Ayn Rand's Fallacy of Retortion
  Home FAQ Contact Sign in
alt.philosophy only
 
Advanced search
POPULAR GROUPS

more...

alt.philosophy Profile…
 Up
Ayn Rand's Fallacy of Retortion         


Author: Malrassic Park
Date: Jan 28, 2008 15:22

9 Comments
Re: Ayn Rand's Fallacy of Retortion         


Author: Michael Gordge
Date: Jan 28, 2008 22:41

On Jan 29, 8:22 am, Malrassic Park hotmail.com> wrote:

But of course he didn't want to talk about the more obvious retortions
to show a person their contradictions. e.g. the total rejection of the
law of identity.

"The only thing I am certain of is uncertainty"

So he has no certain meaning for anything let alone for certain, a
chattering gorilla in other words.

Or

To deny there are no contradictions in reality, requires one to
embrace the principle to deny it.

Or

To deny existence requires a contradiction, one first has to
acknowledge some thing exists to deny.

But I'm not at all surprised to see you surrounding yourself with
Randaphobic brain dead Kantian idiots Melon.

Michael Gordge
no comments
Re: Ayn Rand's Fallacy of Retortion         


Author: Malrassic Park
Date: Jan 29, 2008 11:17

On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 22:41:34 -0800 (PST), Michael Gordge
xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>On Jan 29, 8:22 am, Malrassic Park hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> http://ww...
>
>But of course he didn't want to talk about the more obvious retortions
>to show a person their contradictions. e.g. the total rejection of the
>law of identity.
>
>"The only thing I am certain of is uncertainty"

That is not a quote from anthonyflood.com, and I am not interested in
debating with the voices in your head.
Show full article (1.00Kb)
no comments
Re: Ayn Rand's Fallacy of Retortion         


Author: Michael Gordge
Date: Jan 29, 2008 12:42

On Jan 29, 8:22 am, Malrassic Park hotmail.com> wrote:

Oh so Melon wants a quote from Flood.

"Rand's curt dismissal of her anti-sensist critics begged the question
of the role of sensation in knowledge and thereby rendered her guilty
of "theory-stealing" and of abandoning rigorous argumentation for the
pleasures of dogmatic assertion."

Hey Melon, how the fuck does dismissing the cannibalized mind beg any
question?

This fucking Anthony Flood twat can not even work out, in his own dumb
numb cannibalised mind, that in order to condemn Rand, her work has to
"exist" for him to read, to SENSE, reason (thats the step the idiot
missed) and condemn (thats the bit he's whimmed true).

Fancy trying to condemn Rand because she curtly dismissed the cause of
mystical bullshit, because she dismissed the ideas giving rise to jets
being slammed into sky-scrapers, because she dismissed cannibalising
the mind as a means to knowledge.

Flood, the envy ridden leftist mystical idiot, condemns Rand because
she curtly dismissed the epistemology of faith.
Show full article (1.57Kb)
no comments
Re: Ayn Rand's Fallacy of Retortion         


Author: Michael Gordge
Date: Jan 29, 2008 21:17

On Jan 30, 11:04 am, Malrassic Park hotmail.com> wrote:
> To put
> Anthony Flood's argument in my own words,

Which you can do but I cant? FFS your Nazi arrogance has no bounds.
> Ayn Rand used the
> rationalization that the validity of the senses has to be utilized in
> the very attempt to destroy it in order to justify offering no
> argument in favor of validity of the senses.

Oh utter crap, not even close to what he DID say, use his fucking
words Melon, not what you are dreaming and wishing he said.

His argument is made very very clear in this:

"Rand's curt dismissal of her anti-sensist critics begged the question
of the role of sensation in knowledge"

Which begs the obvious retortion:

How the fuck could dopey Flood even condemn Ranb's curtness of the
dopey anti-sensists, (i.e. the pro-senseless knowledge clowns -
Kantians) if he had not first sensed (read and or heard) some thing
Rand had said to condemn?

You used your words, soo my words are;
Show full article (1.75Kb)
no comments
Re: Ayn Rand's Fallacy of Retortion         


Author: Michael Gordge
Date: Jan 30, 2008 00:57

On Jan 30, 4:17 am, Malrassic Park hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> That is not a quote from anthonyflood.com, and I am not interested in
> debating with the voices in your head.

Hey dopey, I didn't even suggest, let alone say that it was a quote of
your new higher authority Randaphobic pro-senseless Kantain moron.

I gave those retortions as an example, (thats what e.g. means), of the
more obvious retortions that your higher authority didn't talk about.

Here's another retortion for ewes Kantians:

"The anti-sensist = The pro-senseless."

Now come on Melon, help your higher authority out here, and let's hear
your version of the "rigorous argumentation" (you wanted a Flood
quote) you Kantians have for the anti-sensist therefore the pro-
senseless.

Hint; Kant's version of space being, the thing that is left behind
after all of the things have been removed, will go down well with the
sheeple as an example that keeps the "pro-senseless knowledge" Kantain
people busy.

MG
no comments
Re: Ayn Rand's Fallacy of Retortion         


Author: Malrassic Park
Date: Jan 31, 2008 14:00

On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 00:28:52 -0800 (PST), Michael Gordge
xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>On Jan 31, 8:57 am, Malrassic Park hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> There is always rigorous argument possible,
>
>HOW the fuck do you present "a rigorous argumentation" to an entity
>which, by defintion, is, deaf blind nose pegged, no hands no skin no
>nerve endings what so ever?

Sounds like a personal problem.
>You might consider it a good idea to do anything but treat such
>idiotic fuckwits as those who in REALITY can only pretend they are
>*anti-sensist*, with nothing but curtness to be extremely polite, but
>you and Flood would be all on your own I reckon.
>
>The ONLY reason why Flood was fucked off with Rand, is because Kantian
>epsitemology is utterly totally impotent without man just accepting
>that his knowledge begins in his mind.
Show full article (0.93Kb)
no comments
Re: Ayn Rand's Fallacy of Retortion         


Author: Malrassic Park
Date: Jan 31, 2008 14:01

On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 00:31:17 -0800 (PST), Michael Gordge
xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>On Jan 31, 8:48 am, Malrassic Park hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Her argument pro-sense amounts to the
>> reification of the zero by the zero.
>
>Only to the Kantian who so desperately need parts of the knowledge to
>begin without sense, the pro-senseless, poor sods. Hows god?

How's your goddess Ayn Rand?
no comments
Re: Ayn Rand's Fallacy of Retortion         


Author: Michael Gordge
Date: Jan 31, 2008 14:11

On Feb 1, 7:00 am, Malrassic Park hotmail.com> wrote:
>>HOW the fuck do you present "a rigorous argumentation" to an entity
>>which, by defintion, is, deaf blind nose pegged, no hands no skin no
>>nerve endings what so ever?
>
> Sounds like a personal problem.

Indeed, hence Rand's polite retort of curtness to the pro-senseless.

MG
no comments
Re: Ayn Rand's Fallacy of Retortion         


Author: Michael Gordge
Date: Jan 31, 2008 14:13

On Feb 1, 7:01 am, Malrassic Park hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> How's your goddess Ayn Rand?

Do a google, and if you can prove I have used her name and think of
her more more than you obviously have and do, then I have $100 to a
charity of chazzzz'zzzz choice. Thats a joke btw.

MG
no comments