Originally posted by SeitseWhat's the big fuss about? There's no such thing as a forum revolution. Same thing, different day.
For someone with such a low self esteem you are quite judgmental. I am also
surprised by the abundance of adjectives; for someone so evidently
uncomfortable with his working class background, that is.
If there were such a thing as a forum revolution, then I would expect to see a substantive and objective discussion of a specific topic.
Hasn't happened yet! It would be a miracle if it did, and we all know there's no such things as miracles.
“Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power”
-G. Orwell
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 116939
25 Sep 16
Originally posted by whodeyDid you mean to post this in another thread, in another forum, on a different website perhaps?
“Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power”
-G. Orwell
25 Sep 16
Originally posted by whodeySo you're not just a Randian, you're an Orwellian Randian.
“Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power”
-G. Orwell
Go ahead and run, so we can pitch this mindset in the rubbish bin, the sooner the better.
25 Sep 16
Originally posted by SuzianneAre you referring to Ayn Rand?
So you're not just a Randian, you're an Orwellian Randian.
Literary critics received Rand's fiction with mixed reviews, and academia generally ignored or rejected her philosophy, though academic interest has increased in recent decades. The Objectivist movement attempts to spread her ideas, both to the public and in academic settings. She has been a significant influence among libertarians and American conservatives.
If she had been a liberal spreading liberal ideology I suppose she'd be your feminist democrat hero no doubt. 😉
26 Sep 16
Originally posted by josephwShe's a thoroughly disgusting individual, and if you'd look into her work just a little more, instead of regurgitating what the right says about her, you'd think so, too.
Are you referring to Ayn Rand?
[b]Literary critics received Rand's fiction with mixed reviews, and academia generally ignored or rejected her philosophy, though academic interest has increased in recent decades. The Objectivist movement attempts to spread her ideas, both to the public and in academic settings. She has been a significant influence among lib ...[text shortened]... a liberal spreading liberal ideology I suppose she'd be your feminist democrat hero no doubt. 😉
By the way, Paul Ryan believes the same things she does. Which should scare the pants off every American who cares where this country is headed.
26 Sep 16
Originally posted by SuzianneActually I had never heard of her before you mentioned "Randian". The quote I got from Wikipedia, not from a republican source. But from what I read about her she doesn't seem so bad except that she rejected faith and religion, and espoused reason.
She's a thoroughly disgusting individual, and if you'd look into her work just a little more, instead of regurgitating what the right says about her, you'd think so, too.
By the way, Paul Ryan believes the same things she does. Which should scare the pants off every American who cares where this country is headed.
Originally posted by josephwRand was a visionary when it came to Big Brother. She has written novels that tend to mirror society today, as was Orwell.
Actually I had never heard of her before you mentioned "Randian". The quote I got from Wikipedia, not from a republican source. But from what I read about her she doesn't seem so bad except that she rejected faith and religion, and espoused reason.
But you are correct, Rand was self centered and cared nothing about helping the poor, something that those of faith should stand up and help correct.
Most atheists, however, at least have a conscience, unlike Rand. However, they tend to prefer to vote for people to force them to give more of their money to the government with the rationalization that they are helping the poor in some way because the government is suppose to do help the poor for them.
I think it gives them a warm fuzzy feeling inside.
Originally posted by whodeyWhat proportion of the electorate in your country are atheists? What proportion of them vote in elections? What is the significance of what this small number of people "tend to prefer to vote for"?
Most atheists, however, at least have a conscience, unlike Rand. However, they tend to prefer to vote for people to force them to give more of their money to the government with the rationalization that they are helping the poor in some way because the government is suppose to do help the poor for them.
Originally posted by josephwJosephw,
Hasn't happened yet! It would be a miracle if it did, and we all know there's no such things as miracles.
I have to disagree with you on there is no such things as miracles! I saw a post where robbie received 5 thumbs up and none down.....In my mind that was a miracle. 😉
This is something we may never see happen again!!!
Kind Regards,
-VR
Originally posted by Very RustyAre you sure Crusty old bean burger? was one of them yours?
Josephw,
I have to disagree with you on there is no such things as miracles! I saw a post where robbie received 5 thumbs up and none down.....In my mind that was a miracle. 😉
This is something we may never see happen again!!!
Kind Regards,
-VR
27 Sep 16
Originally posted by josephwThe first I heard of her was when I was 19 (or 20) years old. I overheard someone mention her idea of "enlightened self interest". It struck me as an odd statement, and on the surface it sounds like an oxymoron. But after thinking about it for awhile it made sense.
Actually I had never heard of her before you mentioned "Randian". The quote I got from Wikipedia, not from a republican source. But from what I read about her she doesn't seem so bad except that she rejected faith and religion, and espoused reason.
Everyone, whether they will admit it (or like it) or not, acts out of self interest. Self interest is not necessarily a bad thing, and so to me "enlightened self interest" simply means taking care of your own business in way that may or may not help others, but at the very least it is not harmful to others.
But I suspect many Rand haters automatically equate 'self interest' with 'selfishness', and will assume the worst about anyone acting out of self interest. This was my first impression as well, but I also suspect this initial perception was anticipated, hence the word 'enightened'. Of course, this can only work to clarify what is meant by 'self interest' if the word enightenment is regarded as a good thing. I'm sure you already know how this works with some people:
self interest = selfish = bad
enlightened = good
enlightened self interest = good or bad but not both, so...
e self interest does not = selfish
( extra credit analysis )
However...
clams = shellfish
selfish = bad
clams = money
money = bad = selfish = bad = 😀