Baby's name for sale on Ebay

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

This is rather disgusting. But not unsuprising, as capitalism advances.

http://news.lycos.co.uk/querkies/050209000...lpfbgh.xml.html (http://news.lycos.co.uk/querkies/050209000514.pdlpfbgh.xml.html)

Excerpt:

"An Australian couple was attempting to sell the "naming, advertising and promotional" rights to their unborn daughter for 750,000 US dollars via an Internet auction site."

[amusing foibles]

Wow, that's kind of disgusting... especially because they obviously don't have consent from the baby. Imagine if your parents did this to you... imagine if you grew up being named "Wal-Mart" or "Pepsina"

[Lamanov]

Right Wingers will say : "But that has nothing to do with capitalism. Besides, they are not Americans, they are Australia, the land of the convicts, and... God forbid, maybe communists." &#39;&#39;Liberals&#39;&#39; will not respond... If they do it will probably be highly hypocritical... So much for "liberal capitalism", Francis Fukuyama and the "End of History". <_<

[Publius]

That&#39;s stupid.

But honestly, who cares? If they&#39;re stupid enough to sell it and someone is stupid enough to buy it, let them.

This isn&#39;t "disgusting", just absolutely redicoulous.

[amusing foibles]

If they were sellingn their own name and person for use in advertising, then it wouldn&#39;t be disgusting. But they are prostituting their kid. That&#39;s the disgusting part.

[Lamanov]

Nothing new though, people started selling their kids into slavery so they could payout their debts.... sometime when private properity appeared. :ph34r:

;) :D

[Invader Zim]

If I had 750,000 dollers just hanging around I would consider it a worth while investment... no scratch that I would spent it on drink, now thats a good investment.

But I don&#39;t think any corporation will go for this money making scheme, why would they waste their money on such a stupid thing as that?

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Non&#045;Sectarian Bastard&#33;@Feb 10 2005, 08:55 PM
This is rather disgusting. But not unsuprising, as capitalism advances.

http://news.lycos.co.uk/querkies/050209000...lpfbgh.xml.html (http://news.lycos.co.uk/querkies/050209000514.pdlpfbgh.xml.html)

Excerpt:

"An Australian couple was attempting to sell the "naming, advertising and promotional" rights to their unborn daughter for 750,000 US dollars via an Internet auction site."
Money is involved &#33; It must be capitalism &#33;

Moron.

[Invader Zim]

You proff, are in no position to call anybody a moron. After all, your not exactly a genius your self now, are you?

[dakewlguy]

What is far more disgusting is that some idiot will most probably buy it.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by amusing [email protected] 10 2005, 09:18 PM
If they were sellingn their own name and person for use in advertising, then it wouldn&#39;t be disgusting. But they are prostituting their kid. That&#39;s the disgusting part.
I agree it&#39;s disgusting, but with the shit names people are tagging on their kids these days, does it really matter?

Theoretically under communism they could let others name their child, it&#39;d just be free, right?

Tempest, meet teacup.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Dude, there is a difference between someone getting a dissatisfactional name and being a walking commercial sign.

There is a difference between being called Ernie and Coca-Cola Light&#33;™

And where is your "freedom" spirit. The baby&#39;s name is being sold, without her consultance.

And ofcourse this is capitalism. Why wouldn&#39;t this occur more often in the future? People already tattoo themselves for companies. The fucking ozon is for sale. This is capitalism; everything that is wanted, can be bought.

Maybe Pepsi™ will become a very popular name once.

[Anarchist Freedom]

I agree it&#39;s disgusting, but with the shit names people are tagging on their kids these days, does it really matter?

Theoretically under communism they could let others name their child, it&#39;d just be free, right?

Tempest, meet teacup.


A name is not possesive its not an object its mearly a title.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by Non&#045;Sectarian Bastard&#33;@Feb 11 2005, 02:34 PM
Dude, there is a difference between someone getting a dissatisfactional name and being a walking commercial sign.

There is a difference between being called Ernie and Coca-Cola Light&#33;™

And where is your "freedom" spirit. The baby&#39;s name is being sold, without her consultance.

