Wow, your take on Buddhism is completely wrong. One does not embrace the harshness of anything. In fact, he specifically rejected austerity and self-denial. Buddha taught that everyone had to think for themselves, that no one should believe anything anyone else (including him) said, if it did not agree with that person's common sense. People use Buddhist techniques to gain, not lose effectiveness in the real world. Buddha taught that reason was vital, crucial even. A gift not to be wasted. He taught that everything was a product of an understandable chain of cause and effect, it's only like the core of the whole philosophy.
Where did you get such a vast quantity of misinformation?
Sorry, I think your analogy is seriously flawed, and I still consider Carter's presidency to be one of the most underrated in recent history. Are you seriously suggesting that if I asked Carter to hold onto my wallet that I wouldn't get it back, through incompetence or malice? Or are you suggesting he isn't an altruist?
No insults for you, your intelligent and present your points well. You deserve a decent critique. My problem with Rand is that she seems to start from a position of contempt for the weak and those who would help them, reasoning backwards to a philosophy that supports that view. I think that true enlightened self interest argues for altruism, not against it. And recent economic experiments seem to show that people value fairness and reciprocity far more than they value personal gain. We are hard wired for cooperation and altruism because those strategies work. Selfishness does not work as well.
Why should we help others? Because an individual is not truly an individual. We are the product of our societies and our experiences with other people. Helping others creates a culture of helping, and no one is so strong that they can guarantee they will never need help. Secondly, happy, prosperous people are a positive externality. Scared, desperate, angry people are a negative externality. Why should any selfish person contribute towards the costs of externalities when by definition they don't have to? Because being a free rider or being a contributor both encourage others to do likewise. This is all confirmed through recent research (google "fairness reciprocity economic research")
Finally, as I mentioned, most people are born with a drive to punish unfairness and noncooperation, and reward fairness and cooperation. For most people, being unselfish is selfish: it feels good. For the most part, only sociopaths and people too damaged to trust others fail to enjoy cooperation and fairness.
I agree that free association is the path to take, but I also think that I am free not to associate with people who are unfair, do not cooperate, and do not help shoulder the costs of externalities. I am also free not to do any sort of business with anyone who does do business with such people. Therefore, society is free to place those sorts of restrictions on members. Not through force, but through voluntary contract. In essence, we as a group are free to say, "If you want to do business with any of us, and reap any of the benefits of membership in our society, then you must do certain things, including paying taxes and helping the less fortunate."
Therefore, we can effectively isolate non-cooperators and deny them the benefits of membership in our society, and we can do it without coercion or force of any kind. I posit that this is a better basis for a society than anything Rand ever imagined.
Why shouldn't I trust my wallet to an altruist? Who would you consider an altruist? I'll name one off the top of my head: Jimmy Carter. I would trust my life to Jimmy Carter. I wouldn't trust my dirty underwear to Ayn Rand.
I think he meant, "Ayn Rand was an awful hack writer and a two bit 'philosopher,' to use the word loosely. Her philosophy is bullshit in that it it's underpinnings explain nothing, merely begging the question. It is psychotic in that it excuses and encourages selfishness, narcissism, and anti-social behavior; and denies the value of altruism, community, and cooperation."
Next I suppose you'll be telling us Mises and Rothbard are the two greatest geniuses in economics.
When was the last time a judge said to a drug addict "spit it up and we'll let you go"? Last Friday. Wait, a judge? Well, the talking camel did claim to be a judge, but the chocolate fish said he was more of an arbitrator...
Me obsessive? You keep replying too, but in your mentally challenged state, I'm sure that's not a contradiction at all. I keep replying as long as it amuses me. Not that I would ever fall for the grade school, "I'm controlling you by making you reply to my arguments" attempt at ending an argument and getting the last word.
Remember, nothing you can do can do anything more than amuse me. You are powerless.
Joke? What is this thing you speak of? (looks it up) Ah, a humorous anecdote or tale comprised of a set up and a punch line! Now I comprehend this thing called hew-more.
So we've Godwinned a thread that talks about Jimmy Wales "evil plot" to take 3 people out to an expensive dinner Damn, $1300 for four people? And I thought my girlfriends were fat! Poor Jimmy! That's not food, that's booze. The food came to no more than $400, most likely. The rest was $200/bottle champagne & top shelf cocktails. Oh, and the $200 tip. $1,300 on four people is high end, but not over the top. Most major cities have at least a half dozen restaurants where you can drop that kind of cash without doing anything weird.
