Jump to content

Rush, Ayn Rand, and Philosophy In Your Life


Lucas
 Share

Recommended Posts

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.

 

And anyone with this opinion is a douche in mine.

 

I respect your right to read this rubbish but once you give any credence to the utter tripe contained within her infantile tomes then man, really, I have to say that reflects negatively on your credibility.

 

And once you've dismissed an idea because of a person who forwarded it, you've lost all credibility.

 

I don't really think that's what tony did. he's done the research, he's read rand's work. he's not an american libertarian or republican voter (not sure if this is TMI or not so if tony wants me to remove this info, tell me), so of course he doesn't find much to love about ayn rand. he's not being a troll here.

 

http://www.therushfo...20#entry3497803

 

he's dismissing her ideas because he thinks her ideas are stupid. that could be a little hard to grasp if you don't think any of her ideas are stupid. he decided her ideas were stupid before we were even born, he threw in that last part about her being a hypocrite and a bitch, I'm guessing, to upset the randians here. can't call it trolling because it's too easy.

 

he does raise a good point - it's hard to take someone who wants to completely get rid of welfare seriously when they collected money from the government with no problem. of course, randians will say the gov't already stole that money from her anyway so she was just getting her cash back, because everybody knows all taxation of any sort is THEFT by VIOLENT FORCE... so arguing about this won't go anywhere.

 

It's easy to dismiss concepts based on the people who believe them if you're illogical and don't care about honest discussions. But if he has actual arguments against her positions, I must have missed it.

 

it's also easy to type a non-response that sort of seems smart until you actually read it. :) maybe if I use capital letters people will think I'm saying something when I'm saying nothing, too! :D :D

 

no one's dismissing ayn rand's ideas simply because they're ayn rand's ideas. his point is that it's hard to take her philosophy seriously when she often went against her philosophy. it's also hard to take john lennon seriously when he's preaching about no possessions when the dude would buy every seat on a plane just for himself. one of us has to be misunderstanding the other because I don't think that's very hard to grasp at all.

 

No, one of us examines ideas on the merits, and one of us engages in ad hominem attacks in lieu of actual thinking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

And anyone with this opinion is a douche in mine.

 

I respect your right to read this rubbish but once you give any credence to the utter tripe contained within her infantile tomes then man, really, I have to say that reflects negatively on your credibility.

 

And once you've dismissed an idea because of a person who forwarded it, you've lost all credibility.

 

I don't really think that's what tony did. he's done the research, he's read rand's work. he's not an american libertarian or republican voter (not sure if this is TMI or not so if tony wants me to remove this info, tell me), so of course he doesn't find much to love about ayn rand. he's not being a troll here.

 

http://www.therushfo...20#entry3497803

 

he's dismissing her ideas because he thinks her ideas are stupid. that could be a little hard to grasp if you don't think any of her ideas are stupid. he decided her ideas were stupid before we were even born, he threw in that last part about her being a hypocrite and a bitch, I'm guessing, to upset the randians here. can't call it trolling because it's too easy.

 

he does raise a good point - it's hard to take someone who wants to completely get rid of welfare seriously when they collected money from the government with no problem. of course, randians will say the gov't already stole that money from her anyway so she was just getting her cash back, because everybody knows all taxation of any sort is THEFT by VIOLENT FORCE... so arguing about this won't go anywhere.

 

It's easy to dismiss concepts based on the people who believe them if you're illogical and don't care about honest discussions. But if he has actual arguments against her positions, I must have missed it.

 

it's also easy to type a non-response that sort of seems smart until you actually read it. :) maybe if I use capital letters people will think I'm saying something when I'm saying nothing, too! :D :D

 

no one's dismissing ayn rand's ideas simply because they're ayn rand's ideas. his point is that it's hard to take her philosophy seriously when she often went against her philosophy. it's also hard to take john lennon seriously when he's preaching about no possessions when the dude would buy every seat on a plane just for himself. one of us has to be misunderstanding the other because I don't think that's very hard to grasp at all.

If you're using the fact that she took Medicare and Social Security benefits because she was forced to pay taxes as an example of hypocrisy, you need to try again and do better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if tony honestly meant that everything someone has ever said can be dismissed if someone f***s up and does something they said they wouldn't do, I apologize for being difficult. but I didn't read his post that way.

 

I doubt that tony or anybody would disagree with the idea of being the best you can be, being rational, etc. but ayn rand wasn't the first person to come up with that shit anyway.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

And anyone with this opinion is a douche in mine.

 

I respect your right to read this rubbish but once you give any credence to the utter tripe contained within her infantile tomes then man, really, I have to say that reflects negatively on your credibility.

 

And once you've dismissed an idea because of a person who forwarded it, you've lost all credibility.

 

I don't really think that's what tony did. he's done the research, he's read rand's work. he's not an american libertarian or republican voter (not sure if this is TMI or not so if tony wants me to remove this info, tell me), so of course he doesn't find much to love about ayn rand. he's not being a troll here.

 

http://www.therushfo...20#entry3497803

 

he's dismissing her ideas because he thinks her ideas are stupid. that could be a little hard to grasp if you don't think any of her ideas are stupid. he decided her ideas were stupid before we were even born, he threw in that last part about her being a hypocrite and a bitch, I'm guessing, to upset the randians here. can't call it trolling because it's too easy.

 

he does raise a good point - it's hard to take someone who wants to completely get rid of welfare seriously when they collected money from the government with no problem. of course, randians will say the gov't already stole that money from her anyway so she was just getting her cash back, because everybody knows all taxation of any sort is THEFT by VIOLENT FORCE... so arguing about this won't go anywhere.

 

It's easy to dismiss concepts based on the people who believe them if you're illogical and don't care about honest discussions. But if he has actual arguments against her positions, I must have missed it.

