"atlas shrugged" will change the face of american politics

[QUENTIN]

Lest we forget due the events of the past week, "Atlas Shrugged" failed because it was a terrible story, poorly written, in defense of an ideology only supported by the chronically immature.

I will say this. You haters with your shear idiocy and lack of anything reflecting a constructive argument and what it reduces you to is definatley more entertaininig than the movie. Immaturity? Look no further than what you just wrote.

Of course they're caricatures. All kinds of works of fiction use the people in them to fill certain arch types.

garunteed anyone a certain outcome.

Hahahaha.

"Shear idiocy."



The people who disagree with you are "definatley" "shear" idiots for not appreciating Rand's "arch types" and thinking the American dream comes with a "garuntee." You're clearly much smarter.

 

[Bern80]

In the framework of the artifical reality Rand created they're not doing ANYTHING wrong.

In fact, within the framework of the supended disbelief that every read must assume to get involved in any fiction, THEYRE HEROIC CHARACTERS.

Our objections aren't that the characters in the book are bad.

Our objections are to those of you who imagine that Rand's world in AS is descriptive of the world we live in.

Hell, if I lived in the fantasy world Rand created (one which I thoroughly enjoyed, I might add, when I read in the early 60s) I'd be trying to follow John Galt, too.

Such is the nature of FICTION.

And your objection is an objection to nothing. No supporter of Rand is suggesting that what she wrote is descriptive of how things are. They are descriptors of how things should be. The more I think about the more this seems like such a petty objection for the simple sake of being disagreeable. You're objection is what she writes about isn't real? NO SHIT SHERLOCK. No one EVER said it was. It is fictional social commentary about the persecution of societies producers. Rand clearly opposses that and fictional or not you STILL can't tell me why that oppositoin is misplaced.

I responded to the question "What are her heros doing wrong"

I added why I thought that people who see her book as a model (Like GREENSPAN did for example) for how the world ought to be are either idiots or liars.

Actually no you didn't say that. You said that Rand supporters think the book reflects the real world, which is not true. You have failed epically to explain what is so idiotic about a piece of fictional social commentary that warns against persecuting societies producers. Keep trying.

 

[Bern80]

In the framework of the artifical reality Rand created they're not doing ANYTHING wrong.

In fact, within the framework of the supended disbelief that every read must assume to get involved in any fiction, THEYRE HEROIC CHARACTERS.

Our objections aren't that the characters in the book are bad.

Our objections are to those of you who imagine that Rand's world in AS is descriptive of the world we live in.

Hell, if I lived in the fantasy world Rand created (one which I thoroughly enjoyed, I might add, when I read in the early 60s) I'd be trying to follow John Galt, too.

Such is the nature of FICTION.

And your objection is an objection to nothing. No supporter of Rand is suggesting that what she wrote is descriptive of how things are. They are descriptors of how things should be. The more I think about the more this seems like such a petty objection for the simple sake of being disagreeable. You're objection is what she writes about isn't real? NO SHIT SHERLOCK. No one EVER said it was. It is fictional social commentary about the persecution of societies producers. Rand clearly opposses that and fictional or not you STILL can't tell me why that oppositoin is misplaced.

You conservatives have no idea how fiction works. Seriously, read a ******* book.

Have read plenty, thanks, but feel free to enlighten me.

 

[del]

There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged.

One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world.


The other, of course, involves orcs.

 

[Bern80]

There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged.

One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world.


The other, of course, involves orcs.

You're only three or four people late on that particular laughable attempt at a counter argument.

One has to find it interesting that you believe those that don't expect hand outs from people or don't obligate others to their well being are the ones ill equipped to handle the real world.

 

[elvis]

Fake second birth certificate? Get with the times bro...

We need to go after the fake Bin Laden death.....where you been?

I see you are a great representation of Rands philosophy

If you believe that the ridiculously bad work that Obama flashed as real, you are the perfect useful idiot that populates the democrat party in such large numbers. I bet you would have a hard time with chads too.

