NationStates Jolt Archive

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!

*gunshot*

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

What more could you expect? Oh, that's right:

U R N0T SM4RTRER THAN ME!!!!!@ :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :gundge: :gundge: LOL!!!:upyours: IDOT!

:sniper: BLACK FREEDOM BIATCHES!!!!
http://www.abestweb.com/smilies/insane.gif

What more could you expect? Oh, that's right:

U R N0T SM4RTRER THAN ME!!!!!@ :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :gundge: :gundge: LOL!!!:upyours: IDOT!
No, I like his more! Simple, effective, to the point: to be as retarded as possible.

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.
the nature of reality is collectivist to the core--radical individuality is not only a sickness of the soul but a form of mental illness

http://www.abestweb.com/smilies/insane.gif
And for you to say such a thing...:eek:

And for you to say such a thing...:eek:

We can smell our own kind. :)

the nature of reality is collectivist to the core--radical individuality is not only a sickness of the soul but a form of mental illness

What he said. And that tart Ayn Rand had issues.

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.

I value self-sufficiency--in other words, I have pride. Paying my own way rather than taking a handout is part of that. I am pursuing my own rational self-interest because I am acting in the manner I find most valuable to me.

What he said. And that tart Ayn Rand had issues.
:eek: She was no tart.

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.

It pays well ($28/hour after two years), and saving up my money so I can afford to find my own way is the most rational means to my own particular ends.

Hello All.

I find this thread amusing as the very nature of intelligence is being debated. It seems a battle of words and reason is being fought to attack (and defend) TUIB's alleged intellectual supeiority. But words are indefinate.

How about numbers? Seeing as how TUIB has recently graduated from high school (as i myself am about to), perhaps he can share with us some of his stunning test scores and put (somewhat) of an end to this debate.

By the way, if what you say is true, I am very impressed with your musical ability (assuming you play all the instuments you claimed WELL).

What he said. And that tart Ayn Rand had issues.
Hail

Ayn Rand had very serious issues

I am pursuing my own rational self-interest because I am acting in the manner I find most valuable to me.

In which case "rational self-interest" is utterly meaningless. Everyone acts in the manner they find most valuable to themselves.

:eek: She was no tart.

She was a tart in my opinion (any woman with an idealogy that ridiculous is a tart in my book), and the FCC isn't Communist, it's Fascist (this one's directed at you, Blue).

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.

There is no net gain to be had from sycophantism or submissiveness. Any possible material gain is immensely offset by the spiritual loss.

She was a tart in my opinion (any woman with an idealogy that ridiculous is a tart in my book), and the FCC isn't Communist, it's Fascist (this one's directed at you, Blue).

In a world where Bush is a far-left socialist, who knows?

There is no net gain to be had from sycophantism or submissiveness. Any possible material gain is immensely offset by the spiritual loss.

Your "spiritual loss" stems from irrational emotions.

it depends how the material gain was acquired wether theres a spiritual loss or not but material gain causes spiritual loss if it becomes an end in itself

She was a tart in my opinion (any woman with an idealogy that ridiculous is a tart in my book), and the FCC isn't Communist, it's Fascist (this one's directed at you, Blue).
And a man with such an ideology would be...? She was somewhat crazy as she took individualism to its absolute extreme, but she still has an interesting thesis.

Hello All.

I find this thread amusing as the very nature of intelligence is being debated. It seems a battle of words and reason is being fought to attack (and defend) TUIB's alleged intellectual supeiority. But words are indefinate.

How about numbers? Seeing as how TUIB has recently graduated from high school (as i myself am about to), perhaps he can share with us some of his stunning test scores and put (somewhat) of an end to this debate.
1600 on the SAT--old form; haven't taken the new one.

By the way, if what you say is true, I am very impressed with your musical ability (assuming you play all the instuments you claimed WELL).
No, I can't play all of them well. Only trombone, euphonium, tuba, trumpet, and guitar. I'm decent on piano, bass, violin, and banjo. The rest, not so much.

In which case "rational self-interest" is utterly meaningless. Everyone acts in the manner they find most valuable to themselves.

Nope. Psychological egoism has been debunked time and time again.

