Jach's personal blog

(Largely containing a mind-dump to myselves: past, present, and future)
Current favorite quote: "Supposedly smart people are weirdly ignorant of Bayes' Rule." William B Vogt, 2010

Idiot Smackdown!

As a followup to Yay Free Traffic, I've decided to actually go through the negative posts about me on the Objectivist forum and rip them to shreds. I'm not going to be so kind as to link back to them, though, but the url is:

Let's get ready to rumble! (Not that I care if any of them read this; I happen to have just finished my major finals so I have some free time and need amusement.) I'll start with Amaroq / Steve's post, in pieces:

If you've talked to me for any significant amount of time, you probably know that I have a roommate who used to be a fledgling Objectivist, who has become vehemently anti-Objectivist, and even anti-philosophy in his quest to obliterate Objectivism.

Maybe I've gone a bit overboard with the above statement, but with things he writes in his blog (which I only decided to actually peruse a few days ago), it's hard for me not to take insult.

list of links

I was never an Objectivist, but I did subscribe to many views. I still share some views, but I've moved on from the swamp. Obliterating Objectivism is a futile quest, and it's not mine; I just find it immensely entertaining to bash. Philosophy in general is fun to bash, too, because at least 90% of it is garbage. See Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil for a great look at that.

I've cherry-picked the most offensive articles I could find and arranged them by general time period in which they were posted.

Glad you're giving my blog a fair treatment. :)

Most of these articles directly attack and insult me, though they don't name me any more explicitly than "my friend". and one or two name me in more subtle ways. (The Lazy and Stupid one mentions someone who only knows PHP and considers himself a good programmer, in obvious reference to myself.)

I have indirectly referenced you a few times, doing so indirectly to save you embarrassment. In this post, I had already said all of that in the IM, and I thought you had conceded. I know I showed you the post after I wrote it. You said "Bob. XD". Your incorrect views are great blog material, because you're not the only one who subscribes to them and it helps to have an actual example. In this post, you provided a great case study for all the people out there who irrationally hold onto beliefs for irrational reasons, often because they think it goes against their philosophy or religion. I also think you should learn harder stuff instead of wasting time in easy philosophy, because it's more beneficial in the long run. In this post, it was actually inspired from a classmate who claimed he never read anything long if he could help it. Ever. Same with writing. There are a lot of people out there who mask their ineptitude with claims of laziness, and until you prove me otherwise, you're one of them. I fully believe you could do more--the only thing holding you back is yourself. I have many books available for you to read and learn. Stupidity isn't a lifelong illness.

But even without counting that they are attacks against me, most of them are apparently vehement attacks against Objectivism, or against philosophy, obviously because Objectivism is a philosophy.

Objectivism is a cult with some good ideas but many bad ideas and especially bad reasoning for why to have those ideas in the first place. It's fun to mock because of that. It's also fun to mock philosophy-in-general, but I'm repeating myself. (It's fun to mock mathematicians and programmers as well--hell, it's just fun to mock, and if anyone talks to me for any period of time it becomes obvious I'm an ass and I like to mock things, but you shouldn't take me too seriously.)

I'd post comments on every article I mentioned to at least clear up mistakes he made, but I grow weary of debating someone who so stubbornly refuses to listen to reason. I also have come to feel that the more I debate him, the more harm I'm actually doing. He appears to be focusing on either mistakes I made in my defenses of Objectivism, or on simply twisting my arguments, using everything I say as fuel for his fire.

Show me your "reason". You praise reason, but you don't use it or learn about it. Maybe instead of trying to show some of your views are right (which they aren't), you should try and show some of my views are wrong. The debate has been pretty one-sided for a reason.

He's told me that he must consider me evil for the fact that I would kill 100 people in self-defense. Now I believe I must consider him evil for these things he's written.

Actually, it was a billion people. For a 100 people I'd call you morally confused and not very Good. There are not all that many things I bestow the label Evil for in all its meaning, though I may use it to indicate it's slightly worse than regular old bad.

