Yeah, she based her heroes on the psychological traits of a child-raping serial killer by the name of Hickman. And she liked about this man precisely that which qualified him as a sociopath. I'm afraid you should get a little help from someone who can point out that not only are her "heroes" not heroes, they are equally as depraved as Hickman. She was also a racist pig. She also took government assistance while whining against government. She was a pathetic excuse for a human.
@kropotkinbeard1 Except that she said she didn't base her heros on Hickman. Except that she drew from both personal insight and the in-common ideas of some of the greatest thinkers in all of history. Except that she spoke out strongly against Racism. Except that her heroes, rather than being depraved, sought the best world for us all, rich and poor alike. Except that millions know what I've written here is an accurate representation.
@skidancin Yeah, so did L. Ron Hubbard, Stalin, and Hitler. So what? She based the psychology of her heroes on Hickman and you can either accept this well established and uncontroversial fact or keep trying to pretend it never happened, and clicking the heels of your ruby slippers together hoping that these facts just go away. But worry not! I'll be here and everywhere else reminding people of such facts, as they are important. She was a racist pig herself and you can hear her in action with...
@kropotkinbeard1 So what? Hitler spoke against racism? Really? Scratch that, surely not. You think Hitler drew from the same historical figures as Rand? While your comment makes little sense given what I wrote, I'll pretend it did and say simply So Did You! Maybe you get my point, maybe not, who could know with you?
@skidancin Hitler was a racist against the Jews. Rand was a racist against Palestinians. Nothing to discuss other than perhaps being thankful that Rand died before she got any power. All of my comments make perfect sense. If you don't understand them then that's a problem you'll have to deal with. Also, no evidence give to support this claim, as usual. Who knows with me? What's there not to know? I say clearly and directly what's on my mind. Here, I'll spoon-feed you yet again evidence of Rand's
@skidancin racism with her speaking the words herself. Now, if you can watch this clip and still maintain that she was not a racist, you are literally either severely indoctrinated and/or mentally ill. You could be 100% illiterate. That's the only other possibility. Now, let's see you try and worm your way out of this:
@kropotkinbeard1 Do you understand Donahue's tact when he confronts Rand with her own anger and asks why "Arabs" can't be angry with her? That tact is appropriately used on you, for you truly "don't seem to be able to tolerate a questioner who...disagrees with you," even peaceful ones like me. Rands response is as true as can be. She's condemning Palestinians behaving as murderous racists, and clearly abhors racism. You may call folks condemning al qaeda racists too.
@skidancin OMG! Hahahaha...You really ARE going to try and make an apologetic or her blatantly racist comments. Firstly, Donahue has no "tact" other than to bring up what's usually on the minds of many, if not most, people. Secondly, Rand is famous for precisely not being able to tolerate people who disagree with her. If you don't know even THIS about her you really have no business talking about her at all. Thirdly, no matter how Donahue may have posed the question, she could have easily...
@skidancin ...answered, were she even moderately intelligent, in a non-racist way. Fourthly, I'm in complete agreement that her racist answer was as true as can be for her, regardless of the fact that it had no relation to the real world. She's calling Palestinians murderous racists while they're country is being illegally occupied, and during which time Israel is killing MANY times more Palestinians. But she said similar racist things about
@skidancin...about Native Americans. She's a racist pig, and you are an indoctrinated buffoon. Go to a knitting thread where you may have something to offer other than apologetics for racist incompetents. Fifthly, to refer to the response of the victims of aggression as racists is about as pathetically low as I can imagine. But then again the white South African neo-Nazis there, who I presume you supported, along with the U.S. government, called the ANC "terrorists" for opposing attacks againt
@skidancin ..them. Anyway, that you came to the rescue of a racist pig like Rand doesn't surprise me one bit. Sort of fits well within the fake-Libertarianism which seems to be infecting a few of the lower IQ folks nowadays. And to compare the Palestinians to al Qaeda is itself an ignorant-ass insult. She is a racist, and it's been known for a LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG time. Get with the game. Scientology is a fraud. Rand is wallowing around in the same category.
@skidancin ...with a few words entered in that box up there at the top of the page. Or, there's a nice little list here gathered up here: dailykos.com/story/2011/04/24/969838/-Ayn-Rand-was-a-clever-racist
And, I don't need to hear a childish attack on the source. Just deal with the issue or shut up.
@kropotkinbeard1 You can put 2, 3, even 4 posts to one, filled with links you believe in, but you cannot make Ayn Rand into what she was not, nor those who like her - often despite what they consider her faults - into what they are not. You have denied the existence of so many issues with the things you and others have written about her that I know you are not reasonable, are an extremist, and will not pay any more attention in the future to reality than you have in the past.
@skidancin If the links demonstrate her to be what she is, then it's not an issue. You can refuse to look at the links demonstrating her to be what she is, but doesn't mean your ignorance of her is the 'truth' about her. So, you will either respond to the evidence I present with something demonstrating that evidence to be false, or you won't. And it will stand as true and accurate until you do, regardless of how much you may not want it to be. So, either challenge what I've presented or go away.
@kropotkinbeard1 You write "And it will stand as true and accurate until you do, regardless of how much you may not want it to be." Here's a truism for you: Nothing you or anyone proposes stands as "true and accurate" simply because no one responded (but this one will be beyond your ability to reason through, I must surmise). Of course, I have responded and found that your link to Donahue's interview shows Rand in the act of abhorring murderous racists. She is not a racist.
@skidancin Yes, it IS true until you demonstrate it isn't. I have made assertions, provided a small portion of my evidence to support the assertions, and as of this sentence you have done nothing to prove them wrong. You've simply said they were. This means that you believe that you opinion is more true than the facts which have been presented. Sorry. Not quite. And you REALLY need to stop trying to discus concepts which you know nothing about like reason, logic, fallacies, or anything else.
@skidancin It's logically possible that what I've asserted and supported with evidence from the subjects own mouth is incorrect, but if it is it should have been quit easy to show how it was. This hasn't happen. Not once so far. So, if you have anything other than your empty opinion based on your already indoctrinated mind, please, try and present it, even if accidental. You WANTED to see what you saw. Most unindoctrinated sane people took her at her word, both in the video, AND in her writings.
@skidancin And if she is simply into demonstrating how she "abhors murderous racists", where were the similar criticisms of the murderous Israelis? You know, the ones occupying the land of the Palestinians, and before in Lebanon? The ones with overwhelming force with which to carry out their ethnic cleansing. Yes, those who condemn victims for fighting back against aggression are certainly the sort of moral people I know I look up to. Perhaps this is why she has one of the women in her...
@skidancin Yes, I'M the "extremist" because I dare offer passages taken from her journals which confirm everything I've asserted. I've offered video links of her directly confirming what I've asserted. You have refused to respond to a single thing with anything but your naive and childish opinions which contain evidence of nothing. Worse yet, I can't even tell that you've actually even looked at the evidence. This would indicate deep indoctrination. What more evidence that 'I' am an "extremist".
@kropotkinbeard1 It is precisely because the passages that you offer do not actually establish "everything" you've asserted, that you are an extremist. You are an extremist because you are a true believer in your own brand of socialism, so much so that you believe it could end poverty in a short period of time (an unreasonable extreme). It's extreme to deny that the definition of ad hominem demands that words like "dumbass" aimed at others are always ad hominems.
@skidancin Hahahaha....The passages that I offer support those particular aspects of what I've said they did. Period. I have mounds of passages which deal with all sort of other things e.g.her using a false name to get government aid, and on and on...Given that everything I've asserted thus far has been backed with evidence from her own grimy mouth and YOU are too indoctrinated to see it demonstrates without ANY doubt that it is you who are the extremist, and are as already mentioned..
@skidancin ...indoctrinated. Hahahaha...I'M the true believer because I provide the evidence to support everything I've said, and you have done exactly squat to prove any of it wrong? This is a textbook case of 'projection', drooler. Ask any high school kid to tell you how it works. You know nothing about "my own brand of socialism" or any other brand of socialism that I can tell. You need to quit trying to tell me what I believe, too, drooler. I will tell you what I believe. Your guessing sucks
@skidancin ...That your guessing sucks also supports everything I've asserted. You mistakenly 'think' you know something about me, or my "brand" of whatever, and then jump from this knowledge you think you have. You've been incorrect about 99% of the time. Sort of looks like this:
Me: I think A,B,C.
You: You think D,E,F
Me: No, I think A,B,C.
You: See? You and your brand of D,E,F is why "you" are an extremist.
Me: Uhh...No, YOU are indoctrinated because you can't see my position is A,B,C
@skidancin And you are STILL going on about the ad hominems I don't do? You're not only a drooler, but an obsessive one at that. Now, when you get any evidence demonstrating that anything I've said about Rand is incorrect, you know, with actual evidence to support your claims, like, maybe a video clip of her proving that she isn't a racist, as opposed to the one I provided showing that she was a racist, or that it isn't true that got government aid, or wasn't a child-raping serial killer groupie
@skidancin ...by all means, present it. Meanwhile, I'll still be passing around the facts I have accumulated about her, and doing my best to inform people as to her depravity. After all, there are many other naive people out there such as yourself who are also stuck at the pre-adolescent stage and who should learn before it's too late and they grow up unalterably stuck at that stage.
@kropotkinbeard1 You've got an opinion. Meanwhile, Al Qaeda sides with Palestine and itself feels put upon much as Palestinians do, while you deride my comparison. Swell. You ask where are Rands criticisms of Isreal, and I ask where are your criticisms of Palestinians? So are you a racist for taking a side? No, I assume is your answer. Are you aware that Israel invited Palestinians to stay put inside the borders of the newly created Israel and live in peace from day one?
@skidancin Yes, I've got many opinions. There have simply been few presented here, and almost none to do with The Pig (as I will refer to Rand from now on). As far as al Qaeda "siding with" the Palestinians, it may think it does, but the Palestinians don't care about them one iota. That they may try and exploit the oppression they've been experiencing under the terror of Israel and the U.S. shouldn't surprise anyone. And al Qaeda and bin Laden have been making it quite clear for MANY years why..
@skidancin ..they are doing what they're doing. They want the U.S. off of and out of their land. Period. So, in this sense, they do have something in common with the Palestinians, whose land is also being occupied. But I guess for like-minded thieves who don't understand that moving into a country where they are not wanted this is perhaps difficult to understand. Perhaps reading too much of racist Pig's works. Regarding what you're asking about the Palestinians is obscene. You think there is..
@skidancin ...some sort of moral equivalence between listing the crimes of an illegally occupying force with overwhelming power, and who have killed many times more people, and that of the people under occupation, who are poor, and are simply trying to survive the occupation? That you even have to have this obscene comparison pointed out demonstrates extreme racism on your part. Recognizing that group X has illegally invaded the land where group Y lives, runs them off the land, refers to them..
@skidancin ...in similar terms that The Pig would approve of, and yet not expect any resistance, or MUCH worse consider such resistance and whatever form it takes as terrorism is depraved from top to bottom. Yes, the Palestinians have engaged in "terrorist acts" if you wish to refer to resistance as terrorist. So what? The U.S. State Department used to say the same about Mandela and the ANC. And, as should come as surprise to no one, the poor resistance movement engage in tactics which can be..
