NationStates Jolt Archive

Just wanted to (re-)introduce myself. I've been playing NationStates off and on for about three years now--started off as Ithuania, then I was G Bugles, then Reason and Reality. Some of you I may be familiar with; others are new.

For those of you who are new, you should know I am a radical Objectivist Libertarian who seeks nothing short than the complete and utter destruction of collectivism in my lifetime. I am also a hell of a lot smarter than you, and have yet to be defeated in argument.

I am a musician; I play trombone, euphonium, tuba, trumpet, piano, guitar, dulcimer, harmonica, violin, cello, bass, organ, clarinet, and banjo.

I can run a mile in 4:58, and my average per-mile time over ten miles is 5:14.

Any other questions you have, I'd be happy to answer them for you.

Hmmm. Arrogant and opinionated. You should do well here...

Q: What country are you from?

what are you wearing ? x x x x x x

Yes. If you were a potatoe, what colour would the clouds smell like?

Are you ok?

Are you ok?
oh, fine thanks.. How's your whole life thing going?

Not you. The original poster.

For those of you who are new, you should know I am a radical Objectivist Libertarian who seeks nothing short than the complete and utter destruction of collectivism in my lifetime. I am also a hell of a lot smarter than you, and have yet to be defeated in argument.
No one on Nationstates is ever defeated in an argument. It's generally more to do with a blind refusal to accept the other position than being smarter, however.

Anyone who thinks they are smarter than everyone else is already the most stupid of the lot.

Not you. The original poster.
Who cares about him!? ooh! That's a good question! Who cares!?

Now, Dorstfeld, How is that Whole Life Thing going?

Just wanted to (re-)introduce myself. I've been playing NationStates off and on for about three years now--started off as Ithuania, then I was G Bugles, then Reason and Reality. Some of you I may be familiar with; others are new.

For those of you who are new, you should know I am a radical Objectivist Libertarian who seeks nothing short than the complete and utter destruction of collectivism in my lifetime. I am also a hell of a lot smarter than you, and have yet to be defeated in argument.

I am a musician; I play trombone, euphonium, tuba, trumpet, piano, guitar, dulcimer, harmonica, violin, cello, bass, organ, clarinet, and banjo.

I can run a mile in 4:58, and my average per-mile time over ten miles is 5:14.

Any other questions you have, I'd be happy to answer them for you.

Hmmm...Tangled Up In Blue, like, the Bob Dylan song? (and let me tell you what, an excellent tune it is)

Not you. The original poster.

why arent they responding ..... i really want to know what their wearing ... i can have porn and read ns

well don't you feel special now to get all that out of your system? Welcome I guess... :)

I am also a hell of a lot smarter than you, and have yet to be defeated in argument.

**laughs in your face** Just by saying this, you lose any right to say or believe it.

And I've never lost a debate on General. But that's because I've never been in one.

Any other questions you have, I'd be happy to answer them for you.

If you're so much smarter than all of us, why are you here? Is it just so you can try to prove that?

Hmmm...Tangled Up In Blue, like, the Bob Dylan song? (and let me tell you what, an excellent tune it is)
Excuse me, we're trying to get to bottom of how Dorstfeld is doing! Stop hijacking the thread please.

Oh my.

Who would have thought I'd live to see the day when I fondly remember gun-smiley studded first posts.

Who cares about him!? ooh! That's a good question! Who cares!?

Now, Dortsfeld, How is that Whole Life Thing going?

Who cares? is spot on. Who gives a flying f***? also hits the nail on the head.

YEAH! What are you wearing?!

Excuse me, we're trying to get to bottom of how Dorstfeld is doing! Stop hijacking the thread please.

my, my, looks like someone needs a chill pill...

Oh my.

Who would have thought I'd live to see the day when I fondly remember gun-smiley studded first posts.
Well, I didn't actually think it but, y'know, looking back there was signs that you were maybe losing your marbles and becoming a tad super-hyper-insane.

my, my, looks like someone needs a chill pill...

Is it you?

my, my, looks like someone needs a chill pill...
my, my, well what have you got?

Back from the loo, dumping some ice cubes and farting a blizzard.

At first, the only question I wanted to ask the original poster was "Are you ok?"
But now - thanks Zero - "Who gives a flying f***?" is the definite favo(u)rite.

Who cares? is spot on. Who gives a flying f***? also hits the nail on the head.
Not me! I have certain collectivists tendencies and can't afford to just be handing out flying fucks.. Now.. how is that Whole Life Thing going?

my, my, well what have you got?

prozac, ritalin, viagra, cocaine, you name it, I got it!

prozac, ritalin, viagra, cocaine, you name it, I got it!
Tixylix?

Hmmm. Arrogant and opinionated. You should do well here...

Q: What country are you from?
The United States of America.

Now.. how is that Whole Life Thing going?

Who cares?

"Who gives a flying f***?"

Another question for the OP:

what does the "f***" really stand for?

options include but are not limited to

fuck, fish, fire, flee, flea, fear, frog, from, four, fort, feel, filo, fist, fine, firm

what are you wearing ? x x x x x x
A sweatshirt and sweatpants.

And socks.

Oh, and boxers too
:D

No one on Nationstates is ever defeated in an argument. It's generally more to do with a blind refusal to accept the other position than being smarter, however.

Anyone who thinks they are smarter than everyone else is already the most stupid of the lot.

That assertion is a convenient way to avoid having to acknowledge the intellectual superiority of your intellectual superiors, but it is a non-sequitur.

The United States of America.

So, who couldn't have guessed that from someone so arrogant? (No offence to the nice americans)

Who cares?
I do!

Well not really but you seem like a worthy distraction and this kind of small talk tends to get threads locked.

Hmmm...Tangled Up In Blue, like, the Bob Dylan song? (and let me tell you what, an excellent tune it is)
Yup :D

That assertion is a convenient way to avoid having to acknowledge the intellectual superiority of your intellectual superiors, but it is a non-sequitur.

You lose at smart guy stuff

Tixylix?

No, my order for that hasn't come through yet, but can I oblige you with some oxycontin as a gesture of customer courtesy?

So, who couldn't have guessed that from someone so arrogant? (No offence to the nice americans)
It's not arrogance, it's candor.

...and this kind of small talk tends to get threads locked.

Here's hoping.

What a egotistical individual.

That assertion is a convenient way to avoid having to acknowledge the intellectual superiority of your intellectual superiors, but it is a non-sequitur.
I see. I'm sure you're aware that arrogance diminishes wisdom.

I can run a mile in 4:58, and my average per-mile time over ten miles is 5:14.

Any other questions you have, I'd be happy to answer them for you.
Yeah, I've got a question:
What the hell are you running away from? You one of them criminal types, or is truble just "following you wherever you go", huh? I bet you're just here to take our jobs and steal my cheese. Just so you know, that ain't gonna happen buddy! Nosiree-bob!
:cool:

Define "collectivism."

