!FUCK Is A Word Is A Word Is A Word That Means EVERYTHING You Want It To Mean!

From my short short stay at objectivist living in the Randroid Belt:

http://youtu.be/26UA578yQ5g

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=11653&st=180&p=155727&#entry155727

George H. Smith, on 12 February 2012 - 07:14 PM, said:

seymourblogger, on 12 February 2012 - 06:49 PM, said:

In fact there is no truth. It has become just a word. Like fuck. Meaningless.

You think the word "fuck" is meaningless? Maybe you should try a different discourse.

And then to my great good luck and fortune

ninthdoctor posted this youtube on fuck

to prove me wrong!

Ho ho ho and a kettle of rum!

Baudrillard on Implosion

Following Nietzsche of course

Excess leads to annihilation

Even Bill of  AA says this: Touch bottom first!
Hear that Michael Stuart Kelly!

How do you like this different Discourse, George H. Smith of the best selling atheist best seller!

Beaucoup thanks to ninthdoctor for his youtube Discourse


Here's a fuck you from curioushairedgal


http://youtube/EPCiW2xFKf4

A finger fuck you

Forget Darwin and Grow Up!

A popular fly-by in synchronous orbit around the Randroid Belt calling itself XRAY recently posted the following on SOLO:

"Oh really, Janet? Gee, then how do you explain that humans share over 95 % of their genes with the chimpanzees and bonobos?"

Gee, I dunno, Xray, how do you explain it?  Why does that automatically prove Darwinian evolution?

Air-conditioners and refrigerators also share over 95% of their parts. To your way of thinking, Xray, I guess the fact of "shared parts" between two things proves that one thing evolved from the other.  But why?

Actually, it proves nothing of the kind, since that fact is also consistent with the scenario that shared technology, i.e., similarity or identity of functional elements between two devices, is simply an efficient way of constructing both entities. It doesn't necessarily prove evolution since it is also consistent with the idea of "commonality of conception."

Note:  To prove Darwinism, you cannot merely point to some fact in nature that you believe is conistent with it.  You must point to some fact of reality that is (1) consistent with your theory, but that is also (2) inconsistent with alternative theories.

For example, the undeniable fact of large gaps in the fossil record conforms to (2) above: that undeniable fact is inconsistent with classical Darwinian notions of slow, constant, gradual, morphological change over long stretches of time. The absence of intermediate forms proves nothing about any alternative scenario, but it does throw doubt on the Darwinian one. 

Of course, taken together with another inconvenient fact inconsistent with Darwinism — that new species in many instances seem to have appeared more or less suddenly, with no evidence of precursors — an honest commitment to the facts of reality might very well demand that we abandon Darwinism to the trash heap of failed scientific theories.

A recent paper in Biological Theory [link] seems to agree:

"The Fate of Darwinism: Evolution After the Modern Synthesis"

By David J. Depew and Bruce H. Weber

(the phrase "Modern Synthesis" is the historically correct and formal name for what is often called "Neo-Darwinism")

The authors make the following resonant assertion:

"Darwinism in its current scientific incarnation has pretty much reached the end of its rope."

We think so, too.  (Though we suspect the Randroid Belt will continue to clutch at this rope until it hangs itself.)


So wave "bye, bye" to Darwin, everyone. It's OK to do so.  We're all grown up now.

Scoring with Michael Newberry

Painter, sculptor, and scientist, Leonardo da Vinci may have been a true "Renaissance Man," but he pales in comparison to painter, tennis-pro, and Objectivist, Michael Newberry — a true "Randroid Belt Man."

A Rosenbaum is a Rosenbaum is a Rosenbaum (or, What's in a Name?)

Recently around the Randroid Belt, a Randroid calling himself "Tom Burroughes" posted the following to SOLO in reply to "seymourblogger":

I would respect [your criticisms of a writer being "counterfeit"] a tad more if you did not hide behind a blogger ID, but posted using your real name.

Burroughes probably forgot that the person he idolizes and worships more than anyone in the world, and more than anyone in history — Ayn Rand — herself used a counterfeit ID. "Ayn Rand" was a nom de plume, a fictionalized novelist ID she invented for herself. 

Her real name was Alisa Rosenbaum.

If it's all right for someone born with one name to publish novels under the name "Ayn Rand", why would it not be all right for someone else born with one name to publish blogs under the name "seymourblogger"?

It would be nice if Burroughes practiced a little consistency in his reasoning.  

But we won't save our breath.

Sightseeing on Planetoid Perigo

Somewhere on the outer fringe of the Randroid Belt wafts a small, gnomish, chunky piece of rock — no bigger than brontosaurus excrement (even if twice as fetid and half as intelligent) — called "Planetoid Perigo." It is called this by its sole inhabitant, a slimy, semi-conscious creature of undecided phenotype (and unknown genotype), named Jabba-the-Linz.


We have the rare opportunity of witnessing this fat, slothful creature in the middle of its favorite past-time:  fantasizing the role of "Lucky Pierre."


NOTE:  Please turn OFF the flash on your smart-phone cameras if you wish to take pictures, as we don't want to startle the creature out of its self-induced stupor.

Women of the Randroid Belt

I can't believe it!


I found this in a shop for used books and old magazines. It's an NBI publication written by, and for, women of the Randroid Belt. The authors may be gone and forgotten, but their high thoughts and well-honed arguments will live on.


I can't wait to read this!

No Business Like Show Business

We are so excited!


We've just heard through the old gossip-vine around the Randroid Belt that Dr. David Kelley, Ph.D. — brilliant intellect, original philosopher, author of a popular book on logic (whose title escapes me, for some reason), and trusted advisor to Hollywood producers and directors — paid a surprise call to the bustling movie set of Atlas Shrugged, Part II!  We loved Part I so much (despite the long lines on which we impatiently waited to buy scarce tickets during each of the 12 times we saw it), we can hardly endure the anxiety of waiting until fall 2012 for the sequel!


Thank Randroid this movie's in production and Kelley's in charge!


As you can see, everyone in the cast and crew was delighted to see Dr. Kelley, and was eager to confirm with him that they were making this masterpiece in strict conformity with the philosophical tenets of Objectivism.