Rush, Ayn Rand, and Philosophy In Your Life

[Aikenrooster]

Why would all roads necessarily be toll roads? I don't see why Rand's philosophy (granting that I'm no expert on it) would preclude cooperation among people when doing so would benefit both or many parties and serve their self interest as the same time.

 

In the Objectivist's idealistic world, all roads, along with everything else, would be privately owned. Road owners could charge whatever toll they wanted. If you didn't want to pay the toll, you couldn't use the road.

Or nothing. And even if they did want to charge tolls, it could end up being better than it is now. It would certainly result in a better allocation of resources than our current system, where taxes on transportation are used to subsidize other forms of transportation (eg., in Mpls gas taxes are used to subsidize public transportation leading to outstate people having their money used to pay for subsidized rides for suburban people of means, because of the distribution of political power. The private road owner would want to maximize his/her income from the road, not charge the maximum amount just to screw people over.

 

 

 

 

It's the same with minimum wage. Objectivists believe that business owners should be free to offer whatever wages they want. In their laissez-faire capitalist world, it would be a free-for-all between owners and workers....and we all know how workers fared when that happened back in the day.

It's not just Objectivists that believe this (as I'm sure you know). There's a bunch of business owners that want this and they're perfectly willing to accept any favors from government they can get. At least the Objectivists have purer motives. And there's nothing that I know in Objectivism that would keep workers with marketable skills from banding together and selling their skills to the highest bidder. If anything, in an Objectivist world there would be more incentive to develop skills and the workers that did so would be better off. In our current system, where those without skills are being paid more than the value of their work due to minimum wage laws that distort the market, that this drags down the purchasing power of those with more marketable skills. And in an Objectivist world, there would be no corporations using a corrupt government to distort the market and get unearned privileges, which also hurts the lifestyles and purchasing power of the skilled worker.

 

Not that I'm an Objectivist. I don't have any idea how Objectivists would handle handicapped individuals. My guess is, not very well. And that would be a huge, if not insurmountable problem. But Rand's ideas do have merit, and quite a bit of it, and IMO more than that of a strong government that distorts the market with its corruption, and in different ways, with its idealism...and certainly in picking winners and losers.

Good thought. And, of course, we'd have no state, provincial, and national parks, so, that makes me a hypocrite, too, as I've stated many, many times.

[Principled Man]

Another mistake people make about Rand is to say that she was against giving or taking care of others. She most certainly was not. She was against altruism, which is when one makes the sole purpose of his or her life to serve others. There is a difference and she made that difference clear.

 

“I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.” (John Galt) :ebert:

 

Rand was especially opposed to coerced altruism, where people are required by the State to live for helping others. It leads to tyranny and totalitarianism. The worst tyrants operate in the name of altruism. They speak of acting for the "public good", but in reality, they're only out for their own power and profit.

 

Rand's philosophy of egoism is simply the foundation of a good, moral life. It is not the end point. We are all responsible for our own success and happiness. No one else can do it for us. Once we have established our own lives and happiness, then we do as we please, and that includes helping others (if we wish).

 

If I wish to give to charities, or help out people at the homeless shelter, I do so because it pleases ME to do it, not because I owe anything to the homeless people. That is the egoist's philosophy on helping others.

 

 

 

While that philosophy seems to be sound, at the end of the day people interpret it as "there should be no taxation." And without taxes, you end up with a country that's not a nice place to live. Even simple things like roads... in an Objectivist society, who builds the roads? If you follow the philosophy to it's logical conclusion, then all roads should be toll roads, which would be a pretty crappy situation if you think about it. Hell, even sidewalks would be toll-sidewalks.

 

Agree 100%. Egoism/Objectivism works, but only to a certain point. As we have over 300 MILLION people in our Society, taxation HAS to happen. Large populations, without government, would fall into anarchy, chaos, and death. 30 people might get along without government; 300 million cannot. There simply has to be some collectivist element to managing such a large population, and that means taxation and laws that everyone has to obey.