Just wanted to vent about this and get it off my shoulders. What do you guys think of those "articles"? I'm curious about any responses you may have. I'd also just loooove to see his comments sections swarmed with more learned Objectivists than myself, cutting his obviously fallacious arguments to shreds.

Venting on a public forum isn't a good idea if you mind the other person reading it. =P And I giggled when I read the last bit: "His arguments are so obviously fallacious! Help me prove it! MARCH OBJECTIVISTS ON THIS NOBODY!"

On to the next post.

I wouldn't consider him evil. I'd consider him stupid. That's the only thing you can consider a person who actively refuses to think and sneers at those who do. That is, if you consider him at all - which you shouldn't.

Ouch. Do you know what it means to think? I suppose if "to think" means "to not subscribe to Objectivism", I suppose you're right. But unless you're word-hijacking (as all Objectivists do), I think you need to think about what "to think" means.

No one else here should bother with him either. Swarming his posts doesn't make him look bad, or rather, it doesn't make him alone look bad. It makes us all look bad, like immature children. Doing what you seem to suggest would make Objectivists look silly and childish, which is no way to make other people who don't refuse to think take Objectivism seriously.

Wise words. Seriously. You're spot-on with that. Not that I would have cared if the forum came after me, since it would have just proved several finer points, but you're right it will make Objectivism look much worse than it already does. :)

Next post:

Why are you still living with this dolt? Do you have the means to move out and find another roommate? I'd be gone as quickly as possible without any warning to him. His complete and utter lack of respect for you deserves like in kind.

He owes me $500 and isn't in any position to financially do much after he pays me back in a couple weeks. That said, Steve, I still consider you a great friend despite philosophical (and hygiene =P) differences. If you're willing to let a friendship be destroyed over something that silly, that's your choice, but I'd think it a very stupid one.

Next post (flattened):

I agree with Zip. Get out, or if you are the primary signer on the lease kick him out. Why argue with someone who doesn't want to be salvaged? At this point in my life I only argue with people who I like, who are of reasonable intelligence who hold flawed and contradictory premises. This person sounds like a childish jerk who disdains knowledge for the fact that it is knowledge. Cut all contacts with this destructive creature asap.

Even if he could kick me out, it'd be difficult to pay rent by himself. I don't know if he's met any potential other roommates yet. I like the language here, though. "Be salvaged." Yup, keep showing yourselves off as a cult, as nothing more than a fancy religion. Arguing with people you like isn't a virtue of Rationality: you need to go through fire and argue with strong opponents. Am I a jerk? Sure, sometimes. :) Am I childish? What do you mean by childish? If you saw my about page at the top of the blog, it's clear I'm 19 at the time of writing. Do I disdain knowledge? If knowledge is Objectivism, which it isn't. Apart from that, I love knowledge: I actively consume from a variety of fields. I am a nerd. As for Steve, he has access to all my books but never reads them... And I'll admit I call humans creatures, but I don't mean it in a derogatory term like you do. I am human, and it's a poor idea to demonizing people you disagree with. Also, I'm hardly destructive in the sense of killing people or destroying furniture, you should be more clear there. (Is English your first language? Clarity is style.)

Next post (again flattened a little..forumers abuse the newline, but I do sometimes too):

I just read some more of his drivel. In his assualt[sic] on the military where he glibly explains why all the men & women who have been soldiers are "cowards" he often references pop culture movies to somehow drive home his point. Why are the men who fought in the past for our freedoms cowards? Why- because Sarah Conner said this in Terminator 2! Why are the men & women currently serving in the US military beneath contempt?
Why- because Batman said that in The Dark Knight!

Seriously, you only degrade yourself by responding to him. He's a chimp flinging poo from behind a cage.

So you've read one post where I quote from two movies. I happen to love quotes; they say things elegantly sometimes. If my blog was actually a professional place instead of "the going-ons of Jach's mind", as it says at the top, I probably wouldn't use quotes as much. That said, I don't use quotes all that often... And it was Joker, not Batman, who pointed out the great truth that people never panic when disaster is planned.

