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.

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.

srsly?

 

There are tens of millions who know SS is a legalized Ponzi scheme but are forced to pay into the program. Every single person in your generation that's paying attention should fall into this category, by the way. And because we can't figure out a way of getting out of doing so we're not deep thinkers? :wacko:

  • Like 1
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.

 

http://www.therushforum.com/index.php?/topic/92605-rush-ayn-rand-and-philosophy-in-your-life/page__st__60#entry3498536

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a feeling this will scream GOV'T SHILL or something, but in all seriousness I just find that objectivism places a level of importance on individuality that I'm uncomfortable with. community matters, what people think of you even matters to some extent, and I don't think pleasing yourself should be your sole motivation for doing things (although you could definitely argue that everything we do, in some way, is to please ourselves).

 

I probably can't give you a serious discussion on objectivism if that's what you REALLY want, though.

  • 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.

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.

srsly?

 

There are tens of millions who know SS is a legalized Ponzi scheme but are forced to pay into the program. Every single person in your generation that's paying attention should fall into this category, by the way. And because we can't figure out a way of getting out of doing so we're not deep thinkers? :wacko:

 

if you people had a brain you'd step it up. rand was rich enough and hung out with exclusively rich people, she could've bought an island with alan greenspan and lived with no taxes at all. but she didn't think of that, did she? you know what I call that? I call that a dipshit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a feeling this will scream GOV'T SHILL or something, but in all seriousness I just find that objectivism places a level of importance on individuality that I'm uncomfortable with. community matters, what people think of you even matters to some extent, and I don't think pleasing yourself should be your sole motivation for doing things (although you could definitely argue that everything we do, in some way, is to please ourselves).

 

I probably can't give you a serious discussion on objectivism if that's what you REALLY want, though.

You should have dropped the straw earlier and started here, it's a debate worth having and individuals can come to different conclusions.

  • Like 1
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.

 

http://www.therushfo...60#entry3498536

 

broken link, doesn't go anywhere. what's the fallacy name for trying to distract your opponent with broken links?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a feeling this will scream GOV'T SHILL or something, but in all seriousness I just find that objectivism places a level of importance on individuality that I'm uncomfortable with. community matters, what people think of you even matters to some extent, and I don't think pleasing yourself should be your sole motivation for doing things (although you could definitely argue that everything we do, in some way, is to please ourselves).

 

I probably can't give you a serious discussion on objectivism if that's what you REALLY want, though.

You should have dropped the straw earlier and started here, it's a debate worth having and individuals can come to different conclusions.

 

what straw?

 

it's interesting, I'll give you that at least

Edited by bathory
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.

srsly?

 

There are tens of millions who know SS is a legalized Ponzi scheme but are forced to pay into the program. Every single person in your generation that's paying attention should fall into this category, by the way. And because we can't figure out a way of getting out of doing so we're not deep thinkers? :wacko:

 

if you people had a brain you'd step it up. rand was rich enough and hung out with exclusively rich people, she could've bought an island with alan greenspan and lived with no taxes at all. but she didn't think of that, did she? you know what I call that? I call that a dipshit.

And then you come back with this :facepalm:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a feeling this will scream GOV'T SHILL or something, but in all seriousness I just find that objectivism places a level of importance on individuality that I'm uncomfortable with. community matters, what people think of you even matters to some extent, and I don't think pleasing yourself should be your sole motivation for doing things (although you could definitely argue that everything we do, in some way, is to please ourselves).

 

I probably can't give you a serious discussion on objectivism if that's what you REALLY want, though.

You should have dropped the straw earlier and started here, it's a debate worth having and individuals can come to different conclusions.

 

what straw?

The bullshit about her being a hypocrite when it was based on illogical, incorrect premises.

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.therushfo...80#entry3498568

 

here I am trolling when I'm saying I'm not trolling...I guess I'm no better than that bitch ayn rand

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.

srsly?

 

There are tens of millions who know SS is a legalized Ponzi scheme but are forced to pay into the program. Every single person in your generation that's paying attention should fall into this category, by the way. And because we can't figure out a way of getting out of doing so we're not deep thinkers? :wacko:

 

if you people had a brain you'd step it up. rand was rich enough and hung out with exclusively rich people, she could've bought an island with alan greenspan and lived with no taxes at all. but she didn't think of that, did she? you know what I call that? I call that a dipshit.

And then you come back with this :facepalm:

 

so you wouldn't start your own LABTopia if you could? I think you, led and ms rand are upset that I thought of it before any of you!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a feeling this will scream GOV'T SHILL or something, but in all seriousness I just find that objectivism places a level of importance on individuality that I'm uncomfortable with. community matters, what people think of you even matters to some extent, and I don't think pleasing yourself should be your sole motivation for doing things (although you could definitely argue that everything we do, in some way, is to please ourselves).

 

I probably can't give you a serious discussion on objectivism if that's what you REALLY want, though.

You should have dropped the straw earlier and started here, it's a debate worth having and individuals can come to different conclusions.

 

what straw?

The bullshit about her being a hypocrite when it was based on illogical, incorrect premises.

 

to be honest, I just assumed nobody knew about her collecting benefits when she was old anyway.

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.

srsly?

 

There are tens of millions who know SS is a legalized Ponzi scheme but are forced to pay into the program. Every single person in your generation that's paying attention should fall into this category, by the way. And because we can't figure out a way of getting out of doing so we're not deep thinkers? :wacko:

 

if you people had a brain you'd step it up. rand was rich enough and hung out with exclusively rich people, she could've bought an island with alan greenspan and lived with no taxes at all. but she didn't think of that, did she? you know what I call that? I call that a dipshit.

