1 edit
@wajoma saidI deserve an apology from YOU for breaking your promise not to engage with me on the topic of Ayn Rand.
No.1 said:
"Obviously, you don't even want to discuss it, as you keep omitting from your quoting of my posts the bulk of my points. This is a standard tactic of those who want to avoid a substantive debate."
How does the saying go, never argue with an ijit, they'll drag you down to their level and beat you up with their superior ijit experience. I deserve an apology from you for a complete waste of time.
I love when people who get triggered by my posts declare they will never talk to me about the topic again. They can NEVER resist breaking their promise.
1 edit
@athousandyoung saidYou're right; I apologize for the error. I should have said "he gets the girl and he doesn't have to rape her this time".
You earlier described the rape in this way:He even gets the girl in the end and this one he doesn't have to rape (like the first sex scene in the book).
We should keep in mind that Dominique is the same woman who is raped by AND who married Roark. It was not two different women. Your earlier post implies two different women.
@no1marauder saidI am a Libertarian and a capitalist, not an Objectivist, while there is crossover there are differences between all three. I think you'll find it was shatmixer that was quoting Rand and I was reposting from his.
In another thread, AJ brought up Howard Roark, the hero of The Fountainhead, Ayn Rand's tedious opus extolling the virtues of a few great men who drag the rest of us peasants towards whatever progress the human race achieves. A few questions were left unanswered by our primary resident Rand acolyte, Wajoma, which I'd like to explore.
He quoted from one of her ...[text shortened]... to the group not merely the individual.
So I'd like to see a plausible defense of the assertion.
“Achievement of your happiness is the only moral purpose of your life,"
His argument being there is no such thing as rational man. Shatmixer has an exceedingly low opinion of his fellow man, so low that he cannot trust his fellow man with freedom, he is to be controlled by... uh oh, what's this...other men, probably other men like shatmixer
I'm not sure what you see as an alternative to a life seeking happiness. A life of sacrifice? Even if you believe in a life of sacrifice, either sacrificing others or sacrificing yourself to the community surely the goal is to be happy.
The quote can not be looked at in isolation, while some might look at the quote and say there are those that are happy leading a lethargic life, posting rubbish on line, not exercising and eating unhealthy food. Rand was very concerned with morality and values and would not consider the above choices moral (that which is life affirming) She might argue that a person that is happy doing those things has not put effort into assessing their philosophy of life.
Shatmixer hit us with a bombshell deep thought revelation brain wave, men are irrational. Rand and myself would argue that man can be irrational if he does not apply himself to examining that which is rational, simply following along thoughtlessly with fashions and trends, whims and instincts, but he can be rational, it is a choice.
There is nothing anti-social about Objectivism.
@shavixmir saidHe argued that blue green is different from green blue, the colour of a fictional piece of metal.
@ AThousandYoung
I’m very impressed. Well argued!
You would be impressed.
1 edit
@shavixmir saidYeah I know, the colour of the fictional steel is extremely important, he said it was green then conceded later that it had some blue as quoted from the book, so when I said 'bluish' wow my whole world tumbled, it was supposed to be 'bluish and greenish' dang.
He ripped you a third arse hole.
Side note, I have the common partial colour blindness 1:12, please forgive me for not being worried enough about the colour of Rands fictional steel as you appear to be. Didn't realise you were such a fan, interested in Rand trivia.
@wajoma saidNew leaky arse.
Yeah I know, the colour of the fictional steel is extremely important, he said it was green then conceded later that it had some blue as quoted from the book, so when I said 'bluish' wow my whole world tumbled, it was supposed to be 'bluish and greenish' dang.
Side note, I have the common partial colour blindness 1:12, please forgive me for not being worried enough about ...[text shortened]... fictional steel as you appear to be. Didn't realise you were such a fan, interested in Rand trivia.
@shavixmir saidtotally freaked out, in a 300 word post I said 'bluish' and it should have been bluish greenish, or greenish bluish, still not 100% clear on that one. But yeah you're right the intellectual rigor, next level, who could have thought it would all come tumbling down based on an imaginary colour on an imaginary metal, or steel even, jesus, probably got that wrong too.
New leaky arse.
@averagejoe1 saidyeh, without capitalists taking 99%of the value created, we wouldn't know how to make stuff fast and in large quantities
Koch Bros. own Molex and Invista, among many others. Look them up. You Zahlanzi, certainly use some of their products. Best you leave rich folks alone. How can you get stuff from other people if no one makes the stuff? Not very smart.
Everyone, what are we dealing with here? Their thinking stops with 'gettin the stuff.
dumbass
@zahlanzi saidYou seem upset, thus the nonsense of this post.
yeh, without capitalists taking 99%of the value created, we wouldn't know how to make stuff fast and in large quantities
dumbass
I note that you refer to 'other people', capitalists in this case. How about 'self', Zhalanzi?? You should give it a try. Think of how successful you would be in a capitalist country.
I hope you are not offended that I suggest success.
@athousandyoung saidteal
I deserve an apology from YOU for breaking your promise not to engage with me on the topic of Ayn Rand.
I love when people who get triggered by my posts declare they will never talk to me about the topic again. They can NEVER resist breaking their promise.
What Color Does Mixing Blue and Green Make? When we're talking about color theory, specifically, blue is a primary color and green is a secondary color. When mixed together, they create the tertiary color of teal. Teal is created specifically when mixing equal amounts of blue and green together.
Checkmate.
@wajoma saidLeaky, weak sphincter, new arse.
totally freaked out, in a 300 word post I said 'bluish' and it should have been bluish greenish, or greenish bluish, still not 100% clear on that one. But yeah you're right the intellectual rigor, next level, who could have thought it would all come tumbling down based on an imaginary colour on an imaginary metal, or steel even, jesus, probably got that wrong too.