Ayn Rand

[Veritas]

Atlas Shrugged. Have you read this book?

[Rev. Episkopos Pedero, K.S.C.]

How about Telemachus Sneezed?

So Rev. Ivan Stang was once talking about having sex with Randians and he talks about how they start having sex, until she felt satisfied, and then walk out the door.

[redstar2000]

Yes, I read it.

She should have called it Atlas Yawned.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Veritas]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 01:39 AM
Yes, I read it.

She should have called it Atlas Yawned.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif
WHy do you say that? What do you think the point of the book was?

[NovelGentry]

I think he's implying the point of the book was to put people to sleep.

[Veritas]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 01:44 AM
I think he's implying the point of the book was to put people to sleep.
You've read it?

[ComradeRed]

Worst...book...ever. If it had been 1000 pages shorter, it would have been much better.

[Veritas]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 02:10 AM
Worst...book...ever. If it had been 1000 pages shorter, it would have been much better.
I felt it was very insightful. It explains how if those who do to their best of their abilities, stop doing so, and what happens to those with the most needs, need to much.

[Guest1]

Except those who do the work are the workers, and those who need too much are the bosses living in opulent luxury, doing nothing for the community.

Ayn Rand wrote fiction, badly. She should have stuck to teaching herself how to write, instead of trying to teach people la la fairy land views about the world.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Ug. Paper thin characters playing out Ayn Rand's little ideological rant.

Read The Dispossessed. At least Ursala K. Le Guin a) has a bit of faith in her audience and b) can write a character with a bit of depth beyond Perfect Individualist and Evil, Fat, Collectivist.

On a related note, Hostage Life's genius song "Money Parade" is subtitled "Atlas Farted".
I think I'll post the lyrics!


2nd annual walk for capitalism,
and thank God it didn't rain.
This year we'e defending the system,
'Cuz it aint no fucking crime to gain.
And we'll march in time secure in our lines:
enlightenment having been redefined.
We've justified our greed.
Divided the heart and the will to succeed!

Throw your wallets in the air.
Hands up who came to get theirs.
This year's a good year to lead,
This year's a good year for taking more than you need.
Couldn't ask for a better day,
Couldn't live in a better place,
My way to celebrate:
Take, take everything.
Take the clothes off the next man's back,
Take on a new line of attack.
Ty place at the front of the pack.
Take, take everything.

2nd annual walk for capitalism,
And we're voicing private concerns,
You gotta pay if you wanna play,
You gotta shine before you burn.

This land is my land.
Your life in my hand.
Not trying to understand.
Not helping any man.

[ComradeRed]

I felt it was very insightful. It explains how if those who do to their best of their abilities, stop doing so, and what happens to those with the most needs, need to much. How does it explain "those who do to their best of their abilities, stop doing so, and what happens to those with the most needs, need to much"? If History, i.e. FACTS, has taught us anything it is that capitalists can jack off and gets as much money as if s/he were dead. The fiction, i.e. NOT fact, presented by Rand makes up a fictional scenario and then irrationally plays it out. When there is a decline in the number of capitalists "doing things," as we have seen in the Great Depression, the number of fascists and socialists rise. The fascists blame the socialists and plan to go back to capitalism, and vice versa. Rand presented the former, which tells us quite a bit about her.

[Essential Insignificance]

I have not read it... and nor do I intend too.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Originally posted by Essential [email protected] 4 2005, 08:00 AM
I have not read it... and nor do I intend too.
Read "Anthem". It should take under an hour if you're a competant reader and yr first language is English . . . it also gives you an idea of what a terrible writer she is.

For further hillarious illustration, pick up "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal" and read the two essays on Antitrust - one by Ayn Rand, one by Alan Greenspan. It's likely that neither will convince you, but the second will make you laugh - and hard - about how much further Ayn's was from convincing you of anything.

[Invader Zim]

I found it too be like Mein Kampf, very hard to read because of the excruciatingly poor literary skill of the author. Also like Mein Kampf I felt my eyes turning brown from the shit I was reading.

Indeed just like Mein Kampf, the tragically low quality of the work forced me, in no uncertain terms, to stop reading.

Maybe I should give it another go? Unfortunately, however, I just don't seem to have your constitution for bullshit.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 02:10 AM
Worst...book...ever. If it had been 1000 pages shorter, it would have been much better.
You wouldn't know, you've never read it.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 11:47 AM
I found it too be like Mein Kampf, very hard to read because of the excruciatingly poor literary skill of the author. Also like Mein Kampf I felt my eyes turning brown from the shit I was reading.

