Enneagram Type 5 Board Archive

Oh but you are wrong. [ Boards: Main, Type4, Type5, Movie, Care, Chat ][ Top 10 ] [ HOME ]

Oh but you are wrong.

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Type 5 Message Board ]

Posted by Mikko (193.234.247.50) on June 02, 2002 at 07:13:57:

In Reply to: Re: Why not? posted by isaac (68.63.80.8) on June 01, 2002 at 20:50:22:

> hahah...
> i'd expect someone to be touchy if i attacked christianity without reading the bible, or if i used the actions of the catholic church to say that the *philosophy* of christianity is bad.

--Now, you wouldn't have to read the bible. It would be perfectly enough if you knew what it says, from a reliable source. Such as a christian preaching about it.

If your example of the catholic church is supposed to be an analogy, I can only say that I've never said that in abstract theory objectivism couldn't be good. Or with machines. It just doesn't work in real life, and I'm too practical to care about anything that can't work for *real*.

>such an attack would not be valid.

--What's a "valid" attack?

>however, if you notice, when i've criticized christianity, it was by appealing to the fundamental ideas of the religion, as presented in the foundation text (the bible, particularly the new testament). if you want to attack objectivism, you should learn about it first. know your enemy.

--I have learned about it a lot, it's impossible not to, reading your messages.

>in fact, the more you want to attack it, the more you should become an expert on it. 1) to know for certain whether or not you SHOULD attack it, and 2) to be fully capable of attacking it in a relevant and effective way. you should not attack things which you do not understand. you only belie your own ignorance.

--For the 500th time or so, I do know quite a lot about it. I know the fundamental ideas, and as they don't work, it's totally unnecessary to study more about it. (as it supposedly is a logical system, which builds the rest of itself on those fundamental ideas) And you're getting way too repetitive again. Have anything new to say or are you just wasting my time?

> you claim to be debating about objectivism, but you're not. you're just singling out a few people, and attacking us.

--Your lack of accuracy is sometimes annoying. I'm not singling out "a few people", I'm singling out you, Isaac. There aren't any other devote Objectivists to single out here.

>you really don't know much about objectivism at all, and the specifics of the philosophy that you're assaulting do not matter.

--Are you a fucking broken record, like?

>it could be a kantian, neitzschean, or aristotelean philosophy that you target, socialism, fascism or capitalism, so long as a person you don't like agrees with it and is willing to stand by it.

--You missed my point again. If a fundamentalist starts telling me their system will solve all the problems in the world and works the best in all situations and so forth, I will get testy, because I'm allergic to bullshit.

> not everything is debatable, mikko. ethical truths are not matters of opinion.

--Why are you breaking that rule by yourself? There are so many people who say that you shouldn't be selfish and you should help those in need and if you don't, you're ethically wrong. Yet you debate and argue against them and even furthermore now you're telling me that you can't do what you're doing yourself.

Isn't it amazing that I even bother to listen what you have to say anymore?

> i'm not going to respond to your comments about it because they are not comments about objectivism.

--What are they about then? Football?

>if you had genuine concerns and actually wanted to discuss them, i'd consider it. i'm not going to pander to your infantile power games.

--The only reason why you aren't replying to me is that you simply can't counter what I said. Now you are trying to hide and turn this into a some kind of a psychological game and try to find whatever way to turn the attention away from the real problem -- you can't counter what I said.

Of course I shouldn't have expected anything else because that's the normal fundamentalist reaction, but I would've thought you'd do better than that.

>there's nothing more for me to say about the issue. if you wanna discuss objectivism, take it up with the ari. but at least become well read on the subject before you expect to accomplish anything.

--I visit enough sites on the net already. Why should I start frequenting yet on another one -- just because you can't come up with anything to say?

> btw, ever see ai? that movie fucking blows!!

--No, and I don't think I will.

Follow Ups:

Isaac D Isaac D (211.149.89.132) 22:33:48 07/20/02 (0)

Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject:

Comments:
> > hahah... > > i'd expect someone to be touchy if i attacked christianity without reading the bible, or if i used the actions of the catholic church to say that the *philosophy* of christianity is bad. > --Now, you wouldn't have to read the bible. It would be perfectly enough if you knew what it says, from a reliable source. Such as a christian preaching about it. > If your example of the catholic church is supposed to be an analogy, I can only say that I've never said that in abstract theory objectivism couldn't be good. Or with machines. It just doesn't work in real life, and I'm too practical to care about anything that can't work for *real*. > >such an attack would not be valid. > --What's a "valid" attack? > >however, if you notice, when i've criticized christianity, it was by appealing to the fundamental ideas of the religion, as presented in the foundation text (the bible, particularly the new testament). if you want to attack objectivism, you should learn about it first. know your enemy. > --I have learned about it a lot, it's impossible not to, reading your messages. > >in fact, the more you want to attack it, the more you should become an expert on it. 1) to know for certain whether or not you SHOULD attack it, and 2) to be fully capable of attacking it in a relevant and effective way. you should not attack things which you do not understand. you only belie your own ignorance. > --For the 500th time or so, I do know quite a lot about it. I know the fundamental ideas, and as they don't work, it's totally unnecessary to study more about it. (as it supposedly is a logical system, which builds the rest of itself on those fundamental ideas) And you're getting way too repetitive again. Have anything new to say or are you just wasting my time? > > you claim to be debating about objectivism, but you're not. you're just singling out a few people, and attacking us. > --Your lack of accuracy is sometimes annoying. I'm not singling out "a few people", I'm singling out you, Isaac. There aren't any other devote Objectivists to single out here. > >you really don't know much about objectivism at all, and the specifics of the philosophy that you're assaulting do not matter. > --Are you a fucking broken record, like? > >it could be a kantian, neitzschean, or aristotelean philosophy that you target, socialism, fascism or capitalism, so long as a person you don't like agrees with it and is willing to stand by it. > --You missed my point again. If a fundamentalist starts telling me their system will solve all the problems in the world and works the best in all situations and so forth, I will get testy, because I'm allergic to bullshit. > > not everything is debatable, mikko. ethical truths are not matters of opinion. > --Why are you breaking that rule by yourself? There are so many people who say that you shouldn't be selfish and you should help those in need and if you don't, you're ethically wrong. Yet you debate and argue against them and even furthermore now you're telling me that you can't do what you're doing yourself. > Isn't it amazing that I even bother to listen what you have to say anymore? > > i'm not going to respond to your comments about it because they are not comments about objectivism. > --What are they about then? Football? > >if you had genuine concerns and actually wanted to discuss them, i'd consider it. i'm not going to pander to your infantile power games. > --The only reason why you aren't replying to me is that you simply can't counter what I said. Now you are trying to hide and turn this into a some kind of a psychological game and try to find whatever way to turn the attention away from the real problem -- you can't counter what I said. > Of course I shouldn't have expected anything else because that's the normal fundamentalist reaction, but I would've thought you'd do better than that. > >there's nothing more for me to say about the issue. if you wanna discuss objectivism, take it up with the ari. but at least become well read on the subject before you expect to accomplish anything. > --I visit enough sites on the net already. Why should I start frequenting yet on another one -- just because you can't come up with anything to say? > > btw, ever see ai? that movie fucking blows!! > --No, and I don't think I will.

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Type 5 Message Board ] [ FAQ ] type5board/messages/8429.html

Your Ad Here