Actually, it’s not. What I was saying, that was maybe too subtle for you, is that you are a howling hypocrite. And boring to boot. You’re awful quick to jump on the troll wagon, but the only things you have contributed to this thread are:
Why don’t you post something that is more thoughtful than simplistic namecalling? (I did, in fact.)
OMG you’re such a troll.
I submit it’s better to be thought, or indeed just be a troll than to be a boring, condescending doofus like you.
Haha, no doubt which way? I’m compassionate, and polite to boot!
I just walked to the train and was disappointed that I could only find two homeless people to kick on the way (but I got one pretty close to the nuts, so that made up for it).
I’m not a shrink. I did casually throw out the phrase sociopath, and it does have a meaning. (Words have meaning, whodda thunk it). My armchair analysis is just that. The thoughts of a non-professional yakker. Do I think that Ayn Rand was a nutcase? Yes. Did she have ample cause to get there? Yes. That doesn’t change that she comes off as a bitter, self-obsessed crank who was not the sort of person I’d want to be around. A person can pick up her take on the world in one short viewing of The Fountainhead. George Lucas at his most hackneyed (Attack of the Clones) had more depth on the human condition. That she thought herself a serious philosopher on the level of Plato (whom I don’t agree with, but I find him fascinating) just shows the kind of delusions of grandeur typical to what I understand to be NPD. Her “philosophy” only adds to it.
Now I’m not a mental health professional by a long stretch. No ethical mental health professional would do what I’ve done here, but I’m not bound by those ethics.
Why does this shit always have to devolve into who bats for what team? Why am I supposed to give a shit about what Republicans or Democrats or Libertarians or who the fuck ever do more or less of in any situation? Why the fuck do you have to post this irrelevant bullshit all the time like every issue is a goddamned pissing match between your guys and the other guys?
However, Vinyl Turnip is usually good for a laugh.
I find your sneering, contrarian back-seat driving most tedious. Post some content, and “do it with a bit of fucking panache, a touch of vitriol, and some rhetorical flourish, blended with a dash of humor, and get busy entertaining the rest of us.”
Apparently some people think being conservative or republican means one is not compassionate.
Because missaprehensions need to be corrected.
This is my fourth post in this thread. I’m not the one spouting obscenities. If someone needs to let something go and return to normalville, it’s more likely you than me, based on the tone and quality of your posts.
I know one prosecutor. He’s a christian of the “I haven’t been to church in 20 years but I pray before every meal” variety. So no argument from me there.
I guess I’m just not a [[[[[[[HUGZ!]]]]]]] kinda poster.
This is a good example. If someone put all of their retirement savings into Enron stock, then I have absolutely no sympathy for them whatsoever. They took a risk because they thought they could get rich doing so, but they pulled the joker from the deck.
[/quote]
I assume you’ll chide the victim of identity theft who has just lost thousands of dollars because, after all, they could have chosen a bank with a more robust security department.
[/quote]
First, I realize you are just using elegant variation for rhetorical effect, but I don’t “chide” people. If the woman in the OP were my neighbor I wouldn’t see the moving truck pull up and be all “Bitch, that’s what happens when you rent, you shoulda seen it comin’!”
I’m sure people will post examples of my posts they think are directly contrary to the above, but I think they are wrong. I didnt’ chide anyone for rolling snake eyes, but I did chide a couple of folks for other offenses that occurred in the context of them bemoaning the snake eyes. There’s a difference.
Second, on the substance, this situation is very close to the line between what I’ve been calling a “business decision” and what we could maybe call “everyday ordinary decisions.” If someone banks at First Theft Incorporated located in Lagos, Nigeria, and the put every dollar they own there, then yeah, pretty stupid. But if someone chooses WaMu instead of BOA for their checking account, I’m not going to get on their case if they complain about identity theft.