It's a poor mind who considers those who disagree "degrading" to argue with. I also take the chimp reference to imply I'm somehow less-evolved: dude, I'm human. Don't demonize the enemy. And I guess the cage is somehow my computer screen: I live with Amaroq, and my name is on this about page. It would be trivially simple for you to get the address and come here to "teach me a lesson". But no, you're human, and likely not a psychopath, so I'm going to bet you won't.

On to the next post:

I didn't want to chime in on the soldier bashing thing but it never hurts to remind a waste of skin like this that the only reason he has the freedom to write his drivel is because of the "cowards" that went to war to ensure that he kept those rights.

Sounds cliché I know, but it probably doesn't sound that way to the starving hordes in North Korea, or any of the other multitude of people who have known and still know the hand and heart of tyranny.

Waste of skin? Because I dislike soldiers who kill, plunder, rape, and follow despicable orders without question? Ouch. Anyway, I've written about the rest of the post before (and probably will again since I didn't make myself clear enough, obviously), so I'll just sum-up with something somewhat novel: American's citizens are only in danger of losing their rights from their own government, not because of some foreign attacker. Next:

Wait, Batman said it? MUST OBEY MY MASTER.

Wait, Ayn Rand / Objectivism said it? MUST OBEY MY MASTER.

I found it sad when Steve realized he had the "wrong" connotation of Rights all along, and after reading about Oism's version instantly subscribed to that view (which is word-hijacking again..). Anyway, the hell? I used the Joker to point out something and suddenly I worship Batman? He's not even my favorite superhero! And that was one small bit in one small post! Talk about leaping to conclusions. (I've heard said Rand was a master of that art.) Next:

Yes, and not the nipple-y Clooney Batman or the dopey Keaton Batman

The gravel-y voiced Bale Batman said it so, you know... let's find out what other great truths we can negate with this wisdom...

Hey, Bale's Batman is cool! Anyway, I understand completely the problems of quoting fictional characters. You guys quote Atlas Shrugged, too. But just because they're fictional does not mean they can't also have good ideas.

On to perhaps the most intelligent (or stupid?) post in the thread! This will be taken by chunks.

I've read the post 'on altruism'. It doesn't make sense! I don't think he ever offers any reason why altruism is good other than 'the more you think about things, that's the conclusion you come to'. He also seems to work against his own argument as he ventures into existentialism.

I know you probably feel this way, but I'm offering a voice of support to your frustration.

I wrote that post some time ago, so it's probably not all that great. I'll probably end up writing it again later on, but I'm not going to go back and read it right now. But I could have sworn I had better arguments than just "think about it"...

As for why someone could end up feeling this way - Existence exists!!! I will explain the relevance. I have been struggling with a very religious friend who considers not believing something just because you can't see it an intellectual cop-out. A laziness, an excuse for not searching, not reaching out with emotions and feelings that aren't as clear and trustworthy as reason - effectively. Ultimately, her reasons for having faith are the result of her desire to have her desires define reality. And at that point, her whole argument collapses. My crude way of answering her is by saying "If you rely on faith to guide your view of the truth, you are ultimately putting words into God's mouth." Why? What is the standard that allows me to say this? Existence exists!!

Not believing something just because you can't see it is an intellectual cop-out. We can't see atoms, we can't see quarks, we can't see a lot of things. A less wrong statement is to say "things you can't interact with, even in principle". But that's also wrong, because what if I sent a photon out toward emptiness? With the expansion of the universe, even if an alien species captured it and sent it right back, I would never be able to interact with it ever again even in principle. I don't say the photon ceases to exist.

Do you subscribe to the Spock view of reason? That emotions get in the way? What do you even do to practice your rationality? As for "Existence exists", that phrase pisses me off on so many levels. I'll be dealing with it in a few posts' time, but to be brief: things that fly, fly; things that swim, swim; tautologies are like tautologies, and useless statements are useless.

