That's not an ad hominem argument. For it to be an ad hominem argument, I would have had to use an insult as a substitute for an argument. I didn't. When I stated that your response was asinine, I explained why it was asinine. Further, stating that your argument is asinine isn't an insult to begin with.
Google "Scientific Opinion on Climate Change" for your source as I can't post URL's in the comment's section.
@xxFortunadoxx You called me asinine, an insult; and have not yet put up a cogent argument. So it is both ad hominnem, but moreover your arguments have failed. You had neither put forward "one argument" to refute mere "1" (only "1": you have SO much to choose from) statement of Ayn Rand, but worse you rationalise that too: so you can't even argue. Fail! Come on, put up a good fight: this is too easy.
@britishbrainz I did not call you asinine, I called your response asinine then proceeded to explain why. I'm not insulting you in the slightest.
All you're doing is claiming that I have not put forward one argument when I already have.
You're a joke. You're purposefully not reading my responses in order to claim victory. This is a waste of my time. When you decide to read my comments, let me know. Until then, I'm not going to waste my time repeating myself because you don't want to read.
@xxFortunadoxx You said "You're a joke"- ad hominnem argument no.2 by you! You're doing well today! Please make my day: put up a cogent argument. Refute "1" item that Rand OR EVEN "I" have said ! You're like a amateur entering the karate dojo with the master smashing you down too easily. I feel like a bully! If you can't argue then get out of this place!
@xxFortunadoxx You said "You're not interested in listening to opposing viewpoints". I have been asking ALL day for cogent argument and opposing views! Bring it on man!
I do not know where you have "refuted her" - so Bring it !
@britishbrainz And I've been saying for several comments now that I've already posted my argument against her several comments back. My response is there.
How about you read the comments I wrote instead of expecting me to repeat everything I said?
@xxFortunadoxx I've looked hard and can't find one argument put forward by you. Please start afresh or copy and paste a "cogent argument" that proves "1 or more" statements by by Rand that is incorrect. You have failed in this task over and over -and-and-over again! Come on: bring it on man! Be a man!
She predicates her entire philosophy on developing an account for objective ethics which she fails miserably at because it isn't possible to do so. Further, postmodernists would consider her entire philosophy as simply one giant meta-narrative which automatically places it in subjectivity which undermines her claim that her system of philosophy is one that is grounded in reality.
1) Ayn Rand will not have her day. The difference between ostracized thinkers like Copernicus, Galileo, Thomas Hobbes and Ayn Rand is that the former weren't dismissed on rational merits. They were dismissed due to their views that criticized the orthodoxy that was in place. Ayn Rand's philosophy has been summarily refuted countless times on the charge that the entire philosophy is predicated on providing an account of objective ethics which it completely fails to do.
@xxFortunadoxx If you can refute "1" statement made by Ayn Rand then I will personally pay you money. I have studied and mastered RAnd at black belt level for years: and am looking for that first person that can refute any "1" statement . Rand was and is completely correct: her philosophy closed off all other philosophy for all time.
To summarise it I'll say: you are SOVEREIGN with inalienable rights. You can NEVER use force against someone (e.g. taxation,regulation) save in self defence (war)
@britishbrainz "her philosophy closed off all other philosophy for all time."
The mere fact that you think that demonstrates that you haven't taken an introductory course in philosophy. Go say that to any professor and they will laugh in your face. She is almost unanimously regarded in academic circles as a complete joke.
I don't have to settle for refuting one statement made by her because you can refute her entire philosophy for being predicated on something that's impossible to achieve.
@xxFortunadoxx You said "go say that to any Professor and they will laugh in your face". You are 100% correct. 3 billion people can believe in myth (e.g. deity) and laugh at Darwin or Rand, but that doesn't therefore mean the 3billion are correct. That which is correct is verified using the method of reason and logic.
As for "her": the good news is she was a multimillionaire (self made) by the time of her death, and her book are still selling over 300,000 copies per year, and her heir continues
@britishbrainz You fail to take into account the simple fact that 3 billion people are laymen who do not have premier expertise in evaluating philosophical claims which professors do. Your charge of appeal to authority fallacy is not valid because I am citing relevant experts with respect to my claims which is valid.
Yes. A bunch of 20-somethings without any exposure to serious philosophy are reading Atlas Shrugged and finding it profound. Your point?
@xxFortunadoxx You said " in evaluating philosophical claims which professors do". The assumption is they are in agreement - is in error. Philosophy Professors the world over are in perpetual argument with each other about the "correct philosophical system" themselves! In contrast:Rand has a water-tight impenetrable logically consistent system.
I repeat: if you can refute "one" statement she made OR refute the whole system then I will pay you 10,000 British Pounds ($15,000). Try to succeed!
@britishbrainz I never said that they were in agreement about the best philosophical system at all. I said that they are in agreement that Ayn Rand's philosophy is fallacious.
Your claim that Rand has an imprenetrable logically consistent system is nothing more than a baseless claim backed by nothing.
@xxFortunadoxx You are too easy to beat down to a pulp in argument. All I have to prove is "one" Professor advancing Ayn Rand to knock down your entire argument. Please do NOT make it this easy for me ! I have spent years looking for someone that can prove 1, only 1 item in Rand's statements to be in error! Is it too much to ask?
As for you personally: please advance cogent "argument". You obviously have much to state, and I am a black belt with Ayn Rand material. Isn't too much to ask of YOU?
@britishbrainz Your response is asinine as I'm clearly referring to the philosophic community as a whole. The fact that you can point to one professor that supports her view is moot much like I can point to several scientists that don't support global warming yet it has no effect on the fact that 97% of the scientific community supports global warming. The same applies to Rand's philosophy.
I already refuted her. The fact that you're purposefully ignoring my responses is telling.
@xxFortunadoxx Note 2 (continuing), you said You had said "She predicates her entire philosophy on developing an account for objective ethics which she fails miserably at because it isn't possible." This means the BURDEN OF PROOF is on you the person making a proposition. Put up a cogent argument (a good fight is what I need). It is too easy to defeat you.
@xxFortunadoxx Note 3: you said " The fact that you can point to one professor that supports her view is moot". Not at all, because you made the argument that Professors do not support her. In contrast I showed you that [1] to defeat you, like sweeping your legs in Jiu-Jitsu so you fall flat on your face and break a nose: I merely have to put forward 1 Professor and your argument collapses; [2] further for the rest, they are in argument with each other (no consistent system there). U r defeated.
@xxFortunadoxx Note 2 (continued from below). You said "I don't have to settle for refuting one statement made by her because you can refute her entire philosophy for being predicated on something that's impossible to achieve". What specifically is impossible? Rationality? Honesty? Productivity? Sex? Independence? Selfishness (rational self interest) ? Justice (reap what you sow)? Integrity? Happiness? All these r major virtue she identified and one can do them fairly instantly!Objective ethics
@britishbrainz She predicates her entire philosophy on developing an account for objective ethics which she fails miserably at because it isn't possible. Further, postmodernists would consider her entire philosophy as simply one giant meta-narrative which automatically places it in subjectivity which undermines her claim that her system of philosophy is one that is grounded in reality.
@xxFortunadoxx You said "She predicates her entire philosophy on developing an account for objective ethics which she fails miserably at because it isn't possible." I repeat: are you saying rationality is not possible? sex is not? happiness is not ? productivity is not? rational self interest (selfishness) is not? justice is not ? independence is not (you must listen to authority - can't ever make up your mind?) You are hereby found in error as all the above are possible at all times
Rand is a knee-jerk icon who expresses blowback-emotions to the socialist-era hypocrisy-- but socialism in itself is blowback to cronyism masquerading as capitalism, resulting in the mass-shift of wealth and power to an elite plutocratic oligarchy in the preceding century, as suppressed by a machine-media masquerading as a "free press."
Until people learn the truth, they'll continue to believe lies; the US is NOT capitalist but crony, and the press is NOT free but controlled.
ayn rand may be an idiot, and her one-dimensional motivational ideas are far from "philosophy"...but buddy, she ain't insignificant. millions of morons call her their patron saint.
i like the way you explain your opinion, sometimes i too wonder why people fell so much hate for ayn rand, most people do not even know what is she talking about it seems to me very strange how people can hate something without knowing nothing about. thank you.
At least Hitler was honest about federalism being merely a "mask" for a federal republic having absolute power over the individual state, while Lincoln preposterously claimed that the republic was "limited" by the Constitution.
What emotions people feel or don't feel is all irrelevant. Tell that to musicians, artists, mothers, babies, lovers. The soulless behaviourist BF Skinner would agree with you of course, and I guess so would Hitler if he was around. The Nazis violated SOME of it's citizens and many of their neighbours, just like Capitalist Americans. You think America is not behaving in ways similar to the Nazis by bombing innocent people in other land & killing children by dumping toxic waste in the third world?
Of course, Ayn Rand believed in pursuing her own self-interest. She was an admitted sociopath. Sociopaths have no compassion for other people, animals etc. Their brain is defective. The hero in her books was modeled after a serial killer that chopped up a little girl. If this is who you choose to be your hero, that is saying something about you and your morals.
Of course, Ayn Rand believed in pursuing her own self-interest. She was an admitted sociopath. Sociopaths have no compassion for other people, animals etc. Their brain is defective. The hero in her books was modeled after a serial killer that chopped up a little girl. If this is who you choose to be your hero, that is saying something about you and your morals.
There is no such thing as an "insignificant philosopher" as philosophy is wholly the interpretation of the ideas and opinions of others. And what value they have to you personally. So perhaps Rand was of no value to you, and we encounter a fallacy of logic.
You seem to hang your hat on the terms "Rationality" and "Progress" but you never define these terms. "Progress" is a loaded word that can mean many things. Rand's philosophy joined and sythesized ideas of past thinkers to a philosophy the rings with profound truth. Also, at the beginning, you really lean into the fact that Arastarcus' work predates the birth of Christ. That seems to be of great significance to you. Why?
After the bible, her Atlas Shrugged is supposedly the second-most influential book. I don't say it, some expert said it years ago. Don't remember who, sorry. Just read it.
