|
Post by anubis on Sept 5, 2012 1:12:10 GMT
(note Anubis had no response to the substance of the criticism): Absolute nonsense, once again, and doubly so for having come from the same source.
|
|
|
Post by anubis on Sept 5, 2012 1:21:49 GMT
(The proper term is "Hate Speech." Get it right) “Speak” in this context is a colloquial reference to peculiarities of speech characteristic of a particular group. Thus we may have “ political speak” (e.g. dog-whistle politics) or “mason speak (e.g., "meet on the level"). “Hate speak” can be a useful term in reference to Randoids speaking of the primacy of individual rights, when referring to over-privileged individuals, including tycoons exploiting the system under the guise of so-called "rights" they have wrangled and manipulated for themselves (this was the context in which Rand was arguing). The primacy of individual rights extends to all individuals, not just tycoons, as you so categorize it. It is also most certainly not the context in which Rand used it, it is your particular interpretation as filtered through your hatred of those who have more than do you, or those unfortunates you so deign to champion. Instead of distortions through the lens of hatred, let us, instead, see what she says, in context on the subject of individual rights: "Individual rights is the only proper principle of human coexistence, because it rests on man’s nature, i.e., the nature and requirements of a conceptual consciousness. Man gains enormous values from dealing with other men; living in a human society is his proper way of life—but only on certain conditions. Man is not a lone wolf and he is not a social animal. He is a contractual animal. He has to plan his life long-range, make his own choices, and deal with other men by voluntary agreement (and he has to be able to rely on their observance of the agreements they entered)." “A Nation’s Unity,” The Ayn Rand Letter, II, 2, 3 "Since Man has inalienable individual rights, this means that the same rights are held, individually, by every man, by all men, at all times. Therefore, the rights of one man cannot and must not violate the rights of another. For instance: a man has the right to live, but he has no right to take the life of another. He has the right to be free, but no right to enslave another. He has the right to choose his own happiness, but no right to decide that his happiness lies in the misery (or murder or robbery or enslavement) of another. The very right upon which he acts defines the same right of another man, and serves as a guide to tell him what he may or may not do." “Textbook of Americanism,” The Ayn Rand Column, 84 A right cannot be violated except by physical force. One man cannot deprive another of his life, nor enslave him, nor forbid him to pursue his happiness, except by using force against him. Whenever a man is made to act without his own free, personal, individual, voluntary consent—his right has been violated. Therefore, we can draw a clear-cut division between the rights of one man and those of another. It is an objective division—not subject to differences of opinion, nor to majority decision, nor to the arbitrary decree of society. No man has the right to initiate the use of physical force against another man. “Textbook of Americanism,” The Ayn Rand Column, 85 Sure sounds like hate, now doesn't it?
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Sept 5, 2012 1:42:30 GMT
“Speak” in this context is a colloquial reference to peculiarities of speech characteristic of a particular group. Thus we may have “political speak” (e.g. dog-whistle politics) or “mason speak (e.g., "meet on the level"). “Hate speak” can be a useful term in reference to Randoids speaking of the primacy of individual rights, when referring to over-privileged individuals, including tycoons exploiting the system under the guise of so-called "rights" they have wrangled and manipulated for themselves (this was the context in which Rand was arguing). The primacy of individual rights extends to all individuals, not just tycoons, as you so categorize it. It is also most certainly not the context in which Rand used it, it is your particular interpretation as filtered through your hatred of those who have more than do you, or those unfortunates you so deign to champion.I was referring to, " Americas Persecuted Minority: Big Business," in which she argued against anti-trust laws for infringing on individual liberties.
|
|
|
Post by anubis on Sept 5, 2012 2:36:00 GMT
Objectivism is all about hate and disgust for those so unfortunate as to not make "superman" status. Nowhere did Rand ever advocate a "superman." That was Friedrich Nietzsche, and this is what she had to say on him: Philosophically, Nietzsche is a mystic and an irrationalist. His metaphysics consists of a somewhat “Byronic” and mystically “malevolent” universe; his epistemology subordinates reason to “will,” or feeling or instinct or blood or innate virtues of character. But, as a poet, he projects at times (not consistently) a magnificent feeling for man’s greatness, expressed in emotional, not intellectual, terms. “Introduction to The Fountainhead,” The Objectivist, March 1968, 6 Nietzsche’s rebellion against altruism consisted of replacing the sacrifice of oneself to others by the sacrifice of others to oneself. He proclaimed that the ideal man is moved, not by reason, but by his “blood,” by his innate instincts, feelings and will to power—that he is predestined by birth to rule others and sacrifice them to himself, while they are predestined by birth to be his victims and slaves—that reason, logic, principles are futile and debilitating, that morality is useless, that the “superman” is “beyond good and evil,” that he is a “beast of prey” whose ultimate standard is nothing but his own whim. Thus Nietzsche’s rejection of the Witch Doctor consisted of elevating Attila into a moral ideal—which meant: a double surrender of morality to the Witch Doctor. “For the New Intellectual,” For the New Intellectual, 36
|
|
commiegirl
Member
From each according to their wants to each according to their needs.
