Thanks for recognizing that. Finally you admit the truth.
Her speicial form of stupidity and vile selfishness has no place in civil society.
Recognizing that you are wrong [[serially) and that Rand herself explained the origins of her world view which I just paraphrased? You find that a revelation somehow?
Read the book of her compiled speeches, round tables, etc. You are speaking under the influence of misconceptions born from ignorance.
I can only speak from the ignorance eminating from her own words and philosophy. It is what it is. You can't put lipstick on a pig and expect it to be beautiful. And what a pig she is.
Sigh...if I must hold your hand:
Letters of Ayn Rand. Ed. by Michael Berliner. New York: Plume, 1995.
Journals of Ayn Rand. Ed. by David Harriman. New York: Plume, 1997.
Which also lead one back to the psychotic child killer she admires so, the ideal man. How convenient.
Nope...he doesn't appear in those books. Of course, I shouldn't expect you to know that until you have read them.
Certainly he does.... Roark, Galt, etc. All psychotic to some extent, all antisocial. Flawed, pitifully maladjusted. Who else would blow up an orphanage, although empty?
You must be purposely playing dumb here...the books THAT I REFERENCED if that wasn't already painfully obvious [[it was, but I am being nice).
No child killers or kidnappers amongst those characters anyway.
It doesn't matter what book you pull out, they are all the same sort of potential psychopathic characters within the pages. Flawed human beings, uncaring. Pitiful role models for anyone with any sensibility about them.
It matters when engaged in a debate where logic and consistency is the framework for the interaction. You change the premise arbitrarily when cornered and expect it to fly? Not aworkable strategy if you hope to make a strong argument.
That's a funny tactical retort from someone that continually uses it on a daily basis. It flies like Dumbo. Just fine. But you can't see the forest for the trees. Another notch in my keyboard, I'm keeping score.
Problem is..I don't do that, and you just did. Here is a hint, if you are going to make an allegation, it is best to do it in a timely fashion as I did...following the occurrence. That way you have proof. On the other hand, your "I am rubber, you are glue" approach is not very effective.
Sad, pathertic and weak. Rubber and glue again. How quaint and old timey. Just like your ideas. 1940's.Problem is..I don't do that, and you just did. Here is a hint, if you are going to make an allegation, it is best to do it in a timely fashion as I did...following the occurrence. That way you have proof. On the other hand, your "I am rubber, you are glue" approach is not very effective.
Not rubber and glue...I just explained the method of making it substantive...either provide an example, or follow the offending comment with the response...otherwise it is an arbitrary contradiction [[see Monty Python)
I may as well talk to the freaking wall for all the good it does me.
You can just as easily just make your own posts more substantive, generally by not posting them. But you obviously have no interest in doing that.
Taking a leaf from Rb's book this time Stosh? Nothing to back up your claims whatsoever this time. It doesn't work for him, why do you think it will for you?
The above quote is precisely whay I had been talking about here,as well as in other threads. Your miserable attempts at misdirection, ignoring what the actual topic is, changing subjects.
You do it all, and being a name caller doesn't help matters either.
Arbitrary meaning without supporting arguments....I always provide that.
Is there a drug that regresses liberals too 2nd grade level used by liberal patrons of Dyes?
|
Bookmarks