How Ayn Rand and L. Ron Hubbard Came Up With Their Big Ideas

[jookyle]

K5YWTFW5WMw

[Yuppie Grinder]

Pretty sure Hubbard was into little boys.

[RedHammer]

Rand was a sociopath, Hubbard was a loon, and both were idealists who wouldn't survive in the very world they advocate

[Zav]

That was hilarious. Unfortunately they actually believed the shit they wrote as far as I know.


Pretty sure Hubbard was into little boys.
How is his sexuality relevant? I am SO tempted to turn this into the next NAMBLA thread, but alas, I haven't the time.


Rand was a sociopath,
Sociopathy is a serious condition. You insult sociopaths by putting Ayn Rand among them.

[Yuppie Grinder]

It's relevant because this is a thread poking fun at him. Please don't tell me you're one of those people who supports NAMBLA's right to assembly?

[Zav]

It's relevant because this is a thread poking fun at him. Please don't tell me you're one of those people who supports NAMBLA's right to assembly?
I think that everyone has the right to assemble, including NAMBLA.

[Yuppie Grinder]

I think that everyone has the right to assemble, including NAMBLA.

Why the fuck? Don't give me that liberal bullshit about universal rights.

[Zav]

Why the fuck? Don't give me that liberal bullshit about universal rights.
They don't exactly have the capital the Bourgeoisie have to influence politics, so why not? Some people have unusual convictions, but that shouldn't prevent them from talking to each other in a group setting.

[Ned Kelly]

Fucking kids should

[Yuppie Grinder]

If pedos wanna get together to chat about child-rape, whatever. NAMBLA actively campaigns for the abolition of age of consent laws. Many of them are convicted sex criminals. Pedophilia should be suppressed.
It's bad enough that you're one of those Masculists always whining about feminism, but this is just ridiculous.

[Zav]

Fucking kids should
Actually NAMBLA is about homosexual relationships between adults and teenagers, not adults and children. NAMBLA doesn't actually advocate sex.



If pedos wanna get together to chat about child-rape, whatever. NAMBLA actively campaigns for the abolition of age of consent laws. Many of them are convicted sex criminals. Pedophilia should be suppressed.
It's bad enough that you're one of those Masculists always whining about feminism, but this is just ridiculous.
The organization is comprised mainly of hebesexuals and ephebosexuals, not pedosexuals, which NAMBLA doesn't like very much. Actually they campaign for the lowering of them to the beginning of puberty, and having a method of establishing consent if it is in question. I'd like a source on that. While I'm sure there are convicts among them, as there are in any group and because the activities the group is based on are at present illegal, I doubt most of them are.
If I whine, it is about the failure of Feminism to address those issues that affect men, but it is hardly relevant.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Bullshit. I've met an underaged member of NAMBLA (a closeted pedophile) and he himself would disagree with you Zav.
Why are you so inclined towards NAMBLA apologism? Why so attached to the liberal myth of natural rights?

[Zav]

Bullshit. I've met an underaged member of NAMBLA (a closeted pedophile) and he himself would disagree with you Zav.
Why are you so inclined towards NAMBLA apologism? Why so attached to the liberal myth of natural rights?
Well I've talked with several of them, and they agree with me. Hearsay.
Are you accusing me of belonging to NAMBLA? I'm sympathetic to their cause. That is all. I believe that all people should automatically be granted rights because that makes for a better society than one which would demonize and essentially murder misunderstood people. If you want to be objective about it then it's because the former society brings more pleasure than the latter one. Hedonism ftw.

[Art Vandelay]

Dear god the fucking liberals who populate revleft. Yeah lets defend the rights of creeps attempting to make it easier to fuck children. Yay for universal rights and free speech!:rolleyes: Disgusting that you would label yourself sympathetic to their cause.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

I banned him so lets get this discussion back on track.

[cofresi]

well, i sure came into this thread at a bad time, but the vid is hilarious. I think Ayn Rand won. Even though Scientology is more radical and violent, objectiveness is more destructive to society as a whole.:)

[Igor]

Ayn Rand really baffles me, I'm really getting weird vibes from her stuff. It's almost as if she wasn't that shitty person per se, somehow she just can't grab this alien socialist concept of "human emotions". I guess what I'm trying to say is that could you really hate on someone who basically boils down to being the Libertarian demigod version of the Tin Man from the Wizard of Oz? :(

[RedHammer]

Dear god the fucking liberals who populate revleft. Yeah lets defend the rights of creeps attempting to make it easier to fuck children. Yay for universal rights and free speech!:rolleyes: Disgusting that you would label yourself sympathetic to their cause.

Idealism at its finest

[Will Scarlet]

That was hilarious. Unfortunately they actually believed the shit they wrote as far as I know.
It's fairly likely that Hubbard actually didn't believe the shit he wrote.

