Sorry Gabs, I can't see where I have done any such thing, please point
it out to me?

On 28 Aug, 20:17, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote:
> Let me put in very simple words: Lee, stop bullying BB47.
>
> On 28 Aug., 12:38, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> wrote:> The sir thing dearest Gabby is commonly know as good manners.
>
> > The instinct post as I belive I have already said, is my instinctual
> > first thoughts, and posted to get the ball rolling.  Please feel free
> > to disect my initial thoughts on the question Chris raised, that way I
> > can then answer and thus the debate is started.
>
> > You see how that one works Gabster?
>
> > Com
>
> e now people is it really that hard to figure out my motives for
>
>
>
> > posting that first post as I did?
>
> > On 28 Aug, 11:14, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > What is that Sir-thing, Lee? You asked for a rational debate and now
> > > you are winding yourself out by referring to your instincts - the
> > > lower ones, as we can see. Think about it.
>
> > > On 28 Aug., 11:39, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > Patience sir, as you can see by the words that I used, this is indeed
> > > > my first instinct and mentioned to 'get the ball' rolling, plenty of
> > > > time to discect it huh.
>
> > > > n 27 Auug, 19:57, BB47 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Aug 27, 8:29 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > Umm yeah good one Chris.
>
> > >  >  > My first instinct is that communist philosphy on paper says the 
> > > right
>
>  > > > >  things, whilst of course Rand does not.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > Thank you for the opening thoughts, will there be a more thorough
> > > > > analysis forthcoming?  Will there be any rational debate or more in
> > > > > depth discussion or even semi-rational exchanges on such a wonderful
> > > > > topic?
>
> > > > > > On 27 Aug, 16:12, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > From 
> > > > > > > here:http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2009/08/24/what-we-are-not-emb...
>
> > > > > > > "
>
> > > > > > > Here is a good debate proposition: It ought to be less 
> > > > > > > embarrassing to have
> > > > > > > been influenced by Ayn Rand than by Karl Marx.
>
> > > > > > > The most powerful way to argue the affirmative is to compare the 
> > > > > > > number of
> > > > > > > human beings murdered by the devotees of each. That line of 
> > > > > > > attack ought to
> > > > > > > be decisive, but I’m afraid it won’t get you far with the 
> > > > > > > multitude of
> > > > > > > highly-self-regarded thinkers influenced by Karl Marx. Fact is, 
> > > > > > > commitment
> > > > > > > to some kind of socialism and fluency in the jargon of Marxism 
> > > > > > > used to be
> > > > > > > mandatory for serious intellectuals. And there’s something 
> > > > > > > glamorous in the
> > > > > > > very idea of the intellectual. Even for those of us who came of 
> > > > > > > age after
> > > > > > > 1989, Marxism, like cigarettes, remains linked by association to 
> > > > > > > the idea of
> > > > > > > the intellectual, and so, like cigarettes, shares in the 
> > > > > > > intellectual’s
> > > > > > > glamour. I don’t know if cigarettes or Marxism have killed more 
> > > > > > > people, but
> > > > > > > it’s pretty clear cigarettes are more actively stigmatized. 
> > > > > > > Marxists,
> > > > > > > neo-Marxists, crypto-Marxists, post-Marxists, etc. have an 
> > > > > > > endrinng
> > > > >  > inffluence on intellectual fashion. So it is not only possible 
> > > > > proudly to
> > > > > > > confess Marx’s influence on one’s thought, but it remains 
> > > > > > > possible in some
> > > > > > > quarters to impress by doing so. It ought to be embarrassing, but 
> > > > > > > it isn’t.
> > > > > > > Being a bit of a Marxist is like having a clost ffull of pirate 
> > > > > > > blouses but
> > > > > > > never having to worry."
>
> > > > > > > This gave me pause for consideration. Rand's philosophies have 
> > > > > > > been much
> > > > > > > maligned as "uncompassionate", while certain "socialist" (Marxist 
> > > > > > > Communist)
>
> > > > > > policiess have been held up as an ideal, and yet, how many
> > > people have been> > > > killed in the name of Randian philosophy, and how 
> > > many have been killed i
>
> > > > > > > the nae of Maarxist philosophy?
>
> > > t do YOU think? ;)- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
""Minds Eye"" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to