Aynd Rand was the greatest philospher. Ever.

smart makes a comeback · #41 (**permalink**) 05-14-2008, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nathanbforrest45

Its a shame she had to discover this thread, up until the she decided to bleat her nonsense it was an interesting discussion among intelligent people who can disagree without being disagreeable. She apparently lacks that gene

Tell me Nathan, is it hard to type with your lips attached to TakuanSoho ass like that ?

Go take your meds Nathan, and let the grown folks talk

You are embarrassing yourself again, and your obsession with me is pathetic

ricechickie · #42 (**permalink**) 05-14-2008, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smart makes a comeback

Dude..Please...make no mistake, I am smarter then you, more educated then you, and better read then you

With that obvious fact out of the way….I read the fountainhead in 7th grade, Atlas shrugged in high school, and I have her testimony before the committee on anti American activity and her New Yorker interview on objective ethics almost committed to memory

Apparently you are one of the simpletons who were conned by her quasi intellect and faux analysis.
Good thing you were not in Berlin CIRCA 1939, you would have been in a brown shirt no doubt

Try harder and do better

When you have to announce how smart, educated, and well-read you are, you give yourself away completely as none of those things.

You're like Celtic Raven bragging about how often he gets laid.

nathanbforrest45 · #43 (**permalink**) 05-14-2008, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smart makes a comeback

Tell me Nathan, is it hard to type with your lips attached to TakuanSoho ass like that ?

Go take your meds Nathan, and let the grown folks talk

You are embarrassing yourself again, and your obsession with me is pathetic

You are right, I should just ignore you since nothing you post has any merit in the first place. My only objective was to help those who may not understand Rand to not put much stock in your rantings. That is what they are. You have not offered any reasons that Rand is a fascist. I guess if you say so, why there you have God has spoken.

So sweetie. I will ignore you in the future unless you are so blatantly stupid that I must set your insane rantings right.

So once again
Be of Good Cheer

smart makes a comeback · #44 (**permalink**) 05-14-2008, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ricechickie

When you have to announce how smart, educated, and well-read you are, you give yourself away completely as none of those things.

You're like Celtic Raven bragging about how often he gets laid.

Context chickie..context….my words are never conceived in a vacuum

You are determined to pick a fight with me about something somehow huh ?

That’s fine, i just find it curios, since we agree on almost everything.

methinks you just dislike the way I prove myself right..and thats cool

ricechickie · #45 (**permalink**) 05-14-2008, 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smart makes a comeback

Context chickie..context….my words are never conceived in a vacuum

You are determined to pick a fight with me about something somehow huh ?

That’s fine, i just find it curios, since we agree on almost everything.

methinks you just dislike the way I prove myself right..and thats cool

Your words were in response to a poster who took issue with your "analysis" (term used loosely) of Ayn Rand. Instead of backing up your argument, you used the "I'm better/smarter/prettier than you" line of reasoning.

I'm not DETERMINED to fight with you....I take exception to so many things you say. If we do agree on certain things, I'm sure it's for all the wrong reasons.

smart makes a comeback · #46 (**permalink**) 05-14-2008, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ricechickie

Your words were in response to a poster who took issue with your "analysis" (term used loosely) of Ayn Rand. Instead of backing up your argument, you used the "I'm better/smarter/prettier than you" line of reasoning.

I'm not DETERMINED to fight with you....I take exception to so many things you say. If we do agree on certain things, I'm sure it's for all the wrong reasons.

No..it was in response to condescension from a dunderhead with the Google home page in his bookmarks, who attempts to pass himself off as educated

Insult is amusing, but condescension pisses me off, especially from those I could domesticate and get them to fetch my slippers and bark at the mailman.

There is no wrong reason to agree Chckie, and again, methinks your exception is wiith my presentation, as opposed to my message

but..whateva

bluedog · #47 (**permalink**) 05-14-2008, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Suburbanite

Worshiping the unknowable, sounds like theism to me. And you're wrong, there is no such thing as Truth, regardless of the word existing and any number of facts or people believing it. Pointing to Truth is intellectually invalid, especially when you don't know it.

