audiognostic

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axprP98I5Wo

' i am so sorry to hear that we cannot discuss the content of an idea unless proper spelling and capital letters are involved i have never read the Ayn Rand quote that said "objectivist philosophy is impossible without the use of proper spelling and capital letters, especially when writing on an internet forum"

what is this about.. my spelling and grammar? give me a fucking break how about the content of my ideas your pet peeve may be spelling and grammar my pet peeve is people whos brain frys when they read anything without perfect spelling and grammar this is a god damn internet forum, i am not trying to write works of literature here do not criticize me as you have in a previous post about my grammatical errors..nor the style of my writing composition.. for honestly.. i dont give a damn about your opinions on that what i want to hear is your opinions about the content of my ideas

extreem spelling 4 lief!

911 explained in 1 minute giant 100+ story toewers do not collapse from the bottom down like a controlled demolition from a pinprick at the top of the towers occupying abotu 3 floors totall not even causing any real strucutral damage the top did not tilt or start to melt, ntohing they collapesd perfectly, in symetircial timing, in symetrical fashion.. in their own footprint.. like a classic controlled demolition in japan i believe.. a skyscraper burned ablaze for over 24 hours and never collapesed indside job plot for dictatorship the NWO does not give a shit about you

private ownership of means of production.. you own the people while they are your means of production.. if they choose to quit, and are no longer your means of production, you no longer own them essentially a boss has "owership" of his employess while they are at work..and really ownership over their life as he can fire them for any reason, including personal misconduct, the wya tehy style their hair, he chooses when they have to come to work , etc.. that is why its.. follow the rules or else... so no its not slavery slavery also implies you are not paying anybody capitalism is voluntary servitude.. that is why if you do not want to be "owned and have your life run by a boss" then you work for yourself..

i think you dont get it... the best example of objectivism working is capitalism.. and capitalism works.. objectivism is about COOPERATION instead of sacrifice.. people out of self interest want to make money, so they start business, which create jobs, which in turn have to provide goods which benefit otehrs at a price with which they will be bought.. others buy the goods, while paying back everybody with a profit who works there the workers win the buyers win its about fair trade nobody has to sacrifice shit nobody has to live in isolation as far as simple small exchanges.. hooking a friend up with a free cheeseburger etc.. objectivism has no beef against that.. because assuming you make more than a few hundred bucks a month 3$ isnt exactly self sacrifice assuming you dotn make a serious habit of it.. which thenw ould be immoral under objectivist ethics since you would be self sacrificing.. even Ayn Rand speaks of this in her lexicon speaking of a value-benefit tradeoff.. saying for example.. putting your life in danger for a random person, or someone whos relationship with you do not really value, is immoral and shows a lack of self esteem, putting your life in danger for somebody who s relationship to you you value highly such as a loved one, who you cannot live happily without.. is not neccesarly immoral.. its the value - benefit tradeoff of self sacrifice.. and also she goes .. assuming they DESERVE it.. such as.. a small gift is ok.. a large gift to somebody whos relationship you highly value and genuinely wish to give to is ok.. a degree of self sacrifice to help a person very close who matters much to your happiness who is truly helpless and struggling is ok.. a degree of self sacrifice to a person who may be close, but simply does not want to work and wants to live off your back out of their laziness and for their ease.. is NOT ok.... ayn rand actually says this stuff herself.. read the virtue of selfishness and her lexicon i think any form of giving is TECHNICALLY self sacrifice.. since you are giving.. i separate it a little bit i define the definition between "statistically significant self sacrifice" and "statistically insignificant self sacrifice" the former being altruism.. the latter simply being "giving".. i have no problem with the latter.. and if you look closely at the ayn rand lexiccon.. she doesnt really have a problem with it either.. although states it as entirely otpional and non obligatory.. and a cost benefit trade off of values vs personal gain same with gratitude gratitude is nto self sacrifice but simply a delayed transaction and therefore is fully moral none of this requires social isolation or deprivation.. your really think ayn rand hasnt thought of all this stuff already? freely giving with an unspoken expectation of return.. is actually not virtue at all.. but is called a "hidden contract".. or basically a form of passive agressive behavior.. whereas you never say anything.. but if the other person doesnt start giving back you will get mad at him.. even you never made it clear you want anything back.. therefore if you are to give freely.. you cannot expect anything in return.. therefore this whole "give and you shall recieve, what goes around comes around" bullshit is just that.. bullshit

