Rush, Ayn Rand, and Philosophy In Your Life

[LedRush]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

[antiquark]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Lol, yes I've perpertrated a vast lie.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

[LedRush]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Lol, yes I've perpertrated a vast lie.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

When Blitzer asks the question, everyone stops applauding, about 4 people yell yeah, and some people laugh at that response. You're insistence on sticking with your lie after it is exposed is telling.

 

Also, I'm fairly certain all babies require care or they will die, not just crippled ones. But good try on trying to derail a thought by appealing to emotion.

[antiquark]

Also, I'm fairly certain all babies require care or they will die, not just crippled ones. But good try on trying to derail a thought by appealing to emotion.

 

Because I want you to drop the video argument, I'll just agree that in no way was the crowd cheering for the man to die. Only four of them shouted out "yes." It was just an odd coincidence.

 

Okay then, what if the parents are too poor to feed the baby? Maybe they're alcoholics and spent all their money on liquor. What should happen to the baby? Not an emotional question, just factual. Objectivism should have an answer, what is it?

Edited April 2, 2015 by antiquark

[LedRush]

Also, I'm fairly certain all babies require care or they will die, not just crippled ones. But good try on trying to derail a thought by appealing to emotion.

 

Because I want you to drop the video argument, I'll just agree that in no way was the crowd cheering for the man to die. It was just an odd coincidence.

 

Okay then, what if the parents are too poor to feed the baby? Maybe they're alcoholics and spent all their money on liquor. What should happen to the baby? Not an emotional question, just factual. Objectivism should have an answer, what is it?

 

They weren't cheering, period. Are you really serious on this?

 

Also, I am not an objectivist nor have I ever considered myself to be. I believe that there should be basic safety nets in a society.

 

I'm not sure what an objectivist would say, but I'd imagine that it would be similar to what Paul said: there are non-governmental means to provide care for the baby.

[antiquark]

 

They weren't cheering, period. Are you really serious on this?

 

Also, I am not an objectivist nor have I ever considered myself to be. I believe that there should be basic safety nets in a society.

 

I'm not sure what an objectivist would say, but I'd imagine that it would be similar to what Paul said: there are non-governmental means to provide care for the baby.

 

I edited my comment to indicate that only four people shouted "yes".

 

So what are the non-governmental means to help the child?

[JARG]

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.

 

Rational, maybe, but she certainly could've couched her refusal to pay taxes in moral terms.

[LedRush]

They weren't cheering, period. Are you really serious on this?

 

Also, I am not an objectivist nor have I ever considered myself to be. I believe that there should be basic safety nets in a society.

 

I'm not sure what an objectivist would say, but I'd imagine that it would be similar to what Paul said: there are non-governmental means to provide care for the baby.

 

I edited my comment to indicate that only four people shouted "yes".

 

So what are the non-governmental means to help the child?

 

The stuff that Paul named in the video it now appears you haven't even watched.

[JARG]

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.

 

And Tony didn't say that advocating for one thing but doing the opposite means the message isn't practical, but that it "rather suggests" that is. Does it suggest that it's practical for you to advocate for racial sensitivity when you don't practice it? I think arguments could be made there.

[antiquark]

They weren't cheering, period. Are you really serious on this?

 

Also, I am not an objectivist nor have I ever considered myself to be. I believe that there should be basic safety nets in a society.

 

I'm not sure what an objectivist would say, but I'd imagine that it would be similar to what Paul said: there are non-governmental means to provide care for the baby.

 

I edited my comment to indicate that only four people shouted "yes".

 

So what are the non-governmental means to help the child?

 

The stuff that Paul named in the video it now appears you haven't even watched.

 

He said that "neighbours, friends, churches" would take care of the unfortunate.

 

For one thing, Objectivism is atheistic, so you can't rely on churches existing in an Objectivist society.

 

What happens if there's a natural disaster (e.g. hurricane) and your neighbours and friends are in the same dire straits as you? Who will take care of you?

