Author Topic: "azcat shrugged" is very funny  (Read 3338 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline sys

  • Contributor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 33242
  • your reputation will never recover, nor should it.
    • View Profile
"azcat shrugged" is very funny
« on: July 01, 2010, 06:18:50 PM »
good job, whoever named that.


(Want to get rid of the ad? Register now for free!)
we understand it better now that the american century is over and some of us sound more and more like serbs.

Offline pike

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 5138
  • BIG GREEN EGG!!!!
    • View Profile
Re: "azcat shrugged" is very funny
« Reply #1 on: July 01, 2010, 06:23:40 PM »
I miss my conspiracy corner

Offline AzCat

  • Combo-Fan
  • **
  • Posts: 949
    • View Profile
Re: "azcat shrugged" is very funny
« Reply #2 on: July 03, 2010, 02:11:17 PM »
 :gocho:  :pbj: :driving:

Offline Dlew12

  • PCKK7DC Survivor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *******
  • Posts: 19096
  • #TeamChestHair
    • View Profile
Re: "azcat shrugged" is very funny
« Reply #3 on: July 04, 2010, 01:50:30 AM »
eff ayn rand.

Seriously, "ayn"?  GMAFB.


"You want to stand next to someone and not be able to hear them, walk your ass into Manhattan, Kansas." - [REDACTED]

Offline Cire

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 14404
    • View Profile
Re: "azcat shrugged" is very funny
« Reply #4 on: July 04, 2010, 10:35:46 AM »
very clever. 

Offline AzCat

  • Combo-Fan
  • **
  • Posts: 949
    • View Profile
Re: "azcat shrugged" is very funny
« Reply #5 on: July 05, 2010, 10:19:39 AM »
Barack Obama is a mix of the worst elements of Wesley Mouch, James Taggart, Balph Eubank, Cuffy Meigs, and Mr. Thompson.   :users:

Offline Jeffy

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 1590
  • Hello Wilbur.
    • View Profile
Re: "azcat shrugged" is very funny
« Reply #6 on: July 05, 2010, 10:43:25 AM »
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.

Offline Dlew12

  • PCKK7DC Survivor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *******
  • Posts: 19096
  • #TeamChestHair
    • View Profile
Re: "azcat shrugged" is very funny
« Reply #7 on: July 06, 2010, 12:21:40 AM »
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.


"You want to stand next to someone and not be able to hear them, walk your ass into Manhattan, Kansas." - [REDACTED]

Offline ben ji

  • Senior Moderator
  • PCKK7DC Survivor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *******
  • Posts: 7561
  • Alot of people dont hit on an 18
    • View Profile
Re: "azcat shrugged" is very funny
« Reply #8 on: July 06, 2010, 09:09:41 AM »
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"

Offline reidrolled

  • Combo-Fan
  • **
  • Posts: 315
    • View Profile
Re: "azcat shrugged" is very funny
« Reply #9 on: July 07, 2010, 08:18:57 AM »
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?

Online michigancat

  • Contributor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 40102
  • change your stupid avatar.
    • View Profile
Re: "azcat shrugged" is very funny
« Reply #10 on: July 07, 2010, 10:33:39 AM »
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.

Offline reidrolled

  • Combo-Fan
  • **
  • Posts: 315
    • View Profile
Re: "azcat shrugged" is very funny
« Reply #11 on: July 07, 2010, 12:09:07 PM »
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

Online michigancat

  • Contributor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 40102
  • change your stupid avatar.
    • View Profile
Re: "azcat shrugged" is very funny
« Reply #12 on: July 07, 2010, 12:32:01 PM »
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?

Offline mortons toe

  • Combo-Fan
  • **
  • Posts: 324
    • View Profile
Re: "azcat shrugged" is very funny
« Reply #13 on: July 07, 2010, 05:19:15 PM »

Quote
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:
« Last Edit: July 07, 2010, 05:22:37 PM by mortons toe »

Offline Dirty Sanchez

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 1749
    • View Profile
Re: "azcat shrugged" is very funny
« Reply #14 on: July 07, 2010, 06:10:09 PM »
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.

Offline Dlew12

  • PCKK7DC Survivor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *******
  • Posts: 19096
  • #TeamChestHair
    • View Profile
Re: "azcat shrugged" is very funny
« Reply #15 on: July 07, 2010, 06:48:38 PM »
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.


"You want to stand next to someone and not be able to hear them, walk your ass into Manhattan, Kansas." - [REDACTED]

Offline 06wildcat

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 1663
    • View Profile
Re: "azcat shrugged" is very funny
« Reply #16 on: July 07, 2010, 06:57:16 PM »
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.

Offline ben ji

  • Senior Moderator
  • PCKK7DC Survivor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *******
  • Posts: 7561
  • Alot of people dont hit on an 18
    • View Profile
Re: "azcat shrugged" is very funny
« Reply #17 on: July 08, 2010, 09:27:56 AM »
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"

Offline 06wildcat

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 1663
    • View Profile
Re: "azcat shrugged" is very funny
« Reply #18 on: July 08, 2010, 12:33:13 PM »
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."

Offline reidrolled

  • Combo-Fan
  • **
  • Posts: 315
    • View Profile
Re: "azcat shrugged" is very funny
« Reply #19 on: July 08, 2010, 03:44:32 PM »
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.

Offline Chingon

  • Master of the Atom
  • Administrator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 15042
    • View Profile
    • goEMAW.com
Re: "azcat shrugged" is very funny
« Reply #20 on: July 08, 2010, 05:53:10 PM »
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.

Offline 06wildcat

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 1663
    • View Profile
Re: "azcat shrugged" is very funny
« Reply #21 on: July 08, 2010, 06:42:37 PM »
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:

Offline AzCat

  • Combo-Fan
  • **
  • Posts: 949
    • View Profile
Re: "azcat shrugged" is very funny
« Reply #22 on: July 09, 2010, 12:49:41 AM »
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. 

Offline 06wildcat

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 1663
    • View Profile
Re: "azcat shrugged" is very funny
« Reply #23 on: July 09, 2010, 01:37:13 AM »
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.

Offline AzCat

  • Combo-Fan
  • **
  • Posts: 949
    • View Profile
Re: "azcat shrugged" is very funny
« Reply #24 on: July 10, 2010, 04:05:50 PM »
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:

Quote from: 06wildcat
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.