OldPathBluSky
Member
Are there any others?
Any smokers into Ayn Rand/Objectivism?
- Thread starter OldPathBluSky
- Start date
SlowCalaToker
Member
In in the middle of rereading Atlas Shrugged right now. My boss should give me a bonus for every time I read it, I always become a much better employee while I'm reading it!
Ayn Rand = stupid bitch
I'd have ZERO inhibitions to strangle that dumb whore to death, shit that stupid makes all of humanity look retarded. Might as well believe in pink fairies and a cloud god who watches us if your going to take Objectivist's seriously.
Wanna see me stab you to death? Accuse me, a libertarian, to be an objectivist... its like telling a Christian they are a baby raper.
OldPathBluSky, you've smoked way too much weed.
From wikipedia:
"that the proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness or "rational self-interest"; that the only social system consistent with this morality is full respect for individual rights, embodied in pure, consensual laissez-faire capitalism; and that the role of art in human life is to transform abstract knowledge, by selective reproduction of reality, into a physical form—a work of art—that one can comprehend and respond to with the whole of one's consciousness"
If you can read that without half your brain barfing in agony from the utter stupidity its absorbed, then you have smoked way too much weed and I beg you to not have children, and kill any you already have, for the love of humanity!!!
/obviously I'm exaggerating, but Objectivism truly is silly and not useful for real life, just like Confucianism and Taoism.
I'd have ZERO inhibitions to strangle that dumb whore to death, shit that stupid makes all of humanity look retarded. Might as well believe in pink fairies and a cloud god who watches us if your going to take Objectivist's seriously.
Wanna see me stab you to death? Accuse me, a libertarian, to be an objectivist... its like telling a Christian they are a baby raper.
OldPathBluSky, you've smoked way too much weed.
From wikipedia:
"that the proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness or "rational self-interest"; that the only social system consistent with this morality is full respect for individual rights, embodied in pure, consensual laissez-faire capitalism; and that the role of art in human life is to transform abstract knowledge, by selective reproduction of reality, into a physical form—a work of art—that one can comprehend and respond to with the whole of one's consciousness"
If you can read that without half your brain barfing in agony from the utter stupidity its absorbed, then you have smoked way too much weed and I beg you to not have children, and kill any you already have, for the love of humanity!!!
/obviously I'm exaggerating, but Objectivism truly is silly and not useful for real life, just like Confucianism and Taoism.
Last edited:
frostynugs420
Member
people put entirely too much time into religion...
live and die...thats what its all about.
live and die...thats what its all about.
Liam said:
I'm sorry but, anyone who quotes Wikipedia for ANY reason, let alone to make an intellectual argument, doesn't get to call anyone stupid.
Anthem was her best if only because she doesn't repeat the same point over and over for 500 pages.
OldPathBluSky
Member
Liam said:
LOL!! First off, I could never smoke too much weed. Second, I was asking if there were any others interested; not looking for a debate. So, you come in and show so much offense... "Wanna see me stab you to death?" "I beg you to not have children, and kill any you already have, for the love of humanity!!!" For the love of humanity you need to shut the fuck up. There is a high sense of morality inside of Ayn Rand's books. Yes, I don't agree with every word and I think she is weird (all her love scences are rape scences), but there is quality in some of her ideas in there. You are a fool: "Might as well believe in pink fairies and a cloud god who watches us if your going to take Objectivist's seriously." This is ridiculous, I think you clearly don't know what you're talking about. That sentence contradicts objectivism and is an insult to objectivists.
Objectivists are moral absolutists, much like Christians etc. They become convinced their morality is absolute in the same way, belief in facts that are disproven or highly unlikely.
Invisible all knowing cloud god for Christians. Imagined morality and destiny for Objectivists. Neither have sufficient evidence to even begin to form a theory, and if you can't get beyond hypothesis, then your just wasting everyones time.
I'm a libertarian, I know more about Ayn Rand than you know about yourself, out of necessity. Libertarians are often insulted by being accused of being into Ayn Rand and her loony objecitivism. Thankfully she was smart enough to realize she wasn't a libertarian, so its not hard to denounce the usual conservative or liberal attacks upon superior libertarian ideologies.
Stabba stabba.
Invisible all knowing cloud god for Christians. Imagined morality and destiny for Objectivists. Neither have sufficient evidence to even begin to form a theory, and if you can't get beyond hypothesis, then your just wasting everyones time.
