on strike...

[Mikee]

With regards to the people in Ferguson, Missouri, Greg nailed it with this statement: "People who blame others have failed to live properly in this world, because they fantasize themselves as innocent victims of government oppression, when in reality the oppression is completely self inflicted by how they live." They blame everything on "The Man", when the reality is their lives are largely in their control if they only choose to take personal responsibility. I've found cops are unfailingly polite if you are polite to them first.

[Brant Gaede]

With regards to the people in Ferguson, Missouri, Greg nailed it with this statement: "People who blame others have failed to live properly in this world, because they fantasize themselves as innocent victims of government oppression, when in reality the oppression is completely self inflicted by how they live." They blame everything on "The Man", when the reality is their lives are largely in their control if they only choose to take personal responsibility. I've found cops are unfailingly polite if you are polite to them first.

But might that be because an M1-Abrams is your daily driver?

Greg absolutely refuses to be a victim. It's a life-giving skill worth much more than our other OL palaver. He outta make a career outta preachin' that if he ever gets a bad back I heard is common to his electrical profession. Continual victimhood is enslavement to its real or imagined existential cause with anger expressed or repressed and if repressed transmogrified into depression.

--Brant

[Mikee]

Nah. I drive an eight year old Corolla. I learned if I keep it under 80 on my commute they don't run me down and pull me over. One 12 hour traffic school was enough.

Greg's back is bullet proof. He regularly does Simple and Sinister by Pavel.

[moralist]

I would probably do business with Greg before I did business with FF.

I wouldn't do business with Frank either. Our values don't match.

Why? He is a straight shooter and doesn't use weasel words or evasions ever. He is a known quantity. You never have to guess to what he means. The way he presents himself I am (hazarding a guess here) that a handshake actually MEANS something. A rare quality in this day and age..

It's found more commonly within the rapidly dwindling American Capitalist minority where trust is the ethical bond between businessmen. The beauty of Capitalism is that both parties involved financially benefit from transactions.

Predator/prey business transactions do not belong to Capitalism. They belong to something else. There are many unethical situations that people falsely connect to Capitalism which are not actually it. Capitalism contains an inherent code of ethics. Whoever lives by that code can't help but to do good and to succeed in business.

Some of the most beautiful words ever written are Francisco's Money Speech. The Capitalist Code of Ethics can be found there.

Greg

[moralist]

If you don't like how Greg posts, stop engaging him

That would be nice, Brant. I wonder why people who previously had zero input on a thread or on its topic would take the time and effort just to make a comment solely about me.

Go figure...

Greg

[moralist]

With regards to the people in Ferguson, Missouri, Greg nailed it with this statement: "People who blame others have failed to live properly in this world, because they fantasize themselves as innocent victims of government oppression, when in reality the oppression is completely self inflicted by how they live." They blame everything on "The Man", when the reality is their lives are largely in their control if they only choose to take personal responsibility. I've found cops are unfailingly polite if you are polite to them first.

I've also found that the Police behave professionally and have never treated me unfairly. Recently I rolled through a stop sign and got the ticket I deserved. He got me fair and square and that's how the world works.

Greg

[moralist]

I think Greg has sensed that gazing into the abyss too long can only be dangerous...

There's an old biker rule: "You go where you look."

So it's important where you place your attention.

Greg

[Selene]

I have found reading how some folks "argue" with Greg and spin off out of control because his argumentation is solid, centered and follows clearly from his "sense of life."

How many discussions have gone on about what Ayn meant by sense of life...

Behold Greg has a sense of life and lives it.

A few of us certainly do also.

I enjoy my life and my work, as do many others here.

A...

I have received no direct payments from Greg for this unsolicited complement...Brant told me to say this...and to also remind folks that he takes PayPal...or was it payola...

[Jules Troy]

Blame Canada! ?

[Ellen Stuttle]

[Greg's] argumentation is solid [...].

I have received no direct payments from Greg for this unsolicited complement...Brant told me to say this...and to also remind folks that he takes PayPal...or was it payola...

I once again note your peculiar meaning of "argumentation." Why you'd want to "complement [sic]" Greg, I don't know - or what Brant has found useful in Greg's message, but I suspect that the reason some people keep responding to Greg is for perverse amusement.

