Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[Prismatic Sphere]

No you're not. You're a typical libertarian on the internet. I follow a lot of libertarian blogs and you spout basically the same memes that 90% of those people do.

No, I'm much more than that buddy. Libertarian-Athiesm embodies a much more larger and specific worldview. We are a rare breed and unlike many of them, I could care less about finding our purpose for living because it is all one big fucking joke; just not a very good one(hence why I drink).

Btw, why do you keeps tabs on libertarian blogs if you oppose them? Are you the real Big Brother? Holy shit! Nice to meet you.

 

[Cythraul]

I don't know much about the details of Ayn Rand's philosophizing (besides her misrepresentation of Kantian ethics) but it seems kind of lulzy to me to base a philosophical system around the principle of non-contradiction. I mean, it's not really that special of a principle or capable of generating any particularly deep truths. It's just basically assumed in debate in general. Honestly, how the hell do you generate an entire system of ethics, epistemology, aesthetics, etc. from the principle of non-contradiction? Maybe I'm misunderstanding what Rand was actually trying to do. Maybe there is more to it than that.

 

[Cythraul]

No, I'm much more than that buddy. Libertarian-Athiesm embodies a much more larger and specific worldview. We are a rare breed and unlike many of them, I could care less about finding our purpose for living because it is all one big fucking joke; just not a very good one(hence why I drink).

If everything is "one big fucking joke" then why are you so concerned about a normative doctrine such as libertarianism?

Btw, why do you keeps tabs on libertarian blogs if you oppose them? Are you the real Big Brother? Holy shit! Nice to meet you.

You clearly don't know anything about me. I am a libertarian.

 

[Prismatic Sphere]

His statements were contradictory. Ayn Rand's philosophy is based around non-contradiction.

Ayn Rand said that if there was any contradiction, to check your premises.


Anyhow, please state how I was contradictory. Since I can't click on those links and see the context of what I said; I will endeavor to trust you enough to cut and paste said remarks, honestly.

 

[viewerfromnihil]

I don't know much about the details of Ayn Rand's philosophizing (besides her misrepresentation of Kantian ethics) but it seems kind of lulzy to me to base a philosophical system around the principle of non-contradiction. I mean, it's not really that special of a principle or capable of generating any particularly deep truths. It's just basically assumed in debate in general. Honestly, how the hell do you generate an entire system of ethics, epistemology, aesthetics, etc. from the principle of non-contradiction? Maybe I'm misunderstanding what Rand was actually trying to do. Maybe there is more to it than that.

It's not what you're thinking. If you want to get the full scope of her philosophy, read Atlas Shrugged. It's a heavy read but not a waste of time.

Ayn Rand said that if there was any contradiction, to check your premises.


Anyhow, please state how I was contradictory. Since I can't click on those links and see the context of what I said; I will endeavor to trust you enough to cut and paste said remarks, honestly.

That quote by Ayn Rand applies only to fact. Not opinion.

The fact that you're busy spending a decent portion of your time arguing with people on the internet about opinions is contradictory with objectivism. I'm not going to bother wasting my time to cut and paste statements that you would still endorse. If you were not a contradiction with the philosophy, you would be busy doing something productive.

Before you respond, I will let you know that I agree with much of what you said. However, you have the wrong way of approaching it.

 

[Prismatic Sphere]

If everything is "one big fucking joke" then why are you so concerned about a normative doctrine such as libertarianism?

Because as a former class clown and now, as an alcoholic barroom jester; I don't like restrictions being placed on anyone's comedic content or on how one handles the inherent joke of it all.
Or maybe I just have a problem with authority; which is the healthiest "problem" one can have, IMO.

You clearly don't know anything about me. I am a libertarian.

Then why are you breaking my balls???

Btw, many say that they are libertarian but are really faux-libertarian; espousing such inane shit, like that people shouldn't really own property after all.

I sincerely hope that you aren't one of those.

 

[Cythraul]

Then why are you breaking my balls???

