NationStates Jolt Archive

"Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong. " -Ayn Rand

I love rand, but there are some issues. Like she hates religion, especially when mixed with the state, but loved Isreali government. She hated government funding of any welfare program, yet for some reason also supported US-funded economic incentives for that same country. [Nathaniel Branden Interview]

She hated people who avioded reality, yet when she got cancer she tried to pass it off as some sort of psychological/moral error. She believed she really wasn't suffering from anything more then something in her mind.

So, if contradictions do not exist, which premise is wrong? Rand's? Branden's info? Or my belief that she royally screwed up?

How does an objectivist respond?

"Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong. " -Ayn Rand

I love rand, but there are some issues. Like she hates religion, especially when mixed with the state, but loved Isreali government. She hated government funding of any welfare program, yet for some reason also supported US-funded economic incentives for that same country. [Nathaniel Branden Interview]

She hated people who avioded reality, yet when she got cancer she tried to pass it off as some sort of psychological/moral error. She believed she really wasn't suffering from anything more then something in her mind.

So, if contradictions do not exist, which premise is wrong? Rand's? Branden's info? Or my belief that she royally screwed up?

How does an objectivist respond?

You LOVE Ayn Rand??? You poor person ;)

lol, I live by her philosophy. sadly it seems, I being the objectivist, am the only one that understands its real flaws.

You LOVE Ayn Rand??? You poor person ;)
Come on, nothing wrong with necrophilia!
THe whole 'Rand's an objectivist and probably impossible to be in a relationship with" problem is nonexistent, now that she's dead!
:D

lol, I live by her philosophy. sadly it seems, I being the objectivist, am the only one that understands its real flaws.

Well, you can give good advice without following it. For example, fat doctors who smoke a lot, can still be brilliant physicians.

Come on, nothing wrong with necrophilia!
THe whole 'Rand's an objectivist and probably impossible to be in a relationship with" problem is nonexistent, now that she's dead!
:D

LOL :)

"Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong. " -Ayn Rand
And what happens when someone says two contradictory things? Does that contradiction just not exist?

And what happens when someone says two contradictory things? Does that contradiction just not exist?

No, one of their premises is wrong.

No, one of their premises is wrong.
What is there are no premises? What if they're just sycophantic and are self-contradictory?

What if they're just sycophantic and are self-contradictory?

Then both premises are wrong. Every meaningful statement has a premise.

Then both premises are wrong. Every meaningful statement has a premise.
But what if the statements aren't meaningful?

i would go with "psuedointellectual pretentious word drool queen" over either of the above mentioned titles though i supposed narcissist has more of a ring of truth than moralist

As a member of the moneymaking so-called "Creative Class" (also so-called, the new Capitalists), I personally resolved some issues and LOVE Ayn Rand.
She is still, and always will be, one of the most influential writers ever in America. Check your sources people, she's again and again, every year put on the top of the intellectual's charts. This isn't suprising.
She was far more radical than I am, as a Libertarian, not an Objectivist.
But most of all, she was an artist.

Chuck Palahniuk is my favorite living artist. He's a homosexual anarchist... but I don't care so long as he's relevant (okay, I do care as a Lib, and love his message).
Point being, artists tend toward extremes. Don't expect mediocrity from them.

Okay, don't respect mediocrity at all.

But what if the statements aren't meaningful?

Then they are both a priori incorrect. Which is equivalent to saying both premises are wrong.

But what if the statements aren't meaningful?
They can't be contradictory if they don't mean anything.

But what if the statements aren't meaningful?

Hmmm.... the funny thing is that you sound just like one of the flat characters in Atlas Shrugged. It's the Kantian philosopher that doesn't care about life. He asks questions like: what is life? Life doesn't exist, so we can die. Do statements have meaning? But life doesn't exist therefore meaning can exists? Does that mean statements have a point? But points don't exist. Its all in our head... life is meaningless, so why do I survive?

