Max has really disgusted me.

[Matt Harty]

Then don't come to this forum.

[ziggytrix]

i understood every one of 'em, and i think you're an unnecessarily verbose prick.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

http://www.i-mockery.net/viewtopic.p...er=asc&start=0

http://images.google.com/images?q=tb...furby-noir.jpg

[Protoclown]

One Size Fits All, just come back and read this thread again tomorrow and you will see where Burbank has once again made you his bitch.

[The One and Only...]

I'm not an Objectivist...

[mburbank]

I don't think that matters. Bitch wise I mean.

That being said, I'm quite certain if I made you 'my bitch' it was an unhappy accident.

I have nothing whatever against you thinking Objectivism is a philosiphy. It just means you have a broad deffinition of the word. My objection is that you seem to take it seriously. I may be wrong. If so, you ought to lend equal credence to other worthy philosiphers, like Gene Rodenberry, the guys who do the Chicken Soup for the Soul books and amoral darwinism as espoused by The Punisher.

"I never said that the air pollution thing proves that pollution is getting better, but the other information in the novel - as well as little evidence that suggests the contrary - should speak for itself, not to mention if you apply a little rationalism to the idea. "

You certainly implied it, in your "I'm the cutest li'l provacateur in the senior class!" way. But wait! Novel? Your little crap science factoid came from novel? And now we've whittled the original statement, that the ENVIRONMENT has been getting BETTER since the 1500's, to pollution is getting better (if you mean since the late ninteen-seventies in aggragate, I might even agree) and then to say there's 'little evidence to suggest the contrary' is sad. Simply because the author presents none is no reason... of for Christ's sake. Nuclear waste? The Exxon Valdiz? Love Canal? All the other Superfund sites? The collective auto emissions since the invention of the internal combustion engine? Mercury in fish? Bopal? All of these things are without paralell prior to a century ago. The only way you can get away with a statement like there is ' little evidence that suggests the contrary' is by being quite deliberately vague. 'oh, oh, by 'environment' all I ever really meant were records of coal usage over a portion of one city, that's all I ever said, and there's LITLLE EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY'.

[The One and Only...]

I don't understand why you shouldn't take Objectivism seriously. The truth of the matter is that the most rediculous thing about it is assuming that reality is material - which is the metaphysical concept of materialism (opposite of subjective idealism).

Egoism is hardly a concept of Rand. Example of historical hedonistic egoist: Epicurus, who followed in the footsteps of Aristippus.

I'm a freshman.

I was speaking of the environment as a whole, not in specifics. Is there any doubt that pollution has gone down since the Industrial Revolution?

[sspadowsky]

Gee. Never woulda guessed he was a freshman. 'Cause it's totally unlike a freshman to try and flash his supposed intellect by regurgitating the stuff he just learned so he can feel like he's actually applying it.

[mburbank]

When I said Senior I was guessing high school, so I'm hardly off at all.

If by your undefined use of the word 'pollution' you mean coal based emissions over the city of London as defined by it's Industrial Revolution borders, then yes, you are absolutely right. How about if I take an equally arbitrarilly undefined dfinition and say that by pollution, I mean radiocative waste, and instead of London, I use the world. I think then, yes, there is some doubt that pollution has gone down since the Industrial Revolution.

But let me be more reasonable. By any standard at all Ocean Water and Ground water are far more polluted now. Mt. Everest is far more polluted now. All of China, Russia and south America. All of the United states with the possible exceptions of New York, Lowell Mass and a few parts of Pensylvania. What in God's name are you basing this inane assumption on and what are you building into it? Per capita population? Pollutants per person as divided by anual income? What do you mean by the environment as a whole? The biosphere? We did some very nasty things during the Industrial revolution, but there were a lot less of us, and even then the bulk of the world population wasn't industrialized. In addition, we've learned since then many creative new ways to pollute. Chemical pesticides , Gasoline additives, jet fule, oil spills etc.

[The One and Only...]

Originally Posted by mburbank

When I said Senior I was guessing high school, so I'm hardly off at all.

I'm a high school freshman.