 

Of course, people in governments can and do become corrupt. It's always been that way. However, it's far, far better than the alternative. Homo sapiens would have gone extinct long ago if the alternative ruled.

 

I know you love science, like I do, so I had to laugh out loud when I read that statement. Now you and I both know damned well that what separates our species from all others AND what has kept us from going instinct is our rational mind, not a herd mentality. Physically speaking, we are the weakest of the primates, yet, not only do we survive, but we've been able to live and thrive in the northern, frigid, climates, due to our rational minds. Voluntary trade kept us from going instinct.

 

What I know "damned well" is that we human beings have higher brain capacity, higher reasoning and language skills, the ability to think abstractly, etc., but we still possess the strong emotional, animalistic need for social bonding. Most of us still want and need to be part of a herd - be it a family, a community, a tribe, or even a nation.

 

Take away all that, take away the basic instinct to be part of a group, and what would we have? Over 7 billion individuals who care only about themselves and competing with each other....

[LedRush]

For me, this is the defining video of Randroidism. The crowd cheering "LET HIM DIE!" at a political debate:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bg7kgO7lFA4

 

We must have been watching different videos. I heard about 4 people say "yeah" and more people laugh at that response while Paul answered the question in the negative.

 

Why does personal freedom and personal responsibility scare you so much that you would make up such a lie?

 

Lol, yes I've perpertrated a vast lie.

 

Blitzer: "should we just let him die?" Crowd: "YES!"

 

Or are you arguing that the crowd was actually watching a hockey game on their iphones, and a goal was just scored? That's why they cheered in unison?

 

The problem with Objectivism is it falls apart as soon as you think out thought experiments.

 

Personal freedom, personal responsibility... what happens if you were born crippled? Was that your responsibility? Or should you just die?

 

These guys (Led and LABT) consider me to be a Socialist but you know, in the circumstances as described in th video, I would let him die. Why not? He took the deliberate decision to not pay medical insurance not that he couldn't afford it.

 

I don't think you're a socialist. I've found you to be much more of a moderate on a whole host of issues.

[laughedatbytime]

Another mistake people make about Rand is to say that she was against giving or taking care of others. She most certainly was not. She was against altruism, which is when one makes the sole purpose of his or her life to serve others. There is a difference and she made that difference clear.

 

“I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.” (John Galt) :ebert:

 

Rand was especially opposed to coerced altruism, where people are required by the State to live for helping others. It leads to tyranny and totalitarianism. The worst tyrants operate in the name of altruism. They speak of acting for the "public good", but in reality, they're only out for their own power and profit.

 

Rand's philosophy of egoism is simply the foundation of a good, moral life. It is not the end point. We are all responsible for our own success and happiness. No one else can do it for us. Once we have established our own lives and happiness, then we do as we please, and that includes helping others (if we wish).

 

If I wish to give to charities, or help out people at the homeless shelter, I do so because it pleases ME to do it, not because I owe anything to the homeless people. That is the egoist's philosophy on helping others.

 

 

 

While that philosophy seems to be sound, at the end of the day people interpret it as "there should be no taxation." And without taxes, you end up with a country that's not a nice place to live. Even simple things like roads... in an Objectivist society, who builds the roads? If you follow the philosophy to it's logical conclusion, then all roads should be toll roads, which would be a pretty crappy situation if you think about it. Hell, even sidewalks would be toll-sidewalks.

 

Agree 100%. Egoism/Objectivism works, but only to a certain point. As we have over 300 MILLION people in our Society, taxation HAS to happen. Large populations, without government, would fall into anarchy, chaos, and death. 30 people might get along without government; 300 million cannot. There simply has to be some collectivist element to managing such a large population, and that means taxation and laws that everyone has to obey.

 

Of course, people in governments can and do become corrupt. It's always been that way. However, it's far, far better than the alternative. Homo sapiens would have gone extinct long ago if the alternative ruled.

