-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Free Copy of Atlas Shrugged (6/30 Only)
- Thread starter DarthWoo
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
BigPickZel
Member
Devolution said:By all means go live out in the woods by yourself, doing everything for yourself and so on. But don't try to ascribe that nonsense to a society and justify it with a heap of bullshit.
What does that have to do with anything I'm saying? Why should someone be forced to do something if they don't want to? There isn't anything wrong with helping others or accepting help. It's wrong to force people to "help." Rand was saying that the idea of altruism as being bound to help others was bad. People should do things voluntarily. We're not children.
Something you disagree with is your worst nightmare?JJDinomite said:Isn't this book like a liberal's worst nightmare?
What?
Had you actually bothered to read the Bible you would realize just how wrong you are.JJDinomite said:Well, other than the Bible. I can see why GAF isn't supporting it.
Napoleonthechimp
Member
Everyone keeps on mentioning how evil it is that Ayn Rand brings up the idea that everyone is somehow selfish. Why tell anyone that if not not to make some attempt at trying to shape another person's thought process? How is that not imposing your own sense of self onto someone else?Devolution said:Buddhism is a wholly different construct from the self-masturbatory crap you'll read from Rand and her ilk.
JJDinomite
Banned
Chichikov said:Something you disagree with is your worst nightmare?
What?
Had you actually bothered to read the Bible you would realize just how wrong you are.
'Twas just an observation.
LQX said:Thanks OP. From some of the comments I imagine this does to liberals what the bible does to evil, scares the shit out of them.
JJDinomite said:Isn't this book like a liberal's worst nightmare? Well, other than the Bible. I can see why GAF isn't supporting it.
What is it with you two?
lol
I think he is trying to say the world Rand wants.Chichikov said:Something you disagree with is your worst nightmare?
What?
Small government
A wrong one.JJDinomite said:'Twas just an observation.
Here's a hint for the future, you usually don't point and laugh at your worst nightmare.
Wait, that's not true.
I'll take "people who have never read the bible for 200$".Zeliard said:What is it with you two?
lol
JJDinomite said:'Twas just an observation.
A very bad one. Jesus was a liberal dude.
BigPickZel
Member
Fusebox said:A very bad one. Jesus was a liberal dude.
Actually he was apolitical.
I said he was a liberal dude, not a liberal, dude.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/liberal
a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/liberal
a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
PhoncipleBone
Banned
BigPickZel said:Actually he was apolitical.
He was the original hippie.
Napoleonthechimp
Member
People love to hate it but the idea that "the more laws we have, the more law breakers we create" is not the preserve of Ayn Rand. Being bound by societal and cultural conditioning is one of the main lines of thought in eastern philosophy.
However, she is not a good writer and fails to communicate her thoughts properly which results in incredible amounts of hatred due to misunderstanding.
Of course, those are just my thoughts on the matter.
However, she is not a good writer and fails to communicate her thoughts properly which results in incredible amounts of hatred due to misunderstanding.
Of course, those are just my thoughts on the matter.
ElectricBlue187
Member
BigPickZel said:Actually he was apolitical.
he was a goddamn commie socialist AND he was friends with people from the middle east so maybe he was a terrorist too
Where do you get such silliness?BigPickZel said:Actually he was apolitical.
BigPickZel
Member
Fusebox said:I said he was a liberal dude, not a liberal, dude.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/liberal
a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
Whoops, commas are important.
Mgoblue201
Won't stop picking the right nation
It's an English professor's worst nightmare.JJDinomite said:Isn't this book like a liberal's worst nightmare? Well, other than the Bible. I can see why GAF isn't supporting it.
BigPickZel
Member
Chichikov said:Where do you get such silliness?
The lack of modern politics in the bible.
PhoncipleBone
Banned
BigPickZel said:The lack of modern politics in the bible.
And as Fusebox posted, the word liberal does not immediately mean a political affiliation.
Chichikov said:Where do you get such silliness?
God's logic and designs are beyond the comprehension or capacity of human cognitive thought. Or something like that.
BigPickZel
Member
PhoncipleBone said:And as Fusebox posted, the word liberal does not immediately mean a political affiliation.
So why are we even talking about it, then? Apolitical.
So Cicero was an apolitical person as well?BigPickZel said:The lack of modern politics in the bible.
Come on now, stop digging.
Unless it's about the gays, where it's comprehensible beyond doubt.WARCOCK said:God's logic and designs are beyond the comprehension or capacity of human cognitive thought. Or something like that.
BigPickZel
Member
Chichikov said:So Cicero was an apolitical person as well?
Come on now, stop digging.
Get to your point, then. What are you trying to goad me into saying? Just get on with your prepared retort to whatever cliche thing it is you hope I'm going to say.
PhoncipleBone
Banned
BigPickZel said:So why are we even talking about it, then? Apolitical.
You are the one that brought up the argument. We were just replying to your comment is all. Quit getting so defensive about it.
BigPickZel
Member
PhoncipleBone said:You are the one that brought up the argument. We were just replying to your comment is all. Quit getting so defensive about it.
You quit being so defensive... about... it.
Devolution
Member
Napoleonthechimp said:People love to hate it but the idea that "the more laws we have, the more law breakers we create" is not the preserve of Ayn Rand. Being bound by societal and cultural conditioning is one of the main lines of thought in eastern philosophy.
However, she is not a good writer and fails to communicate her thoughts properly which results in incredible amounts of hatred due to misunderstanding.
Of course, those are just my thoughts on the matter.
Oh she communicates her disdain for the socially immobile quite well.
It was your point.BigPickZel said:Get to your point, then. What are you trying to goad me into saying? Just get on with your prepared retort to whatever cliche thing it is you hope I'm going to say.
You said Jesus was not a liberal and apolitical.