 

it's also easy to type a non-response that sort of seems smart until you actually read it. :) maybe if I use capital letters people will think I'm saying something when I'm saying nothing, too! :D :D

 

no one's dismissing ayn rand's ideas simply because they're ayn rand's ideas. his point is that it's hard to take her philosophy seriously when she often went against her philosophy. it's also hard to take john lennon seriously when he's preaching about no possessions when the dude would buy every seat on a plane just for himself. one of us has to be misunderstanding the other because I don't think that's very hard to grasp at all.

 

No, one of us examines ideas on the merits, and one of us engages in ad hominem attacks in lieu of actual thinking.

 

I haven't attacked you at all, I'm certain you really were saying nothing so it's not an attack. but it definitely makes you look really really really smart to name a logical fallacy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

And anyone with this opinion is a douche in mine.

 

I respect your right to read this rubbish but once you give any credence to the utter tripe contained within her infantile tomes then man, really, I have to say that reflects negatively on your credibility.

 

And once you've dismissed an idea because of a person who forwarded it, you've lost all credibility.

 

I don't really think that's what tony did. he's done the research, he's read rand's work. he's not an american libertarian or republican voter (not sure if this is TMI or not so if tony wants me to remove this info, tell me), so of course he doesn't find much to love about ayn rand. he's not being a troll here.

 

http://www.therushfo...20#entry3497803

 

he's dismissing her ideas because he thinks her ideas are stupid. that could be a little hard to grasp if you don't think any of her ideas are stupid. he decided her ideas were stupid before we were even born, he threw in that last part about her being a hypocrite and a bitch, I'm guessing, to upset the randians here. can't call it trolling because it's too easy.

 

he does raise a good point - it's hard to take someone who wants to completely get rid of welfare seriously when they collected money from the government with no problem. of course, randians will say the gov't already stole that money from her anyway so she was just getting her cash back, because everybody knows all taxation of any sort is THEFT by VIOLENT FORCE... so arguing about this won't go anywhere.

 

It's easy to dismiss concepts based on the people who believe them if you're illogical and don't care about honest discussions. But if he has actual arguments against her positions, I must have missed it.

 

it's also easy to type a non-response that sort of seems smart until you actually read it. :) maybe if I use capital letters people will think I'm saying something when I'm saying nothing, too! :D :D

 

no one's dismissing ayn rand's ideas simply because they're ayn rand's ideas. his point is that it's hard to take her philosophy seriously when she often went against her philosophy. it's also hard to take john lennon seriously when he's preaching about no possessions when the dude would buy every seat on a plane just for himself. one of us has to be misunderstanding the other because I don't think that's very hard to grasp at all.

If you're using the fact that she took Medicare and Social Security benefits because she was forced to pay taxes as an example of hypocrisy, you need to try again and do better.

 

And it's completely irrelevant to a discussion of objectivism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

And anyone with this opinion is a douche in mine.

 

I respect your right to read this rubbish but once you give any credence to the utter tripe contained within her infantile tomes then man, really, I have to say that reflects negatively on your credibility.

 

And once you've dismissed an idea because of a person who forwarded it, you've lost all credibility.

 

I don't really think that's what tony did. he's done the research, he's read rand's work. he's not an american libertarian or republican voter (not sure if this is TMI or not so if tony wants me to remove this info, tell me), so of course he doesn't find much to love about ayn rand. he's not being a troll here.

 

http://www.therushfo...20#entry3497803

 

he's dismissing her ideas because he thinks her ideas are stupid. that could be a little hard to grasp if you don't think any of her ideas are stupid. he decided her ideas were stupid before we were even born, he threw in that last part about her being a hypocrite and a bitch, I'm guessing, to upset the randians here. can't call it trolling because it's too easy.

 

he does raise a good point - it's hard to take someone who wants to completely get rid of welfare seriously when they collected money from the government with no problem. of course, randians will say the gov't already stole that money from her anyway so she was just getting her cash back, because everybody knows all taxation of any sort is THEFT by VIOLENT FORCE... so arguing about this won't go anywhere.

 

It's easy to dismiss concepts based on the people who believe them if you're illogical and don't care about honest discussions. But if he has actual arguments against her positions, I must have missed it.

 

it's also easy to type a non-response that sort of seems smart until you actually read it. :) maybe if I use capital letters people will think I'm saying something when I'm saying nothing, too! :D :D

 

no one's dismissing ayn rand's ideas simply because they're ayn rand's ideas. his point is that it's hard to take her philosophy seriously when she often went against her philosophy. it's also hard to take john lennon seriously when he's preaching about no possessions when the dude would buy every seat on a plane just for himself. one of us has to be misunderstanding the other because I don't think that's very hard to grasp at all.

If you're using the fact that she took Medicare and Social Security benefits because she was forced to pay taxes as an example of hypocrisy, you need to try again and do better.

 

she's a leech!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

And anyone with this opinion is a douche in mine.

 

I respect your right to read this rubbish but once you give any credence to the utter tripe contained within her infantile tomes then man, really, I have to say that reflects negatively on your credibility.

 

And once you've dismissed an idea because of a person who forwarded it, you've lost all credibility.

 

I don't really think that's what tony did. he's done the research, he's read rand's work. he's not an american libertarian or republican voter (not sure if this is TMI or not so if tony wants me to remove this info, tell me), so of course he doesn't find much to love about ayn rand. he's not being a troll here.

 

http://www.therushfo...20#entry3497803

 

he's dismissing her ideas because he thinks her ideas are stupid. that could be a little hard to grasp if you don't think any of her ideas are stupid. he decided her ideas were stupid before we were even born, he threw in that last part about her being a hypocrite and a bitch, I'm guessing, to upset the randians here. can't call it trolling because it's too easy.

 

he does raise a good point - it's hard to take someone who wants to completely get rid of welfare seriously when they collected money from the government with no problem. of course, randians will say the gov't already stole that money from her anyway so she was just getting her cash back, because everybody knows all taxation of any sort is THEFT by VIOLENT FORCE... so arguing about this won't go anywhere.

 

It's easy to dismiss concepts based on the people who believe them if you're illogical and don't care about honest discussions. But if he has actual arguments against her positions, I must have missed it.

