(August 9, 2012 at 3:03 pm)Napoleon Wrote: I did, I posted the fucking thing.

Again, point them out. Don't just sit there on your high horse. You're not going to get away with claiming there's ad-homs and misrepresentations in there without demonstrating it. Shouldn't be too much of a fucking ask considering you clearly think it so obvious.

Let's start with no.1.

1. She was a poor writer - and the evidence of this was.... a line about her dull prose and dummy characters and an "appeal to authority" line which doesn't even reflect on her writing skills. In fact, if her books are capable of invoking life-long obsession then she must be a darn good writer.

2. The comments about "voluntary participation in society" are pretty much meaningless. According to the poster, Rand said that the individual's participation should be voluntary which is not the case in real world. Well, duh. That's why Rand said "should be" and not "is". Adding "Rand's sacrosanct concept of property rights are meaningless without a society" is not really a criticism. Especially since Rand herself defined rights as "moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context".

3. According to the video, being an ideal randian individualist means never getting any help from anyone. That's a mis-characterization. The correct idea would be "never accepting any help that you did not repay in full".

4. She demonized poor and glorified the wealthy - not so much. Another mis-characterization. The characters in both good and bad camps were in equal part wealthy and poor. The characters she wrote as the ideal Randian individuals - Roark and Galt - would not be considered wealthy by any standard.

5. Apparently, she inspired "generations of selfish assholes". And as examples we have... zilch. This would be an ad-hominem. If you like Ayn Rand, you are a selfish asshole. Doesn't mean anything she said is wrong.

(August 9, 2012 at 3:03 pm)Napoleon Wrote: It doesn't need to have the same effect at all to be comparable. I'm saying there is a similarity in the reasoning behind criticising both topics. Obviously that flew over your head.

I said:
"to show that if something is stupid it should be treated as such."

Where did I mention anything about the effect it has. You're missing the point of my comment if you think it had anything to do with the amount of effect either one has on society.

Read your own damn posts before you reply. You said "when people start threads criticizing bible scripture they don't just do it 'ostensibly for the reason of criticizing it'. They do it for a more underlying reason, mainly to show that if something is stupid it should be treated as such. The same can be applied to this thread"

You did not mention anything about the effect and you are the one missing that point. People don't engage in lengthy diatribes or post long videos only to "show something is stupid" if it has no effect on their lives. You don't see a section here about Greek Mythology, do you? The significant volume of Ayn Rand critics, far out in proportion to her following, points to a hatedom.

(August 9, 2012 at 3:03 pm)Napoleon Wrote: Since when does: Having the right to talk about something.

Equate with: Having an interest in talking about something.

I started the topic on Ayn Rand. Why am I then interested in those things you listed.

I am just laying out your rationale for you. If you don't attach any particular significance to Ayn Rand's works and have simply started this thread because you happen to think it is stupid - then there are mountains of other works equally or more stupid which deserve your equal attention and there is no reason for you to focus simply on Rand. Is there any particular reason you are more interested in Rand and not, say, Marx?

(August 9, 2012 at 3:03 pm)Napoleon Wrote: I'm sorry, but do you even read what I'm saying?

I've just said your personal anecdotes don't mean shit. But you carried on talking about your personal experience. So what.

"bring up ideas simply for the purpose of criticism"

Would you like some straw with that man?

Oh, I'm sorry, can you name anyone who does commit to her ideas completely? Or is it a diversion from the fact that you have no good reason to pick Rand out of a multitude of others that you'd also find stupid.

(August 9, 2012 at 3:03 pm)Napoleon Wrote: Please stop straw manning, it's getting a tad tedious.

Stop hating, it's getting a tad annoying.

(August 9, 2012 at 4:33 pm)Tiberius Wrote:

5thHorseman Wrote:

How is that not what I argued?

And the part you deleted from that quote? That was what I thought it was.

Quote:5 Stupid things about Ayn Rand

What?!

(August 9, 2012 at 4:41 pm)genkaus Wrote: 1. She was a poor writer - and the evidence of this was.... a line about her dull prose and dummy characters and an "appeal to authority" line which doesn't even reflect on her writing skills. In fact, if her books are capable of invoking life-long obsession then she must be a darn good writer.

It's subjective. In the sense that she obviously had success, yeah, she was good at what she did. However it doesn't necessarily make her a good writer. How would you define a good writer? By their success alone?

Quote:2. The comments about "voluntary participation in society" are pretty much meaningless. According to the poster, Rand said that the individual's participation should be voluntary which is not the case in real world. Well, duh. That's why Rand said "should be" and not "is". Adding "Rand's sacrosanct concept of property rights are meaningless without a society" is not really a criticism. Especially since Rand herself defined rights as "moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context".

It is a criticism in the sense it doesn't make a difference in the real world. That's the point of the criticism. We can all imagine up perfect ideals, but if they don't shape into the real world then what sense is there to say you have them. You either have the ideals or you don't. I think it's a very fair criticism.

Quote:3. According to the video, being an ideal randian individualist means never getting any help from anyone. That's a mis-characterization. The correct idea would be "never accepting any help that you did not repay in full".