Because even though I may be in broad agreement with somebody on political matters that doesn't mean I have to think they're a perfectly reasonable human being 100% of the time.

Btw, many say that they are libertarian but are really faux-libertarian; espousing such inane shit, like that people shouldn't really own property after all.

I sincerely hope that you aren't one of those.

Uhhh, well, my Master's thesis is basically a defense of libertarian property rights as they pertain to distributive justice. Anyway, I have never encountered a self-described libertarian that thinks people shouldn't own property. What in the world are you talking about?

 

[Prismatic Sphere]

That quote by Ayn Rand applies only to fact. Not opinion.

The fact that you're busy spending a decent portion of your time arguing with people on the internet about opinions is contradictory with objectivism. I'm not going to bother wasting my time to cut and paste statements that you would still endorse. If you were not a contradiction with the philosophy, you would be busy doing something productive.

Or you could have just simply stopped at alcohol(which takes up a pretty gargantuan chunk of my time) which Rand frowned upon as perpetuating the "apathetic haze" in her great book The Virtue Of Selfishness(even though she drank herself).

But for the record, what you said is still an opinion, not a fact. Though the odds are against it; for all you know- I could have found a grift in the system and figured out how to make high profit money at home and that drinking & debating with statists is how I deal with boredom(which the latter part is actually true).

Before you respond, I will let you know that I agree with much of what you said. However, you have the wrong way of approaching it.

I never was very diplomatic.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

I don't know much about the details of Ayn Rand's philosophizing (besides her misrepresentation of Kantian ethics) but it seems kind of lulzy to me to base a philosophical system around the principle of non-contradiction. I mean, it's not really that special of a principle or capable of generating any particularly deep truths. It's just basically assumed in debate in general. Honestly, how the hell do you generate an entire system of ethics, epistemology, aesthetics, etc. from the principle of non-contradiction? Maybe I'm misunderstanding what Rand was actually trying to do. Maybe there is more to it than that.

All Ayn Rand really does is break down Philosophy ( Metaphysics, Epistemology,Ethics,Politics and aesthetics.) into three basic axioms - Existence,consciousness and identity.

So existence is perceived through consciousness, and forms an object or entity to have an identity.

Primacy of existence over consciousness, which she feels is self evident and non contradictory.

 

[Prismatic Sphere]

The guy has said he's a libertarian. WTF

And so has Bill Maher(thankfully though not anymore).

I don't know much about the details of Ayn Rand's philosophizing (besides her misrepresentation of Kantian ethics) but it seems kind of lulzy to me to base a philosophical system around the principle of non-contradiction. I mean, it's not really that special of a principle or capable of generating any particularly deep truths. It's just basically assumed in debate in general. Honestly, how the hell do you generate an entire system of ethics, epistemology, aesthetics, etc. from the principle of non-contradiction? Maybe I'm misunderstanding what Rand was actually trying to do. Maybe there is more to it than that.

I actually am not really that opposed to contradiction like I used to be(only in a very significant, principled sense). I mean casually, if you are contradicting yourself, you are thereby doubling the chance that you agree with me. Can't really get my panties in a bunch over that.

Because even though I may be in broad agreement with somebody on political matters that doesn't mean I have to think they're a perfectly reasonable human being 100% of the time.

Well now this, I find insulting. Please state succinctly where I have been unreasonable and I will bow down to you and get the hell off the internet.

Uhhh, well, my Master's thesis is basically a defense of libertarian property rights as they pertain to distributive justice. Anyway, I have never encountered a self-described libertarian that thinks people shouldn't own property. What in the world are you talking about?

Well it gets pretty ridiculous. If you go on youtube, you can find all kinds of pennyanny rants by self described "libertarian-socialists" or "libertarian-communists" like that is even possible.
Or you have prickfuck people like Bill Maher(who used to describe himself as libertarian) defending every regulation on business and trade.
Or you have Glenn Beck who is about as much of a libertarian as Officer Bob(Penn Jillette even kinda called him out on it).