Now you're just boring me. Surely you can do better? You were so much fun before, now it seems like you're not putting any effort in. Ah well, you probably have your hands full with your full and vibrant life and can't take the time out to stalk me anymore. Too bad.
Hehe, nice try nunayadumbizness. It's nice to have someone who is so into me that they read my journal and can't stop leaving me messages. You really know how to make me feel special. Considering all the time and effort you've put into this, your life must be pretty sad and empty. The only reason I keep responding is because I feel so sorry for you.
Nice try Randy. I'm a dick, not mentally ill. And as a dick, I know when someone is being a dick. That someone is you, and you can try to sugar coat it and backpedal all you like, but that doesn't mean you weren't being a dick. Embrace your dickishness. See, you know full well that I'm not mentally ill nor delusional, but you don't like me, so you are trying to paint me as such. You weren't trying to help me, and you know it. Not that I mind, the opinions of small minded knee jerk reactionaries have never mattered to me.
Hehe, you can't diss someone by pointing out things they've publicly said. Sorry you're so lonely you have to attempt to insult people to get your social needs met.
Nice, Randy. Your true colors show through, as did nunayadumwhatever's. We have two possibilities here. One, you really do think I'm schizophrenic, in which case, nice way to poke fun at the mentally ill, buddy. Two, you are just using name calling to try to win an argument. Either way, you come across to anyone reading as a complete douchebag.
So, more childish name calling, and still no refutation of any point I've made, except for falling for my "You're Dave" stratagem. Par for the course with you. You've only scored points in your own head, everyone else here can not only see that I've played you for a fool by getting you to admit who you are, but that you can only hurl insults rather than refuting points. But everyone here already knew that about you. Still, if you'd stayed AC, there would be one less data point proving what an inferior debater you are.
Slashdot Mirror
EPIC FAIL!
Wow, your take on Buddhism is completely wrong. One does not embrace the harshness of anything. In fact, he specifically rejected austerity and self-denial. Buddha taught that everyone had to think for themselves, that no one should believe anything anyone else (including him) said, if it did not agree with that person's common sense. People use Buddhist techniques to gain, not lose effectiveness in the real world. Buddha taught that reason was vital, crucial even. A gift not to be wasted. He taught that everything was a product of an understandable chain of cause and effect, it's only like the core of the whole philosophy.
Where did you get such a vast quantity of misinformation?
Doubtful. He's a man of honor, you would most certainly get your wallet back. If you give someone else's money away, you're a thief not an altruist.
Buddha for the win.
You know, there is a rather large untapped consumer market for certain varieties of tactile feedback devices.
Sorry, I think your analogy is seriously flawed, and I still consider Carter's presidency to be one of the most underrated in recent history. Are you seriously suggesting that if I asked Carter to hold onto my wallet that I wouldn't get it back, through incompetence or malice? Or are you suggesting he isn't an altruist?
No insults for you, your intelligent and present your points well. You deserve a decent critique. My problem with Rand is that she seems to start from a position of contempt for the weak and those who would help them, reasoning backwards to a philosophy that supports that view. I think that true enlightened self interest argues for altruism, not against it. And recent economic experiments seem to show that people value fairness and reciprocity far more than they value personal gain. We are hard wired for cooperation and altruism because those strategies work. Selfishness does not work as well.
Why should we help others? Because an individual is not truly an individual. We are the product of our societies and our experiences with other people. Helping others creates a culture of helping, and no one is so strong that they can guarantee they will never need help. Secondly, happy, prosperous people are a positive externality. Scared, desperate, angry people are a negative externality. Why should any selfish person contribute towards the costs of externalities when by definition they don't have to? Because being a free rider or being a contributor both encourage others to do likewise. This is all confirmed through recent research (google "fairness reciprocity economic research")
Finally, as I mentioned, most people are born with a drive to punish unfairness and noncooperation, and reward fairness and cooperation. For most people, being unselfish is selfish: it feels good. For the most part, only sociopaths and people too damaged to trust others fail to enjoy cooperation and fairness.
I agree that free association is the path to take, but I also think that I am free not to associate with people who are unfair, do not cooperate, and do not help shoulder the costs of externalities. I am also free not to do any sort of business with anyone who does do business with such people. Therefore, society is free to place those sorts of restrictions on members. Not through force, but through voluntary contract. In essence, we as a group are free to say, "If you want to do business with any of us, and reap any of the benefits of membership in our society, then you must do certain things, including paying taxes and helping the less fortunate."
