(1) My name is Steve – please use it. We can disagree, but as I have said before, I think we can do so civilly. I try also to use this guideline which might help – don’t use words or names toward people on these threads that you wouldn’t use if you were face to face with that person. I doubt you would address me that way in person…[/quote]
Okay dickhead, whatever you say.
Let me restate what I originally said…
The quality of thinking apparent in the opposite side is really dependent on how much of a cheerleader you are.
Now, dickhead, if I had wanted to say something specifically about conservatives, and Bush, then I would have. My choice of wording was deliberate and you filled in the blanks with your own bias.
You have a very very bad track record at being able to interpret the written word.
Yes, this is really important to me. Thanks for bringing that to my attention. I’ll get on this right away dickhead.
Why do you keep calling Steve ‘Dickhead’? He’s always courteous and thoughtful. Oh, I get it — THAT’S why you’re doing that. Sorry, its Sunday morning, still waking up.
Hmm…calling a polite gentleman a ‘dickhead’. I attribute that to mental illness.
The reason why libs can’t win here is simple: the world (except Canada and a few other ‘slow’ places on earth) has figured out that you can’t have your cake and eat it too. If a bunch of cannibals consume the productive members of society, nobody survives! The Chinese communists figured out that people don’t want to be slaves to the needs of others. Duh!! The Chinese are a very intelligent people, so they’ve adopted capitalism. “Hey, MONEY is GOOD! Production is GOOD! Let’s let producers produce.” What a novel idea!
Now if some of those ideas would sink in, in some of the more backward parts of the world!!
[quote]vroom wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Hmm…calling a polite gentleman a ‘dickhead’. I attribute that to mental illness.
Sniff, sniff. Oh dear me. I think my feelings are hurt.
Yeah, right.
Anyhow, I’m still waiting for you to read a second book so you can advanced your silly little ideology theory along a little bit…[/quote]
Does Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan count? Or the work of Sir Francis Bacon? Or the 4 volumes of Das Kapital?
Point is: Just because I love the work of Ayn Rand does not imply that her’s is the only book I’ve read. Now, want to make some more idiotic statements?
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
vroom wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Hmm…calling a polite gentleman a ‘dickhead’. I attribute that to mental illness.
Sniff, sniff. Oh dear me. I think my feelings are hurt.
Yeah, right.
Anyhow, I’m still waiting for you to read a second book so you can advanced your silly little ideology theory along a little bit…
Does Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan count? Or the work of Sir Francis Bacon? Or the 4 volumes of Das Kapital?
Point is: Just because I love the work of Ayn Rand does not imply that her’s is the only book I’ve read. Now, want to make some more idiotic statements?
[/quote]
I think he’s implying (and correct me if I’m wrong) is that anyone above the age of 19 who “loves” the work of Ayn Rand is an idiot, as you keep proving yourself with evey post.
[quote]harris447 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
vroom wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Hmm…calling a polite gentleman a ‘dickhead’. I attribute that to mental illness.
Sniff, sniff. Oh dear me. I think my feelings are hurt.
Yeah, right.
Anyhow, I’m still waiting for you to read a second book so you can advanced your silly little ideology theory along a little bit…
Does Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan count? Or the work of Sir Francis Bacon? Or the 4 volumes of Das Kapital?
Point is: Just because I love the work of Ayn Rand does not imply that her’s is the only book I’ve read. Now, want to make some more idiotic statements?
I think he’s implying (and correct me if I’m wrong) is that anyone above the age of 19 who “loves” the work of Ayn Rand is an idiot, as you keep proving yourself with evey post.[/quote]
Please feel free to answer me as you wish – being a high school teacher and growing up in inner-city Detroit makes me immune to that sort of thing. I will answer you as a gentleman, even though you are not.
Harris,
His statement implies that my philosophy is based upon singular reading of a particular philosophy. As you may have read, I replied that he was incorrect and pointed out several books that helped form my beliefs.
Secondly, if you loved a book when you were 18, do you now NOT love that book? Is there some magical cut-off when you now regard that book as juvenile? Perhaps. I don’t know what you read, although I might surmise. I happen to greatly enjoy Ms. Rand’s work. Do you KNOW her work, or are you rejecting it ‘second-hand’? That seems rather weak to me.