I think we should be more judicious about assigning every shill that comes down the pike to the assignation of philosopher. Ayn Rand is an ideologue who wrote a best selling pot boiler Atlas Shrugged in the most stilted prose imaginable. Capitalism is not a "philosophy" it is a failed 19th century Utopian economic theory that proved to be a social economic and political catastrophe for everyone but the Fortune 500 and the Public Relations industry who front for them.
Putting Adam Smith in the same sentence with Galileo is equally laughable. Ayn Rand and Adam Smith were both crack pot moralists neither of whom knew anything about philosophy or economics.
One of my goals in life is to lead a class in a university teaching students about objectivism as a philosophy. One of her points in the virtue of selfishness is that there is a monopoly on ethics...we all think we know how to be ethical, many of us actually go through life unaware that ethics has two brances...alturism and objectivism
I agree Ayn Rand was born in an atheist communist country and being an atheist she is devoid of the sense of the human spirit, however she hits it correctly and right on every other issue regarding love, altruism and mostly regarding the future in the
U.S. regarding socialism 'creeping into society and to our children in schools' and
what will happen to the U.S. and our future "IF the U.S. does not wake up"!!!
@carol33189 "I agree Ayn Rand was born in an atheist communist country"
You have clearly NEVER been to either Russia or the Soviet Union. Your statement could not be further from the truth. You mistake Communist Party policy with the whole of Russia/USSR....
the Egyptians knew the earth was round... many years before the Greeks..I love the Greeks..but like how the Romans got most of their good stuff from them...the Greeks got theirs from the Egyptians..
@LakeShaman Rand, I believe is often misunderstood. She advocates free market, self determination. Her concept of selfishness is the largest barb in her theory. I never understood Ayn to advocate selfishness at the expense of others; that is to outright exploit others. Her clarity is refreshing. Her take on the world remind of Gurdjieff in many respects. Those who have a grasp of her system find it practical.
At first, from your title, I thought you would be attempting to minimize Ayn Rand but you did an excellent job of defending her with logic. I love her Mike Wallace interview. She calmly dissects Wallace's emotional, sarcastic, and condescending interrogation with logic and reason.
@teej783 Wallace's interview truly wasn't emotional, sarcastic or condescending. If this were true, Rand would have checked him in short order. Wallace was on his best behavior. His 60 minutes interviews was where you saw those negative attributes~
Galileo was placed under house arrest because he called a major figure and rival in the catholic church "simple minded" when he named him in a cartoon with his likeness as Simplicio. His book itself was actually approved by the catholic church until they found this out. It had little to do with his scientific findings.
Al Gore: "The science is settled!" That statement in itself, is utter BS in science. Everthing is science is an observance to nature. Al Gore and his goons had the wrong figures all along. Basic reasoning can denounce his "data". Tell me, why is it that the LOCAL news can't even accurately predict the weather next week, but in a decade we will all be under water and become poisoned from the vast amounts of CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere? (As if all photosynthetic organisms were eradicated)
Climatology is not the same thing as meteorology , Al Gore is not a climatologist , His bad "inconvenient truth doc" data has been criticized even by Climatologist who share the same position as him in regards too global warming.
no you have not !Galileo was not reviewed by peirs he was juded by nut bags!!!!!!!!! the pope dose not know jack about math let alone algibra.........lol fail
oh and bigboss even if it was true it wouldnt prove anything. because I thought suicide is a right because ayn rand believed that people have the right to off themselves, and assisted suicide is only allowed in Oregon, Montana and Washington. Industrialized countries tend to have a higher suicide rate than poor, developing countries, actually by that logic Scandinavia is better then the US.
I am not sure what the last sentence is speaking to, but you are the one that stated that suicide rate increases with force charity policy. which I believe I divisively proved was false. I already told you that I was wrong. I have corrected my statement, the data I was going on was false in fact, ironically, its the opposite, the more sunlight the more suicides. But you have yet to say you are wrong about your theory, and at least mine was close.
bigboss you dont seem to understand basic logic because you made a statement not backed up by any facts. you said that higher suicide rates are caused by socialism, or forced charity which is actually a use-mention error. because Australia is just 2 places below the united states and the are very free market. and if that was true why then is Egypt, ran and Syria at least 50 places below the US, lol they must be the most free nations on earth. that was terrible logic you used.
why cant you try and prove your theory instead of simply repeating its aspirations and its doctrines. you sound just like a theist. And so what if liberals give less then other groups. That has no bearing on where or not it is true that altruism is animal impulse, like sexual lust. And do you know who said that, Richard dawkins. He has on numerous occasions said that altruism is like a sexual impulse because it is so strong in humanity. selfish gene is a title, read the book
I've read it, clearly you have not, you need to stop being so close minded and blind to the world around you.
people that preach the most forced charity give the least, the system of governance that focuses most on altruism is a failure, you cannot reconcile your hypothesis with reality.
I'm not dismissing that humanity's desire to help others exists and is a powerful, merely stating that it is secondary to self-interest as shown by the world we live in.
every time I talk to a objectivist its like talking to a Christian. I guess its mental disorder, fuck I must be mental trying to talk to them. I pray to the universe I never get like you guys. I never want to be so ideological that I stop thinking and just follow. New rule, never talk to a randroid. A theist I can handle they say they dont believe in logic but someone that says they do and then ignore data and good theory, FUCK ME.
so you're calling Dawkins a liar? lol interesting.
Face facts dude, if its a more natural state of man than communism and socialism would work, they don't. As a matter of fact, the people who preach the most altruism"liberals" give far less to charity when compared to people who give as choice. By comparison to force.
the most altruistic society an supposedly happiest is Denmark, has a monstrous suicide rate an lock down immigration
they never immigrants a chance if they're so giving
dude you dont listen do you. or you are talking this well, I cannot say I am being very nice to you but I dont know how to talk to you any other way without being honest. you cannot seem to understand anything I say. I never said dawkins was a liar, I said you never read him or you got it completely wrong. Scandinavia has a high suicide rate because they live in the north and its dark. they are also one of the best places to like.
fyi Suicide rates peak in spring or summer and are lowest in the winter, according to data from Centers for Disease Control an Prevention. hook you up with the link if you like but don't feed me that myth about suicide, they're unhappy because they are being forced to give. Also, I agree with Dawkins altruism can be an animal impulse. Like sex, however, what is forced sex, it's called rape. why would forced charity be different?
forced charity breeds contempt, voluntary charity brings joy
you want to see what a society that rewards wealth and power looks like, go to soa Paulo, brazil. Oh and that was actually a myth what I said, sorry I was wrong. They dont have a high suicide rate at all. Finland has the highest at 15th, but Norway is next the united states, 11.6 to 11.1. I looked at it and there seems to be no correlation between socialist policies and suicide rates. You made that up, show me a study that backs you up. your not using logic, at all.
Brazil? Are you kidding me? are you really so thick headed and devoted to your studies that you refuse to see the world around you?
Places such as that are overt/covert dictatorships there are no choiceand no protection of individual rights under basic/properly confined government intervention.
Nevermind the fact that you still can't reconcile the fact that the most altruistic societies often crumble to dust, you say logic, but you don't know what it is.
its so funny she says that everything she believe is reducible to reality and her objective observations. really, what about all the economic research that proves government run healthcare is superior. what about all the massive amount of evidence from scientist that show altruism is a intrinsic part of human nature
for every piece of evidence you find to says that government health care is better I will find a piece of evidence that says that it is far worse. even worse beyond that is the fact that it tramples the rights of the individual, there is no justice in making the healthy pay for the sick, with the means of force.
And it is true that altruism is an instinct and a part of human nature, however it is nowhere near on par in terms of competing with selfishness and greed. both less destructive
thats not true, any of what you said. First, if you can show me one country with private healthcare and no government intervention that works. then I will agree with you. Your second point is silliness. I mean are you even aware of any data or studies that would back what you said up. The personality traits that ayn rand espouses are actually a form of psychopathic behavior. Look it up, the same trait your dear leader promotes are all in famous serial killers.
all true every word of it, and for you to not realize the failures of government run health care must mean that you've lived an incredibly sheltered existence.
lol as psychopathic as screaming for the virtue of the whole in a world that is clearly dominated by greed and self-interest? I think not
you definitely live in a sheltered existence, because if you did, you would know how maddening petulance dream of give to the collective or else destroys the soul.
you draw a very tenuous conclusion there mate. saying I am "sheltered". lol well lets just clear something up. i was born into poverty, parents where on welfare and at one point addicted to drugs. They got off of course but when I was 9. L live the next 9 years in a all black neighborhood thats ghetto. Not really sheltered lol. As for the rest you just made statement but failed to answer my ?s. name a country with private healthcare that works well.
lol I just said that to draw you out, it simply proves my point that people that believe the most in collectivism are the ones that feel the most cheated by the system such as yourself, it is no wonder that you have the mentality of theft. As your first instinct as your response proves.
There's no country on earth that has private healthcare,there are countries with less intervention and less intervention is superior.
even though wracked with problems the USA still has the best health care
well regardless it sounded stupid. and actually stupid-er then what you said before. because what about all those rich kids that are communist. what about Harvard or Berkley, come on. If you were trying to set an intellicultual trap not was dissentious and showed a lack of seriousness on your part but it failed. There is a wide of people that believe in collectivism. If fact I would say most people, its called community. Now, US best healthcare, REALLY! Interesting. whats your data
seriously? Those that are well-off believe in collectivism because either they are misguided, or they see it as an avenue to take power, mostly because they know that they can twist the feelings of jealousy around inside people that have had a hard time in life, and thus turn them against the successful as a means of putting the population against itself. So that they can set themselves up as the arbiter of dispute using government power.
I totally agree with the last part of your statement but. now you have crossed the Rubicon, into conspiracy. people dont think like that. I dont see I am getting anywhere with deconstructive logic. so I am going to analyze you, like you tried to do with me. except I am being honest. People that believe in ayn rand, are one of two types, ether they are what erich fromm called people with the fear of freedom or they are people with lack of empathic ability. the first is strange i know.
lol you really are naïve kid, the individual mind functions in individual ways, are you denying the fact certain people have used the ideology of altruism as a means to gain power? pretty flimsy analysis.