[Hermes]

It's relevant because this is a thread poking fun at him. Please don't tell me you're one of those people who supports NAMBLA's right to assembly?

So poking fun at people based on their sexuality is something we advocate, here? I must be on the wrong forum.

[brengunn]

I've never read any of Rand's writing though I know the gist of it, from seeing Adam Curtis' doc on BBC2. Apparently her theories broke down when she was on the receiving end of them, as in when she lost her lover to a younger rival.

If you can't abide by your own rules then you're no more than a charlatan.

[Tim Cornelis]

I banned him so lets get this discussion back on track.

This is why revleft sucks: he broke no rules, but because he has an opinion that diverges from opinions most common he is banned.

Banning and restrictions on this forum are used to force people to accept prevailing doctrines on revleft, and to create an atmosphere where dissent is discouraged--where people think twice before posting an opinion not held by the majority.

[Igor]

This is why revleft sucks: he broke no rules, but because he has an opinion that diverges from opinions most common he is banned.

Banning and restrictions on this forum are used to force people to accept prevailing doctrines on revleft, and to create an atmosphere where dissent is discouraged--where people think twice before posting an opinion not held by the majority.

in the other hand he actually said he's "sympathetic to the cause of NABLA". if being sympathetic to NABLA is dissent then fuck yeah we should discourage it. he actually pretty much said that age of consent laws are just unnecessarily restricting because "hedonism" is cool, banning people who think that isn't really anywhere the ball park of crushing out all the opposition to BA

[Tim Cornelis]

in the other hand he actually said he's "sympathetic to the cause of NABLA". if being sympathetic to NABLA is dissent then fuck yeah we should discourage it. he actually pretty much said that age of consent laws are just unnecessarily restricting because "hedonism" is cool, banning people who think that isn't really anywhere the ball park of crushing out all the opposition to BA

Restrictions ought to prevent discussions from derailing into capitalism vs. socialism discussions, banning to ban fascists and zealous discrimination. Revolutionary leftists who uphold certain ideas that are not widely accepted should not be banned or restricted. Zav did not break any rules. He participated in normal discussions, and could continue to do so without ban or restriction. So there is no reason he should have been banned.


he actually pretty much said that age of consent laws are just unnecessarily restricting because "hedonism" is cool, banning people who think that isn't really anywhere the ball park of crushing out all the opposition to BA

He said everyone should have rights because of hedonism (he was discussing the right to assembly).


if being sympathetic to NABLA is dissent then fuck yeah we should discourage it

I was talking generally. Restrictions and bans are used to discipline dissenting opinions even though those who hold them are revolutionary leftist.

[Hermes]

in the other hand he actually said he's "sympathetic to the cause of NABLA". if being sympathetic to NABLA is dissent then fuck yeah we should discourage it. he actually pretty much said that age of consent laws are just unnecessarily restricting because "hedonism" is cool, banning people who think that isn't really anywhere the ball park of crushing out all the opposition to BA

So? Is he not allowed to believe any of that?

Maybe the age of consent laws are unnecessarily restricting. Considering that almost every country has completely different age of consent laws, it certainly isn't an objective fact.

Your outright dismissal of hedonism (a concept I'm fairly sure you don't understand) to support the silencing of a member is ridiculous. Yes, it is crushing some of the opposition to the BA, because his views aren't in line with theirs. We can argue whether their views or his views are right, but it doesn't disprove the fact that he's being silenced because they're different.

[DrStrangelove]

I thought this thread was about how batshit insane the writings of both L Ron Hubbard and Ayn Rand are:confused:

So, has anyone here actually read some of Hubbard's works? I've read Atlas Shrugged, Foutainhead, and Anthem, and I can deduce one thing from them. Ayn Rand can't write an interesting story for shit. I mean, it just drags and drags, and the characters exist only to be a megaphone for her ego so she can take down straw man arguments. I mean, half of her damn novels are inner monologues by the characters about some Objectivist bull shit, or the characters having overly long speeches about Objectivist bull shit. I mean, her political messages are complete shit, but having bad politics doesn't stop me from enjoying the writings of Lovecraft or Tolkien.

So, I have a question. Does L. Ron Hubbard's writings suck as much as Ayn Rand's droning crap?

[RedHammer]

I've never read any of Rand's writing though I know the gist of it, from seeing Adam Curtis' doc on BBC2. Apparently her theories broke down when she was on the receiving end of them, as in when she lost her lover to a younger rival.

If you can't abide by your own rules then you're no more than a charlatan.

I've read The Fountainhead

It's pretty much a pain to read.

[Igor]

So? Is he not allowed to believe any of that?

On this board, apparently not. And I don't really have a problem with that. It's not like this board isn't already pretty exclusive in terms of political opinions, banning/restricting people for opinions not considered ok is pretty much the reason why this forum exists.