I'm a libertarian, I know more about Ayn Rand than you know about yourself, out of necessity. Libertarians are often insulted by being accused of being into Ayn Rand and her loony objecitivism. Thankfully she was smart enough to realize she wasn't a libertarian, so its not hard to denounce the usual conservative or liberal attacks upon superior libertarian ideologies.
Stabba stabba.
OldPathBluSky
Member
"Accuse me, a libertarian, to be an objectivist... its like telling a Christian they are a baby raper." -liam
When any culture has been oppressed with subjectivism, only libertarians were objectivists.
To me there are mainly three types of people: those who rebel against all, those who comply to all, and those who think before they act. Only one is not a fool. We could have had a discussion and thought, instead you chose to slander, what kind of morality is that? A fool's morality. You really pissed me off, because you don't even know what you're talking about.
"that the role of art in human life is to transform abstract knowledge, by selective reproduction of reality, into a physical form—a work of art—that one can comprehend and respond to with the whole of one's consciousness" - AYN RAND
There is subjectivity and objectivity, and you are compliant to both. There are things that you like and hate, these things are subjective, these things can change with a thought. There are things that you know through sensory perception, these things are objective, they cannot change with your thoughts. One principal of Objectivism is the ability of the person to achieve what is wants through a thought process... thinking; the person benefits from his subjective thought by making his objective reality of use.
For example, before there was ever a chair a man thought that he should rest upright comfortably on his rear, this thought was subjective. He then contructs a flat bottom with a side at 90 degrees out of objective material, a tree. He calls the flat bottom the 'seat' and the perpendicular side a 'backrest', and the whole a 'chair'. Therefore, the chair becomes objective. This is how smart people get what they want. A desire always starts out as subjective, only until we can manipulate our objective reality can we achieve our desires. This is why indiviual rights are extremely important.
Protecting indiviual rights is an axiom of the morality of Objectivism. You denouce that and I think you'll have a problem with anyone who thinks for themselves.
When any culture has been oppressed with subjectivism, only libertarians were objectivists.
To me there are mainly three types of people: those who rebel against all, those who comply to all, and those who think before they act. Only one is not a fool. We could have had a discussion and thought, instead you chose to slander, what kind of morality is that? A fool's morality. You really pissed me off, because you don't even know what you're talking about.
"that the role of art in human life is to transform abstract knowledge, by selective reproduction of reality, into a physical form—a work of art—that one can comprehend and respond to with the whole of one's consciousness" - AYN RAND
There is subjectivity and objectivity, and you are compliant to both. There are things that you like and hate, these things are subjective, these things can change with a thought. There are things that you know through sensory perception, these things are objective, they cannot change with your thoughts. One principal of Objectivism is the ability of the person to achieve what is wants through a thought process... thinking; the person benefits from his subjective thought by making his objective reality of use.
For example, before there was ever a chair a man thought that he should rest upright comfortably on his rear, this thought was subjective. He then contructs a flat bottom with a side at 90 degrees out of objective material, a tree. He calls the flat bottom the 'seat' and the perpendicular side a 'backrest', and the whole a 'chair'. Therefore, the chair becomes objective. This is how smart people get what they want. A desire always starts out as subjective, only until we can manipulate our objective reality can we achieve our desires. This is why indiviual rights are extremely important.
Protecting indiviual rights is an axiom of the morality of Objectivism. You denouce that and I think you'll have a problem with anyone who thinks for themselves.
Last edited:
OldPathBluSky
Member
"I'm a libertarian, I know more about Ayn Rand than you know about yourself, out of necessity." -liam
DO YOU SEE? This is all the proof I need to know that you are a FOOL! And a fuckin' prick who exagerates himself. You're trying to get your commune of elitists together, and call yourselves the 'Genius Alliance' LOL That's fuckin' great comedy, if you were a true genius you wouldn't need an alliance... and you wouldn't be trying to waste people times with some fanasty, and you definetly wouldn't denouce objectivity.
DO YOU SEE? This is all the proof I need to know that you are a FOOL! And a fuckin' prick who exagerates himself. You're trying to get your commune of elitists together, and call yourselves the 'Genius Alliance' LOL That's fuckin' great comedy, if you were a true genius you wouldn't need an alliance... and you wouldn't be trying to waste people times with some fanasty, and you definetly wouldn't denouce objectivity.
OldPathBluSky
Member
"Invisible all knowing cloud god for Christians. Imagined morality and destiny for Objectivists." -liam
Your pretenses are futile. Check your premises, 'imagined morality and destiny for objectivists.' LOL I was pissed off, but now you're making me laugh.
Your pretenses are futile. Check your premises, 'imagined morality and destiny for objectivists.' LOL I was pissed off, but now you're making me laugh.