And ofcourse this is capitalism. Why wouldn&#39;t this occur more often in the future? People already tattoo themselves for companies. The fucking ozon is for sale. This is capitalism; everything that is wanted, can be bought.

Maybe Pepsi™ will become a very popular name once.
Consultance isn&#39;t a word. Maybe you&#39;ll get to that in your junior year.

Children don&#39;t have much autonomy until 18, or whatever it is in Australia, though I&#39;m sure you think they should be fully emancipated at birth.

:rolleyes:


Frank Zappa gave his kids some weird ass names, so does nearly every celebrity. I&#39;m going to name my first son after Nolan Ryan.

So, basically, why the fuck does the action of one couple of nutballs who will end up doing what a bunch of other people routinely do anyway (give their kids idiotic names) amount to a huge indictment of capitalism?

Edited to add: When people do other stupid things (http://washingtondc.craigslist.org/rnr/59321202.html) does that mean the whole system should be radically altered? Based on these peoples&#39; actions, your logic says we need to stop having kids.

:ph34r:

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Like I said:


And ofcourse this is capitalism. Why wouldn&#39;t this occur more often in the future? People already tattoo themselves for companies. The fucking ozon is for sale. This is capitalism; everything that is wanted, can be bought.

This isn&#39;t just a "stupid" action, this is capitalism in it&#39;s full glory.

Even if kids, don&#39;t have full autonomy. That doesn&#39;t make them a possesion, merely a responsiblity. Atleast this is how anti-capitalists think.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by Non&#045;Sectarian Bastard&#33;@Feb 11 2005, 04:02 PM
Like I said:


And ofcourse this is capitalism. Why wouldn&#39;t this occur more often in the future? People already tattoo themselves for companies. The fucking ozon is for sale. This is capitalism; everything that is wanted, can be bought.

This isn&#39;t just a "stupid" action, this is capitalism in it&#39;s full glory.

Even if kids, don&#39;t have full autonomy. That doesn&#39;t make them a possesion, merely a responsiblity. Atleast this is how anti-capitalists think.
Whatever dude, I&#39;m sure it makes some sort of sense in your head.

:huh:

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Why not. Explain to me why this isn&#39;t the capitalist thing to do.

They sold a needed item, they made profit. Capitalism. End of story. You don&#39;t regard selling the ozon as stupid, or child labor, but parents selling their kids name is all the sudden "stupid"?

[Zingu]

This reminds me of the book "Jennifer Government".

Where everyone&#39;s last name is a name of a big coporation.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by Non&#045;Sectarian Bastard&#33;@Feb 11 2005, 04:49 PM
Why not. Explain to me why this isn&#39;t the capitalist thing to do.

They sold a needed item, they made profit. Capitalism. End of story. You don&#39;t regard selling the ozon as stupid, or child labor, but parents selling their kids name is all the sudden "stupid"?
Ugh.

Selling your child&#39;s name off to the highest bidder is not "the capitalist thing to do" because as far as we can tell, a whopping ONE COUPLE out of hundreds of millions of couples in capitalist countries is doing it.

You ever hear of the statistical term known as an "outlier"?

Take your kid-approved scissors, some contruction paper, some non-toxic glue, and some crayons, and put this together:

The actions of a tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny minority do not define an entire population.


Here you might need one of these too:

http://www.lara.com/store/images/sl-sc-300.jpg

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

It doesn&#39;t matter, whetever a majority of the population engages in it or not. A majority of the planet individuals does not own a company or land, yet this doesn&#39;t make owners of the means production (capitalist) less of a capitalist.

The point is, they sold an item for which there was a market and made hugh profits. That is what capitalists do, that is capitalism. If there is a market for these things, then it will become more widespread.

You still haven&#39;t refuted this. Why wouldn&#39;t this occur more often in the future? Why isn&#39;t this the capitalist thing to do?

