Atlas Shrugged. April 15. Is your body ready?

[Nephew Twiddleton]

I always like this part.


WHAT ARE THE TWO QUESTIONS?
   \

Question #1:  Joe's brakes are bad.  He knows this.  One day, while driving, his bad brakes cause an accident that kills a family of 5.  Is he guilty of at least manslaughter?

Question #2?

YOU HAVE TO ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION.

NOW ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION.

Yes he is? But I don't know for sure what the official Objectivist answer is.

Saying no, just so I can hear question two.

[hooplala]

Requia, do you find your pedantry inhibits you from casual conversations?

"Hello, good morning!"

"Good is a subjective term, and experts have found in recent studies that qualifications for something being good differ highly between cultures and socioeconomic statuses!  Oh, and did you ever find it weird that anything before noon is morning, yet anything afternoon could be afternoon, evening, or night, all distinctly separate?"

"Well...uh.  Mighty fine weather we're having!"

"I'm confused about your use of mighty.  This is a clear, sunny day.  There's nothing mighty about a calm sky and seasonal warmth.  What makes it fine, also, I mean, if every day was like this then eventually none would be, as all the plants would lack essential rain water to live!  I'm not sure what you mean by 'we're having' after all, how are we having this day.  The day is just happening and we are living through it, how does that make us having it any more than one has music by giving it a listen?"

"I don't, okay, so how is your family doing?"

"Family is being constantly redefined in modern social sciences to reflect the changing landscape of our daily lives!  Whereas fifty years ago a family was a husband, a wife, and two point five children (a myth that is being debunked through rigorous sociological testing) it currently can include a number of gender identities as well as non traditional members."

PURE GOLD!

[Slyph]

The stock reply to anyone trying to vex Randian moral philosophy with a thought experiment involving an emergency is "Man is not in a constant state of emergency, this is a delusion called "malevolent universe theory". " TIA

The most recent article (as of 15/4/11) on http://aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com/ is pretty good by the way. Rand's aesthetic rants are fucking hilarious.

[President Television]

The stock reply to anyone trying to vex Randian moral philosophy with a thought experiment involving an emergency is "Man is not in a constant state of emergency, this is a delusion called "malevolent universe theory". " TIA

That's retarded. Even if we aren't in a constant state of emergency, that has no bearing on the fact that accidents do happen and that Randian morality, applied to them, falls apart.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

No really, there's no relationship at all between manslaughter and attempted murder.  In one you're trying to kill somebody, in another your trying to do something else illegal and an accident happens.

I give up.

Fuck this shit.  I'm not wasting my time arguing with you.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I always like this part.


WHAT ARE THE TWO QUESTIONS?
   \

Question #1:  Joe's brakes are bad.  He knows this.  One day, while driving, his bad brakes cause an accident that kills a family of 5.  Is he guilty of at least manslaughter?

Question #2?

YOU HAVE TO ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION.

NOW ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION.

Yes he is? But I don't know for sure what the official Objectivist answer is.

Saying no, just so I can hear question two.

Ask Requia.  She knows everything.

Even if she can't seem to read a simple fucking paragraph.

[Requia ☣]

Nope, for one thing I still have no fucking clue how you got from A to B on this one.

I love that its now advanced to the point that asking for an explanation is useless pedantry though.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Nope, for one thing I still have no fucking clue how you got from A to B on this one.

I love that its now advanced to the point that asking for an explanation is useless pedantry though.

1.  That's because you don't actually read anything that people post. 

2.  Fuck off and die.  Either you didn't read what I wrote, you read what you EXPECTED me to write, or you're a complete and utter moron.  WHICH IS IT?

[Eater of Clowns]

Nope, for one thing I still have no fucking clue how you got from A to B on this one.

I love that its now advanced to the point that asking for an explanation is useless pedantry though.

The point isn't about being right or wrong here, Requia.  It's that, while Roger's use of attempted murder may not be the legally exact definition that would suit a real life case like this, the term was still sufficient to get his point across in a conversational manner.  Especially given he'd used the correct terminology earlier in the very same topic.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Nope, for one thing I still have no fucking clue how you got from A to B on this one.

I love that its now advanced to the point that asking for an explanation is useless pedantry though.

The point isn't about being right or wrong here, Requia.  It's that, while Roger's use of attempted murder may not be the legally exact definition that would suit a real life case like this, the term was still sufficient to get his point across in a conversational manner.  Especially given he'd used the correct terminology earlier in the very same topic.

There's no fucking point, EoC.  Requia doesn't read shit, she skims a bit til she thinks there's a chance to be right about something.

EVERY FUCKING DAY.  NON-FUCKING STOP.  IT'S 99% OF EVERYTHING SHE FUCKING DOES.

She HAS to be an expert on ALL FUCKING SUBJECTS, and she has to do it ALL THE TIME, even if it means not actually taking part in the argument at hand, but rather the one she THINKS is happening, because she DIDN'T FUCKING READ.

It is absolutely useless to try to have a discussion with her, so I'm not going to bother anymore.  Period.

[Suu]

Nope, for one thing I still have no fucking clue how you got from A to B on this one.

I love that its now advanced to the point that asking for an explanation is useless pedantry though.

SHUT UP.

JUST SHUT THE FUCK UP.

NONE OF US CAN STAND YOUR PETTY ARGUMENTATIVE 'HOLIER THAN THOU' BULLSHIT ANYMORE.

YOU DON'T KNOW ANYTHING.

YOU'RE A FUCKING WALKING WIKIPEDIA SURFER.

JUST.......STOP. FOREVER.

[Requia ☣]

Right, I'm officially calling bullshit, you know jack all about objectivism, or any other kind of philosophy, and are completely unable to defend your argument with anything other than blanket statements that the other side is wrong and hurling insults.

Nope, for one thing I still have no fucking clue how you got from A to B on this one.

I love that its now advanced to the point that asking for an explanation is useless pedantry though.

The point isn't about being right or wrong here, Requia.  It's that, while Roger's use of attempted murder may not be the legally exact definition that would suit a real life case like this, the term was still sufficient to get his point across in a conversational manner.  Especially given he'd used the correct terminology earlier in the very same topic.

I'm not talking about the legally accepted definition of murder, I'm talking about the lack of any kind of link whatsoever between his first statement and his second.  Even if you leave out the whole murder bit, and just say 'then objectivists believe anybody with bad breaks should be arrested' it's *still* utter nonsense unless you say *why* that's the case.  I'm fairly certain that there's no reason at all for that to be the case under objectivism at this point, and that Roger is talking out his ass, which is why he refuses to answer me.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I'm fairly certain that there's no reason at all for that to be the case under objectivism at this point, and that Roger is talking out his ass, which is why he refuses to answer me.

Listen, you pretentious little gob of shit:  I won't be arguing with you about this or any other thing, period.  Frankly, I don't care enough about you or this argument to explain a damn thing to you.

However, if you continue to talk shit about me, I shall take my bad day and hand it to you, every day, forever.  I will fucking monster you from now til the next fucking decade.  Just walk away, never speak to me or about me, and everything will be just fine.  Or not.  Your choice.

[hooplala]

Requia's bullshit aside, do we get to know the 2nd question?

[Requia ☣]

You won't be arguing with me because you're incapable of arguing, admit it, all you can do if challenged on a subject is resort to personal attacks.  Oh and threats!  You can do threats too.