G Bugles!!!

What a legend. Hero of the UN forums, gallant opponent of socialism, conservatism, and logic.

You lose at smart guy stuff
How so? The statement to which you are referring is gramatically, semantically, and factually valid.

That assertion is a convenient way to avoid having to acknowledge the intellectual superiority of your intellectual superiors, but it is a non-sequitur.

How the hell do you know the intellectual level of every single poster on this forum? Answer? You don't. Thus, you are not our intellectual superior.

I see. I'm sure you're aware that arrogance diminishes wisdom.
Another nice (unsupported) platitude, but one that is ultimately incorrect.

G Bugles!!!

What a legend. Hero of the UN forums, gallant opponent of socialism, conservatism, and logic.

Oh, he has a past reputation, eh?

Another nice (unsupported) platitude, but one that is ultimately incorrect.
If you are arrogant to the point of belief that your knowledge is perfect, and therefore need no longer be enhanced, then he is absolutely correct.

Yeah, I've got a question:
What the hell are you running away from? You one of them criminal types, or is truble just "following you wherever you go", huh? I bet you're just here to take our jobs and steal my cheese. Just so you know, that ain't gonna happen buddy! Nosiree-bob!
:cool:

Nope, I'm running for my health :)

How so? The statement to which you are referring is gramatically, semantically, and factually valid.
Yeah, but you really need to buy a thesaurus.

G Bugles!!!

What a legend. Hero of the UN forums, gallant opponent of socialism, conservatism, and logic.

Correct on the first three, but not the last one. It is precisely because I accept logic and reason completely and consistently that I am opposed to socialism and conservativism.

That assertion is a convenient way to avoid having to acknowledge the intellectual superiority of your intellectual superiors, but it is a non-sequitur.
No it isn't. This is an online forum, yes? And online forums victory in debates is all about perception. There's no ref, no one keeping score, so if you've think you've won then you've won. If people disagree with you they are either mad, stupid, arrogant or some combination of those things I just said. You see? I win.

Another nice (unsupported) platitude, but one that is ultimately incorrect.
You just proved his point unfortunatly.

How so? The statement to which you are referring is gramatically, semantically, and factually valid.
Proper grammar. Nice. :rolleyes:

A sweatshirt and sweatpants.

And socks.

Oh, and boxers too
:D
Socks turn me on.

What do the boxers look like?

You just proved his point unfortunatly.
Unfortunately? Do you not like me? :p

How so? The statement to which you are referring is gramatically, semantically, and factually valid.

I'd dispute the factual nature of your statement. Nothing I've seen indicates that you possess the hyper-intelligence needed to surpass, say, the UN Ambassadorship or Shqipes. But regardless, the fact that you couldn't even come up with a synonym for "intellectual superior" and that you constructed such a butt ugly sentence makes me question that you are even above average.

How the hell do you know the intellectual level of every single poster on this forum? Answer? You don't. Thus, you are not our intellectual superior.
I don't have to.

If (a) I possess the highest level of intellect possible, and (b) there can be only one individual who possesses an intellect of that level, then it is not necessary for me to know the individual intellectual levels of everyone else to know that mine is higher. As it happens, (a) and (b) are both true. QED.

Oh, he has a past reputation, eh?
Oh yes. I don't know what he was like in General, but he gathered a certain notoriety in the UN forum for...well, exactly what you're seeing now.

I'd dispute the factual nature of your statement. Nothing I've seen indicates that you possess the hyper-intelligence needed to surpass, say, the UN Ambassadorship or Shqipes. But regardless, the fact that you couldn't even come up with a synonym for "intellectual superior" and that you constructed such a butt ugly sentence makes me question that you are even above average.
Yeah! What she said!

I don't have to.

If (a) I possess the highest level of intellect possible, and (b) there can be only one individual who possesses an intellect of that level, then it is not necessary for me to know the individual intellectual levels of everyone else to know that mine is higher. As it happens, (a) and (b) are both true. QED.

Jesus Christ, this guy's certifiable. I love him!

I highly doubt you're smarter than, say, Einstein or Stephen Hawking.

I'd dispute the factual nature of your statement. Nothing I've seen indicates that you possess the hyper-intelligence needed to surpass, say, the UN Ambassadorship or Shqipes. But regardless, the fact that you couldn't even come up with a synonym for "intellectual superior" and that you constructed such a butt ugly sentence makes me question that you are even above average.

Just because I didn't does not mean I couldn't. It is a question of style.

He seems to have the desperate need to validate his own existance with the slander of others. Interesting, but not unique.

Oh yes. I don't know what he was like in General, but he gathered a certain notoriety in the UN forum for...well, exactly what you're seeing now.

Asswankery?

Yeah! What she said!

**cough** he

Just because I didn't does not mean I couldn't. It is a question of style.

Style? Bad style, yes.

Style? Bad style, yes.
Poor chap. The most insecure person I've seen on here, and that's saying quite a bit. :p

I don't have to.

If (a) I possess the highest level of intellect possible, and (b) there can be only one individual who possesses an intellect of that level, then it is not necessary for me to know the individual intellectual levels of everyone else to know that mine is higher. As it happens, (a) and (b) are both true. QED.
Those are some mighty big unsubstantiated assumptions you got there..

Nope, I'm running for my health :)
I bet you are. Nothing like a buttfull of buckshot to put you "under the weather", as it were. ;)

Poor chap. The most insecure person I've seen on here, and that's saying quite a bit. :p

Me, or him?:confused:

I don't have to.

If (a) I possess the highest level of intellect possible, and (b) there can be only one individual who possesses an intellect of that level, then it is not necessary for me to know the individual intellectual levels of everyone else to know that mine is higher. As it happens, (a) and (b) are both true. QED.

See, now I'm convinced that this has to be a joke. A parody, maybe, of the arrogance that WUIB dislikes in others? You see, a statement that ridiculous CANNOT be entirely serious. I hope.

Asswankery?



**cough** he
Oh, sorry... cabbage patch girl...

Me, or him?:confused:
Him, sorry. :p

u sound alot like a guy i went to school with. an arrogant pompus ass

If you are arrogant to the point of belief that your knowledge is perfect, and therefore need no longer be enhanced, then he is absolutely correct.

We're talking about intellect (that is, the capability to understand things in abstract terms, the use of that capability to solve abstract problems, and the application of both of those to solve concrete problems), not factual knowledge. Certainly, factual knowledge makes intellect more useful, but a deficiency in one does not necessarily indicate a deficiency in the other. I do not claim to have perfect and complete factual knowledge, just superior intellect.

u sound alot like a guy i went to school with. an arrogant pompus ass
Yes.

BTW, I win this thread.

Nice puppet. Who's working the strings?

He wants conflict, a sence of control of which he probably lacks outside of his computer.