 

I know you love science, like I do, so I had to laugh out loud when I read that statement. Now you and I both know damned well that what separates our species from all others AND what has kept us from going instinct is our rational mind, not a herd mentality. Physically speaking, we are the weakest of the primates, yet, not only do we survive, but we've been able to live and thrive in the northern, frigid, climates, due to our rational minds. Voluntary trade kept us from going instinct.

 

What I know "damned well" is that we human beings have higher brain capacity, higher reasoning and language skills, the ability to think abstractly, etc., but we still possess the strong emotional, animalistic need for social bonding. Most of us still want and need to be part of a herd - be it a family, a community, a tribe, or even a nation.

 

Take away all that, take away the basic instinct to be part of a group, and what would we have? Over 7 billion individuals who care only about themselves and competing with each other....

Rand's philosophy doesn't (if I understand it correctly) preclude forming these groups or even look at such as negative...so to the extent it is a need (and it is, for most people, if not for Rand), these groups would form of their own volition in a society, just as they have here at good old TRF. This seems to me to be preferable to the sometimes forced associations that occur today. As you said, this DOES break down due to human nature, but I still think we are better off when force is used as a last resort, not, as is the case currently to a significant degree, in most societies today.

[laughedatbytime]

For me, this is the defining video of Randroidism. The crowd cheering "LET HIM DIE!" at a political debate:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bg7kgO7lFA4

 

We must have been watching different videos. I heard about 4 people say "yeah" and more people laugh at that response while Paul answered the question in the negative.

 

Why does personal freedom and personal responsibility scare you so much that you would make up such a lie?

 

Lol, yes I've perpertrated a vast lie.

 

Blitzer: "should we just let him die?" Crowd: "YES!"

 

Or are you arguing that the crowd was actually watching a hockey game on their iphones, and a goal was just scored? That's why they cheered in unison?

 

The problem with Objectivism is it falls apart as soon as you think out thought experiments.

 

Personal freedom, personal responsibility... what happens if you were born crippled? Was that your responsibility? Or should you just die?

 

These guys (Led and LABT) consider me to be a Socialist but you know, in the circumstances as described in th video, I would let him die. Why not? He took the deliberate decision to not pay medical insurance not that he couldn't afford it.

 

I don't think you're a socialist. I've found you to be much more of a moderate on a whole host of issues.

Agreed. I think many on the right are too quick to jump to using that label for people they disagree with, and I don't think that necessarily applies to you across the board, though you are a big supporter of socialized medicine and we disagree there...

[Aikenrooster]

Another mistake people make about Rand is to say that she was against giving or taking care of others. She most certainly was not. She was against altruism, which is when one makes the sole purpose of his or her life to serve others. There is a difference and she made that difference clear.

 

“I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.” (John Galt) :ebert:

 

Rand was especially opposed to coerced altruism, where people are required by the State to live for helping others. It leads to tyranny and totalitarianism. The worst tyrants operate in the name of altruism. They speak of acting for the "public good", but in reality, they're only out for their own power and profit.

 

Rand's philosophy of egoism is simply the foundation of a good, moral life. It is not the end point. We are all responsible for our own success and happiness. No one else can do it for us. Once we have established our own lives and happiness, then we do as we please, and that includes helping others (if we wish).

 

If I wish to give to charities, or help out people at the homeless shelter, I do so because it pleases ME to do it, not because I owe anything to the homeless people. That is the egoist's philosophy on helping others.

 

 

 

While that philosophy seems to be sound, at the end of the day people interpret it as "there should be no taxation." And without taxes, you end up with a country that's not a nice place to live. Even simple things like roads... in an Objectivist society, who builds the roads? If you follow the philosophy to it's logical conclusion, then all roads should be toll roads, which would be a pretty crappy situation if you think about it. Hell, even sidewalks would be toll-sidewalks.