Winner, winner Chicken Dinner

Laurence Fishburne, 21

 

[del]

There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged.

One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world.


The other, of course, involves orcs.

You're only three or four people late on that particular laughable attempt at a counter argument.

One has to find it interesting that you believe those that don't expect hand outs from people or don't obligate others to their well being are the ones ill equipped to handle the real world.

tissue, john?

 

[editec]

Of course they're caricatures. All kinds of works of fiction use the people in them to fill certain arch types. What is inherently wrong with that? Seriously, I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what the main 'heroes', Dagny, Hank, Galt, etc. are doing wrong. What is it you think they owed this fictional society? How did they wrong society at large through their actions?

In the framework of the artifical reality Rand created they're not doing ANYTHING wrong.

In fact, within the framework of the supended disbelief that every read must assume to get involved in any fiction, THEYRE HEROIC CHARACTERS.

Our objections aren't that the characters in the book are bad.

Our objections are to those of you who imagine that Rand's world in AS is descriptive of the world we live in.

Hell, if I lived in the fantasy world Rand created (one which I thoroughly enjoyed, I might add, when I read in the early 60s) I'd be trying to follow John Galt, too.

Such is the nature of FICTION.

Is this what passes for critical thinking in your world?

Really??

Yes, really!

Is your response to it what passes for critical thinking in your world?

No need to answer, Lad, that was a rhetorical question.

 

[sparky]

You people realize the libertopian heroine died suckin' up social handouts under the pseudonym Ann O'Conner, right?

 

[editec]

Fine, if you're only talking about the self-contained world of the book. If you're trying to make a statement about the real world, however, you'd have to do better than basing it on caricatures.

That was a predictable response. Who ever said the book was based on anything going on in the real world? I ask again, what is WRONG with the heroes of the book? Or is it that you think their opposition is misrepresented?

If you're trying to present a philosophy which is applicable to the real world, but present it in a book in which isn't based on anything in the real world, why should anyone pay attention? Remember, the title of the thread says the move will "change the face of American politics". How can that happen, if it's not based on anything real? Another contradiction in Objectivism, IMO, we're supposed to believe we can make a real change in the world based on something unreal!!!

I think you are discounting the effect that literature can have on the public's perception.

Consider the change in public tolerance for slavery that resulted from the fiction UNCLE TOM'S CABIN.

 

[editec]

You people realize the libertopian heroine died suckin' up social handouts under the pseudonym Ann O'Conner, right?

They don't care.

Their minds (such as they are) are made up.

 

[QUENTIN]

There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged.

One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world.


The other, of course, involves orcs.

el oh el

 

[konradv]

That was a predictable response. Who ever said the book was based on anything going on in the real world? I ask again, what is WRONG with the heroes of the book? Or is it that you think their opposition is misrepresented?

If you're trying to present a philosophy which is applicable to the real world, but present it in a book in which isn't based on anything in the real world, why should anyone pay attention? Remember, the title of the thread says the move will "change the face of American politics". How can that happen, if it's not based on anything real? Another contradiction in Objectivism, IMO, we're supposed to believe we can make a real change in the world based on something unreal!!!

I think you are discounting the effect that literature can have on the public's perception.

Consider the change in public tolerance for slavery that resulted from the fiction UNCLE TOM'S CABIN.

The difference being that Uncle Tom's Cabin had at least a passing resemblance to reality, unlike AS.

 

[Big Fitz]

There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged.

One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world.


The other, of course, involves orcs.

You're only three or four people late on that particular laughable attempt at a counter argument.

One has to find it interesting that you believe those that don't expect hand outs from people or don't obligate others to their well being are the ones ill equipped to handle the real world.

"There are those who are witty and those who quote witty people."

Oscar Wilde.

Been seeing a lot of people quote witty retorts and specious arguments, but little individual wit and knowledge against Rand.