Indeed just like Mein Kampf, the tragically low quality of the work forced me, in no uncertain terms, to stop reading.

Maybe I should give it another go? Unfortunately, however, I just don't seem to have your constitution for bullshit.
Here's another one who's never read it. (Probably never read Mein Kampf either, but so what.)

Notice a recurring theme here :

It's shit ! It's stupid ! It sucks ! She can't write !

No, those aren't rational arguments, children, they're ad hominems. Can we have a critique the political content ? Or would that bring to light the fact that you really haven't read it ?

[NovelGentry]

Notice a recurring theme here :

It's shit ! It's stupid ! It sucks ! She can't write !

No, those aren't rational arguments, children, they're ad hominems. Can we have a critique the political content ? Or would that bring to light the fact that you really haven't read it ?

Maybe it's just really that bad that people mentally block it out of their memory and just make a note never to read it again. I personally will admit to never having read the book. I'm not even so sure I've read Ayn Rand. As I mentioned to someone else earlier, I've read a few large chunks of a book with her name on the cover, however, it seemed almost as though it was written from multiple authors. The writing style changed frequently and I kept getting the impression I was reading the words of two people of differing gender all mashed into one. Not because of any gender prejudice, but simply the way it was wordes. There were crossed references to pronouns that didn't seem to fit, and self references that implied different genders throughout different parts.

I could get you the name of the book and more info (and actually maybe even find out if it was all her writing), but it's at the bookstore.

If it was indeed all of her writing, she was the worst writer ever to have walked in the planet.

Regardless, none of the ideas presented (mostly philosophical in this book) were of any real world use. In fact, it denied that such a thing could exist. It defined logical and thus proven contradictions by definition alone, but tried to put across that there was no truth because it could not be determined on "all worlds." Denying things like physics apparently.

Honestly, if it was her words and not some crazy guy's interpretation of her work, I hope to never have to read anything by her again. But I'm under the impression I should be hoping that anyway.

[ComradeRed]

You wouldn't know, you've never read it. I have read it. And I think I know moreso than you what I have read; as a matter of fact, Ayn Rand wasted 1075 pages, and a day of my life and I want it back.

Sorry, but your Bible has the worst style I've ever read.

[praxus]

That's not an argument. Simply stating it sucks, doesn't ammount to anything. You have to prove why it sucks.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags+Feb 4 2005, 03:12 PM--> (Professor Moneybags @ Feb 4 2005, 03:12 PM)
[email protected] 4 2005, 11:47 AM
I found it too be like Mein Kampf, very hard to read because of the excruciatingly poor literary skill of the author. Also like Mein Kampf I felt my eyes turning brown from the shit I was reading.

Indeed just like Mein Kampf, the tragically low quality of the work forced me, in no uncertain terms, to stop reading.

Maybe I should give it another go? Unfortunately, however, I just don't seem to have your constitution for bullshit.
Here's another one who's never read it. (Probably never read Mein Kampf either, but so what.)

Notice a recurring theme here :

It's shit ! It's stupid ! It sucks ! She can't write !

No, those aren't rational arguments, children, they're ad hominems. Can we have a critique the political content ? Or would that bring to light the fact that you really haven't read it ? [/b]
My dear fellow, the chances are I have read more than you are likely too read in your whole life time. From Maurice Keen (not that I expect an uneducated individual such as your self too have ever read any real historians works, or have even been informed of Keen) too Ayn Rand and Adolph Hitler, but I live in the hope you will one day take that great leap and acquire a library card.

[Veritas]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 08:47 PM


You wouldn't know, you've never read it. I have read it. And I think I know moreso than you what I have read; as a matter of fact, Ayn Rand wasted 1075 pages, and a day of my life and I want it back.

Sorry, but your Bible has the worst style I've ever read.
It's not my Bible, it's just a book I read. I thought it was interesting, so I posted this thread. I wondered what the responce would be. Now I am just taking in the observations.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Veritas+Feb 5 2005, 01:00 AM--> (Veritas @ Feb 5 2005, 01:00 AM)
[email protected] 4 2005, 08:47 PM


You wouldn't know, you've never read it. I have read it. And I think I know moreso than you what I have read; as a matter of fact, Ayn Rand wasted 1075 pages, and a day of my life and I want it back.

