Ayn Rand - Opinion? (preferably informed?)

[JamesTheUnjust]

The problem you have with this is that when Ayn Rand died her estate was worth in excess of a million dollars.  If she was so poor and unable to pay for the treatment how was her estate worth so much?

No, her attorney friend convinced her that her book sales would not be enough to pay for her medical costs. People can go flat out broke from medical bills pretty quickly, and it's likely that her friend understood this -- you apparently don't. At the very least paying out of pocket would have resulted in ruining her financially, as cancer treatments back then were extremely expensive. I don't know about her estate being worth a million dollars but it wouldn't surprise me. Michael Jackson was piss poor broke before he died and then once he was dead, everything he had touched became worth hundreds of millions of dollars, so you've proved nothing really with that statement. Celebrities and their former property are worth way more in death than alive... it's common knowledge.

You really are grasping at straws to defend this womans hypocrisy.. It's pitiful, to be honest.

See once you step out of the fantasy created by all of the hatred and vitriol of uneducated pundits the truth isn't that hard to find.

I'd tell you that once you stop being a fan boy and look at this case like you would anything else, maybe you'll actually learn something of value.

Provide citations for these fictitious quotations.  I've given you plenty of first hand source material that contradicts what you're stating.  

Are you fucking serious? You're starting to sound more and more like when you read Rand's work you decided to be selective about what you would and wouldn't remember. Anybody, that knows anything about anything, concerning Ayn Rand's beliefs, would know that she has made countless statements about people who are on any kind of public assistance are "leeches, looters, mooches, thieves, thugs, parasites, and bums".

It's true Rand had her justifications for people like her taking benefits but it's also true that Rand's mind was often a war zone of competing ideas, much like a religious loon. She once talked about how a military draft is wrong because it's government force, but at the same believed that Vietnam draft dodgers should be prosecuted because they would fight the USSR. Read that again to yourself and try not to laugh at what a contradiction that it is.

She has made these statements and you know it but are playing all dumb like you don't know what I'm talking about so that I'll go on an wild goose chase to provide something you're already aware of. I've been the internet to long to fall for that old trick and frankly, it's something I'd expect from a Christian apologist.

A) provide source material that is contrary to what I've posted and justify your position or

Get a fucking a grip. I'm not going to fall this cheap game you think I'm a sucker enough to play. Asking me to prove Rand believed that people on public assistance are part of the problem, is like a Christian asking me to prove the Jesus stated he was the son of god -- don't waste my time with that shit.

As I pointed out, Ayn Rand quite rationally justified this as restitution from a lifelong of government confiscation through taxation of her royalties from movies and books.

Ah, so what Rand believes is what is moral... thanks for clearing that up. It's too bad that Rand is still a fucking hypocrite. She took money and contributed to the problem she stated was "evil". And more importantly it's not just that she was a hypocrite, she also proved that her own principles fail; even for her they did. Accept it or not she needed that money and was given back WAY fucking more than he paid in to cover her medical bills, so your rationalization doesn't work, and she's still a fucking hypocritical bitch that by own standards is a "mooch".

It isn't really that surprising that someone who lived in that time believed this.  It's especially not surprising the an Author/Philosopher (Read: Non-Scientist) would believe this. .

So then why did she open her fucking mouth? Oh yeah, she liked to talk out of her ass like fanatic.

* It's intellectually dishonest for you to engage in historical bias in judging the actions of a historical figure based on the knowledge we have in the present.

:roll:

* Your invalid attack on Ayn Rand says nothing about the philosophy.

Go back and read my first post in this thread. Then come back and read this. Then shut the fuck-up.

viewtopic.php?f=33&t=2551&start=30

* Your lack of education on the subject, and your link-spamming the invalid arguments of other uneducated pundits that have already been covered in this thread borders on trolling.

Trolling? You've been the one that has done nothing but tap dance around the issues, throw up distractions to cover up your bad memory of your own guru, and repeatedly launched attacks at others. It's like talking to an apologist. But if you were trying to get me to lose my temper then I'm afraid you've failed. You still look like a fan boy that is too blind to see that your fucking hero didn't know it all, and that the ethics were questionable.

Now, you've wasted enough of my time.