 

[Prismatic Sphere]

All Ayn Rand really does is break down Philosophy ( Metaphysics, Epistemology,Ethics,Politics and aesthetics.) into three basic axioms - Existence,consciousness and identity.

So existence is perceived through consciousness, and forms an object or entity to have an identity.

Primacy of existence over consciousness, which she feels is self evident and non contradictory.

The Libertarians, the Athiests, the Objectivists- all great groups. Though to be truly true to form, I don't align myself with either one of them. I align myself with ideas.

Btw, for people who love Ayn Rand and capitalism but still have laziness in their DNA, try finding The Neo-Tech Conspiracy by Robert Wallace. Supposedly it takes Atlas Shrugged fifty times further and makes it useful in actual real-world application. Purportedly reading sort of like encountering Ayn Rand on cocaine.

 

[Cythraul]

Well now this, I find insulting. Please state succinctly where I have been unreasonable and I will bow down to you and get the hell off the internet.

I'm too lazy to go back through the thread. Anyway, why should you get off the internet? You can learn things on the internet, especially from me. Stay.

Well it gets pretty ridiculous. If you go on youtube, you can find all kinds of pennyanny rants by self described "libertarian-socialists" or "libertarian-communists" like that is even possible.

Oh ok. I kind of had a suspicion you were referring to those types. I guess that according to those people the term 'libertarian' originated in the left-wing anarchist movement in Europe, before the term was adopted by American libertarians. Anyway, I don't really care that much about terminology. Their views are still basically stupid as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Prismatic Sphere]

I'm too lazy to go back through the thread. Anyway, why should you get off the internet? You can learn things on the internet, especially from me. Stay.

I thought that your gripe with me was that I wasn't being true to myself for spending my time online arguing with state loving zealots; that's why I proposed my exit. Oh don't worry though, I'm not going anywhere.

Oh ok. I kind of had a suspicion you were referring to those types. I guess that according to those people the term 'libertarian' originated in the left-wing anarchist movement in Europe, before the term was adopted by American libertarians. Anyway, I don't really care that much about terminology. Their views are still basically stupid as far as I'm concerned.

Right. Much like how we as libertarians are the REAL liberals.

This may sound elitist(and it is) but I definitely think that the two most enlightened positions to come out of the Enlightenment are Athiesm and Liberalism(Libertarianism). And today, in what I call The Age Of Unenlightenment, those two positions are quite frowned upon.

 

[Cythraul]

Right. Much like how we as libertarians are the REAL liberals.

This may sound elitist(and it is) but I definitely think that the two most enlightened positions to come out of the Enlightenment are Athiesm and Liberalism(Libertarianism). And today, in what I call The Age Of Unenlightenment, those two positions are quite frowned upon.

Libertarianism is not the same thing as classical liberalism.

 

[Prismatic Sphere]

Libertarianism is not the same thing as classical liberalism.

Not exactly. But they certainly aren't anywhere near being mutually exclusive.

But that's fine I will reiterate: the two greatest things to come out of the Enlightenment Age are Libertarianism and Atheism; and today in The Age Of Unenlightenment, most people frown down upon namely one of them.

 

[Prismatic Sphere]

By the way, this video scared the fucking shit out of me.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdIkh1j-USM&feature=related[/ame]

 

[Pessimism]

I'm posting right here so I can just search for my last post and backtrack a page from there. Too much theory going on for my sleepiness to handle.

 

[Saparmurat_Niyazov]

That Stossel video is no surprise. Political correctness is viewed as the highest moral standard, and liberty is seen as selfish and hedonistic at best, anarchistic and hostile to society at large at worst.

 

[Dak]

Ironically, PC is close to the height of selfishness. "What you are saying offends me (which is all that matters ldo), so there should be a law against it"

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

PC is kind of bullshit imo. There are situations in which being somewhat PC would be better for everyone, but of course, people take it too fucken far.