The definition of empathy varies from person to person, a person can be empathetic to someone's plight, yet still believe that justice is served by letting that person soak in their own juices as at were.
not a lack of empathy to expect people to be responsible.
WHOA that doesnt happen often. i think i am in love with you. even though i am not gay. the irony is too thick
there are so many lavers to what just happened. lol
before i continue, because this is to good to be true, i have to make sure of it. what is the word that i have twisted its meaning so. or put it in another way what word did i commit a use-mention error with.
lmao I haven't heard a comparison like that from a non-college freshman female in quite some time,no offense.
I think you define empathy inproperly, after all, extremely empathetic people can manifest empathy by continually putting the person they feel sorry for in similar situations to overcome their previous mistakes,i.e to them it manifests itself as teaching self-sufficiency as opposed to a handout as it were. As such, Rand followers can be extremely empathetic under that possibility
yep thats me, I try to stay active so as to keep the mental plaque off.
To expand my empathy argument, let's say that you see a child struggling to hit a baseball, will you solve this problem by taking the bat from him and going out there to hit the ball yourself? no
Under the anti-array and philosophy Many of her detractors would say that you are being unSympathetic By not doing just that, to the Rand followers in the individualist philosophy. The only way you can be empathetic is to teach
cool thats good that you work out, i do too. my knees are giving me trouble because i push myself to hard. its also because of dancing, very bad on the knees.
but i want to ask you what are the motives you have for working out and staying in shape. why do you do.
if you have joint/ligament trouble suggest that you look into some Cissus, it's reasonably priced and very proven.
Why I stay fit is twofold, first of all. It helps me feel good look good and stay alert and focused to elongate my life, which carries over into the second reason and that is to make sure that I'm around, and in good health for my family.
Both motivations selfish, I selfishly want to look and feel good for myself. And I selfishly want to make sure I do not burden my loved ones.
nevermind, you have avoided my purpose for the question. and you answered well. i was hoping you said attractiving women, which would have supporter my argument.
Bigboss, your reasons are threefold not twofold. You failed to mention your most important reason.
You're extremely short, shorter then the average woman, and as such have a large Napoleon complex. You can't grow taller, but try to compensate by growing wider. Doesn't change the fact you're a shorty, so face reality.
you know, and I dont know if you are in this group, but I never have had a objectivist ever try to go at least 3 round with me in a debate. very few feel they can adequately debate the merits of ayn rand with me. they mostly seem to people like the Christian, Muslims and other theist. unwilling to put there idea to the test of fierce logical scrutiny. And I think that is because they know that there philosophy is more of a visceral reaction to reality, then actually truth.
look, I dont want to seem like a prick or anything, but you dont understand logic or rational thinking. which is perfectly ok because most people in the world dont. I am even guilty sometimes thats why I dont believe in any theories about this kind of thing. And I know that all randians are atheist, but that doesnt mean they are rational, or true skeptics. Im a empiricist to the core.
man will act in man's own self-interest, not only is the logical conclusion, it is fact as well, since it is both then it is highly illogical to champion a system that is not built around the proper order setting of man's true nature.
reason the detractors have problems metabolizing Rand's philosophy is because it is the essence of individualism, being objective only applies to the singular individual, not some sort of societal superstructure.
no your wrong. if you want I can show game theory, sociological studies, psychological studies, human behaviorism, in fact the massive amount of scientific data shows that ayn rand was wrong. Altruism is a part of evolutionary theory on why humans evolved. We dont live for self interest, that is illogical. The most happiest people are those that are the most generous and most altruistic. You dont seem to be listening to anything I write.
You can trot out whatever study you like but the universal constant remains the same, if it is the driving force of humanity then socialistic systems would not be as destructive as they are and they would need be no laws put in place to force it.
Voluntary charity makes you happy, forced charity does not.
have you ever read the selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins? I suggest you give it all looked so you can understand that evolution does in fact favor the selfish.
talking to you is like talking to a brick wall and did you ever read the selfish gene instead of just read its title. that was not the point Richard dawkins was trying to make at all. are our genes selfish yes in the sense that they want to reproduce. but that does not mean we are selfish. its funny he actually had a lecture on this. he believes that altruism is caused by evolutionary development and that it is a good thing. Oh my god not another one. Fuck I thought you were smart.
I dont really want to be rude but its hard for me to see people so blind to facts. you say you believe in science and proof and I tell you I have proof and you besmirch my data and then misquote and misread dawkins right in front of me. Come on you just made a complete ass out of yourself. Im done this is a waste of my time. Youre another ideological hardcase. Why the fuck do I try with you people. Im sorry I just get angry with ignorance.
BigBoss, please do not defend Objectivism by saying that no study would have any bearing on what you believe. Try asking for the studies and application of game theory that "prove" Ayn Rand wrong and give specific objections. Usually they either can't come up with the studies or apply them in a bizarre way that simply has no relevance with anything Rand ever said. Saying outright that no collection of facts would apply makes you sound like a rationalist.
I'm not doing that, what I'm saying is that this fellow below seems to believe there is absolutely nothing to support the theory, I simply say that there is
I dont believe in pure socialism, mixed socialism, of any theory about government or economics, for that matter, its to complex and we dont know enough. thats the problem with Marx, is he wanted to implement it. But he was a genius no doubt. Ayn rand was a genius, as long as you dont take what she said to be fact or something we should try, because its stupid. Your wrong because you state beyond what can be known. Its that simple And thats the fault
It comes down to the problems of induction and deduction. You can always be the famous turkey. What is more difficult is seeing beyond deduction at its flaws, something which objectivist dont ever try to do. They will always be the turkey, and so will communist, and capitalist, and any ist that thinks it has the keys to the vault. They are all wrong because of the famous problems of deduction and induction. I will always know what is wrong but I will never know what is right.
An absolute balance of power is the essense of good government, to balance the power of governments, of individuals, and of any organization, NRA, corporations, etc, is the essense of good government.
The role of government is to reign in people and organizations that become too powerful.
Remember the maxim, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. This rule applies to every man, woman, child, government, corporation, and independant organization. There is no escaping it.
I don't know the context of this series of videos, but one problem with your argument stands out to me. "Progress" is not an adequate value, and the way you define it is devoid of meaning. You simply say progress from "early" civilization to more "advanced" civilization. You need to state a standard of value. For example, you could interpret "progress" in completely different ways if your standard is egalitarianism rather than if your standard is man's life. I do agree with you otherwise, though
What a genius. Look at all the books behind him he must be really smart. What philosophers are being discussed today. Marx see Obama and Ayn Rand see the side of Individual rights.
Please consider the time that Rand wrote. Rand wrote as a counter to the prevailing philosophy of the time: altruism and collectivization. She is still hated for this. Obviously she is not accepted academia. Most of today's academia by altruism/statism, and is the intellectual enemy of Rand. So I agree, she is not relevant by your definition of advancement and progress... yet. :o)
Altruism was a part of the problem. Unbalanced power is the core and essense of the power. With power comes abuse, abuse by slave owners, by governments, by corporations, etc... every powerful organization engages in abuse. It is the law of nature.
why do i have to explain why, its a opinion and one that is very easy to understand. if he is arguing that she was a important philosopher then he is right. if he is agruing that she is a great philosopher, that had some brillant ideas, then he is wrong
Empowering individuals is just as bad as empowering any other organizations. We've seen what it does, it creates bullies and abusers. Bullies intimidate with muscle, and we see what individuals do when they are empowered.
How is empowering the individual any better than empowering any other thing? Individuals are not saints, individuals abuse others too. Some people act like government is the great Satan, but the reality is, government is no better or worse than individuals.
I agree. I think there is a better way of saying this but I cannot think of one. I agree with everything you said. and I would like to also point out that altruism is a human impulse and is created from evolutionary pressures. further more numerous studies show that those that are altruistic are actually happier, healthier, and more productive
second individualism seems to be a cheap and ineffective way out of the problem of government. remember externalization.
@myheadhurtsnow leftist use the word "progress" to mean socialism, communism, Nazism etc. Ayn Rand used the word to mean what it really means: discoveries by man like the combustion engine, electricity, democracy, freedom, justice, antibiotics, Cat scans, the Internet, telecommunications etc.
If philosophy means anything then progress represents the attainment of wisdom. I suspect you failed to mention this because you still have not learned it. The internet is a mechanical contrivance not a form of wisdom. You can push a lawn mower or a computer mouse all day and make no progress in the pursuit of wisdom. If right wing ideology is your idea of progress as your post implies, what is your objection to Fascism? Why don't you explain your conception of Fascism to us hayseeds?
@jazzbo66zz My right wind ideology of progress is individual respect for life, liberty and property. Fascism like communism and socialism all disrespect life, liberty and/or property in differing degrees. Their preeminent values are the Aryan race, the worker and the greater good not individualism. All negate or diminish the American values of individual freedom and justice. Thus my objection to fascism is the same for communism and socialism. Does that help you Mr. Hayseed.
Fascism escapes you for precisely the reasons philosophy does not honor political ideologues like H Himmler, Ayn Rand or Rush Limbaugh. You unwittingly assume the world view of people like these when you let yourself be convinced that the world is governed by the principles of rhetoric. Fascism is the apotheosis of Capitalism, ruled not by "liberty" but by the capital structure of social economic & political power thus your "individual" is reduced to an appendage of the market
@jazzbo66zz So I guess Hitler was respectful of life, liberty and property and I guess I don't have the right to buy what I want, live where I want, say I want, read what I want, protest what I want but instead I guess I'm just "apendaging" for the market? What ever the fuck that means. Is English your first language?
The Fascists attacked liberalism because it seemed to them the principle premise of modern society. Theirs was a resentment of loneliness; their one desire was for a new faith, a new community of believers, a world with fixed standards and no doubts, a new national religion that would bind all Germans together. All this liberalism denied. Hence they hated liberalism, blamed it for making outcasts of them for uprooting them from their imaginary past, and from their faith. –Fritz Stern
@jazzbo66zz What emotions people feel or don't feel is all irrelevant. It's their behavior that counts. The Nazis violated the life, liberty and property of it's citizens. Just like communism, Islamism and socialism they all have different drives, emotions and desires but they are all united in violating an individual's life, liberty or property for their "glorious" goals. You are missing this core understanding and muddling the truth with noise. America is the great exception to this trash.
