

Hmmmmm?

And where did the urge to say this in public come from?

Hmmmmm?

You were played, pure and simple.

Stings, doesn't it?

:smile:

I wonder what else he's going to have you doing.

Michael

I blocked him from commenting on my own personal venues. I don't pretend to have censored him from anywhere other than my own cyber-realms.

Yes, he was being disrespectful and deliberately trolling. But I think you're misunderstanding what's happening here and now. What you perceive as me being manipulated is actually a good faith demonstration on my part that I am not interested in grudges. So long as dialogue remains respectful and honest, I will dialogue with anyone so long as the conversation is one worth having.

You know, this "you're being manipulated" line is yet another vague and unfalsifiable charge, and I'm baffled that you are persisting with it. You could make that charge against anything I say, couldn't you? I could just as easily say it about every word you write and there's not a thing you could do to falsify the accusation. In fact anyone could say it about anything anyone else says.

I've had off-line conversations with RB many times. Up until now, they were contentious and not related to anything being discussed in the common areas. That's why you never heard about them,.

But the off-line conversations I'm having now *do* relate. And the reason I know what he wrote that didn't get through moderation is because he sent them my way. I didn't realize that sending someone a copy of something you wrote that didn't get through moderation in order to continue discussing it was a manipulation tactic. And here it looked to me like... conversation!

You know you're being condescending. You know that your "you're so easily manipulated! How cute!" line is condescending and unmerited.

And for the record... this conversation isn't about RB. It's about you and me, and the fact that decorating your condescension with emoticons doesn't disguise what you're doing. I was having a fine conversation about anti-fragility, and I would have liked it if RB would have been able to continue contributing to it. I don't know what kind of PM's you're getting or who they're coming from, but I am pretty confident that my words, and the motives for speaking them, are mine alone. I'd appreciate it if you would grant me the benefit of the doubt on that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...decorating your condescension with emoticons doesn't disguise what you're doing.

KacyRay:

With, sorta all due respect, am I to believe that the above communication's wet dream that spilled onto your mind is to be taken seriously?

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And just for the record, all these three guys have done since they've shown up is bicker, talk about bickering, and goad people into bickering when they're tired of bickering among themselves.

Bash this, bash that, gossip about this person, snigger at that person, bicker bicker bicker.

Am I going to start calling these guys the Three Stooges?

Let's start throwing cream pies, make goofy faces and poke each other in the eyes.

:smile:

(I'm still upbeat, but man, am I getting sick of these dudes. I guess people can tell I just love spending my holidays dealing with this crap. Maybe open and honest doesn't work for them.)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Parameters. How does one attain any certainty without defining the parameters?

If one starts in a fog, everything is always foggy.

(Albeit that you made very good points.)

So the way to define parameters is to invent them? Great.

Ellen

So say some. I've been waiting for authentic rebuttals of those inventions by anybody who wants to try.

Still waiting...

Tony, I don't understand your comment. Are you claiming that the opposites Rand proclaims here and here are accurate generalizations from evidence? If so, it's in your court to provide some evidence.

Ellen

They are accurate generalizations from my experience and introspection, and what I've seen of other people's lives.

All those states of mind she points to in your links (passive resignation, chronic guilt, self-doubt, disgust, boredom) delineated as extremes at one end - must exist in relation to something else, at the other.

For instance, as we can safely surmise she'd have viewed it, a mind is either alert, focused and conscious - or it's in a fog. No half measures.

Can one be half-guilty, half-fearful, half-self-disgusted? Well sure one can, but not for any length of time before it affects one's present and future happiness and self-esteem..

If one grasps that one's life (and all life) is not defined by these, and wishes to oppose them, one'd better have a crystal-clear idea of their obverse.

(Maybe one must have walked on the wild side for a period of one's life, to fully appreciate "the proclamation of opposites." I will add that the further out you go into No Man's Land, the nearer to a life or death situation existence becomes. A resultant compromise- of a half-life- is even worse. Can you get any greater opposites than between those?)

Tony,

I don't understand your reply.

I copied the whole sequence up to now becaus there's been a bunch of stuff in between.

I'll respond to some details in subsequent posts.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Next, here's the opposites proclamation from one of the two posts I linked:

[An example of Rand's using "most prople"] which I noticed recently comes from "The Metaphysical Versus the Man-Made," date 1973.

The essay can also be found in Philosophy: Who Needs It.

She starts that essay by quoting the [AA] serenity prayer:

"God grant me the serenity to accept things I cannot change, courage to change things I can, and wisdom to know the difference."

Three paragraphs farther along, she states:

Most men spend their lives in futile rebellion against things they cannot change, in passive resignation to things they can, and - never attempting to learn the difference - in chronic guilt and self-doubt on both counts.