Ellen

[Brant Gaede]

I have found reading how some folks "argue" with Greg and spin off out of control because his argumentation is solid, centered and follows clearly from his "sense of life."

How many discussions have gone on about what Ayn meant by sense of life...

Behold Greg has a sense of life and lives it.

A few of us certainly do also.

I enjoy my life and my work, as do many others here.

A...

I have received no direct payments from Greg for this unsolicited complement...Brant told me to say this...and to also remind folks that he takes PayPal...or was it payola...

Liar!

When Greg leaves home he doesn't travel with logic. He's essentially a preacher. It all works for him. Fred seems to like arguing with the consequent irrationality such as appears, instead of simply pointing out what's going on. Both Fred and Greg are utopians--even Rand was a utopian (above all she was)--but Greg makes it work for him on the personal level while Fred doesn't tell us about that. So, we have clashing Utopias, one practical and one abstract, each invulnerable to the other. Fred has logic but there's not much logic in such a conflict as such. What's going on, metaphorically, is Greg is a wrestler who has Fred pinned but each is talking with Fred making more general sense for all the good that's doing him for there's no logic in arguing with an irrationalist; he's just a preacher who knows how to wrestle. Game, set, match--but they keep talking.

--Brant

uh, Adam, I think your application of "sense of life" to this discussion is trying to put water onto a duck

[Jonathan]

If you don't like how Greg posts, stop engaging him

That would be nice, Brant. I wonder why people who previously had zero input on a thread or on its topic would take the time and effort just to make a comment solely about me.

Go figure...

Greg

I think it's because they recognize that logic is so simple to grasp, and therefore they think that they should be able to help you grasp it. It is hard for people to believe that another person could be so illogical. I think it's just natural human generosity. People want to believe the best about others, and they'll be persistent in trying to help the slow guy to learn to help himself. They can't fathom that someone would be beyond help. They can't make themselves believe that the vacant stare is real and unfixable.

J

[moralist]

So, we have clashing Utopias, one practical and one abstract...

Once again you've swerved right into the truth of the matter, Brant.

Mine is real.

Frank's is not real.

This is the fundamental difference between me and Frank.

Greg

[moralist]

I suspect that the reason some people keep responding to Greg is for perverse amusement.

I'm quite happy to provide amusement for others, Helen.

Happy people make the world better,

while angry bitter blamers only make it worse.

Greg

[Selene]

[Greg's] argumentation is solid [...].

I have received no direct payments from Greg for this unsolicited complement...Brant told me to say this...and to also remind folks that he takes PayPal...or was it payola...

I once again note your peculiar meaning of "argumentation." Why you'd want to "complement [sic]" Greg, I don't know - or what Brant has found useful in Greg's message, but I suspect that the reason some people keep responding to Greg is for perverse amusement.

Ellen

Here is a definition of argumentation:

The process of forming reasons, justifying beliefs, and drawing conclusions with the aim of influencing the thoughts and/or actions of others. Argumentation (or argumentation theory) also refers to the study of that process. http://grammar.about.com/od/ab/g/argumentationterm.htm

Are you comfortable with this definition?

A...

[Selene]

Perhaps this may help:

"People who make use of argumentation always appeal--whether explicitly or implicitly--to some standard of reasonableness. This, however, does not always mean that each argumentation is indeed reasonable."
(F. H. van Eemeren et al., Argumentation: Analysis, Evaluation, Presentation. Lawrence Erlbaum, 2002)

Emphasis added.

A...

[moralist]

If you don't like how Greg posts, stop engaging him

That would be nice, Brant. I wonder why people who previously had zero input on a thread or on its topic would take the time and effort just to make a comment solely about me.

Go figure...

Greg

I think it's because they recognize that logic is so simple to grasp, and therefore they think that they should be able to help you grasp it.

That's how liberals think, Jonathan.

It's the self involved belief in the fantasy that no one could ever possibly disagree with their view unless they didn't understand their view.

That fantasy could only persist within an atmosphere of narcissism.

Greg

[william.scherk]

Francisco, Greg's point is that even though you and he are subject to State and Federal Taxes, State and Federal laws, regulation of your professions, state and local fire, electric and building codes -- even though you each need a piece of government issued plastic to legally drive your vehicles

William, you ought to be honest enough to speak for yourself instead of lying about what others said.

