#1
[account deactivated]
#2
Poronto
Post rating: ~
i have never believed anything in my life
#3
Post rating: ~
What the fuck is wrong with dragonball z
#4
[account deactivated]
#5
Poronto
Post rating: ~
its often okay but there are many episodes of it out there dubbed in a harsh foreign tongue that sounds alternately like burbling willowtits or ack-ack fire. be careful
#6
Post rating: ~
i used to be a fundamentalist and listen to post-sabbath ozzy and icp unironically

my dad wouldn't let me watch sailor moon or play with barbies like i wanted to because it made me a girly man

shamed
#7
[account deactivated]
#8
Post rating: ~
i used to believe in limitless potential. now its obscured by an exponential conundrum. what is real, and what is love, if there is nothing to compare it with?
#9
Post rating: ~
im still an objectivist, the whole marxist thing is just part of my job at the fbi
#10
Post rating: ~
i'm an objectivist who still wears daipers but at least I can take pride in the fact that I never watched dragonball z
#11
north pole
Post rating: ~
there is nothing grown-up about leftism
#12
lame
Post rating: ~

discipline posted:
if you're ashamed of not knowing about something in the past then you've got too much ego when it comes to learning things



forget the past, i'm ashamed of what i don't know in the present

#13
Post rating: ~
i was never an objectivist. i was a liberal though. something of a positivist libertarian before that but that was tied entirely to my drug use
#14
Poronto
Post rating: ~
i used to be a fundamental sikh and punjabi separatist but in my defence i was 8
#15
Post rating: ~
What's an objectivist, again? It's been so long since hearing the term that all I remember is it has something to do with someone called ayn rand
#16
[account deactivated]
#17
Kurdt
Post rating: ~
I used to be a fuckshit. Also currently
#18
Post rating: ~
Ima FuckShit Kraka
#19
Post rating: ~
i canvassed for george w bush's presidential campaign. in 2004.
#20
[account deactivated]
#21
Post rating: ~

Lykourgos posted:
What's an objectivist, again? It's been so long since hearing the term that all I remember is it has something to do with someone called ayn rand



Objectivism is not a "discredited ideology". Objectivism is objective thinking, and one who criticizes objective thinking is not worth listening to anyway. It's clear to me that you are against free will. Thus, any further discussion would be pointless, as you obviously have nothing of value to contribute to a discussion where I support free will, and you support totalitarianism.

#22
Post rating: ~
i trolled an objectivist on youtube yesterday as u can see lmao
#23
el area metro
Post rating: +
totalitarianism owns. i should just start saying that i support totalitarianism in any sort of manifestation
#24
Post rating: ~
i was influenced by objectivism for a while when i was younger. i think it's a phase people go through after reading those books.

relevant quote: “There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.“

#25
[account deactivated]
#26
Post rating: ~
ive never ashamed of anything anymore
#27
Post rating: ~

discipline posted:



ahahhaha, too bad obama is bought too.

#28
Post rating: +

http://www.theparisreview.org/blog/2011/12/05/document-the-symbolism-survey/
#29
Post rating: ~

Lykourgos posted:
What's an objectivist, again? It's been so long since hearing the term that all I remember is it has something to do with someone called ayn rand



as far as I can understand it means nothing has value or meaning beyond its face value

#30
Post rating: ~

crustpunk_trotsky posted:

Lykourgos posted:
What's an objectivist, again? It's been so long since hearing the term that all I remember is it has something to do with someone called ayn rand

as far as I can understand it means nothing has value or meaning beyond its face value



What do you mean by face value? I don't understand. or are you just making fun and saying it's a shallow ideology that fails to examine anything?

#31
Post rating: ~
I don't like iron rand because she is bad at the classics
#32
Post rating: ~
As in, bertram russell level of bad
#33
el area metro
Post rating: ~
rand was p much bad at everything, including being a good communist
#34
penitent
Post rating: ~
if you care about anything, anything at all, you've already lost.
#35
Mike Nelson here.
Post rating: ~
discipline, if you got back into diapers then maybe we could attract insanedonut back

+1 member for the ol' rhizzone
#36
[account deactivated]
#37
Post rating: ~

Lykourgos posted:

crustpunk_trotsky posted:

Lykourgos posted:
What's an objectivist, again? It's been so long since hearing the term that all I remember is it has something to do with someone called ayn rand

as far as I can understand it means nothing has value or meaning beyond its face value

What do you mean by face value? I don't understand. or are you just making fun and saying it's a shallow ideology that fails to examine anything?



Rand held that existence is the perceptually self-evident fact at the base of all other knowledge, i.e., that "existence exists." She further held that to be is to be something, that "existence is identity." That is, to be is to be "an entity of a specific nature made of specific attributes." That which has no nature or attributes does not and cannot exist. The axiom of existence is grasped in differentiating something from nothing, while the law of identity is grasped in differentiating one thing from another, i.e., one's first awareness of the law of non-contradiction, another crucial base for the rest of knowledge. As Rand wrote, "A leaf ... cannot be all red and green at the same time, it cannot freeze and burn at the same time... A is A." Objectivism rejects belief in any thing alleged to transcend existence.

The form in which an organism perceives is determined by the physiology of its sensory systems. Whatever form the organism perceives it in, what it perceives—the object of perception—is reality. Rand consequently rejected the Kantian dichotomy between "things as we perceive them" and "things as they are in themselves."

my man mozi would shake his head at this nonsense

#38
Mike Nelson here.
Post rating: ~

discipline posted:
that cool I hope to not wear diapers for at least another 70 years tho

i'll take one for the team and start wearing them, if it helps the rhizzone.

#39
[account deactivated]
#40
Mike Nelson here.
Post rating: ~
*fires up cellphone camera*

here goes nothing