 

See what I mean about Objectivism falling apart when you think it through?

[LedRush]

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.

 

And Tony didn't say that advocating for one thing but doing the opposite means the message isn't practical, but that it "rather suggests" that is. Does it suggest that it's practical for you to advocate for racial sensitivity when you don't practice it? I think arguments could be made there.

 

I didn't make that claim. You seem to be making a distinction without a difference.

 

http://www.therushforum.com/index.php?/topic/92605-rush-ayn-rand-and-philosophy-in-your-life/page__st__20#entry3497803

 

 

[LedRush]

They weren't cheering, period. Are you really serious on this?

 

Also, I am not an objectivist nor have I ever considered myself to be. I believe that there should be basic safety nets in a society.

 

I'm not sure what an objectivist would say, but I'd imagine that it would be similar to what Paul said: there are non-governmental means to provide care for the baby.

 

I edited my comment to indicate that only four people shouted "yes".

 

So what are the non-governmental means to help the child?

 

The stuff that Paul named in the video it now appears you haven't even watched.

 

He said that "neighbours, friends, churches" would take care of the unfortunate.

 

For one thing, Objectivism is atheistic, so you can't rely on churches existing in an Objectivist society.

 

What happens if there's a natural disaster (e.g. hurricane) and your neighbours and friends are in the same dire straits as you? Who will take care of you?

 

See what I mean about Objectivism falling apart when you think it through?

 

No, it doesn't fall apart. It has the potential to lead to outcomes you don't like, though, even if you've utterly failed to make that case so far.

[antiquark]

They weren't cheering, period. Are you really serious on this?

 

Also, I am not an objectivist nor have I ever considered myself to be. I believe that there should be basic safety nets in a society.

 

I'm not sure what an objectivist would say, but I'd imagine that it would be similar to what Paul said: there are non-governmental means to provide care for the baby.

 

I edited my comment to indicate that only four people shouted "yes".

 

So what are the non-governmental means to help the child?

 

The stuff that Paul named in the video it now appears you haven't even watched.

 

He said that "neighbours, friends, churches" would take care of the unfortunate.

 

For one thing, Objectivism is atheistic, so you can't rely on churches existing in an Objectivist society.

 

What happens if there's a natural disaster (e.g. hurricane) and your neighbours and friends are in the same dire straits as you? Who will take care of you?

 

See what I mean about Objectivism falling apart when you think it through?

 

No, it doesn't fall apart. It has the potential to lead to outcomes you don't like, though, even if you've utterly failed to make that case so far.

 

But why should anybody embrace a philosophy that's full of unlikeable outcomes? The universe is cruel enough as it is, why must we also embrace a cruel ideology?

[LedRush]

They weren't cheering, period. Are you really serious on this?

 

Also, I am not an objectivist nor have I ever considered myself to be. I believe that there should be basic safety nets in a society.

 

I'm not sure what an objectivist would say, but I'd imagine that it would be similar to what Paul said: there are non-governmental means to provide care for the baby.

 

I edited my comment to indicate that only four people shouted "yes".

 

So what are the non-governmental means to help the child?

 

The stuff that Paul named in the video it now appears you haven't even watched.

 

He said that "neighbours, friends, churches" would take care of the unfortunate.

 

For one thing, Objectivism is atheistic, so you can't rely on churches existing in an Objectivist society.

 

What happens if there's a natural disaster (e.g. hurricane) and your neighbours and friends are in the same dire straits as you? Who will take care of you?

 

See what I mean about Objectivism falling apart when you think it through?

 

No, it doesn't fall apart. It has the potential to lead to outcomes you don't like, though, even if you've utterly failed to make that case so far.

 

But why should anybody embrace a philosophy that's full of unlikeable outcomes? The universe is cruel enough as it is, why must we also embrace a cruel ideology?