We're talking about intellect (that is, the capability to understand things in abstract terms, the use of that capability to solve abstract problems, and the application of both of those to solve concrete problems), not factual knowledge. Certainly, factual knowledge makes intellect more useful, but a deficiency in one does not necessarily indicate a deficiency in the other. I do not claim to have perfect and complete factual knowledge, just superior intellect.
Yet he made a reference to wisdom, not intellect.

I don't have to.

If (a) I possess the highest level of intellect possible, and (b) there can be only one individual who possesses an intellect of that level, then it is not necessary for me to know the individual intellectual levels of everyone else to know that mine is higher. As it happens, (a) and (b) are both true. QED.

In order to truly know that (a) is the case you would already need to know the individual intellectual levels of everyone else.

Him, sorry. :p

Phew. Because these straps hold me pretty tight

Oh, sorry... cabbage patch girl...

Hehe. Stupid titles

u sound alot like a guy i went to school with. an arrogant pompus ass

We all went to school with one of those, though.

Socks turn me on.

What do the boxers look like?
White background with alternating groups of three brown and grey stripes.

White background with alternating groups of three brown and grey stripes.
Ha! You lose!

Poor chap. The most insecure person I've seen on here, and that's saying quite a bit. :p
Hardly.

As the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand demonstrated in her novel "The Fountainhead", there are many individuals who possess an inordinate degree of hate towards their betters. I'm just trying to get the process of forming that hate over with now so no time will be wasted later.

Hardly.

As the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand demonstrated in her novel "The Fountainhead", there are many individuals who possess an inordinate degree of hate towards their betters. I'm just trying to get the process of forming that hate over with now so no time will be wasted later.
A hate she amply demonstrated through her aversion to homosexuality.

Hardly.

As the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand demonstrated in her novel "The Fountainhead", there are many individuals who possess an inordinate degree of hate towards their betters. I'm just trying to get the process of forming that hate over with now so no time will be wasted later.

Amusing at best.

Hardly.

As the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand demonstrated in her novel "The Fountainhead", there are many individuals who possess an inordinate degree of hate towards their betters. I'm just trying to get the process of forming that hate over with now so no time will be wasted later.
Alas, the internet is the easiest place ever created to be the smartest person in the world.

You have done nothing that makes me feel you are an intellectual superior. An arrogant nobody, perhaps, but not a superior.

Hardly.

As the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand demonstrated in her novel "The Fountainhead", there are many individuals who possess an inordinate degree of hate towards their betters. I'm just trying to get the process of forming that hate over with now so no time will be wasted later.
Ayn Rand!? You doubly lose!

How so? The statement to which you are referring is gramatically, semantically, and factually valid.

Actually, it's "grammatically."

Hardly.

As the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand demonstrated in her novel "The Fountainhead", there are many individuals who possess an inordinate degree of hate towards their betters. I'm just trying to get the process of forming that hate over with now so no time will be wasted later.
Yeah, except Ayn Rand was well-known for writing utterly paranoid shite.

And 'The Fountainhead' is no exception to that.

Hardly.

As the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand demonstrated in her novel "The Fountainhead", there are many individuals who possess an inordinate degree of hate towards their betters. I'm just trying to get the process of forming that hate over with now so no time will be wasted later.
The results are in! Big words now somehow equate to intellectual superiority! Now that you cleared that up, you can leave, right?

Actually, it's "grammatically."

Hmmm. Methinks his "Superior Intellect" is a fraud.

Again a need to fell supiority and experiance control over others.

A hate she amply demonstrated through her aversion to homosexuality.
Wasn't she indifferent to it on an impersonal level though?

Hmmm. Methinks his "Superior Intellect" is a fraud.

:eek: Say it ain't so!!

Hmmm. Methinks his "Superior Intellect" is a fraud.
Oh I don't know...

Does anybody feel inferior talking to him? I win. I fell I could type that all day and he still wouldn't get it..

:eek: Say it ain't so!!

I dunno how to break this to ya kid.

*Dramatic Pause*

Braino ain't as smart as what he thinks he is, y'unnerstan'?

Again a need to fell supiority and experiance control over others.
If that's the OPs way of displaying superiority, he might've wanted to brush up his skills a bit before jumping in here with his size twelves.

In order to truly know that (a) is the case you would already need to know the individual intellectual levels of everyone else.

No, I wouldn't.

The highest intellectual level that is actually POSSIBLE is not dependent upon the intellectual levels currently possessed.

Similarly, the height of the tallest building that it is possible to construct is not dependent upon the height of the buildings already constructed. It is an absolute, unchanging with time.

And please don't say "Well, two hundred years ago the tallest building that could be constructed was only X stories, now it's Y." The height of the tallest building that can be constructed with the extant technology at any given point in time is not the same as the height of the tallest possible building period.

Similarly, the height of the tallest building that it is possible to construct is not dependent upon the height of the buildings already constructed. It is an absolute, unchanging with time.
So you feel your intellect is infinite?

I dunno how to break this to ya kid.

*Dramatic Pause*

Braino ain't as smart as what he thinks he is, y'unnerstan'?

Oh god.

**destroys shrine**

Without his shining superiority, the world is doomed.

Hmmm...I gotta tell ya, newbie, I an't so impressed. I'd rate you above Shqpipes and Ritlina, because you've got good spelling at least, and the arrogant super-genius is a fairly fresh arrogance.

But you don't just have the sheer shock value of Jesussaves or my personal favourite, US Abassadorship.

I give you 5/10

Hardly.

As the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand demonstrated in her novel "The Fountainhead", there are many individuals who possess an inordinate degree of hate towards their betters. I'm just trying to get the process of forming that hate over with now so no time will be wasted later.
Amusing. Proof by fiction novel. Do try harder next time.

And please don't say "Well, two hundred years ago the tallest building that could be constructed was only X stories, now it's Y." The height of the tallest building that can be constructed with the extant technology at any given point in time is not the same as the height of the tallest possible building period.

What makes you so sure that no generalites have time machines and came back from the future?

No, I wouldn't.

The highest intellectual level that is actually POSSIBLE is not dependent upon the intellectual levels currently possessed.

Similarly, the height of the tallest building that it is possible to construct is not dependent upon the height of the buildings already constructed. It is an absolute, unchanging with time.

And please don't say "Well, two hundred years ago the tallest building that could be constructed was only X stories, now it's Y." The height of the tallest building that can be constructed with the extant technology at any given point in time is not the same as the height of the tallest possible building period.
So exactly what did you major in, and where? If you are in fact the smartest of the smart it better be pretty damn impressive.

This is beyond assininity. No matter what anyone says to the contrary no party involved in this "debate" is going to be swayed to another's point of view.

The aforementioned term "debate" is being used losely.

What makes you so sure that no generalites have time machines and came back from the future?

I reckon he'll go nuts from the sheer number of nutters on this forum. I figure if we introduce him to Lunatic Goofball's, his nice shiny brain should explode. Or may implode; that sounds smarter.

No, I wouldn't.