@skidancin ..characterized as "terrorist", though, as Chomsky correctly notes and has been writing about LONG before al Qaeda came onto the scene (since the 60's as a matter of fact, again, demonstrating how much ahead of his time he is, as those who know his work readily know), their form of terrorism is more of a "retail terrorism" as it's done on MUCH smaller scales, whereas the bigger powers engage in "wholesale terrorism" which is on much more of a mass scale. ALL sides engage in terrorist
@skidancin ...acts. The thing to do if one wishes to end such acts is to see what's behind them and get to the root of the problem and eliminate it. And, no, NOTHING I've said is an apologetic for anything al Qaeda has done. In fact, they primarily hurt other Muslims. But understanding why they are doing what they are doing is THE starting point. It is NOT an indication that you think it's right in any way, shape, or form. Also, there is nothing you can tell me about the Israeli/Palestinian..
@kropotkinbeard1 And your use of "pig" should not be considered ad hominem by nature, I presume. LOL. Do you really think what the Palestinians think of Al Qaeda has any bearing on the point I made? Oh, I have no points, I forgot. You give no weight to the violence committed against Israel. You fail to recognize Jews had been in Israel for a long time themselves, nor the Arab riots of 1929 which ended a decently long peace, to prevent Jews from praying at the Wailing Wall.
@skidancin Of course my use of the term "pig" should not be considered ad hominem because it does precisely nothing to evade any arguments I may be making by attacking Rand. I gave a LONG list of qualifies her as a Pig. If you wish to refer to her as "elbow" or "cracker" of whatever due to her racism and all the other deviant items already listed, by all means. Has not one thing to do with causing her to be a racist. It's a result of her being a racist that she's earned the title. Sort of like
@skidancin ...referring to someone as a '"professional" whatever when they've earned the title. Similarly her title, as determined by me, has been earned due to the many things listed. I was assuming your point was what you said it was i.e.that there was little difference between them and al Qaeda, that 'they' were the terrorists, and not the Israelis, etc...Actually, you may have points. So, if you think I've missed it, then quit whining and repeat to or try to help me understand. You know,
@kropotkinbeard1 Calling Rand "Pig" is evasive of all issues you have with Rand. It is a derogatory title only. An ad hominem remains an ad hominem when, even you, decide a person deserves a derogatory title. "Professional" applied to a person, on the other hand, is typically neither derogatory nor argumentative. But people might fairly assume you think she was a policewoman, or just think less of you for employing the derogatory ad hominem title at all (which is fair).
@skidancin OMG! What the hell drugs are you on?! I have evaded exactly NOTHING by calling her a Pig. It's precisely because I have NOT evaded issues that I have referred to her as a PIG. Yes, it's a derogatory title and it's meant to be. She earned it. And it in no way, shape, or form has been used in order NOT to deal with some issue by attacking her. Not even close. You really just don't get this, do you? Even after I spoon-fed you the definition. Just stop talking about this. It is NOT an..
@kropotkinbeard1 You may have evaded many things, I've seen, but even if you haven't calling a person "the pig" is always an act of using an ad hominem. You've "spoon fed" me a definition which absolutely backs me up, and in no way backs you up. You use ad hominems relentlessly. You admit "the pig" is a derogatory title and that "it's meant to be," and by definition it is therefore an ad hominem. No matter how strong your case, the instant you call me "drooler,"..ad hominem!
@skidancin I have evaded nothing. I haven't discussed some aspects of the Pig's work, say, her stance on religion, and several other things, but this isn't evading anything. And I'm the one who has brought up the issues. This is in no way evading anything. This is doing the opposite. She's a pig, this term in no way is being used as an evasion of anything, and it's not an ad hominem. She's a racist pig, and I've demonstrated that she's a racist pig. The definition I spoon-fed you does nothing..
@skidancin ...of the sort nor have you shown that it does. You REALLY must stop just making assertions you've pulled from your butt and based on nothing resembling evidence. I have not used a single ad hominem, drooler, nor have you shown that I have. Yes, referring to her as a pig IS derogatory and in no way, shape, or form has it been used as an attack of her because I had nothing to offer by way of an argument i.e. which is what an ad hominem is. I offered mounds of evidence which confirmed..
@skidancin ...that she was a racist pig. Therefore, she is a racist pig. Had she not provided me with such good evidence there would have been no reason at all to refer to her as this, nor wold it have crossed my mind. And if I see anyone else using the same or similar statements that she's made, they, too will be racist pigs. Why not just post a photo of yourself with your hands over your ears, humming really loud so that we will have a visual to match what you're doing in every comment?
@skidancin ...ad hominem attack no matter how much you want it to be. Drop it. She's a filthy pig, and I've demonstrated why, though I have MUCH more I could offer to make it worse. You should be satisfied that I've chosen the milder and more sympathetic "pig", though I do feel a bit guilty about pigs, especially given that they're one of the smartest animals, and therefore don't deserve the comparison. Yes, "professional" is applied to a person. And "pig" is applied to a person who demonstrates
@skidancin ...themselves to being a pig. This is why I called her a pig. She doesn't say things which qualify her as a pig, she doesn't get called a pig. It's quite simple. And, if you think I've called her a pig so as not to deal with something, you're either illiterate, or simply lying. I've done nothing of the sort and have repeatedly demonstrated that I haven't. You have not once demonstrated that my referring the the Pig as a Pig as in any way, shape, or form been an ad hominem attack. ..
@skidancin "But people might fairly assume you think she was a policewoman, or just think less of you for employing the derogatory ad hominem title at all (which is fair)." HuuuUUUUuuuuh?! Illiterate people who have read nothing I've written may assume this. If they do, they're uninformed an wrong, and it would be easy to prove them to be wrong. I've made a LONG list which demonstrated that she was a racist PIG. If they are literate, and they understand the English language, and they've read..
@skidancin ...even half of the evidence I've already provided, assuming they're not indoctrinated such as yourself, they would either come to the same obvious conclusion and agree that, yes, she was a racist pig, or they could refer to her as a racist cow. Whatever their choice is would be fine and would have not one thing to do with the fact that she's a racist. Nothing. Zero. Zilch. Yes, yes, yes, I know it hurts you to have to face the facts, now that I've spoon-fed you these as well, that..
@skidancin ..it really is true that she was a racist pig, but this is just what happens when you've been indoctrinated into a cult, and are fighting against recognizing it as it begins to crumble. All the usual signs are there e.g.denial, projection, evasion, holding hands over ears and humming, and now cognitive dissonance. Now, this is when it's going to get really uncomfortable for you and you will either go through it, or run away, which is what I predict will happen.
@kropotkinbeard1@skidancin And you really put 5, count-em 5 posts up, just to try to convince yourself an ad hominem isn't an ad hominem. This is grand evidence of both your blind arrogance and your inability to understand a simple definition. If you think I'm wrong, spoon-feed me the part of the definition where you think it explains that words intended as derogatory descriptions of others lose their status as ad hominems, for ANY reason. You can't.
@skidancin I've put up MANY more than that, haven't I? I'm not trying to convince myself of anything. Again, you are projecting in textbook fashion. I've demonstrated why Rand was a racist pig, and due to the evidence, she can safely be considered a racist pig. If someone has looked at the evidence and doesn't see that this is a fact, then they are illiterate, or perhaps racist pigs themselves. Doesn't matter much to me. Should matter to them though. You ARE wrong and I've repeatedly...
@skidancin ...demonstrated you to be wrong, so just stop. I spoon-fed you the definition, I showed in detail how this had not one thing to do with what I've been doing, and shown that it was not an ad hominem. If you haven't read it, or don't understand the words, that's your problem, not mine. You should thank me for continuing to allow you to project, lie, etc...But this is natural with cult members. I'm used to it. But, put your bib back on. I'll spoon-feed you again: "An ad hominem...
@skidancin ...An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it.[1]"
Okay. Can you read the words right up there? Can you understand the words "is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it." Firstly, I have attempted to "negate" nothing of a..
@skidancin ..."truth of a claim". I am the one making the claim that Rand was a racist pig, which she was. Secondly, I the "negative characteristic" i.e.racist pig, has NOT been used as a way of negating anything. She makes racist pig statements, I show that she makes racist pig statements, and I, therefore, refer to her, accurately, as being a racist pig. Sorry. Nothing to do with ad hominem. Here. I'll give you an idea. Just read it 20 more times so that I don't have to type it 20 more times.
@skidancin ..like I always spend hundreds of words doing for you. What do you mean "I give no weight to the violence.."? I specifically said that the Palestinians commit acts of terror, in almost always in response to the much greater acts of terror committed by Israel, and as one which should come as no surprise at all when your country is being occupied, you are moved off the land on a whim, etc...Your indoctrination is not allowing you to register what I've explicitly stated. I'm aware of..
@skidancin ..everything you've said and MUCH more. If you wish to get off into this topic, which you will most definitely NOT do well on, it's fine with me. I mean, I can see why you're want to try to escape from the Pig issue given the mounds of documentation I've given you so far, though there is MUCH more. Also you seem to have projected again by not saying a word about Israeli terror, much more extensive, their occupation, their illegal settlements, and on and on....
@skidancin ...conflict which I don't know. I've been involved with it for years. But look at your last sentence. Look at what you presumed in the statement "Are you aware that Israel invited Palestinians to stay...". You presume that Israel owns the land and that out of the generosity of their own hearts that they have offered some of "their" land to let the Palestinians to stay on. Why on earth would you assume that it was "their" land at all to even have such right? Is that how the...
@skidancin ..Palestinians view it? That this "newly created" land, and those "newly creating it", which just sprung into existence, well, after the forced removal of 250,000+ residents which just happened to be living there already, should offer that some of the residents stay, well, what more evidence of a humanitarian gesture can one expect? But I'm sure if, say, Iran invaded the U.S., moved you down to Mexico, but said you could stay as long as you didn't resist their newly created land...
@skidancin ...call it West Iran, that you would see nothing wrong with this either. And I would also assume that were you to even think about resisting Iran's newly created land that you would consider yourself, obviously, as a "terrorist", yes? Your and the other extremist racists, such as The Pig, don't even question your own preconceived notions and presumptions. THIS is why such racism exists in the first place. Rand has just tried to excuse it as a good thing, the Pig.
@kropotkinbeard1 Jews were booted out more than once. Jews did invite Palestinians to stay. Arabs did ask Palestinians to leave. Palestinians did often leave of their own accord. Other Palestinians did initiate acts of terrorism from within, before being pushed out. You are out to lunch in so many ways it's sad.
@skidancin And you've done it again. "Jews did invite Palestinians to stay." Do you understand what this statement presupposes? It presupposes that the Jews had some sort of right to even make such an offer. This would be like me going to your house, claiming that this was now my house, but saying that you could stay if you wanted to, and, of course, in the small areas I designate for you to. AND, if you start doing anything which I deem an invasion or attack on my new home, well...
@skidancin ...then you are a terrorist and I can use whatever means I deem necessary to fight terrorism of course. Such notion just don't even register for you, do they? Sorry, but this is how the vast majority of the world perceives what's been going on there for a LONG time, and the reason they perceive this is because it blatantly obvious to anyone not indoctrinated. Takes LOTS of work NOT to see something so obvious. Yes, you're babbling, and that means I'M "out to lunch", Projection King?ha
@kropotkinbeard1 I register that you've taken a side, as I have; it doesn't make me racist for I don't harbor hate for Palestinians. It's not my fight. Historians disagree as to who threw the first punch, as it were. Why shouldn't we? I think Rand makes a strong case as Jews lived there too, pretty much forever. I happen believe there is strong evidence that Israel is far less inclined to destroy peaceful Palestinians than Palestinians are to destroy Israel.
