goemaw.com
General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: sys on July 01, 2010, 06:18:50 PM
-
good job, whoever named that.
-
I miss my conspiracy corner
-
:gocho: :pbj: :driving:
-
eff ayn rand.
Seriously, "ayn"? GMAFB.
-
very clever.
-
Barack Obama is a mix of the worst elements of Wesley Mouch, James Taggart, Balph Eubank, Cuffy Meigs, and Mr. Thompson. :users:
-
Barack Obama is a mix of the worst elements of Wesley Mouch, James Taggart, Balph Eubank, Cuffy Meigs, and Mr. Thompson. :users:
Chances that most everyone here knows those names? Slim to none.
But you are correct.
-
Barack Obama is a mix of the worst elements of Wesley Mouch, James Taggart, Balph Eubank, Cuffy Meigs, and Mr. Thompson. :users:
Chances that most everyone here knows those names? Slim to none.
But you are correct.
eff ayn rand.
Seriously, "ayn"? GMAFB.
-
Barack Obama is a mix of the worst elements of Wesley Mouch, James Taggart, Balph Eubank, Cuffy Meigs, and Mr. Thompson. :users:
Chances that most everyone here knows those names? Slim to none.
But you are correct.
Actually just finished the book, a little long and I didnt like the ending but overall a good book. Favorite quote "I work for no man's need but my own"
-
So I started reading this at the beginning of the summer whenever I had time and am about halfway done with it.... Its really easy to see Ayn Rands side of why objectivism is a philosophy, but she obviously isnt going to put any sort of legitimate opposing view in her book. That being said, is there anyone that has read the book and has a sound argument against her ideals? or can tell me what is wrong with the principles that she puts in her writings?
-
So I started reading this at the beginning of the summer whenever I had time and am about halfway done with it.... Its really easy to see Ayn Rands side of why objectivism is a philosophy, but she obviously isnt going to put any sort of legitimate opposing view in her book. That being said, is there anyone that has read the book and has a sound argument against her ideals? or can tell me what is wrong with the principles that she puts in her writings?
The problem is she creates a gigantic strawman argument set in a ridiculous fantasy land. The storyline is somewhat entertaining, though.
-
So I started reading this at the beginning of the summer whenever I had time and am about halfway done with it.... Its really easy to see Ayn Rands side of why objectivism is a philosophy, but she obviously isnt going to put any sort of legitimate opposing view in her book. That being said, is there anyone that has read the book and has a sound argument against her ideals? or can tell me what is wrong with the principles that she puts in her writings?
The problem is she creates a gigantic strawman argument set in a ridiculous fantasy land. The storyline is somewhat entertaining, though.
Yeah i get that... What I'm wondering is what are the legitimate arguments to her philosophy of objectivism.
http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_intro
-
So I started reading this at the beginning of the summer whenever I had time and am about halfway done with it.... Its really easy to see Ayn Rands side of why objectivism is a philosophy, but she obviously isnt going to put any sort of legitimate opposing view in her book. That being said, is there anyone that has read the book and has a sound argument against her ideals? or can tell me what is wrong with the principles that she puts in her writings?
The problem is she creates a gigantic strawman argument set in a ridiculous fantasy land. The storyline is somewhat entertaining, though.
Yeah i get that... What I'm wondering is what are the legitimate arguments to her philosophy of objectivism.
http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_intro
Isn't the fact that it chooses to ignore reality a legitimate argument against it?
-
The problem is she creates a gigantic strawman argument set in a ridiculous fantasy land. The storyline is somewhat entertaining, though.
the irony in this statement is amazing! :eye:
-
So I started reading this at the beginning of the summer whenever I had time and am about halfway done with it.... Its really easy to see Ayn Rands side of why objectivism is a philosophy, but she obviously isnt going to put any sort of legitimate opposing view in her book. That being said, is there anyone that has read the book and has a sound argument against her ideals? or can tell me what is wrong with the principles that she puts in her writings?
The problem is she creates a gigantic strawman argument set in a ridiculous fantasy land. The storyline is somewhat entertaining, though.
You probably describe Animal Farm the same way.