The highest intellectual level that is actually POSSIBLE is not dependent upon the intellectual levels currently possessed.

Except you have absolutely no way of knowing the "highest intellectual level that is actually POSSIBLE."

Certainly, however, the "highest intellectual level that is actually POSSIBLE" would permit the posessor to spell "grammatically" correctly when he or she is trying to show off.

Except you have absolutely no way of knowing the "highest intellectual level that is actually POSSIBLE."

Certainly, however, the "highest intellectual level that is actually POSSIBLE" would permit the posessor to spell "grammatically" correctly when he or she is trying to show off.
Or "extent".

Certainly, however, the "highest intellectual level that is actually POSSIBLE" would permit the posessor to spell "grammatically" correctly when he or she is trying to show off.
:D

This is beyond assininity. No matter what anyone says to the contrary no party involved in this "debate" is going to be swayed to another's point of view.

The aforementioned term "debate" is being used losely.

This isn't a debate. It's some jackass being made fun of by a bunch of generalites.

So you feel your intellect is infinite?

No.

Don't be concrete-bound.

The purpose of an analogy is to demonstrate how one idea is similar in CONCEPT to another. It says nothing about similarity in VALUE (value in the numerical sense, not in the philosophical sense).

This isn't a debate. It's some jackass being made fun of by a bunch of generalites.

Be quiet. You might shatter his fragile ego.

No, I wouldn't.

The highest intellectual level that is actually POSSIBLE is not dependent upon the intellectual levels currently possessed.

Similarly, the height of the tallest building that it is possible to construct is not dependent upon the height of the buildings already constructed. It is an absolute, unchanging with time.

And please don't say "Well, two hundred years ago the tallest building that could be constructed was only X stories, now it's Y." The height of the tallest building that can be constructed with the extant technology at any given point in time is not the same as the height of the tallest possible building period.
Question. Would the smartest person possible walk into a place full of strangers and announce that he is superior? Would this person not realise that this would cause hostility? Does this person realise how long the memories of the generalites are and that you only get one first impression? Why would this person, intelligent as he is, assume that no one equals his intelligence? Why does this person refuse to back up his claims or acknowledge that he has already lost?

White background with alternating groups of three brown and grey stripes.
True beauty. May I have them?

No.

Don't be concrete-bound.

The purpose of an analogy is to demonstrate how one idea is similar in CONCEPT to another. It says nothing about similarity in VALUE (value in the numerical sense, not in the philosophical sense).
I see.

Came up with an intellectually inferior analogy and then spent some time trying to dig your way out of it, eh?

No.

Don't be concrete-bound.

The purpose of an analogy is to demonstrate how one idea is similar in CONCEPT to another. It says nothing about similarity in VALUE (value in the numerical sense, not in the philosophical sense).
Still havent mentioned what and where you majored.

No.

Don't be concrete-bound.

The purpose of an analogy is to demonstrate how one idea is similar in CONCEPT to another. It says nothing about similarity in VALUE (value in the numerical sense, not in the philosophical sense).

Awwww, that's so cute! He's using bolded letters and vague intellectual-sounding insults to sound superior. Ya gots ta love tha' little scamp!

*Ruffles TUIP's hair affectionately*

Except you have absolutely no way of knowing the "highest intellectual level that is actually POSSIBLE."
What is your basis for this assertion?


Certainly, however, the "highest intellectual level that is actually POSSIBLE" would permit the posessor to spell "grammatically" correctly when he or she is trying to show off.
A PHYSICAL slip of the finger is not an indicator of an INTELLECTUAL deficiency.

No.

Don't be concrete-bound.

The purpose of an analogy is to demonstrate how one idea is similar in CONCEPT to another. It says nothing about similarity in VALUE (value in the numerical sense, not in the philosophical sense).

Out of curiosity, what source do you have for the maximum limits of human intelligence? Have you accounted for possible genetic mutations? How can you possibly know the limits of intelligence for, say, sentient extraterrestrial life?

No.

Don't be concrete-bound.

The purpose of an analogy is to demonstrate how one idea is similar in CONCEPT to another. It says nothing about similarity in VALUE (value in the numerical sense, not in the philosophical sense).

Bold and block caps. **watches TUIB's presumed IQ tumble a little lower still**

Be quiet. You might shatter his fragile ego.

Only "might"? :(

Or "extent".
No, I mean "extant".

Look it up.

This is beyond assininity. No matter what anyone says to the contrary no party involved in this "debate" is going to be swayed to another's point of view.

The aforementioned term "debate" is being used losely.
It's acurate. I mean, by "debate" you mean "lynching", right?

Why does this person refuse to back up his claims or acknowledge that he has already lost?

Because he knows how this place works

What is your basis for this assertion?

What's the basis for your assumption that you do know the highest intellectual level possible, besides some vague assertation that you've reached it?

A PHYSICAL slip of the finger is not an indicator of an INTELLECTUAL deficiency.

Failure to pay attention most definitely is.

It's acurate. I mean, by "debate" you mean "lynching", right?
except he walked right up and asked to have that noose... well, you know...

It's acurate. I mean, by "debate" you mean "lynching", right?

Awwww, no lynching, please? I like the little scamp, he's a change from the usual trolls.

*Jumps up and down*

Can I keeps him, Pa? Can I? I'll love him an' pet him and call him George all day long...

I see.

Came up with an intellectually inferior analogy and then spent some time trying to dig your way out of it, eh?

No, I'm simply correcting your blatant misunderstanding of the nature of an analogy.

Because he knows how this place works
Oh right, yes.

I declare that I have the highest possible IQ and you can't prove otherwise fuckers! I win!

Oh right, yes.

I declare that I have the highest possible IQ and you can't prove otherwise fuckers! I win!

No, I do! I have an IQ of Infinity +1!

Still havent mentioned what and where you majored.

That's because I haven't been to college yet. I've been working for the past couple of years since I graduated high school so I can pay for it. As a matter of pride, I insist on paying my own way up front rather than going into debt or accepting someone else's charity.

No, I mean "extant".

Look it up.
Then you used it improperly, at the very least. Extant should not be used to refer to future technology, for obvious reasons.

No, I mean "extant".

Look it up.
I know it, I've come across it many times, and you appeared to misuse it. Anyway, do go on. :)

No, I'm simply correcting your blatant misunderstanding of the nature of an analogy.
An analogy is a comparison made to show a similarity. Your analogy was that your intellect was the same as the tallest building possible. I mentioned this was an infinite height. You don't like the fact you didn't think of this and thus your analogy doesn't work...and I don't understand the nature of an analogy?

No, I do! I have an IQ of Infinity +1!
Well I have an IQ of Infinity to the power of Infinity! Suck it!

Bold and block caps. **watches TUIB's presumed IQ tumble a little lower still**


When you are speaking to someone, you place additional stress on certain words when you are emphasizing a distinction, do you not?

Well I have an IQ of Infinity to the power of Infinity! Suck it!
I'll suck it. If you're hot. :)

What is your basis for this assertion?

Try to answer these questions, then.

Out of curiosity, what source do you have for the maximum limits of human intelligence? Have you accounted for possible genetic mutations? How can you possibly know the limits of intelligence for, say, sentient extraterrestrial life?

That's because I haven't been to college yet. I've been working for the past couple of years since I graduated high school so I can pay for it. As a matter of pride, I insist on paying my own way up front rather than going into debt or accepting someone else's charity.

Pride isn't a very smart thing to let get in the way. It's stealing your life.

A better answer would have been "I didn't go to college. I taught myself the equivalent of a masters in nuclear biology, theoretical physics and biochemistry."

Or "I majored in everything at Harvard, and graduated in one semester"

I'll suck it. If you're hot. :)
Hot? I'm hot! I am the spitting image of whatever your favourite model/ actor/ waiter!

When you are speaking to someone, you place additional stress on certain words when you are emphasizing a distinction, do you not?

Yeah. Italics work well. Bolding has its place, too. But block caps scream "Look at me!! Look at me!! I'm insecure and needy and ... ooh, shiny... look at me!!! Ice cream!! I have no... look at me, you bullies!! I have no friends!!"

That's because I haven't been to college yet. I've been working for the past couple of years since I graduated high school so I can pay for it. As a matter of pride, I insist on paying my own way up front rather than going into debt or accepting someone else's charity.
Then you at least graduated at the head of all your IB classes right, and when the colleges offered you scholarships in your sophmore year you turned them down as a matter of principle right? And considering a kid down the street is starting college this coming year when he is 15, wouldnt that prove that he is indeed smarter?

Hot? I'm hot! I am the spitting image of whatever your favourite model/ actor/ waiter!
I don't do waiters. Hmmm, so you're Damien Van Zyl on command?

Hi.

Hi.
Hello Mr Law Student. :)

That's because I haven't been to college yet. I've been working for the past couple of years since I graduated high school so I can pay for it. As a matter of pride, I insist on paying my own way up front rather than going into debt or accepting someone else's charity.

You haven't even been to college and yet you claim to understand so much about the human mind that you know the limits of human intelligence?

High school psychology isn't good enough for that, sorry.

Hi.
Now thats a much better first post.

Hi.

Another one!!

**friendly greeting**:)

So, how almighty is your intellect?

An analogy is a comparison made to show a similarity. Your analogy was that your intellect was the same as the tallest building possible. I mentioned this was an infinite height. You don't like the fact you didn't think of this and thus your analogy doesn't work...and I don't understand the nature of an analogy?

An analogy shows similarity in CONCEPTUAL RELATIONSHIP. For instance, "Hat is to head as glove is to hand" is a valid analogy because the conceptual relationship between each example is that the former is used to cover the latter. It does not mean that their concrete properties are similar or comparable--for example, you would not draw from that analogy the conclusion that the ratio of the mass of a head to that of a hat is the same as the ratio of the mass of a hand to that of a glove.

Then you at least graduated at the head of all your IB classes right, and when the colleges offered you scholarships in your sophmore year you turned them down as a matter of principle right? And considering a kid down the street is starting college this coming year when he is 15, wouldnt that prove that he is indeed smarter?

Of course not, you fool. Because....something about buildings that you could not possibly comprehend with your mere mortal mind!

*Twirls cape, disappears in a cloud of smoke*

I don't do waiters. Hmmm, so you're Damien Van Zyl on command?
I have no idea.

Hi.
Greetings, friend. How's that whole life thing going?

Then you at least graduated at the head of all your IB classes right, and when the colleges offered you scholarships in your sophmore year you turned them down as a matter of principle right? And considering a kid down the street is starting college this coming year when he is 15, wouldnt that prove that he is indeed smarter?

No, because surely all the teachers are biased against him. They hate their intellectual superiors, remember?

Now thats a much better first post.
As if... no ":sniper: :gundge: :upyours: :mp5: " I am disappointed with the level of our newcomers. Either deluded little wannabes or goody-goody two-shoes. :(

Hi.

*Stares down at ALS*

Hmmm, yes, I see. Well, we already have a pedant and an arrogant ass here. What position are you here to fill?

CONCEPTUAL RELATIONSHIP

"Look at me!! Look at me!! Hey everybody, pay attention to me or I'll cry!!!"

Of course not, you fool. Because....something about buildings that you could not possibly comprehend with your mere mortal mind!

*Twirls cape, disappears in a cloud of smoke*
Ahh! Foiled!

An analogy shows similarity in CONCEPTUAL RELATIONSHIP. For instance, "Hat is to head as glove is to hand" is a valid analogy because the conceptual relationship between each example is that the former is used to cover the latter. It does not mean that their concrete properties are similar or comparable--for example, you would not draw from that analogy the conclusion that the ratio of the mass of a head to that of a hat is the same as the ratio of the mass of a hand to that of a glove.
No. That would be silly. By the way, I am smarter than you.

Then you used it improperly, at the very least. Extant should not be used to refer to future technology, for obvious reasons.
From Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry: ex·tant
Pronunciation: 'ek-st&nt; ek-'stant, 'ek-"
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin exstant-, exstans, present participle of exstare to stand out, be in existence, from ex- + stare to stand -- more at STAND
1 archaic : standing out or above
2 a : currently or actually existing <the most charming writer extant -- G. W. Johnson> b : not destroyed or lost <extant manuscripts>

The important word here is the "or" in sense 2a. When I say "the extant technology at the time", then, I mean "the technology that actually existed at the time".

I have no idea.
So much for the actor/model thing...:rolleyes:

From Merriam-Webster:



The important word here is the "or" in sense 2a. When I say "the extant technology at the time", then, I mean "the technology that actually existed at the time".

Ahhhh, I see. Instead of answering important and challenging questions, you simply ignore them and continue to nitpick over a single word.

*Shakes head ruefully*

And I had such high hopes for you, you young scally-wag...

From Merriam-Webster:



The important word here is the "or" in sense 2a. When I say "the extant technology at the time", then, I mean "the technology that actually existed at the time".
I have a dictionary too.

Pride isn't a very smart thing to let get in the way. It's stealing your life.


Justified pride is the highest of virtues.

Justified pride is the highest of virtues.
No it isn't.

Justified pride is the highest of virtues.

Which, unfortunately, does not appear to apply to your case.

Justified pride is the highest of virtues.

No, that would be humility.

And besides, it's not justified. Let's just assume you really are smart. Forget how smart, and just say that your mind could well be of great value to society. You're wasting it. A human mind is a terrible thing to waste.

Which, unfortunately, does not appear to apply to your case.
More likely arrogance then?

No, that would be humility.

And besides, it's not justified. Let's just assume you really are smart. Forget how smart, and just say that your mind could well be of great value to society. You're wasting it. A human mind is a terrible thing to waste.

