Ayn Rand's sudden increase in (internet) popularity?

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"][QUOTE="Teenaged"]You seem to think that one is gay only when they engage in homosexual activities.

That is not true.

The reason I point it out now and pointed out earlier is that due to this you are seeking for extraordinary evidence or at least evidence that isnt the only one that would render this case closed. Since someone can be gay without acting upon it, then we dont exclusively look at their sex lives for proof. Besides werent most saints celibate (not sure)? That alone makes the homosexual activities criterion invalid since even if they were, that criterion wouldnt reveal it to us.

Nonetheless that doesnt mean that lack of evidence of homosexual acts means there is no homosexuality in group a.

Teenaged

People herent arent trying to claim that they engaged in homosexual activities though, but that that some simple were homosexual (or that there is a chance some were homosexual).

What are you trying to argue then?

Snipes_2

Lol, He called it. Snipes_2

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"] I just stated that they can be attracted to men and still be a Priest as long as they don't condone or engage in Homosexual Activities. Snipes_2

People herent arent trying to claim that they engaged in homosexual activities though, but that that some simple were homosexual (or that there is a chance some were homosexual).

I simply emphasised that the possibility cant be denied.

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"] What are you trying to argue then?

HAHAITHINKNOT

Lol, He called it. Snipes_2

How can you say that since there is no proof of it? He said he would regret posting what he did.Snipes_2

Eh Snipes, not to pry, but why is it that you think that none of the saints could have been gay After all, being homosexual itself isn't considered sinful according to the Catholic church.

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]How can you say that since there is no proof of it? He said he would regret posting what he did.HAHAITHINKNOT

Eh Snipes, not to pry, but why is it that you think that none of the saints could have been gay After all, being homosexual itself isn't considered sinful according to the Catholic church.

coolbeans90

[QUOTE="HAHAITHINKNOT"][QUOTE="Snipes_2"]How can you say that since there is no proof of it? He said he would regret posting what he did.Snipes_2

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Eh Snipes, not to pry, but why is it that you think that none of the saints could have been gay After all, being homosexual itself isn't considered sinful according to the Catholic church.

Snipes_2

Fair enough.

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]How can you say that since there is no proof of it? He said he would regret posting what he did.HAHAITHINKNOT

[QUOTE="HAHAITHINKNOT"][QUOTE="Snipes_2"]How can you say that since there is no proof of it? He said he would regret posting what he did.StopThePresses

[QUOTE="StopThePresses"]

[QUOTE="HAHAITHINKNOT"]I can say that because I have proven that it is almost certainly true using basic probability, as I'm sure you know very well.HAHAITHINKNOT

http://sportige.com/top-10-oldest-players-nba-2009-2010/

[QUOTE="HAHAITHINKNOT"][QUOTE="StopThePresses"] By something similar to your logic, I could probably argue that there are certainly 80 year old players in the NBA, the key difference being that this is a claim easily disprovable by other means.

StopThePresses

http://sportige.com/top-10-oldest-players-nba-2009-2010/

HAHAITHINKNOT

StopThePresses

[QUOTE="StopThePresses"]

[QUOTE="HAHAITHINKNOT"]Go ahead.HAHAITHINKNOT

http://sportige.com/top-10-oldest-players-nba-2009-2010/

I think he was touching on the "disprovable" portion of that, but the argument itself is pretty simple:

1. There are 432 players in the NBA.

2. About 3% of the American population is 80 years of age or older.

3. Therefore, the chance that any given player in the NBA is 80 years of age or older is 3%.

4. 0.97^432 = 1.9 x 10^-6; therefore, the probability that all members of the NBA are less than 80 years of age is about 10^-6.

5. Therefore, it is almost certain that at least one member of the NBA is 80 years of age or older, as the chances that no one is 80 years of age or older is comparable to that of winning the lottery.

[QUOTE="HAHAITHINKNOT"]

[QUOTE="StopThePresses"] Uh, okay...

http://sportige.com/top-10-oldest-players-nba-2009-2010/

GabuEx

I think he was touching on the "disprovable" portion of that, but the argument itself is pretty simple:

1. There are 432 players in the NBA.

2. About 3% of the American population is 80 years of age or older.

3. Therefore, the chance that any given player in the NBA is 80 years of age or older is 3%.

4. 0.03^432 = 10^-658; therefore, the probability that all members of the NBA are less than 80 years of age is 10^-658.