@SovereignStatesman What rubbish. Socialism started in Germany which was a hotbed of socialistic ideas in the 1800s. People like Hindenburg, Marx, Krug etc all German. It never even reached America until about 1910. Take a history class before you spout bullshit.
@SovereignStatesman You, my friend, are confusing. You said that America started global socialism which I explained it did not. Socialism has been practiced to some extent since the Roman times but the pure philosophy is a modern invention by mostly Germans in the 1800s. America is known for FREEDOM and least friendly country on earth to socialism. Don't believe me, ask Obama. I say this with all seriousness and I'm not trying to be a jerk, you need a take a history class.
@SovereignStatesman I never said the US started socialism. The US is based on FREEDOM the opposite to socialism. Socialism is a total contradiction to American values.
btw: the Greeks had absolutely nothing to do with socialism. The Greeks contribution were in rational thinking and concepts such as democracy, justice, freedom. In fact, it was Aristotle's concept of individual freedom which greatly influenced Thomas Jefferson. A far cry from socialism
The US is an empire which pays LIP-SERVICE to freedom in order to FOOL idiots like you, while likewise paying lip-service to free-market capitalism while practicing CRONYISM.
And as I explained, the Greeks EXPOUNDED socialism as sophistry; but you seem learning-disabled, as I observed that you are a fool-idiot.
@SovereignStatesman 1. Utter nonsense, complete left wing trash. The US is greatest freest country on earth. I know, I was born in the Soviet Union. 2. The Greeks talked about a lot of things but socialism was absolutely not a Greek idea. What a hypocrite American, you insult your own country but you won't live anywhere else. I hated the Soviet Union and I moved to the US. Why don't you leave the US. What a hypocrite bullshitter.
It's obvious you didn't even watch my video, otherwise you wouldn't be saying such vapid nonsense.
I never said the Greeks invented socialism, don't you read English?
And the U.S. CREATED the Soviet Union, by fomenting Marxism in Europe during the Bellum-era, and then warmongering against Germany in 1914 and forcing the Czar of Russia to remain in the war at the expense of domestic control.
You don't have a clue what you're talking about, you just believe everything they tell you.
@SovereignStatesman The US created the Soviet Union by creating Marxism in Europe? . Well, I can tell first hand since I was born and raised in the Soviet Union and my father was a member of the Soviet Politburo that you are utterly ignorant and I have no more interest in debating utter nonsense. Goodbye.
@garybsg 99.9999% of what you said is correct. But the word "Islamism": this does not exist in the dictionary. It is equivalent to the word "McCarthyISM" that Ayn Rand talked about: false words can be advanced to argue anything, as they have no meaning. I champion Rand like you do too.
@garybsg Of course Hitler was respectful of his own life and the lives of those who belonged to his volk. Just like most right wing americans. He just didnt give a flying fuck about the wellbeing of anybody outside of his little system. Just like adherents of Ayn Rands philosophy.
@cuttlefishgem You mean the right wing Americans that wrote the constitution which revolutionized the world. No one country has done more for freedom then right wing Americans.
@jazzbo66zz What you are indirectly positting is that personal wealth defines the limits of personal freedom, which is to a great extent true. You cannot honestly say that socialism puts less limitation on personal wealth than captialism. Capitalism allows and in many ways protects a system of wealth distribution which is based on individual accomplishment, and thus unequal; but it is in a system of forced equallity that no individual is free to acquire more wealth than his neighbours.
@garybsg I see, you refer to YOUR prosperity and YOUR Liberty and YOUR life. Socialism is the prosperity, liberty and life of ALLl more or less Equally with the state as a regulator, the middle is a much better answer socialism represent equilibrium, not capital or labor. thank you.
Actually "Progressivism" began long ago in American history, and included those who implemented Prohibition, and mandatory sterilization of those they judged "unfit to breed."
According to Wikipedia, Progressivism is a political attitude favoring or advocating changes or reform through governmental action-- i.e. FASCISM. However such is inevitable once the government becomes the reigning sovereign, as it did under the Jackson-Lincoln empire by default.
That's not an ad hominem argument. For it to be an ad hominem argument, I would have had to use an insult as a substitute for an argument. I didn't. When I stated that your response was asinine, I explained why it was asinine. Further, stating that your argument is asinine isn't an insult to begin with.
Google "Scientific Opinion on Climate Change" for your source as I can't post URL's in the comment's section.
xxFortunadoxx 6 days ago
@xxFortunadoxx You called me asinine, an insult; and have not yet put up a cogent argument. So it is both ad hominnem, but moreover your arguments have failed. You had neither put forward "one argument" to refute mere "1" (only "1": you have SO much to choose from) statement of Ayn Rand, but worse you rationalise that too: so you can't even argue. Fail! Come on, put up a good fight: this is too easy.
britishbrainz 6 days ago
@britishbrainz I did not call you asinine, I called your response asinine then proceeded to explain why. I'm not insulting you in the slightest.
All you're doing is claiming that I have not put forward one argument when I already have.
You're a joke. You're purposefully not reading my responses in order to claim victory. This is a waste of my time. When you decide to read my comments, let me know. Until then, I'm not going to waste my time repeating myself because you don't want to read.
xxFortunadoxx 6 days ago
@xxFortunadoxx You said "You're a joke"- ad hominnem argument no.2 by you! You're doing well today! Please make my day: put up a cogent argument. Refute "1" item that Rand OR EVEN "I" have said ! You're like a amateur entering the karate dojo with the master smashing you down too easily. I feel like a bully! If you can't argue then get out of this place!
britishbrainz 6 days ago
@britishbrainz I've already refuted her entire philosophy. You're purposefully not reading my posts in order to claim victory.
You're not interested in listening to opposing viewpoints in the slightest. When you are, let me know. Until then, this discussion is over.
xxFortunadoxx 6 days ago
@xxFortunadoxx You said "You're not interested in listening to opposing viewpoints". I have been asking ALL day for cogent argument and opposing views! Bring it on man!
I do not know where you have "refuted her" - so Bring it !
britishbrainz 6 days ago
@britishbrainz And I've been saying for several comments now that I've already posted my argument against her several comments back. My response is there.
How about you read the comments I wrote instead of expecting me to repeat everything I said?
xxFortunadoxx 6 days ago
@xxFortunadoxx I've looked hard and can't find one argument put forward by you. Please start afresh or copy and paste a "cogent argument" that proves "1 or more" statements by by Rand that is incorrect. You have failed in this task over and over -and-and-over again! Come on: bring it on man! Be a man!
britishbrainz 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@britishbrainz Here it is verbatim from my comment.
She predicates her entire philosophy on developing an account for objective ethics which she fails miserably at because it isn't possible to do so. Further, postmodernists would consider her entire philosophy as simply one giant meta-narrative which automatically places it in subjectivity which undermines her claim that her system of philosophy is one that is grounded in reality.
xxFortunadoxx 6 days ago
1) Ayn Rand will not have her day. The difference between ostracized thinkers like Copernicus, Galileo, Thomas Hobbes and Ayn Rand is that the former weren't dismissed on rational merits. They were dismissed due to their views that criticized the orthodoxy that was in place. Ayn Rand's philosophy has been summarily refuted countless times on the charge that the entire philosophy is predicated on providing an account of objective ethics which it completely fails to do.
xxFortunadoxx 1 month ago
@xxFortunadoxx If you can refute "1" statement made by Ayn Rand then I will personally pay you money. I have studied and mastered RAnd at black belt level for years: and am looking for that first person that can refute any "1" statement . Rand was and is completely correct: her philosophy closed off all other philosophy for all time.
To summarise it I'll say: you are SOVEREIGN with inalienable rights. You can NEVER use force against someone (e.g. taxation,regulation) save in self defence (war)
britishbrainz 6 days ago
@britishbrainz "her philosophy closed off all other philosophy for all time."
The mere fact that you think that demonstrates that you haven't taken an introductory course in philosophy. Go say that to any professor and they will laugh in your face. She is almost unanimously regarded in academic circles as a complete joke.
I don't have to settle for refuting one statement made by her because you can refute her entire philosophy for being predicated on something that's impossible to achieve.
xxFortunadoxx 6 days ago
@xxFortunadoxx You said "go say that to any Professor and they will laugh in your face". You are 100% correct. 3 billion people can believe in myth (e.g. deity) and laugh at Darwin or Rand, but that doesn't therefore mean the 3billion are correct. That which is correct is verified using the method of reason and logic.
As for "her": the good news is she was a multimillionaire (self made) by the time of her death, and her book are still selling over 300,000 copies per year, and her heir continues
britishbrainz 6 days ago
@britishbrainz You fail to take into account the simple fact that 3 billion people are laymen who do not have premier expertise in evaluating philosophical claims which professors do. Your charge of appeal to authority fallacy is not valid because I am citing relevant experts with respect to my claims which is valid.
Yes. A bunch of 20-somethings without any exposure to serious philosophy are reading Atlas Shrugged and finding it profound. Your point?
xxFortunadoxx 6 days ago
@xxFortunadoxx You said " in evaluating philosophical claims which professors do". The assumption is they are in agreement - is in error. Philosophy Professors the world over are in perpetual argument with each other about the "correct philosophical system" themselves! In contrast:Rand has a water-tight impenetrable logically consistent system.
I repeat: if you can refute "one" statement she made OR refute the whole system then I will pay you 10,000 British Pounds ($15,000). Try to succeed!
britishbrainz 6 days ago
@britishbrainz I never said that they were in agreement about the best philosophical system at all. I said that they are in agreement that Ayn Rand's philosophy is fallacious.
Your claim that Rand has an imprenetrable logically consistent system is nothing more than a baseless claim backed by nothing.