The only questions he should ask is: why am i circular? and why haven't i killed myself yet if life is meaningless?

i would go with "psuedointellectual pretentious word drool queen" over either of the above mentioned titles though i supposed narcissist has more of a ring of truth than moralist
Considering, I'd go with the above statement as well for NAOM CHOMSKY :eek: !
(If I didn't like him so much and consider him an invaluable intellectual.)

But what if the statements aren't meaningful?
You should know by now that I've acquired a strange, psycho fetish for your posts (and company ;) ). I wish you'd stay on topic (Ayn Rand) so we could discuss.

Considering, I'd go with the above statement as well for NAOM CHOMSKY :eek: !
(If I didn't like him so much and consider him an invaluable intellectual.)
naom's a queen, i didn't even know he was gay.

naom's a queen, i didn't even know he was gay.
Straight guys crossdress too!

I've read Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead and loved them.

Anyways, you haven't gotten any serious replies, so I'll give it a shot.

Israeli government--the Zionists had to be self-sufficient and bond together to create this country and to make it happen, and self-sufficiency is a biggy in objectivism, right? Weak reason, but may that possibly be why Rand supported it?

And assuming I haven't misconstrued what you said, I believe that Ayn Rand was against welfare because it's government-supported and government-regulated. Obviously, government regulations=big no-no in pure capitalism, which Rand supports, and then the welfare money also comes out of the pockets of the people who actually work . Also, welfare can be and is exploited by those she would term "moochers". Who wants to find a job if they can get money without working? However, incentives would try to motivate those moochers to become self-sufficient, which is why I think that Rand supported it.

As for Rand's cancer...we're all only human. I have yet to see a Howard Roark or John Galt on this earth. Her denial is understandable, though I am surprised to learn that of Rand.

You should know by now that I've acquired a strange, psycho fetish for your posts (and company ;) ).
Me too!
Gnostikos, if you get tied up and dragged from your home in the middle of the night, don't panic. It's probably Eichen and I.
:D

They can't be contradictory if they don't mean anything.

God... don't you get it. You are the ayn rand characters that leads himself to suicide because he sits arounds saying meaning isn't meaning: life isn't life: A is not A. There is some meaning to every actions, every sentence, every movement. It is just a question of whether the action, the sentence, the simple movement is moral or immoral. Everything is one or the other.

This is a question of philosophy, of morality. It is inherent that everything we discuss in philosophy has meaning whether it be right or wrong. If it didn't, you wouldn't be talking.

Like for example, I wan't to hump rand's dead body, it has a moral meaning. She may be dead, but it is either immoral or its not. There is not "half-morality". It is impossible. There is not "absence of morality AND immorality", for if there is absence of one, there is the presence of another.

So when you board a train, destined for doom, stop asking yourself "do things have meaning? does life have meaning? why am i here?" and maybe you'll have enough common sense and self-esteem to realize that the only moral action is to stop that train from killing you

Straight guys crossdress too!

yeah, a few do(like the great director ed wood)... but when you call a man a queen(not the longer drag queen or drama queen) you generally are refering to a gay man

for the isreal thing, during her lifetime, isreal was the country with more economic freedoms then any other. it produced 9 TIMES the number of patents as the runner-up in patent applications, the US.

as for the taxing americans to support isreal... im not real sure about that.

Straight guys crossdress too!
I hate to participate in the obvious hijack of an unpopular topic on NS, but most cross-dressers are hetero.
You, of all peeps, should know this.

God... don't you get it. You are the ayn rand characters that leads himself to suicide because he sits arounds saying meaning isn't meaning: life isn't life: A is not A. There is some meaning to every actions, every sentence, every movement. It is just a question of whether the action, the sentence, the simple movement is moral or immoral. Everything is one or the other.

This is a question of philosophy, of morality. It is inherent that everything we discuss in philosophy has meaning whether it be right or wrong. If it didn't, you wouldn't be talking.