None of the things you listed impinge on the operation of my business or the quality of my life.

My comments weren't directed at you or "Helen" or "Fred" but at Francisco. Your quote truncates the point I was making to Francisco: that you had judged him morally deficient, a holder of bad values, and so no fruitful argument was possible. Your slap-happy psychological assessment of Francisco was complete.

The subsidiary point was a kind of exasperated observation that the two of you likely share bedrock opinions, about capitalism and human beings, self-governance and self-reliance, the optimum size of government, means of reducing the footprint and depredations of government.

It seems to me pretentious nonsense to espy a yawning moral gulf between Francisco and yourself. No such gulf exists in reality. I mean, I would understand you taking an axe to the arguments of a non-Objectivist like me, but I don't understand why you would want to take the moral cudgel to Francisco on such feeble grounds.

What justifies digging trenches or moral ditches between Greg and basically like-minded folks?

If you don't like how Greg posts, stop engaging him

That would be nice, Brant. I wonder why people who previously had zero input on a thread or on its topic would take the time and effort just to make a comment solely about me.

Go figure...

Greg

Some of us 'people' find your preaching arrogant and presumptuous, and your valuations of OL members to be mean-spirited or unwarranted. It's not like you or Brent can mandate a no-fly-zone around your shit. By now you should be used to challenges to illogic and moralistic claptrap.

If you don't like what "Frank" and "Fred" and "Helen" have to say in the free flow of discussion here, you could of course take Brad's advice and don't engage these moral sinkholes...

Edited October 17, 2014 by william.scherk

[moralist]

Francisco, Greg's point is that even though you and he are subject to State and Federal Taxes, State and Federal laws, regulation of your professions, state and local fire, electric and building codes -- even though you each need a piece of government issued plastic to legally drive your vehicles

William, you ought to be honest enough to speak for yourself instead of lying about what others said.

None of the things you listed impinge on the operation of my business or the quality of my life.

My comments weren't directed at you or "Helen" or "Fred" but at Francisco.

To offer that as a pretense is even more dishonest, William.

Greg

[Ellen Stuttle]

Here is a definition of argumentation:

The process of forming reasons, justifying beliefs, and drawing conclusions with the aim of influencing the thoughts and/or actions of others. Argumentation (or argumentation theory) also refers to the study of that process. http://grammar.about.com/od/ab/g/argumentationterm.htm

Are you comfortable with this definition?

A...

Not in the context of your statement (emphasis added):

[Greg's] argumentation is solid [...].

I'm interpreting you as indicating that you think Greg provides good basis for his statements, whereas often he doesn't so much as provide a semblance of an appeal to reasonableness (see your post #91).

For instance, see his pronouncements about Jonathan in post #92. Pronouncements are all he provides there, not even so much as a veneer of attempted demonstration.

Ellen

[Brant Gaede]

Francisco, Greg's point is that even though you and he are subject to State and Federal Taxes, State and Federal laws, regulation of your professions, state and local fire, electric and building codes -- even though you each need a piece of government issued plastic to legally drive your vehicles

William, you ought to be honest enough to speak for yourself instead of lying about what others said.

None of the things you listed impinge on the operation of my business or the quality of my life.

My comments weren't directed at you or "Helen" or "Fred" but at Francisco. Your quote truncates the point I was making to Francisco: that you had judged him morally deficient, a holder of bad values, and so no fruitful argument was possible. Your slap-happy psychological assessment of Francisco was complete.

The subsidiary point was a kind of exasperated observation that the two of you likely share bedrock opinions, about capitalism and human beings, self-governance and self-reliance, the optimum size of government, means of reducing the footprint and depredations of government.

It seems to me pretentious nonsense to espy a yawning moral gulf between Francisco and yourself. No such gulf exists in reality. I mean, I would understand you taking an axe to the arguments of a non-Objectivist like me, but I don't understand why you would want to take the moral cudgel to Francisco on such feeble grounds.

What justifies digging trenches or moral ditches between Greg and basically like-minded folks?

If you don't like how Greg posts, stop engaging him

That would be nice, Brant. I wonder why people who previously had zero input on a thread or on its topic would take the time and effort just to make a comment solely about me.

Go figure...