@skidancin I haven't referred to you as a racist at all. Well, perhaps I at least implied it a few comments ago when saying that if you see nothing wrong with the Pig's racist statements that this would probably indicate that you would be a racist, too, which would be accurate. If someone hears a KKK member speak and agrees with everything he says, well, if he then turns and claims not to be a racist, he either hasn't a clue that he's a racist, or the word has taken on an unusual definition.
@kropotkinbeard1 I for one could easily hear a KKK member speak and agree with everything he says. I'm not a racist at all. It would be because he didn't speak of his prejudice, you stupid red-neck drooler (this was an informative lesson). "Red-neck drooler" isn't ad hominem (lol), because Ifeel you deserve that title since your nearly all-encompassing (for all intents and purposes) denunciation of Rand is so similar to the attitude of any red-neck, perhaps racist, drooler.
@skidancin Uhh...Somehow this doesn't surprise me. If you listened to him speak, and he was discussing blacks or Jews, and agree with him, then you are a racist. Period. And if I referred to him as a red neck drooler it's because he would have said something which earned him the title, and it would have been in no way, shape or form just a term pulled from my butt because I didn't agree with what he said. I would prove that he was a red neck drooler, using evidence, and then I would refer to..
@skidancin ...him as a red neck drooler, and you as a racist for agreeing with his racist ideas. He doesn't give any racist ideas, I wouldn't refer to him as this. Again, I'm NOT name-calling just for the sake of name-calling. This is something completely different. You're now babbling with your eyes shut and hands over your ears instead of just humming. Humming was better. It's VERY easy. 1)Rand makes racist statements 2)I point out that she has 3)I refer to her as a racist pig because she has.
@skidancin ...demonstrated that she's a racist pig. If someone walks over and lifts up my car, tossing back and forth from one hand to the other, spins it on their nose, and then puts it back down, then I will say they are strong. If I call them "Herculean" or "Hercules", or "the Hulk", I have referred to them accurately. If someone recites an entire book from memory, I may say they are an "elephant" (which are supposed to have good memories). If someone rattles of line after line of racist pig
@skidancin ...statements, and I refer to them as a racist pig, then there is no problem. I'm simply reporting what is taking place an adding whatever term seem most fitting for the situation. But if you prefer "racist cornbread", "racist tire", "racist hernia", or whatever, it's fine. The important part, and the part which has been shown to be true is the "racist" part. The addition of pig can be left up the the discretion of the person accurate recognizing her racism. I think "Pig" is fine.
Gratuitous verbal abuse or "name-calling" itself is not an argumentum ad hominem or a logical fallacy.[3][4][5][6][7] The fallacy only occurs if personal attacks are employed in the stead of an argument to devalue an argument by attacking the speaker, not personal insults in the middle of an otherwise sound argument."
@kropotkinbeard1 ""In reality, ad hominem is unrelated to sarcasm or personal abuse. Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument. The mere presence of a personal attack does not indicate ad hominem: the attack must be used for the purpose of undermining the argument, or otherwise the logical fallacy isn't there. It is not a logical fallacy to attack someone; the fallacy comes from...
@skidancin Most historians do NOT disagree over who threw the first punch. Only those making apologetics for the occupation, which is standard. And if Jews have lived there, too, and they used to get along with the Palestinians, well, why run them off the land they were living on? And I'm most sure you are inclined to hold such a belief. And I know precisely why you hold such belief, where it came from, who propagates it, and what for, etc...What have you read which gives the narrative from...
@skidancin ...the Palestinian side? Why are there so many Jewish folks who oppose Israeli policy as well? More than half the population, in fact. Anyway, I will defer you to a few Jewish folks and others who can give you the history if you're actually interested. Chomsky (Jewish, and one of the most comprehensive scholars), Norman Finkelstein (Jewish), Edward Said (Palestinian), and on and on..Oh, and another sign of indoctrination is if one can actually read a Chomsky piece on this issue, or
@skidancin ...hear a talk of his, and conclude that he is anti-Semitic. Same goes with anything he's ever said about the U.S. Never utter a single "anti-American" sentence. And, if anyone thinks he has, then they are illiterate, a liar, or both. Only three choices.
Actually, I'd probably recommend reading more about propaganda first so that you can see why you think the things you do. Yes, I know that you probably like to feel that you haven't been the victim of propaganda, but you have...
@skidancin ...hear a talk of his, and conclude that he is anti-Semitic. Same goes with anything he's ever said about the U.S. Never utter a single "anti-American" sentence. And, if anyone thinks he has, then they are illiterate, a liar, or both. Only three choices.
Actually, I'd probably recommend reading more about propaganda first so that you can see why you think the things you do. Yes, I know that you probably like to feel that you haven't been the victim of propaganda, but you have...
@skidancin .We ALL have. And it takes a LOT of work to get out of it. You can read online for free Necessary Illusions and perhaps Manufacturing Consent. Watch or read anything by Edward Bernays. Edward Heman's 'Beyond Hypocrisy'. Read or watch interviews with Robert McChesney. That's enough for now. Please feel free to recommend books which you believe may help me escape from my lost ways.
@KellyAnnOR Pinto... it was recalled because it failed in the market place. pretty simple. Corn syrup? it is a good sweetner and better for you than the artifical sweetners out there. I don't think that Corn Syrup is really a problem with capitalism.
@KellyAnnOR Capitalism is not perfect. That is very true; we are dealing with humans and their frailty and failings. But this system overall rewards those with ingenuity, and innovation. Those that can fill a need of the market will be rewarded. Those that stagnate will be selected for bankruptcy. Competition drives actions and rewards those that compete well.
@KellyAnnOR Part 2: People are far more mobile now and can easily move from employer to employer. The key is to develop, possess and maintain the skills the employer needs. If you sit around and expect a high paying job because you want one you will find yourself very disappointed. Self Reliance and Self Improvement.
@KellyAnnOR Part 1: Reduced competition? Have you driven anywhere in America or the world for that matter? We now have more choices for all products than any time in the past. There is more competition in the market than any time in the past. We have less monopolies, and also far less pollution. Companies know if they do not act as good corporate citizens, they will be selected for bankruptcy. They know they must treat their employees well or their trained labor will leave.
@KellyAnnOR Part 2: When these companies fail (and they should) their business will go into receivership and broken up. they have failed in the marketplace and their continued existence drags down the economy as they are less efficienct that others. Their use of capital is not in the best interest of the market and they should be selected to go out of business. What you get that end are better companies, filling a need of the market better and taking more prudent risks.
@KellyAnnOR When we removed the consequences, we helped destroy capitalism and our market economy. These companies made investments and we removed the ability for them to loose, so risk assessment was skewed. They made even more reckless investments knowing they would be bailed out. We should never bail out any company, and we as a government should never guanentee a company's risks (loans). It skews capitalism and you get bubbles.
@KellyAnnOR But if a company that does not fill a need in the market will not sale any products no matter how "evil" their board of directors is. Capitalism is about maximizing profit for the owners and they do this by filling a need in the market that is not being met by someone else. It is about as efficiently as possible meeting the needs of the market. This is a win-win for everyone. Better products, more diverse products and lower costs.
@KellyAnnOR Those that took loans should have been responsible in their decisions. They made a private contract with the bank and received the funding for the home they wanted to purchase. They should either pay the loan or loose the house. There should be consequences on both sides - the stupid consumer who purchased too much house, and the bank that loaned the money. The gov't should not have bailed out either stupid party.
I like the part about sitting up straight and becoming confident while reading. Didn't notice that either times while reading, but now that you say it...
I understand what you're saying, & while I admit I do use YT to keep myself entertained whilst I work, I also disagree. I also use YT (& the general 'net) to challenge my own beliefs, knowledge & of others in order to grow. I'm not above changing my postion if there's adequate evidence.
Also, I hold there's a difference between having the choice to be altruistic or not. Cheers.
@KellyAnnOR ..That should have been "Joe":...not Fred.
"Justice" was when Joe,by virtue of better performance and customer service "won" and put Fred out of business as a consequence so resources were not wasted in inefficient ways by Fred and society benefited overall."Injustice" was when Joe got alongside the state to try and block competition.
@KellyAnnOR ...Just how can Fred bar any competitor? That's only possible in a state controlled economy..its impossible in a free market. You cannot corner a free market. Under corporatism the big businessman gets his politician mate to enact regulations that block new startup's from taking him on. Minimum wage laws,health and safety laws, fees and taxes...all are weapons used to stifle the new guy and protect the established operator...and only possible with state control of the economy.
@KellyAnnOR ..Wealth is created by man's mind..not his hands. Hands are useless without a mind guiding them. hands can dig holes...but its only a mind that can determine where the hole should be dug to get the best value for that effort. Capitalism rests on a single premise ..justice. Those who create and enrich their fellows get rewarded...those that don't..don't.
@KellyAnnOR .."Conservative Libertarianism"..? Starting with a contradiction isn't doing your case much good. Read Atlas if you want....but I'm not going out of my way to read Chomsky any-time soon.Maybe rather than rereading AS try and read some of Rand's non fiction especially "The virtue of Selfishness" Philosophy:Who needs it? and "Capitalism:The unknown ideal". I feel you have missed the real essence of what's she's advocating. Check out the AS film that's out now too..very good.
@KellyAnnOR ...Wealth is created...and if (assuming a free market is in existence,which it isn't in the US and hasn't been for over a century) certain people have certain percentage of it then its because they DESERVE to as THEY have made the efforts which bought it into being. There is no fixed amount of wealth...its potentially infinite...anyone can create new wealth today and make themselves far richer than any millionaire alive today.
Reading Atlas made me feel like I was striding with giants across the mountain ranges of the world in the blazing sun.It beats the Bible hands down as a source of morality and inspiration for mankind. It is in fact probably the most effective self help book ever written. If you are the kind of person with the kind of spirit it ignites and propels forward in life. The haters and second handers can't bear its brilliance when shone upon their scabby,pathetic hate filled souls.
@recalibration Free Markets are NOT unregulated..they are in fact regulated to a far MORE micro degree...but by the free people within them...not distant and clueless politicians. A free market has already delivered judgement to poor preforming companies and products around the world before the Governments of the world have woken up and got their fumbling regulatory pants on. Big corporate's fear free markets more than anything because they have no cover from Government and must satisfy people.
@recalibration ...The same ones caused by Government inflating the money supply and then forcing by law banks to offer out to people who were never going to be able to pay them back...? Those sub-prime mortgages? Not possible in a free market thankfully.
@Riellysdad Very true. The gov't forced banks through the CRA and the DOJ to make loans that never should have been made. Then Freddie/Fannie come in an buy out the loans after the bank makes the loan. You want to stop a housing bubble - let banks make loans to those they think will repay them, and do not allow the Government to underwrite any of the mortgages. They will make better choices.
@KellyAnnOR Actually the top 10% pay over 50% of the taxes. Most of the wealth is NOT held by 1%...open your eyes...its owned by the vast majority of middle class Americans.Read the book.
@KellyAnnOR ...I suggest you read the book..if you haven't already. Its not about spurning other people at all...its about claiming ones right to exist as you! It basically says "Stop apologising and trying to make amends for the "crime"of existing...you have nothing to apologise for and owe no-one else anything for being alive".
Unfortunately the far left and the far right are both destructive. Stalin, Mao, and Mussolini all used massive propaganda against the center and right to overthrow their countries. The US used massive propaganda against the left to strengthen crony capitalism and corporate welfare. It got so bad in the 20's and 30's that the middle class had reached all time lows Fortunately several things happened in 1932-3 or we would have fought with the Axis. Prescott Bush's coup failed. The New Deal.
