I pit Poverty and the current economic crisis

[Q.E.D]

@Rand_Rover

Empowering people to solve their own problems is a solution, whether you like it or not.

Of course it is. It’s a fantastic solution, immortalized in that old canard, “Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime.” But, if you think that’s what you’ve been doing here, you’re a complete idiot.

[Rand_Rover]

@Q.E.D

Of course it is. It’s a fantastic solution, immortalized in that old canard, “Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime.” But, if you think that’s what you’ve been doing here, you’re a complete idiot.

Hey dumbass, I was responding to Duke’s assertion that Objectivism and Libertarianism do not offer any solutions. Duke and I were not talking about my behavior in this thread in that part of my post.

[Q.E.D]

I know it’s a big, scary-looking word, but go ahead and look up “if.” You might learn something!

[brazil84]

I think the situation described in the OP is not analagous to the obesity/thyroid issue as follows:

If a normal person takes reasonable steps to get in shape, he or she will almost certainly succeed. On the other hand, it’s possible for an average person to take reasonable steps and still wind up unemployed or underemployed due to a weak economy.

And that can be extremely frustrating.

[kaylasdad99]

@Q.E.D

I know it’s a big, scary-looking word, but go ahead and look up “if.” You might learn something!

Maybe he should, Q.E.D.. And perhaps you might benefit by looking up the word “canard.”

[Rand_Rover]

@kaylasdad99

Maybe he should, Q.E.D.. And perhaps you might benefit by looking up the word “canard.”

Seriously. I gave him a pass on that one.

And QED, your use of “if” notwithstanding, you clearly implied that you were responding to some assertion of mine to the contrary.

[The_Tao_s_Revenge]

@Rand_Rover

You are wrong. It’s that simple.

:rolleyes:

[kaylasdad99]

@Rand Rover

And QED, your use of “if” notwithstanding, you clearly implied that you were responding to some assertion of mine to the contrary.

He might have been.

@Rand_Rover

Originally Posted by Manda JO
I think you are less effective towards others than you think–in fact, I think it’s a negative because even when you make valid points, you do it in such a way that a person has to destroy their own dignity and self-respect to listen to your advice, the first premise of which is “you are a lazy fucking piece of shit”. This works in boot camp because people can’t walk away, and you can destroy their egos and build them back up into the shape you want them to be. However, in the outside world people can and do walk away when their basic worth and dignity are attacked, and they reject everything associated with it–i.e., whatever good insights you may have. Furthermore, other people’s more moderated advice is also rejected because it is perceived as being part of an attack.

Did you read this whole thread? I think Blalron’s posts refute the above.

That looks a lot like an assertion to the contrary.

[Leaper]

Gah, never mind. Quote answered my question, and I was too dumb to see it.

[Q.E.D]

@kaylasdad99

Maybe he should, Q.E.D.. And perhaps you might benefit by looking up the word “canard.”

I blame alcohol. I can do that even if I wasn’t actually drinking, right?

[Duke]

@Rand_Rover

If I may similarly indulge in some internt psychoanalysis, I think you probably left Objectivism/libertarianism because you found religion in one form or another (e.g., Christianity, U.S. style liberalism, etc.). You basically got soft and think that people should be coddled instead of empowered.

Seeing as I’m an agnostic, I doubt it. As for “coddled,” I help people get a better life in my job. They stay in college and get good grades, I help them pay for it. Just as you’ve been telling people to do, but not actually doing anything about. That’s what I mean by “no solutions.”

[FarmerChick]

@EpiGirl

This thread was so nice at the beginning but then just really deteriorated quickly.

2 words, two lawyers.

[Dangerosa]

@Broomstick

Personally, I would have guessed “undertaker” and the never-out-of-employment job, but hey, garbage man works too.

The only things in life that are certain are death and taxes - so mortician or accountant are good bets for never being out of work.

Of course, taxes are being outsourced to India…

[Broomstick]

@Bricker

Riiight. Everyone but me gets it. And on a message board where everyone loves typing, you’d rather type four sentences explaining why you won’t lay it out explicitly than one sentence laying it out explicitly. Is that about the size of it?

I said several pages ago I was done with that particular argument. I have said my piece and if you’re too stupid to understand what I wrote, well, you should take responsibility for your lack of mental prowess. Perhaps by going back to college. Or learning to comprehend what you read.

[Rand_Rover]

@Duke

Seeing as I’m an agnostic, I doubt it. As for “coddled,” I help people get a better life in my job. They stay in college and get good grades, I help them pay for it. Just as you’ve been telling people to do, but not actually doing anything about. That’s what I mean by “no solutions.”

Right, Objectivism as a philosophy has no solutions because I am a tax lawyer instead of a college admissions counselor (or whatever you are). My job creates a better life for many more people than does yours.

[Bricker]

@Broomstick

I said several pages ago I was done with that particular argument. I have said my piece and if you’re too stupid to understand what I wrote, well, you should take responsibility for your lack of mental prowess. Perhaps by going back to college. Or learning to comprehend what you read.

Weren’t you the one who just excorticated Rand Rover for not “taking responsibility for your sloppy wording?”

You haven’t said anything. The only thing you’ve done is dodged the issue and refused to explicitly lay out what you’ve said.

The only thing I wonder, when I read tactics like yours, is what your thought process is. Do you seriously believe that stupid little distraction, concealing tactic like that actually work on anyone? I mean it – do you click “Submit” with a satisfied grin, thinkingto yourself, “There - people will be on my side after they read that! No one will figure it out.”

Or do you just not let yourself even think about the unpleasant truth that everyone who reads this thread knows what you’ve done here?

[Q.E.D]

@Rand_Rover

…I am a tax lawyer instead of a college admissions counselor (or whatever you are). My job creates a better life for many more people than does yours.

snicker giggle chuckle CHORTLE … snort Ba-ha! Hahaha! Baaahahahahaha! BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Oh, stop, you’re killing me!

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

[Heffalump_and_Roo]

@FarmerChick

2 words, two lawyers.

While it’s true that 2 people claiming to be lawyers have caused the trainwreck here, that’s unfair to all lawyers to characterize it so tersely. It’s not necessarily because they’re lawyers that this happened. It just so happens that they claim to be lawyers.

@Rand_Rover

I am a tax lawyer instead of a college admissions counselor (or whatever you are). My job creates a better life for many more people than does yours.

That’s Comedy Gold.* Second quote in the thread from you too.
*Thanks for pointing it out, Q.E.D.

[Q.E.D]

@Heffalump_and_Roo

While it’s true that 2 people claiming to be lawyers have caused the trainwreck here, that’s unfair to all lawyers to characterize it so tersely. It’s not necessarily because they’re lawyers that this happened. It just so happens that they claim to be lawyers.

I don’t know Rand Rover from a hole in the wall, but I’m reasonable satisfied that Bricker was once a practicing attorney. As far as I’m aware, however, he no longer practices.

[Broomstick]

@Rand_Rover

Right, Objectivism as a philosophy has no solutions because I am a tax lawyer instead of a college admissions counselor (or whatever you are). My job creates a better life for many more people than does yours.

So… you think people should go to college to better themselves, but you don’t see college admissions counselors as being useful towards that goal?

You know, if people didn’t fuck up on their taxes there wouldn’t be so much need for the likes of you - in other words, if people did want you wanted them to do, be responsible, you might well be out of a job. On the other hand, there will always be new college students coming in, either young folks or people returning to college.

You’re an arrogant shithead if you think being a taxlawyer is more useful to society than being a college admissions counselor.