 

You've described a reason for you not to follow objectivism: you value safety more than freedom, at least in the context of the dangers you've brought up. People who don't share that value judgment may come down differently on it.

[JARG]

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.

 

And Tony didn't say that advocating for one thing but doing the opposite means the message isn't practical, but that it "rather suggests" that is. Does it suggest that it's practical for you to advocate for racial sensitivity when you don't practice it? I think arguments could be made there.

 

I didn't make that claim.

 

Bolded in the hopes of clarifying my point, or are you going to quibble about the use of the word "practical"?

[antiquark]

They weren't cheering, period. Are you really serious on this?

 

Also, I am not an objectivist nor have I ever considered myself to be. I believe that there should be basic safety nets in a society.

 

I'm not sure what an objectivist would say, but I'd imagine that it would be similar to what Paul said: there are non-governmental means to provide care for the baby.

 

I edited my comment to indicate that only four people shouted "yes".

 

So what are the non-governmental means to help the child?

 

The stuff that Paul named in the video it now appears you haven't even watched.

 

He said that "neighbours, friends, churches" would take care of the unfortunate.

 

For one thing, Objectivism is atheistic, so you can't rely on churches existing in an Objectivist society.

 

What happens if there's a natural disaster (e.g. hurricane) and your neighbours and friends are in the same dire straits as you? Who will take care of you?

 

See what I mean about Objectivism falling apart when you think it through?

 

No, it doesn't fall apart. It has the potential to lead to outcomes you don't like, though, even if you've utterly failed to make that case so far.

 

But why should anybody embrace a philosophy that's full of unlikeable outcomes? The universe is cruel enough as it is, why must we also embrace a cruel ideology?

 

You've described a reason for you not to follow objectivism: you value safety more than freedom, at least in the context of the dangers you've brought up. People who don't share that value judgment may come down differently on it.

 

But, freedom from what? As far as I can tell, the only thing Objectivists want to be free from, is taxation.

 

I am pro-freedom (freedom of speech, of though, of religion, etc), but I also believe that taxation is the price of a civilized society.

Edited April 2, 2015 by antiquark

[LedRush]

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.

 

And Tony didn't say that advocating for one thing but doing the opposite means the message isn't practical, but that it "rather suggests" that is. Does it suggest that it's practical for you to advocate for racial sensitivity when you don't practice it? I think arguments could be made there.

 

I didn't make that claim. You seem to be making a distinction without a difference.

 

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

 

Bolded in the hopes of clarifying my point, or are you going to quibble about the use of the word "practical"?

 

No, but I don't understand your point and I didn't make the claim I think you're attributing to me.

 

Tony was asked "How does that make her ideas of living with integrity and honesty, striving to do your best all the time, not being beholden to anyone nor expecting anyone to be beholden to you, bad ideas?" He answered "Because once you acknowledge the kind of person she was you cannot then connect her to the virtues of integrity and honesty."

 

So the ideas Digital Dad attributed to Rand are bad because you cannot connect Rand to them.

 

I do not think this is a valid or persuasive form of argument. If you don't like the ideas, attack the ideas.

[LedRush]

They weren't cheering, period. Are you really serious on this?

 

Also, I am not an objectivist nor have I ever considered myself to be. I believe that there should be basic safety nets in a society.

 

I'm not sure what an objectivist would say, but I'd imagine that it would be similar to what Paul said: there are non-governmental means to provide care for the baby.

 

I edited my comment to indicate that only four people shouted "yes".

 

So what are the non-governmental means to help the child?

 

The stuff that Paul named in the video it now appears you haven't even watched.

 

He said that "neighbours, friends, churches" would take care of the unfortunate.

 

For one thing, Objectivism is atheistic, so you can't rely on churches existing in an Objectivist society.

 

What happens if there's a natural disaster (e.g. hurricane) and your neighbours and friends are in the same dire straits as you? Who will take care of you?

 

See what I mean about Objectivism falling apart when you think it through?

