Do We Learn To Love Bad Art?

[moralist]

Look Moralist, there is only one Cryptic Commenter here, and Brant beith his name and he hath diciples.And cryptic answers to straightforward questions are unBrantian and border on trolling.

I'm not the least bit cryptic. I'm using simple direct sentences written in plain English. Jonathan is just experiencing reading comprehension failure.

I'm not a religious believer. Someone had asked me if I believe in God, and I answered that I don't believe in God. I know He exists. And in like manner any values I live by are only because I know them to be true, and not because I believe in them.

[caroljane]

And the towers of the ungaedely shall be laid low.

[Selene]

And the towers of the ungaedely shall be laid low.

Damn - remind me to duck!!

[Jonathan]

Look Moralist, there is only one Cryptic Commenter here, and Brant beith his name and he hath diciples.And cryptic answers to straightforward questions are unBrantian and border on trolling.

I'm not the least bit cryptic. I'm using simple direct sentences written in plain English. Jonathan is just experiencing reading comprehension failure.

I'm not a religious believer. Someone had asked me if I believe in God, and I answered that I don't believe in God. I know He exists. And in like manner any values I live by are only because I know them to be true, and not because I believe in them.

Now let's argue over whether that's a distinction without a difference or a difference without a distinction! Semantic disputes are so fun, not to mention intellectually deep and satisfying!!!

"It's not a semantic dispute! It's a disagreement about the meanings of the words being used!"

J

P.S. You sound like you could be a follower of the Reverend J. Neil Schulman.

[Brant Gaede]

I just discovered this thread.

Doesn't anybody here know how to win an argument* except in his own mind?

--Brant

*out arguing is not of what I speak--it's all about the questions (some parading as statements) and how they guide to an unanswerable conclusion*--uh, the truth of the truth

*and the thread ends

someone* sent out the signal

*Carol

no one has ended more threads than I, but I can't end this one--too many players; too much fun (and for me too much work)

[moralist]

Now let's argue over whether that's a distinction without a difference or a difference without a distinction!

It takes two people to agree to argue for an argument to take place, Jonathan.

I've only stated my view.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

Just stating your "view" is per se dogmatic and if it's characteristic you proclaim yourself to be a dogmatist and as such you are outside reason and ratiocination and argument. Greg, that makes you OL's most fundamental troll ever. It can't be topped except by argumentum ad hominem or just plain ad hominem. This thread is all about you (ad h.). That's not how it started (1-5). Everyone else is necessarily a secondary, futile player* just for trying to argue you down. The impregnable can't be impregnated. Yours is a mighty fortress, but only to attackers wielding clubs of reason.

--Brant

*me too, so I'm outta here (drive by!)

[moralist]

Just stating your "view" is per se dogmatic and if it's characteristic you proclaim yourself to be a dogmatist and as such you are outside reason and ratiocination and argument.

Nothing prevents you or anyone else from arguing against anything I've said. For me it's enough to simply state my view and to clearly describe as best I can how it differs from the views of others.

No one is ever convinced to change their view by mere words on their monitor. Only your own real life experience has the power to change your view. It's beyond me how anyone could fantasize that they could ever have the power to change anyone else's view just by typing words.

I truly enjoy reading everyone's view here and to note the differences in substance as well as the wide variety of expressions. I'm sorry you're not also enjoying this experience, Brant.

Greg

[Ellen Stuttle]

the "various shades of fugly"?

That's a keeper.

Edit: On searching, I see that Moralist gets the credit - post #46.

Question: Are you meaning to sound puritanical in your own views on extra-marital sex, or is that one of your accepting-the-opponent's-premises-to-use-them-against-the-opponent maneuvers?

Ellen

PS: Who are the third and fifth women from the left in the photo strip?

[moralist]

the "various shades of fugly"?

That's a keeper.

Edit: On searching, I see that Moralist gets the credit - post #46.

Thank you for the kindly attribution, Ellen.

It's obviously a contraction. (heh)

Question: Are you meaning to sound puritanical in your own views on extra-marital sex, or is that one of your accepting-the-opponent's-premises-to-use-them-against-the-opponent maneuvers?

You're giving me ~far~ more credit for being clever than this idiot savant deserves.

I'm not certain that I've ever broached that topic here. If you can direct me to a quote which directly addresses that issue, I'll be happy to respond.

Greg

[caroljane]

Failing the appearance of the Rev. J Neil from the sky, I will give it the old college try on another front.

Moralist, you said earlier that "there are only two basic worldviews". I disagree strongly with that statement. Can you describe these two views? and do not answer with "the correct one and the incorrect one" or "the subjective and the objective" or I will for the first time put in an abuse report to Michael!

[Ellen Stuttle]

Question: Are you meaning to sound puritanical in your own views on extra-marital sex, or is that one of your accepting-the-opponent's-premises-to-use-them-against-the-opponent maneuvers?

You're giving me ~far~ more credit for being clever than this idiot savant deserves.I'm not certain that I've ever broached that topic here. If you can direct me to a quote which directly addresses that issue, I'll be happy to respond.

Greg

The question was addressed to Jonathan. I haven't noticed you broaching the topic, but Jonathan brought Rand's affair with Nathaniel Branden into a recent reply to you (the one with the strip of photos - #246).

Ellen

[moralist]

Question: Are you meaning to sound puritanical in your own views on extra-marital sex, or is that one of your accepting-the-opponent's-premises-to-use-them-against-the-opponent maneuvers?

You're giving me ~far~ more credit for being clever than this idiot savant deserves.I'm not certain that I've ever broached that topic here. If you can direct me to a quote which directly addresses that issue, I'll be happy to respond.

Greg

The question was addressed to Jonathan. I haven't noticed you broaching the topic, but Jonathan brought Rand's affair with Nathaniel Branden into a recent reply to you (the one with the strip of photos - #246).