Like for example, I wan't to hump rand's dead body, it has a moral meaning. She may be dead, but it is either immoral or its not. There is not "half-morality". It is impossible. There is not "absence of morality AND immorality", for if there is absence of one, there is the presence of another.

So when you board a train, destined for doom, stop asking yourself "do things have meaning? does life have meaning? why am i here?" and maybe you'll have enough common sense and self-esteem to realize that the only moral action is to stop that train from killing you

ayn sure loved fighting paper tigers didn't she.

Straight guys crossdress too!

But would it be safe to assume that the ones that dress like Cher are probably not ;)

my question is: can crossdressing be objectivist?

Anyways, you haven't gotten any serious replies, so I'll give it a shot.
Thanks for doing so...
But welcome to the facts of the General Forum...

Minorities not listed, don't apply.
We'll spam the shit out of every post until the thread is dead.
Start a typical liberal/conservative one instead.

(sic)

God... don't you get it. You are the ayn rand characters that leads himself to suicide because he sits arounds saying meaning isn't meaning: life isn't life: A is not A. There is some meaning to every actions, every sentence, every movement. It is just a question of whether the action, the sentence, the simple movement is moral or immoral. Everything is one or the other.

This is a question of philosophy, of morality. It is inherent that everything we discuss in philosophy has meaning whether it be right or wrong. If it didn't, you wouldn't be talking.

Like for example, I wan't to hump rand's dead body, it has a moral meaning. She may be dead, but it is either immoral or its not. There is not "half-morality". It is impossible. There is not "absence of morality AND immorality", for if there is absence of one, there is the presence of another.

So when you board a train, destined for doom, stop asking yourself "do things have meaning? does life have meaning? why am i here?" and maybe you'll have enough common sense and self-esteem to realize that the only moral action is to stop that train from killing you
Thank you for making me your deity. I'm both honored and put off.

I'm not the one who said the utterances were meaningless. You're preaching to, well, your God.

I hate to participate in the obvious hijack of an unpopular topic on NS, but most cross-dressers are hetero.
You, of all peeps, should know this. are you sure about that, most of the "straight" crossdressers i've run into were either bi or closet cases with issues that manifest in complex kinda twisted ways. well i don't know if that's fair, genuinely transgendered almost always have a certain amount of baggage and i wouldn't say that they are exactly gay or bisexual, but you certainly couldn't call them straight either.

my question is: can crossdressing be objectivist?

Why not?

are you sure about that, most of the "straight" crossdressers i've run into were either bi or closet cases with issues that manifest in complex kinda twisted ways. well i don't know if that's fair, genuinely transgendered almost always have a certain amount of baggage and i wouldn't say that they are exactly gay or bisexual, but you certainly couldn't call them straight either.
You, Sir, are a hijacking douche-nozzle.
What do you have to add to the conversation?

EDIT: Let's bring up my 2 or 3 on the Kinsey scale somewhere else more appropriate, okay?

You, Sir, are a hijacking douche-nozzle.
What do you have to add to the conversation?
that when ayn rand sets up arguments in her books its usually with paper tigers. character who are poorly argued parodies of real positions and therefore easy for her to defeat and ridicule. a trait i find so annoying i've never actually been able to finish one of her overhyped reactionary propaganda tracts.

that when ayn rand sets up arguments in her books its usually with paper tigers. character who are poorly argued parodies of real positions and therefore easy for her to defeat and ridicule. a trait i find so annoying i've never actually been able to finish one of her overhyped reactionary propaganda tracts.


You can say that for any message literature. Her books aren't about that anyway. If you finished one you would know that.

that when ayn rand sets up arguments in her books its usually with paper tigers. character who are poorly argued parodies of real positions and therefore easy for her to defeat and ridicule. a trait i find so annoying i've never actually been able to finish one of her overhyped reactionary propaganda tracts.
Well, why didn't you just say that?
I appreciate diversity and outlook. You didn't have to spread your buttcheeks and go asshole, though, without relevancy. That was just rude to the creator of this thread.