Maybe the age of consent laws are unnecessarily restricting. Considering that almost every country has completely different age of consent laws, it certainly isn't an objective fact.

NAMBLA is pretty much questioning the concept of age of consent legislation, not just that they're too high in certain countries. Those are two pretty damn different things.


Your outright dismissal of hedonism (a concept I'm fairly sure you don't understand) to support the silencing of a member is ridiculous. Yes, it is crushing some of the opposition to the BA, because his views aren't in line with theirs. We can argue whether their views or his views are right, but it doesn't disprove the fact that he's being silenced because they're different.

I don't think I outright dismissed hedonism at any point though, not sure where you got that. But yeah ok, again, all this is pretty stupid, because using that logic having OI around or banning fascists is "crushing opposition to the BA"; their views aren't in line with theirs, after all. This forum is exclusively designed for people with certain set of political beliefs, excluding those who don't share these beliefs in the first place shouldn't exactly be a shocker to you. I'm sure there are lots of places in the internet where Zav can have an appreciating audience for his views on masculism and NABLA, this forum just wasn't created for that.

[Hermes]

On this board, apparently not. And I don't really have a problem with that. It's not like this board isn't already pretty exclusive in terms of political opinions, banning/restricting people for opinions not considered ok is pretty much the reason why this forum exists.



NAMBLA is pretty much questioning the concept of age of consent legislation, not just that they're too high in certain countries. Those are two pretty damn different things.



I don't think I outright dismissed hedonism at any point though, not sure where you got that. But yeah ok, again, all this is pretty stupid, because using that logic having OI around or banning fascists is "crushing opposition to the BA"; their views aren't in line with theirs, after all. This forum is exclusively designed for people with certain set of political beliefs, excluding those who don't share these beliefs in the first place shouldn't exactly be a shocker to you. I'm sure there are lots of places in the internet where Zav can have an appreciating audience for his views on masculism and NABLA, this forum just wasn't created for that.

Could you give me your own reason for why this board exists? I'm interested in hearing it.

That's what I was addressing. The fact that it differs so widely is proof that there has been little to no scientific consensus on the issue whatsoever, in regards to either when one reaches the magical maturity granted at a certain age to understand sex, or to whether or not such a thing even exists.

Most people tend to see putting quotes around something as ridiculing it. If that wasn't your attention, apologies. To be honest, I would rather not have OI, because it pretty much encourages members on here to actively go there and fight it out with them, while discouraging the OI from learning at all. Of course, if I remember correctly, an administrator said that education wasn't this forum's purpose.

The ideal situation for me would be democratic decisions, instead of a homogenous group of individuals passing judgement based on their own opinions. If a member's views are truly incompatible with everyone here, and their views tend towards violence against people who believe in the revolutionary left, then by all means ban them. I don't think either was the case with Zav.

[Welshy]

Can we please split this discussion on NAMBLA into another thread? I want to read about people making fun of L. Ron Hubbard and Ayn Rand.

[Igor]

Could you give me your own reason for why this board exists? I'm interested in hearing it.

That's what I was addressing. The fact that it differs so widely is proof that there has been little to no scientific consensus on the issue whatsoever, in regards to either when one reaches the magical maturity granted at a certain age to understand sex, or to whether or not such a thing even exists.

Most people tend to see putting quotes around something as ridiculing it. If that wasn't your attention, apologies. To be honest, I would rather not have OI, because it pretty much encourages members on here to actively go there and fight it out with them, while discouraging the OI from learning at all. Of course, if I remember correctly, an administrator said that education wasn't this forum's purpose.

The ideal situation for me would be democratic decisions, instead of a homogenous group of individuals passing judgement based on their own opinions. If a member's views are truly incompatible with everyone here, and their views tend towards violence against people who believe in the revolutionary left, then by all means ban them. I don't think either was the case with Zav.

for me personally - and as far as I've gathered, according to BA - this place should be a discussion plaza for likeminded people, without people with reactionary views bothering the discussion. not place for learning about leftism, not place for correcting people's reactionary, bigoted or whatever opinions, but a place to talk with other leftists without all the hassle you'd get for it on most forums.

but yeah this is ot, unless someone wants to split it (unlikely, this topic is pretty beaten a horse) i'll refrain from derailing the good topic of laughing at randroids and scientologists

[Art Vandelay]

Dear god people complaining a poster got banned who self labeled himself as a NAMBLA supporter; his support for their cause and those defending him make me sick. If anyone truly "loved" a child in the manner that they claim they do, then they would wait till that child was an adult and able to make the decisions about sexual relationships for themselves; instead NAMBLA attempts to make it easier for them to enact their sick fantasies.