[....]

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know you're being condescending. You know that your "you're so easily manipulated! How cute!" line is condescending and unmerited.

Huh!

Here I thought I was mocking. I guess I'm losing my edge. :smile:

But condescending is a good word. I haven't thought about that word for a while.

Let's see if I know it when I see it.

I wonder if this is condescending:

Remember when Martin Bashnir said something really nasty about Sarah Palin and all the hard-right-wingies rushed to speak up in defense of his right to free speech and expression? Remember how outraged they were at how he lost his job for expressing an opinion?

Yeah, neither do I.

Or maybe this is:

Bashir stated his personal opinion too. How is it any different? (I mean.. other than the fact that's it's ok to trash those yucky gay people, and really mean to trash Sarah Palin.)

Or this:

The Constitution doesn't mention guns either. I don't see anyone pointing out that irrelevant fact.

Or this:

Now excuse me while I go buy lemonade from the little girl across the street. I'm dying to know what her values are.

Or this:

The government could conceivably permit everyone to carry a knife and outlaw guns and still be well within chapter and verse of the Constitution, if you want to play the "letter of the law" game.

Or, we could dispense with those playground tactics altogether and have a real conversation about theocrats and their agenda.

Or this:

But don't worry... keep on listening to mommy Palin and daddy Beck and you'll be fine. I hope one day you find yourself enjoying the theocratic utopia that those two have in mind for us one day, so long as it ain't in America.

Or this:

I wonder if you could simply answer with clarity...

There's a lot more out there, but I don't have all eternity to muck around with this.

I wonder if that's what condescending looks like...

Gotta work on my mocking chops, though. I'm slipping... :)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most men spend their lives in futile rebellion against things they cannot change, in passive resignation to things they can, and - never attempting to learn the difference - in chronic guilt and self-doubt on both counts.

They are accurate generalizations from my experience and introspection, and what I've seen of other people's lives.

All those states of mind she points to in your links (passive resignation, chronic guilt, self-doubt, disgust, boredom) delineated as extremes at one end - must exist in relation to something else, at the other.

[...]

Can one be half-guilty, half-fearful, half-self-disgusted? Well sure one can, but not for any length of time before it affects one's present and future happiness and self-esteem..

Tony,

Note that Rand says "most men [inclusive, i.e., most people]" and "spend their lives."

Are you saying that you've found this to be an "accurate generalization"?

I don't see any possibility that it could be. Notice what she's claiming: That a person could spend his/her life rebelling against what can't be changed, resigned to what can be changed, and "never attempting to learn the difference."

I submit that anyone who really did that, not merely sometimes, in some circumstances, but as a way of (attempted) life, would be dead, soon.

You ask:

Can one be half-guilty, half-fearful, half-self-disgusted? Well sure one can, but not for any length of time before it affects one's present and future happiness and self-esteem..

I agree that being half-guilty, half-fearful, half-self-disgusted would affect "one's present and future happiness and self-esteem." But this statement doesn't address what Rand said. She didn't say "Most men spend their lives less than optimally for their happiness and self-esteem."

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For instance, as we can safely surmise she'd have viewed it, a mind is either alert, focused and conscious - or it's in a fog. No half measures.

I don't think that we can safely surmise that. Some things she said might indicate it, but others don't. Plus there's Branden's "Intellectual Ammunition" piece I posted on another thread which describes a continuum of awareness - link.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ellen: It was likely my top-spin return of serve, but it's "in your court" now. Without a response I have to presume I took the point, if not the set?

I just saw that comment.

A no-response isn't a safe basis from which to presume anything. There are loads of possible reasons why someone might not respond to a post. It isn't even safe to presume that someone has seen a post unless the someone does respond.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most men spend their lives in futile rebellion against things they cannot change, in passive resignation to things they can, and - never attempting to learn the difference - in chronic guilt and self-doubt on both counts.

They are accurate generalizations from my experience and introspection, and what I've seen of other people's lives.

All those states of mind she points to in your links (passive resignation, chronic guilt, self-doubt, disgust, boredom) delineated as extremes at one end - must exist in relation to something else, at the other.

[...]

Can one be half-guilty, half-fearful, half-self-disgusted? Well sure one can, but not for any length of time before it affects one's present and future happiness and self-esteem..

Tony,

Note that Rand says "most men [inclusive, i.e., most people]" and "spend their lives."

Are you saying that you've found this to be an "accurate generalization"?

I don't see any possibility that it could be. Notice what she's claiming: That a person could spend his/her life rebelling against what can't be changed, resigned to what can be changed, and "never attempting to learn the difference."