-
So I started reading this at the beginning of the summer whenever I had time and am about halfway done with it.... Its really easy to see Ayn Rands side of why objectivism is a philosophy, but she obviously isnt going to put any sort of legitimate opposing view in her book. That being said, is there anyone that has read the book and has a sound argument against her ideals? or can tell me what is wrong with the principles that she puts in her writings?
The problem is she creates a gigantic strawman argument set in a ridiculous fantasy land. The storyline is somewhat entertaining, though.
You probably describe Animal Farm the same way.
Atlas Shrugged is about a thousand pages longer than Animal Farm and Rand is no Orwell.
-
So I started reading this at the beginning of the summer whenever I had time and am about halfway done with it.... Its really easy to see Ayn Rands side of why objectivism is a philosophy, but she obviously isnt going to put any sort of legitimate opposing view in her book. That being said, is there anyone that has read the book and has a sound argument against her ideals? or can tell me what is wrong with the principles that she puts in her writings?
The problem is she creates a gigantic strawman argument set in a ridiculous fantasy land. The storyline is somewhat entertaining, though.
You probably describe Animal Farm the same way.
Ignoring the new straw man fallacy introduced to the thread ...
Would you accept that Rand treats premises as universally valid while only proving them as usually valid. Asserting something is tautological because it usually works fails simple logic.
To answer you reidrolled, the idea that innovators are exploited by society (government) essentially takes a perverse look at how our world actually works. In reality, it's far more common for private innovators to be exploited by other private entities. Sometimes those private entities even enlist the government in exploiting those innovators.
Also, by extolling the sins of government, Rand fails to comprehend two things:
1. Not all innovators are driven by profit. (There are countless examples of people that invent/improve things with no end goal of making a profit)
2. Innovators that do seek a profit often rely on the government to protect their investments in inventions/improvements. This is also how private entities (innovators) use the government to stifle/prevent competition. Disney is a prime example of this in regards to copyright and trademark law.
-
So I started reading this at the beginning of the summer whenever I had time and am about halfway done with it.... Its really easy to see Ayn Rands side of why objectivism is a philosophy, but she obviously isnt going to put any sort of legitimate opposing view in her book. That being said, is there anyone that has read the book and has a sound argument against her ideals? or can tell me what is wrong with the principles that she puts in her writings?
The problem is she creates a gigantic strawman argument set in a ridiculous fantasy land. The storyline is somewhat entertaining, though.
You probably describe Animal Farm the same way.
Ignoring the new straw man fallacy introduced to the thread ...
Would you accept that Rand treats premises as universally valid while only proving them as usually valid. Asserting something is tautological because it usually works fails simple logic.
To answer you reidrolled, the idea that innovators are exploited by society (government) essentially takes a perverse look at how our world actually works. In reality, it's far more common for private innovators to be exploited by other private entities. Sometimes those private entities even enlist the government in exploiting those innovators.
Also, by extolling the sins of government, Rand fails to comprehend two things:
1. Not all innovators are driven by profit. (There are countless examples of people that invent/improve things with no end goal of making a profit)
2. Innovators that do seek a profit often rely on the government to protect their investments in inventions/improvements. This is also how private entities (innovators) use the government to stifle/prevent competition. Disney is a prime example of this in regards to copyright and trademark law.
I'm pretty sure all(99%) innovators are driven by profit. As John Stosel would say "Greed is good"
-
So I started reading this at the beginning of the summer whenever I had time and am about halfway done with it.... Its really easy to see Ayn Rands side of why objectivism is a philosophy, but she obviously isnt going to put any sort of legitimate opposing view in her book. That being said, is there anyone that has read the book and has a sound argument against her ideals? or can tell me what is wrong with the principles that she puts in her writings?
The problem is she creates a gigantic strawman argument set in a ridiculous fantasy land. The storyline is somewhat entertaining, though.
You probably describe Animal Farm the same way.
Ignoring the new straw man fallacy introduced to the thread ...
Would you accept that Rand treats premises as universally valid while only proving them as usually valid. Asserting something is tautological because it usually works fails simple logic.
