Religious States Are More Charitable

[TAO]

so·ci·o·path

a person with a psychopathic personality whose behavior is antisocial, often criminal, and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.

Of course, but that doesn't make them objectively wrong.

I consider someone like this objectively wrong and broken and have no desire to live in a world where judging sociopaths as wrong is a subjective judgment.

Well then that's your choice. But then you must remember; you justify them in making the judgement that you are objectively wrong, in turn. That's why I prefer to avoid the word 'objective'. 'I think you are wrong' is fine, but 'you are wrong and there is no logical way to defend yourself' just goes too far imho.

[The Nehor]

Of course, but that doesn't make them objectively wrong.

Yes it does.

Well then that's your choice. But then you must remember; you justify them in making the judgement that you are objectively wrong, in turn. That's why I prefer to avoid the word 'objective'. 'I think you are wrong' is fine, but 'you are wrong and there is no logical way to defend yourself' just goes too far imho.

I don't believe in the rules of fair play once insanity enters into it.

A sociopath denies that others have value except as tools for their own use or pleasure. Make no mistake. That is Ayn Rand's philosophy. I refuse to argue based on those premises. The person making such an argument needs to be talking to a therapist (at best) or committed to an institution (at worst). People certainly shouldn't be discussing what they are saying as some kind of important contribution to discussion. That they do means they do not understand what is being said, want to use what is said as a tool but don't completely agree, or are sociopaths themselves.

[Deborah]

Nehor, that is not Rand's philosophy.

[TAO]

Yes it does.

Okay, prove to me how it makes it objectively wrong. I'm looking for you to prove the key word - objective. That means nobody should disagree with it.

I don't believe in the rules of fair play once insanity enters into it.

Well, I'm sure they can consider you just as insane as you consider them. Does that give them credit to discount your position?

A sociopath denies that others have value except as tools for their own use or pleasure.

Well then we are all partly sociopaths, I hate to tell you. We use other people as tools all the time. We get used as tools. And oftentimes, we enjoy it (both ways). A tool is just something you use to get another thing done. What you are talking about is not being emotionally attached to your tools, and I'm not sure Rand would qualify as such. Either way though, that doesn't dismiss her ideas.

Make no mistake. That is Ayn Rand's philosophy. I refuse to argue based on those premises. The person making such an argument needs to be talking to a therapist (at best) or committed to an institution (at worst).

And would you be okay if Ayn Rand said you need to talk to a therapist or be stuck in an institution for not being what you call a 'sociopath'? Would that dismiss what you are saying?

People certainly shouldn't be discussing what they are saying as some kind of important contribution to discussion.

And what if Ayn Rand said the same thing about your opinion. That's a futile argument. Both of you would just be stuck there not listening to each other, and attempting to stick each other in asylums. I think it'd be better if you tried to argue why you disagree with her philosophy, and just ignored the insanity claim.

That they do means they do not understand what is being said, want to use what is said as a tool but don't completely agree, or are sociopaths themselves.

I've never read Ayn Rand. But I am pretty sure I understand what is being said. I don't really agree with her on very much at all. And I'm certainly not a sociopath according to the usually used definition. But I still think you are condemning her too quickly. Just as I'd disagree with her if she condemned you in the same way.

[The Nehor]

Okay, prove to me how it makes it objectively wrong. I'm looking for you to prove the key word - objective. That means nobody should disagree with it.

I'm not playing that game. The world is objectively round but we still have flat-earthers.

Well, I'm sure they can consider you just as insane as you consider them. Does that give them credit to discount your position?

No, because I'm not insane.

Well then we are all partly sociopaths, I hate to tell you. We use other people as tools all the time. We get used as tools. And oftentimes, we enjoy it (both ways). A tool is just something you use to get another thing done. What you are talking about is not being emotionally attached to your tools, and I'm not sure Rand would qualify as such. Either way though, that doesn't dismiss her ideas.

Yes it does. Sociopathic ideas MUST and SHOULD be discounted on the basis of them being sociopathic.

And would you be okay if Ayn Rand said you need to talk to a therapist or be stuck in an institution for not being what you call a 'sociopath'? Would that dismiss what you are saying?

I'm not playing this false equivalency game. Suppose I say that the moon is made of rock and some looney insists it is made of cheese garnished with pimentos and I dismiss them as insane. They most certainly can dismiss me as insane but I am still right and they are wrong. There is no sense in pretending that we are on a level playing field.

And what if Ayn Rand said the same thing about your opinion. That's a futile argument. Both of you would just be stuck there not listening to each other, and attempting to stick each other in asylums. I think it'd be better if you tried to argue why you disagree with her philosophy, and just ignored the insanity claim.

I disagree with her philosophy because it is sociopathic, selfish, and self-absorbed. It denies love except inasmuch as it is "earned". Love is "earned" in Ayn Rand's opinion by being self-absorbed douchebag that happens to make money. Short version: I disagree with her because she is a sociopath and her ideas are sociopathic.

I've never read Ayn Rand. But I am pretty sure I understand what is being said. I don't really agree with her on very much at all. And I'm certainly not a sociopath according to the usually used definition. But I still think you are condemning her too quickly. Just as I'd disagree with her if she condemned you in the same way.

What exactly do I have to do to condemn he non-quickly? Read all her books again? Study with one of those Objectivist think-tanks? Live her philosophy my whole life and realize it is hollow and wrong? Again, not playing this false equivalency game where we are on equal footing to "be fair". I am not using prejudice here. I've read her works and studied her life. I'm judging after I got the facts. She was abhorrent and (more importantly) her ideas were and still are morally abhorrent.

This thread is about politics.

[TAO]

Nehor, I'll respond via PM (that way I don't clog the thread up).