Leaderboard

@ascfgdxz - - - 22.09.2018 - - - Howdy 'tickety-doorbell enthusiast' (voter without merit), Yes, people who agree with the op are terrible for that... well, according to your perspective... good thing is, you've got no tickety-clue whatsoever what happened here and I don't think I'm inclined to share with cowards. Tie a knot on that, 'arrow person'

- - - 22.09.2018 - - - Howdy 'tickety-doorbell enthusiast' (voter without merit), Yes, people who agree with the op are terrible for that... well, according to your perspective... good thing is, you've got no tickety-clue whatsoever what happened here and I don't think I'm inclined to share with cowards. Tie a knot on that, 'arrow person'

Are you sure? (I know you are wrong but it doesn't matter unless you take your accusations to the test of reason & evidence... me thinks. Or not. That's been always an available option for you. Even now.) I mean, you could have spent those votes for the last month or so on other stuff... or could have made at least one reasoned argument with some proof at least. You haven't made any here neither. Right? Would you like to speak of the things you think are proof for you? . - - - 19.09.2018 - - - Howdy 'tickety-doorbell enthusiast' (voter without merit), Thanks, I was hoping to highlight that not making any arguments but voting is cowardly. (your choice, it has been...)

Hi, Can you objectively prove that? (1&2) ps. - Additionally, from what I've seen btw, 'EQ' is floccinaucinihilipilification. 'Unicorn stuff' in other words. - - - 19.09.2018 - - - Howdy 'tickety-doorbell enthusiast' (voter without merit), Here, let me counter your 'sophisticated argument' with an equally 'sophisticated rebuttal'...(presses 'F')... nailed it!

I know I still owe you this one and the free will discussion from the PMs and a couple more (to mention a few, as accurately as possible, you can find my rebuttals to each in the PM-s, feel free to copy&paste if you'd like. After you, I'm also ok with switching from private to public discussion... You put forward in your pm-s: ° groups aren't an arbitrarily created mental concept ° group preference over individuals' ° UPB isn't the same for everyone ° From a strictly Objectivist POV rational self-interest would include "influencing" others using EQ ° people's shared sense of empathy equity, therefore people know what the general outline of morality is ° God/s can't be proven/disproven ° Stefan's book on UPB is a modified clone of Objectivism w/o the state ° The morality of Objectivism is based around being a rational individual dedicated to productive values. ° Stefan can't acknowledge a role for EQ due to his objectivist cognitive dissonance that dictates that facts always trump emotion even when it comes to persuasion. ° facts don't trump emotions (according to your assertion, this is also 'as we all know') ° ('blankety' assertion) We are irrational creatures led by emotion not reason and that has implications. ° it's hard not to be a relativist ° The human brain isn't designed to process dualities like this (black/white school performance, reasons are racial & environmental) it's designed around consistency. ° race is the cause of a (me - don't know what kind of) discrepancy in feelings among/between individuals ° Whether or not the influencing can be classified as manipulation or objective caring would depend on whether the outcome benefits both parties or just the persuader. ° That me... unmistakably female, no doubt. (not like 'perhaps' or 'most likely') ... etc. and several more(imo 'standard' projections) , but they are accusations without any credible base (plus I don't take them seriously), so don't see them of value here. For now. If you think I wrote something inaccurately, I'm always happy to quote segments from the back&forth. Or don't mind you doing the same. Annnd... how is this different from manipulation? (sounds insincere approach, utilitarian) Now I must ask you for a definition of 'manipulation'. Would you give me a definition? "Emotional judgement" - did you just labeled my assertion without proof? The question is why would you not bow here before the reasoned argument I had put forward? Is it because you think manipulation is a positive for you? As in: That it's a good thing in general to manipulate people, unbeknownst to them, to get what you want? This looks to me another 'blanket assessment'... don't get me wrong, I know it's true for a certain part of the population. The problem is (I think), that if you keep normalising it, it'll become (or perhaps is) your modus operandi and that includes not making (or trying) rational arguments... Like, declaring what you will find even before you got going. That's... I can't quite find the right word for it... maybe 'ideologue' ? (You know, the people who are only interested in their own opinion, at the same time being controlled by the very same idea(s) Not everyone who disagrees with you does so out of cognitive dissonance. Some do, no doubt about it. People who are willing to make/bow before superior arguments for example are not ideologues. They enact free-will. However if you are presented with superior arguments and you do not review your convictions... (the list above I think would be a great starting point perhaps) Why do you think we aren't born with free-will to start with? Can you objectively prove that? This is not an argument because it lacks proof and therefore can't be evaluated. If it's an opinion, sure. Can be. On a second note (after having said 6+ times), I think it would be a great idea to do some research into the validity of EQ, or use the right words, definition... so far, from what I quoted above, your definition is indistinguishable from the capacity of manipulation. Not good. That terrible actually, in my humble opinion. As an individual thinker and a strong advocate for UPB, I highly disagree with 'we must'. You can't outgun people if you want them to freely choose to follow superior arguments... no I'm strongly against coercion. The natural consequences of one's poor decision should be more than enough incentive for one to re-evaluate. After that, it's really just a binary outcome. Interestingly, I also think that this process is most certainly diminished by manipulation at any rate. (resentment, pick-axe to trust, double standards) No misunderstanding here at all. If you're a long time listener you should realize that the criticism Stefan applied to Ayn Rand's body of work was accurate but also that it applies to Stefan's collective body of work thus far to the same extent (objectivism does not account for emotions first, reason second). Human irrationality is an objective fact; ignoring it comes at a price. Being aware that these facts exists is one thing but fully internalizing these facts into your mindset is another.  (more 'blankety-claims'... very inaccurate at several levels; body of work(2), same extent, these facts(2) Do you know what the subtitle of UPB is? ps. - If you won't change your mind on 'people are irrational', most likely our discussion will need to come to an end. Until you've re-assessed a few important axioms(generally to acknowledge the existence of free-will, determinism is a dead-end, literally). I'm putting this forward as my preference and as an argument for the mere foundation of the possibility to having a dialogue with any value in it. . - - - 19.09.2018 - - - Howdy 'tickety-doorbell enthusiast' (voter without merit), Here, let me counter your 'sophisticated argument' with an equally 'sophisticated rebuttal'...(presses 'F')... nailed it!