5 Stupid things about Ayn Rand

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Penn Jillette has a good video on this subject.

I like Penn Jillette as an entertainer.As a thinker,not so much

I think some/a lot of people care desperately about education.That everyone/the majority does is I think a bourgeois fantasy.

There are two broad reasons for my position:

There are differences of opinion about what exactly constitutes education;

For me,education is far more than literacy and numeracy; children need to be taught to think,and to always question, not to simply accept because a teacher/parent says so. IE children should not be taught WHAT to think. The composition of the curriculum should be largely irrelevant. Even so, I prefer any curriculum to be based science and evidence than the dogmatic authority of religion.

IF people were desperately concerned about education,public education would be a top priority,with top rate schools and brilliant,highly paid teachers.

My perception is that Jillette argues from ideology,not from evidence and therefore has no credibility with me. That is also why I am unable to support any single ideology.

So far,the most effective and equitable system I've seen is the one we have here in Australia: A form of regulated capitalism with some socialist elements. I am aware our system is flawed, I assert only that it suits me (mostly) and seems better than most*.

Possible exceptions;The Netherlands, Scandinavia , Canada and the UK..

[Tiberius]

"Jillette argues from ideology"

Are you serious? The entire video was about not arguing from ideology, but rather getting Libertarians to come to common ground with liberals. Like he said in the video, let's get rid of the war on drugs and stop spending money on wars in general (things we both agree are bad), then we can argue about whether the government should pay for roads or provide healthcare. Constant bickering about things that can ultimately be left for a later date is preventing progress. There are plenty of things which Libertarians and Liberals agree on.

Edit: Besides, at the start of the video he says he's probably wrong about education, and later he says liberals could probably convince him of some positions. That hardly sounds like a man arguing from ideology. It sounds like a man arguing for compromise.

[Napoléon]

Woman's been dead thirty years, people can't stop talking about her.

Usually because her followers are as crazy as the bat shit theists and mindlessly defend her and talk about her as though she's the greatest thing since sliced bread.

[genkaus]

I'll bite. Though I've not read her work.

1. Poor writer? Wouldn't know, I do hear atlas shrugged ain't that great, but that seems to me to be irrelevent. Lets attack the idea's, not the exact way they were written.

About her being a poor writer - Rand's magnus opus a humongous novel of over a thousand pages - a novel full of long moralizing speeches (the longest of which runes for more than a hundred pages or 3 hours) and proses with overt author-appeal. She has loads upon loads of characters each of whom have a separate and clearly-laid out back-story and still end up falling in one camp of the other. And her book has consistently ranked among the most widely read. If that doesn't show her good writing skills, I don't know what will.

---

Usually because her followers are as crazy as the bat shit theists and mindlessly defend her and talk about her as though she's the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Its interesting you say that, because when I look online, 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. If you ask me, the haters do much more to make sure that Ayn Rand remains in the circulation.

[MountOlympus]

The fact of the matter is, no one is going to agree with a party 100% of the time, and that's why I vote Non-Partisan. I like the majority of the libertarian party ideas, a majority of the liberal party ideas, and a small minority of the republican party ideas. Heck, I even like a few Green party ideas.

When you work together towards goals, that is when you truly have a working democracy.

On topic, Ayn Rand's fans are BATSHIT.

[Rev. Rye]

I'll bite. Though I've not read her work.

1. Poor writer? Wouldn't know, I do hear atlas shrugged ain't that great, but that seems to me to be irrelevent. Lets attack the idea's, not the exact way they were written.

About her being a poor writer - Rand's magnus opus a humongous novel of over a thousand pages - a novel full of long moralizing speeches (the longest of which runes for more than a hundred pages or 3 hours) and proses with overt author-appeal. She has loads upon loads of characters each of whom have a separate and clearly-laid out back-story and still end up falling in one camp of the other. And her book has consistently ranked among the most widely read. If that doesn't show her good writing skills, I don't know what will.

For what it's worth, I've found that The Fountainhead is far less stupid, and more plot-oriented. Granted, it still has its moments of author filibusters and dick moves by major characters, but it's more readable.

[5thHorseman]

There's one important thing about people like Rand. They are important. It doesn't matter if you agree with Rand or Marx, Locke, Hobbes, Machiavelli etc, they create debate and make people think. Which i'm sure you'll agree, is better than having a bunch of sheep following one ideal.

I'm not putting her in Marx et al's league though. There are far better in her field than she.

[Creed of Heresy]

Tib: When has liberalism ever been "callously indifferent?" I thought the term "bleeding-heart liberal" was meant to signify an ultra-liberal...who couldn't stop crying about everything and everyone else? XD

Nitpicking aside, though, I like Penn Jillette quite a bit. I disagree with him on some of his ideological ideas but I agree with him on so much else, like the use of evidence to debunk unsubstantiated claims that are harmful rather than harmless. He is right on a lot of points; liberals and libertarians do actually have quite a bit of common ground. Unfortunately, the libertarians got their political representation in the form of the Tea Party, and fuck me if that isn't the best way to get a majority of the nation to stop taking you seriously or even sanely...

[Napoléon]

Its interesting you say that, because when I look online, 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. If you ask me, the haters do much more to make sure that Ayn Rand remains in the circulation.

Oh? Care to point out the mis-characterizations and ad-homs?

"Discussions started ostensibly for the reason of criticizing her" - No, 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, and Ayn Rand's (in my opinion) retarded philosophies.

To say it is unwarranted or unnecassary, is foolish given the above point. If someone finds something stupid, they have every right to point out that it is stupid, make a thread saying it is stupid, post a video saying it is stupid. At the end of the day it's all in the interest of sharing knowledge in the hope that stupid ideals are treated as stupid ideals.

Now if you disagree, ofcourse you also have every right to make a case stating why. And regardless of who is right or wrong, that's how arguments and discussions work.

As for who keeps it in circulation, it doesn't make a blind bit of difference. If there are people out there who still parade these ideals around as though they are genius, and there are people who disagree, the people who disagree have a right to turn around and say why they think it's bollocks. Regardless of whether the subject matter is 2000 years old or 20, if there are people about who still think it is correct the people who want to point out otherwise can say so.


Personally I'd never even heard of Ayn Rand until someone quoted her in this forum. What you or I think about who is most vocal on the subject is purely anecdotal.

[Tiberius]

Unfortunately, the libertarians got their political representation in the form of the Tea Party, and fuck me if that isn't the best way to get a majority of the nation to stop taking you seriously or even sanely...

Erm...the Libertarian Party is the official political representation of Libertarians. The Tea Party had some roots in Libertarianism originally, but they have morphed into a statist movement that promotes theocracy. The Tea Party and Libertarianism are completely incompatible at this point.