Nothing wasted here...except bandwidth.

An analogy shows similarity in CONCEPTUAL RELATIONSHIP. For instance, "Hat is to head as glove is to hand" is a valid analogy because the conceptual relationship between each example is that the former is used to cover the latter. It does not mean that their concrete properties are similar or comparable--for example, you would not draw from that analogy the conclusion that the ratio of the mass of a head to that of a hat is the same as the ratio of the mass of a hand to that of a glove.
Perhaps I can word your analogy in a slightly better way then:

"I do not have to know the intellect of others to know that mine is superior, just as you do not have to know the height of the tallest building to know it is taller than the rest."

Or, in other words, "I'm smarter because I say so!"

Nothing wasted here...except bandwidth.
And electricity.

No. That would be silly.

Precisely.

And in the same way, it is silly to think that because the conceptual relationship between the highest possible intellectual level and the intellectual levels currently possessed is the same as the conceptual relationship between the height of the tallest building possible and the height of the buildings that currently exist, there is also necessarily a similarity in a particular concrete value held by the two examples.

And electricity.
And skin cells on the fingertips.

What's going on here..? What possibly happened that in two seconds We are almost at 200 posts.. :confused:

Precisely.

And in the same way, it is silly to think that because the conceptual relationship between the highest possible intellectual level and the intellectual levels currently possessed is the same as the conceptual relationship between the height of the tallest building possible and the height of the buildings that currently exist, there is also necessarily a similarity in a particular concrete value held by the two examples.
You like concrete, don't you? Who cares about buildings and analogies!? I am smarter than you.

More likely arrogance then?

Yes, probably. Or maybe someone who really hates Objectivists is having fun with us all.

And skin cells on the fingertips.

I dunno. There's the entertainment value. I mean, I prefer US Abassadorship's shows, but I could watch this for a while; as a filler, like. If he bought in some puppets as a supporting cast, and maybe a cameo or two from a Mod, he might have a nice mid-season thread going on.

And skin cells on the fingertips.
Chemical energy used in that whole thinking and moving thing..

No, that would be humility.


Perhaps I should be more clear. The fundamental issue here is not of pride or humility, but of honesty. It is immoral to possess less pride or more humility than one actually deserves, just as it is immoral to possess more pride or less humility.

And besides, it's not justified. Let's just assume you really are smart. Forget how smart, and just say that your mind could well be of great value to society. You're wasting it. A human mind is a terrible thing to waste.
My mind does not exist for the sake of "society". My mind exists for my sake, to serve my own rational self-interest. And it is being put to just that use.

TUIB... you ever met/heard of Optima Justitia? (His nation ceased to exist a while back, but he had some 100 posts or thereabouts.)

You two would make a pair... unjustified arrogance, grammar pedantry and the like.

Now take me—I'm the Supreme Ruler of the Multiverse; I'm allowed to be conceited. Bow before my awesome intelligence that is so great you mere mortals can never have but a small hope of comprehension! Bwahahaha! /laughs evilly and disappears in a flash of fire/

My mind does not exist for the sake of "society". My mind exists for my sake, to serve my own rational self-interest. And it is being put to just that use.

By attempting to show itself off in an internet forum?

By attempting to show itself off in an internet forum?
I believe it's an attempt to remove the self-doubt imposed by the people who bullied him at school.

TUIB... you ever met/heard of Optima Justitia? (His nation ceased to exist a while back, but he had some 100 posts or thereabouts.)

You two would make a pair... unjustified arrogance, grammar pedantry and the like.

Now take me—I'm the Supreme Ruler of the Multiverse; I'm allowed to be conceited. Bow before my awesome intelligence that is so great you mere mortals can never have but a small hope of comprehension! Bwahahaha! /laughs evilly and disappears in a flash of fire/
I don't suppose this person is an apprentice of your's, Great One?

Perhaps I can word your analogy in a slightly better way then:

"I do not have to know the intellect of others to know that mine is superior, just as you do not have to know the height of the tallest building to know it is taller than the rest."

Or, in other words, "I'm smarter because I say so!"

Nope. When I presented the analogy in question, the claim of mine you were criticizing was that I knew the highest possible level of human intellect, not my claim that my intellect was at that level.

Chemical energy used in that whole thinking and moving thing..
Well, bio-chemical energy - but that's technically electricity, too. So I guess you'd already covered that earlier.

But I digress.

I am smarter than you.

No, I'm Smartacus!

I don't suppose this person is an apprentice of your's, Great One?
Which one? Optima Justitia, or Tangled Up In Blue?

Perhaps I should be more clear. The fundamental issue here is not of pride or humility, but of honesty. It is immoral to possess less pride or more humility than one actually deserves, just as it is immoral to possess more pride or less humility.

How in the name of fuck was that more clear?

My mind does not exist for the sake of "society". My mind exists for my sake, to serve my own rational self-interest. And it is being put to just that use.

By you wasting it? What job do you do, anyway?

No, I'm Smartacus!
Aram Khachaturian was one hell of a composer.

No, I'm Smartacus!
Smarticus! Damn! Why didn't I think of that?

I believe it's an attempt to remove the self-doubt imposed by the people who bullied him at school.

That's no excuse. Showing off how smart you are is a lot of fun, I have no real problem with it as long as you aren't overly cruel, but wisdom dictates that you actually, say, know that you can do it successfully before making the attempt.

Otherwise, you end up humiliated.

Aram Khachaturian was one hell of a composer.

*Claps*

Breaking out the name of obscure composers. Hmmm, you might have a destiny left yet, young Padawan.

Aram Khachaturian was one hell of a composer.

Pseudo-intellectualism will get you nowhere

Aram Khachaturian was one hell of a composer.
Yes. I too equate knowledge with intelligence.

How in the name of fuck was that more clear?
In the original post, I was focusing on one particular instance of the principle rather than the principle itself. Neither pride nor humility are virtues in and of themselves. The fundamental virtue is HONESTY, which means possessing pride or humility in the appropriate amount dictated by your situation.



By you wasting it?
How am I wasting it?
What job do you do, anyway?
I work on a pickup truck and SUV assembly line.

Nope. When I presented the analogy in question, the claim of mine you were criticizing was that I knew the highest possible level of human intellect, not my claim that my intellect was at that level.

Why don't you stop quibbling about the analogy and actually address the points I made regarding your claim that your intellect was at the highest possible level?

It might give you a chance to, say, actually prove yourself substantively, instead of just digging yourself deeper into the hole you have dug for yourself.

*Claps*

Breaking out the name of obscure composers. Hmmm, you might have a destiny left yet, young Padawan.
Not really. I only mentioned it because he wrote the music for the ballet Spartacus.

It should be obvious how certain posts in this thread brought ballet to the forefront of my mind.

It was just a tangential remark, nothing more.

In the original post, I was focusing on one particular instance of the principle rather than the principle itself. Neither pride nor humility are virtues in and of themselves. The fundamental virtue is HONESTY, which means possessing pride or humility in the appropriate amount dictated by your situation.

Pride as a virtue? That's a new one.

How am I wasting it?

because you

work on a pickup truck and SUV assembly line.

Aram Khachaturian was one hell of a composer.
True. But late Penderecki and Rochberg beats Khachaturian hands down anyday.

(See? I can play too! /claps/)

That's no excuse. Showing off how smart you are is a lot of fun, I have no real problem with it as long as you aren't overly cruel, but wisdom dictates that you actually, say, know that you can do it successfully before making the attempt.

Otherwise, you end up humiliated.
Ah, but he'll never realise he's been humiliated. The arrogance will lead him to conclude that he wasn't made to look stupid, we were stupid for not coming round to his thinking. It's quite a mindset to have, but one that will mean that while the rest of us go on to lead full and rich lives, he'll probably still be here in fifty years trying to convince a new generation he's smarter than them.

How am I wasting it?


You don't know? I would've thought someone of our intelligence would. All time here is wasted. There's no truth here. There's nothing to be learnt. With people of our intelligence procratination is wasteful.

It should be obvious how certain posts in this thread brought ballet to the forefront of my mind

Is it because our combined megaawesomeness has left you spinning?

Just wanted to (re-)introduce myself. I've been playing NationStates off and on for about three years now--started off as Ithuania, then I was G Bugles, then Reason and Reality. Some of you I may be familiar with; others are new.

For those of you who are new, you should know I am a radical Objectivist Libertarian who seeks nothing short than the complete and utter destruction of collectivism in my lifetime. I am also a hell of a lot smarter than you, and have yet to be defeated in argument.

I am a musician; I play trombone, euphonium, tuba, trumpet, piano, guitar, dulcimer, harmonica, violin, cello, bass, organ, clarinet, and banjo.

I can run a mile in 4:58, and my average per-mile time over ten miles is 5:14.

Any other questions you have, I'd be happy to answer them for you.

Anyone calling themselves 'Tangled Up In Blue' automatically has my respect- who cares if your bank book isn't big enough? hehe.

Your physical prowess is remarkable (if what you say is true), although do I have reservations about anyone claiming to be more intelligent than anyone. If they were- would they say that?! People that are more body oriented are normally the most vocal!

Hopefully we won't argue anyway!

I would be interested to see what your feedback is on my final post re: 9/11

Pride as a virtue? That's a new one.
Confidence in oneself is definitely one.

Not really. I only mentioned it because he wrote the music for the ballet Spartacus.

It should be obvious how certain posts in this thread brought ballet to the forefront of my mind

Indeed....indeed...

I have a proposition for you, young one. Come with me, partner to partner, and we shall rule the General forum with a fist of pure iron, smiting our enemies and granting favours to our sycophants!

How is that a waste of my mind? My mind exists for my own rational self-interest, and I am using it towards just that purpose.

Is it because our combined megaawesomeness has left you spinning?
I think we ought to combine and become super-megaawesomeness-man and fight trolls as one.

Confidence in oneself is definitely one.

Up to a point, yes.

I think we ought to combine and become super-megaawesomeness-man and fight trolls as one.

Did you just ask me to sleep with you? Because I'm open to that sort of thing...

Ah, but he'll never realise he's been humiliated. The arrogance will lead him to conclude that he wasn't made to look stupid, we were stupid for not coming round to his thinking. It's quite a mindset to have, but one that will mean that while the rest of us go on to lead full and rich lives, he'll probably still be here in fifty years trying to convince a new generation he's smarter than them.

No, I think he knows very well how he's being humiliated. He's just too arrogant to acknowledge it.

How is that a waste of my mind? My mind exists for my own rational self-interest, and I am using it towards just that purpose.

Because your "rational self-interest" would dictate that you not make important decisions based on the irrationality of pride.

How is that a waste of my mind? My mind exists for my own rational self-interest, and I am using it towards just that purpose.
It is in your self-interest to be ridiculed? I know what we're getting out of this but what are you? Trolling isn't as fun as troll baiting. A universal truth, that.

Did you just ask me to sleep with you? Because I'm open to that sort of thing...
Really? Y'know I've got a real grab-bag of naughty bits, don'tcha? Little from column A, little from column B... ?

Up to a point, yes.
Right, confidence has also lead to a many defeats. Napolean was confident he could take Waterloo at the beginning..

Up to a point, yes.
Pride within reason then?

Anyone calling themselves 'Tangled Up In Blue' automatically has my respect- who cares if your bank book isn't big enough? hehe.


Early one mornin', the sun was shinin'
I was a-layin' in bed
Wond'rin' if she'd changed at all
If her hair was still red
Her folks, they said our lives together
Sure was a-gonna be rough
They never did like Mama's homemade dress
Papa's bank book wasn't big enough


Your physical prowess is remarkable (if what you say is true), although do I have reservations about anyone claiming to be more intelligent than anyone. If they were- would they say that?!
Why not? It's a popular platitude that one sure sign of lack of intelligence is boasting about intelligence, but that has never been backed up.

Anyway, I'm a shameless braggart and damn proud of it.

Hurrah! It's the glorious return of the first post pointless gun smilie!

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10645409&postcount=36

No, I think he knows very well how he's being humiliated. He's just too arrogant to acknowledge it.



Because your "rational self-interest" would dictate that you not make important decisions based on the irrationality of pride.

Pride, when justified, is not irrational. It is simply honest.

Hurrah! It's the glorious return of the first post pointless gun smilie!

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10645409&postcount=36
Puh-lease! The alienation of the generalites is where it's at now!

Right, confidence has also lead to a many defeats. Napolean was confident he could take Waterloo at the beginning..

Although that's not really why he lost Waterloo. Could be a justifiable reason why he got beaten in Russia (being too confident he could get the Russians to a decisive battle)

Pride within reason then?

Perhaps, yes. I'm still not sure I'd see it as a virtue

Pride within reason then?

Assess yourself rationally, and act accordingly. Deny anyone else the capability to control you, but accept advice when it is wise. Refuse to suppress your individuality and utterly reject meekness, but harm no one.

I like that formulation, as far as this question goes.

Pride, when justified, is not irrational. It is simply honest.
Indeed. I'm proud to be smarter than you.

Perhaps, yes. I'm still not sure I'd see it as a virtue
I do. If it puts you in a state of mind where you can achieve things and attain mental clarity and focus, then it is a boon.

Assess yourself rationally, and act accordingly. Deny anyone else the capability to control you, but accept advice when it is wise. Refuse to suppress your individuality and utterly reject meekness, but harm no one.

I like that formulation, as far as this question goes.
Reasoned confidence. :)

I do. If it puts you in a state of mind where you can achieve things and attain mental clarity and focus, then it is a boon.

Fair enough. It's an individual choice, and I'm glad that works for you

Pride, when justified, is not irrational. It is simply honest.

