Journal smittyoneeach's Journal: This is like arguing the atom is the molcule 12
fustakrakich:
I am in awe of the wanton inconsistency of your arguments in general, and this one in particular. Bravo!
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
This is like arguing the atom is the molcule
The moon is made of green cheese. -- John Heywood
This cartoon resembles that remark (Score:2)
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-2NcljHosask/Ub0Vat_179I/AAAAAAAAAFk/v_Az5hcJecY/s1600/huxley-orwell-amusing-ourselves-to-death.jpg [blogspot.com]
Nope (Score:1)
Only showing that you have no high ground, aside from physical strength. And you are still projecting your cultural view on everything.
Nope Nope (Score:1)
(b) Your 'cultural view' argument is symmetric. One could say the same of you, and both iterations would fail the "So, what?" test.
Shirley, you can do better than that; if not, bring in LaVerne.
Actually ... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Even in her bizarre and twisted approach to sexuality, the borderline rape was consensual.
The one who read 1984 as a how-to was Alinsky.
Great to hear from you again, though, mate.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't agree. Rand (and I find her an interesting critique of Socialism, but no more) absolutely never counseled an individual asserting power over another.
You are free to disagree. And while I am not an expert on what Rand herself believed in, I have encountered plenty of Randians who have not hesitated to tell me what they think as a result of their lives being changed by her writing. The Randians almost without exception are - whether they realize it or not - openly advocating for fascism.
If you do not see where the connection lies between Randian philosophy and fascism, ask yourself one question. If there is no law preventing the purchase of power
Re: (Score:2)
I was going to try to rebut this, because I don't think Rand or her acolytes were consciously so doing, but, yeah, I think there may be something there, en passant.
Which is why I've always thought the actually, constitutionally conservative, Federalist outlook the least-worst among the choices. I don't think any human being naturally virtuous. The flesh is fallen and carnivorous. What we do with poli
Re: (Score:2)
The Randians almost without exception are - whether they realize it or not - openly advocating for fascism.
I was going to try to rebut this, because I don't think Rand or her acolytes were consciously so doing, but, yeah, I think there may be something there, en passant.
There is an interesting parallel that occurred to me between Randians and Atheists. Of course, it is not the one that some of them claim (in so much as some Randians inaccurately describe themselves as atheists) but rather the parallel lies in they each exist under a non-classical definition of the term that they use to label their philosophy. In the case of the
Re: (Score:1)
Many Randians are actually taking stances that support the unrestrained concentration of power in increasingly fewer people, which leads invariably to fascism.
I don't think any human being naturally virtuous.
Then why support a government at all? While I don't believe any politician to be any more moral than any other random person selected from the population at large, I believe there is an opportunity for people to genuinely act with the interests of others at heart.
Here is, I think, the crux of the matter. Lord Acton [phrases.org.uk] wields Chekhov's Gun [wikipedia.org] to great effect. What we're after here is the optimal, minimal concentration of power to accomplish what "must" be done, whatever that is.
The problem is that Progress has run its course. Irrespective of whatever swell intentions were had along the way, it has devolved into crass vote-buying schemes. There is no feedback loop; Wilson weakened the Constitution, and it's all gone pear-shaped.
I suppose if you want to define conservative
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that Progress has run its course. Irrespective of whatever swell intentions were had along the way, it has devolved into crass vote-buying schemes.
So you are opposed to progress, regardless of in what form or who calls it to be progress? What then is it that you want to see put in place, a caste system perhaps? Although of course you would need to describe it as something other than progress, if that is a word with only negative connotations for you.
I suppose if you want to define conservative as "clinging bitterly to the current course", then you can call the current Ruling Class "conservative".
I am referring specifically to what fiscal conservatism stands for in this country. Fiscal conservatives - especially Randians who are arguably the most extreme examples of the idea - openly favor a f
Re: (Score:1)
So you are opposed to progress, regardless of in what form or who calls it to be progress?
I'm yawning at amorphous terms. There are individuals, and the individual growth from conception to death. "Hope & Change" and "Forward" are as content-free as "Compassionate Conservativism". The much-reviled free-market, with the minimal level of regulation to keep it stable, should be fine.
I am referring specifically to what fiscal conservatism stands for in this country.
What you have currently working is modern monetary theory [unitedliberty.org] which is piffle. It's a system running open-loop, with a stock market that wets itself when "Zimbabwe" Ben Bernanke [huffingtonpost.com] hints that the ink may be running low in
Re: (Score:1)
No, there is no backwards [alleewillis.com]. One is not a 'product' of the other. They are the same thing that arise from something much more basic and universal.