@lavenderlynx: Have you ever read Augustine's Confessions, his writings against the Manicheans, or the City of God? They may not be fictitious novels, but they can be more exciting in that they deal with real meaning.
Since when was Atlas Shrugged popular? Sure it sold 7 million which is a lot more than a lot of other books but when compared to others it isn't. It sold that many in over 60 years. The Catcher in the Rye sold about 10 times as many copies in about the same time. The Lord of the Rings sold over 20 times that in about the same amount of time. Rand fans are always exaggerating the accomplishments of her works. AS the movie flopped despite the conservative press saying it was successful.
@mzhivago925 AS continues selling at a rate that the others never have...that's the difference. The latest AS boom just continues the trend. LOTR and Catcher won't be picked up in such numbers by people seeking answers to today's issues...AS is...and will continue to be. Check out the excellent doco. "Ayn Rand and the prophecy of Atlas Shrugged to see this phenomenon explained.
This isn't a book review, this is an infomercial. I read it in my mid-twenties and thought it had all the ansers. However as I became older I realized much of applied objectivism was seriously flawed. The book reduces the antagonists to simplistic stereotypes. human value is based solely on a mostly bigoted perception. Ideologically, A.S. by the end turns into a pro-eugenics belief deciding life and death on the basis of an ability or not to make a decision at the point of a gun.
You should read The Brothers Karamazov (Either the Pevear/Volokhonsky or MacAndrew translation). It's a better book than Atlas Shrugged--and has just as big a tendency to change people's lives.
What I found so astonishing was what a modern and powerful woman Dagney is and what a currently relevant story it is... and it was first published in 1957!!!
I started reading this book two days ago and i honestly can't put it down. IT is incredible. I find Rands' ideals very interesting and thought provoking. I agree with your review thus far although i haven't finished the book (thanks for giving some stuff away ;) but it is so far a book that sucks you in with all emotion in tact.
I have watched both this and your first review, and I guess I can say I agree with you, not 100 % however, but 95 %. The lack of the last 5 %-points is due to the fact that I neither threw the book in the wall, nor had to crawl back to it, - of course due to the fact that it were already in my hand. Beside that, I agree with everything you say, I've even dedicated my right arm to a half-sleeve tattoo celebrating the awesomenes of this book! The mountain comparison = WOW!
@RPJunky If you're looking to be entertained by Atlas Shrugged, I'm sorry to say you'll be disappointed. Rand's prose isn't good (if you want a WELL-WRITTEN substitute for her Anthem, read 1984 or Brave New World) and her story isn't riveting at all. Want to know about the flawed philosophy (which glorifies capitalism)? Don't read the whole book. Read John Galt's (70 page-long) speech. Objectivism leaves no room for compromise (Galt says it himself.) You're an evil commie or a good capitalist.
@mzhivago925 The compromise between capitalism and communism is socialism, which is evil. I think Ayn could make that point more easily in her day, seeing the three ideals fighting a world war. The Nazis economically were socialist, right in between the Soviets & (Pre-War) Americans. They, along with the Commies sought to destroy the thinking mind, both were equally evil.
@RPJunky It's an alternative reality set in the 20th century (early) I wouldn't even call it an alternate reality at this point, what the world is today, decades earlier. It shows the power the producer holds, but doesn't exercise, and the reality that all politicians are good at is; politics. They don't make the world turn, the American Industrialist does.
What i found interesting was near the end when the judge writes "congress shall make no laws abridging the freedom of production and trade." Follow this principle to it's logical conclusion and you would have no copyright or patent laws. Anyone who figures out how to produce anything (via reverse engineering, etc.) has the freedom to produce it...so the "looters" error of "somehow what I need will be produced" becomes the " industrialists" "somehow my intellectual property will be protected."
I believe art can change the world too... but what's that got to do with atlas shrugged?
Objectivism aside, if you think that Atlas Shrugged is actually a good novel then you have excpetionally poor taste. And if you like it just for it's philosophy that just means behind that pretty little face lies the beating black heart of a nazi.
For the rich who create their wealth honorably and by their own effort, and there are many, they deserve it; they earn it. And we had better hope that they become richer, for one reason, and one reason only; I never heard of a poor person hiring someone.
@cosg9531 No one makes their wealth - how little or how great it may be - solely on their own. No corporation, industrialist or CEO would have their weath if it were not for the labor of other people. It's not a one sided exchange, both sides need one another.
@xexixk Where did he say anyone makes their wealth without interacting with other people? You're attacking a straw man.
There mere fact that interacting with other people to mutual advantage (which, by the way, is the beauty of Capitalism) is many times more advantageous than working entirely alone does not mean that we are not creators of wealth, however, and it does not justify viewing man as a collective organism the way it has been used (though I'm not saying your arguing this).
Did you know that the root word of technology, techne, is greek for craftsmanship and art. Only they meant practical art (machines and such)...as opposed to fine arts (sculpture, paintings, etc). Thus Rand's works was all about appreciating practical art (trains, engines, architecture) and romanticizing its creators.
Of course, great technology not only is very practical, it is usually asthetically appealing (a jet plane, a skyscraper, the iPod, etc).
Crikey, your description of your epiphanous emotional and physical experiences when you first read Atlas Shrugged matched my own, except that it happened to me while I was reading the first chapter of The Fountainhead.
don't let the idiots on youtube get to you. AS is a great book. I'm only 28 I would love to have a daughter one day that thinks as deeply about things as you seem to. thanks for the review.
Damn.... at 17 you read Das Kapital? That shit was TOO fucking boring for me. Popped two adderall pills and still couldn't hang.... Karl Marx kicked my ass on that one....
I think you're looking TOO deep into this book. I mean.... yes, this book did changed my life, the same as Machiavelli, Adam Smith, and the Art of war. But damn... it's not that good. Ayn Rand pointed out the potential for corruption but did she solved any problems. If you follow her ideals all the way, locking in intellectual property, copy-writing everything... and privatizing everything... you will have the slaves and the elitist. Education will never be distributed to the mass. It's owned.
You read the original language of Adam Smith? That's just asking for a headache. You're better off just reading a few economics articles that describe Invisible Hand and Specialisation in contemporary language.
As for Atlas Shrugged, (and The Fountainhead), it presents a profound, challenging and provocative new philosophy in a manner that is within reach of all of us.
I would do a lot to meet someone like you. I'm just surrounded by unthinking morons and drones.
Nice to be reminded, sometimes, that there are people out there who still use their great human faculties, who understand the glory of mankind and exalt in it.
Not every book enthusiast can read into this particular book far enough to quibble with its ideas. I know someone who threw it into the trash after reading only a few sentences. The problem for this person was not the philosophy, but Rand's black and white writing style which happens to represent her world-view. But naturally we all think "If I loved reading it then everybody else will too."
This has been flagged as spam show
HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT I SUCK COCKS
kropoktinbeard1 12 hours ago
Google 'THE VICE OF SELFISHNESS: A critique of Ayn Rand’s Objectivism'
kropotkinbeard1 2 days ago
Yeah, she based her heroes on the psychological traits of a child-raping serial killer by the name of Hickman. And she liked about this man precisely that which qualified him as a sociopath. I'm afraid you should get a little help from someone who can point out that not only are her "heroes" not heroes, they are equally as depraved as Hickman. She was also a racist pig. She also took government assistance while whining against government. She was a pathetic excuse for a human.
kropotkinbeard1 1 week ago
@kropotkinbeard1 Except that she said she didn't base her heros on Hickman. Except that she drew from both personal insight and the in-common ideas of some of the greatest thinkers in all of history. Except that she spoke out strongly against Racism. Except that her heroes, rather than being depraved, sought the best world for us all, rich and poor alike. Except that millions know what I've written here is an accurate representation.
skidancin 3 days ago
@skidancin Yeah, so did L. Ron Hubbard, Stalin, and Hitler. So what? She based the psychology of her heroes on Hickman and you can either accept this well established and uncontroversial fact or keep trying to pretend it never happened, and clicking the heels of your ruby slippers together hoping that these facts just go away. But worry not! I'll be here and everywhere else reminding people of such facts, as they are important. She was a racist pig herself and you can hear her in action with...
kropotkinbeard1 2 days ago
@kropotkinbeard1 So what? Hitler spoke against racism? Really? Scratch that, surely not. You think Hitler drew from the same historical figures as Rand? While your comment makes little sense given what I wrote, I'll pretend it did and say simply So Did You! Maybe you get my point, maybe not, who could know with you?
skidancin 2 days ago
@skidancin Hitler was a racist against the Jews. Rand was a racist against Palestinians. Nothing to discuss other than perhaps being thankful that Rand died before she got any power. All of my comments make perfect sense. If you don't understand them then that's a problem you'll have to deal with. Also, no evidence give to support this claim, as usual. Who knows with me? What's there not to know? I say clearly and directly what's on my mind. Here, I'll spoon-feed you yet again evidence of Rand's
kropotkinbeard1 1 day ago
@skidancin racism with her speaking the words herself. Now, if you can watch this clip and still maintain that she was not a racist, you are literally either severely indoctrinated and/or mentally ill. You could be 100% illiterate. That's the only other possibility. Now, let's see you try and worm your way out of this:
(See starting at around 34 seconds into the clip)
youtube.com/watch?v=2uHSv1asFvU
kropotkinbeard1 1 day ago
@kropotkinbeard1 Do you understand Donahue's tact when he confronts Rand with her own anger and asks why "Arabs" can't be angry with her? That tact is appropriately used on you, for you truly "don't seem to be able to tolerate a questioner who...disagrees with you," even peaceful ones like me. Rands response is as true as can be. She's condemning Palestinians behaving as murderous racists, and clearly abhors racism. You may call folks condemning al qaeda racists too.
skidancin 1 day ago
@skidancin OMG! Hahahaha...You really ARE going to try and make an apologetic or her blatantly racist comments. Firstly, Donahue has no "tact" other than to bring up what's usually on the minds of many, if not most, people. Secondly, Rand is famous for precisely not being able to tolerate people who disagree with her. If you don't know even THIS about her you really have no business talking about her at all. Thirdly, no matter how Donahue may have posed the question, she could have easily...
kropotkinbeard1 1 day ago
@skidancin ...answered, were she even moderately intelligent, in a non-racist way. Fourthly, I'm in complete agreement that her racist answer was as true as can be for her, regardless of the fact that it had no relation to the real world. She's calling Palestinians murderous racists while they're country is being illegally occupied, and during which time Israel is killing MANY times more Palestinians. But she said similar racist things about
kropotkinbeard1 1 day ago
@skidancin...about Native Americans. She's a racist pig, and you are an indoctrinated buffoon. Go to a knitting thread where you may have something to offer other than apologetics for racist incompetents. Fifthly, to refer to the response of the victims of aggression as racists is about as pathetically low as I can imagine. But then again the white South African neo-Nazis there, who I presume you supported, along with the U.S. government, called the ANC "terrorists" for opposing attacks againt
kropotkinbeard1 1 day ago
@skidancin ..them. Anyway, that you came to the rescue of a racist pig like Rand doesn't surprise me one bit. Sort of fits well within the fake-Libertarianism which seems to be infecting a few of the lower IQ folks nowadays. And to compare the Palestinians to al Qaeda is itself an ignorant-ass insult. She is a racist, and it's been known for a LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG time. Get with the game. Scientology is a fraud. Rand is wallowing around in the same category.