Posts: 110
|
Post by commiegirl on Sept 5, 2012 4:59:41 GMT
Rand wasn't very bright, nor was she very clever. Her analysis of history is totally wrong, this is one fine example.
"It is capitalism that abolished serfdom and slavery in all the civilized countries of the world. It is the capitalist North that destroyed the slavery of the agrarian-feudal South in the United States."- Ayn Rand
Umm, the slave trade wasn't Capitalist ?
Her views on race and the struggle against white skin privilege are also repulsive.
"the Negroes -- are now in the vanguard of the destruction of civil rights."- Ayn Rand
I'll have more later, for mow my wife is calling me for dinner.
|
|
|
Post by rembrandt on Sept 5, 2012 5:22:38 GMT
I noticed your tag line. Do you really want "any cook" running the country?
|
|
commiegirl
Member
From each according to their wants to each according to their needs.
Posts: 110
|
Post by commiegirl on Sept 5, 2012 5:24:46 GMT
I noticed your tag line. Do you really want "any cook" running the country? If they worked hard and showed the skill to do so, why not?
|
|
|
Post by rembrandt on Sept 5, 2012 5:33:14 GMT
If they had the skill to do so it wouldn't be just "any cook." I did notice that Lenin didn't share his power with "just any cook" but it made for a good talking point to discuss on the bread line.
|
|
commiegirl
Member
From each according to their wants to each according to their needs.
Posts: 110
|
Post by commiegirl on Sept 5, 2012 5:40:36 GMT
There were plenty of cooks and others within the Bolsheviks.
Lenin didn't have power to give. He was elected to a position and held accountable by the party. He's wasn't an oligarch.
Lenin did take the most backward country in the world and thrust it into the 20th century. He was old and in poor health but no one can deny, he was a giant of his time and is still today.
|
|
|
Post by rembrandt on Sept 5, 2012 13:51:36 GMT
No power? I guess it was all sweetness and light.
|
|
commiegirl
Member
From each according to their wants to each according to their needs.
Posts: 110
|
Post by commiegirl on Sept 5, 2012 22:12:01 GMT
Rand in praise of serial killer Edward Hickman: "He has the true, innate psychology of a Superman. He can never realize and feel ‘other people.’”
She also claimed Hickman has a “genuinely beautiful soul.”
A man who dismembered a 12 year old girl and taunted her father with the girls head.
|
|
|
Post by anubis on Sept 6, 2012 0:41:39 GMT
Rand in praise of serial killer Edward Hickman: "He has the true, innate psychology of a Superman. He can never realize and feel ‘other people.’” She also claimed Hickman has a “genuinely beautiful soul.” A man who dismembered a 12 year old girl and taunted her father with the girls head. Again, you are quoting out of context. I am disinclined to discuss any subject further with you, as you seem to simply be arguing for the sake of argument. Please do so with someone else. No further responses will be forthcoming, as I already destroyed your argument, as anyone who reads this thread objectively can see.
|
|
commiegirl
Member
From each according to their wants to each according to their needs.
Posts: 110
|
Post by commiegirl on Sept 6, 2012 3:25:14 GMT
Rand the Homophobe:
"To proclaim spiritual sisterhood with lesbians... is so repulsive a set of premises from so loathsome a sense of life that an accurate commentary would require the kind of language I do not like to see in print."
Rand the Patriarch:
"An ideal woman is a man-worshipper, and an ideal man is the highest symbol of mankind."
"Man experiences the essence of his masculinity in the act of romantic dominance; woman experiences the essence of her femininity in the act of romantic surrender."
Rand the pro-Apartheid racist:
""Palestinians had no rights and that it was moral to support Israel, the sole outpost of civilization in a region ruled by barbarism"
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Sept 6, 2012 4:19:32 GMT
More on Rand the racist: [/blockquote][/quote]
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Sept 6, 2012 4:31:20 GMT
...I already destroyed your argument, as anyone who reads this thread objectively can see. HOW have you destroyed the argument? You have not even addressed several major points!
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Sept 6, 2012 5:02:57 GMT
|
|
|
Post by anubis on Sept 6, 2012 14:13:21 GMT
...I already destroyed your argument, as anyone who reads this thread objectively can see. HOW have you destroyed the argument? You have not even addressed several major points! You just can't let go, can you Philip?
|
|
|
Post by rembrandt on Sept 8, 2012 4:23:09 GMT
His crusade is not over. He made it safe to talk about though.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Sept 8, 2012 8:18:28 GMT
Go ahead.
|
|
|
Post by rembrandt on Sept 8, 2012 16:23:00 GMT
You are free to set the example. Would you start by giving away half of your property and money?
|
|