Yaron Brook Interrupted By Robin Hood Guerilla Protest

[666dagstein]

@eaodak No it's not a cult and it's an insult to real cult victims to say that. You can be an "Randist" without ever seeing another "Randist." You should learn that words have definitions.

[notanotheraccount]

Grow up. You wouldn't see Dr. Brook interrupting your little play if you had the balls to present it and (try to) draw an audience on your own.

[christerryatl]

Adam Smith was not the "Father" of Economics and Capitalism.

[soitoldhimno]

You're a loser.

[lordhighexecutioner]

A small sacrifice to keep one's country from becoming a dystopian Hell is truly a virtue - a small sacrifice yielding a far larger reward.

Rand promises dystopian Hell... it probably explains why her theology was taken by Anton LaVey for the Satanic Bible and the Church of Satan!

[LegalizeCapitalism]

the argument in the script is poor. either way who here agrees that sacrifice is a virtue? lets see by show of hands or shackles?

[tito2502]

The protesters epitomise the anti-intellectual thuggishness that plagues academia.

[ratrat48]

@tito2502 on the contrary, our organization is focused on educating the public about the politics that surround our lives. We use direct action to make the change we want to see, and theatrics like this to encourage others to become active. After the speech many more of us debated him.

[ShamelessFirebrander]

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHAHAHAH!!!

Oh my god the was hilarious!

Honestly, how pissed could friend Yaron really be? He was interrupted by Robin Hood characters for Christ sake!

[ratrat48]

and as for reason, during the question segment many questioned his statement, i brought up how even Adam Smith, father of economics and laissez faire capitalism, said that the rich should pay more in taxes since they have greater access to the commons. Yaron's response was that Adam Smith was wrong, and thats all he said about it, having absolutely nothing but his personal beliefs to back him up.

[aannnnnieb]

Not sad at all. I would imagine that even Brook, despite how he felt obligated to react, got a wee bit of a kick out of it. These young people are exercising their right to free speech RIGHT alongside Brook. He surely has the right to say what he wants, but so do they. And since when, exactly, did appealing to emotion signify being "out of arguments?" Pathos, as Aristotle, surely a much greater thinker than yourself, would tell you is one of the essential components of solid rhetoric.

[anti0918]

While there's a right to free speech, there is no right to speak freely on private property without fear. But maybe we don't disagree on that. In which case your whole point is moot. If your post is to be taken as a response to my comment, then this first part does not address it at all, and is simply a red herring.

As for emotional appeal - there is nothing wrong with it if your emotions are soundly grounded in reasoning. Theirs, however, is emotionalism per se - at most a bald assertion.

[ratrat48]

no one said there was no fear, as for private property, it was a state college.

[aannnnnieb]

It's not private property. It's a public university, a UNION-BUILT campus. They had every right to be there and every right to do exactly as they did. Sure, perhaps it was "rude," but since when did anything but direct action get anybody anywhere? These people have plenty of reasoning, they had no opportunity to make more than the bare minimum of a point. And did you not hear the unsuspecting audience applaud? People were entertained by and respected what they did.

[akinobjectivist]

the exercising your right to free speech is one thing, but rudely interrupting Dr. Brook's free speech in an attempt to discredit him is a different thing.  This was not appropriate and your wrong to think it was.

[aannnnnieb]

Appropriateness/propriety is absolutely, 100% subjective; there are no set "bounds" as to what is "appropriate" or "polite." So, for that, you're just as much of a jerk as you seem to think these protesters are for telling me that I'm blatantly "wrong" for thinking as I do. I enjoyed it; much of the audience enjoyed it. Show me some subclause of the First Amendment that says "rudely interrupting Dr. Brook's free speech in an attempt to discredit him is a different thing," and then we'll talk.

[LegalizeCapitalism]

well lie and say its selfless concern for the preservation of your not looking like a moron in front of a large audience of whom only a fractional amount had the "taste" to find that kind of display amusing. but ive never been much of a liar.

[anti0918]

Pretty sad. They're out of arguments, so they gotta go for the appeal to emotion.

[ratrat48]

actually, i wrote the script for this, it had arguments they just didn't have the chance to get to that point.

[shovelcharge]

think of how many people that those losers rationally persuaded! it boggles the mind! it doesn't show the savage's ("protesters") fear of reason at all!

[ratrat48]

the skit had plenty of reason, it just didn't get that far. I will post the original script on here.

[grantsinmypants2]

"Guerilla protest" is being too kind. More like, "Yaron Brook interrupted by criminals using sound waves to violate the fundamental right to the freedom of speech."