kropotkinbeard1 1 day ago
@skidancin ...with a few words entered in that box up there at the top of the page. Or, there's a nice little list here gathered up here: dailykos.com/story/2011/04/24/969838/-Ayn-Rand-was-a-clever-racist
And, I don't need to hear a childish attack on the source. Just deal with the issue or shut up.
newspaperrock.bluecorncomicsDOTcom/2011/09/ayn-rand-racistDOThtml
kropotkinbeard1 2 days ago
@kropotkinbeard1 You can put 2, 3, even 4 posts to one, filled with links you believe in, but you cannot make Ayn Rand into what she was not, nor those who like her - often despite what they consider her faults - into what they are not. You have denied the existence of so many issues with the things you and others have written about her that I know you are not reasonable, are an extremist, and will not pay any more attention in the future to reality than you have in the past.
skidancin 2 days ago
@skidancin If the links demonstrate her to be what she is, then it's not an issue. You can refuse to look at the links demonstrating her to be what she is, but doesn't mean your ignorance of her is the 'truth' about her. So, you will either respond to the evidence I present with something demonstrating that evidence to be false, or you won't. And it will stand as true and accurate until you do, regardless of how much you may not want it to be. So, either challenge what I've presented or go away.
kropotkinbeard1 1 day ago
@kropotkinbeard1 You write "And it will stand as true and accurate until you do, regardless of how much you may not want it to be." Here's a truism for you: Nothing you or anyone proposes stands as "true and accurate" simply because no one responded (but this one will be beyond your ability to reason through, I must surmise). Of course, I have responded and found that your link to Donahue's interview shows Rand in the act of abhorring murderous racists. She is not a racist.
skidancin 1 day ago
@skidancin Yes, it IS true until you demonstrate it isn't. I have made assertions, provided a small portion of my evidence to support the assertions, and as of this sentence you have done nothing to prove them wrong. You've simply said they were. This means that you believe that you opinion is more true than the facts which have been presented. Sorry. Not quite. And you REALLY need to stop trying to discus concepts which you know nothing about like reason, logic, fallacies, or anything else.
kropotkinbeard1 1 day ago
@skidancin It's logically possible that what I've asserted and supported with evidence from the subjects own mouth is incorrect, but if it is it should have been quit easy to show how it was. This hasn't happen. Not once so far. So, if you have anything other than your empty opinion based on your already indoctrinated mind, please, try and present it, even if accidental. You WANTED to see what you saw. Most unindoctrinated sane people took her at her word, both in the video, AND in her writings.
kropotkinbeard1 1 day ago
@skidancin And if she is simply into demonstrating how she "abhors murderous racists", where were the similar criticisms of the murderous Israelis? You know, the ones occupying the land of the Palestinians, and before in Lebanon? The ones with overwhelming force with which to carry out their ethnic cleansing. Yes, those who condemn victims for fighting back against aggression are certainly the sort of moral people I know I look up to. Perhaps this is why she has one of the women in her...
kropotkinbeard1 1 day ago
@skidancin ...work marry her rapist.
kropotkinbeard1 1 day ago
@skidancin Yes, I'M the "extremist" because I dare offer passages taken from her journals which confirm everything I've asserted. I've offered video links of her directly confirming what I've asserted. You have refused to respond to a single thing with anything but your naive and childish opinions which contain evidence of nothing. Worse yet, I can't even tell that you've actually even looked at the evidence. This would indicate deep indoctrination. What more evidence that 'I' am an "extremist".
kropotkinbeard1 1 day ago
@kropotkinbeard1 It is precisely because the passages that you offer do not actually establish "everything" you've asserted, that you are an extremist. You are an extremist because you are a true believer in your own brand of socialism, so much so that you believe it could end poverty in a short period of time (an unreasonable extreme). It's extreme to deny that the definition of ad hominem demands that words like "dumbass" aimed at others are always ad hominems.
skidancin 1 day ago
@skidancin Hahahaha....The passages that I offer support those particular aspects of what I've said they did. Period. I have mounds of passages which deal with all sort of other things e.g.her using a false name to get government aid, and on and on...Given that everything I've asserted thus far has been backed with evidence from her own grimy mouth and YOU are too indoctrinated to see it demonstrates without ANY doubt that it is you who are the extremist, and are as already mentioned..
kropotkinbeard1 1 day ago
@skidancin ...indoctrinated. Hahahaha...I'M the true believer because I provide the evidence to support everything I've said, and you have done exactly squat to prove any of it wrong? This is a textbook case of 'projection', drooler. Ask any high school kid to tell you how it works. You know nothing about "my own brand of socialism" or any other brand of socialism that I can tell. You need to quit trying to tell me what I believe, too, drooler. I will tell you what I believe. Your guessing sucks
kropotkinbeard1 1 day ago
@skidancin ...That your guessing sucks also supports everything I've asserted. You mistakenly 'think' you know something about me, or my "brand" of whatever, and then jump from this knowledge you think you have. You've been incorrect about 99% of the time. Sort of looks like this:
Me: I think A,B,C.
You: You think D,E,F
Me: No, I think A,B,C.
You: See? You and your brand of D,E,F is why "you" are an extremist.
Me: Uhh...No, YOU are indoctrinated because you can't see my position is A,B,C
kropotkinbeard1 1 day ago
@skidancin And you are STILL going on about the ad hominems I don't do? You're not only a drooler, but an obsessive one at that. Now, when you get any evidence demonstrating that anything I've said about Rand is incorrect, you know, with actual evidence to support your claims, like, maybe a video clip of her proving that she isn't a racist, as opposed to the one I provided showing that she was a racist, or that it isn't true that got government aid, or wasn't a child-raping serial killer groupie
kropotkinbeard1 1 day ago
@skidancin ...by all means, present it. Meanwhile, I'll still be passing around the facts I have accumulated about her, and doing my best to inform people as to her depravity. After all, there are many other naive people out there such as yourself who are also stuck at the pre-adolescent stage and who should learn before it's too late and they grow up unalterably stuck at that stage.
kropotkinbeard1 1 day ago
@kropotkinbeard1 You've got an opinion. Meanwhile, Al Qaeda sides with Palestine and itself feels put upon much as Palestinians do, while you deride my comparison. Swell. You ask where are Rands criticisms of Isreal, and I ask where are your criticisms of Palestinians? So are you a racist for taking a side? No, I assume is your answer. Are you aware that Israel invited Palestinians to stay put inside the borders of the newly created Israel and live in peace from day one?
skidancin 23 hours ago
@skidancin Yes, I've got many opinions. There have simply been few presented here, and almost none to do with The Pig (as I will refer to Rand from now on). As far as al Qaeda "siding with" the Palestinians, it may think it does, but the Palestinians don't care about them one iota. That they may try and exploit the oppression they've been experiencing under the terror of Israel and the U.S. shouldn't surprise anyone. And al Qaeda and bin Laden have been making it quite clear for MANY years why..
kropotkinbeard1 22 hours ago
@skidancin ..they are doing what they're doing. They want the U.S. off of and out of their land. Period. So, in this sense, they do have something in common with the Palestinians, whose land is also being occupied. But I guess for like-minded thieves who don't understand that moving into a country where they are not wanted this is perhaps difficult to understand. Perhaps reading too much of racist Pig's works. Regarding what you're asking about the Palestinians is obscene. You think there is..
kropotkinbeard1 22 hours ago
@skidancin ...some sort of moral equivalence between listing the crimes of an illegally occupying force with overwhelming power, and who have killed many times more people, and that of the people under occupation, who are poor, and are simply trying to survive the occupation? That you even have to have this obscene comparison pointed out demonstrates extreme racism on your part. Recognizing that group X has illegally invaded the land where group Y lives, runs them off the land, refers to them..
kropotkinbeard1 22 hours ago
@skidancin ...in similar terms that The Pig would approve of, and yet not expect any resistance, or MUCH worse consider such resistance and whatever form it takes as terrorism is depraved from top to bottom. Yes, the Palestinians have engaged in "terrorist acts" if you wish to refer to resistance as terrorist. So what? The U.S. State Department used to say the same about Mandela and the ANC. And, as should come as surprise to no one, the poor resistance movement engage in tactics which can be..
kropotkinbeard1 22 hours ago
@skidancin ..characterized as "terrorist", though, as Chomsky correctly notes and has been writing about LONG before al Qaeda came onto the scene (since the 60's as a matter of fact, again, demonstrating how much ahead of his time he is, as those who know his work readily know), their form of terrorism is more of a "retail terrorism" as it's done on MUCH smaller scales, whereas the bigger powers engage in "wholesale terrorism" which is on much more of a mass scale. ALL sides engage in terrorist
kropotkinbeard1 22 hours ago
@skidancin ...acts. The thing to do if one wishes to end such acts is to see what's behind them and get to the root of the problem and eliminate it. And, no, NOTHING I've said is an apologetic for anything al Qaeda has done. In fact, they primarily hurt other Muslims. But understanding why they are doing what they are doing is THE starting point. It is NOT an indication that you think it's right in any way, shape, or form. Also, there is nothing you can tell me about the Israeli/Palestinian..
kropotkinbeard1 22 hours ago
@kropotkinbeard1 And your use of "pig" should not be considered ad hominem by nature, I presume. LOL. Do you really think what the Palestinians think of Al Qaeda has any bearing on the point I made? Oh, I have no points, I forgot. You give no weight to the violence committed against Israel. You fail to recognize Jews had been in Israel for a long time themselves, nor the Arab riots of 1929 which ended a decently long peace, to prevent Jews from praying at the Wailing Wall.
skidancin 20 hours ago
@skidancin Of course my use of the term "pig" should not be considered ad hominem because it does precisely nothing to evade any arguments I may be making by attacking Rand. I gave a LONG list of qualifies her as a Pig. If you wish to refer to her as "elbow" or "cracker" of whatever due to her racism and all the other deviant items already listed, by all means. Has not one thing to do with causing her to be a racist. It's a result of her being a racist that she's earned the title. Sort of like
kropotkinbeard1 17 hours ago
@skidancin ...referring to someone as a '"professional" whatever when they've earned the title. Similarly her title, as determined by me, has been earned due to the many things listed. I was assuming your point was what you said it was i.e.that there was little difference between them and al Qaeda, that 'they' were the terrorists, and not the Israelis, etc...Actually, you may have points. So, if you think I've missed it, then quit whining and repeat to or try to help me understand. You know,
kropotkinbeard1 16 hours ago
@kropotkinbeard1 Calling Rand "Pig" is evasive of all issues you have with Rand. It is a derogatory title only. An ad hominem remains an ad hominem when, even you, decide a person deserves a derogatory title. "Professional" applied to a person, on the other hand, is typically neither derogatory nor argumentative. But people might fairly assume you think she was a policewoman, or just think less of you for employing the derogatory ad hominem title at all (which is fair).
skidancin 14 hours ago
@skidancin OMG! What the hell drugs are you on?! I have evaded exactly NOTHING by calling her a Pig. It's precisely because I have NOT evaded issues that I have referred to her as a PIG. Yes, it's a derogatory title and it's meant to be. She earned it. And it in no way, shape, or form has been used in order NOT to deal with some issue by attacking her. Not even close. You really just don't get this, do you? Even after I spoon-fed you the definition. Just stop talking about this. It is NOT an..
kropotkinbeard1 13 hours ago
@kropotkinbeard1 You may have evaded many things, I've seen, but even if you haven't calling a person "the pig" is always an act of using an ad hominem. You've "spoon fed" me a definition which absolutely backs me up, and in no way backs you up. You use ad hominems relentlessly. You admit "the pig" is a derogatory title and that "it's meant to be," and by definition it is therefore an ad hominem. No matter how strong your case, the instant you call me "drooler,"..ad hominem!