 

it's also easy to type a non-response that sort of seems smart until you actually read it. :) maybe if I use capital letters people will think I'm saying something when I'm saying nothing, too! :D :D

 

no one's dismissing ayn rand's ideas simply because they're ayn rand's ideas. his point is that it's hard to take her philosophy seriously when she often went against her philosophy. it's also hard to take john lennon seriously when he's preaching about no possessions when the dude would buy every seat on a plane just for himself. one of us has to be misunderstanding the other because I don't think that's very hard to grasp at all.

 

No, one of us examines ideas on the merits, and one of us engages in ad hominem attacks in lieu of actual thinking.

:popcorn:

 

 

 

 

This place is too serious. I'm off to SOCN to make a Tai Shan vs. La Villa Strangiato poll thread. :outtahere:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

And anyone with this opinion is a douche in mine.

 

I respect your right to read this rubbish but once you give any credence to the utter tripe contained within her infantile tomes then man, really, I have to say that reflects negatively on your credibility.

 

And once you've dismissed an idea because of a person who forwarded it, you've lost all credibility.

 

I don't really think that's what tony did. he's done the research, he's read rand's work. he's not an american libertarian or republican voter (not sure if this is TMI or not so if tony wants me to remove this info, tell me), so of course he doesn't find much to love about ayn rand. he's not being a troll here.

 

http://www.therushfo...20#entry3497803

 

he's dismissing her ideas because he thinks her ideas are stupid. that could be a little hard to grasp if you don't think any of her ideas are stupid. he decided her ideas were stupid before we were even born, he threw in that last part about her being a hypocrite and a bitch, I'm guessing, to upset the randians here. can't call it trolling because it's too easy.

 

he does raise a good point - it's hard to take someone who wants to completely get rid of welfare seriously when they collected money from the government with no problem. of course, randians will say the gov't already stole that money from her anyway so she was just getting her cash back, because everybody knows all taxation of any sort is THEFT by VIOLENT FORCE... so arguing about this won't go anywhere.

 

It's easy to dismiss concepts based on the people who believe them if you're illogical and don't care about honest discussions. But if he has actual arguments against her positions, I must have missed it.

 

it's also easy to type a non-response that sort of seems smart until you actually read it. :) maybe if I use capital letters people will think I'm saying something when I'm saying nothing, too! :D :D

 

no one's dismissing ayn rand's ideas simply because they're ayn rand's ideas. his point is that it's hard to take her philosophy seriously when she often went against her philosophy. it's also hard to take john lennon seriously when he's preaching about no possessions when the dude would buy every seat on a plane just for himself. one of us has to be misunderstanding the other because I don't think that's very hard to grasp at all.

If you're using the fact that she took Medicare and Social Security benefits because she was forced to pay taxes as an example of hypocrisy, you need to try again and do better.

 

And it's completely irrelevant to a discussion of objectivism.

 

I think taking benefits when you are 100% anti-benefit is somewhat hypocritical, yes. if she was truly a rational thinker she would've found some way to avoid paying taxes.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

And anyone with this opinion is a douche in mine.

 

I respect your right to read this rubbish but once you give any credence to the utter tripe contained within her infantile tomes then man, really, I have to say that reflects negatively on your credibility.

 

And once you've dismissed an idea because of a person who forwarded it, you've lost all credibility.

 

I don't really think that's what tony did. he's done the research, he's read rand's work. he's not an american libertarian or republican voter (not sure if this is TMI or not so if tony wants me to remove this info, tell me), so of course he doesn't find much to love about ayn rand. he's not being a troll here.

 

http://www.therushfo...20#entry3497803

 

he's dismissing her ideas because he thinks her ideas are stupid. that could be a little hard to grasp if you don't think any of her ideas are stupid. he decided her ideas were stupid before we were even born, he threw in that last part about her being a hypocrite and a bitch, I'm guessing, to upset the randians here. can't call it trolling because it's too easy.

 

he does raise a good point - it's hard to take someone who wants to completely get rid of welfare seriously when they collected money from the government with no problem. of course, randians will say the gov't already stole that money from her anyway so she was just getting her cash back, because everybody knows all taxation of any sort is THEFT by VIOLENT FORCE... so arguing about this won't go anywhere.

 

It's easy to dismiss concepts based on the people who believe them if you're illogical and don't care about honest discussions. But if he has actual arguments against her positions, I must have missed it.

 

it's also easy to type a non-response that sort of seems smart until you actually read it. :) maybe if I use capital letters people will think I'm saying something when I'm saying nothing, too! :D :D

 

no one's dismissing ayn rand's ideas simply because they're ayn rand's ideas. his point is that it's hard to take her philosophy seriously when she often went against her philosophy. it's also hard to take john lennon seriously when he's preaching about no possessions when the dude would buy every seat on a plane just for himself. one of us has to be misunderstanding the other because I don't think that's very hard to grasp at all.

 

No, one of us examines ideas on the merits, and one of us engages in ad hominem attacks in lieu of actual thinking.

 

I haven't attacked you at all, I'm certain you really were saying nothing so it's not an attack. but it definitely makes you look really really really smart to name a logical fallacy.

 

Seeing as we have been discussing Tony's attacks on Rand's personal life, and your defense of that line of thinking, I thought this was obvious, but I'll restate this for clarity: one of us examines ideas on the merits, and one of us engages in ad hominem attacks against the proponents of those ideas in lieu of actual thinking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

And anyone with this opinion is a douche in mine.

 

I respect your right to read this rubbish but once you give any credence to the utter tripe contained within her infantile tomes then man, really, I have to say that reflects negatively on your credibility.

 

And once you've dismissed an idea because of a person who forwarded it, you've lost all credibility.

 

I don't really think that's what tony did. he's done the research, he's read rand's work. he's not an american libertarian or republican voter (not sure if this is TMI or not so if tony wants me to remove this info, tell me), so of course he doesn't find much to love about ayn rand. he's not being a troll here.