Your offer is not even remotely serious.
xxFortunadoxx 6 days ago
@xxFortunadoxx You are too easy to beat down to a pulp in argument. All I have to prove is "one" Professor advancing Ayn Rand to knock down your entire argument. Please do NOT make it this easy for me ! I have spent years looking for someone that can prove 1, only 1 item in Rand's statements to be in error! Is it too much to ask?
As for you personally: please advance cogent "argument". You obviously have much to state, and I am a black belt with Ayn Rand material. Isn't too much to ask of YOU?
britishbrainz 6 days ago
@britishbrainz Your response is asinine as I'm clearly referring to the philosophic community as a whole. The fact that you can point to one professor that supports her view is moot much like I can point to several scientists that don't support global warming yet it has no effect on the fact that 97% of the scientific community supports global warming. The same applies to Rand's philosophy.
I already refuted her. The fact that you're purposefully ignoring my responses is telling.
xxFortunadoxx 6 days ago
@xxFortunadoxx "asinine" ? Ad hominnem argument already ? Put up a cogent argument.
[97% do Not support global warming, show me where you get that statistic, you liar!!! You entire argument hereby crashes once again !!!!]
britishbrainz 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@xxFortunadoxx Note 2 (continuing), you said You had said "She predicates her entire philosophy on developing an account for objective ethics which she fails miserably at because it isn't possible." This means the BURDEN OF PROOF is on you the person making a proposition. Put up a cogent argument (a good fight is what I need). It is too easy to defeat you.
britishbrainz 6 days ago
@xxFortunadoxx Note 3: you said " The fact that you can point to one professor that supports her view is moot". Not at all, because you made the argument that Professors do not support her. In contrast I showed you that [1] to defeat you, like sweeping your legs in Jiu-Jitsu so you fall flat on your face and break a nose: I merely have to put forward 1 Professor and your argument collapses; [2] further for the rest, they are in argument with each other (no consistent system there). U r defeated.
britishbrainz 6 days ago
@xxFortunadoxx Note 2 (continued from below). You said "I don't have to settle for refuting one statement made by her because you can refute her entire philosophy for being predicated on something that's impossible to achieve". What specifically is impossible? Rationality? Honesty? Productivity? Sex? Independence? Selfishness (rational self interest) ? Justice (reap what you sow)? Integrity? Happiness? All these r major virtue she identified and one can do them fairly instantly!Objective ethics
britishbrainz 6 days ago
@britishbrainz She predicates her entire philosophy on developing an account for objective ethics which she fails miserably at because it isn't possible. Further, postmodernists would consider her entire philosophy as simply one giant meta-narrative which automatically places it in subjectivity which undermines her claim that her system of philosophy is one that is grounded in reality.
xxFortunadoxx 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@xxFortunadoxx You said "She predicates her entire philosophy on developing an account for objective ethics which she fails miserably at because it isn't possible." I repeat: are you saying rationality is not possible? sex is not? happiness is not ? productivity is not? rational self interest (selfishness) is not? justice is not ? independence is not (you must listen to authority - can't ever make up your mind?) You are hereby found in error as all the above are possible at all times
britishbrainz 6 days ago
Rand is a significant menace to the Socialist movement
MalyshevEvgeniy 2 months ago
@MalyshevEvgeniy Socialism means the use of force against Sovereign man. It is therefore wrong in theory and horrible in practice.
britishbrainz 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
America STARTED global socialism-- whether you call it fascism or "communism, it was all enabled by US imperialism under the Whig-expansionism"
this is your comment and I'm never going back to Russia unlike you, I love America
garybsg 4 months ago
Funny how he says that the book was written 450 BC, then says it was 2000 years before Christ LOL
That would be 4000 BC not 450 BC.
SovereignStatesman 4 months ago
Rand is a knee-jerk icon who expresses blowback-emotions to the socialist-era hypocrisy-- but socialism in itself is blowback to cronyism masquerading as capitalism, resulting in the mass-shift of wealth and power to an elite plutocratic oligarchy in the preceding century, as suppressed by a machine-media masquerading as a "free press."
Until people learn the truth, they'll continue to believe lies; the US is NOT capitalist but crony, and the press is NOT free but controlled.
SovereignStatesman 5 months ago
ayn rand may be an idiot, and her one-dimensional motivational ideas are far from "philosophy"...but buddy, she ain't insignificant. millions of morons call her their patron saint.
JesusConvictScorpion 6 months ago
@JesusConvictScorpion
The key word there is "morons" LOL
SovereignStatesman 5 months ago
lLaalallal!lalalla !
persiancomedy 7 months ago
i like the way you explain your opinion, sometimes i too wonder why people fell so much hate for ayn rand, most people do not even know what is she talking about it seems to me very strange how people can hate something without knowing nothing about. thank you.
animejoao 8 months ago
Ayn Rand's books are about as valuble as Hitler's Mein Kampf!! IMHO
Not a comparison...just an assement of their worth as literature....
shilltheshillXXX 9 months ago
@shilltheshillXXX
At least Hitler was honest about federalism being merely a "mask" for a federal republic having absolute power over the individual state, while Lincoln preposterously claimed that the republic was "limited" by the Constitution.
SovereignStatesman 5 months ago
What emotions people feel or don't feel is all irrelevant. Tell that to musicians, artists, mothers, babies, lovers. The soulless behaviourist BF Skinner would agree with you of course, and I guess so would Hitler if he was around. The Nazis violated SOME of it's citizens and many of their neighbours, just like Capitalist Americans. You think America is not behaving in ways similar to the Nazis by bombing innocent people in other land & killing children by dumping toxic waste in the third world?
cuttlefishgem 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Of course, Ayn Rand believed in pursuing her own self-interest. She was an admitted sociopath. Sociopaths have no compassion for other people, animals etc. Their brain is defective. The hero in her books was modeled after a serial killer that chopped up a little girl. If this is who you choose to be your hero, that is saying something about you and your morals.
jaspermatty 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Of course, Ayn Rand believed in pursuing her own self-interest. She was an admitted sociopath. Sociopaths have no compassion for other people, animals etc. Their brain is defective. The hero in her books was modeled after a serial killer that chopped up a little girl. If this is who you choose to be your hero, that is saying something about you and your morals.
jaspermatty 9 months ago
There is no such thing as an "insignificant philosopher" as philosophy is wholly the interpretation of the ideas and opinions of others. And what value they have to you personally. So perhaps Rand was of no value to you, and we encounter a fallacy of logic.
colonforsecs 1 year ago
Criteria is plural of Criterion, just so you know Baapchod
screenflicker1 1 year ago
You seem to hang your hat on the terms "Rationality" and "Progress" but you never define these terms. "Progress" is a loaded word that can mean many things. Rand's philosophy joined and sythesized ideas of past thinkers to a philosophy the rings with profound truth. Also, at the beginning, you really lean into the fact that Arastarcus' work predates the birth of Christ. That seems to be of great significance to you. Why?
astr0al3x 1 year ago
After the bible, her Atlas Shrugged is supposedly the second-most influential book. I don't say it, some expert said it years ago. Don't remember who, sorry. Just read it.
Booberry82 1 year ago
I think we should be more judicious about assigning every shill that comes down the pike to the assignation of philosopher. Ayn Rand is an ideologue who wrote a best selling pot boiler Atlas Shrugged in the most stilted prose imaginable. Capitalism is not a "philosophy" it is a failed 19th century Utopian economic theory that proved to be a social economic and political catastrophe for everyone but the Fortune 500 and the Public Relations industry who front for them.
jazzbo66zz 1 year ago
Putting Ayn Rand in the same sentence as Galileo and Adam Smith is completely laughable.
ohiovol63 1 year ago
@ohiovol63
Putting Adam Smith in the same sentence with Galileo is equally laughable. Ayn Rand and Adam Smith were both crack pot moralists neither of whom knew anything about philosophy or economics.
jazzbo66zz 1 year ago
haha "450 BC.... that's almost 2000 YRS BEFORE CHRIST..." i think he misspoke. lol.
thomasstunts 1 year ago
Who is this fucking dolt? All those big words and you still haven't said shit....
eaodak 1 year ago
One of my goals in life is to lead a class in a university teaching students about objectivism as a philosophy. One of her points in the virtue of selfishness is that there is a monopoly on ethics...we all think we know how to be ethical, many of us actually go through life unaware that ethics has two brances...alturism and objectivism
Dannycru 1 year ago
I agree Ayn Rand was born in an atheist communist country and being an atheist she is devoid of the sense of the human spirit, however she hits it correctly and right on every other issue regarding love, altruism and mostly regarding the future in the
U.S. regarding socialism 'creeping into society and to our children in schools' and
what will happen to the U.S. and our future "IF the U.S. does not wake up"!!!
carol33189 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@carol33189 "I agree Ayn Rand was born in an atheist communist country"
You have clearly NEVER been to either Russia or the Soviet Union. Your statement could not be further from the truth. You mistake Communist Party policy with the whole of Russia/USSR....
eaodak 1 year ago
Ayn Rand's work is bullshit. Atlas Shrugged sucked donkey ass.
TheHomelessCripple 1 year ago
Everything that this guy just said, without exception, was complete and total bullshit.
Fittykent 1 year ago
the Egyptians knew the earth was round... many years before the Greeks..I love the Greeks..but like how the Romans got most of their good stuff from them...the Greeks got theirs from the Egyptians..
rageohol 1 year ago
@LakeShaman Rand, I believe is often misunderstood. She advocates free market, self determination. Her concept of selfishness is the largest barb in her theory. I never understood Ayn to advocate selfishness at the expense of others; that is to outright exploit others. Her clarity is refreshing. Her take on the world remind of Gurdjieff in many respects. Those who have a grasp of her system find it practical.
ghahandi 1 year ago
Rands system is not faith based. She espouses: see for yourself.
ghahandi 1 year ago
At first, from your title, I thought you would be attempting to minimize Ayn Rand but you did an excellent job of defending her with logic. I love her Mike Wallace interview. She calmly dissects Wallace's emotional, sarcastic, and condescending interrogation with logic and reason.
teej783 1 year ago
@teej783 Wallace's interview truly wasn't emotional, sarcastic or condescending. If this were true, Rand would have checked him in short order. Wallace was on his best behavior. His 60 minutes interviews was where you saw those negative attributes~
ghahandi 1 year ago
Galileo was placed under house arrest because he called a major figure and rival in the catholic church "simple minded" when he named him in a cartoon with his likeness as Simplicio. His book itself was actually approved by the catholic church until they found this out. It had little to do with his scientific findings.