If by your undefined use of the word 'pollution' you mean coal based emissions over the city of London as defined by it's Industrial Revolution borders, then yes, you are absolutely right. How about if I take an equally arbitrarilly undefined dfinition and say that by pollution, I mean radiocative waste, and instead of London, I use the world. I think then, yes, there is some doubt that pollution has gone down since the Industrial Revolution.

By pollution, I mean the total amount of all harmful substances released into the environment by humans.

I do not see how such a belief could possibly continue.

What in God's name are you basing this inane assumption on and what are you building into it? Per capita population?

Precisely. Obviously greater population = greater pollution. My point is that it is not the fault of technology, since it is actually getting cleaner.

[mburbank]

Wow. A highschool Freshman. Does the Guiness book of records know about you? The very idea that a highschool freshman could be this arrogant.

I have to stop. For the very first time I have actually run into someone simply too young for me to beat up on. It's absolutely pathetic.

Listen to me. If this is true and not just some lie to make me feel ill, for the sake of your soul, change. Get some sunlight, date, go to the movies, anything. A highschool freshman should not know who Milton Friedman IS. A highscool freshman should giggle when he hears the word Laissez Faire because it's not only sort of dirty like Masticate and lake Titi Caka, it's sophisticated. Slow down. Relax. Take a deep breath. Be a kid, it's not going to last very much longer.

[Brandon]

Originally Posted by mburbank

Listen to me. If this is true and not just some lie to make me feel ill, for the sake of your soul, change. Get some sunlight, date, go to the movies, anything. A highschool freshman should not know who Milton Friedman IS. A highscool freshman should giggle when he hears the word Laissez Faire because it's not only sort of dirty like Masticate and lake Titi Caka, it's sophisticated. Slow down. Relax. Take a deep breath. Be a kid, it's not going to last very much longer.

Wonder if One Ring to Rule Them All has seen this thread:
http://www.i-mockery.net/viewtopic.php?t=8406

[Jeanette X]

Originally Posted by The One and Only...

I do not see how such a belief could possibly continue.

What a Vince thing to say. Just like "If you disagree with me, you are misinformed.", which is one of his pearls of wisdom.

[The One and Only...]

You are putting words in my mouth. All I said was that I DO NOT SEE how that belief could continue.

[Helm]

Now this thread has gone downhill again

[Dole]

Jesus that boy needs to get laid. Or beaten up. Probably both.

[Vibecrewangel]

Uh-huh Uh Huh-huh-huh Max said Titi Caka Uh-huh Uh Huh-huh-huh

[AChimp]

I knew grease monkeys in the power mechanics department when I was in high school who had more common sense than OAO, and these are people who enjoyed having sword fights with wrenches. Sad, sad, sad, sad.

[Command Prompt]

[AChimp]

I bet you were one of them, psych boy.

[Perndog]

Epicurus was not a hedonist. He defined pleasure as the avoidance of pain, and that's what he advocated, not wild indulgence.

Just thought I'd mention that.

[Helm]

That's what hedonism basically is, satan boy. Well, it's a bit more complicated than that, but he basically weighed out the pros and cons of any given indulgence, and social profit or lack thereof, was a big factor towards control. Hedonism as overindulgence in vice is a popular but mistaken application of the word. Much like how idealism is commonly and mistakenly used to protray as a characteristic, he who adheres to high-minded ideals, whereas idealism truly is an ontological philosophy adhering to the premise that there is an ideal, static world which we fail to fully comprehend, due to sensory limitation. In many ways opposite to materialism. But it's good enough that an american knows who Epicuros is, so I shouldn't complain.

[The One and Only...]

Actually, idealism is a very broad metaphysical view that holds that all reality is made up of ideas. Essentially, the view maintains that there is no matter, only the mind. It is the opposite of materialism because it maintains that there is no mind, only matter.

A good example of a subjective idealist would be Berkley.

[mburbank]

I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids.I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids.I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids.I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids.I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids.I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids.I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids.I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids.I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids.I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids.I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids.

[kellychaos]

OAO needs a time-out!