5. Therefore, it is almost certain that at least one member of the NBA is 80 years of age or older.

Yes, I expected something along those lines - the article he gave instead was something of a surprise. It's a rubbish comparison, of course, because being 80 makes it almost certain that you won't be capable of being in the NBA, whereas being gay is little inhibitance to being a priest.

HAHAITHINKNOT

Well yes, but it remains the case that probabilistic arguments like that don't really work unless you can establish that your sample is representative of the population at large from which a percentage is derived.

(Also, I edited my post since I realized I messed up the math, but it doesn't affect the argument.)

[QUOTE="HAHAITHINKNOT"]

Yes, I expected something along those lines - the article he gave instead was something of a surprise. It's a rubbish comparison, of course, because being 80 makes it almost certain that you won't be capable of being in the NBA, whereas being gay is little inhibitance to being a priest.

GabuEx

Well yes, but it remains the case that probabilistic arguments like that don't really work unless you can establish that your sample is representative of the population at large from which a percentage is derived.

[QUOTE="HAHAITHINKNOT"]

Yes, I expected something along those lines - the article he gave instead was something of a surprise. It's a rubbish comparison, of course, because being 80 makes it almost certain that you won't be capable of being in the NBA, whereas being gay is little inhibitance to being a priest.

GabuEx

Well yes, but it remains the case that probabilistic arguments like that don't really work unless you can establish that your sample is representative of the population at large from which a percentage is derived.

(Also, I edited my post since I realized I messed up the math, but it doesn't affect the argument.)

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="HAHAITHINKNOT"]

Yes, I expected something along those lines - the article he gave instead was something of a surprise. It's a rubbish comparison, of course, because being 80 makes it almost certain that you won't be capable of being in the NBA, whereas being gay is little inhibitance to being a priest.

HAHAITHINKNOT

Well yes, but it remains the case that probabilistic arguments like that don't really work unless you can establish that your sample is representative of the population at large from which a percentage is derived.

(Also, I edited my post since I realized I messed up the math, but it doesn't affect the argument.)

100% to any power is still 100%; even if 50% of the population were over 80, the NBA is still sufficiently self-selecting that it wouldn't have any effect on anything. So at least you should make the argument for why the requirements for sainthood don't create the same effect.

Probably because of Bioshock, as several people have said. Regardless, I think Ayn Rand is an idiot.chessmaster1989

No, she's objectively an idiot.

I seriously detest objectivism, it basically consists of her taking her completely subjective viewpoint and calling it objective. The only thing that's completely objective about Rand is that she's full of ****.

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]Probably because of Bioshock, as several people have said. Regardless, I think Ayn Rand is an idiot.theone86

No, she's objectively an idiot.

I seriously detest objectivism, it basically consists of her taking her completely subjective viewpoint and calling it objective. The only thing that's completely objective about Rand is that she's full of ****.

Idiot=someone you disagree with. Ok.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]Probably because of Bioshock, as several people have said. Regardless, I think Ayn Rand is an idiot.QuistisTrepe_

No, she's objectively an idiot.

I seriously detest objectivism, it basically consists of her taking her completely subjective viewpoint and calling it objective. The only thing that's completely objective about Rand is that she's full of ****.

Idiot=someone you disagree with. Ok.

That's not what I said, but thanks for strawmanning me. You can always tell a Rand disciple.

[QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

[QUOTE="theone86"]

No, she's objectively an idiot.

I seriously detest objectivism, it basically consists of her taking her completely subjective viewpoint and calling it objective. The only thing that's completely objective about Rand is that she's full of ****.

theone86

Idiot=someone you disagree with. Ok.

That's not what I said, but thanks for strawmanning me. You can always tell a Rand disciple.

You hate what you can't define or comprehend. Interesting. I wonder why that is exactly?

I compare Ayn Rand to the other great sociopaths of our time. Like Charles Manson.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="bobaban"] So you think its fine to help the bum on the street that asks you for food money only to go spend it on booze? She has a point, some people aren't worthy of help.

bobaban

Your quarter isn't going to buy a pasychiatrist, shave, haircut, bath, food, and a permanent address. Know what it can easily go toward? Booze, to make the pain of being homeless go away.

I compare Ayn Rand to the other great sociopaths of our time. Like Charles Manson.

Pixel-Pirate

I'm not sure what bothers me more, the fact that you say that, or that you might actually mean that.

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

I compare Ayn Rand to the other great sociopaths of our time. Like Charles Manson.

QuistisTrepe_

I'm not sure what bothers me more, the fact that you say that, or that you might actually mean that.