[zarus tathra]

Reading John Galt's speech, I think the gist isn't "lol money is awesome," but "We should only give help to people who really deserve it." She's really just arguing against people who say that we have to help EVERYBODY, including the people who don't deserve anybody's help. These people are more common than you think. Her writing is really more about virtue than it is about money, and the bankers who worship her books while begging for bailouts tend to forget this.

[lumpymunk]

Reading John Galt's speech, I think the gist isn't "lol money is awesome," but "We should only give help to people who really deserve it." She's really just arguing against people who say that we have to help EVERYBODY, including the people who don't deserve anybody's help. These people are more common than you think. Her writing is really more about virtue than it is about money, and the bankers who worship her books while begging for bailouts tend to forget this.

The emphasis shouldn't be placed on the amount of people you're forced to "help" but that you're being forced to do it.

Not...

we have to help EVERYBODY

...but...

we have to help everybody

[lumpymunk]

People can go flat out broke from medical bills pretty quickly

All the more reason to use the money that the state stole from her throughout her life.

You really are grasping at straws to defend this womans hypocrisy.. It's pitiful, to be honest.

I'm grasping at primary source citations and evidence, you're grasping at straws because you have no evidence to grasp at.

Are you fucking serious? You're starting to sound more and more like when you read Rand's work you decided to be selective about what you would and wouldn't remember. Anybody, that knows anything about anything, concerning Ayn Rand's beliefs, would know that she has made countless statements about people who are on any kind of public assistance are "leeches, looters, mooches, thieves, thugs, parasites, and bums".

So provide the citations that prove her to be a hypocrite.  With "countless statements" I'm sure you can come up with one instead of writing paragraph upon paragraph trying to squirm out of the fact that you've been cornered on an uneducated belief you hold.

 :rollin:

She once talked about how a military draft is wrong because it's government force, but at the same believed that Vietnam draft dodgers should be prosecuted because they would fight the USSR.

Citation please.
I have them... easy to find...
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/draft.html
...and another...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... NTfuDkFTXo

Where are yours?

She has made these statements and you know it but are playing all dumb like you don't know what I'm talking about so that I'll go on an wild goose chase to provide something you're already aware of.

Nope, I genuinely know you're full of shit, and I'd love to rip apart any "evidence" you think you can produce.  More importantly, I want to point out how uneducated you are about the subject.  It's working out pretty well so far.

I'm not going to fall this cheap game you think I'm a sucker enough to play.

Yea, because providing evidence for your beliefs is a fools game?  I can almost see your squirming as you wrote this.

 :rollin:

Asking me to prove Rand believed that people on public assistance are part of the problem, is like a Christian asking me to prove the Jesus stated he was the son of god -- don't waste my time with that shit.

It's such an easy task, yet you spend 15 minutes replying to a stranger on the internet instead of 5 minutes to prove something that you claim is so easy to prove.  It's pretty easy to see through your bullshit.

1) Because I actually have studied the material for a very long time and I know you're wrong.
2) Because either way you're still going to hold your ignorant opinion... right or wrong.

Accept it or not she needed that money and was given back WAY fucking more than he paid in to cover her medical bills, so your rationalization doesn't work, and she's still a fucking hypocritical bitch that by own standards is a "mooch".

1) You have zero knowledge of the costs incurred for her treatment.
2) You have zero knowledge of the taxes and royalties collected over her lifetime.

...yet you have absolute knowledge that it was imbalanced in her favor.

Proof?

 :rollin:

Trolling? You've been the one that has done nothing but tap dance around the issues

I've responded to every criticism in this thread, and every troll.  I've confronted the issues directly.

repeatedly launched attacks at others.

You only feel attacked when I point out that you're uneducated on the subject because it goes so contrary to the strength of the opinion you hold on the subject.  Prove you're worthy of your strong opinion and prove any of the bullshit you've said with actual evidence.

With citations

It's like talking to an apologist. But if you were trying to get me to lose my temper then I'm afraid you've failed.

You can keep your temper, I'm after your credibility.

 :rollin:

[Jmpty]

James, don't waste your breath on this tool. It's like talking to a wall. Or a theist. I apologize to any wall that I've offended by this post.