Yeah, that's a fair shout. However the critique of the fact she didn't actually follow these ideals in actuality, is again, a fair one.

Quote:4. She demonized poor and glorified the wealthy - not so much. Another mis-characterization. The characters in both good and bad camps were in equal part wealthy and poor. The characters she wrote as the ideal Randian individuals - Roark and Galt - would not be considered wealthy by any standard.

Fair enough.

Quote:5. Apparently, she inspired "generations of selfish assholes". And as examples we have... zilch. This would be an ad-hominem. If you like Ayn Rand, you are a selfish asshole. Doesn't mean anything she said is wrong.

Again, fair enough. Can't argue with that.

Quote:Read your own damn posts before you reply.

I always do... but carry on.

Quote: You said "when people start threads criticizing bible scripture they don't just do it 'ostensibly for the reason of criticizing it'. They do it for a more underlying reason, mainly to show that if something is stupid it should be treated as such. The same can be applied to this thread"

You did not mention anything about the effect and you are the one missing that point. People don't engage in lengthy diatribes or post long videos only to "show something is stupid" if it has no effect on their lives.

Well it goes without saying that these things have some effect. I thought that would be a given. You misunderstand what I'm saying about the effect these things have. I'm saying, the effect itself, doesn't matter in regards to my analogy.

In other words, you were saying that I was unable to use my analogy because the bible has way more effect socially than Ayn Rand correct? (I may have forgot because this whole argument is getting pretty ridiculous now)

I'm saying, why the fuck does that matter. The analogy I used still makes sense, it still shows the point.

Quote:You don't see a section here about Greek Mythology, do you?

So are you saying, that because in most people's lives greek mythology doesn't come up, it's any less valid to point out the flaws in greek mythology. I really don't follow this line of logic.

Quote:The significant volume of Ayn Rand critics, far out in proportion to her following, points to a hatedom.

Care to provide some statistical evidence to back up that claim? Or are you just talking out your ass again.

Quote:I am just laying out your rationale for you. If you don't attach any particular significance to Ayn Rand's works and have simply started this thread because you happen to think it is stupid - then there are mountains of other works equally or more stupid which deserve your equal attention and there is no reason for you to focus simply on Rand. Is there any particular reason you are more interested in Rand and not, say, Marx?

What the fuck is this? The post police? What, I'm not allowed to make posts on things that I find interesting?

Why do people like the colour blue more than the colour green? How the fuck should I know, I don't have anything to explain to you.

You seem to be the guy with the problem here. Are you getting offended by the fact that this is thread centred over Rand? Are you her biggest fan or something?

What does it matter to you, seriously.

Quote:Oh, I'm sorry, can you name anyone who does commit to her ideas completely? Or is it a diversion from the fact that you have no good reason to pick Rand out of a multitude of others that you'd also find stupid.

I'm not obligated to name anyone, this is getting so pathetic it's unreal.

I've given you my reason.

IT INTERESTS ME.

If that's not a good enough reason, then what more can I say other than: fuck off.

Quote:Stop hating, it's getting a tad annoying.

Are you intentionally trying to sound like a butthurt Ayn Rand fanboy, or are you just trying to be funny.

(August 9, 2012 at 4:41 pm)genkaus Wrote:

(August 9, 2012 at 3:03 pm)Napoleon Wrote: I did, I posted the fucking thing.

Again, point them out. Don't just sit there on your high horse. You're not going to get away with claiming there's ad-homs and misrepresentations in there without demonstrating it. Shouldn't be too much of a fucking ask considering you clearly think it so obvious.

Let's start with no.1.

1. She was a poor writer - and the evidence of this was.... a line about her dull prose and dummy characters and an "appeal to authority" line which doesn't even reflect on her writing skills. In fact, if her books are capable of invoking life-long obsession then she must be a darn good writer.

2. The comments about "voluntary participation in society" are pretty much meaningless. According to the poster, Rand said that the individual's participation should be voluntary which is not the case in real world. Well, duh. That's why Rand said "should be" and not "is". Adding "Rand's sacrosanct concept of property rights are meaningless without a society" is not really a criticism. Especially since Rand herself defined rights as "moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context".

3. According to the video, being an ideal randian individualist means never getting any help from anyone. That's a mis-characterization. The correct idea would be "never accepting any help that you did not repay in full".

4. She demonized poor and glorified the wealthy - not so much. Another mis-characterization. The characters in both good and bad camps were in equal part wealthy and poor. The characters she wrote as the ideal Randian individuals - Roark and Galt - would not be considered wealthy by any standard.

5. Apparently, she inspired "generations of selfish assholes". And as examples we have... zilch. This would be an ad-hominem. If you like Ayn Rand, you are a selfish asshole. Doesn't mean anything she said is wrong.

This is hilarious. 1, 4, and 5 aren't even criticisms that address whether her ideas are correct, just whether they're pleasant (to that particular audience member).

(August 9, 2012 at 5:56 pm)CliveStaples Wrote: This is hilarious. 1, 4, and 5 aren't even criticisms that address whether her ideas are correct, just whether they're pleasant (to that particular audience member).