Most intellectuals I talk to say the same thing about Palahniuk, only time will tell.
I can tell you Ayn isn't going out of publication due to her poor writing anytime soon, though.

. You didn't have to spread your buttcheeks and go asshole, though, without relevancy. That was just rude to the creator of this thread.

.
i'm just calling ayn names, you're the one who feels the need to keep calling me names mr. potty mouth. you are however right, that i do generally go silly off topic, but if i don't get responded to on my off topic tangents i don't generally continue them(hint: if you respond, i'll probably reply again)

i'm just calling ayn names, you're the one who feels the need to keep calling me names mr. potty mouth. you are however right, that i do generally go silly off topic, but if i don't get responded to on my off topic tangents i don't generally continue them(hint: if you respond, i'll probably reply again)
Erm... Yeah. I'm a stone-cold, atheist, Libertarian, dickhead, pottymouth.
Actually, I pride myself as an individual on that.

But you aggravated me because you've shown me some good posts, topics (and definitely some of the best tattoos I've seen, not to mention artistic finesse considering the content), and then...

poof.
This thread.


What happened?

Erm... Yeah. I'm a stone-cold, atheist, Libertarian, dickhead, pottymouth.
Actually, I pride myself as an individual on that.

But you aggravated me because you've shown me some good posts, topics (and definitely some of the best tattoos I've seen, not to mention artistic finesse considering the content), and then...

poof.
This thread.


What happened?
i'm an annoying flake, who has a bad tendency to troll. plus i got all serious on my thread about the N word, which made me feel the compulsive need to get silly.

i'm an annoying flake, who has a bad tendency to troll.So trolling is okay now? Don't troll, just tell us what you think, bro.
I promise I'll respect your opinion when presented honestly.
plus i got all serious on my thread about the N word, which made me feel the compulsive need to get silly.Damn. Who brought up the word ******?
Or do you not know that that is indeed, the N word?

So trolling is okay now? Don't troll, just tell us what you think, bro.
I promise I'll respect your opinion when presented honestly.
Damn.

hey i've got a gay nazi for a username(well one of many), i'm usually in some sort of character on the general board.


Who brought up the word ******?
Or do you not know that that is indeed, the N word?

long story, read my first post on the thread if you really want to know...

you know this thread isn't getting anymore on topic, is it?

you know this thread isn't getting anymore on topic, is it?
No shit. It's been hijacked by attention-whores.

No shit. It's been hijacked by attention-whores.
You called?

You called?
Neo, I can't believe you're taking part in hijacking a minority thread.
But if you must, I get immunity from your bitching when I'm a dick on the rest.

;)

that when ayn rand sets up arguments in her books its usually with paper tigers. character who are poorly argued parodies of real positions and therefore easy for her to defeat and ridicule. a trait i find so annoying i've never actually been able to finish one of her overhyped reactionary propaganda tracts.

I think you would mean "straw men."

Most of the Objectivists I've known have also carried that trait.

I think you would mean "straw men."

Most of the Objectivists I've known have also carried that trait.

yeah, you're right i always thought they meant the same thing but no, straw men was what i was trying to say.

I think you would mean "straw men."

Most of the Objectivists I've known have also carried that trait.
You are the worst kind of n00b.

Back this subjective, fuckhard opinion up!

Remember, the negative has the obligation to back it up.
(I forget who said it, but they posted the truth)

What's your argument, besides, I'm trying to be a bitch, with no backup?

Aside...
People who can intelligently argue against the proposed philosophy intelligently:

0%

Hijacked thread:

98%

WTF is everybody so afraid of that they sacrifice their credibility to bitch, moan, and rub themselves over Ayn Rand?

An artist/writer????

WTF is everybody so afraid of that they sacrifice their credibility to bitch, moan, and rub themselves over Ayn Rand?



It's not objectivism per se, I think. It's her chioce of protagonists.