[lumpymunk]

You should be apologizing to scholarly articles.

[JamesTheUnjust]

James, don't waste your breath on this tool. It's like talking to a wall. Or a theist. I apologize to any wall that I've offended by this post.

Don't sweat it, he's an amateur compared to some of the other assholes I've dealt with.

No matter what kind of ideologue you're arguing with it's important to stop responding once things get redundant. Once that happens, you risk getting burned out and frustrated from going around in circles, and in my experience that's when people start acting like children with their arguments. So you're best to just bow out gracefully and let the asshole talk to themselves, while you move onto something more productive.

Cheers.

[JamesTheUnjust]

People can go flat out broke from medical bills pretty quickly

All the more reason to use the money that the state stole from her throughout her life.

You really are grasping at straws to defend this womans hypocrisy.. It's pitiful, to be honest.

I'm grasping at primary source citations and evidence, you're grasping at straws because you have no evidence to grasp at.

Are you fucking serious? You're starting to sound more and more like when you read Rand's work you decided to be selective about what you would and wouldn't remember. Anybody, that knows anything about anything, concerning Ayn Rand's beliefs, would know that she has made countless statements about people who are on any kind of public assistance are "leeches, looters, mooches, thieves, thugs, parasites, and bums".

So provide the citations that prove her to be a hypocrite.  With "countless statements" I'm sure you can come up with one instead of writing paragraph upon paragraph trying to squirm out of the fact that you've been cornered on an uneducated belief you hold.

 :rollin:

She once talked about how a military draft is wrong because it's government force, but at the same believed that Vietnam draft dodgers should be prosecuted because they would fight the USSR.

Citation please.
I have them... easy to find...
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/draft.html
...and another...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... NTfuDkFTXo

Where are yours?

She has made these statements and you know it but are playing all dumb like you don't know what I'm talking about so that I'll go on an wild goose chase to provide something you're already aware of.

Nope, I genuinely know you're full of shit, and I'd love to rip apart any "evidence" you think you can produce.  More importantly, I want to point out how uneducated you are about the subject.  It's working out pretty well so far.

I'm not going to fall this cheap game you think I'm a sucker enough to play.

Yea, because providing evidence for your beliefs is a fools game?  I can almost see your squirming as you wrote this.

 :rollin:

Asking me to prove Rand believed that people on public assistance are part of the problem, is like a Christian asking me to prove the Jesus stated he was the son of god -- don't waste my time with that shit.

It's such an easy task, yet you spend 15 minutes replying to a stranger on the internet instead of 5 minutes to prove something that you claim is so easy to prove.  It's pretty easy to see through your bullshit.

1) Because I actually have studied the material for a very long time and I know you're wrong.
2) Because either way you're still going to hold your ignorant opinion... right or wrong.

Accept it or not she needed that money and was given back WAY fucking more than he paid in to cover her medical bills, so your rationalization doesn't work, and she's still a fucking hypocritical bitch that by own standards is a "mooch".

1) You have zero knowledge of the costs incurred for her treatment.
2) You have zero knowledge of the taxes and royalties collected over her lifetime.

...yet you have absolute knowledge that it was imbalanced in her favor.

Proof?

 :rollin:

Trolling? You've been the one that has done nothing but tap dance around the issues

I've responded to every criticism in this thread, and every troll.  I've confronted the issues directly.

repeatedly launched attacks at others.

You only feel attacked when I point out that you're uneducated on the subject because it goes so contrary to the strength of the opinion you hold on the subject.  Prove you're worthy of your strong opinion and prove any of the bullshit you've said with actual evidence.

With citations

It's like talking to an apologist. But if you were trying to get me to lose my temper then I'm afraid you've failed.

You can keep your temper, I'm after your credibility.

 :rollin:

So I guess you decided to finally act like a jerk off and show your true colors - I knew it was just a matter of time. Now everybody can see how justified I was in not wasting my time playing your game of Linky vs Linky. I was well aware that you just wanted to draw me in and have a pissing contest, but now you've got just piss on yourself.

How entertaining.

[lumpymunk]

I'm a jerk off for asking you to support your childish bandwagon opinion with an ounce of evidence.

 #-o

Linky vs Linky

You mean providing evidence and supporting argumentation.