 

http://www.therushfo...20#entry3497803

 

he's dismissing her ideas because he thinks her ideas are stupid. that could be a little hard to grasp if you don't think any of her ideas are stupid. he decided her ideas were stupid before we were even born, he threw in that last part about her being a hypocrite and a bitch, I'm guessing, to upset the randians here. can't call it trolling because it's too easy.

 

he does raise a good point - it's hard to take someone who wants to completely get rid of welfare seriously when they collected money from the government with no problem. of course, randians will say the gov't already stole that money from her anyway so she was just getting her cash back, because everybody knows all taxation of any sort is THEFT by VIOLENT FORCE... so arguing about this won't go anywhere.

 

It's easy to dismiss concepts based on the people who believe them if you're illogical and don't care about honest discussions. But if he has actual arguments against her positions, I must have missed it.

 

it's also easy to type a non-response that sort of seems smart until you actually read it. :) maybe if I use capital letters people will think I'm saying something when I'm saying nothing, too! :D :D

 

no one's dismissing ayn rand's ideas simply because they're ayn rand's ideas. his point is that it's hard to take her philosophy seriously when she often went against her philosophy. it's also hard to take john lennon seriously when he's preaching about no possessions when the dude would buy every seat on a plane just for himself. one of us has to be misunderstanding the other because I don't think that's very hard to grasp at all.

 

No, one of us examines ideas on the merits, and one of us engages in ad hominem attacks in lieu of actual thinking.

:popcorn:

 

 

 

 

This place is too serious. I'm off to SOCN to make a Tai Shan vs. La Villa Strangiato poll thread. :outtahere:

Hey, did you hear about Rush reissuing the Feedback demos in crimson colored vinyl?

Edited by laughedatbytime
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

And anyone with this opinion is a douche in mine.

 

I respect your right to read this rubbish but once you give any credence to the utter tripe contained within her infantile tomes then man, really, I have to say that reflects negatively on your credibility.

 

And once you've dismissed an idea because of a person who forwarded it, you've lost all credibility.

 

I don't really think that's what tony did. he's done the research, he's read rand's work. he's not an american libertarian or republican voter (not sure if this is TMI or not so if tony wants me to remove this info, tell me), so of course he doesn't find much to love about ayn rand. he's not being a troll here.

 

http://www.therushfo...20#entry3497803

 

he's dismissing her ideas because he thinks her ideas are stupid. that could be a little hard to grasp if you don't think any of her ideas are stupid. he decided her ideas were stupid before we were even born, he threw in that last part about her being a hypocrite and a bitch, I'm guessing, to upset the randians here. can't call it trolling because it's too easy.

 

he does raise a good point - it's hard to take someone who wants to completely get rid of welfare seriously when they collected money from the government with no problem. of course, randians will say the gov't already stole that money from her anyway so she was just getting her cash back, because everybody knows all taxation of any sort is THEFT by VIOLENT FORCE... so arguing about this won't go anywhere.

 

It's easy to dismiss concepts based on the people who believe them if you're illogical and don't care about honest discussions. But if he has actual arguments against her positions, I must have missed it.

 

it's also easy to type a non-response that sort of seems smart until you actually read it. :) maybe if I use capital letters people will think I'm saying something when I'm saying nothing, too! :D :D

 

no one's dismissing ayn rand's ideas simply because they're ayn rand's ideas. his point is that it's hard to take her philosophy seriously when she often went against her philosophy. it's also hard to take john lennon seriously when he's preaching about no possessions when the dude would buy every seat on a plane just for himself. one of us has to be misunderstanding the other because I don't think that's very hard to grasp at all.

 

No, one of us examines ideas on the merits, and one of us engages in ad hominem attacks in lieu of actual thinking.

 

I haven't attacked you at all, I'm certain you really were saying nothing so it's not an attack. but it definitely makes you look really really really smart to name a logical fallacy.

 

Seeing as we have been discussing Tony's attacks on Rand's personal life, and your defense of that line of thinking, I thought this was obvious, but I'll restate this for clarity: one of us examines ideas on the merits, and one of us engages in ad hominem attacks against the proponents of those ideas in lieu of actual thinking.

 

okay, since you're clearly not baked, I'll play it your no-fun nerdy ass way. tell me what you like/dislike about objectivism, I'll tell you what I like/dislike about objectivism, and I bet you we'll find out what we already knew - I'm to the left of you, you're to the right of me. we are great thinkers, aren't we?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

And anyone with this opinion is a douche in mine.

 

I respect your right to read this rubbish but once you give any credence to the utter tripe contained within her infantile tomes then man, really, I have to say that reflects negatively on your credibility.

 

And once you've dismissed an idea because of a person who forwarded it, you've lost all credibility.

 

I don't really think that's what tony did. he's done the research, he's read rand's work. he's not an american libertarian or republican voter (not sure if this is TMI or not so if tony wants me to remove this info, tell me), so of course he doesn't find much to love about ayn rand. he's not being a troll here.

 

http://www.therushfo...20#entry3497803

 

he's dismissing her ideas because he thinks her ideas are stupid. that could be a little hard to grasp if you don't think any of her ideas are stupid. he decided her ideas were stupid before we were even born, he threw in that last part about her being a hypocrite and a bitch, I'm guessing, to upset the randians here. can't call it trolling because it's too easy.

 

he does raise a good point - it's hard to take someone who wants to completely get rid of welfare seriously when they collected money from the government with no problem. of course, randians will say the gov't already stole that money from her anyway so she was just getting her cash back, because everybody knows all taxation of any sort is THEFT by VIOLENT FORCE... so arguing about this won't go anywhere.

 

It's easy to dismiss concepts based on the people who believe them if you're illogical and don't care about honest discussions. But if he has actual arguments against her positions, I must have missed it.

 

it's also easy to type a non-response that sort of seems smart until you actually read it. :) maybe if I use capital letters people will think I'm saying something when I'm saying nothing, too! :D :D

 

no one's dismissing ayn rand's ideas simply because they're ayn rand's ideas. his point is that it's hard to take her philosophy seriously when she often went against her philosophy. it's also hard to take john lennon seriously when he's preaching about no possessions when the dude would buy every seat on a plane just for himself. one of us has to be misunderstanding the other because I don't think that's very hard to grasp at all.