CWSmith1982 1 year ago
NOTE: Peer review is psychological control and prohibitive to discovery and growth.
The church prohibited Mezo-Americans from reading the BIBLE!
The church of "Green" prohibits the review of data!
ROFL!
chewbaca1989 2 years ago
Al Gore: "The science is settled!" That statement in itself, is utter BS in science. Everthing is science is an observance to nature. Al Gore and his goons had the wrong figures all along. Basic reasoning can denounce his "data". Tell me, why is it that the LOCAL news can't even accurately predict the weather next week, but in a decade we will all be under water and become poisoned from the vast amounts of CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere? (As if all photosynthetic organisms were eradicated)
pSychOAtDawn 1 year ago
@pSychOAtDawn
Climatology is not the same thing as meteorology , Al Gore is not a climatologist , His bad "inconvenient truth doc" data has been criticized even by Climatologist who share the same position as him in regards too global warming.
Obasiliasfilosofos 1 year ago
Long view of history, good points.
chewbaca1989 2 years ago
This isn't a negative on Ayn Rand, it is merely a comment on the fact that Rand's work is not yet 100+ years...
EyeQue782 2 years ago 6
I think we know what BC means... is he talking to 3rd graders?
evramos70 2 years ago 2
So you mean to say that even Galileo was an insignificant scientist because he wasn't original as he followed Copernicus.
Waadee101 2 years ago 2
Dude, seriously. You are a pseudo-intellectual. No man who truly controls his life and destiny whines about Ayn Rand.
salmondick 2 years ago 2
no you have not !Galileo was not reviewed by peirs he was juded by nut bags!!!!!!!!! the pope dose not know jack about math let alone algibra.........lol fail
mykmmc 2 years ago
The pope does know nazi learnings
haashond 2 years ago
I was ready to give you 1 star but I sat through the whole video and gave you five at the end. Very good points.
KhanSlayer 2 years ago
you're a cutie...
clanhsm 2 years ago
oh and bigboss even if it was true it wouldnt prove anything. because I thought suicide is a right because ayn rand believed that people have the right to off themselves, and assisted suicide is only allowed in Oregon, Montana and Washington. Industrialized countries tend to have a higher suicide rate than poor, developing countries, actually by that logic Scandinavia is better then the US.
thesparitan 2 years ago
I neither encouraged nor discourage it. I merely say that when you say, suicide rates are caused by weather that you are not correct.
It is interesting to see how Larry is tangent you went off on due to your poor reading skills lol.
bigboss686 2 years ago
I am not sure what the last sentence is speaking to, but you are the one that stated that suicide rate increases with force charity policy. which I believe I divisively proved was false. I already told you that I was wrong. I have corrected my statement, the data I was going on was false in fact, ironically, its the opposite, the more sunlight the more suicides. But you have yet to say you are wrong about your theory, and at least mine was close.
thesparitan 2 years ago
bigboss you dont seem to understand basic logic because you made a statement not backed up by any facts. you said that higher suicide rates are caused by socialism, or forced charity which is actually a use-mention error. because Australia is just 2 places below the united states and the are very free market. and if that was true why then is Egypt, ran and Syria at least 50 places below the US, lol they must be the most free nations on earth. that was terrible logic you used.
thesparitan 2 years ago
Wrong, I said that there is no correlation between colder weather an suicides. Christ, can you even read?
bigboss686 2 years ago
bigboss686
why cant you try and prove your theory instead of simply repeating its aspirations and its doctrines. you sound just like a theist. And so what if liberals give less then other groups. That has no bearing on where or not it is true that altruism is animal impulse, like sexual lust. And do you know who said that, Richard dawkins. He has on numerous occasions said that altruism is like a sexual impulse because it is so strong in humanity. selfish gene is a title, read the book
thesparitan 2 years ago
I've read it, clearly you have not, you need to stop being so close minded and blind to the world around you.
people that preach the most forced charity give the least, the system of governance that focuses most on altruism is a failure, you cannot reconcile your hypothesis with reality.
I'm not dismissing that humanity's desire to help others exists and is a powerful, merely stating that it is secondary to self-interest as shown by the world we live in.
Forced charity breeds contempt,
bigboss686 2 years ago
every time I talk to a objectivist its like talking to a Christian. I guess its mental disorder, fuck I must be mental trying to talk to them. I pray to the universe I never get like you guys. I never want to be so ideological that I stop thinking and just follow. New rule, never talk to a randroid. A theist I can handle they say they dont believe in logic but someone that says they do and then ignore data and good theory, FUCK ME.
thesparitan 2 years ago
so you're calling Dawkins a liar? lol interesting.
Face facts dude, if its a more natural state of man than communism and socialism would work, they don't. As a matter of fact, the people who preach the most altruism"liberals" give far less to charity when compared to people who give as choice. By comparison to force.
the most altruistic society an supposedly happiest is Denmark, has a monstrous suicide rate an lock down immigration
they never immigrants a chance if they're so giving
bigboss686 2 years ago
dude you dont listen do you. or you are talking this well, I cannot say I am being very nice to you but I dont know how to talk to you any other way without being honest. you cannot seem to understand anything I say. I never said dawkins was a liar, I said you never read him or you got it completely wrong. Scandinavia has a high suicide rate because they live in the north and its dark. they are also one of the best places to like.
thesparitan 2 years ago
fyi Suicide rates peak in spring or summer and are lowest in the winter, according to data from Centers for Disease Control an Prevention. hook you up with the link if you like but don't feed me that myth about suicide, they're unhappy because they are being forced to give. Also, I agree with Dawkins altruism can be an animal impulse. Like sex, however, what is forced sex, it's called rape. why would forced charity be different?
forced charity breeds contempt, voluntary charity brings joy
bigboss686 2 years ago
you want to see what a society that rewards wealth and power looks like, go to soa Paulo, brazil. Oh and that was actually a myth what I said, sorry I was wrong. They dont have a high suicide rate at all. Finland has the highest at 15th, but Norway is next the united states, 11.6 to 11.1. I looked at it and there seems to be no correlation between socialist policies and suicide rates. You made that up, show me a study that backs you up. your not using logic, at all.
thesparitan 2 years ago
Brazil? Are you kidding me? are you really so thick headed and devoted to your studies that you refuse to see the world around you?
Places such as that are overt/covert dictatorships there are no choiceand no protection of individual rights under basic/properly confined government intervention.
Nevermind the fact that you still can't reconcile the fact that the most altruistic societies often crumble to dust, you say logic, but you don't know what it is.
bigboss686 2 years ago
"lavers" sorry i meant to write levels. i have no idea why that happened
thesparitan 2 years ago
its so funny she says that everything she believe is reducible to reality and her objective observations. really, what about all the economic research that proves government run healthcare is superior. what about all the massive amount of evidence from scientist that show altruism is a intrinsic part of human nature
thesparitan 2 years ago
for every piece of evidence you find to says that government health care is better I will find a piece of evidence that says that it is far worse. even worse beyond that is the fact that it tramples the rights of the individual, there is no justice in making the healthy pay for the sick, with the means of force.
And it is true that altruism is an instinct and a part of human nature, however it is nowhere near on par in terms of competing with selfishness and greed. both less destructive
bigboss686 2 years ago
thats not true, any of what you said. First, if you can show me one country with private healthcare and no government intervention that works. then I will agree with you. Your second point is silliness. I mean are you even aware of any data or studies that would back what you said up. The personality traits that ayn rand espouses are actually a form of psychopathic behavior. Look it up, the same trait your dear leader promotes are all in famous serial killers.
thesparitan 2 years ago
all true every word of it, and for you to not realize the failures of government run health care must mean that you've lived an incredibly sheltered existence.
lol as psychopathic as screaming for the virtue of the whole in a world that is clearly dominated by greed and self-interest? I think not
you definitely live in a sheltered existence, because if you did, you would know how maddening petulance dream of give to the collective or else destroys the soul.
You've read studies, not lived life
bigboss686 2 years ago
you draw a very tenuous conclusion there mate. saying I am "sheltered". lol well lets just clear something up. i was born into poverty, parents where on welfare and at one point addicted to drugs. They got off of course but when I was 9. L live the next 9 years in a all black neighborhood thats ghetto. Not really sheltered lol. As for the rest you just made statement but failed to answer my ?s. name a country with private healthcare that works well.
thesparitan 2 years ago
lol I just said that to draw you out, it simply proves my point that people that believe the most in collectivism are the ones that feel the most cheated by the system such as yourself, it is no wonder that you have the mentality of theft. As your first instinct as your response proves.
There's no country on earth that has private healthcare,there are countries with less intervention and less intervention is superior.
even though wracked with problems the USA still has the best health care
bigboss686 2 years ago
well regardless it sounded stupid. and actually stupid-er then what you said before. because what about all those rich kids that are communist. what about Harvard or Berkley, come on. If you were trying to set an intellicultual trap not was dissentious and showed a lack of seriousness on your part but it failed. There is a wide of people that believe in collectivism. If fact I would say most people, its called community. Now, US best healthcare, REALLY! Interesting. whats your data
thesparitan 2 years ago
seriously? Those that are well-off believe in collectivism because either they are misguided, or they see it as an avenue to take power, mostly because they know that they can twist the feelings of jealousy around inside people that have had a hard time in life, and thus turn them against the successful as a means of putting the population against itself. So that they can set themselves up as the arbiter of dispute using government power.
a shame responses are limited to 500 words
bigboss686 2 years ago
I totally agree with the last part of your statement but. now you have crossed the Rubicon, into conspiracy. people dont think like that. I dont see I am getting anywhere with deconstructive logic. so I am going to analyze you, like you tried to do with me. except I am being honest. People that believe in ayn rand, are one of two types, ether they are what erich fromm called people with the fear of freedom or they are people with lack of empathic ability. the first is strange i know.
thesparitan 2 years ago
lol you really are naïve kid, the individual mind functions in individual ways, are you denying the fact certain people have used the ideology of altruism as a means to gain power? pretty flimsy analysis.