 

Agree 100%. Egoism/Objectivism works, but only to a certain point. As we have over 300 MILLION people in our Society, taxation HAS to happen. Large populations, without government, would fall into anarchy, chaos, and death. 30 people might get along without government; 300 million cannot. There simply has to be some collectivist element to managing such a large population, and that means taxation and laws that everyone has to obey.

 

Of course, people in governments can and do become corrupt. It's always been that way. However, it's far, far better than the alternative. Homo sapiens would have gone extinct long ago if the alternative ruled.

 

I know you love science, like I do, so I had to laugh out loud when I read that statement. Now you and I both know damned well that what separates our species from all others AND what has kept us from going instinct is our rational mind, not a herd mentality. Physically speaking, we are the weakest of the primates, yet, not only do we survive, but we've been able to live and thrive in the northern, frigid, climates, due to our rational minds. Voluntary trade kept us from going instinct.

 

What I know "damned well" is that we human beings have higher brain capacity, higher reasoning and language skills, the ability to think abstractly, etc., but we still possess the strong emotional, animalistic need for social bonding. Most of us still want and need to be part of a herd - be it a family, a community, a tribe, or even a nation.

 

Take away all that, take away the basic instinct to be part of a group, and what would we have? Over 7 billion individuals who care only about themselves and competing with each other....

That's socialist propaganda. As you astutely pointed out earlier, when one helps someone else, he does it to make himself happy. He also does it, because it's a little insurance later on that someone else might help him when he needs it. We agree on this. And, in smaller units like a family or tribe and even small communities, people help each other, BUT they expect certain behavior in return. For example, no one is going to keep giving money to someone who is an alcoholic, drug abuser, or simply doesn't want to work, if they are able, and in smaller units, there is pressure for people to conform in return for help.

 

Now, with the government running the show, parents don't have to raise their kids and kids don't have to help their parents when they get old. There is no responsibility and the family has been broken up.

[LedRush]

I think it's fair criticism for Tony to call Rand out on her hypocrisy. If I wrote a book on how to lose weight would anyone take it seriously?

 

 

It depends on the content of the book, I would hope.

I think it's fair criticism for Tony to call Rand out on her hypocrisy. If I wrote a book on how to lose weight would anyone take it seriously?

Indeed. It's one thing when a self-proclaimed adherent of an idea fails to live up to that idea -- there are many self-proclaimed Christians out there that don't seem to actually walk the walk -- but when an idea's chief proponent does that, then I think it's reasonable to wonder if the idea is as good as the proponent says it is.

 

I can't imagine Christianity would have ever gotten off the ground if Jesus had been a judgmental, hate-filled, violent asshole.

Indeed. Incredibly, those qualities appear mandatory for modern day Christians.

Libertarians will go to great lengths to say how Communism, Socialism etc can't work yet aren't so incisive in their appraisal of Rand who basically sunk the boat of the practicality of Randism by her own inability to make it work.

Most of the fluff of her philosophy was padding to the basic idea that artists and thinkers are special and should be left to get on with their magical lives without the attention and restriction of ordinary, less gifted folk. A philosophy based on snobbery, just what we needed.

 

Whether we're talking about communism, socialism or objectivism, the mere fact that they don't work as closed systems doesn't mean they don't have good ideas worth exploring.

[Principled Man]

Another mistake people make about Rand is to say that she was against giving or taking care of others. She most certainly was not. She was against altruism, which is when one makes the sole purpose of his or her life to serve others. There is a difference and she made that difference clear.

 

“I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.” (John Galt) :ebert:

 

Rand was especially opposed to coerced altruism, where people are required by the State to live for helping others. It leads to tyranny and totalitarianism. The worst tyrants operate in the name of altruism. They speak of acting for the "public good", but in reality, they're only out for their own power and profit.

 

Rand's philosophy of egoism is simply the foundation of a good, moral life. It is not the end point. We are all responsible for our own success and happiness. No one else can do it for us. Once we have established our own lives and happiness, then we do as we please, and that includes helping others (if we wish).

 

If I wish to give to charities, or help out people at the homeless shelter, I do so because it pleases ME to do it, not because I owe anything to the homeless people. That is the egoist's philosophy on helping others.