skidancin 12 hours ago
@skidancin I have evaded nothing. I haven't discussed some aspects of the Pig's work, say, her stance on religion, and several other things, but this isn't evading anything. And I'm the one who has brought up the issues. This is in no way evading anything. This is doing the opposite. She's a pig, this term in no way is being used as an evasion of anything, and it's not an ad hominem. She's a racist pig, and I've demonstrated that she's a racist pig. The definition I spoon-fed you does nothing..
kropotkinbeard1 11 hours ago
@skidancin ...of the sort nor have you shown that it does. You REALLY must stop just making assertions you've pulled from your butt and based on nothing resembling evidence. I have not used a single ad hominem, drooler, nor have you shown that I have. Yes, referring to her as a pig IS derogatory and in no way, shape, or form has it been used as an attack of her because I had nothing to offer by way of an argument i.e. which is what an ad hominem is. I offered mounds of evidence which confirmed..
kropotkinbeard1 11 hours ago
@skidancin ...that she was a racist pig. Therefore, she is a racist pig. Had she not provided me with such good evidence there would have been no reason at all to refer to her as this, nor wold it have crossed my mind. And if I see anyone else using the same or similar statements that she's made, they, too will be racist pigs. Why not just post a photo of yourself with your hands over your ears, humming really loud so that we will have a visual to match what you're doing in every comment?
kropotkinbeard1 11 hours ago
@skidancin ...ad hominem attack no matter how much you want it to be. Drop it. She's a filthy pig, and I've demonstrated why, though I have MUCH more I could offer to make it worse. You should be satisfied that I've chosen the milder and more sympathetic "pig", though I do feel a bit guilty about pigs, especially given that they're one of the smartest animals, and therefore don't deserve the comparison. Yes, "professional" is applied to a person. And "pig" is applied to a person who demonstrates
kropotkinbeard1 13 hours ago
@skidancin ...themselves to being a pig. This is why I called her a pig. She doesn't say things which qualify her as a pig, she doesn't get called a pig. It's quite simple. And, if you think I've called her a pig so as not to deal with something, you're either illiterate, or simply lying. I've done nothing of the sort and have repeatedly demonstrated that I haven't. You have not once demonstrated that my referring the the Pig as a Pig as in any way, shape, or form been an ad hominem attack. ..
kropotkinbeard1 13 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@skidancin "But people might fairly assume you think she was a policewoman, or just think less of you for employing the derogatory ad hominem title at all (which is fair)." HuuuUUUUuuuuh?! Illiterate people who have read nothing I've written may assume this. If they do, they're uninformed an wrong, and it would be easy to prove them to be wrong. I've made a LONG list which demonstrated that she was a racist PIG. If they are literate, and they understand the English language, and they've read..
kropotkinbeard1 13 hours ago
@skidancin ...even half of the evidence I've already provided, assuming they're not indoctrinated such as yourself, they would either come to the same obvious conclusion and agree that, yes, she was a racist pig, or they could refer to her as a racist cow. Whatever their choice is would be fine and would have not one thing to do with the fact that she's a racist. Nothing. Zero. Zilch. Yes, yes, yes, I know it hurts you to have to face the facts, now that I've spoon-fed you these as well, that..
kropotkinbeard1 13 hours ago
@skidancin ..it really is true that she was a racist pig, but this is just what happens when you've been indoctrinated into a cult, and are fighting against recognizing it as it begins to crumble. All the usual signs are there e.g.denial, projection, evasion, holding hands over ears and humming, and now cognitive dissonance. Now, this is when it's going to get really uncomfortable for you and you will either go through it, or run away, which is what I predict will happen.
kropotkinbeard1 13 hours ago
@kropotkinbeard1 @skidancin And you really put 5, count-em 5 posts up, just to try to convince yourself an ad hominem isn't an ad hominem. This is grand evidence of both your blind arrogance and your inability to understand a simple definition. If you think I'm wrong, spoon-feed me the part of the definition where you think it explains that words intended as derogatory descriptions of others lose their status as ad hominems, for ANY reason. You can't.
skidancin 12 hours ago
@skidancin I've put up MANY more than that, haven't I? I'm not trying to convince myself of anything. Again, you are projecting in textbook fashion. I've demonstrated why Rand was a racist pig, and due to the evidence, she can safely be considered a racist pig. If someone has looked at the evidence and doesn't see that this is a fact, then they are illiterate, or perhaps racist pigs themselves. Doesn't matter much to me. Should matter to them though. You ARE wrong and I've repeatedly...
kropotkinbeard1 11 hours ago
@skidancin ...demonstrated you to be wrong, so just stop. I spoon-fed you the definition, I showed in detail how this had not one thing to do with what I've been doing, and shown that it was not an ad hominem. If you haven't read it, or don't understand the words, that's your problem, not mine. You should thank me for continuing to allow you to project, lie, etc...But this is natural with cult members. I'm used to it. But, put your bib back on. I'll spoon-feed you again: "An ad hominem...
kropotkinbeard1 11 hours ago
@skidancin ...An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it.[1]"
Okay. Can you read the words right up there? Can you understand the words "is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it." Firstly, I have attempted to "negate" nothing of a..
kropotkinbeard1 11 hours ago
@skidancin ..."truth of a claim". I am the one making the claim that Rand was a racist pig, which she was. Secondly, I the "negative characteristic" i.e.racist pig, has NOT been used as a way of negating anything. She makes racist pig statements, I show that she makes racist pig statements, and I, therefore, refer to her, accurately, as being a racist pig. Sorry. Nothing to do with ad hominem. Here. I'll give you an idea. Just read it 20 more times so that I don't have to type it 20 more times.
kropotkinbeard1 11 hours ago
@skidancin ..like I always spend hundreds of words doing for you. What do you mean "I give no weight to the violence.."? I specifically said that the Palestinians commit acts of terror, in almost always in response to the much greater acts of terror committed by Israel, and as one which should come as no surprise at all when your country is being occupied, you are moved off the land on a whim, etc...Your indoctrination is not allowing you to register what I've explicitly stated. I'm aware of..
kropotkinbeard1 16 hours ago
@skidancin ..everything you've said and MUCH more. If you wish to get off into this topic, which you will most definitely NOT do well on, it's fine with me. I mean, I can see why you're want to try to escape from the Pig issue given the mounds of documentation I've given you so far, though there is MUCH more. Also you seem to have projected again by not saying a word about Israeli terror, much more extensive, their occupation, their illegal settlements, and on and on....
kropotkinbeard1 16 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@skidancin ...conflict which I don't know. I've been involved with it for years. But look at your last sentence. Look at what you presumed in the statement "Are you aware that Israel invited Palestinians to stay...". You presume that Israel owns the land and that out of the generosity of their own hearts that they have offered some of "their" land to let the Palestinians to stay on. Why on earth would you assume that it was "their" land at all to even have such right? Is that how the...
kropotkinbeard1 22 hours ago
@skidancin ..Palestinians view it? That this "newly created" land, and those "newly creating it", which just sprung into existence, well, after the forced removal of 250,000+ residents which just happened to be living there already, should offer that some of the residents stay, well, what more evidence of a humanitarian gesture can one expect? But I'm sure if, say, Iran invaded the U.S., moved you down to Mexico, but said you could stay as long as you didn't resist their newly created land...
kropotkinbeard1 22 hours ago
@skidancin ...call it West Iran, that you would see nothing wrong with this either. And I would also assume that were you to even think about resisting Iran's newly created land that you would consider yourself, obviously, as a "terrorist", yes? Your and the other extremist racists, such as The Pig, don't even question your own preconceived notions and presumptions. THIS is why such racism exists in the first place. Rand has just tried to excuse it as a good thing, the Pig.
kropotkinbeard1 22 hours ago
@kropotkinbeard1 Jews were booted out more than once. Jews did invite Palestinians to stay. Arabs did ask Palestinians to leave. Palestinians did often leave of their own accord. Other Palestinians did initiate acts of terrorism from within, before being pushed out. You are out to lunch in so many ways it's sad.
skidancin 20 hours ago
@skidancin And you've done it again. "Jews did invite Palestinians to stay." Do you understand what this statement presupposes? It presupposes that the Jews had some sort of right to even make such an offer. This would be like me going to your house, claiming that this was now my house, but saying that you could stay if you wanted to, and, of course, in the small areas I designate for you to. AND, if you start doing anything which I deem an invasion or attack on my new home, well...
kropotkinbeard1 16 hours ago
@skidancin ...then you are a terrorist and I can use whatever means I deem necessary to fight terrorism of course. Such notion just don't even register for you, do they? Sorry, but this is how the vast majority of the world perceives what's been going on there for a LONG time, and the reason they perceive this is because it blatantly obvious to anyone not indoctrinated. Takes LOTS of work NOT to see something so obvious. Yes, you're babbling, and that means I'M "out to lunch", Projection King?ha
kropotkinbeard1 16 hours ago
@kropotkinbeard1 I register that you've taken a side, as I have; it doesn't make me racist for I don't harbor hate for Palestinians. It's not my fight. Historians disagree as to who threw the first punch, as it were. Why shouldn't we? I think Rand makes a strong case as Jews lived there too, pretty much forever. I happen believe there is strong evidence that Israel is far less inclined to destroy peaceful Palestinians than Palestinians are to destroy Israel.
skidancin 13 hours ago
@skidancin I haven't referred to you as a racist at all. Well, perhaps I at least implied it a few comments ago when saying that if you see nothing wrong with the Pig's racist statements that this would probably indicate that you would be a racist, too, which would be accurate. If someone hears a KKK member speak and agrees with everything he says, well, if he then turns and claims not to be a racist, he either hasn't a clue that he's a racist, or the word has taken on an unusual definition.
kropotkinbeard1 13 hours ago
@kropotkinbeard1 I for one could easily hear a KKK member speak and agree with everything he says. I'm not a racist at all. It would be because he didn't speak of his prejudice, you stupid red-neck drooler (this was an informative lesson). "Red-neck drooler" isn't ad hominem (lol), because Ifeel you deserve that title since your nearly all-encompassing (for all intents and purposes) denunciation of Rand is so similar to the attitude of any red-neck, perhaps racist, drooler.
skidancin 11 hours ago
@skidancin Uhh...Somehow this doesn't surprise me. If you listened to him speak, and he was discussing blacks or Jews, and agree with him, then you are a racist. Period. And if I referred to him as a red neck drooler it's because he would have said something which earned him the title, and it would have been in no way, shape or form just a term pulled from my butt because I didn't agree with what he said. I would prove that he was a red neck drooler, using evidence, and then I would refer to..
kropotkinbeard1 11 hours ago
@skidancin ...him as a red neck drooler, and you as a racist for agreeing with his racist ideas. He doesn't give any racist ideas, I wouldn't refer to him as this. Again, I'm NOT name-calling just for the sake of name-calling. This is something completely different. You're now babbling with your eyes shut and hands over your ears instead of just humming. Humming was better. It's VERY easy. 1)Rand makes racist statements 2)I point out that she has 3)I refer to her as a racist pig because she has.