To answer you reidrolled, the idea that innovators are exploited by society (government) essentially takes a perverse look at how our world actually works. In reality, it's far more common for private innovators to be exploited by other private entities. Sometimes those private entities even enlist the government in exploiting those innovators.
Also, by extolling the sins of government, Rand fails to comprehend two things:
1. Not all innovators are driven by profit. (There are countless examples of people that invent/improve things with no end goal of making a profit)
2. Innovators that do seek a profit often rely on the government to protect their investments in inventions/improvements. This is also how private entities (innovators) use the government to stifle/prevent competition. Disney is a prime example of this in regards to copyright and trademark law.
I'm pretty sure all(99%) innovators are driven by profit. As John Stosel would say "Greed is good"
Ignoring the fallacy of all being 99 percent (which is still enough to disprove Rand BTW), you're claiming all artists only create art for profit (not true), without profit, there would be no new music either (not true), without profit some guy wouldn't just invent widget A because it makes his life easier (not true). Etc. Etc.
I'm not denying that profit is a powerful motivator. I'm simply disproving Rand's thesis that it's the only motivator. For Rand to be right every conceivable innovation must be done solely for profit. Providing just one innovation that has no goal of making a profit disproves the entire thesis.
There's a reason the saying goes "Necessity is the mother of invention" and not "Profit is the mother of invention."
-
So I started reading this at the beginning of the summer whenever I had time and am about halfway done with it.... Its really easy to see Ayn Rands side of why objectivism is a philosophy, but she obviously isnt going to put any sort of legitimate opposing view in her book. That being said, is there anyone that has read the book and has a sound argument against her ideals? or can tell me what is wrong with the principles that she puts in her writings?
The problem is she creates a gigantic strawman argument set in a ridiculous fantasy land. The storyline is somewhat entertaining, though.
You probably describe Animal Farm the same way.
Ignoring the new straw man fallacy introduced to the thread ...
Would you accept that Rand treats premises as universally valid while only proving them as usually valid. Asserting something is tautological because it usually works fails simple logic.
To answer you reidrolled, the idea that innovators are exploited by society (government) essentially takes a perverse look at how our world actually works. In reality, it's far more common for private innovators to be exploited by other private entities. Sometimes those private entities even enlist the government in exploiting those innovators.
Also, by extolling the sins of government, Rand fails to comprehend two things:
1. Not all innovators are driven by profit. (There are countless examples of people that invent/improve things with no end goal of making a profit)
2. Innovators that do seek a profit often rely on the government to protect their investments in inventions/improvements. This is also how private entities (innovators) use the government to stifle/prevent competition. Disney is a prime example of this in regards to copyright and trademark law.
It seems to me that she believes that innovation, for whatever reason is a good thing. anyone trying to prevent innovation, for whatever reason, is doing wrong in her view.
-
So I started reading this at the beginning of the summer whenever I had time and am about halfway done with it.... Its really easy to see Ayn Rands side of why objectivism is a philosophy, but she obviously isnt going to put any sort of legitimate opposing view in her book. That being said, is there anyone that has read the book and has a sound argument against her ideals? or can tell me what is wrong with the principles that she puts in her writings?
The problem is she creates a gigantic strawman argument set in a ridiculous fantasy land. The storyline is somewhat entertaining, though.
You probably describe Animal Farm the same way.
Ignoring the new straw man fallacy introduced to the thread ...
Would you accept that Rand treats premises as universally valid while only proving them as usually valid. Asserting something is tautological because it usually works fails simple logic.
To answer you reidrolled, the idea that innovators are exploited by society (government) essentially takes a perverse look at how our world actually works. In reality, it's far more common for private innovators to be exploited by other private entities. Sometimes those private entities even enlist the government in exploiting those innovators.
Also, by extolling the sins of government, Rand fails to comprehend two things:
1. Not all innovators are driven by profit. (There are countless examples of people that invent/improve things with no end goal of making a profit)
2. Innovators that do seek a profit often rely on the government to protect their investments in inventions/improvements. This is also how private entities (innovators) use the government to stifle/prevent competition. Disney is a prime example of this in regards to copyright and trademark law.
