tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post3019235363632443257..comments2024-03-27T05:47:21.295-07:00Comments on Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature: Nathaniel Branden has died, aged 84.Daniel Barneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06359277853862225286noreply@blogger.comBlogger162125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-49095634723425535532015-01-08T02:33:55.752-08:002015-01-08T02:33:55.752-08:00@Bramwell
"The Straw Man Fallacy is ARCHN...@Bramwell<br /><br />"The Straw Man Fallacy is ARCHN's Supreme Tool"<br /><br />Yeah, indeed. I think this is probably why Dr. Hsieh and Greg Perkins dismiss this site and consider it to be dishonest, or low grade criticism.QuantumHaecceityhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10939627623915545949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-58837400859455398522015-01-08T02:24:05.530-08:002015-01-08T02:24:05.530-08:00@Flack
"People don't look at recent comm...@Flack<br /><br />"People don't look at recent comments all the time and your comment only appeared for a short while and could very easily be missed"<br /><br />I seriously doubt that people don't look at the recent comments widget all the time, but it's difficult to say as I'm not other people. I know I do. That's how to keep tabs of who is saying what, and where.<br /><br />But at any rate, your above comment was a mistake, since I didn't say people look at recent comments all the time.<br /><br />I said "That is the very reason why someone would use the recent comments widget".<br /><br />You didn't think before writing Flack, because that would have required self examination.<br /><br /><br />"QH, you totally miss Gordon's point"<br /><br />No, you missed Gordon's point because you are too busy whiteknighting and backing him up out of animalistic bias.<br /><br />If you notice what Gordon has highlighted from me, you can see the situation.<br /><br />He quotes me saying "It's the most recent comment on there, and has been there for almost a week, unrefuted."<br /><br />Then Gordon goes on to say "It was showing under recent comments for a total of 17 hours, most of that in the middle of the night."<br /><br />Which means he is seriously confused and has rendered another mind numbingly stupid post since what I said was talking about the blog posting itself, while Gordon is referring to the recent comments widget.<br /><br />On top of the fact that he didn't even have to butt in and say anything, since that was something that did not involve him, which was petty, and he was trying to attack me over something that was not that big of a deal anyway, which was also petty on his part.<br /><br />Then when he tries to make it out that I lied, when it really was his own stupidity that had him confused, you have one of the dumbest, most pathetic posts I've read from you lot. And that's saying quite a bit at this point.<br /><br />QuantumHaecceityhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10939627623915545949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-82820572928201494932015-01-04T13:07:49.428-08:002015-01-04T13:07:49.428-08:00Gordon, he/she can never admit that they were wron...Gordon, he/she can never admit that they were wrong no matter how innocent and understandable their initial mistake. It's an extreme case of confirmation bias, all the worse cases that I've ran into on the net were actually insane to some degree.<br />QH seems to only remember things that fit their story and balk at remembering anything embarassing. Either that or they're lieing. Some of it is because they're here to troll and can't admit error because that would mean someone has scored a point against them.Lloyd Flackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00832519369660328832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-74500188369554970982015-01-04T09:39:35.363-08:002015-01-04T09:39:35.363-08:00"QH, you totally miss Gordon's point.&quo..."QH, you totally miss Gordon's point."<br /><br />Thanks, Lloyd. I have to say that it's grimly amusing to be called dyslectic by someone who so consistently misunderstands and/or misrepresents everything which he/she reads.Gordon Burkowskinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-17122017915390949242015-01-04T03:29:35.565-08:002015-01-04T03:29:35.565-08:00Barnes @ “A Little Ancient History”, November 13, ...Barnes @ “A Little Ancient History”, November 13, 2014:<br /><br />“I certainly rate the Quanmeister as one of our most dimwitted and thin-skinned commenters, and while not up there with the Randboy greats like the demented R Bramwell and uber-troll Michael Hardesty, he's certainly another loose thread in Objectivism's crazy quilt. And as such, it has been fun for a while.”