Therefore, we can effectively isolate non-cooperators and deny them the benefits of membership in our society, and we can do it without coercion or force of any kind. I posit that this is a better basis for a society than anything Rand ever imagined.
Anyone who looks at his record knows the economic problems during his tenure were simply not his fault.
Why shouldn't I trust my wallet to an altruist? Who would you consider an altruist? I'll name one off the top of my head: Jimmy Carter. I would trust my life to Jimmy Carter. I wouldn't trust my dirty underwear to Ayn Rand.
I think he meant, "Ayn Rand was an awful hack writer and a two bit 'philosopher,' to use the word loosely. Her philosophy is bullshit in that it it's underpinnings explain nothing, merely begging the question. It is psychotic in that it excuses and encourages selfishness, narcissism, and anti-social behavior; and denies the value of altruism, community, and cooperation."
Next I suppose you'll be telling us Mises and Rothbard are the two greatest geniuses in economics.
... and some shark we have here ! Stephen L. Norris, from Utah, co-founder of the Carlyle Group.
What do I know, he might even have hired his brother Chuck to collect the debts.
(*shudders*)
(*ducks to avoid roundhouse-kick*)
You can't avoid a roundhouse kick from Chuck Norris. It's like death and taxes, only faster.Me obsessive? You keep replying too, but in your mentally challenged state, I'm sure that's not a contradiction at all. I keep replying as long as it amuses me. Not that I would ever fall for the grade school, "I'm controlling you by making you reply to my arguments" attempt at ending an argument and getting the last word.
Remember, nothing you can do can do anything more than amuse me. You are powerless.
Joke? What is this thing you speak of? (looks it up) Ah, a humorous anecdote or tale comprised of a set up and a punch line! Now I comprehend this thing called hew-more.
Damn, $1300 for four people? And I thought my girlfriends were fat! Poor Jimmy! That's not food, that's booze. The food came to no more than $400, most likely. The rest was $200/bottle champagne & top shelf cocktails. Oh, and the $200 tip. $1,300 on four people is high end, but not over the top. Most major cities have at least a half dozen restaurants where you can drop that kind of cash without doing anything weird.
It's like beer for your computer screen. Oh God, I can't get that image out of my mind. You bastard!
Now you're just boring me. Surely you can do better? You were so much fun before, now it seems like you're not putting any effort in. Ah well, you probably have your hands full with your full and vibrant life and can't take the time out to stalk me anymore. Too bad.
Hehe, nice try nunayadumbizness. It's nice to have someone who is so into me that they read my journal and can't stop leaving me messages. You really know how to make me feel special. Considering all the time and effort you've put into this, your life must be pretty sad and empty. The only reason I keep responding is because I feel so sorry for you.
Nice try Randy. I'm a dick, not mentally ill. And as a dick, I know when someone is being a dick. That someone is you, and you can try to sugar coat it and backpedal all you like, but that doesn't mean you weren't being a dick. Embrace your dickishness. See, you know full well that I'm not mentally ill nor delusional, but you don't like me, so you are trying to paint me as such. You weren't trying to help me, and you know it. Not that I mind, the opinions of small minded knee jerk reactionaries have never mattered to me.
Fascinating, and it makes sense.
Hehe, you can't diss someone by pointing out things they've publicly said. Sorry you're so lonely you have to attempt to insult people to get your social needs met.
Nice, Randy. Your true colors show through, as did nunayadumwhatever's. We have two possibilities here. One, you really do think I'm schizophrenic, in which case, nice way to poke fun at the mentally ill, buddy. Two, you are just using name calling to try to win an argument. Either way, you come across to anyone reading as a complete douchebag.
You can't copyright the rules to a game, sorry. Trademark violation, maybe.
Haha, cute. I got a snide AC to admit who he really was, try following along here, Randy.
So, more childish name calling, and still no refutation of any point I've made, except for falling for my "You're Dave" stratagem. Par for the course with you. You've only scored points in your own head, everyone else here can not only see that I've played you for a fool by getting you to admit who you are, but that you can only hurl insults rather than refuting points. But everyone here already knew that about you. Still, if you'd stayed AC, there would be one less data point proving what an inferior debater you are.