I submit that anyone who really did that, not merely sometimes, in some circumstances, but as a way of (attempted) life, would be dead, soon.

You ask:

Can one be half-guilty, half-fearful, half-self-disgusted? Well sure one can, but not for any length of time before it affects one's present and future happiness and self-esteem..

I agree that being half-guilty, half-fearful, half-self-disgusted would affect "one's present and future happiness and self-esteem." But this statement doesn't address what Rand said. She didn't say "Most men spend their lives less than optimally for their happiness and self-esteem."

Ellen

"...anyone who really did that...would be dead soon." ES

I think you underestimate the hold on life that is inherent to humans. We are physical survivors, no matter what, capable of compromise piled on top of compromise on top of self-contradiction.

But I need to reiterate "parameters". Obviously, at one extreme is "All", at the other is "None", and in between are measurements or degrees.

"Most" means 51% and up (to be pedantic).

"Most swans are white".

Agreed? But how did you know that without traveling the world, and seeing them all?

"Most men lead lives of quiet desperation and go to the grave with the song still in them". [HD Thoreau]

This one is more debatable, requiring extrospection of people's behaviour and introspection of one's own non-constant condition- with a large input from great art, particularly literature (I found). If not "most", I'd estimate "many"

Fundamentally, all paths lead to this: Is his existence known, and knowable, to the individual, in its huge range of human values, desires, emotions, etc. in all degrees and all combinations?

Is man exactly suited to reality, or not? Does he exist in reality, or not? And isn't he in fact, reality?

If we each (skeptically or subjectively) demand we receive the sum total of knowledge, of all time, held by all men, and to top it the Secret of the entire Cosmos - we sentence ourselves to a half-life of a frozen existence, waiting for an authority to tell us what The Answer is. Naturally accompanied by fear, doubt and guilt.

I think Rand (criticized variously, with: "How could she possibly know this!!? - "Huh, generalizations" - "Sweeping assertion!"- "Extremism!") did no more in essence than point to the fact that an individual can know more than is sufficient for his lifetime...and how to accomplish this by seizing one's OWN authority.

Additionally, with continuous and further observation, experience and reasoning, one's assessment of "A few", or "some" or "many" or "most" will become further refined. However, you cannot get there without establishing the parameters: of what is possible in consciousness and existence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For instance, as we can safely surmise she'd have viewed it, a mind is either alert, focused and conscious - or it's in a fog. No half measures.

I don't think that we can safely surmise that. Some things she said might indicate it, but others don't. Plus there's Branden's "Intellectual Ammunition" piece I posted on another thread which describes a continuum of awareness - link.

Ellen

Knowing what a stickler you are for this, I must say I'm horrified! You've gone and quoted me under your name. (#34)

Shocked! I'm telling you! Shocked!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kacy[...]You are [...]bitch for now.

[...]you like being[...]bitch.

You're actually kinda cute that way.

I just wanted to see that again. :smile:

Merry Christmas, y'all

Kacy[...]You are [...]bitch for now.

[...]you like being[...]bitch.

You're actually kinda cute that way.

I just wanted to see that again. :smile:

Merry Christmas, y'all

Geez...did you need to expose Pandora's box?

And it is one tight place...

Now how do we approach the respective submissive bitch that Kacy has become to Bob's [always sounds better when the Dominant male has a "kind" name] leash,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[iNSERT: The following is misattributed. It comes from Tony's post #15.]

For instance, as we can safely surmise she'd have viewed it, a mind is either alert, focused and conscious - or it's in a fog. No half measures.

I don't think that we can safely surmise that. Some things she said might indicate it, but others don't. Plus there's Branden's "Intellectual Ammunition" piece I posted on another thread which describes a continuum of awareness - link.

Ellen

Knowing what a stickler you are for this, I must say I'm horrified! You've gone and quoted me under your name. (#34)

Shocked! I'm telling you! Shocked!

I'm shocked and horrified, too. It's too late to edit #34, but see the correct link inserted above.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suggest a duel to resolve this dispute...

That remark reminds me - because I'm imagining what she'd say about it - that I miss Carol. She hasn't posted since November 21. I hope she's ok.

Ellen

I sent her a PM about a week ago. I have her private e-mail and phone number and will be reaching out to her at both next week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suggest a duel to resolve this dispute...

That remark reminds me - because I'm imagining what she'd say about it - that I miss Carol. She hasn't posted since November 21. I hope she's ok.

Ellen

I sent her a PM about a week ago. I have her private e-mail and phone number and will be reaching out to her at both next week.

I also miss her and PM'd her last week with no response. Please do let her know that she needs to come out to play.

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