 

No, it doesn't fall apart. It has the potential to lead to outcomes you don't like, though, even if you've utterly failed to make that case so far.

 

But why should anybody embrace a philosophy that's full of unlikeable outcomes? The universe is cruel enough as it is, why must we also embrace a cruel ideology?

 

You've described a reason for you not to follow objectivism: you value safety more than freedom, at least in the context of the dangers you've brought up. People who don't share that value judgment may come down differently on it.

 

But, freedom from what? As far as I can tell, the only thing Objectivists want to be free from, is taxation.

 

I am pro-freedom (freedom of speech, of though, of religion, etc), but I also believe that taxation is the price of a civilized society.

 

If you think that about objectivists, I don't think you understand the philosophy.

[Digital Man]

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.

 

How else do you interpret this exchange?

 

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.

 

Exactly, because sticking to your convictions, always giving 100%, not giving in to those who would drag you down to their level, trying to get others around to work harder instead freeload off of the system are horrible, horrible characteristics for any of us.

 

Do you know anything about Rand the person at all?

She wasn't nice.

 

Yes, I am aware she wasn't nice, she was quite a bitch from what I have read.

 

How does that make her ideas of living with integrity and honesty, striving to do your best all the time, not being beholden to anyone nor expecting anyone to be beholden to you, bad ideas?

Because once you acknowledge the kind of person she was you cannot then connect her to the virtues of integrity and honesty. My point being that if she couldn't follow her philosophy herself then why should anyone else give them credence as being practical?

Rand was all about people she believed to be talented being acknowledged as special and elite and that is what initially appealed to Peart. In other words she appealed to his vanity.

[Tony R]

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.

 

How else do you interpret this exchange?

 

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.

 

Exactly, because sticking to your convictions, always giving 100%, not giving in to those who would drag you down to their level, trying to get others around to work harder instead freeload off of the system are horrible, horrible characteristics for any of us.

 

Do you know anything about Rand the person at all?

She wasn't nice.

 

Yes, I am aware she wasn't nice, she was quite a bitch from what I have read.

 

How does that make her ideas of living with integrity and honesty, striving to do your best all the time, not being beholden to anyone nor expecting anyone to be beholden to you, bad ideas?

Because once you acknowledge the kind of person she was you cannot then connect her to the virtues of integrity and honesty. My point being that if she couldn't follow her philosophy herself then why should anyone else give them credence as being practical?

Rand was all about people she believed to be talented being acknowledged as special and elite and that is what initially appealed to Peart. In other words she appealed to his vanity.

Rand believed she was second to only Socrates as a philosopher and she was basically claiming exclusively on her thoughts. Any design for life should be evidenced in the designer surely? She didn't say " I know in not a good example of this but everyone should strive to have integrity and honesty." She was parading herself as model of these virtues yet she had neither.

It would be like the Nazis claiming that racial harmony was a virtue.

Edited April 2, 2015 by Tony R

[JARG]

No, but I don't understand your point and I didn't make the claim I think you're attributing to me.

 

So here's my point, Tony said, "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." Either as a stand-alone comment or as a clarification of his earlier comments, I think there's enough to that statement to warrant consideration, especially considering that he's not saying that someone advocating something, but doing the opposite means the person doing the advocating lacks the courage of their convictions and that the thing being advocated isn't practical (or moral -- my take), but rather that there is the suggestion of a connection between the two. I mean, on the face of that, how could you really disagree?

 

But you did apparently disagree since you seem very much to have been responding to that text (given that you quoted it) with your response. Your response would have been a fine rebuttal if Tony had said the one condition meant the other, but he didn't, and so I'm coming up short on how you think you response addresses what he actually wrote.

[Tony R]

Here is Peart himself on Rand:

 

Question:

This is somewhat random, but you were interested in the writings of Ayn Rand decades ago. Do her words still speak to you?