Ellen

Ah, got it.

I'm living up

to my title.

[moralist]

Failing the appearance of the Rev. J Neil from the sky, I will give it the old college try on another front.

Moralist, you said earlier that "there are only two basic worldviews". I disagree strongly with that statement. Can you describe these two views? and do not answer with "the correct one and the incorrect one" or "the subjective and the objective" or I will for the first time put in an abuse report to Michael!

God, I love how you express yourself! Your wit never fails to crack me up. I'd add a smiley, except I've devolved back into Neanderthal basic posting mode for some odd reason.

As to your question, I'll be very clear and direct so as not to trigger the nuclear option. (wink)

First off, both of the two basic world views are subjective, as we are totally subjective beings. Each basic world view corresponds to one of the two gender archetypes, so you are already well aware of the political expression for each view.

The two basic world views are presently engaged in an ideological civil war for the heart of America. Using Ayn Rand's excellently concise and direct terms (I love her bluntness), the civil war is between the American Capitalist Producers... and the European Liberal Socialist Moochers and their allies the public union Looters who service the Moochers demands at the expense of the Producers.

One view is all about earned merit...

...while the other view is all about unearned entitlement.

One view holds each individual personally responsible for the evil they do...

...while the other blames (unjustly accuses) anything and everything else EXCEPT each individual for the evil they do.

One view belongs to men and women who order their own lives without the need of government...

...while the other belongs to females who need government to be their husband, and to act as a father to their irresponsible delinquent fatherless spawn, and also to equally irresponsible males who need government to be their mommie and to take care of them.

There's a face-off going on right now over Obamacare that clearly demonstrates the two basic world views.

As a Conservative American man, Ted Cruz represents the view of earned merit.

As a feminized Liberal male, Harry Reid represents the view of unearned entitlement.

If you have any further questions as a result of reading this, I'll respond to the best of my ability.

Greg

[caroljane]

Thank you for the clear answer. My feminine intuition tells me that your middle name is "Noboody-puts-an-effin'-label-on me" but I see that philosophically, you are a fairly orthodox Objectivist, a black/whiter.

If my colleagues are not too exhausted to pick up the banner in the Siege of Acre and a Mule I will leave the religious conundrum to them.

[caroljane]

Lindsay Perigo expressed this Maniverse-influenced take on orthoism when he said that the future "belongs to men, and women who think like men." It is a gloss on Rand which can arguably be traced to her idiosyncratic views on gender relations.

[moralist]

Thank you for the clear answer. My feminine intuition tells me that your middle name is "Noboody-puts-an-effin'-label-on me" but I see that philosophically, you are a fairly orthodox Objectivist, a black/whiter.

If my colleagues are not too exhausted to pick up the banner in the Siege of Acre and a Mule I will leave the religious conundrum to them.

Black/Whiter

Thank you. I love the apt-ness of that label and will wear it proudly! (smile)

And while I referenced evil, I left religion out of it just for more clarity.

And if you carefully listen to Harry Reid's voice, you can hear the unmanly weak feminized unearned entitlement guile in it. Whatever pathetic creature he is... he is ~not~ a man.

Greg

[caroljane]

I have never heard him speak but I am guessing he is not a basso profundo. Abraham Lincoln had a highish squeaky voice , reportedly. I suppose he would never have got anywhere in politics today without voice lessons like Thatcher took.

[moralist]

I have never heard him speak but I am guessing he is not a basso profundo. Abraham Lincoln had a highish squeaky voice , reportedly. I suppose he would never have got anywhere in politics today without voice lessons like Thatcher took.

It's not a matter of physical pitch, but the underlying intent that shows through.

Reid sings "The Song of the Government Parasite"... and the parasites love "him" for it.

[caroljane]

So the physical pitch of a voice does not denote masculinity or feminiity, and this is also a subjective judgment....

[moralist]

So the physical pitch of a voice does not denote masculinity or feminiity, and this is also a subjective judgment....

ALL of our judgments are subjective. (wink)

Greg

[caroljane]

Is a perception of a visible or audible entity, as masculine or feminine, the same as a judgment then?

[Xray]

What do you make of a person who thinks something is beautiful that you think is ugly? Are "ugly" and "beautiful" terms that can carry a truth value?

That is is the statement x is "ugly" true or false. x is "beautiful" true or false. Or is it merely a matter of mood and opinion and the statements are devoid of substantial true value?

I would say that these terms very often reflect a certain consensus among humans about something and that something is to be examined. What is it that makes people think of something as beautiful or ugly?

Who for example would have called actress Grace Kelly "ugly"? No one, I bet.

[Brant Gaede]

What do you make of a person who thinks something is beautiful that you think is ugly? Are "ugly" and "beautiful" terms that can carry a truth value?

That is is the statement x is "ugly" true or false. x is "beautiful" true or false. Or is it merely a matter of mood and opinion and the statements are devoid of substantial true value?

I would say that these terms very often reflect a certain consensus among humans about something and that something is to be examined. What is it that makes people think of something as beautiful or ugly?

Who for example would have called actress Grace Kelly "ugly"? No one, I bet.

That implies but does not demonstrate objectivity. And don't forget Grace had grace, it was far from merely physical. There has to be a strong implication of inner beauty and strength. An inner radiance is needed. Character helps a lot, too.

--Brant

[moralist]

That implies but does not demonstrate objectivity. And don't forget Grace had grace, it was far from merely physical. There has to be a strong implication of inner beauty and strength. An inner radiance is needed. Character helps a lot, too.

--Brant

Grace had grace.

Well put, Brant.

I'm truly amazed how people could be so incredibly obtuse as to actually regard beauty as ~only~ physical.