A sociopath does not need to be a killer. She does seem to excel in one of the key symptoms. A lack of empathy toward others.

I suppose the main difference is Manson and his philosphy no longer harms people, where as Rands does.

I compare Ayn Rand to the other great sociopaths of our time. Like Charles Manson.

Pixel-Pirate

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

I compare Ayn Rand to the other great sociopaths of our time. Like Charles Manson.

StopThePresses

Ones experiences in life shape who they are, as does genetic factors.

At the very least, Rand was a narcissist.

[QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

I compare Ayn Rand to the other great sociopaths of our time. Like Charles Manson.

Pixel-Pirate

I'm not sure what bothers me more, the fact that you say that, or that you might actually mean that.

A sociopath does not need to be a killer. She does seem to excel in one of the key symptoms. A lack of empathy toward others.

I suppose the main difference is Manson and his philosphy no longer harms people, where as Rands does.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

Idiot=someone you disagree with. Ok.

QuistisTrepe_

That's not what I said, but thanks for strawmanning me. You can always tell a Rand disciple.

You hate what you can't define or comprehend. Interesting. I wonder why that is exactly?

Before he can understand Objectivism, he ought to learn what straw man means. I don't think he can distinguish a straw man from a snow man.

[QUOTE="StopThePresses"][QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

I compare Ayn Rand to the other great sociopaths of our time. Like Charles Manson.

Pixel-Pirate

Ones experiences in life shape who they are, as does genetic factors.

At the very least, Rand was a narcissist.

ITT, we get valuable input from professional behavioral specialists.

Why hello there!

[QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

[QUOTE="theone86"]

That's not what I said, but thanks for strawmanning me. You can always tell a Rand disciple.

MarcusAntonius

You hate what you can't define or comprehend. Interesting. I wonder why that is exactly?

Before he can understand Objectivism, he ought to learn what straw man means. I don't think he can distinguish a straw man from a snow man.

He was right in saying that QuistisTrepe was strawmanning him. QuistisTrepe clearly put words in his mouth.

[QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

[QUOTE="theone86"]

No, she's objectively an idiot.

I seriously detest objectivism, it basically consists of her taking her completely subjective viewpoint and calling it objective. The only thing that's completely objective about Rand is that she's full of ****.

theone86

Idiot=someone you disagree with. Ok.

That's not what I said, but thanks for strawmanning me. You can always tell a Rand disciple.

:lol:

[QUOTE="MarcusAntonius"]

[QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

You hate what you can't define or comprehend. Interesting. I wonder why that is exactly?

GreySeal9

Before he can understand Objectivism, he ought to learn what straw man means. I don't think he can distinguish a straw man from a snow man.

He was right in saying that QuistisTrepe was strawmanning him. QuistisTrepe clearly put words in his mouth.

Technically speaking, a straw man is an argument that attacks a position one's opponent does not actually hold and then declares the original argument to have been rebutted when it was not; it's not simply stating that someone holds such a position.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

Idiot=someone you disagree with. Ok.

QuistisTrepe_

That's not what I said, but thanks for strawmanning me. You can always tell a Rand disciple.

You hate what you can't define or comprehend. Interesting. I wonder why that is exactly?

Objectivism is pretty simplistic philosophy. I don't know why you think anybody has difficulty comprehending it.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="MarcusAntonius"]

Before he can understand Objectivism, he ought to learn what straw man means. I don't think he can distinguish a straw man from a snow man.

GabuEx

He was right in saying that QuistisTrepe was strawmanning him. QuistisTrepe clearly put words in his mouth.

Technically speaking, a straw man is an argument that attacks a position one's opponent does not actually hold and then declares the original argument to have been rebutted when it was not; it's not simply stating that someone holds such a position.

But he is attacking a posiition that theone doesn't hold.

theone said Rand is an idiot.

Quistis took issues with this and in argument against the notion that Rand is an idiot, he attacked the notion that "idiot=a person you don't agree with", basically supplying a reason for calling her an idiot where none was made.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

He was right in saying that QuistisTrepe was strawmanning him. QuistisTrepe clearly put words in his mouth.

GreySeal9

Technically speaking, a straw man is an argument that attacks a position one's opponent does not actually hold and then declares the original argument to have been rebutted when it was not; it's not simply stating that someone holds such a position.

But he is attacking an argument that theone doesn't hold.

theone said Ran is an idiot.

Quistis took issues with this and in argument against the notion that Rand is an idiot, he attacked the notion that "idiot=someone you don't agree with" even though theone didn't really elaborate on why she is an idiot.