 

 

 

While that philosophy seems to be sound, at the end of the day people interpret it as "there should be no taxation." And without taxes, you end up with a country that's not a nice place to live. Even simple things like roads... in an Objectivist society, who builds the roads? If you follow the philosophy to it's logical conclusion, then all roads should be toll roads, which would be a pretty crappy situation if you think about it. Hell, even sidewalks would be toll-sidewalks.

 

Agree 100%. Egoism/Objectivism works, but only to a certain point. As we have over 300 MILLION people in our Society, taxation HAS to happen. Large populations, without government, would fall into anarchy, chaos, and death. 30 people might get along without government; 300 million cannot. There simply has to be some collectivist element to managing such a large population, and that means taxation and laws that everyone has to obey.

 

Of course, people in governments can and do become corrupt. It's always been that way. However, it's far, far better than the alternative. Homo sapiens would have gone extinct long ago if the alternative ruled.

 

I know you love science, like I do, so I had to laugh out loud when I read that statement. Now you and I both know damned well that what separates our species from all others AND what has kept us from going instinct is our rational mind, not a herd mentality. Physically speaking, we are the weakest of the primates, yet, not only do we survive, but we've been able to live and thrive in the northern, frigid, climates, due to our rational minds. Voluntary trade kept us from going instinct.

 

What I know "damned well" is that we human beings have higher brain capacity, higher reasoning and language skills, the ability to think abstractly, etc., but we still possess the strong emotional, animalistic need for social bonding. Most of us still want and need to be part of a herd - be it a family, a community, a tribe, or even a nation.

 

Take away all that, take away the basic instinct to be part of a group, and what would we have? Over 7 billion individuals who care only about themselves and competing with each other....

 

That's socialist propaganda.

 

No, it isn't, but you're entitled to your opinion. :)

[Aikenrooster]

I think it's fair criticism for Tony to call Rand out on her hypocrisy. If I wrote a book on how to lose weight would anyone take it seriously?

 

 

It depends on the content of the book, I would hope.

I think it's fair criticism for Tony to call Rand out on her hypocrisy. If I wrote a book on how to lose weight would anyone take it seriously?

Indeed. It's one thing when a self-proclaimed adherent of an idea fails to live up to that idea -- there are many self-proclaimed Christians out there that don't seem to actually walk the walk -- but when an idea's chief proponent does that, then I think it's reasonable to wonder if the idea is as good as the proponent says it is.

 

I can't imagine Christianity would have ever gotten off the ground if Jesus had been a judgmental, hate-filled, violent asshole.

Indeed. Incredibly, those qualities appear mandatory for modern day Christians.

Libertarians will go to great lengths to say how Communism, Socialism etc can't work yet aren't so incisive in their appraisal of Rand who basically sunk the boat of the practicality of Randism by her own inability to make it work.

Most of the fluff of her philosophy was padding to the basic idea that artists and thinkers are special and should be left to get on with their magical lives without the attention and restriction of ordinary, less gifted folk. A philosophy based on snobbery, just what we needed.

 

Whether we're talking about communism, socialism or objectivism, the mere fact that they don't work as closed systems doesn't mean they don't have good ideas worth exploring.

Come on, man. If I wrote a book that prescribed some pills, a diet, or a method that I guaranteed would make you lose weight, but I put a picture of myself on the book and hadn't obviously lost weight, why would anyone try that method or the diet or pills?

[John V]

Wow. A thread with actual thought involved. Bravo TRF.

[Aikenrooster]

Another mistake people make about Rand is to say that she was against giving or taking care of others. She most certainly was not. She was against altruism, which is when one makes the sole purpose of his or her life to serve others. There is a difference and she made that difference clear.

 

“I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.” (John Galt) :ebert:

 

Rand was especially opposed to coerced altruism, where people are required by the State to live for helping others. It leads to tyranny and totalitarianism. The worst tyrants operate in the name of altruism. They speak of acting for the "public good", but in reality, they're only out for their own power and profit.

