(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.