You know what else is hilarious clive?

(August 9, 2012 at 6:17 pm)Napoleon Wrote: You know what else is hilarious clive?

---

Your beliefs

---

Nice ad hom, bro. Care to criticize my arguments? Or are you just going to insult me?

(August 9, 2012 at 5:16 pm)Napoleon Wrote: It's subjective. In the sense that she obviously had success, yeah, she was good at what she did. However it doesn't necessarily make her a good writer. How would you define a good writer? By their success alone?

It is a subjective criteria, but it was not pronounced as such. A judgment was made without the standards being laid out.

(August 9, 2012 at 5:16 pm)Napoleon Wrote: It is a criticism in the sense it doesn't make a difference in the real world. That's the point of the criticism. We can all imagine up perfect ideals, but if they don't shape into the real world then what sense is there to say you have them. You either have the ideals or you don't. I think it's a very fair criticism.

Given that some of her ideals (like individual liberty and private property) have worked out pretty well to the extent they've been put into practice, I'd say the criticism falls short with even this interpretation.

(August 9, 2012 at 5:16 pm)Napoleon Wrote: Yeah, that's a fair shout. However the critique of the fact she didn't actually follow these ideals in actuality, is again, a fair one.

Except, that wasn't the critique here.

(August 9, 2012 at 5:16 pm)Napoleon Wrote: Fair enough.

Again, fair enough. Can't argue with that.

So, we've established both ad-hominem and mis-characterization.

(August 9, 2012 at 5:16 pm)Napoleon Wrote: Well it goes without saying that these things have some effect. I thought that would be a given. You misunderstand what I'm saying about the effect these things have. I'm saying, the effect itself, doesn't matter in regards to my analogy.

In other words, you were saying that I was unable to use my analogy because the bible has way more effect socially than Ayn Rand correct? (I may have forgot because this whole argument is getting pretty ridiculous now)

I'm saying, why the fuck does that matter. The analogy I used still makes sense, it still shows the point.

That is where you are wrong - the effect does matter. People usually don't start critical discussions on topics which aren't significant to them. Starting such discussions on the bible is understandable because of its foreseeable effect on society and therefore one's life. Since there is no indication of a similar effect by Ayn Rand, the underlying reason seems to be a personal gripe.

(August 9, 2012 at 5:16 pm)Napoleon Wrote: So are you saying, that because in most people's lives greek mythology doesn't come up, it's any less valid to point out the flaws in greek mythology. I really don't follow this line of logic.

No, I'm saying that validity is not the issue here. Since you yourself aren't a believer of Greek mythology and you don't think it has any foreseeable effect on you or the society and no one brought up the subject with you, then starting a discussion simply to point out its flaws is "unnecessary and unwarranted" and therefore ostensibly for the purpose of criticism for criticism's sake.

(August 9, 2012 at 5:16 pm)Napoleon Wrote: Care to provide some statistical evidence to back up that claim? Or are you just talking out your ass again.

If by talking out of my ass you mean the experience of encountering far more critics than followers....

(August 9, 2012 at 5:16 pm)Napoleon Wrote: What the fuck is this? The post police? What, I'm not allowed to make posts on things that I find interesting?

Why do people like the colour blue more than the colour green? How the fuck should I know, I don't have anything to explain to you.

You seem to be the guy with the problem here. Are you getting offended by the fact that this is thread centred over Rand? Are you her biggest fan or something?

What does it matter to you, seriously.

I'm just proving my point.

"I find that her critics are much more vocal and mindless in their attacks. Examples include regular mis-characterizations of her philosophy and ad-hom attacks. This thread and the embedded video are examples of that - discussions started ostensibly for the reason of criticizing her where criticism is neither necessary nor warranted."

(August 9, 2012 at 5:16 pm)Napoleon Wrote: I'm not obligated to name anyone, this is getting so pathetic it's unreal.

I've given you my reason.

IT INTERESTS ME.

If that's not a good enough reason, then what more can I say other than: fuck off.

That is the reason I've been attributing to you since the beginning. You hate Ayn Rand and her philosophy and yet it interests you enough to keep talking about it. Ergo - "the haters do much more to make sure that Ayn Rand remains in the circulation."

(August 9, 2012 at 5:16 pm)Napoleon Wrote: Are you intentionally trying to sound like a butthurt Ayn Rand fanboy, or are you just trying to be funny.

Ofcourse I'm trying to be funny. I can't tell you to stop being a part of the hatedom - Ayn Rand wouldn't approve.

(August 9, 2012 at 6:42 pm)CliveStaples Wrote: Nice ad hom, bro.

Not an ad hom if it's true


@genkaus. Really don't care anymore.

(August 9, 2012 at 7:28 pm)Napoleon Wrote: Not an ad hom if it's true

...you really don't know your fallacies, do you?

An ad hominem doesn't have to be false to be an ad hominem. It might be absolutely true that Johnson is an asshole; but if Johnson gives an argument, and your response is, "But you're an asshole," you're engaging in ad hominem.