It seems to me that she believes that innovation, for whatever reason is a good thing. anyone trying to prevent innovation, for whatever reason, is doing wrong in her view.
Well you misunderstand her and objectivism then.
-
So I started reading this at the beginning of the summer whenever I had time and am about halfway done with it.... Its really easy to see Ayn Rands side of why objectivism is a philosophy, but she obviously isnt going to put any sort of legitimate opposing view in her book. That being said, is there anyone that has read the book and has a sound argument against her ideals? or can tell me what is wrong with the principles that she puts in her writings?
The problem is she creates a gigantic strawman argument set in a ridiculous fantasy land. The storyline is somewhat entertaining, though.
You probably describe Animal Farm the same way.
Ignoring the new straw man fallacy introduced to the thread ...
Would you accept that Rand treats premises as universally valid while only proving them as usually valid. Asserting something is tautological because it usually works fails simple logic.
To answer you reidrolled, the idea that innovators are exploited by society (government) essentially takes a perverse look at how our world actually works. In reality, it's far more common for private innovators to be exploited by other private entities. Sometimes those private entities even enlist the government in exploiting those innovators.
Also, by extolling the sins of government, Rand fails to comprehend two things:
1. Not all innovators are driven by profit. (There are countless examples of people that invent/improve things with no end goal of making a profit)
2. Innovators that do seek a profit often rely on the government to protect their investments in inventions/improvements. This is also how private entities (innovators) use the government to stifle/prevent competition. Disney is a prime example of this in regards to copyright and trademark law.
It seems to me that she believes that innovation, for whatever reason is a good thing. anyone trying to prevent innovation, for whatever reason, is doing wrong in her view.
Seriously? :facepalm:
-
I'm not denying that profit is a powerful motivator. I'm simply disproving Rand's thesis that it's the only motivator. For Rand to be right every conceivable innovation must be done solely for profit. Providing just one innovation that has no goal of making a profit disproves the entire thesis.
Your "proof" fails utterly in that every major protagonist in Atlas Shrugged, Rand's exposition of her Objectivist Philosophy, voluntarily gave up great wealth or the potential for great wealth for a more basic life that lacked the trappings of great wealth. Further, in the descriptions of these characters at work, they are described as working for the joy of work itself rather than from any desire to profit thereby. Thus "profit", at least in the narrow sense in which you've utilized the term, cannot be the "only" impetus for innovation.
-
Pretty sure my point was that profit isn't the "only" impetus for innovation. As for voluntarily giving up great wealth, no crap. That's the whole point of the novel. The protagonists are on strike from innovating because they felt the government was exploiting their innovations.
-
Pretty sure my point was that profit isn't the "only" impetus for innovation. As for voluntarily giving up great wealth, no crap. That's the whole point of the novel. The protagonists are on strike from innovating because they felt the government was exploiting their innovations.
Pretty sure your "point", to the extent that you're capable of stringing words together coherently enough to make one was:
I'm not denying that profit is a powerful motivator. I'm simply disproving Rand's thesis that it's the only motivator. For Rand to be right every conceivable innovation must be done solely for profit. Providing just one innovation that has no goal of making a profit disproves the entire thesis.
Or at least you represented that tripe as your thoughts on the matter.
You are, however, utterly wrong about Rand's thesis. You're so wrong, as a matter of fact, that it would be difficult for you to be any more wrong. Consider, for example, the actions of John Galt, the living embodiment of Rand's philosophy: Galt develops a new form of generator while working at Twentieth Century Motor Cars but destroys, rather than commercializes, it. Why? Similarly he develops several new technologies at his laboratory in the city but utilizes them for his own ends and does not seek to profit from any of them. Again, why? If your formulation of Rand's thesis is correct then she did not understand her own thesis when she developed Galt to embody it as he innovates without a profit motive. In other words: Galt, standing alone, *COMPLETELY* disproves your assertion as to Rand's thesis ... well, unless you believe that you understand Rand's philosophy better than she did when she authored it.
-
heh.
http://www.mcsweeneys.net/2010/8/12hague.html