Representing the fundamental alternative, existence vs. non-existence, the axiom of existence gives irrefutable definition to knowledge. Faith is never knowledge. Knowledge is something specific. When people abandon reason and give up on philosophy, it is because they have failed to see this. They can't distinguish between faith and knowledge. They assume that meaning and value must be the product of faith, that knowledge is their enemy. They incorrectly choose to destroy themselves in an attempt to preserve the concepts of meaning and value which they correctly understand to define themselves. It boils down to a failure to properly distinguish between knowledge and faith. And again, this error can be corrected with the Axiom of Existence for starters.

Are you talking to/about me? I don't think you're talking to me... I do not subscribe to faith and have no problem with knowledge. Values and meaning are subjective, however, not intrinsic to a thing... Maybe you mistake that truth for "faith" and an abandoning of "reason"? How would I be destroying myself? I know perfectly well the difference between faith and knowledge, and I do not subscribe to faith. (Except, of course, when religious folk word-hijack "belief" to mean "faith", but that's not being honest to the word.)

No matter how confused you are about reality and your place in it, the difference between existence and non-existence is undeniable. And in that context the meaning and value of existence is self-evident.

What does it mean for something to not-exist? It's pretty easy to say what it doesn't exist as. But there's all sorts of fun conundrums you can get into with "existence", which is a poorly defined word. I don't have time to enlighten you, however, on for example the difference between the map and the territory.

Your friend goes on about the Sun going 'poof' someday, and speculates as to whether 'humanity' matters. He figures that some might be right that we'll evolve and go out and make an influence on the universe. See the evidence of his problem. He assumes that our values must be imposed on the universe for them to have value. Perhaps he originated this in Objectivism - it's good to impose our values on objective reality. However, he makes the mistake of assuming that there is some intrinsic value in the universe, that it somehow answers to something, and therefore we must be meaningful 'to the universe' in order to be meaningful. This is the source of his altruism. He can't find meaning in himself until he is meaningful to 'something'. He skips over the truth that by alone existing, he can find value in his life. by being conscious he can appreciate and find meaning in that value. By failing to properly understand the Axiom of Existence, he ends up searching for meaning 'out there' where it cannot be found. As long as he thinks meaning is 'out there' he must rely on faith to find it. Until he realizes meaning is 'right here', he'll be confused and lost, and angry.

The Sun is going to swell up, nearly swallow the Earth, and then die someday according to standard knowledge of physics. I'm not sure where I stated the universe has intrinsic value for anything, which I don't believe. Values are completely subjective. I can find meaning in myself even if I'm meaningful to no-one, which I have at times suspected and yet not killed myself over. The truth is that not because I exist I can find value, but because I have the capacity to value I can find value. I don't search for meaning "out there", because there isn't any! Please quote me on where I said this was the case, as that's entirely false. Horrible reading of my writing, unless I seriously screwed up somewhere. I've known values are subjective for a long time.

The greatest irony is his spiteful criticism of those who consider altruism evil. He claims not to know of any non-fictional people that are altruists that want to sacrifice everyone with ability to those without, who want to spitefully create communism. The irony is that his philosophical vacuum is exactly the environment that breeds these people.

When you have more words than just Applause Lights for Objectivists, come back and make that paragraph meaningful.

I would stop here, but there is one more juicy point I have to make from that one post alone. He talks about how game theory suggests the universal benefit of altruism. I love how people are quick to ignore the rationally selfish benefits of benevolence and - not to mention - free trade and law. I hate the intellectual shallowness of the "working together means a skyscraper, working alone means many sandcastles" argument. But what's crucial in his writings is when he calls himself a rational altruist. He says he would die for 100 people, but never sacrifice a loved one for 100 people. There are certainly those who would happily sacrifice him for 100. And his loved one. And everyone else. He is the mystic to Atilla. The wonderful irony is that he makes this claim whereby he is willing to sacrifice himself for common good, but not others. Hence, his altruism isn't of the 'evil fictional communist' variety. Yet, as this thread's title shows, all his 'rational altruism' shows a lot of contempt and hostility towards those unwilling to sacrifice themselves as well.