It's not objectivism per se, I think. It's her chioce of protagonists.
:p
I didn't know you're position until tonight... you're so right.

I'm not even an objectivist!

Just hate stupidity, and people who are trying to pass as having actually read a single book she's written.
I smell so much bullshit on this thread, it's sickening.

I've never read Ayn Rand.

I do not read 'populist intellectuals'.

Sales do not eqaul truth.

I'd rather think for myself.

Like any extremist, Ayn Rand takes things too far, to the point of ridiculousness. You don't believe me, read The Fountainhead. I'm not sure if the extemist views presented here are just to more effectively contrast the two positions, but nevertheless, it seems to me she has some very good ideas, but that she takes things way too far. I suppose the reason she hates religion is that she believes it does no encourage self-reliance. I 'm guessing she likes Israel because they actually hold their own in war and politics.

I've never read Ayn Rand.

I do not read 'populist intellectuals'.

Sales do not eqaul truth.

I'd rather think for myself.

The Fountainhead sold horribly when it was first released. Most people hated it. I took years before it became more popular.

I've never read Ayn Rand.

I do not read 'populist intellectuals'.

Sales do not eqaul truth.

I'd rather think for myself.
Aside Defensor Fidei, is there another whackjob worthy of the previous poster's title? (albeit new)

Empty, explaination-free posts don't qualify either.

Some grossly exagerrated opinions beg backup, dumbass.

:p
I didn't know you're position until tonight... you're so right.

I'm not even an objectivist!

Just hate stupidity, and people who are trying to pass as having actually read a single book she's written.
I smell so much bullshit on this thread, it's sickening.

Well, why else would people hate it. If she'd written up objectivism as a dry schollarly paper, most people would go "hmm, interesting, I'm not sure I agree but you raise some points." (Although I'm not sure it would need a whole paper apparently she once recited the 7 (-?) key priciples standing on one leg).

But instead she writes a book, with the worlds most rude anti-social genius as the hero (Howard). Not only does howard drop out of college because he thinks its a waste of his time after he has actually learned all that he needs (a big no-no in the US, college is about staying an extra year taking all kinds of crappy classes you will never use again because "rounding" yourself is the important thing really) he then proceedes to insult the all the cognoscenti.

So even before the tale is halfway through, her "hero" has attacked three sacred cows. He's flipped the bird at the educational establishment, he has made it clear the only standards he accepts are his own, regardless of what the chattering classes say (another huge no-no, back then what counted was the opinion of the saturday evening post), and he has made it clear he didn't work for the benefit of society just himself (this last one is just unamerican).

Well that's pretty subversive right there. It could lead to unemployed college professors and teachers, out of work critics and all other kinds of social chaos. Not to mention the horror of people actually thinking that, really, what they choose to do, how much they do and how well they do it, is ultimately up to them, and not really the concern of the fishwife down the street.

Admittedly ann softens the blow by having howard go through a few rough years (all the while bailing out the weasely social climber phillip, who displayed all the attributes of a "true" american), but dammit, you just can't keep a bad man down and he finally gets recognized for his genius. Which is a huge mistake on ann's part, because it is pretty clear that howard doesn't give a flying fuck about recognition as he thinks most of the people doing the recognizing are, to say the least, mildly retarded. This cannot sit well with the average english professor reading the book. Because if there is one thing worse than someone who ignores your critisms, it is someone who ignores, and doesn't need, your praise.

Bad enough. But then she really goes to far. She has the temerity to write about a corrupt, incompetent government, that knows nothing about the housing industry, but goes into anyway - destroying all the efficient contractors in the process. Well hold on, I know that has to be fictional, right? but this stuff is just plain subversive.( How on earth can public housing run by a modern government be a bad thing? I voted for it after al because I *care* about the poor, this woman needs closer watching!) Well, not only is the government in over its head - and she dares imply that might be because it is run by a bunch of chiseling politicians, what rubbish - she then has howard pull their nuts out of the fire. Not only that, she then goes on to have this slanderous misrepresntation of how modern government works by double crossing howard once their head is above water just to reward their cronies and assorted toadies.

