The Atlas Shrugged sequence is actually happening
- Thread starter brettman9
- Start date
I believe the translation is something about sticking your finger up a person's bum, so, yes, Gringo, looks like it is indeed self-fulfilling.
The good news: You have verified that you can communicate in Portuguese! I have to say, living in Brazil one would hope. Anyway, thatâs 2 languages down and 10 to go!
The bad news: the translation now moves the Yellow alert on your Claim #7 up to a Redish-Yellow alert.
A search of Gringinho and Brazil shows your claim of selling a videoconferencing company during the dot com bust. Is this your definition of proof â some old ET post with a partial version of what you claim now? Give us a break.
Status of The Brazilian Pretzelâs claimed accomplishments:
1) Fluent in 8 languages and 'ok' in 4 languages and numerous programming languages. Bullshit detector: Red alert. 2 down 10 to go.
2) #1 in his university class. Bullshit detector: Red alert.
3) #1 in his military conscription class. Bullshit detector: Red alert.
4) Founded and sold 5 companies in 3 years. Bullshit detector: Brighter Red alert.
5) Instructor/chairman of several martial arts clubs: Bullshit detector: Red alert.
6) Able to delude himself into thinking that A=A and at the same time A=not A. Bullshit detector: Red alert. No one really believes this.
7) Claims he is not ghey. Bullshit detector: Redish-Yellow. If you say so, but methinks thou dost protest too much.
8) Spent "two decades" debating arcana on message boards. Bullshit detector: Green.
ScottD,
hehe - I'm more interested in talking about Objectivism than anything else...
I think Objectivism is authoritarian and aggressive - and I think there are psychological reasons for the natural appeal of Objectivism to many young people "coming into age" and wanting to "be the rulers" by using "strong logics" to shape their lives and surroundings.
Also, YOU were the one who regressed into personal attacks on page 7 of this thread and started this snowball...
I think it's because you really do not know Objectivism that well, also I think that you have shown little insight to her theories.
You seem FAR more interested in me as a person than Objectivism - and I find that unsettling.
Oh, and in 2004 I wasn't exactly fluent in Portuguese - I really started learning to write better in 2006 and became fluent in 2007.
hehe - I'm more interested in talking about Objectivism than anything else...
I think Objectivism is authoritarian and aggressive - and I think there are psychological reasons for the natural appeal of Objectivism to many young people "coming into age" and wanting to "be the rulers" by using "strong logics" to shape their lives and surroundings.
Also, YOU were the one who regressed into personal attacks on page 7 of this thread and started this snowball...
I think it's because you really do not know Objectivism that well, also I think that you have shown little insight to her theories.
You seem FAR more interested in me as a person than Objectivism - and I find that unsettling.
Oh, and in 2004 I wasn't exactly fluent in Portuguese - I really started learning to write better in 2006 and became fluent in 2007.
ScottD, I just responded to your personal attacks. Sure, you know a lot more about me - while we know nothing about you. I guess that is because there's little significance to be shown from your life. If you tell us about you - I've already promised that I won't attack you on that. You called me poor and a computer science nerd - I responded by showing that you were wrong. I know that I can't prove to you what you want to see ... but at least I can defend myself against your personal attacks. My responses to your attacks pertain to your understanding of Objectivism, logics and philosophy...
I am able to show that I can think for myself, and accomplish things in my life - i.e my life stance and philosophy WORKS. I think Objectivism has led to little positive in your life - at least that is how it seems to be.
Throughout my career and life - I have developed my views and reasoning. It has gotten me pretty far - literally. I am type of person who DOES things to get it working efficiently and improving my life, that also enables me to help others. I think you are too heavily invested in your worshipping of Ayn Rand, and seek "protection in numbers" by joining a cult that uses strong logic throughout - so that you are not standing weak and alone - because you in fact have little to contribute.
In my thinking, I would let anyone have their line of thinking, but I would never let them try to force their system on me. What I am showing here in this thread is how you cult-followers of Ayn Rand are in fact obsessed with a philosophy that aggressively tries to indoctrinate and force their view onto your surroundings. That is not something I think is a correct or sustainable model for society. As long as you keep things consensual and show respect for individuality, you can think what you like. The danger lies in your radical attitude and fanaticism for the Objectivism to "rule the world".
You can try and use logics to attack my line of thinking, but instead you are incessant in personal attacks - and that simply will get you nowhere. I have enough experience to not buckle under personal attacks - you can see long flamewars here on ET for that too. I never give in to personal attacks - because I know what I have accomplished and stand for. As you can also see, I have no problems defending myself - in real life or here on ET.