<br /><br />Daniel, this is beginning to look like a surrealistic class reunion. If the Uber-Troll checks in, there won’t be any room left under the bridge. . . <br />Gordon Burkowskinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-47215834747181354022015-01-03T21:04:24.818-08:002015-01-03T21:04:24.818-08:00What you don't seem to realize is that the pos...What you don't seem to realize is that the posters and most of the commenters on this blog are people who have read Rand and seriously considered her ideas. Many, perhaps most accepted some or all of them for a while. But they rejected them eventually. People do understand what you believe and reject it for rational and moral reasons.Lloyd Flackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00832519369660328832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-8046019227524678472015-01-03T20:55:37.242-08:002015-01-03T20:55:37.242-08:00Nice. The death of a dishonest mind is conscienti...Nice. The death of a dishonest mind is conscientiously and positively marked by dishonest minds. Perfect. <br /><br />Oh yes, and some ten years later I stand by my comment that "ARCHN is the work of a despicable mind", which was posted with zero context, of course. <br /><br />ARCHN is particularly despicable for the innocents it sucks in. But,the innocent cannot remain innocent for long. At some point the innocent mind seeks to see both sides of an argument, in depth. Those who do not cease to be innocent. Their emotional rationalism drives their choices, such that they will not see ARCHN as the epistemic fraud that it is. <br /><br />The Straw Man Fallacy is ARCHN's Supreme Tool (<i>i.e.</i> misinterpret a snippet of Rand, then debunk it. Repeat <i>ad nauseum</i>). <br /><br />An honest mind reading ARCHN would choose to conscientiously read Ayn Rand to see if she actually meant what Nyquist claims. That means examining the meanings of the words she uses, double checking that other aspects of her writings expand on the same point, or enhance it, and whether those expansions are "real world" or merely contradict popular, thoughtless, trends <br /><br />Unless very stupid, they will see that she never meant the Nyquist interpretation, and that he should never have taken it that way... if he were honest. RnBramwellnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-6738957480864296292015-01-03T16:34:01.887-08:002015-01-03T16:34:01.887-08:00QH, you totally miss Gordon's point. You poste...QH, you totally miss Gordon's point. You posted a comment on an old thread that people would seldom look at now. The only way they would be likely to know about it is by seeing it appear in recent comments. People don't look at recent comments all the time and your comment only appeared for a short while and could very easily be missed, as it was. You didn't think before writing because that would have required self-examination.Lloyd Flackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00832519369660328832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-27200795061159996412015-01-03T11:39:46.715-08:002015-01-03T11:39:46.715-08:00Meaning of “ZZZ”:
1) Nothing worth responding to...Meaning of “ZZZ”:<br /><br />1) Nothing worth responding to<br /><br />and/or<br /><br />2) Heard this many, many times before.<br /><br />Please do everyone a favour by responding in kind.<br /><br />ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZGordon Burkowskinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-15980956738600089172015-01-03T08:24:13.918-08:002015-01-03T08:24:13.918-08:00LOL! And instead of being mature and adult about i...LOL! And instead of being mature and adult about it, Gordon decides to spazz out with more trollish "zzzz" behavior.<br /><br />Oh wow, where is Prescott with his cat calls about trolls and troll behavior. Oh, that's right, he won't be doing that with Burkey because of that thing called bias.<br /><br />(Rolls eyes)QuantumHaecceityhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10939627623915545949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-13442461394490969962015-01-03T07:38:58.439-08:002015-01-03T07:38:58.439-08:00zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzGordon Burkowskinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-23642537868286738482015-01-03T06:36:11.031-08:002015-01-03T06:36:11.031-08:00Typical trollish behavior from Gordon with the zzz...Typical trollish behavior from Gordon with the zzzz thing.<br /><br />And has gotten quite old too.QuantumHaecceityhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10939627623915545949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-21821654899322752082015-01-03T05:30:50.823-08:002015-01-03T05:30:50.823-08:00zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzGordon Burkowskinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-64610807962515650272015-01-03T02:47:39.778-08:002015-01-03T02:47:39.778-08:00@Gordon