I disagree. First, what does it really matter where I personally set my sympathy bar? Can’t people disagree about whether a particular case should evoke sympathy or not? I’ve piped up in threads to voice my disagreement with where others have set their sympathy bar. If other people disagree with where I’ve set mine, fine, doesn’t mean I’m heartless or have NPD or am a sociopath.
Second, everyone knows that if you rent a place then you may be required to move before the end of your lease for lots of different reasons. It just comes with the territory of occupying property instead of owning it. I don’t think that this fact is so elusive or difficult to understand that only MIT PhDs or tax lawyers or the proverbial rocket surgeon should be expected to understand it.
Do you disagree that your argument was logically fallacious? You said “RR, if you believe X you must believe Y.” Unless believing Y is a logical requirement of believing X, then it is absolutely not the case that I must believe Y if I believe X. You are the one that has to demonstrate that I believe Y if you assert it.
All I’m saying is that people are responsible for the outcomes in their life. I’m not saying that every person is 100% responsible for every single thing that happens in their life and so should never complain if something bad happens because it’s a result of their choices. That would be absurd.
If you get hit by a meteor, you are not responsible for it. If you have been unable to find a job for the last 20 years, you are responsible for it.
At first, I thought you were dull too. But then I realized you have unintentionally provided some mirth after all. You are challenging me to write something interesting myself. I wholeheartedly approve of being (at least in your opinion) hoist from my own petard, as it were.
But, you had to quote me to do it! Furthermore, your only post in this thread is in response to my post(s)!
Obviously, I have moved you out of your 95% lurker zone, and into your 4% poster zone. Even though it was just to exactly repeat what Vinyl Turnip already said, I am somewhat flattered that it was not outrage over the unceremonious ousting of a family from their home, nor indignation at the callous disregard of their pain by the the target of the O.P., but was indeed my own humble little request for a little bit of integrity and good old fashioned internet message board values that sparked your ire and broke you out of that shell of complacency. Thus, I submit that I have succeeded, in a small way, at meeting your challenge.
Plus I don’t actually give a shit what you think is funny. Oops!
Actually, that’s exactly what a sociopath is: someone who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience. You claim you have some, but that you don’t find it necessary to show it. Most people here seem to find that you claim to have some, but do not show it because you are lying to yourself: you have none. You have never, to the best of my knowledge, every shown a scrap of compassion, empathy or even understanding in any of your posts that I have read.
Your posts are continually refered to, but you brush them all off or try to explain them as innocuous or reasonable, but they are not. They are your own words; we are able to read them and understand you. You seem to be in denial, as was Rand herself. Good luck with that.
Bricker, I just posted this in the other thread and thought I would post it here.
Let’s say that a person engages in a business transaction where there is a risk of X happening. X is a reasonably foreseeable event. If X happens, I have no sympathy for the person if they are crying about it and saying “Oh no, X happened! Oh woe is me!” If the person has a legal or contractual right to recover from someone else for the damages caused by X, then of course they can pursue their available remedies, but I’m not going to feel bad for them or think that they’ve suffered something just because X happened.
Let’s say that a person walks outside their house and is immediately abducted by an alien. The aliens return the person after performing horrible experiments (the ass is involved, naturally).
I have sympathy for this person. The bad thing this person experienced was not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of their decision to leave their house. Also, the decision to leave their house isn’t a “business decision,” it’s an “everyday ordinary type of decision.”
So, it really just depends on what you consider “reasonably foreseeable”, right? Since this is largely subjective criteria, can you understand why people actually have sympathy for the woman described in the other thread?
Well, the “reasonable” part of “reasonably foreseeable” makes it an objective determination. “Reasonably foreseeable” is a legal concept. See here: Proximate cause - Wikipedia
But I guess one subjective element is what I consider a “business decision.” I’m not sure if I am able to articulate the line here any better than I have.
Finally, as I said above, I don’t see a problem with each individual setting their sympathy bar in different places. This is something that it’s OK for people to argue about.