Except for the regular cappie arguments "dEm KumMieZ iZt ZtuPid&#33;", but those don&#39;t count. :)

Anyway, tnx for you flashlight. I found this young man. He wishes to express his gratitude for the great capitalist system. May it&#39;s justice live for ever. This young man insists&#33;

http://www.un.org/Photos/148007.jpg

[dakewlguy]

Originally posted by Non&#045;Sectarian Bastard&#33;@Feb 11 2005, 04:02 PM

Even if kids, don&#39;t have full autonomy. That doesn&#39;t make them a possesion, merely a responsiblity. Atleast this is how anti-capitalists think.
Following this logic through, you can argue abortion should be illegal, by the way.

[dakewlguy]

Anyway, tnx for you flashlight. I found this young man. He wishes to express his gratitude for the great capitalist system. May it&#39;s justice live for ever. This young man insists&#33;
How does this image aid your point in any way.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

BTW there is an edit button. No, because fetuses are not children. Nor does it make sense to force someone who doesn&#39;t want a child, to get one.

The second one. The words "exploitation" and "children" came up :)

[dakewlguy]

Originally posted by Non&#045;Sectarian Bastard&#33;@Feb 11 2005, 07:34 PM
BTW there is an edit button. No, because fetuses are not children. Nor does it make sense to force someone who doesn&#39;t want a child, to get one.

The second one. The words "exploitation" and "children" came up :)
fetuses don&#39;t have full autonomy, but they have some, and are not property of the parents to do with as they please. They are just a responsibility, depending on the mother for a short while. Also it doesn&#39;t make sense to force a parent to not name a child how they please.

Uh oh one kid is living in poverty, who would have thought it. If we had all known this Capitalism would have fell long ago.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Fetuses have no autonomy at all. They don&#39;t even have a consciousness.

I will not force a mother to call him/her otherwise then she pleases. But I point out that this system drives people to certain actions.

Try again. Not one kid lives in poverty, billions do. But I didn&#39;t expected you to have social side. So when is your baby up for sale?

[dakewlguy]

Originally posted by Non&#045;Sectarian Bastard&#33;@Feb 11 2005, 07:56 PM
Fetuses have no autonomy at all. They don&#39;t even have a consciousness.

I will not force a mother to call him/her otherwise then she pleases. But I point out that this system drives people to certain actions.

Try again. Not one kid lives in poverty, billions do. But I didn&#39;t expected you to have social side. So when is your baby up for sale?
How do you know foetuses have no consciousness? Research has found that Foetuses are able to firstly recognise and respond to outside noise. Now this in itself may be explained as due to vibrations or just a reflex. However further research has found foetuses are able to discriminate between various noises and therefore must have basic cognitive functions.

the one image does nothing to highlight that billions live in poverty, and only is there to attempt to play on peoples emotional side.

Also I personally am fine with abortion at any age, but your criticism of these people selling their childs name I disagree with.

[Lamanov]

Following this logic through, you can argue abortion should be illegal, by the way.

That&#39;s a question on another level. Estinquishing a life inside yourself is in domain of personal choice, one that person has to live with, true, but still it has very little to do with a born, formed and "free" human being.

[dakewlguy]

Originally posted by DJ&#045;[email protected] 11 2005, 10:03 PM
That&#39;s a question on another level. Estinquishing a life inside yourself is in domain of personal choice, one that person has to live with, true, but still it has very little to do with a born, formed and "free" human being.
Whatever you say Mr "all research confirms dialectic materialism".

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by dakewlguy+Feb 11 2005, 10:12 PM--> (dakewlguy @ Feb 11 2005, 10:12 PM)
DJ&#045;[email protected] 11 2005, 10:03 PM
That&#39;s a question on another level. Estinquishing a life inside yourself is in domain of personal choice, one that person has to live with, true, but still it has very little to do with a born, formed and "free" human being.
Whatever you say Mr "all research confirms dialectic materialism". [/b]
HAHAHAHA... dream on.. I said that :


"Every scientific discovery in the last 150 years confirms that their view of the world and phenomena through dialectical materialism is correct"

I never said anything about any resreach. Dialectical materialism is obviously method that and as such it can&#39;t be examined trough experiments. Get it now... buddy ?