"Conclusion: time for a middle-level...@Gordon<br /><br />"Conclusion: time for a middle-level Pinocchio award. Not a whopper, but seriously misleading."<br /><br />This is now the third time I think, I know at least twice, where you have rendered a posting towards me or about me, that has been massively stupid.<br /><br />When I said "It's the most recent comment on there, and has been there for almost a week, unrefuted", I was talking about it being on the blog posting itself, not the recent comments widget.<br /><br />Your comments like this Gordon, are so mind numbingly stupid and petty, it's almost as if you have some type of comprehension problem like dyslexia. <br /><br />With all due respect to dyslexic people, and I don't mean to bring that up in poor taste, but simply that I'm just thinking you can't be this dumb, so it must be some type of fundamental comprehension problem.QuantumHaecceityhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10939627623915545949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-42082209463346545022014-12-31T12:24:29.268-08:002014-12-31T12:24:29.268-08:00jzero: "Even if your arguments were flawless...jzero: "Even if your arguments were flawless (they aren't), they can't be effective if nobody knows they're there."<br /><br />q: “The above is again silly from you. That is the very reason why someone would use the recent comments widget. So that all it takes is a quick browsing to the right, to be informed of who is saying what and where.”<br /><br />Time for a little fact-checking.<br /><br />1) The recent comments feature reports on the last 9 postings. It can be stretched to 11 if you scroll down.<br /><br />2) Time of q’s posting @ Ayn Rand Epistemology 9, ARCHN: December 15, 11:37 pm.<br /><br />3) Time of 9th ARCHN comment following: December 16, 4:49 pm.<br /><br />4) Comment of q about the above posting: "It's the most recent comment on there, and has been there for almost a week, unrefuted."<br /><br />Well, not exactly. It was showing under recent comments for a total of 17 hours, most of that in the middle of the night.<br /><br />Conclusion: time for a middle-level Pinocchio award. Not a whopper, but seriously misleading.Gordon Burkowskinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-65405158520759870542014-12-30T14:09:53.173-08:002014-12-30T14:09:53.173-08:00@Prescott
And none of those quotes have me saying...@Prescott<br /><br />And none of those quotes have me saying Galt's speech cannot be taken as an authoritative statement of Objectivism because it appears in a novel. So yeah, just as I thought, you screwed up there.<br /><br />Indeed, what I did say, even has me using several qualifiers/caveats to denote that I am not sure about that and am making statements that I do not intend to be presented as fact or conclusive.<br /><br />If Objectivists consider Galt's speech to be an authoritative statement of Objectivism, that's their business, and I wouldn't dispute that in and of itself, but only say I think it's a bad idea to get ones understanding of a philosophy from fictional novels. <br /><br />The philosophy will be skewed by the fictional narrative and can easily get misunderstood or not understood well enough because it is being buried or embedded in a make believe(fictional) scenario(s).<br /><br />It's a great way to inspire people to believe it and like it and learn more, but to have a sober and adult level understanding, that should come from non-fictional treatises/video.<br /><br />And even Objectivists seem to know that since if they thought that Atlas Shrugged was sufficient as a definitive statement and exposition of the philosophy, they would not have bothered to write all the non-fiction they have like OPAR by Dr. Peikoff, and the 2012 book Understanding Objectivism.<br /><br />QuantumHaecceityhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10939627623915545949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-68318338953829305652014-12-30T13:50:16.898-08:002014-12-30T13:50:16.898-08:00@Jzero
"it's an example only of someone&...@Jzero<br /><br />"it's an example only of someone's fantasy"<br /><br />Are you really so obtuse, you didn't understand I was using that as an example to show how attacks on the senses lead to self contradiction? <br /><br />Not ascribing that to any specific person.<br /><br /><br /><br />"Then you rely on Peikoff to do your heavy lifting for you."<br /><br />It was exceedingly silly for you to point out the above, and also exceedingly obtuse. If you don't know why it would be germane and appropriate to quote Peikoff on that matter, than let me know and I will hold your hand and walk you through it.<br /><br /><br />"But he still hasn't really sorted out the issue of how one knows when his perceptions are accurate or when they are mistaken"<br /><br />Yeah he has. It's called using reason and logic.<br /><br /><br /><br />"Only that's the whole issue: they aren't, not 100% always."<br /><br />They are a justified way to know reality. If they were not, we would not know anything about reality empirically. Arguably at all.<br /><br /><br /><br />"Even if your arguments were flawless (they aren't), they can't be effective if nobody knows they're there."