Two statements that I find ridiculous.
Listen, I'm not trying to goad you into anything, I'm just trying to have a discussion, you know, you say something which I think is false, I try to show you why, you address my criticism and so on.
Devolution
Member
PhoncipleBone said:He was the original hippie.
All that talk about peace and love, so was.
BigPickZel
Member
Chichikov said:It was your point.
You said Jesus was not a liberal and apolitical.
Two statements that I find ridiculous.
Listen, I'm not trying to goad you into anything, I'm just trying to have a discussion, you know, you say something which I think is false, I try to show you why, you address my criticism and so on.
Why do you find the statements ridiculous? Some of his actions may have occurred on the political stage but the motivations for what he was doing were not political, they were purely spiritual.
It's telling that you immediately thought of politics as soon as you read the word liberal.BigPickZel said:Actually he was apolitical.
BigPickZel
Member
XMonkey said:It's telling that you immediately thought of politics as soon as you read the word liberal.
Oh, I'm sorry, it's so often used for other purposes.
PhoncipleBone
Banned
BigPickZel said:Oh, I'm sorry, it's so often used for other purposes.
Uh, it actually is. Just like conservative is used often for other purposes as well.
Devolution
Member
BigPickZel said:Why do you find the statements ridiculous? Some of his actions may have occurred on the political stage but the motivations for what he was doing were not political, they were purely spiritual.
That's not completely true. There was more to his disdain for the money changers than just the "cleansing of the temple."
BigPickZel
Member
PhoncipleBone said:Uh, it actually is. Just like conservative is used often for other purposes as well.
Edit: Meh.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
I thought about it. I even almost clicked the link. Then I remembered that I read about ten pages of it in a library once and even if it had the most thought-provoking philsophy in the world I'm still not going to find the will to finish something that evidently mediocre.
Also: Randian philosophy, like all "meritocracy" systems, works incredibly well if you make a few assumptions about human nature that aren't true. And devolves into a feudalistic caste system when you don't.
Also: Randian philosophy, like all "meritocracy" systems, works incredibly well if you make a few assumptions about human nature that aren't true. And devolves into a feudalistic caste system when you don't.
Napoleonthechimp
Member
Way to completely ignore everything I've said. It's interesting how people only see what they want to see and hear what they want to hear.Devolution said:Oh she communicates her disdain for the socially immobile quite well.
BigPickZel
Member
The_Technomancer said:I thought about it. I even almost clicked the link. Then I remembered that I read about ten pages of it in a library once and even if it had the most thought-provoking philsophy in the world I'm still not going to find the will to finish something that evidently mediocre.
Yeah, the last page could have been filled with tits and I wouldn't have made it that far. Did I say last page? I meant page 50.
Devolution
Member
Napoleonthechimp said:Way to completely ignore everything I've said. It's interesting how people only see what they want to see and hear what they want to hear.
The point was there is no problem with how she communicates her ideas. She's an asshole who thinks society would be better off if everyone just had a selfish capitalistic drive, and anyone void of this in her eyes was a parasite or parasite-enabler.
She tried to morally justify selfishness and failed at it.
ColonelColon
Member
Surely this must be a trap?
BigPickZel
Member
Devolution said:The point was there is no problem with how she communicates her ideas. She's an asshole who thinks society would be better off if everyone just had a selfish capitalistic drive, and anyone void of this in her eyes was a parasite or parasite-enabler.
She tried to morally justify selfishness and failed at it.
Again, her point is that no one aw, fuck it.
Devolution
Member
BigPickZel said:Again, her point is that no one aw, fuck it.
And if she were alive I'd tell her to go fuck off to an island if she has a problem with social contracts.
Unless Randian philosophy is significantly different from libertarianism, that's not true. Libertarianism stems from the belief it's the unethical to force things upon others. Or, that is, to infringe upon their liberty.The_Technomancer said:Also: Randian philosophy, like all "meritocracy" systems, works incredibly well if you make a few assumptions about human nature that aren't true. And devolves into a feudalistic caste system when you don't.
Any halfway decent analysis of the economics of things would show that it is not optimally efficient. The prisoner's dilemma is the classic example of this, and it's a very common case to encounter in the real world. Having a system that forces people to choose in the societally beneficial way makes everybody better off, but is unethical from a purely libertarian point of view.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Libertarianism as I understand it, in addition to not liking the idea of infringing on personal freedom, works on the belief that a free-market system allows those who are intelligent or work hard to rise to the top.Slavik81 said:Unless Randian philosophy is significantly different from libertarianism, that's not true. Libertarianism stems from the belief it's the unethical to force things upon others. Or, that is, to infringe upon their liberty.
I find this to be a dubious claim, as it fails to recognize that the people who get to the top of a certain field first have a vested interest in keeping others from joining them, and significantly more money and resources then those who would seek to challenge them. Without regulation you get monopolies and other problems.
Actually, now that I think of it, this thread matches up nicely with the Oxford comma thread.JJDinomite said:Isn't this book like a liberal's worst nightmare? Well, other than the Bible. I can see why GAF isn't supporting it.
"I'd like to thank my parents, Ayn Rand and God."
ColonelColon said:Surely this must be a trap?
I'll let you know.
Don't the people at the top write that legislation? How many laws,regulation and product banning is noncompetitive?The_Technomancer said:Libertarianism as I understand it, in addition to not liking the idea of infringing on personal freedom, works on the belief that a free-market system allows those who are intelligent or work hard to rise to the top.
I find this to be a dubious claim, as it fails to recognize that the people who get to the top of a certain field first have a vested interest in keeping others from joining them, and significantly more money and resources then those who would seek to challenge them. Without regulation you get monopolies and other problems.
I don't see any any political party on the side of the entrepreneur.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.