Greg

Some of us 'people' find your preaching arrogant and presumptuous, and your valuations of OL members to be mean-spirited or unwarranted. It's not like you or Brent can mandate a no-fly-zone around your shit. By now you should be used to challenges to illogic and moralistic claptrap.

If you don't like what "Frank" and "Fred" and "Helen" have to say in the free flow of discussion here, you could of course take Brad's advice and don't engage these moral sinkholes...

"Brent" mandated what? Who's Brad?

--Brent (closed at 86.25 today)

[Brant Gaede]

If you stop engaging someone he'll go away respecting you. If others do the same he'll likely go away completely.

--Brant

won't work for me--I'm writing for the ages and the ages engage me (yep, I'm a narck narcississt narcissist)

[Selene]

Here is a definition of argumentation:

The process of forming reasons, justifying beliefs, and drawing conclusions with the aim of influencing the thoughts and/or actions of others. Argumentation (or argumentation theory) also refers to the study of that process. http://grammar.about.com/od/ab/g/argumentationterm.htm

Are you comfortable with this definition?

A...

Not in the context of your statement (emphasis added):

[Greg's] argumentation is solid [...].

I'm interpreting you as indicating that you think Greg provides good basis for his statements, whereas often he doesn't so much as provide a semblance of an appeal to reasonableness (see your post #91).

Ellen

Ellen:

I understand that you are "interpreting" what I stated.

This is what I taught. I can be objective as to evaluating "Greg's" argumentation. Solid means he proceeds from "his" fixed assumptions and premises and is consistent within "his" argumentation.

I do not have to validate the truth or falsity of the argumentation.

When we move into the rhetorical sphere of ethos, pathos and logos, we arrive at what Brant observes as his "preacher voice."

Greg exhibits high ethos because he "practices what he preaches."

Emotionally his "sense of life" and productive work demonstrates his approach to reality.

His logic from his stated premises leads to his conclusions which I stated was "solid" as I would probably observe that he built a solid house.

A...

[anthony]

It's easy perhaps from where I sit, to suggest that there are Christians and other believers who could well play a large part in the future of the libertarian and Libertarian movement. Some of them I've known are what I think of as 'natural individualists'. It's fascinated me to gather from past reading of fictional and factual sources, how early religious refugee-pioneers to a strange and dangerous land (mainly North America, but South Africa too) organically developed (as I see it) a raw 'rational egoism' as a direct result of their exposure to the harsh realities of living: i.e. applying reason to existence, for a self-interested purpose. Certainly, in their minds they were supported by their Faith - but fundamentally, any non-believer will know it was by rationality, objective moral principle and character that they survived and eventually thrived. To get a bit poetical, riding with Bible in one hand and rifle in the other -- it was his rifle, his mind, and rational selfishness that saw the individual and his people through.

Those Christians, today, who are convinced, commited and active Capitalists all know too well that free trade in the complete absence of force, is the only manner of dealing with other people at large, so they fully accept separation of economy and State, therefore, it should follow, of Church and State. Those, who could not dream of enforcing their religious doctrines on others, what better political allies to have?

[Selene]

It's easy perhaps from where I sit, to suggest that there are Christians and other believers who could well play a large part in the future of the libertarian and Libertarian movement. Some of them I've known are what I think of as 'natural individualists'. It's fascinated me to gather from past reading of fictional and factual sources, how early religious refugee-pioneers to a strange and dangerous land (mainly North America, but South Africa too) organically developed (as I see it) a raw 'rational egoism' as a direct result of their exposure to the harsh realities of living: i.e. applying reason to existence, for a self-interested purpose. Certainly, in their minds they were supported by their Faith, but fundamentally any non-believer must know it was by rationality, moral principle and character that they survived and eventually thrived. To get a bit poetical, riding with Bible in one hand and rifle in the other -- it was his rifle, his mind, and rational selfishness that saw the individual and his people through.

Those Christians, today, who are convinced, commited and active Capitalists all know too well that free trade in the complete absence of force, is the only manner of dealing with other people at large, so they fully accept separation of economy and State, therefore, it should follow, of Church and State. Those, who could not dream of enforcing their religious doctrines on others, what better political allies to have?

Excellent post Tony.

The conservative Christians that I have worked with politically are precisely the type of folks who you described and:

...what better political allies to have?

On another note, how is the South African government dealing with the Ebola "crisis" northwest of you?

A...