[dakewlguy]

Oh I see "all research confirms dialectic materialism" and "Every scientific discovery in the last 150 years confirms that their view of the world and phenomena through dialectical materialism is correct" are entirely different things boy is my face red right now I tell you.

It&#39;s a pity scientific discovery isn&#39;t based around doing research, otherwise I might still have a point.

[Lamanov]

You should be blushing.
Dialectical materialism can&#39;t be &#39;resreached&#39;. Get it ? It can&#39;t be resreached because it&#39;s a method that doestn&#39;t deal with isolated proceses. Dialectical materialism is weak at predictions thus it can&#39;t be analised.

Discovery though, is something else I had in mind.

Fission, fusion, atomic particles, antimatter, geological discoveries, punctuated equilibrium [not a discovery - a theory, but anyway it&#39;s method is dialectical] etc. etc.

Now those are discoveries.

[all after time of Marx and Engels, I suppose]

[dakewlguy]

Originally posted by DJ&#045;[email protected] 11 2005, 10:34 PM
You should be blushing.
Dialectical materialism can&#39;t be &#39;resreached&#39;. Get it ? It can&#39;t be resreached because it&#39;s a method that doestn&#39;t deal with isolated proceses. Dialectical materialism is weak at predictions thus it can&#39;t be analised.

Discovery though, is something else.

Fission, fusion, atomic particles, antimatter, geological discoveries, punctuated equilibrium [not a discovery - a theory, but anyway it&#39;s method is dialectical] etc. etc.
Where have I said dialectic materialism can be researched?

You have declared that "Every scientific discovery in the last 150 years confirms that their view of the world and phenomena through dialectical materialism is correct.". Guess what. Scientific discoveries are the conclusions of scientific research. The two are inseperable. Certain scientific discoveries do not confirm the view of the world through dialectic materialism. I have given examples already.

In response you;
1. In this thread (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=33255&st=40) claim science is not about research.
2. In this thread (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=33377) attempt to divert the argument to whether dialectic materialism is correct or not. You argue against the author of the example I give, as if it is me who has done the research cited.
3. In the same thread argue that indeed I have stated the dialectic is false when I have done no such thing.
4. Question whether I have any knowledge of Marxism.
5. In this thread (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=33407&st=20) change your argument once again. Now you claim I myself am saying I have disproved it.
6. In the same thread now state that your poor English is the cause of your incorrect assumptions.
7. In this thread go back to your initial argument that science and discovery are seperate. Also claim I have stated &#39;dialectic materialism can be researched&#39;.

[Lamanov]

I&#39;ve never said that science has nothing to do with resreach.


I&#39;m not talking about trends, i&#39;m talking about facts, empiric evidence of the existant. Besides, the point you were tryng to make is to say that Marx didn&#39;t do resreach.

Uhm... is this maybe it ?? :huh:


Scientific discoveries are the conclusions of scientific research. The two are inseperable.

I will repeat : it&#39;s not a discovery - it&#39;s a method


Certain scientific discoveries do not confirm the view of the world through dialectic materialism.

WHAT DISCOVERIES [not researches] ???


BTW


A little tip from a guy to whom english is a seccond language : READ... or if you are not sure because someone was not totally clear about what he is saying : ASK ....don&#39;t go up in peoples faces with "HAHAHA.. NO&#33;&#33; NOO.&#33;&#33;. EVIDENCE.&#33;&#33;.. SUPPORT YOUR SILLLY CLAIMS&#33;"

[dakewlguy]

Originally posted by DJ&#045;[email protected] 11 2005, 10:49 PM
BTW

A little tip from a guy to whom english is a seccond language : READ... or if you are not sure because someone was not totally clear about what he is saying : ASK ....don&#39;t go up in peoples faces with "HAHAHA.. NO&#33;&#33; NOO.&#33;&#33;. EVIDENCE.&#33;&#33;.. SUPPORT YOUR SILLLY CLAIMS&#33;"
8. In this same thread attack my discussion technique not even attempting to relate the argument to your original point now.