Rather than simply dismiss something out of hand, why not point out the errors in her philosophy? If you can prove her wrong, we both benefit. You publicly prove me wrong (which some people get a thrill out of, for some reason) and I learn. This sounds much better than just saying ‘your an idiot’ and stopping there.
We wait in anticipation for the display of your shredding of Ms. Rand’s philosophy.
Sometimes, some people advance in their thinking – leaving behind their childhood idols.
If you want to seriously discuss things, perhaps you should simply start doing so… you might be surprised at the result.
In my estimation, your little ideology reeks of elitism and is totally devoid of compassion – sort of like yourself.
While I am perfectly willing to admit past practices, with respect to helping the less fortunate, were ill advised or impractical, any society that ignores it’s less advantaged will eventually face revolt.
However, I do suspect that this thread is not about your pet ideology…
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
harris447 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
vroom wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Hmm…calling a polite gentleman a ‘dickhead’. I attribute that to mental illness.
Sniff, sniff. Oh dear me. I think my feelings are hurt.
Yeah, right.
Anyhow, I’m still waiting for you to read a second book so you can advanced your silly little ideology theory along a little bit…
Does Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan count? Or the work of Sir Francis Bacon? Or the 4 volumes of Das Kapital?
Point is: Just because I love the work of Ayn Rand does not imply that her’s is the only book I’ve read. Now, want to make some more idiotic statements?
I think he’s implying (and correct me if I’m wrong) is that anyone above the age of 19 who “loves” the work of Ayn Rand is an idiot, as you keep proving yourself with evey post.
Please feel free to answer me as you wish – being a high school teacher and growing up in inner-city Detroit makes me immune to that sort of thing. I will answer you as a gentleman, even though you are not.
Harris,
His statement implies that my philosophy is based upon singular reading of a particular philosophy. As you may have read, I replied that he was incorrect and pointed out several books that helped form my beliefs.
Secondly, if you loved a book when you were 18, do you now NOT love that book? Is there some magical cut-off when you now regard that book as juvenile? Perhaps. I don’t know what you read, although I might surmise. I happen to greatly enjoy Ms. Rand’s work. Do you KNOW her work, or are you rejecting it ‘second-hand’? That seems rather weak to me.
Rather than simply dismiss something out of hand, why not point out the errors in her philosophy? If you can prove her wrong, we both benefit. You publicly prove me wrong (which some people get a thrill out of, for some reason) and I learn. This sounds much better than just saying ‘your an idiot’ and stopping there.
We wait in anticipation for the display of your shredding of Ms. Rand’s philosophy.
[/quote]
First off, “teach”: ‘you’re’ an idiot. Not ‘your.’
Ayn Rand’s philopshies are pedestrian, boring screeds based on selfishness.
That’s all you need to know.
Plus, she was an excrutiatingly bad writer.
Basically, her entire philosophy of self-interest over altruism has been proven not just wrong but dick-ish time and time again.
Her message is the pathetic backlash against the world of an ugly woman whose mind had turned sour due to lack of dick.
Look at her picture; of course this woman thought the world was shit and you had to be out for yourself.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Secondly, if you loved a book when you were 18, do you now NOT love that book? Is there some magical cut-off when you now regard that book as juvenile? Perhaps. I don’t know what you read, although I might surmise. I happen to greatly enjoy Ms. Rand’s work. Do you KNOW her work, or are you rejecting it ‘second-hand’? That seems rather weak to me.
Sometimes, some people advance in their thinking – leaving behind their childhood idols.
If you want to seriously discuss things, perhaps you should simply start doing so… you might be surprised at the result.
In my estimation, your little ideology reeks of elitism and is totally devoid of compassion – sort of like yourself.
While I am perfectly willing to admit past practices, with respect to helping the less fortunate, were ill advised or impractical, any society that ignores it’s less advantaged will eventually face revolt.
However, I do suspect that this thread is not about your pet ideology…[/quote]
Like all liberals, you are unable to discern the difference between compassion (or benevolence) and unselfishness. You somehow think that benevolence must be forced, as in the Katrina fiasco, or the Tsunami debacle. You have seen, in the last century alone, the results of your liberal/socialistic philosophy, yet you persist in these barbaric beliefs. (National SOCIALISM, the Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics) Your desire to ‘equalize the suffering’ simply means that all suffer. Only destruction can result from those policies.
