Fair enough. I have plans but I’ll give it a look when I get back later.
-
The “overall impression” or “tone” of my posts is not something that exists on its own. You creatde it.
-
Glad you are reading Rand. Rand doesn’t ignore society at all–her books are about how people in a society do and should relate to each other. Also, your use of the word “generosity” above is rather odd.
-
I paid for law school through merit scholarships and student loans and working in the summers.
I didn’t lose any sleep over what you said. But your posts do seem notably lacking in empathy, and I’m sure other posters have made you aware that they perceive you as being condescending. You can choose to ignore that and continue posting in the same fashion, or you could take that fact into consideration and try to post in a way that gets your message across without antagonizing other people.
Most people derive satisfaction from having a job that benefits others, even if at the same time they’re making good money themselves. I don’t think a Tobacco Executive is truly as happy at the end of the day as a Doctor or Teacher, even though they make much less money than the executive. It’s that spirit of generosity that I’m talking about, even if it’s not 100% altruisitc.
Ok… so somebody was willing to give you free money at no benefit to themselves, when they could have chosen to hoard it for themselves, and as a result you benefited from this? Doesn’t Ayn Rand hate charity, and thought the weak should just perish?
[QUOTE=Blalron;10916733? Doesn’t Ayn Rand hate charity, and thought the weak should just perish?[/QUOTE]
No. She thought that charity was OK, so if someone wanted to do something charitable then good for them. She just didn’t think that anyone has an obligation to be charitable, and that forced charity is absolutely wrong.
She held it was the opposite of justice, and pity was something to avoid since it meant acknowledging another person as worthless. Society does indeed have weaklings, but while they’re to be tolerated, you should not distort society in order to pander to them.
Okay I read it from page 6. My soul died a little inside, but I did it. I saw so much hate from booth sides.
Rand dude, I gotta say some of the insults were pretty extreme on both sides, but I didn’t see any insults from Guin at that level of hate. Regardless you did get some strong negative zaps and it’s understandable how you might be fairly pissed.
The thing of it though is, and not understanding this is what gets you into this trouble.
Society has mores, attitudes, folkways, and cultural values. Your approach at presenting your view points walks all over the “don’t do this if you don’t want to be an ass” ones. Now you might disagree with these mores, and some of your views might violate them just for existing, but even the ones that run flagrantly against society’s grain can be presented in a way that doesn’t provoke such a strong near universal negative reaction.
Presentation can mean the difference between “well, dear old chap while I find your views interesting I’m afraid I must disagree. Would care for a spot of tea and some crumpets? No? Per chance some hookers and blow then? Righty-O” vs “I hate you! You’re a rat bastard! I want to drill out your eyes and piss on your brain stem while I kick your dog in the nuts! Then set fire to your whole village! You’re 10x worse then Hitler and Stalin have an orgy with a flock of goats!”
In other words you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. When presenting your views remember this. According Objecticism the results of failing to do so are your fault alone.
And shit works better still!
So they say, but flies evolved for shit. They eat, throw up, and fly away with shit. they actually get stick to the honey, and they might drown in the vinegar.
I guess it really depends on if you need to trap live or dead flies, or if just the fly’s stomach contents will meet your fly needs.
I implied no such thing. You erroneously inferred it.
Look again at what I actually said:
I didn’t offer any opinion one way or the other on the merits or shortcomings of Objectivism. My comment was focused solely on you, your vitriol, and your child. If you think you can be one person constantly filled with malicious contempt for human beings here and another warm and playful Dad in your real life with your daughter, you are kidding yourself.
Merit scholarships? Don’t think so. A Merit Scholarship is granted in high school and is for undergraduate work.
I was assuming he was using the lowercase “merit” to mean “A scholarship I earned due to academic merit”, not necessarily a National Merit Scholarship.
- Z, National Merit Scholarship finalist but not winner. =P
This is correct. In an interesting twist, I was also a national merit scholar and got scholarships for that in undergrad.
Zoe, your fears that I am such a ball of rage that I am a bad father can be put to rest–I assure you that is not the case.
National Merit Scholars would be aware that the designation “Merit Scholarship” is a federally registered service mark of National Merit Scholarship Corporation and cannot be used to describe other scholarships. Tsk Tsk. Lawyers shouldn’t be so careless with words.
Zeriel, I just now spotted this line. Speaking as a teacher, I certainly think you are very much a winner! You have every reason to take pride in that designation! (That’s one of the reasons I am such a guard dog about its use.)
Hey teach, I said “merit scholarship” not “Merit Scholarship.” And I was talking about how I financed law school, so even someone who is looking to be confused by what I said can’t reasonably interpret the former as the latter. You would think a teacher would notice other people’s use of words with more specificity.
I got pride but no cash, so meh. 
I surpassed my NMSQT score significantly when the actual SAT came around, which is where I used to get my academic pride.
Would that be an academic scholarship, or did you do something other than turn in outstanding academic performance to demonstrate your merit?
I did a one-man version of that “The Aristocrats” joke.
You mean you told it? All by yourself? No, that doesn’t make any sense; everybody tells it alone. You must have –
Oh my.
Backs away
Y’all have a nice day, now.
<SLAM!!!>
So it’s your professional legal opinion that “saying” – in this case writing – the words “merit scholarships” is not a violation of Federal corporate law because you did not capitalize the words? If you say it aloud, can you tell that it is not capitalized? You say you don’t do litigation?
The Federal law that applies is the Lanham Trademark Act of 1946 (15 U.S.C.A. § 1051 et. seq.). It doesn’t allow even similar service marks once a mark is granted protection.
I am not an attorney, but you should know this off the top of your head, oh Great Corporate Attorney!
It’s not that you have a great rage that would make you a poor father. It’s something else altogether. But I don’t believe much about your persona anyway. You might have been interesting if you had brought your real self here.
You are an exceedingly stupid person. I hope you teach no higher than pre-school. Your efforts to make me look stupid are only having the opposite effect.
-
There is no such thing as “federal corporate law.” The law you are talking about is trademark law.
-
I don’t know shit about the Lanham Trademark Act of 1946. However, what I would imagine it says is that a person cannot use a service mark owned by another person for a commercial purpose. There is no way in hell that that act or any other act has any application to a private citizen saying “merit scholarship” to refer to a scholarship given on the basis of merit (as opposed to one given on the basis of need or other non-merit factors).
-
Saying “merit scholarship” doesn’t even violate the spirit of the act or any animating principle of any U.S. body of laws. You are just being an idiot by thinking I was referring to a “National Merit Scholarship.” The fact that I was talking about law school would lead any non-idiot to believe that I couldn’t have been referring to a “National Merit Scholarship.”
-
I’m not a “Corporate Attorney,” much less a “Great” one. I’m a tax attorney.
-
You might have been interesting if you had an IQ higher than a snail fart.