I like how you're trying to read into my entire mind from one post alone. :) Only two people in this world know me entirely, and one of them is me. Everyone else fails on trying to piece me together, even though I'm not that complex. Anyway, game theory does suggest it. I don't mind free trade, I do mind government, and there's no intellectual shallowness to that argument because it's true: find me someone who built a skyscraper with his bare hands. Even Rand had lots of help in her life.

No altruism is the "evil fictional communist" variety; stop word-hijacking. I think people who can't see that a billion lives is better than one life are mad; that's hardly contempt for people unwilling to sacrifice themselves. Would I die for 100 people? Depends on the 100 people, but if picked randomly from the world population, probably not. Crank the number up higher. As for sacrificing my loved one, I know that sacrificing her for N people (where N is sufficiently large) is the "right" thing to do (I'd prefer no sacrifices), and yet I can imagine myself, forced to make the choice, not doing it and keeping her alive. Love maddens.

Being an altruist isn't about sacrificing your life for other people, that's just a rare special case. It's about sacrificing what you can without lowering yourself to help those around you. I'm not at all the pinnacle of altruism, but I'm on the path and it's the better one.

He'll sacrifice himself, but he won't sacrifice us for the common good - he'll just spew contempt and hostility until we do so on our own.
I'd sacrifice you for the common good, for sufficiently high values of common good. You're not my loved one.

So, I agree, insulting. But also ironic, irrational, hostile, deceptive, hopeless.
Tip: don't get insulted, you live longer. Ironic, I guess, in that my writing might be a little unexpected for the average Objectivist. Irrational, I think not. You best explain what you mean by rationality, because I have a very clear picture. Hostile, you bet! :) Deceptive, I hope not. It's partly my fault if I'm not being clear enough, but I haven't knowingly tried to employ my knowledge of human cognitive biases to win arguments. Hopeless...if I'm so hopeless, why bother looking at my posts? Why bother with me at all? Save yourself the trouble and don't. Next post.

Actually, it was the Joker. He said it to Harvey Dent when Dent was hospitalized.
Thanks! Next.

If you hold the key to the lease, I would find a replacement and start telling him to find himself another, non-Objectivist household. If he will not, tell him (if you have the means) that you will move, and he will be saddled with the place. After all, if he doesn't believe in rational self-interest, then he should derive no benefit of living with someone who does.

Wooow. "non-Objectivist household". Good God does this reek of cult. "I won't let you marry into a non-Catholic household!" Steve, as I said before, if you'd let something as stupid as religion or philosophy break up a 6ish year friendship, that's your choice, but it'd be a poor one. I could argue it's in your rational self-interest to stay but I'm not going to. Ah, next post is one of yours again.

Wow, Zsorenson. I think you may have seen much deeper into his soul than I ever have. All this time, I've been under the suspicion that he might just want me to believe in the things he believes (altruism and unconditional nonviolence) out of a selfish desire to take advantage of me.

From one post? Or even several? Seriously? Fail! And fail on you for also failing to understand my motivations. Why would I want to take advantage of you? All I want from you is to keep cleaning the bathroom and to pay half the rent on time.

Given how much sense rational selfishness makes to me, I couldn't fathom a person like this having a seriously non-selfish motivation. It's strange to consider that, he might honest-to-god believe what he's saying.

Technically everyone is selfish. My altruism lies on a utility function and being altruistic is higher up on that utility scale than other things, and so I pick it. But if you've been under the assumption I don't really believe what I write (which is sometimes a good assumption when I begin certain lines of questioning), no wonder you haven't budged at all.

Besides the facts that I can't understand his rejection of egoism, and his inability to consider things from his own perspective rather than the universe's, he seems like a really intelligent person to me. And that's what I don't get, that intelligent people come to hate Rand's ideas so much.

