Not that any of you lying-ass progressives are interested in the truth, but first of all, Greenspan was about as much of an objectivist as Hitler was a libertarian. But since you solipsists like to baste in your own infantile pablum, regurgitating all the vomit that passes for knowledge in the hot-house consortiums of marxist tripe we now jokingly refer to as "universities," why don't you explain to me how subjectivism works in practice? Do men simply dream up this reality called life that we are supposedly both engaging in right now, in the extremely loose sense, or are some stimuli external to your mind required in order for us men, again loosely speaking, to have thoughts?
This is a crucial question to get right, that is, the ontological question, because if you side with Marx we are all puppets of our material environments. This begs the question, what the hell makes you so smart? If you think that reality is quite subjective and made up, again, the point is moot, because I can say dragons and unicorns rule the universe and it is impossible for you to argue with me. That leaves us with another option, which is that there is an objective reality, and our minds are capable of receiving it and more or less interpreting it (some people obviously better than others; usually varying by how long one has been removed from the real world and multiplied by how long one has been indoctrinated in the academic panopticon).
If you can't mentally pack your bags and get this fundamental question right, then why should we listen to you opine on anything at all, let alone if you think Rand's literature is swell or horrid? If there are no objective standards for ethics, well, then let's all have at it, burning civilization in an orgy of nihilistic delusions while praying to our statist masters in the vain hope that a marxist phoenix will rise from the ashes.
[Slightly edited for typos.]
5 comments:
Way to go, Rj. I'm sure you made their heads spin.
Here's a good way to reply to such people:
Roark to Toohey.
"Mr. Roark, we're alone here. Why don't you tell me what you think of me? In any words you wish. No one will hear us."
"But I don't think of you."
Objectivists' opponents may be classified in the following way:
1-educated people who often don't seek the truth but are at least they have some knowledge and can present arguments
2-sincere and honest people who seek the truth but are mistaken
3-ignorant jerks and Internet trolls
It's sometimes interesting to debate with the first two categories but the third category should be ignored. It's useless to waste any time on them.
"Thanks to Objectivism, I cannot get a girlfriend or even talk to a girl."
Seen this comment? The guy apparently attributes his being a stupid jerk to Objectivism. Given the importance of sex in Objectivist ideology, I can't see any connection. It would be understandable if he were a Christian ascetic.
One of the commentators called the rant auto-fellatio. Yes, it's exactly what it is. Pardon, ladies, I'd even say this is an auto-anilingus, if you know what I mean.
Well, ReaganX, I wouldn't be so naive as to throw down the gauntlet to someone as blatantly defamatory as the author of the blog entry. But I did see several comments that gave me the impression that the commentators were simply misinformed and ideologically confused, rather than smug socialist smear-merchants.
Post a Comment