The definition of empathy varies from person to person, a person can be empathetic to someone's plight, yet still believe that justice is served by letting that person soak in their own juices as at were.
not a lack of empathy to expect people to be responsible.
Your definition is twisted
bigboss686 2 years ago
WHOA that doesnt happen often. i think i am in love with you. even though i am not gay. the irony is too thick
there are so many lavers to what just happened. lol
before i continue, because this is to good to be true, i have to make sure of it. what is the word that i have twisted its meaning so. or put it in another way what word did i commit a use-mention error with.
thesparitan 2 years ago
lmao I haven't heard a comparison like that from a non-college freshman female in quite some time,no offense.
I think you define empathy inproperly, after all, extremely empathetic people can manifest empathy by continually putting the person they feel sorry for in similar situations to overcome their previous mistakes,i.e to them it manifests itself as teaching self-sufficiency as opposed to a handout as it were. As such, Rand followers can be extremely empathetic under that possibility
bigboss686 2 years ago
Comment removed
thesparitan 2 years ago
ok that's fine, I have to be off to bed now, but I'll address it tomorrow when I can.
YT really should expand the use to 1000
bigboss686 2 years ago
im sending you my retort in a message, but while i do that. let me ask you a questionI s that a picture of you and are a psychically fit person.
thesparitan 2 years ago
yep thats me, I try to stay active so as to keep the mental plaque off.
To expand my empathy argument, let's say that you see a child struggling to hit a baseball, will you solve this problem by taking the bat from him and going out there to hit the ball yourself? no
Under the anti-array and philosophy Many of her detractors would say that you are being unSympathetic By not doing just that, to the Rand followers in the individualist philosophy. The only way you can be empathetic is to teach
bigboss686 2 years ago
cool thats good that you work out, i do too. my knees are giving me trouble because i push myself to hard. its also because of dancing, very bad on the knees.
but i want to ask you what are the motives you have for working out and staying in shape. why do you do.
thesparitan 2 years ago
if you have joint/ligament trouble suggest that you look into some Cissus, it's reasonably priced and very proven.
Why I stay fit is twofold, first of all. It helps me feel good look good and stay alert and focused to elongate my life, which carries over into the second reason and that is to make sure that I'm around, and in good health for my family.
Both motivations selfish, I selfishly want to look and feel good for myself. And I selfishly want to make sure I do not burden my loved ones.
bigboss686 2 years ago
nevermind, you have avoided my purpose for the question. and you answered well. i was hoping you said attractiving women, which would have supporter my argument.
lets continue this later. i have to go.
thesparitan 2 years ago
Bigboss, your reasons are threefold not twofold. You failed to mention your most important reason.
You're extremely short, shorter then the average woman, and as such have a large Napoleon complex. You can't grow taller, but try to compensate by growing wider. Doesn't change the fact you're a shorty, so face reality.
canuckcosmos 2 years ago
im sure if that has muc to do with it. stay on subject.
thesparitan 2 years ago
you know, and I dont know if you are in this group, but I never have had a objectivist ever try to go at least 3 round with me in a debate. very few feel they can adequately debate the merits of ayn rand with me. they mostly seem to people like the Christian, Muslims and other theist. unwilling to put there idea to the test of fierce logical scrutiny. And I think that is because they know that there philosophy is more of a visceral reaction to reality, then actually truth.
thesparitan 2 years ago
you are aware that the majority of Rand followers are atheists, correct?
Anyway, I don't see how you can say that it's not reality, mankind has been self interest driven since the beginning of time.
I'll put it to you like this, earlier you said that altruism more of a driving force than greed and self-interest.
If it is such a driving force, then why do the critics of rand's ideology seek a system of governance that enforces altruism through force?
if it were enforcement wouldn't be necessary
bigboss686 2 years ago
Part 1
look, I dont want to seem like a prick or anything, but you dont understand logic or rational thinking. which is perfectly ok because most people in the world dont. I am even guilty sometimes thats why I dont believe in any theories about this kind of thing. And I know that all randians are atheist, but that doesnt mean they are rational, or true skeptics. Im a empiricist to the core.
thesparitan 2 years ago
man will act in man's own self-interest, not only is the logical conclusion, it is fact as well, since it is both then it is highly illogical to champion a system that is not built around the proper order setting of man's true nature.
reason the detractors have problems metabolizing Rand's philosophy is because it is the essence of individualism, being objective only applies to the singular individual, not some sort of societal superstructure.
those obsessed with theory will never understand
bigboss686 2 years ago
no your wrong. if you want I can show game theory, sociological studies, psychological studies, human behaviorism, in fact the massive amount of scientific data shows that ayn rand was wrong. Altruism is a part of evolutionary theory on why humans evolved. We dont live for self interest, that is illogical. The most happiest people are those that are the most generous and most altruistic. You dont seem to be listening to anything I write.
thesparitan 2 years ago
because you're dead wrong son.
You can trot out whatever study you like but the universal constant remains the same, if it is the driving force of humanity then socialistic systems would not be as destructive as they are and they would need be no laws put in place to force it.
Voluntary charity makes you happy, forced charity does not.
have you ever read the selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins? I suggest you give it all looked so you can understand that evolution does in fact favor the selfish.
bigboss686 2 years ago
talking to you is like talking to a brick wall and did you ever read the selfish gene instead of just read its title. that was not the point Richard dawkins was trying to make at all. are our genes selfish yes in the sense that they want to reproduce. but that does not mean we are selfish. its funny he actually had a lecture on this. he believes that altruism is caused by evolutionary development and that it is a good thing. Oh my god not another one. Fuck I thought you were smart.
thesparitan 2 years ago
I dont really want to be rude but its hard for me to see people so blind to facts. you say you believe in science and proof and I tell you I have proof and you besmirch my data and then misquote and misread dawkins right in front of me. Come on you just made a complete ass out of yourself. Im done this is a waste of my time. Youre another ideological hardcase. Why the fuck do I try with you people. Im sorry I just get angry with ignorance.
thesparitan 2 years ago
"Why the fuck do I try with you people."
Is this a rhetorical question or do you want an answer?
CrazyHorseInvincible 2 years ago
BigBoss, please do not defend Objectivism by saying that no study would have any bearing on what you believe. Try asking for the studies and application of game theory that "prove" Ayn Rand wrong and give specific objections. Usually they either can't come up with the studies or apply them in a bizarre way that simply has no relevance with anything Rand ever said. Saying outright that no collection of facts would apply makes you sound like a rationalist.
CrazyHorseInvincible 2 years ago
I'm not doing that, what I'm saying is that this fellow below seems to believe there is absolutely nothing to support the theory, I simply say that there is
bigboss686 2 years ago
Part 2
I dont believe in pure socialism, mixed socialism, of any theory about government or economics, for that matter, its to complex and we dont know enough. thats the problem with Marx, is he wanted to implement it. But he was a genius no doubt. Ayn rand was a genius, as long as you dont take what she said to be fact or something we should try, because its stupid. Your wrong because you state beyond what can be known. Its that simple And thats the fault
thesparitan 2 years ago
Part 3
It comes down to the problems of induction and deduction. You can always be the famous turkey. What is more difficult is seeing beyond deduction at its flaws, something which objectivist dont ever try to do. They will always be the turkey, and so will communist, and capitalist, and any ist that thinks it has the keys to the vault. They are all wrong because of the famous problems of deduction and induction. I will always know what is wrong but I will never know what is right.
thesparitan 2 years ago
An absolute balance of power is the essense of good government, to balance the power of governments, of individuals, and of any organization, NRA, corporations, etc, is the essense of good government.
The role of government is to reign in people and organizations that become too powerful.
Remember the maxim, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. This rule applies to every man, woman, child, government, corporation, and independant organization. There is no escaping it.
veridia 2 years ago
I don't know the context of this series of videos, but one problem with your argument stands out to me. "Progress" is not an adequate value, and the way you define it is devoid of meaning. You simply say progress from "early" civilization to more "advanced" civilization. You need to state a standard of value. For example, you could interpret "progress" in completely different ways if your standard is egalitarianism rather than if your standard is man's life. I do agree with you otherwise, though
HotSo0P 2 years ago
What a genius. Look at all the books behind him he must be really smart. What philosophers are being discussed today. Marx see Obama and Ayn Rand see the side of Individual rights.
dowhatyoufear 2 years ago
Please consider the time that Rand wrote. Rand wrote as a counter to the prevailing philosophy of the time: altruism and collectivization. She is still hated for this. Obviously she is not accepted academia. Most of today's academia by altruism/statism, and is the intellectual enemy of Rand. So I agree, she is not relevant by your definition of advancement and progress... yet. :o)
hsfbunny 2 years ago
Altruism was a part of the problem. Unbalanced power is the core and essense of the power. With power comes abuse, abuse by slave owners, by governments, by corporations, etc... every powerful organization engages in abuse. It is the law of nature.
veridia 2 years ago
i like this guy but i think he is totally wrong
thesparitan 2 years ago
you can't make an assertion like "he is totally wrong" adn then not explain why...
koblinsk 2 years ago
why do i have to explain why, its a opinion and one that is very easy to understand. if he is arguing that she was a important philosopher then he is right. if he is agruing that she is a great philosopher, that had some brillant ideas, then he is wrong
thesparitan 2 years ago
Empowering individuals is just as bad as empowering any other organizations. We've seen what it does, it creates bullies and abusers. Bullies intimidate with muscle, and we see what individuals do when they are empowered.
How is empowering the individual any better than empowering any other thing? Individuals are not saints, individuals abuse others too. Some people act like government is the great Satan, but the reality is, government is no better or worse than individuals.
veridia 2 years ago
I agree. I think there is a better way of saying this but I cannot think of one. I agree with everything you said. and I would like to also point out that altruism is a human impulse and is created from evolutionary pressures. further more numerous studies show that those that are altruistic are actually happier, healthier, and more productive
second individualism seems to be a cheap and ineffective way out of the problem of government. remember externalization.
thesparitan 2 years ago
Yeah everything is plagiarized.. Smith stole everything from Hume and Mill, Mises and Hayek stole their stuff from Malthus and Tooke, ect, ect.
