randyhelzerman (July 25, 2008 at 5:20 am)

Zorio is in da house!! Thanks man, and I'm glad you (and your Baudriardian Eucharist) is back.

zorio (July 25, 2008 at 5:09 am)

Excellent points Randy. I'm glad there exists another human being that sees the High Modernism of Marxism.

randyhelzerman (July 24, 2008 at 10:14 pm)

Thanks Trollschool.

grantsinmypants2 (July 24, 2008 at 10:11 pm)

no, I'm not in that position, you're right. If I had to wager, I would say you sensed it, but I don't have to. Not relevant anyways... I read what I read. your first reaction was to attack qtronman as being a parrot. to you, a claim which is not exhaustively, ridiculously drawn out HAS to be ad hominem. and so, in response, you provide your own. you dont take the time to review his claim w/ his definition. you react: you call him a parrot. maybe you went back later, so what?

Trollschool (July 24, 2008 at 10:09 pm)

That's exactly the sense that I got Randy - they had something scripted out for you, and when you didn't follow it, they just pretended as if you had anyway. This is not even on a highschool level, although I seem to recall kids acting that way in the third grade.

randyhelzerman (July 24, 2008 at 10:05 pm)

Hi grantsinmypants....dude, if you arn't interested in finding out whether qtronman did or did not use the term "socal metaphysican" correctly, then you are in no epistemic position to determine whether I sensed it had some relevance, now are you? You are fantasizing some kind of behavior on my part, falsely ascribing it to me, and then berating me for it. Stop it! :-) You too are capabile of much better.

grantsinmypants2 (July 24, 2008 at 10:01 pm)

yes, he was attacking your person... I don't think he would deny this. but unlike you, he recognizes that doing so is not simply his ("ayn rand's") opinion of you. that he might have some objective reason to determine that about you. what, by contrast, if your objective reason for him being a mindless follower? that he didn't hold your hand all the way through to show you that you're a social metaphysician? that you didnt give him your explicit agreement (as if that's necesary)?

grantsinmypants2 (July 24, 2008 at 9:58 pm)

if you disagree with qtronmans conclusion, you should have just said so (ie: explained that you werent giving your own views, but the states) and left it at that but that wasn't your 1st reaction. Your first reaction - once you had his definition and sensed that it might have some relevance - was to attack him back. you decided that because qtronman hadnt originated "social metaphysics" then he must be just attacking your ad hominem. as if he couldn't agree w/ it and use it independently

randyhelzerman (July 24, 2008 at 9:57 pm)

Geez, what is this, high scool? Is "social metaphysian" something like the objectivist version of "cooties"?? If complaining about a gratuitious ad hominom, calling somebody intellegent, and challenging them to live up to the best of their potential is being a social metaphysician, then sure, I'm a social metaphysician, squared and cubed.

grantsinmypants2 (July 24, 2008 at 9:54 pm)

and now the evasion through conflation begins. let me make it as clear as I can: I don't care if qtronman's assertion was correct. I don't care if you displayed social metaphysics in your video - or if you did, if they were yours and not the 1984's states. your social metaphysics was on display the moment you attacked qtronman - not for calling your something 'untrue' - but for "parotting Ayn Rand." As if repeating something someone else said, by itself, makes it untrue.