Sorry, but your Bible has the worst style I've ever read.
It's not my Bible, it's just a book I read. I thought it was interesting, so I posted this thread. I wondered what the responce would be. Now I am just taking in the observations. [/b]
Actually the bible is not a book, but a collection of "books", compiled into one volume, there are works on the same topic and of the same style and period which have not been included. Indeed, I recall reading that the Bible actually can be loosely translated too library. However it seams that this "library" is sadly incomplete.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 11:48 PM
but I live in the hope you will one day take that great leap and acquire a library card.
But, Enigma, Libraries aren't very capitalist. There's a central institution (Often subject to democratic control through a public library board) controlling the means of education and . . . well, let's just face it - libraries are collectivist, and a barrier to freedom.

[redstar2000]

The central thesis of Rand's opus nauseam is that civilization "depends" on a creative and energetic minority.

The vast majority of humanity lives "parasitically" off the efforts of this elite minority...and when the toll of parasitism grows too burdensome, that elite should and will "shrug" and throw off the burden...leaving the parasites to starve and die.

Pretty much the exact opposite of social reality.

She also thought that she was an important part of that "creative and energetic" elite.

She was wrong about that, too.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Veritas]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 12:32 AM
The central thesis of Rand's opus nauseam is that civilization "depends" on a creative and energetic minority.

The vast majority of humanity lives "parasitically" off the efforts of this elite minority...and when the toll of parasitism grows too burdensome, that elite should and will "shrug" and throw off the burden...leaving the parasites to starve and die.

Pretty much the exact opposite of social reality.

She also thought that she was an important part of that "creative and energetic" elite.

She was wrong about that, too.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif
No, it is a testatment that given the right circumstances, everyone will want to exceed!
This is not zero sum game. Everyone that wants to succeed can. If all want to excel, then everyone will push not only the economy but social issues to the best ends.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Veritas[/quote
No, it is a testament that given the right circumstances, everyone will want to exceed!

This is not zero sum game. Everyone that wants to succeed can. If all want to excel, then everyone will push not only the economy but social issues to the best ends.

Clearly you did not understand what you read at all.

Now, I want to ask you a straight-forward question.

Do you consider yourself pro-capitalist?

It seems to me you probably are...but I'd like you to come out and say so plainly.

Thanks.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Professor Moneybags]

My dear fellow, the chances are I have read more than you are likely too read in your whole life time. From Maurice Keen (not that I expect an uneducated individual such as your self too have ever read any real historians works, or have even been informed of Keen) too Ayn Rand and Adolph Hitler, but I live in the hope you will one day take that great leap and acquire a library card.

And despite this arrogant, rhetorical garbage (probably false too, but that's unimportant), you still can't come up with anything better than :


I felt my eyes turning brown from the shit I was reading.

Deliver the goods, or shut up.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 08:47 PM
I have read it. And I think I know moreso than you what I have read; as a matter of fact, Ayn Rand wasted 1075 pages, and a day of my life and I want it back.

Sorry, but your Bible has the worst style I've ever read.
Oh, is that right ? (http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=1419&hl=) :rolleyes:

[Djehuti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 01:07 AM
Atlas Shrugged. Have you read this book?
I fell a sleep reading it. It was stupid reasoning and Rand is a useless Sci-fi writer.
I will watch the Fountainhead movie instead, but I guess it will suck to.

Ayn Rand must be the single most overrated philosopher ever. Here in Europe its just a few objectivists in each country, but in the US this crap accually seems to be popular.
Can't really understand that.

Most stupid off all is their epistemology...ok, I now that even objectivists realise that it is very flawed, but anyway. They do not seem to know to much about history either, and probably nothing about Marx. And they do not now anything about capitalism, which is quite ironic. They do even think that capitalism is the same thing as a free market economy (libertarianism/neo liberalism), how stupid are they? No knowledge of history.

[Veritas]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Feb 5 2005, 04:26 AM--> (redstar2000 @ Feb 5 2005, 04:26 AM)
Veritas[/quote
No, it is a testament that given the right circumstances, everyone will want to exceed!

This is not zero sum game. Everyone that wants to succeed can. If all want to excel, then everyone will push not only the economy but social issues to the best ends.

Clearly you did not understand what you read at all.

Now, I want to ask you a straight-forward question.