And then you come back with this :facepalm:

 

so you wouldn't start your own LABTopia if you could? I think you, led and ms rand are upset that I thought of it before any of you!

I'm not that much of an individualist or fan of Rand or objectivism to be honest. I jus thought that the debate be fair to her philosophy and principles, which were not in any way comprised by wanting to mitigate her losses in the Ponzi schemes our social programs have become.

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.

 

http://www.therushfo...60#entry3498536

 

broken link, doesn't go anywhere. what's the fallacy name for trying to distract your opponent with broken links?

 

It may be the same one for pretending links that work, don't.

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.

srsly?

 

There are tens of millions who know SS is a legalized Ponzi scheme but are forced to pay into the program. Every single person in your generation that's paying attention should fall into this category, by the way. And because we can't figure out a way of getting out of doing so we're not deep thinkers? :wacko:

 

if you people had a brain you'd step it up. rand was rich enough and hung out with exclusively rich people, she could've bought an island with alan greenspan and lived with no taxes at all. but she didn't think of that, did she? you know what I call that? I call that a dipshit.

And then you come back with this :facepalm:

 

so you wouldn't start your own LABTopia if you could? I think you, led and ms rand are upset that I thought of it before any of you!

I'm not that much of an individualist or fan of Rand or objectivism to be honest. I jus thought that the debate be fair to her philosophy and principles, which were not in any way comprised by wanting to mitigate her losses in the Ponzi schemes our social programs have become.

 

we are discussing LABTopia and not ayn rand. try and keep up.

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.

 

http://www.therushfo...60#entry3498536

 

broken link, doesn't go anywhere. what's the fallacy name for trying to distract your opponent with broken links?

 

It may be the same one for pretending links that work, don't.

 

nope.

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.

srsly?

 

There are tens of millions who know SS is a legalized Ponzi scheme but are forced to pay into the program. Every single person in your generation that's paying attention should fall into this category, by the way. And because we can't figure out a way of getting out of doing so we're not deep thinkers? :wacko:

 

if you people had a brain you'd step it up. rand was rich enough and hung out with exclusively rich people, she could've bought an island with alan greenspan and lived with no taxes at all. but she didn't think of that, did she? you know what I call that? I call that a dipshit.

And then you come back with this :facepalm:

 

so you wouldn't start your own LABTopia if you could? I think you, led and ms rand are upset that I thought of it before any of you!

I'm not that much of an individualist or fan of Rand or objectivism to be honest. I jus thought that the debate be fair to her philosophy and principles, which were not in any way comprised by wanting to mitigate her losses in the Ponzi schemes our social programs have become.

 

we are discussing LABTopia and not ayn rand. try and keep up.

Since we seem to be going in circles, ill just wait till you come back around.
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.

 

http://www.therushfo...60#entry3498536

 

broken link, doesn't go anywhere. what's the fallacy name for trying to distract your opponent with broken links?

 

It may be the same one for pretending links that work, don't.

 

nope.

 

I've done the whole "broken link!" thing on other websites in the past and every once in a while someone will try to fix their unbroken link, and I guess I should've known you wouldn't, uh, do that.

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.

srsly?

 

There are tens of millions who know SS is a legalized Ponzi scheme but are forced to pay into the program. Every single person in your generation that's paying attention should fall into this category, by the way. And because we can't figure out a way of getting out of doing so we're not deep thinkers? :wacko:

 

if you people had a brain you'd step it up. rand was rich enough and hung out with exclusively rich people, she could've bought an island with alan greenspan and lived with no taxes at all. but she didn't think of that, did she? you know what I call that? I call that a dipshit.

And then you come back with this :facepalm:

 

so you wouldn't start your own LABTopia if you could? I think you, led and ms rand are upset that I thought of it before any of you!

I'm not that much of an individualist or fan of Rand or objectivism to be honest. I jus thought that the debate be fair to her philosophy and principles, which were not in any way comprised by wanting to mitigate her losses in the Ponzi schemes our social programs have become.

 

we are discussing LABTopia and not ayn rand. try and keep up.

Since we seem to be going in circles, ill just wait till you come back around.

 

Okay, I'll be serious.

 

What are your problems with Objectivism? You seem very individualist on SOCN but not to the extent of someone like DPR or aiken.

  • Like 1
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.

 

http://www.therushfo...60#entry3498536

 

broken link, doesn't go anywhere. what's the fallacy name for trying to distract your opponent with broken links?

 

It may be the same one for pretending links that work, don't.

 

nope.

 

I've done the whole "broken link!" thing on other websites in the past and every once in a while someone will try to fix their unbroken link, and I guess I should've known you wouldn't, uh, do that.

 

Seeing as none of my posts with links indicate that they've been edited and they all work, I'm going to guess that you're in a time zone which is still in April 1st.

  • 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.

Sometimes ad homs are legitimate. If someone advocates one thing then does another it rather suggests that not only have they not got the courage of their convictions but also that the thing they are advocating is not practical or doesn't pass the litmus test of real world experience.

 

 

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.

Sometimes ad homs are legitimate. If someone advocates one thing then does another it rather suggests that not only have they not got the courage of their convictions but also that the thing they are advocating is not practical or doesn't pass the litmus test of real world experience.

 

You were fine with your statements until you got to the "but also". If I advocate for racial inclusiveness and sensitivity, but I drop an "n" bomb in anger, it doesn't mean that my message was wrong, nor does it mean that the KKK can look at the arguments I was making as now illegitimate. Discuss ideas on their merits.

  • 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.

Sometimes ad homs are legitimate. If someone advocates one thing then does another it rather suggests that not only have they not got the courage of their convictions but also that the thing they are advocating is not practical or doesn't pass the litmus test of real world experience.

Or that they are human.
  • Like 1
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...