OldPathBluSky
Member
frostynugs420 said:
Living and dying is something that is objective... it is a certainty that you will die
OldPathBluSky
Member
LOL who were you quoting?ampersand said:
"In reason, subjectivity refers to the property of perceptions, arguments, and language as being based in a subject's point of view, and hence influenced in accordance with a particular bias. Its opposite property is objectivity, which refers to such as based in a separate, distant, and unbiased point of view, such that concepts discussed are treated as objects."
Claiming to be objective about such things like MORALITY is pure LOONY BATSHIAT INSANE IDIOCY... with peanut butter on top. Morality is a word, it is not an object, it is a subject... subjects are SUBJECTIVE, they are immaterial and are dependent on the individuals perceptions.
Not much can be classified as objective besides properties of the natural world, mathematics, measurable matter... trying to say that there is an absolute law of morality, that mankind should pursue self happiness as Ayn Rand does, is an ignorant faulty way of thinking.
As far as ontological philosophy goes, Ayn Ran views were flawed, far too many assinine assumptions about humans (lassie z fare capitalism, absolute morality, humans only purpose is individual happiness).
Can you discuses why Ayn Rands assumptions about humans are correct?
Claiming to be objective about such things like MORALITY is pure LOONY BATSHIAT INSANE IDIOCY... with peanut butter on top. Morality is a word, it is not an object, it is a subject... subjects are SUBJECTIVE, they are immaterial and are dependent on the individuals perceptions.
Not much can be classified as objective besides properties of the natural world, mathematics, measurable matter... trying to say that there is an absolute law of morality, that mankind should pursue self happiness as Ayn Rand does, is an ignorant faulty way of thinking.
As far as ontological philosophy goes, Ayn Ran views were flawed, far too many assinine assumptions about humans (lassie z fare capitalism, absolute morality, humans only purpose is individual happiness).
Can you discuses why Ayn Rands assumptions about humans are correct?
Last edited:
OldPathBluSky
Member
"Claiming to be objective about such things like MORALITY is pure LOONY BATSHIAT INSANE IDIOCY... with peanut butter on top. Morality is a word, it is not an object, it is a subject... subjects are SUBJECTIVE, they are immaterial and are dependent on the individuals perceptions. " -Liam
Why do you reduce morality to being just a word? Just a subject? My body is objective, my actions are objective. Any of these actions come from me are based on a moral code. Any actions from anyone are based on a moral code, whether or not they realize that. ACTIONS ARE OBJECTIVE... IDEAS AND THOUGHTS HAVE THE CAPABILITY TO BE OBJECTIVE!! This is how things are created, this is how great men progress our world. Therefore, if a man lives by his moral code, thinking by it before acting and not betraying it in contradiction or nature, does his morality become objective? There are many reasons to justify right and wrong, but in the end 'right' is 'right' and 'wrong' is 'wrong'. 'A' is 'A' and 'A' can never be 'non-A'. Therefore, there IS an objective morality in the eyes of those who know right from wrong. To say there is no objective morality is to kill justice; to say there is nothing that is truly right, and nothing that is truly wrong. THAT is bullshit.
Why do you reduce morality to being just a word? Just a subject? My body is objective, my actions are objective. Any of these actions come from me are based on a moral code. Any actions from anyone are based on a moral code, whether or not they realize that. ACTIONS ARE OBJECTIVE... IDEAS AND THOUGHTS HAVE THE CAPABILITY TO BE OBJECTIVE!! This is how things are created, this is how great men progress our world. Therefore, if a man lives by his moral code, thinking by it before acting and not betraying it in contradiction or nature, does his morality become objective? There are many reasons to justify right and wrong, but in the end 'right' is 'right' and 'wrong' is 'wrong'. 'A' is 'A' and 'A' can never be 'non-A'. Therefore, there IS an objective morality in the eyes of those who know right from wrong. To say there is no objective morality is to kill justice; to say there is nothing that is truly right, and nothing that is truly wrong. THAT is bullshit.
Last edited:
OldPathBluSky
Member
"As far as ontological philosophy goes, Ayn Ran views were flawed, far too many assinine assumptions about humans (lassie z fare capitalism, absolute morality, humans only purpose is individual happiness)." -liam
Could you elaborate more on why you think these are 'assinine assumptions about humans'? I would like to have a RESPECTFUL intellectual conversation on this.
Also, what kind of libertarian are you?
Could you elaborate more on why you think these are 'assinine assumptions about humans'? I would like to have a RESPECTFUL intellectual conversation on this.