<br /><br />The above is again silly from you. That is the very reason why someone would use the recent comments widget. So that all it takes is a quick browsing to the right, to be informed of who is saying what and where.QuantumHaecceityhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10939627623915545949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-5907182069077003372014-12-22T13:30:07.345-08:002014-12-22T13:30:07.345-08:00Daniel, I think it might be a good idea if you cre...Daniel, I think it might be a good idea if you created an open thread for people to make comments on whatever topic they like. That way we can leave this thread just for comments related to Nathaniel Branden.Lloyd Flackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00832519369660328832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-79223854729311087702014-12-22T00:50:03.899-08:002014-12-22T00:50:03.899-08:00I think Rand no more understood why people go into...I think Rand no more understood why people go into science than she understood people usually get from art. She always saw art as serving other causes such as relaxation and refreshment and did not seem to value the aesthetic experience itself much. She also seemed uncurious and did not understand the desire to understand and the interest in problem solving that most scientists possess.<br />I think some of it was a refusal to appreciate Nature either aesthetically or by understanding. She seemed to refuse to see any numinosity, any element of the sublime, in Nature because it got in the way of the sort of hero worship of humans and their accomplishments that she wanted to engage in. Which cuts her off from most artists and scientists.<br />She also did not understand that science is not just about individual accomplishment but that those accomplishments are contributions to a collective edifice of understanding. She did not understand that a major goal of science is an explicitly collective one, the advancement of the knowledge of the human race.<br />She also did not understand that scientists are opposed to her mania for certainty. Science is a work in progress and we have different degrees of confidence in different areas. And scientists accept this.<br />And she did not understand that the vital testing aspects of science are done collectively. That there is no logical discipline that we can use that can remove our biases, that we have to submit our work to others for testing and evaluation. This does not fit with her myths of heroic individualism.<br />She did not understand that science aims to serve a public good. And this does not fit into her scheme of things.<br />Lloyd Flackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00832519369660328832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-24534580573660226822014-12-21T15:51:40.184-08:002014-12-21T15:51:40.184-08:00Rand's love of accomplisment was greater than ...Rand's love of accomplisment was greater than her love of justice and whenever they clashed she started rationalizing on the side of accomplisment.Lloyd Flackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00832519369660328832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-82144264027390878652014-12-21T15:46:28.382-08:002014-12-21T15:46:28.382-08:00When I click on the box it disappears until I post...When I click on the box it disappears until I post then it comes back.Lloyd Flackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00832519369660328832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-37084370198088735522014-12-21T15:44:10.143-08:002014-12-21T15:44:10.143-08:00Yes, that was it as Rand saw it. He accepted money...Yes, that was it as Rand saw it. He accepted money to fund his research that had beegathered by taxatio and she saw taxation as theft.<br />And she was less than consistent in morality. I think the reason is that she was driven by hero worship for human accomplishments and when she saw an accomplishment that she admired her scruples got defenestrated. It was the same when she talked about the taking of land off Native Americans.Lloyd Flackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00832519369660328832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-24051028792508637442014-12-21T15:42:23.141-08:002014-12-21T15:42:23.141-08:00@Lloyd Flack: I see only the text "Please pro...@Lloyd Flack: I see only the text "Please prove you're not a robot". There used to be a box below, but on my computer it has now disappeared. I've tried to click on the text and in the area where the picture used to be, but nothing happens. <br /><br />I tried it also on an old windows system, and there I see a box with text. Only is the text quite unreadable, instead of the readable street numbers that I'd seen before, so I cannot use it.<br /><br />DragonflySpinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03341270709249135041noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-35936451139754415492014-12-21T15:28:25.279-08:002014-12-21T15:28:25.279-08:00Just click on the I'm not a robot box.Just click on the I'm not a robot box.Lloyd Flackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00832519369660328832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-92031256242790786632014-12-21T15:16:47.515-08:002014-12-21T15:16:47.515-08:00For some mysterious reason captcha is no longer vi...For some mysterious reason captcha is no longer visible to me, so I can't submit reactions in the usual way. With a google account you apparently don't need captcha.<br /><br />DragonflySpinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03341270709249135041noreply@blogger.com