Finally, in a typical anti social moment, howard blows up the apartment block he has built for the government. Well now, that makes sense, because he is after all an anti-social psychopath, but she can't leave it there, oh no., she has to go have him winning an aquital without the aid of any lawyers. This is not good because we need lawyers! (especially incompetent ones).

Well look at the whole story. It's so unreal it's laughable. It in no way resembles anything like how the world is. Worse, it demeans everything that is good about society, with its moronic slanderous parodies, every step of the way. Clearly this woman is: a) off her rocker; and, b) not to be trusted because of her anti-social hatred of everything that is good about america.

Now if you look at it that way, how can you support objectivism? It's unamerican trash, like socialism or something. Full of bad ideas, invented by a crank living in a dream world.

Oh yeah, she somewhat implies that social workers are all bitter old spinsters that meddle in peoples lives because misery loves company.

So don't tell me there is anything good about ayn rand

The Fountainhead sold horribly when it was first released. Most people hated it. I took years before it became more popular.

What 1939?

Aside Defensor Fidei, is there another whackjob worthy of the previous poster's title? (albeit new)

Empty, explaination-free posts don't qualify either.

Some grossly exagerrated opinions beg backup, dumbass.

n00bs....dontchyalove'em?

So I am a whackjob and a dumbass. Is that flaming? I think it is. Please apologise.

Grossly exagerrated opinions? And you call me a dumbass? BWHAHAHAHA!!!

But instead she writes a book, with the worlds most rude anti-social genius as the hero (Howard).
You left out one little detail: The rape. Yes, I know Dominique really wants it, and Howard knows she really wants it because of their telepathic connection and so on...but that's exactly the kind of thing real rapists claim to believe in court ("She wanted it, I knew she did as soon as I looked into her eyes!").

Also--no. Not every idea writer uses cardboard cutout villains whose philosophy is obvious nonsense. Not even every Objectivist writer does that--Terry Goodkind does much more three-dimensional villains, mortified as he would be to read me comparing Ayn Rand's writing unfavorably to his. It's entirely possible to make a villain whose philosophy is utterly wrong and still something the readers can understand why someone would hold. The fact that Rand never does this is not an inevitable result of her writing about ideas--it means she's weak at characterization (and also, perhaps, that she can't conceive of anyone who disagrees with any part of her philosophy without being evil and stupid).

Libertarians/Anarchists/Objectivists/minorites:

Welcome to the thread respect that we have on NS.
What I wanna know is, how much do you like the circle jerk?

I've got no problem with people being contradictory. People should be allowed to contradict themselves - why always be held accountable to your past opinions? But I do have a problem with Ayn Rand...
Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage's whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men.
This is the kind of ridiculous stuff she came up with. I literally laughed out loud when I first read this. Civilization is freedom??? wtf is she on??! So yeh, Ayn Rand - great comedian, stupid philosopher. :rolleyes:

This is the kind of ridiculous stuff she came up with. I literally laughed out loud when I first read this. Civilization is freedom??? wtf is she on??! So yeh, Ayn Rand - great comedian, stupid philosopher. :rolleyes:
Sweetie, this is the same reaction that's been had for a long time (with a real majority) when we read Marx, Chomsky, or Franken...

We wonder... Are you for fucking real???

Admittedly, Ayn was an artistic idealist, but it still begs an excuse for the "other side's" (ha ha) fictions/pseudotruths...

I love rand, but there are some issues
Rand is who helped me realize I'm libertarain - she's like a "drug" to me; only take her in moderation

So don't tell me there is anything good about ayn rand[sic]

Don't worry, I won't.

RAND IS T3H 1337 ROXXOR!!!!1111!!111oneoneeleventyone!!111!11!!!!!1!!

(And she is utterly hawt.) <3