....mediocrity; I would think of it as an average intelligence that believes itself to be exceptional and envies and resents the failure of others to recognise it as such....
An excellent description of Catholicism and its Popes... not to mention all the other imbecilities that sprouted out of it (e.g. Anglicanism).
However... unlike the bloodthirsty Catholics and their murderous offshoot cults... Ayn Rand and her cult did not enforce their ideas by extirpating throughout history the people who were too wise to fall for their asinine hoax.
I don't understand the point of this thread. You quoted a delusional hack's idea of what constituted mediocrity...why? Why do you want to talk about mediocrity? What about it did you want to discuss? Why is this thread in religion and politics? What doe the bible have to do with mediocrity?
Mediocrity is as antagonistic to excellence and progress as conservatism and tribalism are to progressiveness... and is as pernicious to liberty and rationality as theism (e.g. Christianity).
The mediocre are not only pathetically envious, they are also an insidious impediment to the progress of society.
Consider this video promoting striving for excellence... and contrast it to this video meant to ridicule and deride striving for self-improvement.
If aspiring for excellence is thwarted by the mediocre as we can see has already occurred in many societies nowadays, the result is indeed the pervasive and pernicious regression and retardation we see permeating those societies today.
If conformity to the tribal norms is dictated and imposed and enforced, then the results are impediments to rationality and progress of humanity such as Jehovah Witnesses and Mormonism and Catholicism and Islam and Hasidism.
When you insert a quote in support of an argument, it's implied that you are presenting that statement as containing some truth that strengthens your position. In that context, it very much matters whom you choose to quote. Take, for example, Childlike Empress and her quotes of people like David Icke to support her conspiracy theories. She tried to walk back that quote, too. I hope I don't need to explain why it matters that she quoted David Icke.
So you see, if you're going to start a thread for the purpose of implying that you are an exceptional intellect dealing with a rabble of jealous, mediocre inferiors, then it matters considerably if you choose someone who was herself a rather median intellect, but fond of declaring her own genius.
[*]I quote all the time [snip] Jesus... do you think I am a fan of [him]?
Technically you quote what other people claim Jesus to have said. But to the point, you quote his alleged words in order to argue against Christianity. You're presenting the Rand quote as something you agree with, not as something you feel is damaging to her claims or the Objectivists who revere her. Do you see the difference?
[*]Judging by my misspelling her name as noted in another red-herring post... do you think I am? Do fans misspell the names of their idols?
Again, if you're promoting the notion that you're so much smarter than everyone else, you should make every effort to get your spelling (and punctuation) right. The occasional misspelling can be dismissed as a typographical error - but your punctuation is, well, unique.
I don't understand the point of this thread. You quoted a delusional hack's idea of what constituted mediocrity...why? Why do you want to talk about mediocrity? What about it did you want to discuss? Why is this thread in religion and politics [sic]? What doe [sic]the bible have to do with mediocrity?
This is the Religion and Philosophy... not Politics... Philosophy... sub forum of a forum for skeptics.... and discussing philosophical things like the ethos of deriding excellence and ridiculing the wise does (notice the spelling) belong in a forum for skepticism and philosophical considerations about issues like the affect of ridiculing wisdom and its deleterious effect on skepticism and the progress of knowledge.
Other than the Buybull and the New Tall tales being the quintessential embodiment of mediocrity, read the verses I cited in this post and this one too.
Personally, I would argue against Rand's definition of mediocrity; I would think of it as an average intelligence that believes itself to be exceptional and envies and resents the failure of others to recognise it as such. Having read "Anthem," one of the most poorly-written books I've ever actually made it to the end of, I suspect Rand herself was a prime example.
Agreed. Although it could be convincingly argued that Rand was a mediocre writer,and hence somewhat of an authority? Certainly she is a champion of mediocre thinking?
Although it seems to be unimportant, as the Real Topic here appears to have been redeclared to be some currently undisclosed aspect of religion or Christianity or something?
<snip fallacies>
... you quote his alleged words in order to argue against Christianity. You're presenting the Rand quote as something you agree with, not as something you feel is damaging to her claims or the Objectivists who revere her. Do you see the difference?
Is it logical or even rational to assume that agreeing with someone's statement or even many statements means being a fan of someone?
I agree with the Zombified ill begotten son of a celestial slave monger when he said "love your neighbor as yourself" and I agree with his deadbeat sky daddy the lover of Sumerian pimps when he said "Speak not in the ears of a fool, for he will despise the wisdom of thy words"... do you think I am fan of the pathetic Jesus or his ethnic cleansing daddy?
Another fallaciousness.... please prove that your above statement is not a strawman fallacy... if you cannot then I will expect a retraction... but of course... as usual you won't do either.
Regardless of the above irrelevant strawmanning and other fallacies... in regards to the topic of the OP...
Do you think that the ethos of mediocre simpletons demanding and enforcing that their betters conform to their mediocre ways is a deleterious perniciousness or not?
I agree with his deadbeat sky daddy the lover of Sumerian pimps when he said "Speak not in the ears of a fool, for he will despise the wisdom of thy words"
Believing that fairy tale characters are real is irrational... much like believing in the Zombification of a human sacrificed ill begotten son of a celestial lover of Sumerian pimps.
Believing that fairy tale characters are real is irrational... much like believing in the Zombification of a human sacrificed ill begotten son of a celestial lover of Sumerian pimps.
Did you perhaps not notice, that neither of the videos you linked to were being literal. They were both using satire as a humorous device, and one of them was doing so to sell a product.
ETA: also do you just spend your life trying to link EVERYTHING to religion?
I agree with his deadbeat sky daddy the lover of Sumerian pimps when he said "Speak not in the ears of a fool, for he will despise the wisdom of thy words"
I post "here" because it is a Religion and Philosophy sub forum of a forum for International Skeptics.
And I am an International Skeptic of religion who is rationally, sanely and philosophically opposed to the grotesque irrationality of Christianity above all... as well as the sordidness of all religions that worship the celestial ethnic cleansing slave mongering lover of Sumerian pimps and nasty grifters.
However... the more interesting question is
Why are you so concerned to prevent me from posting "here"?
Do you think that the ethos of mediocre simpletons demanding and enforcing that their betters conform to their mediocre ways is a deleterious perniciousness or not?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