The absurdity of the the liberal thought process is simply amazing in the fact of facing reality. There is no truth? A totally absurd claim. It's a physical fact of truth that there are exactly 5,280 feet held within the confines of a U.S. surveyed mile. This is truth, it can not be changed by opinion of any cognation to logical thought, its simply a fact, and a physical fact is indeed a physical truth. What you are claiming is that all truth is "relative" and this very much violates the "principal of non-contradiction": a proposition and its negation cannot concurrently be truth at the same time, one absolutely has to be wrong and the other absolutely has to be correct, this is "physical reality" and there is nothing relative found in any physical fact....only a "theory" contains relativity in the circumstance of comparing other physical facts against a gestated "idea" of conceived thought.

Being a "proponent" of relativism I am sure you will point to the assumption that other cultures point to the assumed fact that none of us hold any truth "absolutely". This also is not based upon logical thinking. As the "fact" that any two cultures or religious ideologies disagree as to what examples truth points to the the logical conclusion that "both" may indeed be wrong in their beliefs, but this does not preclude the fact of truth existing elsewhere, in any of the other major religious or ideologies of truth presented around the globe. Any number of cultures may agree on certain values but this does not make either the "truth". An example would be that both the US and India agree that it is "immoral" to eat one's ancestors, but the underlying disagreement of truth would be, just who or what are considered ancestors? Many in India believe in reincarnation and that eating "beef" would be considered immoral because cows are sacred in the fact they may be someones ancestor, whereas the US moral position is that it is fine to eat meat of all kind. By focusing only on the "differences" of any comparable cultures we ignore the basic truth found to be common to all examples of morality when compared. Thus there is absolute truth, and the relative difference lays not in perceived truth but in social ideology. And indeed, ideology does not a truth make, but represents a personally accepted thought of reality, and thinking does not constitute truth nor reality, unless it is placed into motion and proven to be a Physical Fact of Truth.

Thus I base my ideology of truth and place it into "motion" by the faith that I hold as truth found in the Holy Bible. Now all anyone has to do is prove this book to be wrong in conceptual presentations of the truth found within its pages, and you will prove that Christianity is indeed a false perception of reality. BD

ricechickie · #48 (**permalink**) 05-14-2008, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smart makes a comeback

No..it was in response to condescension from a dunderhead with the Google home page in his bookmarks, who attempts to pass himself off as educated

Insult is amusing, but condescension pisses me off, especially from those I could domesticate and get them to fetch my slippers and bark at the mailman.

There is no wrong reason to agree Chckie, and again, methinks your exception is wiith my presentation, as opposed to my message

but..whateva

Condescension is how you see it when you're caught spouting about something you know nothing about.

If you indeed read any Rand, you haven't remembered it.

Go back and read again.

TakuanSoho · #49 (**permalink**) 05-14-2008, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smart makes a comeback

No..it was in response to condescension from a dunderhead with the Google home page in his bookmarks, who attempts to pass himself off as educated

Insult is amusing, but condescension pisses me off, especially from those I could domesticate and get them to fetch my slippers and bark at the mailman.

There is no wrong reason to agree Chckie, and again, methinks your exception is wiith my presentation, as opposed to my message

but..whateva

Oh, now I get it. You are Crowley. Should have guessed it by the way you argue, but the references to Google are the closest things to DNA we can have on this board.

I can easily see why condescension pisses you off, you must experience a hell of a lot in your life. Really contradicts your opinion of yourself.

Oh, here's a hint. Superior people are not pissed off when inferior people act condescending to them. They are amused. It is only inferior people who get pissed. For instance, I find Crowley's (i.e. You) condescension funny, which is why I never get pissed at him.

Now before when I thought Smart was someone different, I do admit I found your reading the opposite of what I said somewhat annoying, but know that I know who you are, I again find it amusing.

TakuanSoho · #50 (**permalink**) 05-14-2008, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ricechickie

Condescension is how you see it when you're caught spouting about something you know nothing about.

If you indeed read any Rand, you haven't remembered it.

Go back and read again.

Won't do any good. Most people don't read to understand, they read to interpret.