Do you consider yourself pro-capitalist?

It seems to me you probably are...but I'd like you to come out and say so plainly.

Thanks.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif [/b]
I have not said I was PRO-anything. I do think that true freedom must come from self government.

[praxus]

The central thesis of Rand's opus nauseam is that civilization "depends" on a creative and energetic minority.

Well quite simply, you are wrong. She never said that civilization as such depends on a "creative and energetic minority" but that the civilization in the book does.

But it is true that civilization does depend on creative and energetic people (be they a minority or majority).


The vast majority of humanity lives "parasitically" off the efforts of this elite minority...and when the toll of parasitism grows too burdensome, that elite should and will "shrug" and throw off the burden...leaving the parasites to starve and die.

Your point being? Why do the unproductive have a right to live off the productive?

By the way she never said that in real life the productive will throw off the parasites.


She also thought that she was an important part of that "creative and energetic" elite.

She was wrong about that, too.

Don't you understand that ad hominen attacks against Ayn Rand are pointless.


Most stupid off all is their epistemology...ok, I now that even objectivists realise that it is very flawed, but anyway. They do not seem to know to much about history either, and probably nothing about Marx. And they do not now anything about capitalism, which is quite ironic. They do even think that capitalism is the same thing as a free market economy (libertarianism/neo liberalism), how stupid are they? No knowledge of history.

Tell me, what historians have you read?

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags+Feb 5 2005, 01:21 AM--> (Professor Moneybags @ Feb 5 2005, 01:21 AM)
[email protected] 4 2005, 08:47 PM
I have read it. And I think I know moreso than you what I have read; as a matter of fact, Ayn Rand wasted 1075 pages, and a day of my life and I want it back.

Sorry, but your Bible has the worst style I've ever read.
Oh, is that right ? (http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=1419&hl=) :rolleyes:[/b]
Yeah that's right :rolleyes: besides that libel can't (and has yet to) be substantiated outside of "He is the same person, but I have no proof to justify my assertions!" In your own words: Deliver the goods, or shut up.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 5 2005, 10:16 AM

My dear fellow, the chances are I have read more than you are likely too read in your whole life time. From Maurice Keen (not that I expect an uneducated individual such as your self too have ever read any real historians works, or have even been informed of Keen) too Ayn Rand and Adolph Hitler, but I live in the hope you will one day take that great leap and acquire a library card.

And despite this arrogant, rhetorical garbage (probably false too, but that's unimportant), you still can't come up with anything better than :


I felt my eyes turning brown from the shit I was reading.

Deliver the goods, or shut up.
What, dear proff, would you have me say? That text was next too unreadable, boring and stale. The politics are highy questionable and not too my taste. I did not enjoy the work. or that my eyes turned brown with the shit?

(probably false too, but that's unimportant),

Ahh, so you don't know who Maurice Keen is, what a supprise there.

Try again.

Deliver the goods, or shut up.

Would you like me too mail you my library card? How does that sound? I have access too one of the largest libraries in the world, a national library indeed.

However I think that your statements too me jusyt now are indicative of your low intelect. What exactly do you plan too do if I don't "shut up"?

Moron

[Professor Moneybags]

I fell a sleep reading it. It was stupid reasoning and Rand is a useless Sci-fi writer.

Not really your kind of book; no pictures.


Most stupid off all is their epistemology...ok, I now that even objectivists realise that it is very flawed, but anyway.

Flawed ? In what way ? Explain. (The reply to this should be good, but I'm not going to hold my breath).

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 07:08 PM
Yeah that's right :rolleyes: besides that libel can't (and has yet to) be substantiated outside of "He is the same person, but I have no proof to justify my assertions!" In your own words: Deliver the goods, or shut up.
Yes, you are the same person. You're I. Kant./Sokrates/Comrade Red. Don't deny it. You give identical arguments with identical logical flaws.

[Professor Moneybags]

What, dear proff, would you have me say? That text was next too unreadable, boring and stale.

You seem to think that objectivism itself is flawed, so let's hear the critique.


Ahh, so you don't know who Maurice Keen is, what a supprise there.

Try again.

We're not discussing Maurice Keen, dear, we're discussing Ayn Rand. Who he is/was isn't relevent to the discussion.


Would you like me too mail you my library card? How does that sound? I have access too one of the largest libraries in the world, a national library indeed.