kropotkinbeard1 11 hours ago
@skidancin ...demonstrated that she's a racist pig. If someone walks over and lifts up my car, tossing back and forth from one hand to the other, spins it on their nose, and then puts it back down, then I will say they are strong. If I call them "Herculean" or "Hercules", or "the Hulk", I have referred to them accurately. If someone recites an entire book from memory, I may say they are an "elephant" (which are supposed to have good memories). If someone rattles of line after line of racist pig
kropotkinbeard1 11 hours ago
@skidancin ...statements, and I refer to them as a racist pig, then there is no problem. I'm simply reporting what is taking place an adding whatever term seem most fitting for the situation. But if you prefer "racist cornbread", "racist tire", "racist hernia", or whatever, it's fine. The important part, and the part which has been shown to be true is the "racist" part. The addition of pig can be left up the the discretion of the person accurate recognizing her racism. I think "Pig" is fine.
kropotkinbeard1 11 hours ago
@kropotkinbeard1
"Common misconceptions
Gratuitous verbal abuse or "name-calling" itself is not an argumentum ad hominem or a logical fallacy.[3][4][5][6][7] The fallacy only occurs if personal attacks are employed in the stead of an argument to devalue an argument by attacking the speaker, not personal insults in the middle of an otherwise sound argument."
kropotkinbeard1 9 hours ago
@kropotkinbeard1 ""In reality, ad hominem is unrelated to sarcasm or personal abuse. Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument. The mere presence of a personal attack does not indicate ad hominem: the attack must be used for the purpose of undermining the argument, or otherwise the logical fallacy isn't there. It is not a logical fallacy to attack someone; the fallacy comes from...
kropotkinbeard1 9 hours ago
assuming that a personal attack is also necessarily an attack on that person's arguments."[3]" Case closed!
kropotkinbeard1 9 hours ago
@skidancin Most historians do NOT disagree over who threw the first punch. Only those making apologetics for the occupation, which is standard. And if Jews have lived there, too, and they used to get along with the Palestinians, well, why run them off the land they were living on? And I'm most sure you are inclined to hold such a belief. And I know precisely why you hold such belief, where it came from, who propagates it, and what for, etc...What have you read which gives the narrative from...
kropotkinbeard1 13 hours ago
@skidancin ...the Palestinian side? Why are there so many Jewish folks who oppose Israeli policy as well? More than half the population, in fact. Anyway, I will defer you to a few Jewish folks and others who can give you the history if you're actually interested. Chomsky (Jewish, and one of the most comprehensive scholars), Norman Finkelstein (Jewish), Edward Said (Palestinian), and on and on..Oh, and another sign of indoctrination is if one can actually read a Chomsky piece on this issue, or
kropotkinbeard1 13 hours ago
@skidancin ...hear a talk of his, and conclude that he is anti-Semitic. Same goes with anything he's ever said about the U.S. Never utter a single "anti-American" sentence. And, if anyone thinks he has, then they are illiterate, a liar, or both. Only three choices.
Actually, I'd probably recommend reading more about propaganda first so that you can see why you think the things you do. Yes, I know that you probably like to feel that you haven't been the victim of propaganda, but you have...
kropotkinbeard1 13 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@skidancin ...hear a talk of his, and conclude that he is anti-Semitic. Same goes with anything he's ever said about the U.S. Never utter a single "anti-American" sentence. And, if anyone thinks he has, then they are illiterate, a liar, or both. Only three choices.
Actually, I'd probably recommend reading more about propaganda first so that you can see why you think the things you do. Yes, I know that you probably like to feel that you haven't been the victim of propaganda, but you have...
kropotkinbeard1 13 hours ago
@skidancin .We ALL have. And it takes a LOT of work to get out of it. You can read online for free Necessary Illusions and perhaps Manufacturing Consent. Watch or read anything by Edward Bernays. Edward Heman's 'Beyond Hypocrisy'. Read or watch interviews with Robert McChesney. That's enough for now. Please feel free to recommend books which you believe may help me escape from my lost ways.
kropotkinbeard1 13 hours ago
@KellyAnnOR Pinto... it was recalled because it failed in the market place. pretty simple. Corn syrup? it is a good sweetner and better for you than the artifical sweetners out there. I don't think that Corn Syrup is really a problem with capitalism.
MrJohngalt2011 4 weeks ago
@KellyAnnOR Capitalism is not perfect. That is very true; we are dealing with humans and their frailty and failings. But this system overall rewards those with ingenuity, and innovation. Those that can fill a need of the market will be rewarded. Those that stagnate will be selected for bankruptcy. Competition drives actions and rewards those that compete well.
MrJohngalt2011 4 weeks ago
@KellyAnnOR Part 2: People are far more mobile now and can easily move from employer to employer. The key is to develop, possess and maintain the skills the employer needs. If you sit around and expect a high paying job because you want one you will find yourself very disappointed. Self Reliance and Self Improvement.
MrJohngalt2011 4 weeks ago
@KellyAnnOR Part 1: Reduced competition? Have you driven anywhere in America or the world for that matter? We now have more choices for all products than any time in the past. There is more competition in the market than any time in the past. We have less monopolies, and also far less pollution. Companies know if they do not act as good corporate citizens, they will be selected for bankruptcy. They know they must treat their employees well or their trained labor will leave.
MrJohngalt2011 4 weeks ago
@KellyAnnOR Part 2: When these companies fail (and they should) their business will go into receivership and broken up. they have failed in the marketplace and their continued existence drags down the economy as they are less efficienct that others. Their use of capital is not in the best interest of the market and they should be selected to go out of business. What you get that end are better companies, filling a need of the market better and taking more prudent risks.
MrJohngalt2011 4 weeks ago
@KellyAnnOR When we removed the consequences, we helped destroy capitalism and our market economy. These companies made investments and we removed the ability for them to loose, so risk assessment was skewed. They made even more reckless investments knowing they would be bailed out. We should never bail out any company, and we as a government should never guanentee a company's risks (loans). It skews capitalism and you get bubbles.
MrJohngalt2011 4 weeks ago
@KellyAnnOR But if a company that does not fill a need in the market will not sale any products no matter how "evil" their board of directors is. Capitalism is about maximizing profit for the owners and they do this by filling a need in the market that is not being met by someone else. It is about as efficiently as possible meeting the needs of the market. This is a win-win for everyone. Better products, more diverse products and lower costs.
MrJohngalt2011 4 weeks ago
Feb 2 - Happy Birthday Ayn!
MrJohngalt2011 4 weeks ago
@KellyAnnOR Those that took loans should have been responsible in their decisions. They made a private contract with the bank and received the funding for the home they wanted to purchase. They should either pay the loan or loose the house. There should be consequences on both sides - the stupid consumer who purchased too much house, and the bank that loaned the money. The gov't should not have bailed out either stupid party.
MrJohngalt2011 4 weeks ago
@lavenderlynx
I like the part about sitting up straight and becoming confident while reading. Didn't notice that either times while reading, but now that you say it...
Anyway, the review is :obamaface: not bad. :-)
hessischbynature 1 month ago
@KellyAnnOR
Hi Kelly -
I understand what you're saying, & while I admit I do use YT to keep myself entertained whilst I work, I also disagree. I also use YT (& the general 'net) to challenge my own beliefs, knowledge & of others in order to grow. I'm not above changing my postion if there's adequate evidence.
Also, I hold there's a difference between having the choice to be altruistic or not. Cheers.
recalibration 1 month ago
This book did change my life. Now I know who to avoid, based on who boasts loudest about reading this book.
redshark618 1 month ago
@KellyAnnOR ..That should have been "Joe":...not Fred.
"Justice" was when Joe,by virtue of better performance and customer service "won" and put Fred out of business as a consequence so resources were not wasted in inefficient ways by Fred and society benefited overall."Injustice" was when Joe got alongside the state to try and block competition.
Riellysdad 1 month ago
@KellyAnnOR ...This issue is explained in "The question of monopolies" in Capitalism: The unknown deal.
Riellysdad 1 month ago
@KellyAnnOR ...Just how can Fred bar any competitor? That's only possible in a state controlled economy..its impossible in a free market. You cannot corner a free market. Under corporatism the big businessman gets his politician mate to enact regulations that block new startup's from taking him on. Minimum wage laws,health and safety laws, fees and taxes...all are weapons used to stifle the new guy and protect the established operator...and only possible with state control of the economy.
Riellysdad 1 month ago
@KellyAnnOR ..Wealth is created by man's mind..not his hands. Hands are useless without a mind guiding them. hands can dig holes...but its only a mind that can determine where the hole should be dug to get the best value for that effort. Capitalism rests on a single premise ..justice. Those who create and enrich their fellows get rewarded...those that don't..don't.
Riellysdad 1 month ago
@KellyAnnOR .."Conservative Libertarianism"..? Starting with a contradiction isn't doing your case much good. Read Atlas if you want....but I'm not going out of my way to read Chomsky any-time soon.Maybe rather than rereading AS try and read some of Rand's non fiction especially "The virtue of Selfishness" Philosophy:Who needs it? and "Capitalism:The unknown ideal". I feel you have missed the real essence of what's she's advocating. Check out the AS film that's out now too..very good.
Riellysdad 2 months ago
@KellyAnnOR ...Wealth is created...and if (assuming a free market is in existence,which it isn't in the US and hasn't been for over a century) certain people have certain percentage of it then its because they DESERVE to as THEY have made the efforts which bought it into being. There is no fixed amount of wealth...its potentially infinite...anyone can create new wealth today and make themselves far richer than any millionaire alive today.
Riellysdad 2 months ago
Ever seen the film "Wall Street"? It might just be your thing if you liked that tripe.
Seriously, you're condoning bellum omnium contra omnes (the war of all against all).
recalibration 2 months ago
Reading Atlas made me feel like I was striding with giants across the mountain ranges of the world in the blazing sun.It beats the Bible hands down as a source of morality and inspiration for mankind. It is in fact probably the most effective self help book ever written. If you are the kind of person with the kind of spirit it ignites and propels forward in life. The haters and second handers can't bear its brilliance when shone upon their scabby,pathetic hate filled souls.
Riellysdad 2 months ago
@Riellysdad
Egocentrism will do that. Fortunately, one can learn intellectual virtues.
recalibration 2 months ago
@recalibration. The evasion of reality and the blanking out of fact?...
Riellysdad 2 months ago
@Riellysdad
You insult us both with such a retort.
Let's try this: what, in your perspective, would be the logical endgame of a market free fr any regulation or controls?
recalibration 2 months ago
@recalibration Free Markets are NOT unregulated..they are in fact regulated to a far MORE micro degree...but by the free people within them...not distant and clueless politicians. A free market has already delivered judgement to poor preforming companies and products around the world before the Governments of the world have woken up and got their fumbling regulatory pants on. Big corporate's fear free markets more than anything because they have no cover from Government and must satisfy people.
Riellysdad 1 month ago
@Riellysdad
Sorry you were saying? I couldn't hear you over the subprime mortgage.
recalibration 1 month ago
@recalibration ...The same ones caused by Government inflating the money supply and then forcing by law banks to offer out to people who were never going to be able to pay them back...? Those sub-prime mortgages? Not possible in a free market thankfully.
Riellysdad 1 month ago
@Riellysdad
You know what I find quite funny? You're in New Zealand & I'm in Canada. Yet here we are debating US economic/market policy.
While I know I need to read more, it would seem we'd both do well to fully understand "credit default swaps". YMMV.
I really don't care to follow this any further. We're both making assertions w/ out citing sources, so it's a waste of electrons.
Good day.
recalibration 1 month ago
@Riellysdad Very true. The gov't forced banks through the CRA and the DOJ to make loans that never should have been made. Then Freddie/Fannie come in an buy out the loans after the bank makes the loan. You want to stop a housing bubble - let banks make loans to those they think will repay them, and do not allow the Government to underwrite any of the mortgages. They will make better choices.