I agree, but your application of pride is irrational. Use of pride to make decisions is valid when it's relevant - say, when you are considering how successful you will be at a given endeavour. It is, however, irrational in other cases - say, when you are trying to pursue your "rational self-interest" and it motivates you to work your way into college, when other opportunities are available. Your decision in that case may have been right or it may have been wrong, I don't know, but if you believe in the pursuit of rational self-interest pride should not have played any part.

Congradulations, you know how to use a dictionary. Have you ever heard of "extant" being used to refer to different styles of construction over differing time periods, including that in the future? No?


That's the difference between denotation and connotation.

I agree, but your application of pride is irrational. Use of pride to make decisions is valid when it's relevant - say, when you are considering how successful you will be at a given endeavour.
It is an essential motivator in some cases.

It is an essential motivator in some cases.

Perhaps, but as a motive it just isn't rational - unless your main objective in life is to show off.

That is not to say it is necessarily wrong, I am not all that much of a fan of rational self-interest.

I consider it a shame that you cherry picked my post!

I consider it a shame that you cherry picked my post!

We'll deal with conspiracies in a while. This guy has priority. Take a seat, read 'Conspiracy Nuts Today' or something.

Perhaps, but as a motive it just isn't rational - unless your main objective in life is to show off.
For some it is. In any case, it fuels a person in order to achieve something. If one has no confidence in oneself, they are unlikely to succeed.

That is not to say it is necessarily wrong, I am not all that much of a fan of rational self-interest.
I have no qualms with it either way.

Sixteen pages and we still didn't get to the bottom of how Dorstfeld is doing!

Sixteen pages and we still didn't get to the bottom of how Dorstfeld is doing!
I think that's the quickest I've even seen a thread develop. :p

For those of you who are new, you should know I am a radical Objectivist Libertarian who seeks nothing short than the complete and utter destruction of collectivism in my lifetime. I am also a hell of a lot smarter than you, and have yet to be defeated in argument.

Gimme an "S"!

Gimme an "I"!

Gimme a "G"!

Gimme an "H"!

S-I-G-H! Siiiiiiiiiiiiiiiigh!!!

Assuming that your mind exists for your "own rational self-interest," then why are you working at an SUV assembly line and posting of your superiority here in your free time? Surely somebody of an intellect such as yours can find something more constructive to do.

Assuming that your mind exists for your "own rational self-interest," then why are you working at an SUV assembly line and posting of your superiority here in your free time? Surely somebody of an intellect such as yours can find something more constructive to do.

An "Objectivist" working at an assembly line? Now THAT is priceless.

Uh-oh, we're entering 'thread is too long to read so I'll just repeat what's already been said territory.' Time for bed.

For some it is. In any case, it fuels a person in order to achieve something. If one has no confidence in oneself, they are unlikely to succeed.

Here's how I see it.

Let's say you're like TUIB and your objective in life is to advance your "rational self-interest," whatever your "self-interest" happens to be. Furthermore, in a given circumstance - say, while being interrogated by someone more powerful than you - rationally pursuing your self-interest requires you to demonstrate humility. Your pride, however, compels you to act differently. Thus, use of pride as a motive runs contrary to your "rational self-interest" in that circumstance.

It is true that in other circumstances it does not, but if you are truly rational you do not worry about "pride" and instead rationally consider the correct course of action in each case. That method is far less fallible, and far more consistent with "rational self-interest."

We'll deal with conspiracies in a while. This guy has priority. Take a seat, read 'Conspiracy Nuts Today' or something.

Not you again!!

I remain open-minded on the assertion that 'Tangled Up In Blue' could indeed be correct in that his 'boasting' may just be an expression of accuracy! You however are a confirmed 'toad'.

He's still online and yet he's silent. I declare this a victory for me!

Uh-oh, we're entering 'thread is too long to read so I'll just repeat what's already been said territory.' Time for bed.

Well, I only bothered to read the first post and this very page, so if I happened to repeat anybody, I...

...Actually, I don't apologise. I said what I said with full confidence, and I back my words.

Well, I only bothered to read the first post and this very page, so if I happened to repeat anybody, I...

...Actually, I don't apologise. I said what I said with full confidence, and I back my words.
lol, what you said is true, it's just time for those of us who have already mocked him to step aside and let you take over. :p

Here's how I see it.

Let's say you're like TUIB and your objective in life is to advance your "rational self-interest," whatever your "self-interest" happens to be. Furthermore, in a given circumstance - say, while being interrogated by someone more powerful than you - rationally pursuing your self-interest requires you to demonstrate humility. Your pride, however, compels you to act differently. Thus, use of pride as a motive runs contrary to your "rational self-interest" in that circumstance.

It is true that in other circumstances it does not, but if you are truly rational you do not worry about "pride" and instead rationally consider the correct course of action in each case. That method is far less fallible, and far more consistent with "rational self-interest."
Indeed. Although what you refer to I suppose would fall more under self-confidence than pride. Pride may be a form of self-confidence, but self-confidence is by no means itself manifest pride. I consider self-confidence within reason to be a virtue. And in the scenario you gave, humility would indeed be within one's "rational self-interest".

Well, I only bothered to read the first post and this very page, so if I happened to repeat anybody, I...

...Actually, I don't apologise. I said what I said with full confidence, and I back my words.
You should go back and read it. 's entertaining and you can attest to my obivious superiority and the interllectual bitch slapping I gave this fool! Go on!

lol, what you said is true, it's just time for those of us who have already mocked him to step aside and let you take over. :p

I see, I see. I'm good at both initiating and taking over the mocking of others.

Let it begin!

You should go back and read it. 's entertaining and you can attest to my obivious superiority and the interllectual bitch slapping I gave this fool! Go on!

Interllectual, eh?

"Mah sapurior interllect'll teach them yankees wut's gud enuff fer'em!"

>.>

Interllectual, eh?

"Mah sapurior interllect'll teach them yankees wut's gud enuff fer'em!"

>.>
Indeed.

I mean, it's late, you know.. I'm sleepy.. My fingers are sweaty and they slipped because they're so moist..

Indeed.

I mean, it's late, you know.. I'm sleepy.. My fingers are sweaty and they slipped because they're so moist..

Yet, you still haven't gone back and edited your post.

I'm giving you an F-- for effort.

:sniper: BLACK FREEDOM BIATCHES!!!!

Yet, you still haven't gone back and edited your post.

I'm giving you an F-- for effort.
Obviously.. You've immortalised it in your quote. If I was to edit it people would not know what you are talking about. It's not because I'm lazy at all and I resent your implication!

:sniper: BLACK FREEDOM BIATCHES!!!!

Well then, whose puppet are you?

:sniper: BLACK FREEDOM BIATCHES!!!!
See now THIS is a first post! :eek: Idiotic, dumb, and it has a sniper!

:sniper: BLACK FREEDOM BIATCHES!!!!
Indeed TUIB. Indeed.