also to add to this topic.. let me say this much.. for those of you who want to help a particualr group of others significantly if you are creative enough.. i believe you can always find a way to have your cake and eat it too for example.. lets say you are a music artist.. why not have a benefit concert.. where you dont sacrifice, you take in enough ticket prices to repay yourself back to ground zero and get enough food to eat and gas for the night and all that.. so you lose nothing.. and give all profits to a cause.. guess what that does?? it boosts your name in the eyes of the people, boosts your popularity, you can get on tv, people will think you are a "good person" and be more inclined to support you even though you never sacrificed yourself.. well they think you sacrificed your profits.. but you really didnit.. all you did is played on their beleif that altruism is good to your own selfish needs.. they think you lost something, when what you really gained is more album/merchandise sales/ more of a name, etc.. in the end never let somebody convince you that selfishness is a bad place to come from.. you can ALWAYS use EXTREME selfishness to have your cake and eat it too.. as in the above example.. there was a company i have also heard of in a video which stated a foundation to give loans to poor african people.. unlike other companies who were heralded who gave loans with no gurantee of payback and expected no return profit, and did not come after those who did not repay, and did so non profit, this company did so with interst and to gain profit..and highly qualified potential loaners and came after thoes who did not pay back.. actually not only made a profit.. but made greater contribution to the africans thesmelves, because it motivated the africans to work harder and actually make soemthing of the money, so when they got paid back.. with interst.. that was a mark that hte loan was actually working to create productive work and success for the african people.. these people got bitched out interestingly enough for being "selfish".. in the end they created more productive workers than the non profit companies or how about donating to yoru favorite charity or cause as a form of not having to pay taxes and tax deductable spending?? fuck straight donation.. write the shit off on your taxes! you benefit, they benefit.. or how about letting a struggling very close friend stay at your house for a month, with the contract that he does your house work, cooking, and runs errands in order to work for his living in the time that he does not spend looking for a job depending on how long he spends looking for a job vs helping you.. sure you might sacrifice a little.. but not significantly.. and the value trade off may just be worth it.. and you wont be left feeling resentful.. if it is in yoru self interst to help that friend.. at least you know he is not siting around on his ass eating your shit and drinking your beer while he is out of work and taking your money and if he bitches about having to work.. that just lets you know his true intentions.. of laziness.. never support an unproductive person who doesnt WANT to work.. fuck guilt tripped altruism win - win.. you can always have your cake and eat it too... never let somebody bitch you out saying lose - win is the moral standard