Humans are egocentric creatures for the worse. I point to history as evidence of this. I can easily consider things from my own perspective, but as history shows that's rarely the best perspective. Rand's ideas are incompatible with really smart people for a lot of reasons, but if you're noticing this then maybe you should wonder if you're smart for not going with the smart crowd. You'll find I still appreciate free market capitalism under Anarchy, and you'll find I still appreciate not letting anyone tell you what you can or cannot do with your life. There are other very general "Objectivist" values I retain, but not at all for the reasons Objectivism wants me to, and the rest is garbage. Very mockable garbage that's fun to mock. It's 50 years old; a lot of science has been done since then, and philosophy along with religion has been pushed into ever more narrow places where it can assert anything.

I've known for a while that he views things from the universe's perspective, but I didn't think it had such deep implications.

Also, he is the primary signer of our lease. But I also don't believe in just up and leaving without giving my roommate an advanced notice. When I have someplace more desirable to go, he'll know at least a few months ahead of time that I'm leaving.

There once were 2D-creatures who viewed everything from their 2D-perspective. Then one day one of them put gold in his 2D-closet, locked the door, and went to work. When he came back, he unlocked the closet and the gold was gone. He was too egocentric to work out the truth, though, that a 3D-creature had simply reached in and taken it. Obviously if he had the insight to consider a 3D-creature, a perspective that's not at all egocentric, it would have very deep implications. The 3D creatures should also consider 4D ones. Such non-selfish insights lead to remarkable places, so yes a universal perspective has deep implications. (But perhaps not in the sense you think.)

Your last paragraph is nice to know; it shows you're not yet completely willing to destroy the friendship over philosophical differences.

Next post...

His website seems to be partially down. I can get to the main page but not any of the articles. Based on the headlines on the main page, it sounds like his blog is just a giant monument to how "intelligent" he thinks he is. He thinks he's so smart because english was easy for him to learn? Oh I'm so smart because I speak French and Latin as well.

Epic fail. Epic, epic fail. Do I need to explain the fail? I suppose I do, because some people... Okay, first bit. You had my last 7 posts (from Hacker Manifesto) visible to you when you visited. That's 7 out of 54 at the time. You had no sufficient data to make such a wide assumption. Next, if you actually read my post on why English is easy, you'd have realized I only stated my knowledge of French and Latin to assert I have at least some idea of what I'm talking about. People who haven't had the experience to learn a foreign language don't have any authority whatsoever to talk about how easy a language is to learn. If I thought I was all-that from just knowing French (I don't speak Latin), I'd have to consider a large portion of Europe equally all-that because a large portion of Europe is bilingual. Read the post, please.

He also seems to think he's morally superior to most other people because he thinks sex should only be used for reproduction and not for pleasure. Question: is he some kind of really big loser who never had a girlfriend? I find that people with that attitude about sex tend to be the type that have trouble finding women... :P

I don't think my view on sex is morally superior, but I think it's intellectually superior. I believe intellectual pleasure is far more useful and far more pleasureful than sex, and so sex for the purpose of pleasure is just a waste of time. I don't grand-stand on the issue; humans were evolved with a desire for sex because those that had it had more children. Am I a big loser? Depends on your definition of loser; on my bad depressed days I'll consider myself one, but an 'objective' outsider might not. Have I never had a girlfriend? Not offline, though I have spoken and befriended enough girls offline to count and at least a few of them would have been potential dates if I didn't have my values set too high on that prospect. I assure you that if I wanted to be in a relationship with some girl without caring who, it wouldn't be especially difficult.

I completely feel your pain though! I was stuck with a total douchebag roommate and, being a poor college student, I didn't have much choice but to just deal with it. At least this guy isn't damaging your property though. My roommate, knowing that I had several servers running in my room, would purposely turn off the circuit breaker before he left for the day. Another funny fact about the guy: his major goal in life was "to become a cameraman who works on the major hollywood movies. Then I can move out to California and be able to go to the 'sophisticated' parties that they have out there and pick up 'high class' girls." That's the kind of fantasy a 12 year old would have! Just like your idiot roommate, mine also thought he was very intelligent and would constantly try to lecture me about why I was a "loser" because I studied all the time and he went to parties.