The Chinese figured all this out. The Eastern Europeans, for the most part, have figured this out. Americans have figured this out, which is why Democrats don’t win here. When will Canada figure this out?
Compassion? The main tenet of Ms. Rand’s philosophy is that each man is an end in himself. Your life belongs to you and the GOOD is to live it. I suggest that your philosophy, of unselfishly demanding more and more sacrifices from the productive members of society, is a philosophy of CANNIBALS.
You think I should give up Ms. Rand’s philosophy and become one of you, a fellow cannibal?
If you want to donate money to help rebuild the slums of the 9th ward for ex., do so. Its your money. But cannibalism, hidden behind a self-righteous cloak of liberalism/socialism, is dead. Get over it and get on with living.
[quote]harris447 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
vroom wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Hmm…calling a polite gentleman a ‘dickhead’. I attribute that to mental illness.
Sniff, sniff. Oh dear me. I think my feelings are hurt.
Yeah, right.
Anyhow, I’m still waiting for you to read a second book so you can advanced your silly little ideology theory along a little bit…
Does Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan count? Or the work of Sir Francis Bacon? Or the 4 volumes of Das Kapital?
Point is: Just because I love the work of Ayn Rand does not imply that her’s is the only book I’ve read. Now, want to make some more idiotic statements?
I think he’s implying (and correct me if I’m wrong) is that anyone above the age of 19 who “loves” the work of Ayn Rand is an idiot, as you keep proving yourself with evey post.[/quote]
Can I play too? What is ‘evey’?
I’m a science teacher, Harris. So I misspell once in a while. LOL.
Getting past your petty histrionics and jibes, there might actually be something worth discussing around these issues.
Think you are up to the task?
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Like all liberals, you are unable to discern the difference between compassion (or benevolence) and unselfishness. You somehow think that benevolence must be forced, as in the Katrina fiasco, or the Tsunami debacle. You have seen, in the last century alone, the results of your liberal/socialistic philosophy, yet you persist in these barbaric beliefs. (National SOCIALISM, the Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics) Your desire to ‘equalize the suffering’ simply means that all suffer. Only destruction can result from those policies.[/quote]
Maybe you missed what I had said?
While I am perfectly willing to admit past practices, with respect to helping the less fortunate, were ill advised or impractical, any society that ignores it’s less advantaged will eventually face revolt.
Your mistake is in thinking that people who have liberal views want to “equalize” everybody. Equality is not about forcing everyone to have the same income. You set up these ridiculous stances and then knock them down… wow, congrats.
Howabout tackling what people really think, instead of a simple and retarded stance that nobody actually holds?
The concept of a society, as opposed to pure anarchy, requires rules, laws and unfortunately some sort of shared burderns – perhaps through a vehicle such as taxation. Would you like to eliminate society completely? Is that your stance?
If you are merely against some aspects of society, then let’s make that clear. Society requires cooperation and shared burdens. Can that ever be appropriate and acceptable to you, or not?
Basically, are you espousing anarchy or not? Keep in mind, a free market economy, such as ours, requires rules and regulations (policing) to function…
Every society you mention has taxes, laws and shared burdens. What are you talking about?
[quote]Compassion? The main tenet of Ms. Rand’s philosophy is that each man is an end in himself. Your life belongs to you and the GOOD is to live it. I suggest that your philosophy, of unselfishly demanding more and more sacrifices from the productive members of society, is a philosophy of CANNIBALS.
You think I should give up Ms. Rand’s philosophy and become one of you, a fellow cannibal?[/quote]
I think you called me a nihilist at one point? You realize the ideals you are espousing are in fact the ones you would accuse me of?
Once again, I don’t understand why you think I would “demand more and more” from productive members of society. Where is this “more and more”? Is there any level that is acceptable to you? Did you not read what I wrote, that past efforts in this area were misguided?
Have you not read my posts where I have railed against income taxes in principle? Think man!
Why do you continue to make up stances that people do not actually hold. Think a little bit, please.
Sigh, throwing around an evil label like cannabilism is really silly in this context. Once again, any society that wants to survive needs to find a way to keep the populace either happy or under control via force.
I guess you are suggesting that poor people should be left to die off as weaker, and if they try to fight for their survival, they should be shot by either the police or the army for daring to try to feed themselves.
