How Ayn Rand Became an American Icon

[Stosh]

How do you comment on that which you ignore? That either makes you a liar or very stupid.

You should ask yourself that very question, you do it every single day.

And in consequence, the second remark applies to you as well. Except more.

[ccbatson]

I do not claim to ignore anything [[you did).

Nice second retort...reminds me of something..now what would that be...??? I am rubber and you are glue? Yep that's it. Is that you way of saying that the latter option is that which should apply to you?

[Stosh]

I do not claim to ignore anything [[you did).

Nice second retort...reminds me of something..now what would that be...??? I am rubber and you are glue? Yep that's it. Is that you way of saying that the latter option is that which should apply to you?

You don't have to. The truth is evidenced by your posting strategies. Ignoring is your specialty. Despite the myriad evidences of truth and [[eek...) logic by many, you persist on floating your one line shit bombs on everybody here.

For someone that likes to quote the rules

That either makes you a liar or very stupid

Sounds a lot like name calling to me.

[ccbatson]

Look and read more closely...the conclusion is based on the action being either a lie, or stupid...not the person in general. IOW...in that instance, the person is either being stupid or a liar.

Nice try.

[Stosh]

Look and read more closely...the conclusion is based on the action being either a lie, or stupid...not the person in general. IOW...in that instance, the person is either being stupid or a liar.

Nice try.

Sorry pal, your passive agressive shit doesn't wash with me. . The conlcusion is derived from the accusative "you" in this phrase.

That either makes you a liar or very stupid.

And YOU, are a name caller. Plain and simple.

[East Detroit]

Look and read more closely...the conclusion is based on the action being either a lie, or stupid...not the person in general. IOW...in that instance, the person is either being stupid or a liar.

Nice try.

Try not acting like an asshole to everyone most of the time or people might start to think you are one in general.

You called him a name, so own up to it.

Anyone using their mind in that particular moment would and should know the difference between "being stupid or a liar" and "is stupid or a liar."

[rb336]

Nietzche is the failed philospopher too Rand's ground breaking successes.

That quote from Rand on altruism makes perfect sense...how could it not? it is rational and objective

It is definitively neither, as it has no basis in objective facts [[if you claim it dies -- prove it) and is highly irrational, as game theory shows over and over and over. groups that follow that philosophy always fail

[ccbatson]

What is the moral code of altruism? The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value.

Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. These are not primaries, but consequences, which, in fact, altruism makes impossible. The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute, is self-sacrifice—which means; self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial, self-destruction—which means: the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as a standard of the good.

Do not hide behind such superficialities as whether you should or should not give a dime to a beggar. That is not the issue. The issue is whether you do or do not have the right to exist without giving him that dime. The issue is whether you must keep buying your life, dime by dime, from any beggar who might choose to approach you. The issue is whether the need of others is the first mortgage on your life and the moral purpose of your existence. The issue is whether man is to be regarded as a sacrificial animal. Any man of self-esteem will answer: “No.” Altruism says: “Yes.”

The first paragraph is the definition of altruism...objectively.

The second is a logical [[rational) argument of how altruism is different than voluntary giving and how the former is rationally problematic and the latter is beneficial.

The last further rationally distinguishes voluntary giving versus flipping ideology such that the self comes after and below the many [[and the "needy").

These definitions and logical rational applications are most definitely factual in nature.

OK Rb...that was a softball hit out of the park by me...you got anything challenging?

[elganned]

What is the moral code of altruism? The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value.

False premise, begging the question, straw man, false dichotomy.

Altruism is not a moral code; it is qualifier of actions which may or may not be rooted in an individual's moral code. To posit it as an absolute moral code in itself [[she just loves absolutes, as do most conservatives) extends the definition unjustifiably beyond the commonly accepted meaning. [[False premise) Such an extension requires supporting argument, which she never develops. She simply makes a statement and then proceeds as if that statement was established. [[Begging the question)

She then uses her unsupported assumption as the straw man in a false dichotomy between the "moral code" of altruism and the "moral code" of selfishness.

Selfish and altruistic as motivators exist on a continuum, where any given action might partake of an infinitly variable mix of the two, changing not only from person to person but from moment to moment and situation to situation.

The first paragraph is the definition of altruism...objectively.

Which I have just demonstrated is bogus. And since argument developed from a false assumption is, itself, false, the rest of it is moot.

OK Rb...that was a softball hit out of the park by me...you got anything challenging?

That was complete whiff by you. Strike three, you're out.