view my post on pure objectivism working.. and the rule of law.. i didnt actually watch the video.. to be perfectly fucking honest.. but honestly.. lol.. i do not give much of a shit about ANY form of self sacrifice for others.. especially outside my own family.. which is my personal self interest choice to hold them in higher esteem.. so if honesty is going to get me into a place where my own goals are lowered for the sake of pleasing another, i wont do it... if somebody comes in with a gun and asks you wehre your mother is.. will you tell them out of honesty?? i think not.. Ayn Rand even said somewhere that you can take things she says that you like and use them, and things which you dont like and tosss them out.. i personally have no interest in any self sacrifice for teh good of anyone outsid emyself and my family as i have mentioned.. so therefore.. i hold the virtue of honesty to be a bit different.. i am actually somewhat of an extremist objectivist, perhaps more than Rand herself hah.. instead of honesty in general.. i would say.. personal honesty,.. honesty to oneself.. is a virtue.. in other words.. realism.. facing reality.. and not denying what is staring you in the face.. that is MY definition of honesty.. i do not agree with rands assertations against con-men.. i have no problem with con men.. i made a post on another forum about the purpose of "evil" or in the sense being evil as anything which hurts another life.. the purpose of evil, is like the purpose of a harsh winter, the purpose of social darwinism istelf.. to weed out the weak.. and keep the strong.. for an overall betterment of life itself.. that which is incapable of sustaining its own life and self interest.. something will come and weed it out.. such is the nature of old age and death.. i am saying this is neitehr "bad nor good" really.. but simply is what it is.. so if you are stupid enough to get trapped by a con man.. and if the con man is smart enough to get away with it.. then it is what it is.. if you wish to be a con man.. and con others and they are dumb enough to fall for it.. and you are smart enough to get awy with it.. good for you.. just know this is still not a highlly rational model of self interst.. because it builds no other virtues for youreslf.. and is a largely unsustainable model of long term living and prosperity for youreslf especially since you will create mass enemies which will be looking to take you out if you see my post on does pure objectivism work.. you can see that thinking from a PURELY selfish perspective.. works for society.. as long as you do not forget it in the mass picture.. the rule of law.. etc.. i go into it in that post there so even initiation of force is not "evil" i believe simply because it goes against others.. but because it through self interest of everbody in society itself.. will bring you far more trouble than good.. plus for teh trouble it brings you is not worth it even if you rob somebody.. because ultimately your happiness does not come from hurting others.. but in gaining for youreslf.. so it morally objectively makes no sense to hurt others for no rason if it brings no real personal gain.. in the end, simple whim gratification brings no long term happiness.. as well as hurting innocents, cooperatives, and non enemies, and members of our own "tribe" per se.... in our minds.. i believe we are automatically programmed against that for the survival of our own species.. and therefore you will probably be plagued with guilt and bad feelings afterwards.. definitely not worth it.. and if you do not have this part of your brain working.. our rational self intersted society has places to hunt down and put people like you... so if you rob somebody, gaining for yourself, you will likely bring more trouble for yourself than it is worth.. assuming social law is rational and functional.. as i put in my post on pure objectivism.. if it is not.. then your robbing someone is simply a test of the weakness of the law.. and teh weakness of others self interest.. so in terms of social darwinism.. it is justifiable.. if you can 100% get away with it bringing no trouble onto yourself.. and if htat part of your brain of caring for your tribe is not working.. and even then it is not exactly a sustainable business model, or a building of any virtue or long term progress towards your happiness in life.. basically for the most part, the cost-benefit analisys is way off for it to be rational self interest if you rob somebody who is very rich.. and it is worth teh tradeoff of cost-beneifit.. then that rich person failed the test, as well as society.. because they are responsible as well for protecting themselves and their riches through rational self interst.. and you prodded their ewakness.. and your bad feelings do not count out the benefit.. well.. shit.. you got away with it.. sucks for them.. anyway.. so much for honesty and self interst.. EXTREEM OBJECTIVIZM 4 LIFE! lol