 

Rand's philosophy of egoism is simply the foundation of a good, moral life. It is not the end point. We are all responsible for our own success and happiness. No one else can do it for us. Once we have established our own lives and happiness, then we do as we please, and that includes helping others (if we wish).

 

If I wish to give to charities, or help out people at the homeless shelter, I do so because it pleases ME to do it, not because I owe anything to the homeless people. That is the egoist's philosophy on helping others.

 

 

 

While that philosophy seems to be sound, at the end of the day people interpret it as "there should be no taxation." And without taxes, you end up with a country that's not a nice place to live. Even simple things like roads... in an Objectivist society, who builds the roads? If you follow the philosophy to it's logical conclusion, then all roads should be toll roads, which would be a pretty crappy situation if you think about it. Hell, even sidewalks would be toll-sidewalks.

 

Agree 100%. Egoism/Objectivism works, but only to a certain point. As we have over 300 MILLION people in our Society, taxation HAS to happen. Large populations, without government, would fall into anarchy, chaos, and death. 30 people might get along without government; 300 million cannot. There simply has to be some collectivist element to managing such a large population, and that means taxation and laws that everyone has to obey.

 

Of course, people in governments can and do become corrupt. It's always been that way. However, it's far, far better than the alternative. Homo sapiens would have gone extinct long ago if the alternative ruled.

 

I know you love science, like I do, so I had to laugh out loud when I read that statement. Now you and I both know damned well that what separates our species from all others AND what has kept us from going instinct is our rational mind, not a herd mentality. Physically speaking, we are the weakest of the primates, yet, not only do we survive, but we've been able to live and thrive in the northern, frigid, climates, due to our rational minds. Voluntary trade kept us from going instinct.

 

What I know "damned well" is that we human beings have higher brain capacity, higher reasoning and language skills, the ability to think abstractly, etc., but we still possess the strong emotional, animalistic need for social bonding. Most of us still want and need to be part of a herd - be it a family, a community, a tribe, or even a nation.

 

Take away all that, take away the basic instinct to be part of a group, and what would we have? Over 7 billion individuals who care only about themselves and competing with each other....

 

That's socialist propaganda.

 

No, it isn't, but you're entitled to your opinion. :)

To hell with my opinion ... please point out anyone who claims to be anarchist, minarchist, pro-laissez faire, proponent of less government, objectivist, etc., etc., etc, who says that they only care about themselves at the expense of others. That's utter nonsense. The only people who would make that claim, by definition, are people on the left who are opposed to freedom.

 

And, competition has nothing to do with eradicating someone or stomping them out. It's about the allocation of scarce resources to their most efficient and productive ends. If a man opens a restaurant and it goes out of business, it had nothing to do with someone's personal vendetta to wipe him out. It is simply the free market telling him that he needs to direct his resources elsewhere, where they are most needed. Perhaps that given geographical area didn't need a restaurant, but needed an auto parts distributor or HVAC service instead. Once his resources are directed to where they are most needed WE ALL WIN, including him - since we are getting the goods and services that we are willing to voluntarily pay for and he is making profits.

 

IT'S A WIN WIN. That's what is so awesome about free trade, IMHO. A trade means everyone wins. Coercion, the opposite means someone loses.

[Aikenrooster]

Wow. A thread with actual thought involved. Bravo TRF.

Dude, we have conversations like this, all the time, in the SOCN. Come on over. There are several South Carolinians there, too(upstate, sandhills, grandstrand, and lowcountry regions all represented).

 

Most of us try to be honest and learn something from one another. I know I do.

[laughedatbytime]

Wow. A thread with actual thought involved. Bravo TRF.

There's thought involved in looking at your signature, too.

 

Maybe a little more visceral than insightful though...

[Tony R]

I think it's fair criticism for Tony to call Rand out on her hypocrisy. If I wrote a book on how to lose weight would anyone take it seriously?

