About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Page 8Page 9Forward one pageLast Page


Post 80

Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 12:30pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bill, I was certain my post demonstrates that I understand what you have in mind.

I disagree.

I maintain my position:  Knowing what one is "for" does NOT define all that one is against.

YOUR RESPONSES:

Does "Pro Black" mean "Anti-white"?
You say - That depends...

If one supports public education, does that mean that he/she is against private education?
You say - No, but...

If one practices Christianity, does that mean he is against other religions?
You say - In a sense, yes...


Also,
YOU SAY:
"...wouldn't it be better to say that you for the rights of all human beings, blacks included? " 

*chuckle*

Why?  To make sure that I "include" you?...*s*
and imply/render my greatest concerns secondary?

Nah...



YOU SAY:
"Well, if all you knew about a person is what you saw him do, that certainly wouldn't tell you that his actions conform to or contradict his explicit philosophy, since you wouldn't know his philosophy to begin with; nor would his action tell you as much about the rest of his values as if you did know his philosophy."
 
Actions speak loudly to a person's beliefs, passions, etc.
BOTH listening and observing, to me, are useful in knowing who a person is, and what he/she stands for.


Post 81

Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 12:42pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hey John,

I skimmed your writings.

Love em!

I'll definitely revisit "Final Cut" and offer some comments.


Post 82

Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 12:41pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"The other half is that to many curs like your self would rather sit back and hide from the world while reciting words that you really don’t live by, nor could you ever put in motion." What a perfectly predictable remark from Star the Hater. Could I bother you to explain to me your reasons for such a scathing, ignorant, and rude accusation?-And please use facts, not irrational diatribes. Your 'objective hate' does nothing to further the cause of Objectivism.

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 83

Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 1:17pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Of course it does. The fact that Star gets so many listeners is testimony to the fact that people are interested.

All publicity is good publicitity, and I can't think of any better way of spreading objectivism than the kind of radical, edgy manner in which this has been accomplished.

Andy.

Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 84

Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 3:08pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hmmmm...so you think that all publicity is good publicity?-let's see; "Andrew Bowman is a fucking asshole who doesn't know what the fuck context means, nor does this simple minded idiot take into account what Ayn Rand and more specifically Objectivism regarded as acceptable as well as unacceptable behavior among men when relaying the importance of philosophical abstractions. Doesn't Mr. Bowman have a fucking clue about anything?" Say, you're right!-all publicity is good publicity especially done in a radical, edgy manner.

Post 85

Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 3:18pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Just to clarify, I have nothing against you personally Mr. Andrew Bowman, in fact you may be a nice guy. I was making a point that context DOES matter as well personal integrtiy whithin Objectivism. Baseless ad hominem attacks against ANYONE are irrational, especially when taken from a point of lack of context, and do nothing to further what the whole Objectivist movement is all about.

Post 86

Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 3:43pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Haha - Fantastic posts!

Now put that on a radio broadcast and get some people involved with the philosophy of Andrew Bowman and you've got yourself some publicity. Whether Star has got it right or not, moot point.

Your point seems to be based around the premise that everyone who comes into contact with Star's material is either going to totally reject the philosophy of Rand or have a hugely distorted view of it, whilst at the same time forgetting these are people who probably wouldn't have otherwise heard of Ayn Rand, let alone be interested in Objectivist material. In this way, all publicity is good publicity. Do I think people are suddenly going to become Objectivists after hearing Star? Of course not, but it brings more people into contact. That can only be considered good, surely?

Fact is, activism is a worthwhile goal. Objectivism can expand by getting each minute detail right one at a time until we have a perfect copy of the philosophy it with everyone agreeing on every single damn point...Or we can do it the realistic way.

Like the world - Objectivism would be fantastically boring if everyone agreed on everything.

Star is the perfect model of activism within objectivism; Radical, contraversial and interesting.

Kudos - Andy.

Sanction: 2, No Sanction: 0
Post 87

Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 4:27pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hello Erik,

You’re a little late to this party, besides one of the most intriguing aspects of ROR for me is the fact that people are open with their identities. Mr. Dwyer addressed this mutual form of respect when I first arrived. "Impersonations and False Identities"--the breakdown of trust among friends and associates.

Yes I took a low but calculated shot at you, and guess what I’ve got plenty more where that came from. In fact I specialize in it. Not out of defense, but solely for the purpose of a chuckle! (My life has always been awesome). Today I leave ROR because a certain element will soon discover my presence here and the integrity of this vehicle will become jeopardized.

I have thoroughly enjoyed my stay along with the grilling by sophisticated members who were open minded enough to present questions to me instead of your elitist snarl approach. As far as Objectivism and my advancing it, may I suggest you go back and re-read some of my kites? There you should find a lone warrior out on the battlefield swinging his sword.

