Posted on 06/20/2013 12:48:09 PM PDT by nickcarraway
gunner...
To be fair, please post a picture of yourself here, so we can see what standard you are suing to judge “butt ugly”.
We can then have a quick vote to see how you stack up...
Usually one must go to Daily Kos or Democratic Underground to read that sort of thing. You are educated enough to see your ad hominem, but you and Jonathan Chait make a nice pair. Hey, this logical fallacy thing is fun!
Ayn Rand was a nut. But it doesn’t change the fact that Rand Paul is right about Syria and the NSA. If you can’t refute the message, attack the messenger.
Besides, I never said she was evil.
I do say she was a hypocrite.
Still waiting for a rationale discussion of the main Rand ideas... I noticed you avoided that again. In fact, you attacked the messenger again.
This is a lame substitute for thinking.
Summoning DU is like crying “Someone disagrees with me in MY sandbox! Waaaaahhhhh!”
She tried to write into “The Fountainhead” and “Atlas Shrugged” a religious supporting character who would be supporting of the various protagonists.
It was hard for her to get past the ‘why does the morality our decisions matter, if we propose and G-d disposes?’
A morality that could not be measured, could not be judged by man, could not be supported by reason, didn’t work for her.
Others look at religious teachings as good teachings. It is bad to lie, steal and murder, so any G-d that tells you to not lie, steal or murder should be on the same side as the moral people.
There is some hint of redemption when the government drone ‘non-absolute’ dies defending Hank Rearden’s factory, in the mind of Hank Rearden:
“Somewhere, he thought, there was the boy’s mother, who had trembled with protective concern over his groping steps, while teaching him to walk, who had measured his baby formulas with a jeweler’s caution, who had obeyed with a zealot’s fervor the latest words of science on his diet and hygiene, protecting his unhardened body from germs—then had sent him to be turned into a tortured neurotic by the men who taught him that he had no mind and must never attempt to think. Had she fed him tainted refuse, he thought, had she mixed poison into his food, it would have been more kind and less fatal.
He thought of all the living species that train their young in the art of survival, the cats who teach their kittens to hunt, the birds who spend such strident effort on teaching their fledglings to fly—yet man, whose tool of survival is his mind, does not merely fail to teach a child to think, but devotes the child’s education to the purpose of destroying his brain, of convincing him that thought is futile and evil, before he has started to think.
....
Armed with nothing but meaningless phrases, this boy had been thrown to fight for existence, he had hobbled and groped through a brief, doomed effort, he had screamed his indignant, bewildered protest—and had perished in his first attempt to soar on his mangled wings.”
“Summoning DU is like crying “Someone disagrees with me in MY sandbox! Waaaaahhhhh!”
Never the less, an accurate comparison to your approach on this thread.
Do a little reading up off the right-wing-o-sphere.
You’ll learn nothing when surrounded by personality cultists like dwell around here.
Nor will you from me. I’m just screwing around with their little minds while waiting for the wife to come home from shopping.
Read my #30, babe.
You people take anonymous commenting on internet forum much too seriously.
“an” internet forum
I hate this laptop
The politics of Ayn Rand rests on a context of
1) life is the standard of morality
2) rationality is the means of achieving it
3) rationality requires that every man should live for his own self interest
4) rationality requires that he should live by principles
5) rationality requires that he should possess integrity,and be honest, independent,just,productive and proud.
6) he should not initiate force against the innocent.
7) respect for individual rights is the minimum requirement necessary for living a rational life in a rational society.
This context is the beginning of a politics that prevents totalitarianism and repression rather than causing it.
That is a very eloquent defense of fallacious reasoning. Tell us more about Rothbard and Hayek. If we can find something about them that is distasteful, will it invalidate their views?
Wait, what?
Are you suggesting that I have to be physically attractive to assert that someone is butt-ugly?
Really?
So if you drive past a road-killed skunk you wouldn't say it stunk unless you stunk just as bad yourself?
I don’t really care.
Just screwing with you.
Unwilling to address your fallacy? I don’t blame you, it was pretty blatant.
I think you just saved me from myself.......
:-)
“If a person is going to preach ethics, as the Randians claim she does, that person has to be immaculate.”
Therefore the only human being that was, or ever will be, qualified to speak about ethics is Jesus Christ. OK, gotcha. Hence, ethics should never be discussed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.