[dakewlguy]

How nice of you to edit your post.


I will repeat : it&#39;s not a discovery - it&#39;s a method
I will repeat: I am not talking about or questioning dialectic materialism here. Refer to my previous post for a summary of the discussion between the two of us.


WHAT DISCOVERIES [not researches] ???
Harold Garfinkel. 1967. Studies in Ethnomethodology. I&#39;ve been through this before. Next you reply arguing against Harold Garfinkel assuming that his arguments = my arguments, completely missing the point.

[Lamanov]

How something incorrect can disprove something else ?

Tthis is obviously going nowhere :rolleyes:

[dakewlguy]

Haha. Jesus. you&#39;ve done it again. As I have already said, disprove does not = not confirm

Here is my post from the thread you yourself made:

There is a difference between disproving something, and not confirming it. Garfinkel&#39;s research is relevant as it does not confirm dialectic materialism. However nor is it particularly interested in disproving it, so arguing against his research is irrelevant.

For example a piece of research about global warming and its effects on bird populations. This would not confirm theories about obediance in humans. But also it would not disprove theories about obediance in humans.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 09:13 PM
If they&#39;re stupid enough to sell it and someone is stupid enough to buy it, let them.
The problem is that the kid is the one who ends up called "Microsoft Windows" or something like that

If I would be called "Big Mac" I would do a "big mac", but with my parents&#39; flesh :lol:


Money is involved &#33; It must be capitalism &#33;

Nope, it&#39;s more like "Corporations having a chance of naming a kid Ronald McDonald&#33; It IS capitalism&#33;"


Frank Zappa gave his kids some weird ass names, so does nearly every celebrity.

If I have a daughter I&#39;m gonna call her Frank Zappa

[Professor Moneybags]

Oh look, it&#39;s the old "take a picture of a starving kid as "proof" that capitalism doesn&#39;t work" gag. How does it prove that, I wonder ?

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 01:15 PM
You proff, are in no position to call anybody a moron. After all, your not exactly a genius your self now, are you?
I&#39;m still waiting for that critique of objectivism, by the way.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 12 2005, 11:34 PM
Oh look, it&#39;s the old "take a picture of a starving kid as "proof" that capitalism doesn&#39;t work" gag. How does it prove that, I wonder ?
I have never stated that capitalism doesn&#39;t work. I even think that it works almost perfectly. But I believe that it has the wrong aim.

The aim of the picture was to show the effects of capitalism on the least economic advantaged people and to emotionally manipulate you. But it doesn&#39;t work, because you don&#39;t seem to have any social feelings. Atleast I tried.

But the picture of a Columbian workingclass boy upset you - poor you - here is one to cheer you up again. Here we see two clean happy capitalists shaking hands. (probaly discussing about the best methods to gas Kurds)

http://www.intellexual.net/images/saddam-rumsfeld.jpg

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags+Feb 12 2005, 11:37 PM--> (Professor Moneybags @ Feb 12 2005, 11:37 PM)
[email protected] 11 2005, 01:15 PM
You proff, are in no position to call anybody a moron. After all, your not exactly a genius your self now, are you?
I&#39;m still waiting for that critique of objectivism, by the way. [/b]
One cannot critique what is not displayed.

[Raisa]

I find it really damn ironic....

That all of you care so much about "freedom"
And you accuse the left of wanting to take that away from you, but youre cool with someone selling a baby&#39;s identity to a corporation to become an advertisment.

How are you going to contradict yourselves like we are all stupid over here ?

[dakewlguy]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 12 2005, 10:34 PM
Oh look, it&#39;s the old "take a picture of a starving kid as "proof" that capitalism doesn&#39;t work" gag. How does it prove that, I wonder ?
Yeah its up there with Bush=Hitler pictures.

[Publius]

That child has the freedom to say "This name fucking sucks, call me Joey" and legally change it when he&#39;s 18.

[Publius]

One cannot critique what is not displayed.

At a sales conference at Random House, preceding the publication of Atlas Shrugged, one of the book salesmen asked me whether I could present the essence of my philosophy while standing on one foot. I did as follows:

1. Metaphysics: Objective Reality
2. Epistemology: Reason
3. Ethics: Self-interest
4. Politics: Capitalism

If you want this translated into simple language, it would read: 1. "Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed" or "Wishing won&#39;t make it so." 2. "You can&#39;t eat your cake and have it, too." 3. "Man is an end in himself." 4. "Give me liberty or give me death."

If you held these concepts with total consistency, as the base of your convictions, you would have a full philosophical system to guide the course of your life. But to hold them with total consistency—to understand, to define, to prove and to apply them—requires volumes of thought. Which is why philosophy cannot be discussed while standing on one foot—nor while standing on two feet on both sides of every fence. This last is the predominant philosophical position today, particularly in the field of politics.

My philosophy, Objectivism, holds that:

1. Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man&#39;s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.
2. Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man&#39;s senses) is man&#39;s only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.
3. Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.
4. The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man&#39;s rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.

[Anarchist Freedom]

I dont want my next door neighbors kids name to be NEW NIKE SHOX OUT NEXT WEEK&#33;


A name is expressing who you are. By using the name for advertising that person becomes"drink cool and refreshing pepsi" instead of jeffory.How would that work in school anyways? hi my name is "Take prozac it will make you feel better" whats yours?

And you say communism is bad :wacko:

[Publius]

A name is expressing who you are.

So your likely Judeo-Christian name, likely shared by thousands of other people, expresses who YOU are?

I don&#39;t think so. A name is just a way to tell who someone is. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Anarchist Freedom]

Its an extention of whom you are.

I doubt naming a kid"Viagra will keep you in the game" Is an extention of who the kid really is.

[Anarchist Freedom]

I dont think someone would agree to being identified for commercialism. Would you like it if your parents named you marbrolo lights? or bud light?
I doubt you would.

[Raisa]

I think names are more about who your parents are, then who you are because they pick it and you dont.

[Publius]

No, I would just have people call me something else and change it when I was 18.

Kids are already being named Lexus and Mercedes.

[Anarchist Freedom]

That may be but those are stripper and porn star names. The naming a child lexus isnt meant to advertise the new lexus in the driveway. It doesnt matter if you would be called something else. Your name legally still is"this buds for you".

[Invader Zim]

While not necessarily being a poor philosophy for life (except when it comes to eithics, where Rand was well out), in my experience, those who claim to be followers of Ayn Rands objectivism, and attempt to judge the world solely through "reason", fail to understand that many things are "unreasonable".

I have also noted that theses people are rarely objective and never reasonable. Quite ironic considering that objective thought and reason are supposed to be the main asset of this branch of "philosophy".

[redstar2000]

I saw an article in Harper&#39;s Magazine which noted that several hundred new-borns are named after commercial brands every year in the U.S.

It&#39;s difficult for me to grasp that the same person who wrote this...


Originally posted by Publius+--> (Publius)Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man&#39;s senses) is man&#39;s only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.[/b]

...could also write this...


Publius
The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit.

We had a pretty graphic illustration of what laissez-faire capitalism produced in the 19th century in Europe and North America; though, granted, it wasn&#39;t "pure" laissez-faire, it was much closer to that than what we have now.

How can you extol "reason" and want to go back to that?

It&#39;s pretty clear that Rand had a mental picture of "ideal capitalism" that was almost Jeffersonian...that is, a completely unreasonable picture. I suspect her problem began with simply a monumental ignorance of real history...or perhaps a calculated determination to simply ignore it.

Whatever the cause, her "utopian capitalism" is certainly one of the most utterly bizarre "visions" of the last century.

It&#39;s not ever going to amount to anything in the real world...but it&#39;s a shame to see otherwise intelligent people put their time and energy into such a wacko project.