ok.. this post was originally my reply for a topic on children.. but i found my thinkig so profound (theres my pride again hah.. so glad here i wont get bashed for not following that false humility bullshit..) that i believe it deserves its own special thread.. it started out with me asking this question: i was thinking.. if the basis of all morality is self interest right... then why shoulld a parent continiue to feed and care for his child if the parent gets sick of it... right?? if he has no duty.. why not just let the child die when it gets too annoying>? also as a side question, should we go on some moral crusade to save helpless children of the world and all other helpless people through altruistic charity work?? and if not will society be permanently fucked up? and should you feel guilty for not doing so? here you will see the phlosophy i came up with to aswer my questions that were bugging the hell out of me.. (i have to hold a complete life philosophy in my mind.. engaging in too much relativism, circumstantialism, confusion and doublethik without core principles kills me.. ) ok here is what i came up with... the only problem with Ayn Rands objectivist thought.. is that she was not thoroughly objectivist enough!! particuarly in the context of a mass broad application!! in particular, i am speaking mainly in terms of the legal system and the nations.. whereas she thought the law should ONLY exist to protect individual property and bodily rights.. i argue here that this is actually not even purely objectivist.. and that if you switched to PURE objectivism as i demostrate.. everything works fantastically.. here are a few basic premisis for my argument 1. objectivism is all about self interest, not in putting others first.. so who ever said it is our individual goal or responsibility to be a "moral example for how everybody else should live for the good of the human race"??? the whole core of objectivism, is we need not hold ANY non objectivist morals 2. i do not believe pure objectivism is incompatible with a good existance as long as there is minor reframing of issues.. or who iis responsible for what.. and what defines an entity... such as .. the individual is responsible only for his own happiess as an entity, a society, nation, or clan as an entity is responsible for its own self interest as an entity... taht being said.. this leads into.. 3... i am not an anarchist, neithr do i believe objectivism supports anarchism so i believe in law, i think the only point i disagree on with ayn rand is the purpose of law.. which i believe should go beyod simply protecting personal property rights.. instead i believe it should do wat it was intended to do by the united states constitution.. to act entirely and thoroughly in the name of its constituents self interest.. staying within the already identified rational moral core of the constitution itself.. which now i will go to demonstrate its sheer perfection and moral accuracy...so that is my reframing...so that being said.. 4. based on our representative republic in the usa.. teh law is meant to take care of such things.. such as the rational good of society at large... if you think of the country as an entity in itself, and you expand your view of the application of objectivism and think of objectivism in terms of application to entities at large, not just singular individuals which comprise and create that entity out of their own self interest, with objectivist morality to be applied to that entity and have the desire for happiness and continued life for that entity, and for objectivism to rule the creation of that entity out of individual interest so that the self interest of the entity, truly in the best way represents the self interst of its members, ...pure objectivism and self interst still works.. as long as laws are meant to take of the entity of the nation and its society in a RATIONAL manner.. which is the whole point of electing good politicians and making good laws... and it ALL comes down to self interest... the american people have the government by choice and self interest, rather than by force according to the constitution and declaration of independence.. therefore it is the american peoples individual self interests, for the entity of america to exist.. and it becomes the entity of americas self interest for itself to exist..therefore the defense, military, etc.. and as an entity, following objectivist ethics.. it has the moral obligation of creating its own rational self interest morality system if it wishes to continue to exist.. therefore.. it is not the individuals responsibility to create morals for the good of the people.. but the entities responsibility in which those people wilfully exist.. because anarchy is PURE individualism.. but actually not RATIONAL self interest!! but rather self interest of whim!!! and therefore is immoral and does