If you're using the fact that she took Medicare and Social Security benefits because she was forced to pay taxes as an example of hypocrisy, you need to try again and do better.

 

And it's completely irrelevant to a discussion of objectivism.

 

I think taking benefits when you are 100% anti-benefit is somewhat hypocritical, yes. if she was truly a rational thinker she would've found some way to avoid paying taxes.

 

Are you serious? You're going to double down on the attacks against her instead of attacking the ideas, while maintaining that you're not dismissing her ideas because they're hers and not offering any substantive analysis? Wow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

And anyone with this opinion is a douche in mine.

 

I respect your right to read this rubbish but once you give any credence to the utter tripe contained within her infantile tomes then man, really, I have to say that reflects negatively on your credibility.

 

And once you've dismissed an idea because of a person who forwarded it, you've lost all credibility.

 

I don't really think that's what tony did. he's done the research, he's read rand's work. he's not an american libertarian or republican voter (not sure if this is TMI or not so if tony wants me to remove this info, tell me), so of course he doesn't find much to love about ayn rand. he's not being a troll here.

 

http://www.therushfo...20#entry3497803

 

he's dismissing her ideas because he thinks her ideas are stupid. that could be a little hard to grasp if you don't think any of her ideas are stupid. he decided her ideas were stupid before we were even born, he threw in that last part about her being a hypocrite and a bitch, I'm guessing, to upset the randians here. can't call it trolling because it's too easy.

 

he does raise a good point - it's hard to take someone who wants to completely get rid of welfare seriously when they collected money from the government with no problem. of course, randians will say the gov't already stole that money from her anyway so she was just getting her cash back, because everybody knows all taxation of any sort is THEFT by VIOLENT FORCE... so arguing about this won't go anywhere.

 

It's easy to dismiss concepts based on the people who believe them if you're illogical and don't care about honest discussions. But if he has actual arguments against her positions, I must have missed it.

 

it's also easy to type a non-response that sort of seems smart until you actually read it. :) maybe if I use capital letters people will think I'm saying something when I'm saying nothing, too! :D :D

 

no one's dismissing ayn rand's ideas simply because they're ayn rand's ideas. his point is that it's hard to take her philosophy seriously when she often went against her philosophy. it's also hard to take john lennon seriously when he's preaching about no possessions when the dude would buy every seat on a plane just for himself. one of us has to be misunderstanding the other because I don't think that's very hard to grasp at all.

If you're using the fact that she took Medicare and Social Security benefits because she was forced to pay taxes as an example of hypocrisy, you need to try again and do better.

 

she's a leech!

She had no choice (other than to go to jail I guess) in whether or not she put her money into a substandard retirement program when she could have done much better investing on her own the way she wanted to. She was under no obligation not to recoup her losses, and indeed she got far less out of the Ponzi scheme than she ever put in. Some leech.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and since when is attacking some dead author's personal life a no-no? james joyce liked to suck his wife's farts, hemingway hit his family...let's get this shit out in the open! kill your idols!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

And anyone with this opinion is a douche in mine.

 

I respect your right to read this rubbish but once you give any credence to the utter tripe contained within her infantile tomes then man, really, I have to say that reflects negatively on your credibility.

 

And once you've dismissed an idea because of a person who forwarded it, you've lost all credibility.

 

I don't really think that's what tony did. he's done the research, he's read rand's work. he's not an american libertarian or republican voter (not sure if this is TMI or not so if tony wants me to remove this info, tell me), so of course he doesn't find much to love about ayn rand. he's not being a troll here.

 

http://www.therushfo...20#entry3497803

 

he's dismissing her ideas because he thinks her ideas are stupid. that could be a little hard to grasp if you don't think any of her ideas are stupid. he decided her ideas were stupid before we were even born, he threw in that last part about her being a hypocrite and a bitch, I'm guessing, to upset the randians here. can't call it trolling because it's too easy.

 

he does raise a good point - it's hard to take someone who wants to completely get rid of welfare seriously when they collected money from the government with no problem. of course, randians will say the gov't already stole that money from her anyway so she was just getting her cash back, because everybody knows all taxation of any sort is THEFT by VIOLENT FORCE... so arguing about this won't go anywhere.

 

It's easy to dismiss concepts based on the people who believe them if you're illogical and don't care about honest discussions. But if he has actual arguments against her positions, I must have missed it.

 

it's also easy to type a non-response that sort of seems smart until you actually read it. :) maybe if I use capital letters people will think I'm saying something when I'm saying nothing, too! :D :D

 

no one's dismissing ayn rand's ideas simply because they're ayn rand's ideas. his point is that it's hard to take her philosophy seriously when she often went against her philosophy. it's also hard to take john lennon seriously when he's preaching about no possessions when the dude would buy every seat on a plane just for himself. one of us has to be misunderstanding the other because I don't think that's very hard to grasp at all.

If you're using the fact that she took Medicare and Social Security benefits because she was forced to pay taxes as an example of hypocrisy, you need to try again and do better.

 

she's a leech!

She had no choice (other than to go to jail I guess) in whether or not she put her money into a substandard retirement program when she could have done much better investing on her own the way she wanted to. She was under no obligation not to recoup her losses, and indeed she got far less out of the Ponzi scheme than she ever put in. Some leech.

 

if she was a true rational thinker she would've avoided those taxes instead of being suckered into the scheme. not only a leech but an inferior thinker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

And anyone with this opinion is a douche in mine.

 

I respect your right to read this rubbish but once you give any credence to the utter tripe contained within her infantile tomes then man, really, I have to say that reflects negatively on your credibility.

 

And once you've dismissed an idea because of a person who forwarded it, you've lost all credibility.