Indeed. It's one thing when a self-proclaimed adherent of an idea fails to live up to that idea -- there are many self-proclaimed Christians out there that don't seem to actually walk the walk -- but when an idea's chief proponent does that, then I think it's reasonable to wonder if the idea is as good as the proponent says it is.

 

I can't imagine Christianity would have ever gotten off the ground if Jesus had been a judgmental, hate-filled, violent asshole.

Indeed. Incredibly, those qualities appear mandatory for modern day Christians.

 

This is why people don't take you seriously. The above statement is offensive, not borne out by any facts, and only applicable to a very small minority. In fact, I'll go so far as to say you don't actually believe it. If you do, you should be embarrassed.

I'm not interested in the intellectual midgets who "don't take me seriously" because being po-faced like you and your fellow humourless bedwetters is not a quality I ever want to ascribe to.

Of course I've spoken with every Christian on Earth or did I just make some flippant remark...

Doh!

 

[laughedatbytime]

I think it's fair criticism for Tony to call Rand out on her hypocrisy. If I wrote a book on how to lose weight would anyone take it seriously?

Indeed. It's one thing when a self-proclaimed adherent of an idea fails to live up to that idea -- there are many self-proclaimed Christians out there that don't seem to actually walk the walk -- but when an idea's chief proponent does that, then I think it's reasonable to wonder if the idea is as good as the proponent says it is.

 

I can't imagine Christianity would have ever gotten off the ground if Jesus had been a judgmental, hate-filled, violent asshole.

Indeed. Incredibly, those qualities appear mandatory for modern day Christians.

 

This is why people don't take you seriously. The above statement is offensive, not borne out by any facts, and only applicable to a very small minority. In fact, I'll go so far as to say you don't actually believe it. If you do, you should be embarrassed.

I'm not interested in the intellectual midgets who "don't take me seriously" because being po-faced like you and your fellow humourless bedwetters is not a quality I ever want to ascribe to.

Of course I've spoken with every Christian on Earth or did I just make some flippant remark...

Doh!

Your arguments are so insipid it's hard to tell when you're being flippant vs being serious. Or are you only being flippant when someone actually responds to point out the insipidity and when they just let it go you're serious?

[Tony R]

I think it's fair criticism for Tony to call Rand out on her hypocrisy. If I wrote a book on how to lose weight would anyone take it seriously?

Indeed. It's one thing when a self-proclaimed adherent of an idea fails to live up to that idea -- there are many self-proclaimed Christians out there that don't seem to actually walk the walk -- but when an idea's chief proponent does that, then I think it's reasonable to wonder if the idea is as good as the proponent says it is.

 

I can't imagine Christianity would have ever gotten off the ground if Jesus had been a judgmental, hate-filled, violent asshole.

Indeed. Incredibly, those qualities appear mandatory for modern day Christians.

 

This is why people don't take you seriously. The above statement is offensive, not borne out by any facts, and only applicable to a very small minority. In fact, I'll go so far as to say you don't actually believe it. If you do, you should be embarrassed.

I'm not interested in the intellectual midgets who "don't take me seriously" because being po-faced like you and your fellow humourless bedwetters is not a quality I ever want to ascribe to.

Of course I've spoken with every Christian on Earth or did I just make some flippant remark...

Doh!

Your arguments are so insipid it's hard to tell when you're being flippant vs being serious. Or are you only being flippant when someone actually responds to point out the insipidity and when they just let it go you're serious?

Yeah, you are correct as always.

 

[John V]

Wow. A thread with actual thought involved. Bravo TRF.

Dude, we have conversations like this, all the time, in the SOCN. Come on over. There are several South Carolinians there, too(upstate, sandhills, grandstrand, and lowcountry regions all represented).

 

Most of us try to be honest and learn something from one another. I know I do.

 

Thanks. I don't do well in discussions like this one as I am very liberal and frankly not as well read as some of you.

I guess I would rather be a dumb liberal than a smart conservtive.