I've got an even better idea : How about you offer an argument beyond "it sucks" ?

"Communism sucks" is not a critique of communism, so "I felt my eyes turning brown from the shit I was reading" sure as shit ain't a critique of objectivism.


However I think that your statements too me jusyt now are indicative of your low intelect.

All of your arguments amount to name-calling. What does that tell me about your intellect ?


What exactly do you plan too do if I don't "shut up"?

You can't even offer a "this is wrong because-" because either you either haven't read it, or your stumped. What am I going to do if you don't shut up ? Nothing; just hold a torch up to your non-arguments.

[praxus]

But, Enigma, Libraries aren't very capitalist. There's a central institution (Often subject to democratic control through a public library board) controlling the means of education and . . . well, let's just face it - libraries are collectivist, and a barrier to freedom.

In a book of logical fallacies this paragraph should be given as an example of a strawman.

Neither I, nor Moneybags said that Libraries as such "aren't very capitalist". Only ones funded by looting at the point of a gun aren't very capitalist. This is to say public libraries.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by praxus
But it is true that civilization does depend on creative and energetic people (be they a minority or majority).

Evasion. You know as well as I what she was trying to say.


Why do the unproductive have a right to live off the productive?

They don't...which is why the capitalist class will be overthrown and abolished.

But, of course she did not see things as they really are. To her, it was the wealthy elite who "were" creative and productive...and all the rest of us were/are "parasites".


By the way she never said that in real life the productive will throw off the parasites.

I think that was her goal...and yours.

It's quite clear what she and you really want...

1. A hereditary aristocracy based on accumulated wealth.

2. A warrior caste to protect that wealth.

3. A large group of demoralized helots who will regard it as a privilege to wipe your ass after you shit.

4. Everybody else should just die and become fertilizer.


Don't you understand that ad hominen attacks against Ayn Rand are pointless.

Funny, I always thought it was ad hominem or perhaps in this case ad feminem?

In any event, I never managed to grasp exactly why this was ever thought to be a "bad idea"...if the target deserved the attack.

By all accounts, Ayn Rand was an abrasive and obnoxious person, deeply convinced of her own superiority, contemptuous even of her own associates, etc.

In other words, an asshole.

My experience has been that assholes have a higher probability of being wrong about any given matter than a random sampling of humanity.

Therefore an ad hominem attack is entirely justified as an additional method of attacking her arguments.

The only time an ad hominem attack would not be logically justified is that if it were the only rebuttal offered.

But that's not the case here.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[ComradeRed]

Yes, you are the same person. You're I. Kant./Sokrates/Comrade Red. Don't deny it. You give identical arguments with identical logical flaws.
"No...I swear it...I have no proof, but let me just make baseless assertions!" :rolleyes: You have yet to "deliver the goods", so "shut up". Hypocrite.

[praxus]

Evasion. You know as well as I what she was trying to say.


Tell me, how do you know what she was trying to say?


They don't...which is why the capitalist class will be overthrown and abolished.

So using the common marx definition of Capitalist (Someone who owns capital) that means that just about everyone in the United States will be overthrown (since most people today own Stocks, Bonds, etc...) by an extremely tiny minority?

Please remind me, how does applying labor zap value to an object?


But, of course she did not see things as they really are. To her, it was the wealthy elite who "were" creative and productive...and all the rest of us were/are "parasites".

She considered in her book many rich people to be parasites. In fact she casted most of them as parasites. The vast majority of rich exspecially towards the middle and end of the book were still rich because they played ball with the Government. She portrayed the problem in the book as a philosophical one, and not a class one. Hence it equally or near equally affects everyone in the society.


I think that was her goal...and yours.

It's quite clear what she and you really want...

1. A hereditary aristocracy based on accumulated wealth.

An aristocracy is enforced by the gun. Comparing an aristocracy with rich people who want to pass their money on to their children is a complete distortion.


2. A warrior caste to protect that wealth.

I have no idea what your implication is with "warrior caste". It certainly didn't come from Atlas Shrugged.


3. A large group of demoralized helots who will regard it as a privilege to wipe your ass after you shit.

Perhaps you would like to prove this?


4. Everybody else should just die and become fertilizer.


Excuse me?


Funny, I always thought it was ad hominem or perhaps in this case ad feminem?

Your kidding right? You actually made a point out of the fact that I accidentally typed "n" instead of "m"?