Questfortruth86 2 years ago
That's not plagiarism, that's building on top of...
koblinsk 2 years ago
very good speech
jtgober87 2 years ago
The word progress has really done a lot of damage.
myheadhurtsnow 2 years ago 4
@myheadhurtsnow leftist use the word "progress" to mean socialism, communism, Nazism etc. Ayn Rand used the word to mean what it really means: discoveries by man like the combustion engine, electricity, democracy, freedom, justice, antibiotics, Cat scans, the Internet, telecommunications etc.
garybsg 1 year ago
@garybsg
If philosophy means anything then progress represents the attainment of wisdom. I suspect you failed to mention this because you still have not learned it. The internet is a mechanical contrivance not a form of wisdom. You can push a lawn mower or a computer mouse all day and make no progress in the pursuit of wisdom. If right wing ideology is your idea of progress as your post implies, what is your objection to Fascism? Why don't you explain your conception of Fascism to us hayseeds?
jazzbo66zz 1 year ago
@jazzbo66zz My right wind ideology of progress is individual respect for life, liberty and property. Fascism like communism and socialism all disrespect life, liberty and/or property in differing degrees. Their preeminent values are the Aryan race, the worker and the greater good not individualism. All negate or diminish the American values of individual freedom and justice. Thus my objection to fascism is the same for communism and socialism. Does that help you Mr. Hayseed.
garybsg 1 year ago
@garybsg
Fascism escapes you for precisely the reasons philosophy does not honor political ideologues like H Himmler, Ayn Rand or Rush Limbaugh. You unwittingly assume the world view of people like these when you let yourself be convinced that the world is governed by the principles of rhetoric. Fascism is the apotheosis of Capitalism, ruled not by "liberty" but by the capital structure of social economic & political power thus your "individual" is reduced to an appendage of the market
jazzbo66zz 1 year ago
@jazzbo66zz So I guess Hitler was respectful of life, liberty and property and I guess I don't have the right to buy what I want, live where I want, say I want, read what I want, protest what I want but instead I guess I'm just "apendaging" for the market? What ever the fuck that means. Is English your first language?
garybsg 1 year ago
@garybsg
The Fascists attacked liberalism because it seemed to them the principle premise of modern society. Theirs was a resentment of loneliness; their one desire was for a new faith, a new community of believers, a world with fixed standards and no doubts, a new national religion that would bind all Germans together. All this liberalism denied. Hence they hated liberalism, blamed it for making outcasts of them for uprooting them from their imaginary past, and from their faith. –Fritz Stern
jazzbo66zz 1 year ago
@jazzbo66zz What emotions people feel or don't feel is all irrelevant. It's their behavior that counts. The Nazis violated the life, liberty and property of it's citizens. Just like communism, Islamism and socialism they all have different drives, emotions and desires but they are all united in violating an individual's life, liberty or property for their "glorious" goals. You are missing this core understanding and muddling the truth with noise. America is the great exception to this trash.
garybsg 1 year ago 4
@garybsg
Yeah right, and your shit doesn't stink.
SovereignStatesman 5 months ago
@SovereignStatesman I love it when a person stops arguing and start insulting. It means they run of ideas.
garybsg 5 months ago
@garybsg
I can't argue with a fool.
SovereignStatesman 5 months ago
@SovereignStatesman No, you can't think is more correct.
garybsg 5 months ago
@garybsg
Yeah that's what fools always say.
SovereignStatesman 5 months ago
@SovereignStatesman like I said when a man resorts to insults, he is out of ideas. I rest my case. Goodbye
garybsg 5 months ago
@garybsg
Anyone who says America isn't corrupt, is a fool-- that's just a fact.
America STARTED global socialism-- whether you call it fascism or communism, it was all enabled by US imperialism under the Whig-expansionism.
Before that, socialism had been debunked in political science for over 2000 years as pure sophistry.
SovereignStatesman 5 months ago
@SovereignStatesman What rubbish. Socialism started in Germany which was a hotbed of socialistic ideas in the 1800s. People like Hindenburg, Marx, Krug etc all German. It never even reached America until about 1910. Take a history class before you spout bullshit.
garybsg 5 months ago
@garybsg
Then i guess Aristotle was a psychic, because his book "Politics" clearly expounds it.
Try getting your facts straight before douching off, if ever manage to pull your head out of your ass.
SovereignStatesman 5 months ago
@SovereignStatesman You, my friend, are confusing. You said that America started global socialism which I explained it did not. Socialism has been practiced to some extent since the Roman times but the pure philosophy is a modern invention by mostly Germans in the 1800s. America is known for FREEDOM and least friendly country on earth to socialism. Don't believe me, ask Obama. I say this with all seriousness and I'm not trying to be a jerk, you need a take a history class.
garybsg 5 months ago
@garybsg
"You said that America started global socialism which I explained it did not."
And you were WRONG.
"the pure philosophy is a modern invention by mostly Germans in the 1800s."
Unless you bother to study ancient Greece.
"is known for FREEDOM"
If you're REALLY gullible and believer EVERYTHING you're told.
"Don't believe me, ask Obama. I say this with all seriousness"
Ok, NOW i KNOW you're joking, NOBODY could be THAT stupid!
ROTFLMAO
SovereignStatesman 5 months ago
@SovereignStatesman I never said the US started socialism. The US is based on FREEDOM the opposite to socialism. Socialism is a total contradiction to American values.
btw: the Greeks had absolutely nothing to do with socialism. The Greeks contribution were in rational thinking and concepts such as democracy, justice, freedom. In fact, it was Aristotle's concept of individual freedom which greatly influenced Thomas Jefferson. A far cry from socialism
garybsg 5 months ago
@garybsg
I see you can't even UNDERSTAND QUOTATION-MARKS.
The US is an empire which pays LIP-SERVICE to freedom in order to FOOL idiots like you, while likewise paying lip-service to free-market capitalism while practicing CRONYISM.
And as I explained, the Greeks EXPOUNDED socialism as sophistry; but you seem learning-disabled, as I observed that you are a fool-idiot.
SovereignStatesman 5 months ago
@SovereignStatesman 1. Utter nonsense, complete left wing trash. The US is greatest freest country on earth. I know, I was born in the Soviet Union. 2. The Greeks talked about a lot of things but socialism was absolutely not a Greek idea. What a hypocrite American, you insult your own country but you won't live anywhere else. I hated the Soviet Union and I moved to the US. Why don't you leave the US. What a hypocrite bullshitter.
garybsg 4 months ago
@garybsg
It's obvious you didn't even watch my video, otherwise you wouldn't be saying such vapid nonsense.
I never said the Greeks invented socialism, don't you read English?
And the U.S. CREATED the Soviet Union, by fomenting Marxism in Europe during the Bellum-era, and then warmongering against Germany in 1914 and forcing the Czar of Russia to remain in the war at the expense of domestic control.
You don't have a clue what you're talking about, you just believe everything they tell you.
SovereignStatesman 4 months ago
@SovereignStatesman The US created the Soviet Union by creating Marxism in Europe? . Well, I can tell first hand since I was born and raised in the Soviet Union and my father was a member of the Soviet Politburo that you are utterly ignorant and I have no more interest in debating utter nonsense. Goodbye.
garybsg 4 months ago
@garybsg
"The US created the Soviet Union by creating Marxism in Europe?"
Those are YOUR words-- I suggest you go back and read mine. IN ENGLISH this time.
SovereignStatesman 4 months ago
@SovereignStatesman Dream on douche bag like I would say that utter bullshit.
garybsg 4 months ago
@garybsg
No, you're FULL of bullshit.
Go back to fucking Moscow if you can't read goddam English.
SovereignStatesman 4 months ago
@garybsg 99.9999% of what you said is correct. But the word "Islamism": this does not exist in the dictionary. It is equivalent to the word "McCarthyISM" that Ayn Rand talked about: false words can be advanced to argue anything, as they have no meaning. I champion Rand like you do too.
britishbrainz 6 days ago
@garybsg Of course Hitler was respectful of his own life and the lives of those who belonged to his volk. Just like most right wing americans. He just didnt give a flying fuck about the wellbeing of anybody outside of his little system. Just like adherents of Ayn Rands philosophy.
cuttlefishgem 9 months ago
@cuttlefishgem You mean the right wing Americans that wrote the constitution which revolutionized the world. No one country has done more for freedom then right wing Americans.
garybsg 9 months ago
@jazzbo66zz What you are indirectly positting is that personal wealth defines the limits of personal freedom, which is to a great extent true. You cannot honestly say that socialism puts less limitation on personal wealth than captialism. Capitalism allows and in many ways protects a system of wealth distribution which is based on individual accomplishment, and thus unequal; but it is in a system of forced equallity that no individual is free to acquire more wealth than his neighbours.
eggory 6 months ago
@garybsg I see, you refer to YOUR prosperity and YOUR Liberty and YOUR life. Socialism is the prosperity, liberty and life of ALLl more or less Equally with the state as a regulator, the middle is a much better answer socialism represent equilibrium, not capital or labor. thank you.
maloso305 9 months ago
@garybsg
Actually "Progressivism" began long ago in American history, and included those who implemented Prohibition, and mandatory sterilization of those they judged "unfit to breed."
It always means OPPRESSION.
SovereignStatesman 4 months ago
@SovereignStatesman that's not true when I look around there are plenty of liberals :)
garybsg 4 months ago
@garybsg
They're VERY stupid. :-D
According to Wikipedia, Progressivism is a political attitude favoring or advocating changes or reform through governmental action-- i.e. FASCISM. However such is inevitable once the government becomes the reigning sovereign, as it did under the Jackson-Lincoln empire by default.
SovereignStatesman 4 months ago
Look up the Wikipedia article "Progressivism in the United States" .
SovereignStatesman 4 months ago
@SovereignStatesman Prohibition is not progressive. The modern use of the word is to mean socialism. don't care what it use to mean.
garybsg 4 months ago