birdog1960 Posted October 3, 2014 Author Share Posted October 3, 2014 "F" you for being the piece of schit that you are. You have no clue what being a Vet is. guess it's fair to assume 3rd isn't a teenage boy chronologically Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 guess it's fair to assume 3rd isn't a teenage boy chronologically Sure you don't want to re-think that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 it would have been easy for me to say the same about rand's work. but even if i had read them i would be hard pressed to publicly admit it. So, in the circles you travel in, being directly informed of, and knowledgable in, the subject matter you're leading a discussion about is frowned upon? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 So, in the circles you travel in, being directly informed of, and knowledgable in, the subject matter you're leading a discussion about is frowned upon? Unless it was discussed by Bill Maher or Jon Stewart on a comedy show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 and we don't want no stinkin socialized medicine....but don't touch my mdeicare! would be interesting to know if the gov't paid any of rands medical bills later in life. This argument never gets not retarded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted October 3, 2014 Author Share Posted October 3, 2014 (edited) So, in the circles you travel in, being directly informed of, and knowledgable in, the subject matter you're leading a discussion about is frowned upon? i don't travel in circles. i watch my dogs do it sometimes. look, i get her shtick. no one here has shown otherwise. because i'm unable to differentiate the minutia of the various strains of her philosophy to your satisfaction, you discount my opinion. fine. i have many friends who are lawyers. while i have read little of law, i believe i make interesting observations from time to time re their topics. dentists not so much. architects, yeah we can talk. you get the point. Edited October 3, 2014 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 Was "Atlas Shrugged" a fiction novel or a politico-economic treatise? Do people read that alongside "An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations," "Theories of Surplus Value," and "The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted October 3, 2014 Author Share Posted October 3, 2014 (edited) Was "Atlas Shrugged" a fiction novel or a politico-economic treatise? Do people read that alongside "An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations," "Theories of Surplus Value," and "The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money?" a treatise? only to her cult . i doubt many academic economists or political scientists would describe it as such. fiction. sure. and i'm sure people read it along with all those and next to "high times" as well. so? Edited October 3, 2014 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 (edited) i don't travel in circles. i watch my dogs do it sometimes. look, i get her shtick. no one here has shown otherwise. because i'm unable to differentiate the minutia of the various strains of her philosophy to your satisfaction, you discount my opinion. fine. i have many friends who are lawyers. while i have read little of law, i believe i make interesting observations from time to time re their topics. dentists not so much. architects, yeah we can talk. you get the point. I've appreciated the tone and civility of this thread, so please take this as intended: no, you don't understand her "schtik". That's clear, as you have you seem to believe that individuals in this thread adhere to Objectivist philosophy. You really should read some of her work, as after doing so you'll much more clearly understand the points being made in this thread. It may not change your mind, but atleast you'll better understand the discussion, and why you've gotten the responses that you have. Edited October 3, 2014 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 a treatise? only to her cult . i doubt many academic economists or political scientists would describe it as such. fiction. sure. and i'm sure people read it along with all those and next to "high times" as well. so? And yourself, who's acting as though it's such. You're pretty much the only one in this thread who is, as a matter of fact. And you haven't even read it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted October 3, 2014 Author Share Posted October 3, 2014 (edited) And yourself, who's acting as though it's such. You're pretty much the only one in this thread who is, as a matter of fact. And you haven't even read it. well great. can we stop the pretense that she is an authority on politics and economics? paul ryan seems to have let it go. will folks here do the same? Edited October 3, 2014 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 well great. can we stop the pretense that she is an authority on politics and economics? paul ryan seems to have let it go. will folks here do the same? Moral philosophy =/ economic theory, nor was anything Rand wrote about politics. You've made an incredible leap, and equated Rand's economics with her morality. That's garbage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 well great. can we stop the pretense that she is an authority on politics and economics? paul ryan seems to have let it go. will folks here do the same? "Folks here?" Who here EVER held her up as an authority on politics and economics? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted October 3, 2014 Author Share Posted October 3, 2014 "Folks here?" Who here EVER held her up as an authority on politics and economics? you seem to speak collectively for the group. hmmm... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 you seem to speak collectively for the group. hmmm... He's not making declarative statements, appropriating positions into a collective, he's asking a question. Stop obsfucating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 you seem to speak collectively for the group. hmmm... That's not speaking collectively for the group. That's asking a rhetorical question to highlight the the empirical evidence of never having observed anyone here holding up Rand as an authority on politics and economics. Except yourself, of course. Now who's being intellectual dishonesty? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted October 4, 2014 Share Posted October 4, 2014 (edited) You've made an incredible leap, and equated Rand's economics with her morality. That's garbage. Now you're wrong. Rand's economic theories and morality are integrally linked. To think otherwise is to miss the point of Rand's works almost as much as someone who hasn't read them. The rigidity of Rand's thinking allows its widespread extension into many fields. From her premises, she constructed a code to apply to politics, morality, economics, art. Objectivism is a Utopian ideal stemming "flawlessly" from the core premises. Her books and the rigidity with which she portrayed the application of these principles is absurd but she never ceases even in death to be spot on in her most important warning: Fear the march of the collectivist mindset. It comes in many flavors (Dems and Reps are just different cuts of the same collectivist cloth) but there is really no one espousing true Libertarian ideals and trying to roll back government taking of what's yours (be it money or rights). The collectivist ideal has won and the Dems and Reps just fight over what to control, not whether exercising such control is moral or right You write off all the usual suspects here as being blindly partisan but now even John Adams is taking you to task. ? Edited October 4, 2014 by John Adams Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted October 4, 2014 Share Posted October 4, 2014 you seem to speak collectively for the group. hmmm... And that my friend is a prime example of the concept that you fail to grasp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted October 4, 2014 Share Posted October 4, 2014 (edited) Now you're wrong. Rand's economic theories and morality are integrally linked. To think otherwise is to miss the point of Rand's works almost as much as someone who hasn't read them. The rigidity of Rand's thinking allows its widespread extension into many fields. From her premises, she constructed a code to apply to politics, morality, economics, art. Objectivism is a Utopian ideal stemming "flawlessly" from the core premises. Her books and the rigidity with which she portrayed the application of these principles is absurd but she never ceases even in death to be spot on in her most important warning: Fear the march of the collectivist mindset. It comes in many flavors (Dems and Reps are just different cuts of the same collectivist cloth) but there is really no one espousing true Libertarian ideals and trying to roll back government taking of what's yours (be it money or rights). The collectivist ideal has won and the Dems and Reps just fight over what to control, not whether exercising such control is moral or right ? No... I'm not. You've made the same mistake birdog has. No one is talking about a Randian universe. Capitalism does not belong to Ayn. Capitalism is ancient, predating Marx's exp<b></b>ression of Smith's and Franklin's concept. While Rand may have linked them for her purposes, it matters not for future purposes. And we aren't discussing Ayn Rand's purposes. Unless you are. The next time you think to correct me... Don't. Edited October 4, 2014 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts