"Okay, listen up. We got attacked by terrorism 20 years ago. So are we going to fight fair against these creeps, or are we going to send the message that if you sympathise in the slightest with terrorists, you are going to pay dearly?"

Really though, while I believe in fighting terrorism, I usually don't get so worked up that I'd try to get people to lose their jobs. However, for the sake of pissing certain people off, I have decided that I'm going to 'report' terrorist sympathisers to be blacklisted.

McCarthyism is dead, because McCarthy couldn't prove that these people were communists, especially since his list was invalid. However, I am going to do actual research, and learn from his mistakes. By research, I mean if you go on the internet saying "We fucked up in Iraq, we shouldn't have gone in there!" I'm going to count you as a terrorist sympathiser. It really pisses people off to be painted with the same brush as ACTUAL terrorist sympathisers, and I like watching people squirm. So, I'm going to make a list.

Remember what I said Snuhwolf? That I'd make a list? Well you're on the top of it! I know you don't care, but that's not the point is it?

Anyway, I know this is 'griefing', but fuck it, some people DESERVE grief.

-Matthew Paul Finnigan-

I wonder how long it will take...

Before people start taking me seriously. Actually, nevermind, sometimes it's best that they DON'T take me seriously. I mean, think of all the crap I say. If people thought I was 100% serious all the time, then my attempts at sarcasm would go unnoticed, as I suspect will happen in rexar's LJ. I mean, I'm a Rand fan but I think she had some problems. Like how cigarettes are analogous to the smokestacks on factories. As Dragonfly would say, she was a drug addict. Of course, according to Dragonfly, everyone's a drug addict.

Oh yeah, and Greedy Greedy is an awesome game. :P
  • Current Mood
    listless listless

Here's the rundown.

I can't believe it... debate is just stupid. It's filled by two really obnoxious posts by people who, to me, are obviously trolls.

Somebody pretending to be a nitwit. It is obvious to everyone there. People call the jackass unfunny.
Somebody pretending to be a nitwit. It's not obvious to everyone there. People call the jackass unfunny.

Am I the only one that appreciates just how stupid people can be?

Kant: If everybody did the same thing and it turns out to be a good thing then it's a moral thing to do.
Nietzche: Nothing is a good thing, and if you believe that then you can become a superhuman.
Rand: Blowing up a building is a bad thing, unless you're the intellectual property owner, then it's a good thing.
Bush Jr.: Cloning is a bad thing because if people could clone then you could clone Osama Bin Laden and then we'd have two Osama Bin Ladens around.
Postvixen: We define what's good and what's bad by what is pleasurable.
Wolfram: Morality is really just a really really complex mathematical forumla.

Everybody likes to argue with a fuckwit, but what about this guy:

ANONYMOUS: Well you can be too extreme in almost anything. And by extreme, I mean outside of mainstream thinking, and by mainstream I mean stuff that's not off the wall. And by off the wall I mean stuff that doesn't lead to stupidity. By stupidity, I mean a matter of right and wrong. The right and wrong, BTW, are defined by virtue of the golden mean, which means extremism is out of the question.

This is how most people think. They think in circles, but it's usually very big circles, so big they can't see it, and when anyone questions it, pointing this out, or tries to otherwise find flaws in their arguments, they get defensive, but instead of acting offended, they project this quality onto others.

If you want a good look at the type of people who fit this, you'll find two very uncommon bed friends. The animal identity crowd and the atrocity tourism crowd. They're like the liberals and conservatives of today's internet society, but they think EXACTLY the same way. Sure, some of them will think logically some of the time, but when confronted with higher logic they resort to fall-back methods, usually designed to insulate their system from change, and thus preventing external reality from having a say to their internal ideas.

BTW, it's cartesian dualism, re-emphasized by Kant, that's making this dichotomy. Nietzche simply says "Screw it, I give up. Knowledge is impossible for me." then gets the idea that knowledge is impossible for everyone. I don't know which idea is more dangerous. No knowledge, or Divided knowledge. Then there's Super knowledge, which is the idea that everything has a true source, The One that makes everything true. This is stupid and defies all of our knowledge of context. Rand was right in criticizing these people. However, she seems to equate humankind with eventually being able to know things beyond doubt with some weird-ass logic about us having to believe that if we with our existing methods (plus some ones she invented) that we should think of ourselves as having systems upon which we cannot improve.

I'm a criticist. I believe that only though intense scrutiny can we evolve. We must also not just criticize destructively, but criticize constructively. I consider myself modeled after Aristotle except I use his logic to better his system. There are none that are fallacy free, and very few that have eliminated fallacy to the point where it is not visible to anyone in the current time with the current methods of criticism. Rand was lucky to be born into a time where there were so many people who disagreed with her, but she doesn't believe in luck, and considers everyone else to just be sloppy thinkers. I think that everybody's a sloppy thinker too, but at least I'm lucky to find myself in a world where people can criticize my thinking both from the outside and from the inside. Maybe I'll improve, and find out that I have indeed created a consistent, though incomplete, view of the general universe, at least to the extent that I can.

Enough ranting though. I think you see my point.

I'm considering posting this to F.Y.A.D.

I have no imagination. So instead of picking a particular person I'm going to choose everybody, and instead of saying something specific about the community I hate, I'm just going to say this: Fuck You and Die, Fuck You and Die! Furthermore, instead of being creative, I'm just gonna use a cute image macro! ^_^
  • Current Music
    None. Fuck off, bitch.
second life

Proof that I don't have a sense of humor: I read Ayn Rand.

It follows logically doesn't it? I make all these crap posts that aren't funny, and I read Ayn Rand. The one causes the other.

If A is the premise that I read Ayn Rand, and B is the premise that Ayn Rand didn't facilitate a sense of humor through her books, and C is the premise that by being exposed to such humorlessness you lose whatever senes of humor you might have had, then it follows from A, B, & C that D is true: I don't have a sense of humor.

Of course, maybe it's because I spend too much time around François Tremblay and Jeffery Winkler.

Personally, the lesson we should learn from this is 1. Anybody who goes by the name of NoTaxKat (or SmallGovtDog for that matter) is a furry, and 2. Stalkers are jerks and anything that happens to them is fair game.

Yes, from my experience, these people are creeps. I have spent a fair amount of time with them, and something about them just felt wrong.

I should stop hanging around creeps. That reminds me... Mix? Howcome you told me you are not a furry, when it says in your profile that you are a furry? That really creeps me out.

Edit: Who wants to bet that François Tremblay and Jeffery Winkler are the same person? Also, I'm bumping that whole circularity thing further because it is not funny, but I'm not funny, so it represent myself.

As an end to the stream of consciousness writing, I give you a link to my own LiveJournal post here.

I'm back!

I've got Ads. Ads are how the capitalist system works. So if you don't like them, then fuck y'all cuz you don't have to read my journal anyway.

I got the internet working again. The internet is cool, because it gives us access to information. I'm currently debating whether or not a TOE exists. I think it does, because physics applies the same at all scales. However, some really dumb people think that the universe works in one way at cosmological scales and in other was at sub-molecular scales.

Another thing. I am an Objective Conceptualist. That is my new philosophy. It's basically Objectivism without all the retardedness. So it's really nothing like Objectivism but I kept the basic concepts because I DO believe that reality can be described philosophically.

One more thing. This is a stalk-free zone. Nobody here is to stalk anybody, and nobody is to BE stalked either. Report violations to the "OH NOES! INTERNET POLICE!" unless you're a fucking pansy. If you are a fucking pansy, GET THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNET.

That is all.