Your google-fu is weak, grasshopper
 

So what's your take on the "Art of War" versus "A Bear called Paddington"?

Your google-fu is weak, grasshopper
 

Haven't read "Art of War." Not sure I've ever met anyone who has. I assume most copies are purchased by MBAs whom I would find tedious and nearly incomprehensible and who don't read them.

I don't really know much about Paddington at all, apart from the fact that he originally came from Darkest Peru.

Your google-fu is weak, grasshopper
 

Any old sot worth his cream bun with jam knows the answer to this one.

Your google-fu is weak, grasshopper
 

Sure you have. Before Wall Street, and again after, it was popular with those of us who studied certain martial arts.

(Whenever I tell my colleagues that my authority over associates needs to be similar to that of Sun-Tzu when he was drilling the concubines, I get very uncomfortable looks. I wish the translator had used a different verb.)

Your google-fu is weak, grasshopper
 

He He - I can't help myself.

After I read Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged I was totally confused by Objectivism. What I didn't understand was that if the 'ultimate good" was selfishness, why wouldn't an objectivist steal from his neighbor, especially if he or she could get away with it (I understand the idea of the social contract, that one didn't steal from some else because they didn't want people to steal from them. However, if someone could steal from someone else and never have any one else find out about it, why shouldn't he or she do it?). There was a part in one of her books where the hero was starving to death, but refused to steal fruit from a stand when he could get away with it - that struck me as ridiculous.

So the head of the Ayn Rand institute spoke at a local Republican function and I asked him about it. His answer:

Human beings are hardwired to take care of themselves. If we don't take care of ourselves then it is bad for us psychological. It does damage to us. So it is not immoral for us to steal because we are hurting someone else, it is bad for us to steal because it is bad for us. It is self destructive.

Of course I had to point out a few problems with this concept:

1) The entire Objectivist philosophy relies on this one view of human psychology, that it is bad for us not take care of ourselves. Ayn Rand was not a psychologist or a psychiatrist, and as far as I know, never did any sort of scientific research to determine this, so how could she base her entire philosophy on this one assumption:

His answer: She was a genius, and had deep insights into the human psyche and if you follow her logic in reaching this conclusion it is impeachable

2) Then I said, following this philosophy, a paraplegic, or anyone else that can't take care of themselves can never be happy because they depend on other people so they can survive.

His answer: Yes that is true - someone like a paraplegic can never be truly happy.

3) Then I said that, if I could figure out a way to fix my brain so that it would not be psychologically damaging to me to take from other people for my survival, then once I had accomplished that, I should go out and steal.

His answer: Yes - but the need to take care of ourselves and not exploit other people is so deeply ingrained in us, and part of being human, that you couldn't do that ( the obvious retort was - how the hell could you know that - but I just let it go).

4) Then I said that, for the rest of nature, it is beneficial for all animals and plants to steal and exploit other living beings, even among their own species so they can survive. And as humans, we exploit other animals to survive, what makes humans different. Or another way of looking at it, why is it okay for Orangutans, Apes and Monkey to steal and exploit each other to live, where we, who are not very different, it is psychologically damaging for us.

Humans: He said human beings are totally special and we have a totally different psychological make up from Apes.

5) I then asked, if I was starving to death and I need to steel to survive, shouldn't I steal?

His answer was yes (although I think Ayn Rand may have had a different answer) but he did say that after you had stolen that you should turn yourself in.

I of course asked, but if you are a truly selfish person, and being a selfish person, why would I want to be punished for something I had to do.

His answer: for your own psychological well being. You would have to go through the punishment in order to feel good about yourself.

At that point I just let it go. It was getting so absurd I just let it drop.

Your google-fu is weak, grasshopper
 

It's funny -- usually you try to disprove Ty's points.

Here, let me help you clean that up.
 

I stopped reading this a third of the way through, when the urge to gouge my eyes out became overwhelming.

CDF

Your google-fu is weak, grasshopper
 

Or annoy him - which I think I have done very successfully here.

Here, let me help you clean that up.
 

Did you at least take out one eye?

Your google-fu is weak, grasshopper
 

I'm now waiting with bated breath for your take on "Babar the Elephant"

Your google-fu is weak, grasshopper
 

Don't remember that one very well. I did read all the Paddington storys, and then when I lived in London I actually lived in Paddington (right on the cricle line).

When I lived there I used to joke all the time about the bear, but no one appreciated my sense of humor. Some things never change.

Gobble de gook. Bleh.
 

Nope. But I want reparations for the neurons that died choking on your prose. There should have been a black box warning.

CDF

Your google-fu is weak, grasshopper
 

I think you are confusing me and cheval de frise. He has three names. I have two. He's better looking.

Your google-fu is weak, grasshopper
 

Better? He's less green, and not constantly on the go, but kinda skeletal.

Your google-fu is weak, grasshopper
 

Skull-fucking Chevy, and getting no friction.