They actually run candidates for office and expect to get elected. :lol:

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

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Non&#045;Sectarian Bastard&#33;@Feb 12 2005, 11:41 PM
The aim of the picture was to show the effects of capitalism on the least economic advantaged people
How do you know these effects are caused by capitalism ?


and to emotionally manipulate you.

In absence of a rational argument ?


But it doesn&#39;t work, because you don&#39;t seem to have any social feelings. Atleast I tried.

I use reason, not "feelings", social or otherwise.


But the picture of a Columbian workingclass boy upset you

No, it didn&#39;t.


- poor you - here is one to cheer you up again. Here we see two clean happy capitalists shaking hands. (probaly discussing about the best methods to gas Kurds)

One conservative and one socialist ?

Sorry, someone pass me that omni-present flashlight. I don&#39;t see any captialists there.

EDIT : Oh now I get it. It wasn&#39;t meant to make sense, it was meant to emotionally manipulate me.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Anarchist [email protected] 13 2005, 05:57 AM
I dont think someone would agree to being identified for commercialism. Would you like it if your parents named you marbrolo lights? or bud light?
I doubt you would.
I know some idiot who called his kid Metro. Then there was that guy who changed his name to Mr. Playstation.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 03:54 PM
While not necessarily being a poor philosophy for life (except when it comes to eithics, where Rand was well out), in my experience, those who claim to be followers of Ayn Rands objectivism, and attempt to judge the world solely through "reason", fail to understand that many things are "unreasonable".


Such as what ?


I have also noted that theses people are rarely objective and never reasonable.

Give examples.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 11:52 PM
They actually run candidates for office and expect to get elected. :lol:
No, they don&#39;t.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags+Feb 14 2005, 02:07 PM--> (Professor Moneybags @ Feb 14 2005, 02:07 PM)
[email protected] 13 2005, 03:54 PM
While not necessarily being a poor philosophy for life (except when it comes to eithics, where Rand was well out), in my experience, those who claim to be followers of Ayn Rands objectivism, and attempt to judge the world solely through "reason", fail to understand that many things are "unreasonable".


Such as what ?


I have also noted that theses people are rarely objective and never reasonable.

Give examples. [/b]
Remember now, claims stand on their own.

If you want evidence, go find it yourself.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags+Feb 14 2005, 03:07 PM--> (Professor Moneybags &#064; Feb 14 2005, 03:07 PM)
[email protected] 13 2005, 03:54 PM
While not necessarily being a poor philosophy for life (except when it comes to eithics, where Rand was well out), in my experience, those who claim to be followers of Ayn Rands objectivism, and attempt to judge the world solely through "reason", fail to understand that many things are "unreasonable".


Such as what ?


I have also noted that theses people are rarely objective and never reasonable.

Give examples. [/b]
What is your question? What things in life are unreasonable?

Religion, is the most obvious example.

Give examples.

Look in the mirror, and you will see an example staring back at you.

[Professor Moneybags]

What is your question? What things in life are unreasonable?

Religion, is the most obvious example.

That isn&#39;t a natural phenomenon. Religion is man-made and has no basis in reality.


Look in the mirror, and you will see an example staring back at you.

Ad hominem/circular argument. I&#39;m being perfectly reasonable.

[Invader Zim]

That isn&#39;t a natural phenomenon.

Why does it have to be?

Just because it has been invented by man, does not make it any less unreasonable or inapplicable. Religion does exist, and it is unreasonable... end of story.

Ad hominem/circular argument.

No proff, its not. Your response just goes further to prove that you are incapable of objectivity. You are unable to even look at your self from an objective view point.

Next&#33;

[Professor Moneybags]

Why does it have to be?

Because we&#39;re not talking about man-made phenomenon. Reality is never unreasonable. It just acts according to it&#39;s nature.


No proff, its not. Your response just goes further to prove that you are incapable of objectivity.

Is that an objective statement ? If not, then I can just dismiss it as being true for you, but not for me. If it is, then you contradict yourself.

Trying to disprove objectivity by means of objectivity isn&#39;t going to work.

[Invader Zim]

When proff will you learn that objectivity does not exist? Mankind is incapable of being truly objective.