I don’t blame you for being stunned and alarmed. In your finest hour you probably never conceived this horrific and un-imaginable day. What you once thought was, or perceived it to be, is no longer! Now you have the even harder task of retracing certain text and trying to find out just how big that hornet’s nest could be.

** Andrew Bowman – You’ve hit the nail on the head, and for that I salute you.

FAREWELL TO ALL AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR HOSPITALITY!

S.

P.S. For the record my show is available to all Objectivist who may need the power of the airwaves one day. Especially Ed Thompson – You Sir will make a difference! To Ms. Donna Reed, I usually walk my little brats in Central Park Saturday mornings near Columbus Circle.




(Edited by Star The Hater
on 3/16, 5:48am)


Post 88

Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 4:53pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Top bloke. We need more people like Star.

All the best;

Andy.

Post 89

Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 4:04pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Andy, I can appreciate where you are coming from, however I must disagree. Objectivism is a philosophy which, among many other things, makes MEN of nem. It brings out the best in every man, because it demands respect for reality. Although Star the Hater may be portraying his version of objectivism to a large audience, if it is not consonant with the reality of the objectivist philosophy than it will actually do more harm than good, similar to what newspeak did to language in Orwell's '1984'. That is why context is SO important in making the abstracts in philosophy understood. When an objectivist says that they are 'for' this or 'for' that, it doesn't mean at all that they don't see the 'whole picture' or the 'anti' side of things, quite the contrary actually; they see the facts, but as a matter of establishing a sense of life and of being their heroic best, choose to live a life of ethical positives. That doesn't mean one lives in denial of reality, but rather fully engaged with what reality is. A is A. It means that one chooses to seek and be truly happy and live with integrity and vision in a world full of haters.

Post 90

Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 5:37pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Star, I harbor no ill will, even though we disagree. Best of luck in your endeavors.

Post 91

Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 6:53pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Erik,

I offer you the opportunity to reject the ideas you were guilt tripped into accepting as true through the argument of intimidation, and begin using your own mind and experience to determine whether an idea is consistent with Reality. I wrote this having you in mind for the audience, specifically so that you might learn something like how to live and learn ideas consistent with reality and choose your own purposes and achieve them. I'd love to hear your comments on it.

Post 92

Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 7:06pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Star-
Keep the faith, and all my best.


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 93

Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 7:12pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Today I leave ROR because a certain element will soon discover my presence here and the integrity of this vehicle will become jeopardized.
Leonard's coming! Quick, everyone look pissed!!



Post 94

Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 7:34pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
LMAO!  Funny.

Post 95

Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 8:15pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Good one, Teresa.....;-))

Post 96

Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 9:15pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Dean, I cannot accpet your offer to reject the ideas that I was guilt tripped into because; there aren't any. I always use my own mind when making reality based judgements. I did read your article, how you think it applies to me I'm still trying to figure out. I am not a moocher, second-hander, or any other kind of collectivist. My father worked in law enforcement and as such I was raised to be objective and think about facts, not whims.

Post 97

Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 11:19pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"P.S. For the record my show is available to all Objectivist who may need the power of the airwaves one day. Especially Ed Thompson – You Sir will make a difference!"

'Preciate that kind of recognition, Star. Though I'll take a raincheck for now -- but keep your email handy.

Ed
[this chest is for puffing]


Post 98

Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 2:06amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
*waving @ Star* with tear-filled eyes
 
Interesting posts here...
 
Alls I know is when the weather gets warmer, my schedule becomes lighter
and I'm gonna make time for a nice, leisurely, early morning stroll around Central Park
 
*s*
 
 


Post 99

Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 6:26pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Star replied to me as follows:
Since when did unbiased, equal and just, become synonyms for confused or no careful distinctions?"
I replied, "Huh?? Since when did I say that unbiased, equal and just were synonyms for confusion or a lack of careful distinctions?" Star then quoted me, "There's another meaning of non-discriminatory and that's indiscriminate," and juxtaposed the following definitions:

Non-discriminatory - Fair, equal, just, unbiased
Indiscriminate - Confused, making no careful distinctions.


Star, all you're doing is citing one of the meanings of "non-discriminatory" and contrasting it with the meaning of "indiscriminate," which is fine. But I wasn't referring to that definition of "non-discriminatory," which is why I said that there's another meaning of the term, which is "indiscriminate." Words sometimes have more than one meaning. Citing The American Heritage Dictionary:

Discriminatory: 1. Marked by or showing prejudice; biased. 2. Discriminating.

"Discriminating," of course, means: "capable of recognizing or drawing fine distinctions."

So, using "discriminatory" in the second sense, "non-discriminatory" would simply mean non-discriminating or lacking in discrimination, which is precisely the meaning of "indiscriminate," as the dictionary defines it, viz.: "Lacking in discrimination: indiscriminate admiration of power"

- Bill



Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Page 8Page 9Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.