 

I don't really think that's what tony did. he's done the research, he's read rand's work. he's not an american libertarian or republican voter (not sure if this is TMI or not so if tony wants me to remove this info, tell me), so of course he doesn't find much to love about ayn rand. he's not being a troll here.

 

http://www.therushfo...20#entry3497803

 

he's dismissing her ideas because he thinks her ideas are stupid. that could be a little hard to grasp if you don't think any of her ideas are stupid. he decided her ideas were stupid before we were even born, he threw in that last part about her being a hypocrite and a bitch, I'm guessing, to upset the randians here. can't call it trolling because it's too easy.

 

he does raise a good point - it's hard to take someone who wants to completely get rid of welfare seriously when they collected money from the government with no problem. of course, randians will say the gov't already stole that money from her anyway so she was just getting her cash back, because everybody knows all taxation of any sort is THEFT by VIOLENT FORCE... so arguing about this won't go anywhere.

 

It's easy to dismiss concepts based on the people who believe them if you're illogical and don't care about honest discussions. But if he has actual arguments against her positions, I must have missed it.

 

it's also easy to type a non-response that sort of seems smart until you actually read it. :) maybe if I use capital letters people will think I'm saying something when I'm saying nothing, too! :D :D

 

no one's dismissing ayn rand's ideas simply because they're ayn rand's ideas. his point is that it's hard to take her philosophy seriously when she often went against her philosophy. it's also hard to take john lennon seriously when he's preaching about no possessions when the dude would buy every seat on a plane just for himself. one of us has to be misunderstanding the other because I don't think that's very hard to grasp at all.

 

No, one of us examines ideas on the merits, and one of us engages in ad hominem attacks in lieu of actual thinking.

 

I haven't attacked you at all, I'm certain you really were saying nothing so it's not an attack. but it definitely makes you look really really really smart to name a logical fallacy.

 

Seeing as we have been discussing Tony's attacks on Rand's personal life, and your defense of that line of thinking, I thought this was obvious, but I'll restate this for clarity: one of us examines ideas on the merits, and one of us engages in ad hominem attacks against the proponents of those ideas in lieu of actual thinking.

 

okay, since you're clearly not baked, I'll play it your no-fun nerdy ass way. tell me what you like/dislike about objectivism, I'll tell you what I like/dislike about objectivism, and I bet you we'll find out what we already knew - I'm to the left of you, you're to the right of me. we are great thinkers, aren't we?

 

How about this? Seeing as I haven't proffered an opinion on her philosophy and you have, why don't you try and make an argument on the merits of the idea?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the case of an artist, writer, musician, etc, it is one thing to debate the sincerity, virtues or personal life of that person ... What effect that person - if any - has had on you is a completely different thing ..

 

And while I am thoroughly enjoying the posts and comments here ( most, at least ), I will give an example of what I intended -

 

RUSH was a fantastic band to me as a kid - Geddy's vocals were what first appealed to me, but as time went on, I began to think of RUSH as more than simply a band ... This led me to Rand's book ANTHEM, which to this day I still love ... RUSH created a snowball in me that made me step outside my comfort zone and look at what I was capable of, and first within myself, then, in my surroundings ....

 

In other words - I build houses for feral cats, and I go to lyme disease meetings as a person who has fully recovered to support and help other people .... These things may or may not have ever dawned on me had it not been the springboard of 2112, Anthem and Rand's position of self-worth and "selfishness"

 

I'm also going to try my hand at organic gardening this year ...

 

My thanks to RUSH

Edited by Lucas
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

And anyone with this opinion is a douche in mine.

 

I respect your right to read this rubbish but once you give any credence to the utter tripe contained within her infantile tomes then man, really, I have to say that reflects negatively on your credibility.

 

And once you've dismissed an idea because of a person who forwarded it, you've lost all credibility.

 

I don't really think that's what tony did. he's done the research, he's read rand's work. he's not an american libertarian or republican voter (not sure if this is TMI or not so if tony wants me to remove this info, tell me), so of course he doesn't find much to love about ayn rand. he's not being a troll here.

 

http://www.therushfo...20#entry3497803

 

he's dismissing her ideas because he thinks her ideas are stupid. that could be a little hard to grasp if you don't think any of her ideas are stupid. he decided her ideas were stupid before we were even born, he threw in that last part about her being a hypocrite and a bitch, I'm guessing, to upset the randians here. can't call it trolling because it's too easy.

 

he does raise a good point - it's hard to take someone who wants to completely get rid of welfare seriously when they collected money from the government with no problem. of course, randians will say the gov't already stole that money from her anyway so she was just getting her cash back, because everybody knows all taxation of any sort is THEFT by VIOLENT FORCE... so arguing about this won't go anywhere.

 

It's easy to dismiss concepts based on the people who believe them if you're illogical and don't care about honest discussions. But if he has actual arguments against her positions, I must have missed it.

 

it's also easy to type a non-response that sort of seems smart until you actually read it. :) maybe if I use capital letters people will think I'm saying something when I'm saying nothing, too! :D :D

 

no one's dismissing ayn rand's ideas simply because they're ayn rand's ideas. his point is that it's hard to take her philosophy seriously when she often went against her philosophy. it's also hard to take john lennon seriously when he's preaching about no possessions when the dude would buy every seat on a plane just for himself. one of us has to be misunderstanding the other because I don't think that's very hard to grasp at all.

If you're using the fact that she took Medicare and Social Security benefits because she was forced to pay taxes as an example of hypocrisy, you need to try again and do better.

 

And it's completely irrelevant to a discussion of objectivism.

 

I think taking benefits when you are 100% anti-benefit is somewhat hypocritical, yes. if she was truly a rational thinker she would've found some way to avoid paying taxes.

 

Are you serious? You're going to double down on the attacks against her instead of attacking the ideas, while maintaining that you're not dismissing her ideas because they're hers and not offering any substantive analysis? Wow.

 

keep defending your little leech lady!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and since when is attacking some dead author's personal life a no-no? james joyce liked to suck his wife's farts, hemingway hit his family...let's get this shit out in the open! kill your idols!!