MrJohngalt2011 4 weeks ago
@KellyAnnOR Actually the top 10% pay over 50% of the taxes. Most of the wealth is NOT held by 1%...open your eyes...its owned by the vast majority of middle class Americans.Read the book.
Riellysdad 2 months ago
@KellyAnnOR ...I suggest you read the book..if you haven't already. Its not about spurning other people at all...its about claiming ones right to exist as you! It basically says "Stop apologising and trying to make amends for the "crime"of existing...you have nothing to apologise for and owe no-one else anything for being alive".
Riellysdad 2 months ago
Thanks for your review. You possess excellent insight for a younger person and understand man’s need for freedom.
Mike82ARP 2 months ago
Review? Where is it?
jetsal 2 months ago
Unfortunately the far left and the far right are both destructive. Stalin, Mao, and Mussolini all used massive propaganda against the center and right to overthrow their countries. The US used massive propaganda against the left to strengthen crony capitalism and corporate welfare. It got so bad in the 20's and 30's that the middle class had reached all time lows Fortunately several things happened in 1932-3 or we would have fought with the Axis. Prescott Bush's coup failed. The New Deal.
sfjeff1089 3 months ago
@lavenderlynx: Have you ever read Augustine's Confessions, his writings against the Manicheans, or the City of God? They may not be fictitious novels, but they can be more exciting in that they deal with real meaning.
benhulletthere 3 months ago
Objectivism is an excellent starting point but not an end in itself. Keep reading!
BaconWeaveTurtles 3 months ago in playlist More videos from lavenderlynx
I think the fountainhead is better than atlas.
pacifiedfools 3 months ago
Think and Grow Rich -Napoleon Hill.
AssetBuildingGroup 4 months ago in playlist More videos from lavenderlynx
Since when was Atlas Shrugged popular? Sure it sold 7 million which is a lot more than a lot of other books but when compared to others it isn't. It sold that many in over 60 years. The Catcher in the Rye sold about 10 times as many copies in about the same time. The Lord of the Rings sold over 20 times that in about the same amount of time. Rand fans are always exaggerating the accomplishments of her works. AS the movie flopped despite the conservative press saying it was successful.
mzhivago925 5 months ago 2
@mzhivago925 AS continues selling at a rate that the others never have...that's the difference. The latest AS boom just continues the trend. LOTR and Catcher won't be picked up in such numbers by people seeking answers to today's issues...AS is...and will continue to be. Check out the excellent doco. "Ayn Rand and the prophecy of Atlas Shrugged to see this phenomenon explained.
Riellysdad 1 month ago
This isn't a book review, this is an infomercial. I read it in my mid-twenties and thought it had all the ansers. However as I became older I realized much of applied objectivism was seriously flawed. The book reduces the antagonists to simplistic stereotypes. human value is based solely on a mostly bigoted perception. Ideologically, A.S. by the end turns into a pro-eugenics belief deciding life and death on the basis of an ability or not to make a decision at the point of a gun.
blackburn9 5 months ago
Again, there's almost no point in reading Atlas Shrugged. Why read 1,100 pages when you can see it happening first hand.
TumisHumis 6 months ago
You should read The Brothers Karamazov (Either the Pevear/Volokhonsky or MacAndrew translation). It's a better book than Atlas Shrugged--and has just as big a tendency to change people's lives.
Tzadeck 6 months ago
What I found so astonishing was what a modern and powerful woman Dagney is and what a currently relevant story it is... and it was first published in 1957!!!
pookatim 7 months ago
I started reading this book two days ago and i honestly can't put it down. IT is incredible. I find Rands' ideals very interesting and thought provoking. I agree with your review thus far although i haven't finished the book (thanks for giving some stuff away ;) but it is so far a book that sucks you in with all emotion in tact.
chase22knuts 7 months ago
AWESOME!
I have watched both this and your first review, and I guess I can say I agree with you, not 100 % however, but 95 %. The lack of the last 5 %-points is due to the fact that I neither threw the book in the wall, nor had to crawl back to it, - of course due to the fact that it were already in my hand. Beside that, I agree with everything you say, I've even dedicated my right arm to a half-sleeve tattoo celebrating the awesomenes of this book! The mountain comparison = WOW!
tomberntsen89 7 months ago
@tomberntsen89
You might regret that if you take a basic philosophy course. In the mean time, I'll be embarrassed for you. XD
recalibration 2 months ago
Well thought out response, you give me hope for the next generation!
rscottie2000 8 months ago
is alas shrugged a fiction story about how wonderful capitalism is ? or how it works ? please someone tell me.
RPJunky 8 months ago
@RPJunky If you're looking to be entertained by Atlas Shrugged, I'm sorry to say you'll be disappointed. Rand's prose isn't good (if you want a WELL-WRITTEN substitute for her Anthem, read 1984 or Brave New World) and her story isn't riveting at all. Want to know about the flawed philosophy (which glorifies capitalism)? Don't read the whole book. Read John Galt's (70 page-long) speech. Objectivism leaves no room for compromise (Galt says it himself.) You're an evil commie or a good capitalist.
mzhivago925 7 months ago
@mzhivago925 The compromise between capitalism and communism is socialism, which is evil. I think Ayn could make that point more easily in her day, seeing the three ideals fighting a world war. The Nazis economically were socialist, right in between the Soviets & (Pre-War) Americans. They, along with the Commies sought to destroy the thinking mind, both were equally evil.
TumisHumis 6 months ago
@RPJunky It's an alternative reality set in the 20th century (early) I wouldn't even call it an alternate reality at this point, what the world is today, decades earlier. It shows the power the producer holds, but doesn't exercise, and the reality that all politicians are good at is; politics. They don't make the world turn, the American Industrialist does.
TumisHumis 6 months ago
Comment removed
HypaSonicDeathMonkey 1 month ago
What i found interesting was near the end when the judge writes "congress shall make no laws abridging the freedom of production and trade." Follow this principle to it's logical conclusion and you would have no copyright or patent laws. Anyone who figures out how to produce anything (via reverse engineering, etc.) has the freedom to produce it...so the "looters" error of "somehow what I need will be produced" becomes the " industrialists" "somehow my intellectual property will be protected."
possumverde 8 months ago
self test:if you love rand you are smart, if you hate rand you are a loser, and probably a democrat , sorry to be you
darkfox77 8 months ago
I believe art can change the world too... but what's that got to do with atlas shrugged?
Objectivism aside, if you think that Atlas Shrugged is actually a good novel then you have excpetionally poor taste. And if you like it just for it's philosophy that just means behind that pretty little face lies the beating black heart of a nazi.
but besides that I CAME!!!!!
letmewank 9 months ago
I hate you.
thewithersband 9 months ago
For the rich who create their wealth honorably and by their own effort, and there are many, they deserve it; they earn it. And we had better hope that they become richer, for one reason, and one reason only; I never heard of a poor person hiring someone.
cosg9531 9 months ago
@cosg9531 No one makes their wealth - how little or how great it may be - solely on their own. No corporation, industrialist or CEO would have their weath if it were not for the labor of other people. It's not a one sided exchange, both sides need one another.
xexixk 8 months ago
@xexixk Where did he say anyone makes their wealth without interacting with other people? You're attacking a straw man.
There mere fact that interacting with other people to mutual advantage (which, by the way, is the beauty of Capitalism) is many times more advantageous than working entirely alone does not mean that we are not creators of wealth, however, and it does not justify viewing man as a collective organism the way it has been used (though I'm not saying your arguing this).
paulk314 8 months ago
"art can change the world"
Did you know that the root word of technology, techne, is greek for craftsmanship and art. Only they meant practical art (machines and such)...as opposed to fine arts (sculpture, paintings, etc). Thus Rand's works was all about appreciating practical art (trains, engines, architecture) and romanticizing its creators.
Of course, great technology not only is very practical, it is usually asthetically appealing (a jet plane, a skyscraper, the iPod, etc).
TheGoalSetter 9 months ago
Crikey, your description of your epiphanous emotional and physical experiences when you first read Atlas Shrugged matched my own, except that it happened to me while I was reading the first chapter of The Fountainhead.
policemanaaron 9 months ago
Tequila Mockingbird
anryth 10 months ago
Thank you for the thoughtful and well presented review. Your confidence and maturity are evident -- you are certain to have a bright future. Cheers.
photon1138 10 months ago 6
Hey, everyone knows the Federal Reserve and the Bilderberg Group run everything. ;p
l337pwnage 10 months ago
don't let the idiots on youtube get to you. AS is a great book. I'm only 28 I would love to have a daughter one day that thinks as deeply about things as you seem to. thanks for the review.
presjohnpol 10 months ago
Nice tits. :)
MrAppleseed88 10 months ago
Rand is right and it becomes more apparent everyday !
KeithMcElwain 10 months ago
Damn.... at 17 you read Das Kapital? That shit was TOO fucking boring for me. Popped two adderall pills and still couldn't hang.... Karl Marx kicked my ass on that one....
nickintp 10 months ago
I think you're looking TOO deep into this book. I mean.... yes, this book did changed my life, the same as Machiavelli, Adam Smith, and the Art of war. But damn... it's not that good. Ayn Rand pointed out the potential for corruption but did she solved any problems. If you follow her ideals all the way, locking in intellectual property, copy-writing everything... and privatizing everything... you will have the slaves and the elitist. Education will never be distributed to the mass. It's owned.
nickintp 10 months ago
@nickintp
You read the original language of Adam Smith? That's just asking for a headache. You're better off just reading a few economics articles that describe Invisible Hand and Specialisation in contemporary language.
As for Atlas Shrugged, (and The Fountainhead), it presents a profound, challenging and provocative new philosophy in a manner that is within reach of all of us.
policemanaaron 9 months ago
You need to run for office one of these days. :)
mattimattiusa 10 months ago
@mattimattiusa
Yeah... you need to shut the fuck up. You'll vote for a rock if it made its way on the ballot.
nickintp 10 months ago
@nickintp Poor baby, think you know it all. Haha. :-)
mattimattiusa 10 months ago
@mattimattiusa
╭∩╮（︶︿︶）╭∩╮
nickintp 10 months ago
What is so inspiring about this book?
benisturning30 10 months ago
another great review , you are an inspiration to your generation .
TheNanosteve 10 months ago
I would do a lot to meet someone like you. I'm just surrounded by unthinking morons and drones.
Nice to be reminded, sometimes, that there are people out there who still use their great human faculties, who understand the glory of mankind and exalt in it.
RagnorTeringail 11 months ago
Not every book enthusiast can read into this particular book far enough to quibble with its ideas. I know someone who threw it into the trash after reading only a few sentences. The problem for this person was not the philosophy, but Rand's black and white writing style which happens to represent her world-view. But naturally we all think "If I loved reading it then everybody else will too."
Mal1234567 11 months ago
I couldn't agree you more! Like how you discovered this book, I hope the energy of this book will reach the young minds of this world.
Ayn Rand had her own belief. Though, she believed that religion is a diseased, she believed the value of life.
I had read Ayn Rand's mind; her philosophy did not change my belief; instead, reinforced my understanding of our universe and our existence.
This book could save the social fabric of our society one reader at a time!
micheleserna 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I really like your reviews...of course I love Ayn Rand, so I'm a little bias.
Leon3406 11 months ago
I really like your reviews...of course I love Ayn Rand, so I'm a little bias.
Leon3406 11 months ago