In any event, I never managed to grasp exactly why this was ever thought to be a "bad idea"...if the target deserved the attack.

By all accounts, Ayn Rand was an abrasive and obnoxious person, deeply convinced of her own superiority, contemptuous even of her own associates, etc.

In other words, an asshole.


Ad Hominem applies when someone uses a personal attack instead of an argument against said person's ideas. Which is exactly what you are doing. I'm just going to ignore the rest of the crap you wrote, as it is completely lacking in substance.

In fact every single book published against Ayn Rand has only attacked her as a person, and not her ideas.

If this thread was about her personal life, then ***** as much as you want, but it isn't it's about her ideas (namely Atlas Shrugged).

[Kaan]

I must confess that I've never read any Ayn Rand, but this statement caught my eye:

So using the common marx definition of Capitalist (Someone who owns capital) that means that just about everyone in the United States will be overthrown (since most people today own Stocks, Bonds, etc...) by an extremely tiny minority?


Because of imperialism, capitalism has become international, and so is our revolutionary solution to it. The vast majority of the world's population is oppressed and exploited by the expansion of capitalism. Ignoring the exploitation of the vast majority of the earth is a chauvinistic move to make. So to answer your question, yes, U.S. imperialism will be overthrown, then we'll see if everybodys got it so good in the states.

[NovelGentry]

I think that statement comes from assuming money and capital are one in the same.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_%28economics%29

Money can become capital, as can any form of wealth. But it is not the same as capital.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 6 2005, 04:28 PM

What, dear proff, would you have me say? That text was next too unreadable, boring and stale.

You seem to think that objectivism itself is flawed, so let's hear the critique.


Ahh, so you don't know who Maurice Keen is, what a supprise there.

Try again.

We're not discussing Maurice Keen, dear, we're discussing Ayn Rand. Who he is/was isn't relevent to the discussion.


Would you like me too mail you my library card? How does that sound? I have access too one of the largest libraries in the world, a national library indeed.

I've got an even better idea : How about you offer an argument beyond "it sucks" ?

"Communism sucks" is not a critique of communism, so "I felt my eyes turning brown from the shit I was reading" sure as shit ain't a critique of objectivism.


However I think that your statements too me jusyt now are indicative of your low intelect.

All of your arguments amount to name-calling. What does that tell me about your intellect ?


What exactly do you plan too do if I don't "shut up"?

You can't even offer a "this is wrong because-" because either you either haven't read it, or your stumped. What am I going to do if you don't shut up ? Nothing; just hold a torch up to your non-arguments.
You seem to think that objectivism itself is flawed, so let's hear the critique.

Dear me, you think Rand was objective? You really are a sad case.

Let me tell you something about the big bad world Moneybags, nobody, repeat, nobody, is objective.

Maybe when you burst your bubble of naivety you will grasp that, though I doubt it.

We're not discussing Maurice Keen, dear, we're discussing Ayn Rand. Who he is/was isn't relevent to the discussion.

No, my dear boy, you moved the conversation on, by accusing me of lying, and attempting to pass your self off as an intellectual.

I've got an even better idea

I seriously doubt that you have ever had a good idea.

How about you offer an argument beyond "it sucks" ?

Do I need to? After all, it does suck! It is a poorly written book which failed to keep my interest, a sign that Rand was a poor author.

"Communism sucks" is not a critique of communism

Yes, but I gave a reason why I think Rand sucks, she couldn't write.

sure as shit ain't a critique of objectivism.

A "critique of objectivism"? I don't think you understand the meaning of the word.

All of your arguments amount to name-calling.

Not all, but when addressing you, I find the lowest denominator more than adequate.

You can't even offer a "this is wrong because-"

I have, I said exactly why I don't like it.

Nothing; just hold a torch up to your non-arguments.

My dear boy, you haven't even got a match never mind a torch.

But your right, i haven't read the book, I have read part of the book. Like I said: -

"Indeed just like Mein Kampf, the tragically low quality of the work forced me, in no uncertain terms, to stop reading."

I never claimed too have read the complete work.

Considering your inability too read a four line post, I doubt you finished it either.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by praxus
So using the common marx definition of Capitalist (Someone who owns capital) that means that just about everyone in the United States will be overthrown (since most people today own Stocks, Bonds, etc...) by an extremely tiny minority?

I've set aside the rest of your non-reply, but this is too illustrative of your lack of comprehension of social reality to "pass up".