Howabout you stop making up silly viepwoints for people, actually clarify where you stand on a few points, and discuss this rationally.
There are some interesting issues involved in society, governance, shared burders, fairness and so on. These are issues that man has struggled with since the dawn of civilization…
I question whether or not Rand has any insight to help with these issues today, but you can try to update her views and make them applicable if you have the brainpan you credit yourself with.
[Edited to fix some crappy typo’s, gotta love it when server hassles stop you from being able to preview and try to look somewhat literate…]
[quote]harris447 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
harris447 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
vroom wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Hmm…calling a polite gentleman a ‘dickhead’. I attribute that to mental illness.
Sniff, sniff. Oh dear me. I think my feelings are hurt.
Yeah, right.
Anyhow, I’m still waiting for you to read a second book so you can advanced your silly little ideology theory along a little bit…
Does Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan count? Or the work of Sir Francis Bacon? Or the 4 volumes of Das Kapital?
Point is: Just because I love the work of Ayn Rand does not imply that her’s is the only book I’ve read. Now, want to make some more idiotic statements?
I think he’s implying (and correct me if I’m wrong) is that anyone above the age of 19 who “loves” the work of Ayn Rand is an idiot, as you keep proving yourself with evey post.
Please feel free to answer me as you wish – being a high school teacher and growing up in inner-city Detroit makes me immune to that sort of thing. I will answer you as a gentleman, even though you are not.
Harris,
His statement implies that my philosophy is based upon singular reading of a particular philosophy. As you may have read, I replied that he was incorrect and pointed out several books that helped form my beliefs.
Secondly, if you loved a book when you were 18, do you now NOT love that book? Is there some magical cut-off when you now regard that book as juvenile? Perhaps. I don’t know what you read, although I might surmise. I happen to greatly enjoy Ms. Rand’s work. Do you KNOW her work, or are you rejecting it ‘second-hand’? That seems rather weak to me.
Rather than simply dismiss something out of hand, why not point out the errors in her philosophy? If you can prove her wrong, we both benefit. You publicly prove me wrong (which some people get a thrill out of, for some reason) and I learn. This sounds much better than just saying ‘your an idiot’ and stopping there.
We wait in anticipation for the display of your shredding of Ms. Rand’s philosophy.
First off, “teach”: ‘you’re’ an idiot. Not ‘your.’
Ayn Rand’s philopshies are pedestrian, boring screeds based on selfishness.
That’s all you need to know.
Plus, she was an excrutiatingly bad writer.
Basically, her entire philosophy of self-interest over altruism has been proven not just wrong but dick-ish time and time again.
Her message is the pathetic backlash against the world of an ugly woman whose mind had turned sour due to lack of dick.
Look at her picture; of course this woman thought the world was shit and you had to be out for yourself.
[/quote]
As usual, you do not answer with logical discourse. Instead, you make fun of her appearance. Reminds me of how you made fun of me because of my (formerly) low T. Do you enjoy making fun of others, Harris? Does it make you feel better?
Socrates was actually regarded as quite ugly. I suppose you dismiss Plato’s philosophy as being the product of their appearance as well then. How pathetic.
That’s actually the whole shabby secret to you and your philosophy. You can’t achieve anything, so you attack others, thinking somehow that’s an achievement. How laughable – as if burning down a factory is somehow the same as building one.
Once more, since you didn’t seem to get this the first time: present some of her philosphy and refute it. Or are you just a bag of wind?
Instead of relying on others for your judgments, how about thinking for yourself?
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
harris447 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
harris447 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
vroom wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Hmm…calling a polite gentleman a ‘dickhead’. I attribute that to mental illness.
Sniff, sniff. Oh dear me. I think my feelings are hurt.
Yeah, right.
Anyhow, I’m still waiting for you to read a second book so you can advanced your silly little ideology theory along a little bit…
Does Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan count? Or the work of Sir Francis Bacon? Or the 4 volumes of Das Kapital?
Point is: Just because I love the work of Ayn Rand does not imply that her’s is the only book I’ve read. Now, want to make some more idiotic statements?
I think he’s implying (and correct me if I’m wrong) is that anyone above the age of 19 who “loves” the work of Ayn Rand is an idiot, as you keep proving yourself with evey post.
Please feel free to answer me as you wish – being a high school teacher and growing up in inner-city Detroit makes me immune to that sort of thing. I will answer you as a gentleman, even though you are not.
