This One's for George--Galt's Gulch sorta

[moralist]

Greg you are a brainless dumbass.

That's how I know I hit the bullseye.

Your reaction just gave yourself away.

Greg

[Jules Troy]

Greg you are a brainless dumbass.

That's how I know I hit the bullseye.

You're reaction just gave yourself away.

Greg

[Jules Troy]

?

The guy would be better off trying to fleece new-agers..

[Brant Gaede]

Greg you are a brainless dumbass.

Greg knows what he is. He's always told us. If you had tried to mix a little grace into your post you'd have tossed it and written something more apropos. The appropriate grace to content ratio might be 1:4. Greg falls down in that his ratio is, like, 1:10, but it's there, however somewhat. I'm not breaking any lance for Greg, however. You simply need to know your--this--approach to posting, not Greg's, will get you roasted alive on OL, except the owner will spike it first. The culture here is quite re-enforcing, so I doubt that will happen, unless you're what you say Greg is.

--Brant

"I fell down into a burning ring of fire,

as I went down, the flames went higher,

the ring of fire, the ring of fire."

[Rumpelstiltskin]

NOTE FROM MSK: Deleted.

[anthony]

Ouch. With (let's admit) a little provocation from Greg, you arrive at this. It does reveal early your opinion of O'ists, though.

(This is indeed a hard place to be overly sensitive).

[Brant Gaede]

I'll leave you all to your own [whatever], good day. Jeez!

At least Greg doesn't cut and run. He's a standup man.

--Brant

best OL news this month--and in the jungle, the mighty jungle, the lion (MSK) sleeps all through this

that was easy--too easy; nobody gets a medal (and I don't think most of us these last few posts are Objectivists anyway--more almost like trolls of Objectivism--Tony excepted))

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

I'll let your quote of this jerk stand.

But he's gone, so he says. Just in case, I'll help him keep his word.

What he did is proof he was here fishing for suckers like Greg said, not to discuss any ideas.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

I won't. It gets slashed.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I won't.

Brant,

I like that.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Maybe he's from Chile.

--Brant

[PDS]

I think that his technical point that no one deserves to be defrauded is correct...

Fraud can only take place with the sanction of the victim

especially in the context of Greg's ideas on morality, which are based on nothing but logical fallacies.

I get exactly what I deserve as the consequences of living by my values.

You get exactly what you deserve as the consequences of living by your values.

Everyone gets exactly what they deserve as the consequences of living by their values.

Greg

I think that his technical point that no one deserves to be defrauded is correct...

Fraud can only take place with the sanction of the victim

especially in the context of Greg's ideas on morality, which are based on nothing but logical fallacies.

I get exactly what I deserve as the consequences of living by my values.

You get exactly what you deserve as the consequences of living by your values.

Everyone gets exactly what they deserve as the consequences of living by their values.

Greg

I think that his technical point that no one deserves to be defrauded is correct...

Fraud can only take place with the sanction of the victim

False.

especially in the context of Greg's ideas on morality, which are based on nothing but logical fallacies.

I get exactly what I deserve as the consequences of living by my values.

You get exactly what you deserve as the consequences of living by your values.

Everyone gets exactly what they deserve as the consequences of living by their values.

Greg

Post deleted.

[Jules Troy]

Well that was fun ?

[Peter]

Fraud can only take place with the sanction of the victim???

I think Rand said something like that but that is a con where the victim understands they are doing something slightly shady but assists the con artist for some ill gotten gains.

Cant fraud be like buying a product that is not *as advertised*? I know people should perform due diligence but what if a bank advertised a CD at 1 percent but when the buyer went to collect their interest the bank employee says, "It was one percent but we changed it to one half of a percent after you bought it."? Or a car is advertised as having 30 miles per gallon but it turns out to only have 3 miles per gallon of gas? Perhaps I am forgetting the definition of fraud.

[moralist]

Well that was fun

He missed his meds.

[moralist]

Fraud can only take place with the sanction of the victim???

I think Rand said something like that but that is a con where the victim understands they are doing something slightly shady but assists the con artist for some ill gotten gains.

The appeal of fraud is always getting something for nothing... more than you rightfully deserve.

Predator and prey both have to agree for fraud to take place.

Cant fraud be like buying a product that is not *as advertised*? I know people should perform due diligence but what if a bank advertised a CD at 1 percent but when the buyer went to collect their interest the bank employee says, "It was one percent but we changed it to one half of a percent after you bought it."?

If a bank did that, advertizing one percent was to attract the something for nothing suckers who wanted to get more than the one half percent they rightfully deserved. (although anyone with even a one percent CD is an idiot )

Or a car is advertised as having 30 miles per gallon but it turns out to only have 3 miles per gallon of gas? Perhaps I am forgetting the definition of fraud.

Same logic. If three miles per gallon is the average of all cars, then advertising thirty miles per gallon will only dupe the suckers who believe they can get an unrealistic mileage.

Predator and prey deserve each other for they share matching values. If their values don't match, predation is impossible.