That still isn't really a straw man. A straw man is never explicit; it always looks something like this:

Person A: "The federal government is in dire need of more money, and evidence indicates that we're on the left side of the Laffer Curve. It's a tough call, but I really think we should consider raising taxes."

Person B: "Well, person A might believe that causing America to suffer a huge economic downturn is acceptable, but I strongly believe that the American people think otherwise."

Person B made an implicit logical connection between raising taxes and causing an economic downturn and then attacked the proposition that the latter be enacted, which of course does not even address person A's argument at all, as person A does not believe raising taxes would cause an economic downturn. It's the implicit, tacit nature of that logical connection that is key to a straw man argument.

...Of course, I don't see why the understanding of this distinction is necessary for the understanding of Objectivism.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Technically speaking, a straw man is an argument that attacks a position one's opponent does not actually hold and then declares the original argument to have been rebutted when it was not; it's not simply stating that someone holds such a position.

GabuEx

But he is attacking an argument that theone doesn't hold.

theone said Ran is an idiot.

Quistis took issues with this and in argument against the notion that Rand is an idiot, he attacked the notion that "idiot=someone you don't agree with" even though theone didn't really elaborate on why she is an idiot.

That still isn't really a straw man. A straw man is never explicit; it always looks something like this:

Person A: "The federal government is in dire need of more money, and evidence indicates that we're on the left side of the Laffer Curve. It's a tough call, but I really think we should consider raising taxes."

Person B: "Well, person A might believe that causing America to suffer a huge economic downturn is acceptable, but I strongly believe that the American people think otherwise."

Person B made an implicit logical connection between raising taxes and causing an economic downturn and then attacked the proposition that the latter be enacted, which of course does not even address person A's argument at all, as person A does not believe raising taxes would cause an economic downturn. It's the implicit, tacit nature of that logical connection that is key to a straw man argument.

...Of course, I don't see why the understanding of this distinction is necessary for the understanding of Objectivism.

Yeah, I suppose you're right. At the very least, Quistis is putting words into theone's mouth.

Yeah, I suppose you're right. At the very least, Quistis is putting words into theone's mouth.

GreySeal9

Not disputing that, just being annoyingly pedantic about logical terminology.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Technically speaking, a straw man is an argument that attacks a position one's opponent does not actually hold and then declares the original argument to have been rebutted when it was not; it's not simply stating that someone holds such a position.

GabuEx

But he is attacking an argument that theone doesn't hold.

theone said Ran is an idiot.

Quistis took issues with this and in argument against the notion that Rand is an idiot, he attacked the notion that "idiot=someone you don't agree with" even though theone didn't really elaborate on why she is an idiot.

That still isn't really a straw man. A straw man is never explicit; it always looks something like this:

Person A: "The federal government is in dire need of more money, and evidence indicates that we're on the left side of the Laffer Curve. It's a tough call, but I really think we should consider raising taxes."

Person B: "Well, person A might believe that causing America to suffer a huge economic downturn is acceptable, but I strongly believe that the American people think otherwise."

Person B made an implicit logical connection between raising taxes and causing an economic downturn and then attacked the proposition that the latter be enacted, which of course does not even address person A's argument at all, as person A does not believe raising taxes would cause an economic downturn. It's the implicit, tacit nature of that logical connection that is key to a straw man argument.

...Of course, I don't see why the understanding of this distinction is necessary for the understanding of Objectivism.

It's not necessary for understanding Objectivism. Quistis just got really butthurt over theone's comments about Rand and decided to put words into his mouth, which looked like a strawman on the surface even if it isn't.

[QUOTE="MarcusAntonius"]

[QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

You hate what you can't define or comprehend. Interesting. I wonder why that is exactly?

GreySeal9

Before he can understand Objectivism, he ought to learn what straw man means. I don't think he can distinguish a straw man from a snow man.

He was right in saying that QuistisTrepe was strawmanning him. QuistisTrepe clearly put words in his mouth.

It only helped confirm what several other clues made me suspect.

I guess he'll have to start using some other account to spew out insults or do other stuff that might seem suspension-worthy.

It's somebody with poorly thought out ideals for people to follow blindly, nothing new.

Say what you want about her, she's completely right on the irrationality of religion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTmac2fs5HQ

I guess he'll have to start using some other account to spew out insults or do other stuff that might seem suspension-worthy.

StopThePresses

Oh, wow. Let the conspiracy theories begin. You don't think for one moment that it could just be a coincidence?