Also, what kind of libertarian are you?
"that the proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness or rational self-interest"
There is no evidence that our lives have any purpose, and not everyone pursues personal happiness nor do I believe that this is necessarily beneficial to oneself let alone a group/society. Not a huge issue to dispute Objectivism on.
"that the only social system consistent with this morality is full respect for individual rights, embodied in pure, consensual laissez-faire capitalism"
Laissez-faire capitalism as Ayn Rand describes is the same that anarchist and some minarchists favour. This might work for a commune, but in the cities across the globe... it doesn't. I desire food inspectors at the meat packing plants, the bureaucracy to issue food recalls, the civil servants that inspect restaurants and maintain labeling standards on food, etc. This is where Libertarians pack their things up and move away from Objectivist and minarchists.
"and that the role of art in human life is to transform abstract knowledge, by selective reproduction of reality, into a physical form—a work of art—that one can comprehend and respond to with the whole of one's consciousness."
"To live, man must hold three things as the supreme and ruling values of his life: Reason, Purpose, and Self-Esteem." -Ayn Rand
Trying to give humans a role and purpose where clearly no evidence exists for one, requires complete cognitive dissonance. Just because it is not interesting to believe that life has no purpose, doesn't mean one cannot find a purpose for themselves... Ayn Rand disagrees, she believes we have purpose and she thinks she knows best. Sound familiar? Its the same load of horseshiat JW/LDS try to bring you to the door early in the morning to discuss.
'Science' rarely enshrines a theory into a law, yet Ayn Rand runs amok claiming absolutes about 'consciousness' and proclaiming universal truths. I suggest reading her "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology," the difference between Libertarian ideology and hers will become quite clear.
I'm a regular libertarian in most regards, however I do diverge on the health care issue. I believe that infectious diseases are a threat to society, and for the same reason libertarians advocate a strong nation defense, I advocate a strong two-tier health care system, so that my tax dollars doesn't pay for your Viagra, but takes care of anything infectious so that the poor don't continue to infect others.
It usually goes without mentioning, but I'm for democracy; representative works, but direct democracy preferably
/A few of my RL libertarian friends love Objectvism, they are virtually minarchists until I start listing the things gov. bureaucracy does for society. Since were all Libertarians I don't usually need to list what negative things that same gov. bureaucracy can do.
There is no evidence that our lives have any purpose, and not everyone pursues personal happiness nor do I believe that this is necessarily beneficial to oneself let alone a group/society. Not a huge issue to dispute Objectivism on.
"that the only social system consistent with this morality is full respect for individual rights, embodied in pure, consensual laissez-faire capitalism"
Laissez-faire capitalism as Ayn Rand describes is the same that anarchist and some minarchists favour. This might work for a commune, but in the cities across the globe... it doesn't. I desire food inspectors at the meat packing plants, the bureaucracy to issue food recalls, the civil servants that inspect restaurants and maintain labeling standards on food, etc. This is where Libertarians pack their things up and move away from Objectivist and minarchists.
"and that the role of art in human life is to transform abstract knowledge, by selective reproduction of reality, into a physical form—a work of art—that one can comprehend and respond to with the whole of one's consciousness."
"To live, man must hold three things as the supreme and ruling values of his life: Reason, Purpose, and Self-Esteem." -Ayn Rand
Trying to give humans a role and purpose where clearly no evidence exists for one, requires complete cognitive dissonance. Just because it is not interesting to believe that life has no purpose, doesn't mean one cannot find a purpose for themselves... Ayn Rand disagrees, she believes we have purpose and she thinks she knows best. Sound familiar? Its the same load of horseshiat JW/LDS try to bring you to the door early in the morning to discuss.
'Science' rarely enshrines a theory into a law, yet Ayn Rand runs amok claiming absolutes about 'consciousness' and proclaiming universal truths. I suggest reading her "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology," the difference between Libertarian ideology and hers will become quite clear.
I'm a regular libertarian in most regards, however I do diverge on the health care issue. I believe that infectious diseases are a threat to society, and for the same reason libertarians advocate a strong nation defense, I advocate a strong two-tier health care system, so that my tax dollars doesn't pay for your Viagra, but takes care of anything infectious so that the poor don't continue to infect others.
It usually goes without mentioning, but I'm for democracy; representative works, but direct democracy preferably
/A few of my RL libertarian friends love Objectvism, they are virtually minarchists until I start listing the things gov. bureaucracy does for society. Since were all Libertarians I don't usually need to list what negative things that same gov. bureaucracy can do.
Last edited:
