|
Post by MaybeNever on Oct 14, 2011 0:04:57 GMT -5
So it is apparent that Rand is not in the least admiring murder, cruelty, or heartlessness. Her admiration is for qualities, and her ire towards society is well-expressed in the statement ‘[the reaction to] this case is not moral indignation at a terrible crime. It is the mob's murderous desire to revenge its hurt vanity against a man who dared to be alone. It is a case of "we" against "him."’ The problem is that the Hickmans of the world are the product, in a sense, of this Randian me-first thinking. I'm not saying that Objectivism makes people into murderers or anything like that, but rather that there is a parallelism in the idea of self-aggrandizement as the ultimate moral good and the sort of social detachment that makes premeditated murder feasible. Praising his personality traits but not his actions may be sensible, except that those things are intertwined. It's like supporting the teabaggers filling their rhetoric with violence and gun metaphors and such, and then being aghast when someone picks up a gun and shoots a Congresswoman. Sure, I imagine that overwhelmingly the teabaggers were horrified by that event like the rest of us; but there is a connection between the two elements that it is downright dishonest to ignore. I further renew my objection to the concept of rational self-interest, on the grounds that rationality is about the last thing people actually possess in appraising themselves or their needs. The problem is systematic and pervasive across all fields of human endeavor; we are notoriously bad at assessing when people are "deserving", or how their problems stack up to our own. I set aside the problem of altruism because it seems to be less relevant; Rand may have been writing about Comtean altruism, which is a fair enough thing to oppose I guess, but seems to just as clearly reject the modern understanding of the word as well. When a philosophy fellates people who have already won the race and pisses on those who are doomed to run it for the rest of their lives, it abandons any claim to morality; when a philosophy nakedly espouses the emergence and functional entrenchment of both a robber-baron class, chosen for their willingness and capacity to give the shaft to their peers, and a laboring underclass that is barely worthy of the air it breathes, chosen basically by not being unscrupulous enough or powerful enough to take what they want, it abandons any claim to relevance in a modern society.
|
|
|
Post by largeham on Oct 14, 2011 1:47:02 GMT -5
I haven't read Atlas Shrugged, but from what I've heard, the antagonists are just smug bureaucrats, not socialists. Also, is it just me or most libertarians pro-business, not pro-free market? Otherwise, one could say they should accept the existence of unions as people in the market working together.
|
|
|
Post by Napoleon the Clown on Oct 14, 2011 2:23:55 GMT -5
Not ignored. I haven't forgot. Then I expect your next post to address his point lest I need to hand out a warning for question dodging.
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Oct 14, 2011 6:44:25 GMT -5
First of all, the charge that Rand admired a serial killer. It's not a 'charge'. It's not 'alleged' or 'claimed' or 'argued'. It is true. In fact, it's objectively true. Rand admired a serial killer for having the features of a psychopath- lack of respect for society, disobedience of basic moral laws (like not murdering kids for fun) and so on. Later, she wrote an ideology about how good psychopaths were. Simple as that. She doesn't mention the murders. She bemoans that society has the gall to punish someone so good (a murderous psychopath) for doing something so brave as 'disobeying it's laws'- by (though she doesn't mention it) murdering a child. She argues that society has done far worse things, like being dressed badly, being fat, thin or normal, and not handing people Ayn Rand likes easy advancement without effort. Characteristics of a psychopath, disregard for moral laws not least among them So being a psychopath is fine, but don't kill kids because it makes me look bad. That's essentially my reading. Thee 'mob' (jury) were quite right to punish a child murderer. Rand was just being silly, as always. The very qualities that led him to kill people! But in this case that is not what we're doing. Rand clearly continued to admire the characteristics of psychopaths while inventing Randroidism. It's pushing it a little far to call what Rand did thinking.
|
|
|
Post by itachirumon on Oct 14, 2011 19:38:51 GMT -5
-clapclapclapclap- So you found...2 sources was it? On random boards somewhere, presenting Rand's views, skewed in a positive light. With a few more "quotes" from interviews that would need to be independently assessed. And you say you've won your argument?
That sounds more like an exercise in self-deluded echo-chamber masturbatory futility. You took two sources, which may or may not be actually VALID, and patted yoruself on the back with a grin and said "I WIN, I WAS RIGHT =D" If I wasn't busy working 15 hours a week and taking two math-heavy classes and one neurology-heavy class, I'd spend the time looking for four sources that contradict everything you just said. Does that mean I've won? If your sources are valid, then mine are too. If your sources "win" your argument, then mine "win" mine.
So, either your two valid sources are beaten by my four valid sources - in which case, you lose the argument, OR all six of the sources are invalid, and neither one of us has one the argument. In which case, by rule, you STILL lose the argument.
|
|
|
Post by RavynousHunter on Oct 14, 2011 21:08:14 GMT -5
Who was that guy we had here a few moons ago...he was an exorcist and went into a multi-dozen page argument with pretty much everyone on the board? I think he's come back.
|
|
|
Post by worlder on Oct 14, 2011 22:34:42 GMT -5
Who was that guy we had here a few moons ago...he was an exorcist and went into a multi-dozen page argument with pretty much everyone on the board? I think he's come back. Was it the same dude who typed in broken English? Then suddenly in the middle of the thread he posted a perfectly worded essay. Then went back to broken English. Then another eloquent essay.
|
|
|
Post by priestling on Oct 14, 2011 22:39:27 GMT -5
I vaguely remember that guy. I had a hard time not laughing at him.
|
|
|
Post by RavynousHunter on Oct 14, 2011 23:42:30 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by davedan on Oct 14, 2011 23:43:34 GMT -5
Who was that guy we had here a few moons ago...he was an exorcist and went into a multi-dozen page argument with pretty much everyone on the board? I think he's come back. Fuck I love that guy where is he?
|
|
|
Post by itachirumon on Oct 14, 2011 23:56:28 GMT -5
Dear God, I tried to read that and it made my head explode. Rav, you bastard, you owe me a new head, I'd just finally broken this one in, fixed the memory recall/retention just the way I liked for college, and reduced the crazy by 30%. It wasn't exactly ugly either.
Can I have an irish voice though this time? With the brain makeup to pull off the accent?
|
|
|
Post by RavynousHunter on Oct 15, 2011 0:06:08 GMT -5
Pfft, Ravynous Dezign offers the finest replacement heads in the industry! I'll craft you one personally and have it sent to your house next-day at no charge.
Upgrades include:
- 50% more memory - 3x faster CPU - 40% reduction in crazy - Accent selector software - Patented target acquisition software
Also, our heads are rated consistently Most Attractive In Industry!
|
|
|
Post by Yla on Oct 15, 2011 6:56:29 GMT -5
155 pages?! WTF!? Anyway, can we get back to topic? I actually enjoyed following the discussion here, even if I don't post myself.
|
|
|
Post by the sandman on Oct 15, 2011 9:54:55 GMT -5
The would be nice, but unfortunately there has never been any "discussion" in this thread. Just a random Rand-disciple refusing to accept the overwhelming, documented evidence that his idol was a complete and utter douchebag who thought the world would be a much better place if it was run by a small group of completely elitist assholes grinding all the "weak" into the ground.
You can't have a discussion with someone who has decided upon truth before collecting data.
|
|
|
Post by Wykked Wytch on Oct 17, 2011 18:57:39 GMT -5
I'm reading that thread now. Damn, almost makes me wish I was there.
|
|