us no good to further the cause of our own lives.. and does not work..which is why we CHOOSE to have government! - in the wonderful system of the american constitutional republic at least.. and its capitalist economy and entire system.. the most progressive, objectivist, revolutionary system ever truly made.. all those "revolutionary prograssive socialists": really have their head up their ass.. 5. the same can be said about a company.. as it is the CEOs and founders self interest for that entity to exist, essentially his self interest becomes congruent with the self interest of the company, and therefore rational principles must be founded for that entity to continue to exist if the ceo wishes to continue to profit from it.. thats why the ceo must pay his employees and provide them with proper faculties, rather than taking everything for himself.. none of this is altruism, but a continuation of rational self interest and objectivist morality 6. that being said, we as individuals do not need to neccessarily be concerned about being an example for everybody, or if our personal values would benefit society at large... for they are our own and solely for our own benefit and not for anybody else.. we do not need to worry "what if everybody did this.. what would happenn to society" for the reasons i mentioned above... 7. therefore.. coming back to my example with not feeding your children... and taking proper care of them... ultimately how you choose to raise your childern is entierly up to you.. and your self interest, unfortunately, but it is just part of reality, that some children will be raised in less than proper families, others will be raised in great families.. this is just human nature..no matter the system we run or the laws we make, there is no way we can ever get rid of this .. so if you wish to have your children grow up in a good family.. that is your self interest.. and it is in their best self interest that you do not have them until you are capable of doing so without sacrificing your own happiness as taht would make for an immoral and un-good family dynamic.. so in the end self interst and non altruism always wins as the best choice.. and if you wish to regulate what is good for all of society.. dont worry about shouting to the world how righteous you are ad how they should follow your example.. instead do what you do.. and vote..there is nothing else we relaly can do about it other than make rational laws for regulation.. for example.. it is still all self interest to feed your children and clothe them, because due to the laws of teh entity we have elected to have through self interest, adults are responsible for their children to the degree which the law has decided, and if you go too far you will be charged with child abuse which will cause you more trouble than your self interested self desires to bear... 8. am i saying that the government should intrude in our personal lives unneccesarily? no.. and our representative republic model in the usa handles this perfectly by constitutional (perhaps not current) theory.. since we as "societal groups" willingly elect our representatives to make laws which would be the best for society.. and therefore we indirectly as groups decide what is best for us as groups.. society will end up through this process finding and evolving laws for that of RATIONAL self interest.. in other words.. that which works.. and which leaves society as a unit maximally satisfied.. there will never be the perfect utopia.. but we can make the best laws possible.. such as curernt child abuse laws.. laws for children to be educated.. etc.. which our own people and society see fit.. this is different from the dictatorial model of governmet intruding ito family life.. since by the reprsentative model, if the people decide that the laws are not in their best mass self interest, tehy will vote the representatives out of office.. therefore.. individual self interest.. and mass self interest.. is all taken care of by one giant objectivist style system of rational self interest which is inherent in the american constitution ad the american way... i hope that clears some shit up.. in other words.. keep freely following all your rational self interest entirely... objectivism works no need for mystic duty.. not all of life will always be purely utopian with all children being equal and everything great and rosy no matter what system you have.. even nature itself is set up that way.. we have the cards we are dealt.. life is not total about equality and utopia.. that is un natural and does not work as communist systems have proven it is up to you and within your rational self interest how you wish to raise your children within the confines of the law.. and how you wish to interact with your family.. and there is no need for any sort of un secular, irrational mystical morality vote follow the law