 #-o

[Jmpty]

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Ayn Rand appeals to the selfish side of all ideology.

I'd be willing to wager a significant sum that you don't even understand what the word "selfish" meant to Ayn Rand.

Also note the thread was looking for "preferably informed" opinions.

How seriously should I take someone who thought social security was evil but didn't give up her own SS checks?

She knew quite well what selfishness was, and like any political hack, she was simply out to sell books and make money.

There is an explanation for that, but I prefer to quote something I wrote on page 2 of this thread.

Still, there are a few critics who actually have read the source material. There are three separate criticisms that can be made of Rand, but strangely her critics seem unable to criticize just one of them at a time but constantly switch back and forth. One can criticize her as a person, her as an author, or the philosophy she created. But if you are in a discussion about the merits or cons of the philosophy you will get people piping in saying "and she can't write" or "she took Social Security". One is a literary criticism, the other a personal criticism, neither of which have anything to do with the philosophy.

[SkepticOfMyOwnMind]

Still, there are a few critics who actually have read the source material.

Unfortunately, "few" seems to be the most important word in that statement. Most of the negative critics in this thread did not read her work (or were unwilling to provide evidence of such, which makes their criticisms irrelevant), and I doubt many of them even watched "Atlas Shrugged: Part I". The only person who showed significant understanding of her writings liked Ayn Rand's philosophy, and less informed, neutral people posted evidence that casts Ayn Rand's philosophy in a relatively positive light.

I think much more useful information can be gleaned from discussion in a historical context, but I have concluded that I will finish reading "The Virtue of Selfishness", then move on to "Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand" and "Atlas Shrugged". I understand that the historical context in which Ayn Rand wrote would deprive her of certain facts (that mind-reading is literally possible via brain scans, nature and human interests are highly interconnected, adaptable, and flexible, and that the stronger U.S. government would help give rise to the Internet, among others). Even so, she caught on to some key ideas that have been scientifically and/or mathematically validated - morality is objective and independent of all religions, there is something fundamentally wrong with helping those who can't/won't (ever/often) help themselves or others, benefits and costs should be considered in relation to the specific people who benefit/pay rather than undefined or vaguely/ambiguously defined entities, etc.

[Brian37]

Still, there are a few critics who actually have read the source material.

Unfortunately, "few" seems to be the most important word in that statement. Most of the negative critics in this thread did not read her work (or were unwilling to provide evidence of such, which makes their criticisms irrelevant), and I doubt many of them even watched "Atlas Shrugged: Part I". The only person who showed significant understanding of her writings liked Ayn Rand's philosophy, and less informed, neutral people posted evidence that casts Ayn Rand's philosophy in a relatively positive light.

I think much more useful information can be gleaned from discussion in a historical context, but I have concluded that I will finish reading "The Virtue of Selfishness", then move on to "Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand" and "Atlas Shrugged". I understand that the historical context in which Ayn Rand wrote would deprive her of certain facts (that mind-reading is literally possible via brain scans, nature and human interests are highly interconnected, adaptable, and flexible, and that the stronger U.S. government would help give rise to the Internet, among others). Even so, she caught on to some key ideas that have been scientifically and/or mathematically validated - morality is objective and independent of all religions, there is something fundamentally wrong with helping those who can't/won't (ever/often) help themselves or others, benefits and costs should be considered in relation to the specific people who benefit/pay rather than undefined or vaguely/ambiguously defined entities, etc.

Ideology and religion are the same monster, they conflict with diverse reality. Ayn Rand was simply a political hack out to sell books like Ann Coulter. Neither of them were interested in problem solving.

[lumpymunk]

Ideology and religion are the same monster

Well, remember that what an ideology is, is a conceptual framework with the way people deal with reality. Everyone has one. You have to — to exist, you need an ideology. The question is whether it is accurate or not.

If you refuse to identify it, nobody else will be able to force you to think.  You've essentially demonstrated in this thread that you're nothing more than a child throwing a tantrum kicking and screaming, "You can't make me think!"

[Sal1981]

[youtube:29tszq72]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0CyunRUJmc[/youtube:29tszq72]

Wanted to hop on the Rand-bashing wagon.