I was not always like this. With age, its amazing how a persons thinking can change.

I want to help people today much more than I did when I was busy building a nest egg.

I will check it out though. What is SOCN?

Edited April 6, 2015 by John V

[hughes&kettner]

Rand was a sociopath, Peart is a sociopath. Better beware kiddies.

 

Anyone above the age of 16 who hasn't debunked Rand's "philosophy" already is a douche in my book.

 

pratt a sociopath? seriously? :wtf: :smash: :smash: you need to get out of the house more (or get laid). what a Delta Bravo. maybe go play in the street with a blindfold on- really it's fun and i'll be you'e the best at it- dickhead.

[Narps]

Wow. A thread with actual thought involved. Bravo TRF.

Dude, we have conversations like this, all the time, in the SOCN. Come on over. There are several South Carolinians there, too(upstate, sandhills, grandstrand, and lowcountry regions all represented).

 

Most of us try to be honest and learn something from one another. I know I do.

 

Thanks. I don't do well in discussions like this one as I am very liberal and frankly not as well read as some of you.

I guess I would rather be a dumb liberal than a smart conservtive.

I was not always like this. With age, its amazing how a persons thinking can change.

I want to help people today much more than I did when I was busy building a nest egg.

I will check it out though. What is SOCN?

The Sense O'Clock News. We discuss anything and everything besides music. You might enjoy it. I am not well read either but I have a good time in there for the most part. If you are as liberal as you state that you are you will fit in nicely there. You may even find yourself changing your mind on a thing or two along the way... :)

[Lorraine]

I eagerly await Tony's response to that - er - comment above Narps'.

 

[Narps]

I eagerly await Tony's response to that - er - comment above Narps'.

 

Not sure Tony cares much about what I think but I'll have some popcorn anyway... :)

[Lorraine]

I eagerly await Tony's response to that - er - comment above Narps'.

 

Not sure Tony cares much about what I think but I'll have some popcorn anyway... :)

I was referring to the comment by Hughes&Kettner.

Edited April 6, 2015 by Lorraine

[Narps]

I eagerly await Tony's response to that - er - comment above Narps'.

 

Not sure Tony cares much about what I think but I'll have some popcorn anyway... :)

I was referring to the comment by Hughes&Kettner.

Oh that one... :laughing guy: More popcorn then...

[Tony R]

Rand was a sociopath, Peart is a sociopath. Better beware kiddies.

 

Anyone above the age of 16 who hasn't debunked Rand's "philosophy" already is a douche in my book.

 

pratt a sociopath? seriously? :wtf: :smash: :smash: you need to get out of the house more (or get laid). what a Delta Bravo. maybe go play in the street with a blindfold on- really it's fun and i'll be you'e the best at it- dickhead.

 

Thanks for the life affirming private message too, sweatpea.

Man, oh man, some of you guys get magical powers of invincibility in your own personal digital space. Modern computers can do many things but punch back is not one of them. How about you smash that tablet over your head for a real life experience?

 

 

[Tony R]

Wow. A thread with actual thought involved. Bravo TRF.

Dude, we have conversations like this, all the time, in the SOCN. Come on over. There are several South Carolinians there, too(upstate, sandhills, grandstrand, and lowcountry regions all represented).

 

Most of us try to be honest and learn something from one another. I know I do.

 

Thanks. I don't do well in discussions like this one as I am very liberal and frankly not as well read as some of you.

I guess I would rather be a dumb liberal than a smart conservtive.

I was not always like this. With age, its amazing how a persons thinking can change.

I want to help people today much more than I did when I was busy building a nest egg.

I will check it out though. What is SOCN?

The Sense O'Clock News. We discuss anything and everything besides music. You might enjoy it. I am not well read either but I have a good time in there for the most part. If you are as liberal as you state that you are you will fit in nicely there. You may even find yourself changing your mind on a thing or two along the way... :)

Naughty Narps. Most Liberals get eaten alive in there. I say most... ;)