When you comment on my blog, don't lie. Take some care to check your facts, so you don't inadvertently look like a liar. Intellectual inquiry is difficult enough without having to constantly correct false statements obvious enough that a quick search on Google, Wikipedia, or talk.origins would discover the truth. If I decide you're lying, I'll ban you in a heartbeat.
I have some tolerance for misstatements of fact, but my tolerance varies with my mood and the tone of the comment. If your comment otherwise shows signs of intellectual honesty and truth-seeking, I'm much more likely to tolerate and simply correct a misstatement. If you're all mouth and trousers, if you open your comment with sweeping generalizations, and if you insult me personally or my readers' intelligence, I'm likely to ban on a first offense.
I have zero patience with cretinists, IDiots, Randians [Ayn, not James] and Libertarians. If you're advocating any of these ideas, check your facts extremely rigorously, because I'm already heavily biased — by virtue of long experience — in my opinion of your honesty and intellectual integrity.
Sunday, October 12, 2008
12 comments:
Please pick a handle or moniker for your comment. It's much easier to address someone by a name or pseudonym than simply "hey you". I have the option of requiring a "hard" identity, but I don't want to turn that on... yet.
With few exceptions, I will not respond or reply to anonymous comments, and I may delete them. I keep a copy of all comments; if you want the text of your comment to repost with something vaguely resembling an identity, email me.
No spam, pr0n, commercial advertising, insanity, lies, repetition or off-topic comments. Creationists, Global Warming deniers, anti-vaxers, Randians, and Libertarians are automatically presumed to be idiots; Christians and Muslims might get the benefit of the doubt, if I'm in a good mood.
See the Debate Flowchart for some basic rules.
Sourced factual corrections are always published and acknowledged.
I will respond or not respond to comments as the mood takes me. See my latest comment policy for details. I am not a pseudonomous-American: my real name is Larry.
Comments may be moderated from time to time. When I do moderate comments, anonymous comments are far more likely to be rejected.
I've already answered some typical comments.
I have jqMath enabled for the blog. If you have a dollar sign (\$) in your comment, put a \\ in front of it: \\\$, unless you want to include a formula in your comment.
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
u ok and stuff? How come ure so angry?
ReplyDeleteJasmine
It's a good policy to set things out straight.
ReplyDelete-No time wasted
You and I get along very well because--while you have zero tolerance for liars--you do apparently have a soft spot for people who just pull shit out of their asses.
ReplyDeleteThere's a big difference between exploring and speculating on the one hand, and lying on the other. All new ideas are in some sense pulled out of someone's ass.
ReplyDeleteAs much as intuition is the Krishna of new ideas, we must also honor Shiva, who destroys false theories with the sword of facts.
Now i am just totally confused and don't get it one bit also. See, if it's ok to just discuss- ****no need to shout and stuff cos i just am coming here to learn*** as best i can, anyhow, is it ok if i write me stuff?
ReplyDeleteOk, i will risk it, see, i mean, Randians is no good also? Why's that then? Please excuse me, cos i am just asking a honest question. Now when u wrote about what.... 'the arete,' it stayed in me mind for 6 weeks. What is arete, what is MY arete? It's a compelling idea actually. What is the world? It exists beyond the human will, Rand told this, thusly, it is beyond indoctrination of Islam - so no matter how much namaz people make-it changes nothing, u can't will Allah into existence, i like her idea on that also.
Concept of heroism, of course, very nice in all ways. Objectivism overall, this is what she is telling, seems very rationalist, secular, smart in all ways.
So maybe i am a very ignorant persoange u can say and don't have all the education, i can't even get a copy of "Atlas", i will go to the prison if i try cos it's banned list, so also is "The Fountainhead," so i just am trying to self teach overall and it's very very hard actually.
But i didn't think it was bad or wrong way.
Why is it bad? I don't understand at all and me feelings is it is good.
I am very sorry i can not give more information cos i justcan not get more about it, but i am curious as to why it's bad anyhow.
Ok then, bye bye, Jaz, **** DON'T SHOUT AT ME AND STUFF PLEASE***
Jaz, don't worry, I'm not going to shout at you. Just being interested in what Rand has to say does not make you a Rand cultist.
ReplyDeleteThere's a lot of cultural context you have no way of knowing; most of my readers are Americans, and American (and some European) Rand cultists and Libertarians are a pretty toxic bunch. You're not anywhere near that category.
Since this is in comments, I'll try to be brief. Besides her failings as an author and philosopher, her fundamental moral failing is that she advocates the destruction of modern civilization and the deaths of billions because the world does not conform to her preferences. Furthermore, she introduces fictional facts about reality -- going beyond the license usually granted writers of fiction -- to justify this very real moral position.
The "good stuff" she introduces in her books and philosophy is very much like the "good stuff" that every religion introduces to fool the reader into thinking that the bad stuff is equally well-justified.
For example, the Koran says you shouldn't steal. Well, stealing really is bad, therefore the Koran is a good moral guide. The Koran also says that women are inferior to men. Since the Koran is a good moral guide, women must really be inferior to men.
In just the same sense, Rand advocates strong self-actualization (arete). Strong self-actualization is good, therefore Rand is a good moral guide. Rand advocates the destruction of the depraved civilization; since Rand is a good moral guide, civilization must really be depraved and it must be good to destroy it.
You can see how the logic fails.
This is amazing, she thinks that?
ReplyDeleteTo hurt people for no reason? I would never have guessed that, it's a shock actually, cos i read what's arete and one of the conditions of arete is to reach ure life maximization (mine is books)- but u must hurt no one- so i thought it was nice, like me hero- Gene Rodenberry maybe. Only thing i didn't like about her was she didn't want America to fight Hitler, meself, i hate Nazis, really i do. Now this, no way, now i got the full picture i think its no good of course, kill billions- kill anyone, even if they are in a camp in Bangla and got water and rats all every place that's still human beings, precious, totally precious.
Ok then, thank u so much for setting it straight for me.
bye bye, Jasmine
This is amazing, she thinks that?
ReplyDeleteIn Atlas Shrugged, John Galt says, "I will turn off the motor of the world," and, "You will know I've succeeded when the lights of New York go out." [quotations approximate] The eliminationist rhetoric is pretty explicit.
Only thing i didn't like about her was she didn't want America to fight Hitler
To Rand's credit, I don't think this is true: IIRC, she wanted to fight both the Nazis and the communists. And Rand hadn't fully developed her philosophy until after WW-II.
Man, I was about to come in here and ask you, "What the hell is so bad about James Randi??"
ReplyDeleteColor me sheepish.
"What the hell is so bad about James Randi??"
ReplyDeleteThe same thing that was wrong with Carlin. He's not young enough...
[i]"The same thing that was wrong with Carlin. He's not young enough..."[/i]
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't matter in Randi's case, because we all know he will never die. Carlin was smote by the god of atheism as a message to test our non-faith...
In just the same sense, Rand advocates strong self-actualization (arete). Strong self-actualization is good, therefore Rand is a good moral guide. Rand advocates the destruction of the depraved civilization; since Rand is a good moral guide, civilization must really be depraved and it must be good to destroy it.
ReplyDeleteExcellent description of why Rand's philosophy FAILS