The Marxist definition of a capitalist is not someone who owns a small amount of capital.

It is one who owns sufficient capital to be able to live without working for another capitalist.

All those poor suckers with their 401K plans who may "think they are capitalists" are nothing of the sort. Most of them couldn't live a month on the interest/dividends from their "investments".

I say "suckers" deliberately; any worker with income above his needs should buy a house and pay off the loan as quickly as possible. When you retire, sell that puppy and move into the cheapest apartment that you can find. You should come out ahead with a substantial profit. (Of course, you'll have to do some fancy financial footwork to keep the doctors from getting it all.)

401K is a sucker play. Investing your social security in stocks and bonds, as Bush proposes, is another sucker play.

I think Marx himself once quipped that the purpose of the stock market is the transfer of wealth from the small investor to the large investor.

If so, then he called it once again!

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Professor Moneybags]

Dear me, you think Rand was objective? You really are a sad case. Let me tell you something about the big bad world Moneybags, nobody, repeat, nobody, is objective.

So the above statement cannot be objective either. I don't think that using objectivity to disprove objectivity is going work, somehow.

Try again.

[Professor Moneybags]

It's quite clear what she and you really want...

1. A hereditary aristocracy based on accumulated wealth.

Evidence ? Cites ?


2. A warrior caste to protect that wealth.

Evidence ? Cites ?

<Snip the rest of the drivel>


In any event, I never managed to grasp exactly why this was ever thought to be a "bad idea"...if the target deserved the attack.

By all accounts, Ayn Rand was an abrasive and obnoxious person, deeply convinced of her own superiority, contemptuous even of her own associates, etc.

Proof ? Cites ?


My experience has been that assholes have a higher probability of being wrong about any given matter than a random sampling of humanity.

So I guess you must be wrong too, then.


Therefore an ad hominem attack is entirely justified as an additional method of attacking her arguments.

In this case, it&#39;s the only method you are using. You&#39;re attacking Rand, not any of her arguments. Of course, we all know why you have to resort to this method, don&#39;t we ? ;)


The only time an ad hominem attack would not be logically justified is that if it were the only rebuttal offered.

But that&#39;s not the case here.

Sorry, but it is very much the case.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 7 2005, 03:59 PM

Dear me, you think Rand was objective? You really are a sad case. Let me tell you something about the big bad world Moneybags, nobody, repeat, nobody, is objective.

So the above statement cannot be objective either. I don&#39;t think that using objectivity to disprove objectivity is going work, somehow.

Try again.
So the above statement cannot be objective either.

Well done, your finally getting it.

I don&#39;t think that using objectivity to disprove objectivity is going work, somehow.

Objectivity doesn&#39;t exist, and while there are those who strive to achieve objectivity, Rand was not one of them.

Try again.

Now why would I need to do something like that? You haven&#39;t said anything to contradict my initial statements.

[praxus]

Dear me, you think Rand was objective? You really are a sad case.

Let me tell you something about the big bad world Moneybags, nobody, repeat, nobody, is objective.

Maybe when you burst your bubble of naivety you will grasp that, though I doubt it.

This is not an argument against her ideas&#33;


Do I need to? After all, it does suck&#33; It is a poorly written book which failed to keep my interest, a sign that Rand was a poor author.

See above.


A "critique of objectivism"? I don&#39;t think you understand the meaning of the word.

Objectivism is the Philosophy of Ayn Rand and you damn well know it.


Yes, but I gave a reason why I think Rand sucks, she couldn&#39;t write.

No that&#39;s a single statement not a complete argument, and even if she is in fact a bad writter, it says nothing about her ideas.


My dear boy, you haven&#39;t even got a match never mind a torch.

But your right, i haven&#39;t read the book, I have read part of the book. Like I said: -

I never claimed too have read the complete work.


Then why do you dismiss her ideas so quickly without having a clue about what they are?

[Professor Moneybags]

Objectivity doesn&#39;t exist, and while there are those who strive to achieve objectivity, Rand was not one of them.

Then the claim : "objectivity doesn&#39;t exist" cannot be objective either.


Now why would I need to do something like that? You haven&#39;t said anything to contradict my initial statements.

I didn&#39;t have to; they&#39;re self-refuting (see above).

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 07:31 PM
Then why do you dismiss her ideas so quickly without having a clue about what they are?
It would question the validity of too many of his sacred cows.