[DrStrangelove]

Hey guys, lets discuss the NAMBLA stuff in another thread, I just wanna make fun of Scientology and Objectivism

[Yuppie Grinder]

So poking fun at people based on their sexuality is something we advocate, here? I must be on the wrong forum.

If someone's a pedophile why not? Were not about making sure nobody's feelings get hurt.

[Yuppie Grinder]

I thought this thread was about how batshit insane the writings of both L Ron Hubbard and Ayn Rand are:confused:

So, has anyone here actually read some of Hubbard's works? I've read Atlas Shrugged, Foutainhead, and Anthem, and I can deduce one thing from them. Ayn Rand can't write an interesting story for shit. I mean, it just drags and drags, and the characters exist only to be a megaphone for her ego so she can take down straw man arguments. I mean, half of her damn novels are inner monologues by the characters about some Objectivist bull shit, or the characters having overly long speeches about Objectivist bull shit. I mean, her political messages are complete shit, but having bad politics doesn't stop me from enjoying the writings of Lovecraft or Tolkien.

So, I have a question. Does L. Ron Hubbard's writings suck as much as Ayn Rand's droning crap?
L. Ron Hubbard is notorious for being one of the worst Science Fiction writers of all time.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

So, I have a question. Does L. Ron Hubbard's writings suck as much as Ayn Rand's droning crap?

Great, now I have to read one of his Dianetics books so I can answer this question for myself.

[Tim Cornelis]

Dear god people complaining a poster got banned who self labeled himself as a NAMBLA supporter; his support for their cause and those defending him make me sick. If anyone truly "loved" a child in the manner that they claim they do, then they would wait till that child was an adult and able to make the decisions about sexual relationships for themselves; instead NAMBLA attempts to make it easier for them to enact their sick fantasies.

He said "I'm sympathetic to their cause" and "Actually NAMBLA is about homosexual relationships between adults and teenagers, not adults and children. NAMBLA doesn't actually advocate sex."

But the issue here is: his sympathy for NAMBLA did not inhibit discussing revolutionary leftism in a civil manner, so there is no reason why this odd stance should get him restricted, let alone banned.

[khad]

He said "I'm sympathetic to their cause" and "Actually NAMBLA is about homosexual relationships between adults and teenagers, not adults and children. NAMBLA doesn't actually advocate sex."

But the issue here is: his sympathy for NAMBLA did not inhibit discussing revolutionary leftism in a civil manner, so there is no reason why this odd stance should get him restricted, let alone banned.
Newsflash: The rule against anti-age of consent advocacy has been in place for years now, since about the time we cleared out the last pedophile infestation.

[Tim Cornelis]

Newsflash: The rule against anti-age of consent advocacy has been in place for years now, since about the time we cleared out the last pedophile infestation.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/misc.php?do=showrules

??

[khad]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/misc.php?do=showrules

??
If we go by that document literally, then there'd be no grounds to restrict Third Worldists and primitivists, since they aren't specifically named.

Use your head. Advocacy of pedophilia is advocacy of rape.

[citizen of industry]

This is why revleft sucks: he broke no rules,


Igor h/e actually pretty much said

But he didn'tactually endorse NAMBLA, hence he broke no rules, and was using it as an example of freedom of speech, and was promptly banned after a thousand posts and a year or whatever on the site.

What if I pretty much said that perhaps in a way fascists should have the right to freedom of speech and assembly, and we should pretty much maybe have the "right" to kind of put a bullet in their heads and whatnot? And if I were the type of person to advocate such a position, which I'm probably not the kind of person to do so, and take the same position towards NAMBLA, would I also perhaps be banned immediately without supporting fascism or NAMBLA?

I'd also like to admit I'm the president of NAMBLA, also a KKK knight and a neo-nazi, but just do that stuff in my free time. My actual "job" is a bank CEO, I just approve loans and live off of the dividends, leaving me plently of time for the former. I can't admit to exploiting anybody, because I just advance money and it comes back to me with interest, all paper. Anyway, back to my penthouse.

[Geiseric]

Ayn Rand is the biggest polluter of idealist petit bourgeois youth i've ever seen. I didn't think that the idea of capitalism could survive WW2, but she's contributed quite a bit. The entire pro capitalist arguement about "value of an idea" is also pretty much from her, something I personally find annoying as it derails any arguements in RL. But hey, if we argue with Randites, ask them if it should be legal for the Church of Scientology to make money, since L. Ron Hubbard had such a brilliant moment of achievement! or ask if the concentration camps that built for German Capitalists in WW2 fit in with her justification of making money.

[Tim Cornelis]

Okay, I concede.

[rednordman]

I've read The Fountainhead

It's pretty much a pain to read.Ah the fountainhead. The book that takes capitalism supporters out of their own daily nightmare, into a world where capitalism really works!!!