I have never read anything by Rand.

Good thing, too.

(July 17, 2016 at 6:03 pm)bennyboy Wrote:

(July 17, 2016 at 5:51 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Given that I don't define it as you imputed, I feel no need to give a deeper reply than this that you're reading.

Color me confused, because you entered this thread talking about evolution and how Rand's ideas don't reconcile themselves well with reality. But summerqueen's idea about how great humanity is doing these days imply an agreement with Rand, since many of the innovators in the world are just the type of people that Rand describes positively, and most of us view negatively.

I sense a SJW. "Who are YOU to tell anyone how to live their life?" That I'm giving the exact kind of reasons that support your original post in this thread is much less satisfying than the chance to *snap* your fingers, waggle your head disapprovingly, and rush to a lady's aid, eh?

I'd wager Thump doesn't think I give a single flying fuck about support from any of y'all, nor does he think I need it, and thus his answer is entirely because of his own disagreement with your condescending opinion.

Oh, Summer skipped fall and went straight for winter. Notice the cold heart?

(July 17, 2016 at 8:19 pm)thesummerqueen Wrote:

(July 17, 2016 at 6:03 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Color me confused, because you entered this thread talking about evolution and how Rand's ideas don't reconcile themselves well with reality.  But summerqueen's idea about how great humanity is doing these days imply an agreement with Rand, since many of the innovators in the world are just the type of people that Rand describes positively, and most of us view negatively.

I sense a SJW.  "Who are YOU to tell anyone how to live their life?"  That I'm giving the exact kind of reasons that support your original post in this thread is much less satisfying than the chance to *snap* your fingers, waggle your head disapprovingly, and rush to a lady's aid, eh?

I'd wager Thump doesn't think I give a single flying fuck about support from any of y'all, nor does he think I need it, and thus his answer is entirely because of his own disagreement with your condescending opinion.

Ya know, I keep trying to take this back to the OP.  I'm disagreeing with Rand, on the basis that people like her (or the people she depicts) aren't fully living out their lives as human beings.  Do you actually disagree with this, or are you just pissy because someone is actually trying to define what "quality of life" means?

I disagree with the idea that anyone isn't fully living their life as a human being because of some arbitrary metric you set - you don't get to decide if someone 'truly' lived - only they do. Quality of life and living to the fullest aren't the same thing, but having a better quality of life to start with can help you reach your potential.

There are plenty of reasons to disagree with Rand without wondering "but were Hank and Dagny and John really living?" I'm sure she thought they were, but they were reprehensible characters in the meantime.

(July 17, 2016 at 8:36 pm)thesummerqueen Wrote: I disagree with the idea that anyone isn't fully living their life as a human being because of some arbitrary metric you set - you don't get to decide if someone 'truly' lived - only they do. Quality of life and living to the fullest aren't the same thing, but having a better quality of life to start with can help you reach your potential.

There are plenty of reasons to disagree with Rand without wondering "but were Hank and Dagny and John really living?" I'm sure she thought they were, but they were reprehensible characters in the meantime.

Okay, I'm happy to be back on the OP.

I agree with most of this, certainly with the idea that you need some quality of life to reach your potential, and that Rand's characters are dicks.  

As for "arbitrary metric," that applies to all subjective terms.  You yourself defined quality of life in terms of creature comforts, an arbitrary metric with which I disagreed.  I think plenty of people have a happy and fulfilling life even WITHOUT many creature comforts.  When I was in my teens, I lived on the streets, ate boot-sole meat at soup kitchens, showered at the "Y" with dirty old pervs watching me sometimes, and lived in condemned buildings without power or plumbing.  And it was the time of my life-- I had good friends, good sex, and a sense of adventure-- I was really living a vivid and enjoyable life at that time. I feel it was because of my financial poverty at that time, not in spite of it, that I really felt so alive.

Now, I have plenty of money (relatively at least), a career, good food, a family, a house, etc. and I have to play self-cheerleader to find a reason to get out of bed in the morning. Things are a little grayer, except when I make a real effort to go out and experience something new.

That being said, I agree that replacing your arbitrary metric with an equally arbitrary one wasn't really a step in the right direction.

"creature comforts"


Health care is a creature comfort?

Get out.

Your dissatisfaction with your life currently is no reason to decide that people should live as scrappy as you did when you felt you were happier.

Reprehensible characters make life worth living. Without them, would you even strive for anything more than that which you found reprehensible?

I'm really done arguing with you about this - the fact that we have socialized programs that give everyone clean water, that we're working towards socialized health care, that we have public roads and public education, etc, etc - this is not about "creature comforts". Plenty of people have those things and still live ridiculously hard lives. But those things have also improved their lives - as imperfect as those systems are, they're still better than we were 100 years ago. And a magnitude higher than 500 years ago. This isn't arbitrary it's statistics .

You don't find your family and life exciting? TFB for you - I'm really sorry to hear that. But there are plenty of people who manage to acknowledge how good they have it AND take delight in their life and family and other things. They don't have to go live a scrappy life to do so. I would suggest a counselor to talk about these things.

(July 17, 2016 at 9:43 pm)thesummerqueen Wrote: "creature comforts"


Health care is a creature comfort?

Yes, by definition.  So are food and shelter.