Seemingly, you are not equipped to defend yourself or your way of thinking here on ET... and that is telling for real life.
It also makes for my point of you "seeking refuge" in Objectivsm. You adopt their thinking and fail to evolve personally.
Gringo, I'll type very slowly because you have missed it a few times now.
1) There is no possible good that can come from debating someone who believes that A=A and A=non A at the same time. It's pointless because a fundamental intellectual honesty is not there and/or the person has gotten himself so deluded there is no hope.
2) You made personal claims of accomplishment to give yourself credibility. Credibility that you knew you would need for anyone to entertain your bizarre views. No one else felt a need to take this step. Your accomplishments should be things that you know for a fact, and if true, should be easy to validate. If you can't validate your wild claims, then it calls into question your honesty in other matters. Why would anyone want to engage a bullshitter in a philosophical discussion? What possible good could come from that? When you wrestle with pigs you get dirty...and they like it.
3) I'm not that motivated to spend a lot of time for you to see things in a clearer light. On the other hand, you seem to be very motivated for people to see things your way....having spent two decades doing so on message boards.
It's nice that you are eager to debate, but for these reasons it is utterly pointless.
Looks like it's time to pull the rip cord on our mano-a-mano here as the marginal returns have run slim. Bigger fish to fry and all that.
If you ever validate your claims (founded and sold 5 companies in 3 years, etc), I'll come back to say 'Parabens maluco mae desgracado.' But I think we both know that ain't ever gonna happen.
1) There is no possible good that can come from debating someone who believes that A=A and A=non A at the same time. It's pointless because a fundamental intellectual honesty is not there and/or the person has gotten himself so deluded there is no hope.
2) You made personal claims of accomplishment to give yourself credibility. Credibility that you knew you would need for anyone to entertain your bizarre views. No one else felt a need to take this step. Your accomplishments should be things that you know for a fact, and if true, should be easy to validate. If you can't validate your wild claims, then it calls into question your honesty in other matters. Why would anyone want to engage a bullshitter in a philosophical discussion? What possible good could come from that? When you wrestle with pigs you get dirty...and they like it.
3) I'm not that motivated to spend a lot of time for you to see things in a clearer light. On the other hand, you seem to be very motivated for people to see things your way....having spent two decades doing so on message boards.
It's nice that you are eager to debate, but for these reasons it is utterly pointless.
Looks like it's time to pull the rip cord on our mano-a-mano here as the marginal returns have run slim. Bigger fish to fry and all that.
If you ever validate your claims (founded and sold 5 companies in 3 years, etc), I'll come back to say 'Parabens maluco mae desgracado.' But I think we both know that ain't ever gonna happen.
ScottD,
your Portuguese leaves something to be desired, I guess Google Translate hasn't perfected profanity yet...
I already said that I am not going to prove to you anything from real life. However, I am showing my capabilities - and you are showing the lack of yours. I think that gives me more credibility in this setting than you are. Just by omitting anything about defending your views, or anything relevant to your "personal successes" - I think it shows who YOU are. I am certainly not incapable of referring to the benefits of my thinking. Also, I showed how A=A is not a universally absolute truth - e.g paraconsistent logic. I don't go around applying that to my reality here, but acknowledge the existence of paraconsistent logic as a system to englobe something like that - contradictions.
Too bad you are limited to propositional logic, but you never showed that you understand anything but the simplest of reasoning anyway.
I think it's apparent that I know a LOT more about logic than you do...
Happy hunting. You seem like a winner...
your Portuguese leaves something to be desired, I guess Google Translate hasn't perfected profanity yet...
I already said that I am not going to prove to you anything from real life. However, I am showing my capabilities - and you are showing the lack of yours. I think that gives me more credibility in this setting than you are. Just by omitting anything about defending your views, or anything relevant to your "personal successes" - I think it shows who YOU are. I am certainly not incapable of referring to the benefits of my thinking. Also, I showed how A=A is not a universally absolute truth - e.g paraconsistent logic. I don't go around applying that to my reality here, but acknowledge the existence of paraconsistent logic as a system to englobe something like that - contradictions.
Too bad you are limited to propositional logic, but you never showed that you understand anything but the simplest of reasoning anyway.
I think it's apparent that I know a LOT more about logic than you do...
Happy hunting. You seem like a winner...
Great thread guys.
I stand by Scott's assessment.
I stand by Scott's assessment.
In the book, middle of page number 23, James Taggart stipulates:
"Nothing is absolute"
Definitely.
Gringinho as James Taggart.
"Nothing is absolute"
Definitely.
Gringinho as James Taggart.