Harris,
His statement implies that my philosophy is based upon singular reading of a particular philosophy. As you may have read, I replied that he was incorrect and pointed out several books that helped form my beliefs.
Secondly, if you loved a book when you were 18, do you now NOT love that book? Is there some magical cut-off when you now regard that book as juvenile? Perhaps. I don’t know what you read, although I might surmise. I happen to greatly enjoy Ms. Rand’s work. Do you KNOW her work, or are you rejecting it ‘second-hand’? That seems rather weak to me.
Rather than simply dismiss something out of hand, why not point out the errors in her philosophy? If you can prove her wrong, we both benefit. You publicly prove me wrong (which some people get a thrill out of, for some reason) and I learn. This sounds much better than just saying ‘your an idiot’ and stopping there.
We wait in anticipation for the display of your shredding of Ms. Rand’s philosophy.
First off, “teach”: ‘you’re’ an idiot. Not ‘your.’
Ayn Rand’s philopshies are pedestrian, boring screeds based on selfishness.
That’s all you need to know.
Plus, she was an excrutiatingly bad writer.
Basically, her entire philosophy of self-interest over altruism has been proven not just wrong but dick-ish time and time again.
Her message is the pathetic backlash against the world of an ugly woman whose mind had turned sour due to lack of dick.
Look at her picture; of course this woman thought the world was shit and you had to be out for yourself.
As usual, you do not answer with logical discourse. Instead, you make fun of her appearance. Reminds me of how you made fun of me because of my (formerly) low T. Do you enjoy making fun of others, Harris? Does it make you feel better?
Socrates was actually regarded as quite ugly. I suppose you dismiss Plato’s philosophy as being the product of their appearance as well then. How pathetic.
That’s actually the whole shabby secret to you and your philosophy. You can’t achieve anything, so you attack others, thinking somehow that’s an achievement. How laughable – as if burning down a factory is somehow the same as building one.
Once more, since you didn’t seem to get this the first time: present some of her philosphy and refute it. Or are you just a bag of wind?
Instead of relying on others for your judgments, how about thinking for yourself?
Once again, you’ve said nothing and presented no arguments.
Here, I’ll help you: “I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.”
Ms. Rand’s philosophy is often dismissed by mainstream intellectuals as being elitist, no concern for the poor, and so forth. It is true that its a hard philosophy, in the sense that, more or less, everyone gets just exactly what they deserve. The government is minimalist – Courts, police, national defense, and that’s it. Not anarchy, but very little government intrusion. The core of the political philosophy is that ‘no one may initiate force against another’. Violate that rule and THEN you are subject to justice by the courts and so forth.
I agree that Ms. Rand has too little regard for the poor, disabled, and old. Her answer is ‘they must rely on private charity’. If it were built into the Constitution and designed so that it couldn’t be later expanded and abused by later politicians, I’d be in favor of a fund to help those legitimately in need. There will always be, as you say, people who need help through no fault of their own. If, however, this ‘opens up a can of worms’ which leads to a society like we have now (which slowly consumes the producers), I’d want provisions to eliminate that.
Hers is an idealized world. Just like she didn’t accep all of Aristotle’s teaching, I don’t accept all of hers. But I do believe that the best, most prosperous society, is one which (a) uses force only if someone else initiated force, (b) keeps the government out of our lives as much as possible.
I don’t see how any rational person could argue against that.
Here, I’ll help you: “I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.”
Here, I’ll help you: “I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.”
That’s from Atlas Shrugged. Go for it.
Selfish, rugged individualist bullshit.
Plus, bad writing.
[/quote]
Please elaborate, “teacher”. Examples, point and counterpoint, rational discourse?
Also, does your definition of selfishness match hers? Hers is: Each living thing must act for its well-being, IN TERMS OF ITS DEFINING CHARACTERSITIC. Her definition of human being is – the animal that thinks using reason (she got it from Aristotle). To act in your self-interest AS A RATIONAL BEING is good. Since robbery, rape, pillaging are not rational, for ex, they are not selfish acts. Because they require other selves as victims, they are, in fact, unselfish.
Just some food for thought.
Harris,
You are dismissing someone because of the mainstream. If you think the mainstream media is biased, do you think what you’re reading about Ms. Rand might be biased also?