And a man with such an ideology would be...? She was somewhat crazy as she took individualism to its absolute extreme, but she still has an interesting thesis.

A man with such an idealogy would be a dick. A hermaphrodite would, therefore, be a dicktart.

Her thesis was interesting, yeah, but then again, so were Hitler and Stalin.

And a man with such an ideology would be...? She was somewhat crazy as she took individualism to its absolute extreme, but she still has an interesting thesis.
but ultimately one that fails

In a world where Bush is a far-left socialist, who knows?



Your "spiritual loss" stems from irrational emotions.

Emotions are not, in and of themselves, irrational. In fact, experiencing emotions--joy, pride, etc.--is what makes life worthwhile. One should act rationally to maximize his experience of the positive emotions and minimize his experience of the negative ones.

In a world where Bush is a far-left socialist, who knows?

You, sir, have just made my day with that post. I honor you.

but ultimately one that fails

Wrong.

I defy you to refute a single word she (or I, for that matter) has ever said.

but ultimately one that fails
Almost all theses are doomed to failure, given time.

Nope. Psychological egoism has been debunked time and time again.

Great argument there!. I say black and your counter argument is "No black has been debunked". Sorry to inform you of this, but pyschological egoism has never been successfully debunked, and I would like to see the arguments that have persuaded you that it has.

Wrong.

I defy you to refute a single word she (or I, for that matter) has ever said.
myths of Individuality is a delusional form of Vanity

A man with such an idealogy would be a dick. A hermaphrodite would, therefore, be a dicktart.

Her thesis was interesting, yeah, but then again, so were Hitler and Stalin.
Godwin's Law? Reducto ad Hitlerium? :rolleyes:

Godwin's Law? Reducto ad Hitlerium? :rolleyes:

Oh, please.

Nope. Psychological egoism has been debunked time and time again.

Every human being values certain things. We act in a manner that expresses those values. The things we value do not have to be selfish - we can value other people's welfare, for instance, or abstract concepts that don't directly benefit us. But by definition, everyone acts according to what they find to be valuable.

Emotions are not, in and of themselves, irrational.

Perhaps not, but letting them guide decisions is.

In fact, experiencing emotions--joy, pride, etc.--is what makes life worthwhile. One should act rationally to maximize his experience of the positive emotions and minimize his experience of the negative ones.

One should act rationally. Exactly. Letting your feelings of pride guide your decisions, instead of the rational pursuit of situations where feelings of pride and other positive emotions will be maximized, is very much irrational.

Oh, please.
Now, had you said Nietzsche, I might have agreed. However, you are equiparating her to two men who were by no means true philosophers.

Well, since you said:

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

There's this question that has been bugging me for a really long time and I'd be honored if you could answer it for me. Every time I seem to be making progress on finding the answer, something comes along and I find myself back at square one. This has become very frustrating after several attempts and I have been reduced to asking for help on the NationStates forum. Anyway:

how much would could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?

EDIT: That sentence is grammatically incorrect, by the way.

You, sir, have just made my day with that post. I honor you.

TUIB deserves the credit, not I.

Every human being values certain things. We act in a manner that expresses those values. The things we value do not have to be selfish - we can value other people's welfare, for instance, or abstract concepts that don't directly benefit us. But by definition, everyone acts according to what they find to be valuable.
Precisely.

One should act rationally. Exactly. Letting your feelings of pride guide your decisions, instead of the rational pursuit of situations where feelings of pride and other positive emotions will be maximized, is very much irrational.
Not to mention that letting these emotions of pride cloud your decision in this scenario would lead to your death, and thus ending of any enjoyment one may experience.

how much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?
If a woodchuck could chuck wood, then the woodchuck would chuck as much as it could.

Duh. :p

A sweatshirt and sweatpants.

And socks.

:D

Eww you are wearing sweaty pants and sock? that conjures up such a nice image.

(BTW in England, pants are underwear. But of course, you knew that)

One should act rationally. Exactly. Letting your feelings of pride guide your decisions, instead of the rational pursuit of situations where feelings of pride and other positive emotions will be maximized, is very much irrational.
You have no clue what I'm saying, do you?