Irony not withstanding, another quote:

"If the law is on your side, you argue the law.
If morality is on your side, you argue morality.
If you have nothing on your side,
you smear your opponent."
Unknown

 

[Big Fitz]

You people realize the libertopian heroine died suckin' up social handouts under the pseudonym Ann O'Conner, right?

So? Liberals grow their own personal wealth every day like they deserve them while railing against the rich.

See Boncher's Maxim below.

 

[Bern80]

There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged.

One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world.


The other, of course, involves orcs.

You're only three or four people late on that particular laughable attempt at a counter argument.

One has to find it interesting that you believe those that don't expect hand outs from people or don't obligate others to their well being are the ones ill equipped to handle the real world.

tissue, john?

Why would I need a tissue? I'm not the one crying about what society owes me.

 

[Bern80]

You people realize the libertopian heroine died suckin' up social handouts under the pseudonym Ann O'Conner, right?

They don't care.

Their minds (such as they are) are made up.

And yours isn't?

 

[Uncensored2008]

While there are several organizations that apply regulations to businesses in the private sector, which is a good thing, they can't accomplish everything.

Again, would you care to compare the ACCOMPLISHMENTS of UL or IEEE contrasted to the FDA or other bureaucracy?

They can't actually FORCE a business to do something.

Consumers can, and do. No one will buy an electrical appliance that isn't US certified, no one will use parts or procedures in electronics that are not IEEE certified.

They also can't cover everything; in the end, you'll need some government regulations.

Government can cover criminal acts, industry is FAR more effective at regulating itself. ISO-9001 and AS9100 are vastly more effective than any government regulation. It's government regulation that is a proven failure. Self-regulation is a demonstrable, irrefutable and overwhelming success.

I was also speaking more of ethics regulations; I should have made myself clearer. Sorry about that.

You're simply wrong.

Sounds pretty good to me.

I know.

There are many who fear and resist liberty. Along with liberty comes responsibility. Many would rather live under authoritarian rule than take responsibility for their own lives.

There will always be people better suited to lead than others.

Leading point toward a goal. You advocate rulers who micromanage the lives of a captive populace.

Sounds pretty anti-tax to me.

Nowhere in there does she advocate abolishing taxation. She states that in an ideal world it would be voluntary, then expands by saying such an ideal will not occur.

So because TWO people have been able to rise up through the system proves that it works? How about no... think of the millions that CAN'T.

You confuse "don't" with can't. That fact is, birth has nothing to do with success - not a damned thing. This ain't India or Mexico, there is no caste system. "From shirt sleeves to shirt sleeves in three generations" was a phrase Dale Carnegie coined explaining that even among the wealthy, the great grandchildren slide right back into the masses in America. The overwhelming majority of those YOU would consider "rich," started with nothing. Yes, wealthy parents offer a better education than the socialized cesspool of public schools - that's about it.

I'm not talking about people rising from the middle class to the top, I'm talking about the people that are born into poverty.

Happens every day.

Capitalism has stopped working, or at least, it has STARTED to stop working.

Utter nonsense.

There are numerous articles on this on the web.

On left wing hate sites... yawn.

Did you know that in 2007 the top 1% of America owned ~43% of all the wealth...

So this is all about envy then? You'd gladly have less just as long as you could ensure that everyone else has as little as you?

Uhhh, so? The fact of the matter is that they are still heavily disadvantaged, with very little opportunity to make their situation better.

Again, you are driven purely by envy, willing to suffer just for the opportunity to make others suffer.

I have a differing view point. If I have continuous improvement, it doesn't bother me that someone else may have even more.

When did I say I was a socialist? All I am is someone who isn't an adult with the maturity level of a toddler.

Yet your entire premise is "NO FAIR, THEY GOT MORE!"

 

[Uncensored2008]

el oh el

One quick way to identify the stupid - they vote democrat.

 

[Uncensored2008]

or read every single one of your posts

That is an education in and of itself. It might even redeem ones such as you.

No guarantees, but what do you have to lose? I mean, your IQ can only go up....