Peart:

Oh, no. That was 40 years ago. But it was important to me at the time in a transition of finding myself and having faith that what I believed was worthwhile. I had come up with that moral attitude about music, and then in my late teens I moved to England to seek fame and fortune and all that, and I was kind of stunned by the cynicism and the factory-like atmosphere of the music world over there, and it shook me. I'm thinking, "Am I wrong? Am I stupid and naïve? This is the way that everybody does everything and, had I better get with the program?"

 

For me, it was an affirmation that it's all right to totally believe in something and live for it and not compromise. It was a simple as that. On that 2112 album, again, I was in my early twenties. I was a kid. Now I call myself a bleeding heart libertarian. Because I do believe in the principles of Libertarianism as an ideal – because I'm an idealist. Paul Theroux's definition of a cynic is a disappointed idealist. So as you go through past your twenties, your idealism is going to be disappointed many many times. And so, I've brought my view and also – I've just realized this – Libertarianism as I understood it was very good and pure and we're all going to be successful and generous to the less fortunate and it was, to me, not dark or cynical. But then I soon saw, of course, the way that it gets twisted by the flaws of humanity. And that's when I evolve now into . . . a bleeding heart Libertarian. That'll do.

 

 

[LedRush]

No, but I don't understand your point and I didn't make the claim I think you're attributing to me.

 

So here's my point, Tony said, "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." Either as a stand-alone comment or as a clarification of his earlier comments, I think there's enough to that statement to warrant consideration, especially considering that he's not saying that someone advocating something, but doing the opposite means the person doing the advocating lacks the courage of their convictions and that the thing being advocated isn't practical (or moral -- my take), but rather that there is the suggestion of a connection between the two. I mean, on the face of that, how could you really disagree?

 

But you did apparently disagree since you seem very much to have been responding to that text (given that you quoted it) with your response. Your response would have been a fine rebuttal if Tony had said the one condition meant the other, but he didn't, and so I'm coming up short on how you think you response addresses what he actually wrote.

 

Because I'm reading his responses in their totality, and not in isolation.

[Tony R]

No, but I don't understand your point and I didn't make the claim I think you're attributing to me.

 

So here's my point, Tony said, "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." Either as a stand-alone comment or as a clarification of his earlier comments, I think there's enough to that statement to warrant consideration, especially considering that he's not saying that someone advocating something, but doing the opposite means the person doing the advocating lacks the courage of their convictions and that the thing being advocated isn't practical (or moral -- my take), but rather that there is the suggestion of a connection between the two. I mean, on the face of that, how could you really disagree?

 

But you did apparently disagree since you seem very much to have been responding to that text (given that you quoted it) with your response. Your response would have been a fine rebuttal if Tony had said the one condition meant the other, but he didn't, and so I'm coming up short on how you think you response addresses what he actually wrote.

 

Because I'm reading his responses in their totality, and not in isolation.

<<sigh>>

 

Anyway, Peart...

[LedRush]

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.

 

How else do you interpret this exchange?

 

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.

 

Exactly, because sticking to your convictions, always giving 100%, not giving in to those who would drag you down to their level, trying to get others around to work harder instead freeload off of the system are horrible, horrible characteristics for any of us.

 

Do you know anything about Rand the person at all?

She wasn't nice.

 

Yes, I am aware she wasn't nice, she was quite a bitch from what I have read.

 

How does that make her ideas of living with integrity and honesty, striving to do your best all the time, not being beholden to anyone nor expecting anyone to be beholden to you, bad ideas?

Because once you acknowledge the kind of person she was you cannot then connect her to the virtues of integrity and honesty. My point being that if she couldn't follow her philosophy herself then why should anyone else give them credence as being practical?

Rand was all about people she believed to be talented being acknowledged as special and elite and that is what initially appealed to Peart. In other words she appealed to his vanity.

 

Good question. And Tony's response to your post basically confirms that Bathory was wrong on his reading and that JARG is barking up the wrong tree.