damn, huge discussion on this.. i was thinking about the issue myself.. then i came to a conclusion i think to be valid.. ok.. here i go.. i was thinking.. if the basis of all morality is self interest right... then why shoulld a parent continiue to feed and care for his child if the parent gets sick of it... right?? ok here is what i came up with... there are a few basic premisis for my argument 1. objectivism is all about self interest, not in putting others first.. so who ever said it is our individual goal or responsibility to be a "moral example for how everybody else should live for the good of the human race"??? 2. i do not believe pure objectivism is incompatible with a good existance as long as there is minor reframing of issues.. or who iis responsible for what.. and what defines an entity... such as .. the individual is responsible only for his own happiess as an entity, a society, nation, or clan as an entity is responsible for its own self interest as an entity... taht being said.. this leads into.. 3... i am not an anarchist, neithr do i believe objectivism supports anarchism so i believe in law, i think the only point i disagree on with ayn rand is the purpose of law.. which i believe should go beyod simply protecting personal property rights.. instead i believe it should do wat it was intended to do by the united states constitution.. to act in the name of its constituents self interest.. so that is my reframing...so that being said.. 4. based on our representative republic in the usa.. teh law is meant to take care of such things.. such as the rational good of society at large... if you think of the country as an entity in itself, and you expand your view of the application of objectivism and think of objectivism in terms of application to entities at large, not just singular individuals which comprise and create that entity out of their own self interest, with objectivist morality to be applied to that entity and have the desire for happiness and continued life for that entity, and for objectivism to rule the creation of that entity out of individual interest so that the self interest of the entity, truly in the best way represents the self interst of its members, ...pure objectivism and self interst still works.. as long as laws are meant to take of the entity of the nation and its society in a RATIONAL manner.. which is the whole point of electing good politicians and making good laws... and it ALL comes down to self interest... the american people have the government by choice and self interest, rather than by force according to the constitution and declaration of independence.. therefore it is the american peoples individual self interests, for the entity of america to exist.. and it becomes the entity of americas self interest for itself to exist..therefore the defense, military, etc.. and as an entity, following objectivist ethics.. it has the moral obligation of creating its own rational self interest morality system if it wishes to continue to exist.. therefore.. it is not the individuals responsibility to create morals for the good of the people.. but the entities responsibility in which those people wilfully exist.. because anarchy is PURE individualism.. but actually not RATIONAL self interest!! but rather self interest of whim!!! and therefore is immoral and does us no good to further the cause of our own lives.. which is why we CHOOSE to have government! - in the wonderful system of the american constitutional republic at least.. and its capitalist economy and entire system.. the most progressive, objectivist, revolutionary system ever truly made.. all those "revolutionary prograssive socialists": really have their head up their ass.. 5. the same can be said about a company.. as it is the CEOs and founders self interest for that entity to exist, essentially his self interest becomes congruent with the self interest of the company, and therefore rational principles must be founded for that entity to continue to exist if the ceo wishes to continue to profit from it.. thats why the ceo must pay his employees and provide them with proper faculties, rather than taking everything for himself.. none of this is altruism, but a continuation of rational self interest and objectivist morality 6. that being said, we as individuals do not need to neccessarily be concerned about being an example for everybody, or if our personal values would benefit society at large... for they are our own and solely for our own benefit and not for anybody else.. we do not need to worry "what if everybody did this.. what would happenn to society" for the reasons i mentioned above... 7. therefore.. coming back to my example with not feeding your children... and taking proper care of them... ultimately how you choose to raise your childern is entierly up to you.. and your self interest, unfortunately, but it is just part of reality, that some children will be raised in less than proper families, others will be raised in great families.. this is just human nature..no matter the system we run or the laws we make, there is no way we can ever get rid of this .. so if you wish to have your children grow up in a good family.. that is your self interest.. and it is in their best self interest that you do not have them until you are capable of doing so without sacrificing your own happiness as taht would make for an immoral and un-good family dynamic.. so in the end self interst and non altruism always wins as the best choice.. and if you wish to regulate what is good for all of society.. dont worry about shouting to the world how righteous you are ad how they should follow your example.. instead do what you do.. and vote..there is nothing else we relaly can do about it other than make rational laws for regulation.. for example.. it is still all self interest to feed your children and clothe them, because due to the laws of teh entity we have elected to have through self interest, adults are responsible for their children to the degree which the law has decided, and if you go too far you will be charged with child abuse which will cause you more trouble than your self interested self desires to bear... 8. am i saying that the government should intrude in our personal lives unneccesarily? no.. and our representative republic model in the usa handles this perfectly by constitutional (perhaps not current) theory.. since we as "societal groups" willingly elect our representatives to make laws which would be the best for society.. and therefore we indirectly as groups decide what is best for us as groups.. society will end up through this process finding and evolving laws for that of RATIONAL self interest.. in other words.. that which works.. and which leaves society as a unit maximally satisfied.. there will never be the perfect utopia.. but we can make the best laws possible.. such as curernt child abuse laws.. laws for children to be educated.. etc.. which our own people and society see fit.. this is different from the dictatorial model of governmet intruding ito family life.. since by the reprsentative model, if the people decide that the laws are not in their best mass self interest, tehy will vote the representatives out of office.. therefore.. individual self interest.. and mass self interest.. is all taken care of by one giant objectivist style system of rational self interest which is inherent in the american constitution ad the american way... i hope that clears some shit up.. in other words.. keep freely following all your rational self interest entirely... objectivism works no need for mystic duty.. not all of life will always be purely utopian with all children being equal and everything great and rosy no matter what system you have.. even nature itself is set up that way.. we have the cards we are dealt.. life is not total about equality and utopia.. that is un natural and does not work as communist systems have proven it is up to you and within your rational self interest how you wish to raise your children within the confines of the law.. and how you wish to interact with your family.. and there is no need for any sort of un secular, irrational mystical morality vote follow the law