RoR: Forum

I prefer my two word version, "F**k you"

Post 1

Monday, March 19, 2007 - 9:32am

That's good, Kurt.

But I normally amend it to an excruciatingly polite, "F*** off." Then I calmly walk away without a backwards glance.

Does the trick every time.

:-)

Erica

Post 2

Monday, March 19, 2007 - 9:44am

I kinda like the newer way - Bugger off.........;-)

Post 3

Monday, March 19, 2007 - 9:13pm

Luke,

Good one!

This calls for a reprise of.....

The Dogbert Dismissal!

Post 4

Tuesday, March 20, 2007 - 12:39pm

Luke -- Great post, thanks! I do like Kurt's even-more-to-the-point response but I guess in situations where I want to keep a measure of decorum, the five words do well.

By the way, I had a kind of accidental post go up on SOLO Passion, about Estonia, and decided to respond on the topic of economic free and how to measure it. A number of folks -- including Lindsay, had good questions and comments. But a couple of the disingenuous ones have thrown out comments that I simply ignore, as is my policy. It was interesting to watch the equivalent of their jumping up and down to get my attention but I simply respond to what I judge as honest comments or criticisms. I owe the others nothing. I assume the people I wish to address see them for what they are. Silence can work as well.

Post 5

Tuesday, March 20, 2007 - 7:55pm

I'm very grateful for this article, it made me smile since I've been having trouble getting up the courage to start going full time as myself. :) I wish I would have thought in those terms years ago about myself before I got to this age.

-- Bridget

Post 6

Tuesday, March 20, 2007 - 10:30pm

I liked this, Luke. The imagery with the Gordian knot was great, and your modern day example of it was vivid. The only part that seems like it could improve is the 5 words themselves. I keep imagining you saying it, and getting strange looks and "I didn't say you needed me!". I wonder if other phrases might work. "It's my life to live". "You don't own me." "Your opinions mean nothing to me."

Great job, though. The important point I got out of it was that you don't need to defend your views or positions. Their your choices by right, and don't need anyone else's blessings. If you get stuck in the mindset of trying to prove that you're right, you may already be accepting their terms of debate.

Post 7

Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 1:42am

Let's not forget "Get lost" and "Who gives a damn?" Also the American classic: "Mind your own business." And my personal favorite: "If I wanted your opinion, I'd beat it out of you!" ;-)

Post 8

Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 2:14am

Thanks for the comments, everyone.

I recently finished listening to Understanding Objectivism by Leonard Peikoff. He talks about the traps of rationalism (all is idea and nothing is matter) and empiricism (all is matter and nothing is idea) and how Objectivism avoids these by fusing matter with ideas via the Objectivist theory of concept formation. Regarding rationalism, a rationalist will make the common error of arguing with someone under the mistaken assumption that one man's rightness depends upon another man's agreement. Meanwhile, an empiricist will refuse to abstract at all and limit himself to concretes. An Objectivist understands how to validate his own rightness via right reasoning methods so as to make valid, wide scope abstractions that apply to many concretes.

Attempting to argue with the Gordian knots of argumentation that both rationalists and empiricists mount without first having them understand an objective theory of abstract reasoning that ties back to concretes can prove both frustrating and unnecessary. Peikoff observes that while a rationalist will feel a need to validate himself by convincing someone else and an empiricist will not be able to mount an abstract argument, an Objectivist will be content in the rightness of his own reasoning without vigorously seeking external validation from others. Instead, he will simply understand that reality will force others who have wrong ideas eventually to pay the price for their wrongness.

I do not need them.

Joe, regarding the five words, I got a similar comment at the Toastmasters meeting from my evaluator -- or perhaps I should say, he had expected some sort of acronym or synonym rather than a message of dismissal. I will consider your suggestion. I derived my phrase from Galt:

We do not need you.

I also like Roark's statement:

I don't think of you.

Post 9

Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 8:07am

Nice speech, Luke.
I've always liked Francisco's remark to Jim Taggart:

"It is not advisable, James, to venture unsolicited opinions. You should spare yourself the embarrassing discovery of their exact value to your listener."

Or, the shortened version:

"If I valued your opinion, I'd ask for it."

Post 10

Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 12:32pm

I myself do not smoke, but I was once passing by a smoker when a busybody also passing in the opposite direction told the smoker that it would give him cancer. I said loud enough for both of them to hear:

"Yeah, and if you quit now, you'll live forever!"

The smoker laughed. The busybody kept walking, and then 5 seconds later turned around and said "Hey!" in anger. The smoker and I both laughed louder.

And while I don't use the phrase myself, I like "You're not the boss of me!"

Ted

(Edited by Ted Keer
on 3/21, 6:44pm)

Post 11

Sunday, April 8, 2007 - 7:14am

Great post, Luke!

Your post kinda reminds me of the stance taken by the antediluvians toward that obstructionistic, life draining, and destroying Noah. They certainly showed him how to set oneself free from the Gordian knots of troublemakers so that one can live their life their way. Truly, they didn't need him.

;)
Bryan

Post 12

Sunday, April 8, 2007 - 4:15pm

I had to research a key term to understand Bryan's post fully:

http://www.genesisfiles.com/Antediluvians.htm

So does Bryan represent yet another invasion of RoR from Christians for Objectivism Bashing via Rationalistic Argumentation (COBRA)?

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 4/09, 5:17am)

Post 13

Sunday, April 8, 2007 - 5:28pm