 

Hey, do it to your heart's content. But don't be so stupid to believe that that substitutes for an attack on the dead author's ideas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

And anyone with this opinion is a douche in mine.

 

I respect your right to read this rubbish but once you give any credence to the utter tripe contained within her infantile tomes then man, really, I have to say that reflects negatively on your credibility.

 

And once you've dismissed an idea because of a person who forwarded it, you've lost all credibility.

 

I don't really think that's what tony did. he's done the research, he's read rand's work. he's not an american libertarian or republican voter (not sure if this is TMI or not so if tony wants me to remove this info, tell me), so of course he doesn't find much to love about ayn rand. he's not being a troll here.

 

http://www.therushfo...20#entry3497803

 

he's dismissing her ideas because he thinks her ideas are stupid. that could be a little hard to grasp if you don't think any of her ideas are stupid. he decided her ideas were stupid before we were even born, he threw in that last part about her being a hypocrite and a bitch, I'm guessing, to upset the randians here. can't call it trolling because it's too easy.

 

he does raise a good point - it's hard to take someone who wants to completely get rid of welfare seriously when they collected money from the government with no problem. of course, randians will say the gov't already stole that money from her anyway so she was just getting her cash back, because everybody knows all taxation of any sort is THEFT by VIOLENT FORCE... so arguing about this won't go anywhere.

 

It's easy to dismiss concepts based on the people who believe them if you're illogical and don't care about honest discussions. But if he has actual arguments against her positions, I must have missed it.

 

it's also easy to type a non-response that sort of seems smart until you actually read it. :) maybe if I use capital letters people will think I'm saying something when I'm saying nothing, too! :D :D

 

no one's dismissing ayn rand's ideas simply because they're ayn rand's ideas. his point is that it's hard to take her philosophy seriously when she often went against her philosophy. it's also hard to take john lennon seriously when he's preaching about no possessions when the dude would buy every seat on a plane just for himself. one of us has to be misunderstanding the other because I don't think that's very hard to grasp at all.

If you're using the fact that she took Medicare and Social Security benefits because she was forced to pay taxes as an example of hypocrisy, you need to try again and do better.

 

she's a leech!

She had no choice (other than to go to jail I guess) in whether or not she put her money into a substandard retirement program when she could have done much better investing on her own the way she wanted to. She was under no obligation not to recoup her losses, and indeed she got far less out of the Ponzi scheme than she ever put in. Some leech.

 

if she was a true rational thinker she would've avoided those taxes instead of being suckered into the scheme. not only a leech but an inferior thinker.

 

Tony and Bathory: Wonder Troll Powers, ACTIVATE!

Tony: Form of Ad Hominem.

Bathory: Shape of Troll.

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/0f/Wonder_Twins.jpg

Edited by LedRush
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

And anyone with this opinion is a douche in mine.

 

I respect your right to read this rubbish but once you give any credence to the utter tripe contained within her infantile tomes then man, really, I have to say that reflects negatively on your credibility.

 

And once you've dismissed an idea because of a person who forwarded it, you've lost all credibility.

 

I don't really think that's what tony did. he's done the research, he's read rand's work. he's not an american libertarian or republican voter (not sure if this is TMI or not so if tony wants me to remove this info, tell me), so of course he doesn't find much to love about ayn rand. he's not being a troll here.

 

http://www.therushfo...20#entry3497803

 

he's dismissing her ideas because he thinks her ideas are stupid. that could be a little hard to grasp if you don't think any of her ideas are stupid. he decided her ideas were stupid before we were even born, he threw in that last part about her being a hypocrite and a bitch, I'm guessing, to upset the randians here. can't call it trolling because it's too easy.

 

he does raise a good point - it's hard to take someone who wants to completely get rid of welfare seriously when they collected money from the government with no problem. of course, randians will say the gov't already stole that money from her anyway so she was just getting her cash back, because everybody knows all taxation of any sort is THEFT by VIOLENT FORCE... so arguing about this won't go anywhere.

 

It's easy to dismiss concepts based on the people who believe them if you're illogical and don't care about honest discussions. But if he has actual arguments against her positions, I must have missed it.

 

it's also easy to type a non-response that sort of seems smart until you actually read it. :) maybe if I use capital letters people will think I'm saying something when I'm saying nothing, too! :D :D

 

no one's dismissing ayn rand's ideas simply because they're ayn rand's ideas. his point is that it's hard to take her philosophy seriously when she often went against her philosophy. it's also hard to take john lennon seriously when he's preaching about no possessions when the dude would buy every seat on a plane just for himself. one of us has to be misunderstanding the other because I don't think that's very hard to grasp at all.

 

No, one of us examines ideas on the merits, and one of us engages in ad hominem attacks in lieu of actual thinking.

 

I haven't attacked you at all, I'm certain you really were saying nothing so it's not an attack. but it definitely makes you look really really really smart to name a logical fallacy.

 

Seeing as we have been discussing Tony's attacks on Rand's personal life, and your defense of that line of thinking, I thought this was obvious, but I'll restate this for clarity: one of us examines ideas on the merits, and one of us engages in ad hominem attacks against the proponents of those ideas in lieu of actual thinking.

 

okay, since you're clearly not baked, I'll play it your no-fun nerdy ass way. tell me what you like/dislike about objectivism, I'll tell you what I like/dislike about objectivism, and I bet you we'll find out what we already knew - I'm to the left of you, you're to the right of me. we are great thinkers, aren't we?

 

How about this? Seeing as I haven't proffered an opinion on her philosophy and you have, why don't you try and make an argument on the merits of the idea?

 

what idea?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and since when is attacking some dead author's personal life a no-no? james joyce liked to suck his wife's farts, hemingway hit his family...let's get this shit out in the open! kill your idols!!

 

Hey, do it to your heart's content. But don't be so stupid to believe that that substitutes for an attack on the dead author's ideas.

 

never said that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the case of an artist, writer, musician, etc, it is one thing to debate the sincerity, virtues or personal life of that person ... What effect that person - if any - has had on you is a completely different thing ..