A person who sees reality as it is, knows it's wrong to defraud others. They also understand that to do so would open themselves to being defrauded. This is the ideal of a learning process. so naturally everyone can be defrauded to the extent that they don't see reality clearly. But if they are, it is vital that they realize it is not the fault of the defrauder... but of the fault in themselves of not seeing reality as it is.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

Greg's moral formulations work well enough for his dealings with other people--that is, I take his word for it. It doesn't matter how much it can be sliced and diced for that's words and he doesn't appear to be living under a bridge (like I am).

One can achieve more sophistication about these sorts of things by recognizing everything has a price, even where and when actual fraud does not exist and be aware of the price in your choices. The biggest price is the time of your life. If you marry Sue instead of Sally--so much for Sally. And if Sally marries Jim instead of you, so much for you.

--Brant

[moralist]

Greg's moral formulations work well enough for his dealings with other people--that is, I take his word for it.

Please don't do that, Brant.

It's better to figure out how things work for yourself through your own dealings with others. Only your own real world experience matters. That is the only place where real learning takes place.

I purposefully don't watch television news (or television at all) as it's about things over which I have no control and for which I bear no responsibility because they're all under the control and responsibility of others.. This helps me to remain focused on the things that do matter... what is within my personal sphere of influence. For that is where all of my control and responsibility lies.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

Greg's moral formulations work well enough for his dealings with other people--that is, I take his word for it.

Please don't do that, Brant.

It's better to figure out how things work for yourself through your own dealings with others. Only your own real world experience matters. That is the only place where real learning takes place.

I purposefully don't watch television news (or television at all) as it's about things over which I have no control and for which I bear no responsibility because they're all under the control and responsibility of others.. This helps me to remain focused on the things that do matter... what is within my personal sphere of influence. For that is where all of my control and responsibility lies.

Greg

But I still take your word for it. Why wouldn't I? You see, it's because I can see how it would work for and does work for me. If I thought you were full of it, I'd just say so. You know that from that. It's your logical constructs extended seemingly to infinity that bug me. And note, have you learned anything from being on OL beyond how thick-headed the denizens are? I've learned from you. What your indefatigableness tells me is you're most the preacher. When the preacher stops preaching, he's through. Nothing to do with winning an argument. It's merely and essentially asseveration. You are invulnerable. It doesn't hurt that you mix a lot of truth with a lot of nonsense; I'm a refiner.

--Brant

[Jules Troy]

I enjoy a lot of Greg's posts ?

[Brant Gaede]

Greg's over-simplified way of thinking about things has the huge virtue of immediate proper orientation for thinking and action avoiding confusion, victimhood, envy, anger and wasting the precious time of your life. The longer you take to figure things out the deeper into do-do you are likely to find yourself needing ever more courage to extricate yourself hoping--sometimes beyond hope--it doesn't blow up in your face. It's so easy to end up living a life of lies and more and more lies to sustain the edifice.

So, I'm in the ironic place of playing Boswell to his Johnson.

--Brant

sob--I've still got philosophy!

[PDS]

Greg's moral formulations work well enough for his dealings with other people--that is, I take his word for it. It doesn't matter how much it can be sliced and diced for that's words and he doesn't appear to be living under a bridge (like I am).

One can achieve more sophistication about these sorts of things by recognizing everything has a price, even where and when actual fraud does not exist and be aware of the price in your choices. The biggest price is the time of your life. If you marry Sue instead of Sally--so much for Sally. And if Sally marries Jim instead of you, so much for you.

--Brant

"The biggest price is the time of your life."

Brant--you are the Seneca of OL. I often benefit from your pithy insights.

[Brant Gaede]

Greg's moral formulations work well enough for his dealings with other people--that is, I take his word for it. It doesn't matter how much it can be sliced and diced for that's words and he doesn't appear to be living under a bridge (like I am).

One can achieve more sophistication about these sorts of things by recognizing everything has a price, even where and when actual fraud does not exist and be aware of the price in your choices. The biggest price is the time of your life. If you marry Sue instead of Sally--so much for Sally. And if Sally marries Jim instead of you, so much for you.

--Brant

"The biggest price is the time of your life."

Brant--you are the Seneca of OL. I often benefit from your pithy insights.

Thanks. Now I'm ego driven to go read Seneca (the elder or the younger or the both?).

--Brant

thanks, thanks a lot

[moralist]

Greg's over-simplified way of thinking about things has the huge virtue of immediate proper orientation for thinking and action avoiding confusion, victimhood, envy, anger and wasting the precious time of your life. The longer you take to figure things out the deeper into do-do you are likely to find yourself needing ever more courage to extricate yourself hoping--sometimes beyond hope--it doesn't blow up in your face. It's so easy to end up living a life of lies and more and more lies to sustain the edifice.

So, I'm in the ironic place of playing Boswell to his Johnson.

--Brant

sob--I've still got philosophy!

I kept that simple way of thinking by avoiding government education and instead choosing a simple trade dealing with something absolutely, completely, 100%, totally objective. This is everything I learned from 35 years in the electrical trade. There are only two problems. They are actually mechanical, and only involve electricity:

1. Something not touching something it's supposed to touch.

2. Something touching something it's not supposed to touch.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

In 1969 I blew out the electrical in a small town's town hall. Everything went dark. While is was an accident--honest--it makes me wonder if this approach could work for something bigger, something on the state or even federal level?

--Brant

now HS is going to come calling