I obtain a sense of pride from knowing that everything I have, I have obtained myself. My acts with regards to paying for higher education are taken towards that end.

You have no clue what I'm saying, do you?

I obtain a sense of pride from knowing that everything I have, I have obtained myself. My acts with regards to paying for higher education are taken towards that end.
Ah, you're back! I was wondering if you'd return.

Pride has no place in intellect. The intellectual thing to do would be to use the resources available, and then close the net for others.

Well, I:
Watched Catch-22
Went to sleep
Got up
Went to work
Came home

Therefore, I am not in front of my computer 24/7.

Well, I:
Watched Catch-22
Went to sleep
Got up
Went to work
Came home

Therefore, I am not in front of my computer 24/7.
Nope, because assembling SUVs is such a brilliant use of that great mind of yours you couldn't miss it, eh?

You have no clue what I'm saying, do you?

I obtain a sense of pride from knowing that everything I have, I have obtained myself. My acts with regards to paying for higher education are taken towards that end.
no one ever attains anything totally by themselves EVER

Just been linked to this from an newer thread, so sorry for bumping this

I love people like this - arrogance whilst being massively wrong :D I'd like to see you defend your position that you are a totally self-made succesful guy whilst mantaining that wonderful, meaningless argument record.

Anyway - " [I seek] nothing short than the complete and utter destruction of collectivism in my lifetime". What have you done towards this rather ignoble aim?

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.

Wow, and you're wasting your time on this self-promoting bit of ego-masturbation. Go invent table-top fusion or ftl or something. Or after you make your first trillion you can reveal your identity as Tangled Up In BS. I think your actually Paris Hilton.

Haha, highest intellect possible. What have you done with your life son?

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.
Jeeze! And people call ME an egoist! :rolleyes:

Guys, I know this was linked to from another thread, but I'd still let it die if I were you, it's gravedigging.

Haha, highest intellect possible. What have you done with your life son?

He works an SUV assembly line.

Which is actually quite hilarious, considering his (obviously selected) ideology.

Jeeze! And people call ME an egoist! :rolleyes:

I don't. :p

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

If this is true he's smarter than he appears to be.

He works an SUV assembly line.

Which is actually quite hilarious, considering his (obviously selected) ideology.

haha, are you serious? :D I would have thought he might have found better work considering his mighty intellect, or at least something that wouldn't vanish if his
ideals were put into practice.

Jeez, you all picked the bait, didn't ya?

The way to deal with kids whose first real read was Ayn Rand is to ignore them, let them feel superior, and let them learn for themselves that other people provide the only framework in which that kid can succeed. And that means being friendly in some cases, just plain shutting your trap in others.

I would've thought NSG was more flame-resistant than that.

Na, this method ensures a quicker and more spectacular crash-and-burn whilst being more entertaining.

PS He's not egotistical, he's just delusional

Na, this method ensures a quicker and more spectacular crash-and-burn whilst being more entertaining.
It only would if it was to get in his skull. But it doesn't. Everything people in this thread have pointed out won't have mattered to him one bit.
Indeed, now he can feel even better, because Ayn Rand says that he was only ridiculed because he's so much better than all of us.

PS He's not egotistical, he's just delusional
Then let him be. As long as I don't have to deal with him, he can believe that the earth is flat, for all I care.

You don't have to deal with him, if you have difficulty closing this thread then simply turn the power off on your computer :)

Hi! You sound like an asshole, but hopefully a fun one.

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.

You haven't met Undelia yet, have you?

For those of you who are new, you should know I am a radical Objectivist Libertarian Er, no. Being a radical means that you are far left-wing. You are far right-wing, you are a reactionary.

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

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.
Oh great, another arrogant Melkor clone.

That assertion is a convenient way to avoid having to acknowledge the intellectual superiority of your intellectual superiors, but it is a non-sequitur.
Not really. You didn't do anything to demonstrate your superiority, so why should we believe you?

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.
Then why the refusal to accept the logical consequences of kneejerk liberalism?

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.
How do you know that a and b are true?

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.
I thought you had no betters. If you have no betters, why do you need hate?

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.
How do you know that you have the greatest possible intellect?