 

And while I am thoroughly enjoying the posts and comments here ( most, at least ), I will give an example of what I intended -

 

RUSH was a fantastic band to me as a kid - Geddy's vocals were what first appealed to me, but as time went on, I began to think of RUSH as more than simply a band ... This led me to Rand's book ANTHEM, which to this day I still love ... RUSH created a snowball in me that made me step outside my comfort zone and look at what I was capable of, and first within myself, then, in my surroundings ....

 

In other words - I build houses for feral cats, and I go to lyme disease meetings as a person who has fully recovered to support and help other people .... These things may or may not have ever dawned on me had it not been the springboard of 2112, Anthem and Rand's position of self-worth and "selfishness"

 

I'm also going to try my hand at organic gardening this year ...

 

My thanks to RUSH

 

lol

 

wow

 

oh boy

 

2112 was released 39 years ago today

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

And anyone with this opinion is a douche in mine.

 

I respect your right to read this rubbish but once you give any credence to the utter tripe contained within her infantile tomes then man, really, I have to say that reflects negatively on your credibility.

 

And once you've dismissed an idea because of a person who forwarded it, you've lost all credibility.

 

I don't really think that's what tony did. he's done the research, he's read rand's work. he's not an american libertarian or republican voter (not sure if this is TMI or not so if tony wants me to remove this info, tell me), so of course he doesn't find much to love about ayn rand. he's not being a troll here.

 

http://www.therushfo...20#entry3497803

 

he's dismissing her ideas because he thinks her ideas are stupid. that could be a little hard to grasp if you don't think any of her ideas are stupid. he decided her ideas were stupid before we were even born, he threw in that last part about her being a hypocrite and a bitch, I'm guessing, to upset the randians here. can't call it trolling because it's too easy.

 

he does raise a good point - it's hard to take someone who wants to completely get rid of welfare seriously when they collected money from the government with no problem. of course, randians will say the gov't already stole that money from her anyway so she was just getting her cash back, because everybody knows all taxation of any sort is THEFT by VIOLENT FORCE... so arguing about this won't go anywhere.

 

It's easy to dismiss concepts based on the people who believe them if you're illogical and don't care about honest discussions. But if he has actual arguments against her positions, I must have missed it.

 

it's also easy to type a non-response that sort of seems smart until you actually read it. :) maybe if I use capital letters people will think I'm saying something when I'm saying nothing, too! :D :D

 

no one's dismissing ayn rand's ideas simply because they're ayn rand's ideas. his point is that it's hard to take her philosophy seriously when she often went against her philosophy. it's also hard to take john lennon seriously when he's preaching about no possessions when the dude would buy every seat on a plane just for himself. one of us has to be misunderstanding the other because I don't think that's very hard to grasp at all.

If you're using the fact that she took Medicare and Social Security benefits because she was forced to pay taxes as an example of hypocrisy, you need to try again and do better.

 

she's a leech!

She had no choice (other than to go to jail I guess) in whether or not she put her money into a substandard retirement program when she could have done much better investing on her own the way she wanted to. She was under no obligation not to recoup her losses, and indeed she got far less out of the Ponzi scheme than she ever put in. Some leech.

 

if she was a true rational thinker she would've avoided those taxes instead of being suckered into the scheme. not only a leech but an inferior thinker.

 

Full troll mode, ACTIVATE!

 

I have never trolled.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

And anyone with this opinion is a douche in mine.

 

I respect your right to read this rubbish but once you give any credence to the utter tripe contained within her infantile tomes then man, really, I have to say that reflects negatively on your credibility.

 

And once you've dismissed an idea because of a person who forwarded it, you've lost all credibility.

 

I don't really think that's what tony did. he's done the research, he's read rand's work. he's not an american libertarian or republican voter (not sure if this is TMI or not so if tony wants me to remove this info, tell me), so of course he doesn't find much to love about ayn rand. he's not being a troll here.

 

http://www.therushfo...20#entry3497803

 

he's dismissing her ideas because he thinks her ideas are stupid. that could be a little hard to grasp if you don't think any of her ideas are stupid. he decided her ideas were stupid before we were even born, he threw in that last part about her being a hypocrite and a bitch, I'm guessing, to upset the randians here. can't call it trolling because it's too easy.

 

he does raise a good point - it's hard to take someone who wants to completely get rid of welfare seriously when they collected money from the government with no problem. of course, randians will say the gov't already stole that money from her anyway so she was just getting her cash back, because everybody knows all taxation of any sort is THEFT by VIOLENT FORCE... so arguing about this won't go anywhere.

 

It's easy to dismiss concepts based on the people who believe them if you're illogical and don't care about honest discussions. But if he has actual arguments against her positions, I must have missed it.

 

it's also easy to type a non-response that sort of seems smart until you actually read it. :) maybe if I use capital letters people will think I'm saying something when I'm saying nothing, too! :D :D

 

no one's dismissing ayn rand's ideas simply because they're ayn rand's ideas. his point is that it's hard to take her philosophy seriously when she often went against her philosophy. it's also hard to take john lennon seriously when he's preaching about no possessions when the dude would buy every seat on a plane just for himself. one of us has to be misunderstanding the other because I don't think that's very hard to grasp at all.

If you're using the fact that she took Medicare and Social Security benefits because she was forced to pay taxes as an example of hypocrisy, you need to try again and do better.

 

she's a leech!

She had no choice (other than to go to jail I guess) in whether or not she put her money into a substandard retirement program when she could have done much better investing on her own the way she wanted to. She was under no obligation not to recoup her losses, and indeed she got far less out of the Ponzi scheme than she ever put in. Some leech.

 

if she was a true rational thinker she would've avoided those taxes instead of being suckered into the scheme. not only a leech but an inferior thinker.

 

Full troll mode, ACTIVATE!

 

I have never trolled.

 

http://www.therushforum.com/index.php?/topic/92605-rush-ayn-rand-and-philosophy-in-your-life/page__st__80#entry3498568

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...