Your former roommate sounds awful. Sorry about that. But I'm not destructive. Your roommate also sounds like he'd be easy meat to show why he wasn't smart, but I assure you I am not like that either. I'm already confident that I'm smarter than you, and I don't even know you. But in the end my relative smartness doesn't matter, I'll direct you to a recent post about intelligence. Oh yeah, and 12 year olds can have awesome fantasies. Just because a kid wants it doesn't make it bad. I wanted to be a neurosurgeon when I was 12, then changed my mind as I ventured into programming.

It's a horrible position to be stuck in, but I know exactly what you're going through. Just get out as soon as you can!
To be honest I don't really see how Steve's in a horrible position on account of me or one even close to what yours was. Anyway, last post is Steve's. I cut off the first bit.

Also, neither me nor him have had girlfriends. xD I've had many online relationships, but he's never been interested in them. One thing I find interesting in his article about sex is that he specifically allows for sex for himself in two situations. Though both situations still require that you are planning to reproduce. One, if a girl was disease-free and wasn't gonna use any protection and wasn't gonna require him to care for the child if she became pregnant. Then his "genes would score!" It'd be the only logical thing to do. But the really interesting one is that he upholds sex in a relationship, the purpose for that being that it would strengthen the relationship. Though still requires that the couple plans on reproducing. I strongly suspect this is due to the fact that he deeply loves someone who doesn't return the feeling. "Sex is useless, unless with the girl I love" basically. But I can't see into his mind, so I can't know if it's that simple.
It's not that simple. =P You're not even warm.

Either way, if sex for pleasure is useless, what use is it to have a relationship for happiness? It's not a long stretch to apply his logic to invalidate his main reason for allowing for sex at all.
Pleasure-sex can strengthen a relationship, therefore it's useful for that purpose. Its main use is for breeding, and so pleasure-sex in a relationship should only be done when the relationship is leading or has lead to offspring. It's not a moral issue I have with the world, I just think my view is more intellectual and useful. Pleasure != Happiness, either, they are two separate things.

So, that's it. All idiots have been smacked down. Steve, don't take my categorization of you into a class of stupid people personally (or too seriously). =P And no, this wide categorization is not a simple case of calling people stupid because they don't agree with me. It's calling people stupid because they leap to conclusions, they misjudge, they're horrible at rationality, they don't possess or strive to possess useful knowledge, etc. etc. Common reasons to label someone stupid. But stupidity isn't a lifelong illness, and really humans can only be stupid on instances; it's a discrete thing, not a continuous one. The only cure is knowledge.

Posted on 2009-12-15 by Jach

Tags: philosophy, stupidity


Trackback URL:

Back to the top

Amaroq December 17, 2009 03:31:08 PM I tried to say this once already, but almost every time I submit a comment, your server eats it and then goes down.

Anyway, I don't think I'll let it ruin our friendship. Though we do disagree deeply on a lot of fundamental things. Debating with you was fun and challenging at first, but now it's like talking to a wall.

Posting insulting things or talking behind someone's back, I generally think of as dishonest. I would've preferred to be told calmly/casually "You smell" than to have had to find out from Rib that you've been complaining to her that I smell. (Perhaps I'll buy some more work uniforms on payday.)
Jach December 18, 2009 01:29:59 PM This blog is public, it's hardly talking about you behind your back. =P Also, the Wall of Truth is very much like a wall. No surprises there.

As for the smelliness, I still don't consider you a lover of frankness to the extent I do, and so I asked Rib what the nicest way to go about it was. =P
Jach December 18, 2009 07:07:34 PM Oh yeah, and I don't think we disagree on fundamental things. I want to help people for the sake of helping people, you want to be 100% selfish, that's not very fundamental. Beyond that, where math and science really matter and have established positions on issues, you're out of your water.
Back to the first comment

Comment using the form below

(Only if you want to be notified of further responses, never displayed.)

Your Comment:

LaTeX allowed in comments, use $$\$\$...\$\$$$ to wrap inline and $$[math]...[/math]$$ to wrap blocks.