[Stosh]

Actual altruism is certainly not the deceptive diatribe you and your Lego based [[as you say) friend espouse. Only thing is you left the most important things relevant to Ms. Lego's speech.

It's certainly a truly sad commentary when an animated puppet makes more sense than an actual person.

[East Detroit]

Look and read more closely...the conclusion is based on the action being either a lie, or stupid...not the person in general. IOW...in that instance, the person is either being stupid or a liar.

Nice try.

You called him a name. Own up to it, like a man.

[rb336]

The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute, is self-sacrifice—which means; self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial, self-destruction—which means: , the selfless as a standard of the good.

The first paragraph is the definition of altruism...objectively.

there is nothing objective at all about Rand's re-definition of it -- "the self as a standard of evil" -- it is to fit her tiny little world and tiny little minds of her minions

Strike one

Do not hide behind such superficialities as whether you should or should not give a dime to a beggar. That is not the issue. The issue is whether you do or do not have the right to exist without giving him that dime. The issue is whether you must keep buying your life, dime by dime, from any beggar who might choose to approach you. The issue is whether the need of others is the first mortgage on your life and the moral purpose of your existence. The issue is whether man is to be regarded as a sacrificial animal. Any man of self-esteem will answer: “No.� Altruism says: “Yes.�

The second is a logical [[rational) argument of how altruism is different than voluntary giving and how the former is rationally problematic and the latter is beneficial.

no, the second is merely a straw man argument -- "The issue is whether you do or do not have the right to exist without giving him that dime." There is no such thought or mechanism behind the concept of altruism. In fact, altruistic behavior is behavior that is NOT forced [[except, of course, in the secondary zoological definition) since altruism is a philosophical choice.

strike 2

The last further rationally distinguishes voluntary giving versus flipping ideology such that the self comes after and below the many [[and the "needy").

will just call that a foul ball

These definitions and logical rational applications are most definitely factual in nature.

there is nothing rational or logical about them -- they require twisting definitions to suit a dogmatic world view. by definition, that is 1) not logical, 2) not rational and 3) definitively NOT objective

QED and strike three

[ccbatson]

Your error is in the premise which was clarified by Rand

You say "give" a dime...altruism posits that the person in need of the dime, by some authority [[moral) supercedes the right of the owner's right to his dime.

[elganned]

The error is Rand's. The premise that "altruism" is a "moral code" is flawed.

What she describes as "altruistic" behavior in her straw-man argument regarding the dime is actually an extreme form of co-dependency, which is universally recognized as a pathology and abnormal.

The corresponding "selfish" behavior is a form of narcissism, also a pathology.

Neither are "moral codes".

[rb336]

Your error is in the premise which was clarified by Rand

You say "give" a dime...altruism posits that the person in need of the dime, by some authority [[moral) supercedes the right of the owner's right to his dime.

frankly, that comment is just too moronic to even begin to take seriously. only in the twisted minds of Rand and her thoughtless drones does altruism posit that at all

[Stosh]

Here's a real writer. Enjoy:

http://www.emba.uvm.edu/~wilson/aynrand.pdf

[elganned]

I like it.

[ccbatson]

No substantive reply again Rb....sigh.

[ccbatson]

Too bad the reproduction of that passage you linked to was unable to reproduce it in its' original crayon.

[East Detroit]

Too bad the reproduction of that passage you linked to was unable to reproduce it in its' original crayon.

Too bad you still haven't owned up to calling someone names.

Keep ignoring it. Makes you look like even more of an asshole than you looked like when you did it. Not to say that you're an asshole, just that you give the appearance of one when you do such things.

[elganned]

"I'm not an asshole, but I play one on TV."

[Stosh]

Too bad the reproduction of that passage you linked to was unable to reproduce it in its' original crayon.

It's too bad Rand took over a thousand pages to distill the needed thoughts generated in what took him three.
Typical stunted thought processes by Rand, in any event.

[elganned]

Her writing style is tedious, to say the least.

I remember reading Atlas Shrugged when I was in college. There came a point in the middle of the book when John Galt was delivering a message on the TV; after three pages, I just started skipping forward and if the page began with quote marks just moving on. When the quote marks disappeared [[after about 30 pages) I started reading again. Just endless repititions of the same message, over and over and over and over...

Her editor should have sat her down and had a long talk with her.

[Detroitej72]

Her writing style is tedious, to say the least.

Rand can compress the most words into the smallest ideas of anyone I've ever read. She perfected the use of ten words where one would have done.

[ccbatson]

It isn't the volume and number of words that confounds you, it is the realization of the rightness of the ideas contrary to your programed liberal beliefs.