BigDMcGee 3,352 Posted September 23, 2008 Share Posted September 23, 2008 Not to de-rail this thread into Rand chat, by why is it that hardcore subjectivists never acknowledge the stone cold facts.. that rand was a terrible, predictible, insufferable writer, whom if you strip the overt politics, economics and philosophy from, turns into cut rate romantic ( in the style sense, not as in the genre sense) adventure writing. I swear to god, she's the most boring and crappy novelist I've ever read. Link to post Share on other sites
BigDMcGee 3,352 Posted September 23, 2008 Share Posted September 23, 2008 I think Reardan half-raped her too, didn't he? God I love Ayn Rand sex scenes.I don't remember that, exactly, but I do remember the overt cuckolding over Reardon, when John Galt asserted his Bull right to Dagney, which I imagine was echo'd in Rand's real life, as I've heard her marriage was um.. extremely open. Link to post Share on other sites
Dirtydutch 8 Posted September 23, 2008 Author Share Posted September 23, 2008 I actually know hardcore democrats who like her writing just...like...as "fun" books. It's sad. (For what it's worth, I'm sure I'm on record in early book threads defending her skillz.) Link to post Share on other sites
Dirtydutch 8 Posted September 23, 2008 Author Share Posted September 23, 2008 I don't remember that, exactly, but I do remember the overt cuckolding over Reardon, when John Galt asserted his Bull right to Dagney, which I imagine was echo'd in Rand's real life, as I've heard her marriage was um.. extremely open.Yeah, she actually formed some of her later views on "love" to justify that fact that she was always cheating on her husband, in my opinion. Link to post Share on other sites
BigDMcGee 3,352 Posted September 23, 2008 Share Posted September 23, 2008 I actually know hardcore democrats who like her writing just...like...as "fun" books. It's sad. (For what it's worth, I'm sure I'm on record in early book threads defending her skillz.)Oh, I'm sure they do, because they read like Clancy or Grisham, but you don't have to feel guilty about reading Rand because it's serious literature. And I kind of miss the objectivist Dutch, it was so cute.One of the stupidest things about Rand, I thought, was how she thought that Gold should be the basis of any economic system, because gold has objective value. Really? A metal that's primary use is for ornamentation has objective value? Really? Link to post Share on other sites
Dirtydutch 8 Posted September 23, 2008 Author Share Posted September 23, 2008 Oh, I'm sure they do, because they read like Clancy or Grisham, but you don't have to feel guilty about reading Rand because it's serious literature. And I kind of miss the objectivist Dutch, it was so cute.One of the stupidest things about Rand, I thought, was how she thought that Gold should be the basis of any economic system, because gold has objective value. Really? A metal that's primary use is for ornamentation has objective value? Really?Greenspan I think it was had an essay explaining how that was wrong, but that ya' gotta' pick somethin', so it might as well be gold. I recall it took a lot longer, but said little more than that. In defense of my objectivism, (a) it's SO close to being correct, and (b) people who tried to talk me out of it always used completely stupid arguments that didn't even make sense. Link to post Share on other sites
BigDMcGee 3,352 Posted September 23, 2008 Share Posted September 23, 2008 Greenspan I think it was had an essay explaining how that was wrong, but that ya' gotta' pick somethin', so it might as well be gold. I recall it took a lot longer, but said little more than that. In defense of my objectivism, (a) it's SO close to being correct, and (b) people who tried to talk me out of it always used completely stupid arguments that didn't even make sense.Well, sign me up for rational selfishness, as far as all that goes. It's just the ludicrous claims of objective truth that I had an issue with. Link to post Share on other sites
Dirtydutch 8 Posted September 23, 2008 Author Share Posted September 23, 2008 Wurd./Objectivist Interpolation. Link to post Share on other sites
BigDMcGee 3,352 Posted September 23, 2008 Share Posted September 23, 2008 Wurd./Objectivist Interpolation./restart cute avatar talk and declarations of drunkenness Interpolation Link to post Share on other sites
Dirtydutch 8 Posted September 23, 2008 Author Share Posted September 23, 2008 /restart cute avatar talk and declarations of drunkenness InterpolationI hate to correct your code, but I believe the slash means "end." What you would probably want is ">," indicating a new command (is that correct?). And if chrozzo already went to bed, try "sudo restart cute avatar talk and declarations of drunkenness interpolation," which in theory would force his return, regardless of his will. Link to post Share on other sites
BigDMcGee 3,352 Posted September 23, 2008 Share Posted September 23, 2008 I hate to correct your code, but I believe the slash means "end." What you would probably want is ">," indicating a new command (is that correct?). And if chrozzo already went to bed, try "sudo restart cute avatar talk and declarations of drunkenness interpolation," which in theory would force his return, regardless of his will.hmmmmm I think I'll just set him on fire instead. Link to post Share on other sites
Theraflu 1,035 Posted February 11, 2010 Share Posted February 11, 2010 This is apparently going on right now...http://flavorpill.com/newyork/events/2010/...es-o-incandenza Link to post Share on other sites
Don Giovanni 0 Posted February 11, 2010 Share Posted February 11, 2010 One of the stupidest things about Rand, I thought, was how she thought that Gold should be the basis of any economic system, because gold has objective value. Really? A metal that's primary use is for ornamentation has objective value? Really?just reading through this thread and thought i should pwn this undue criticism here. apologies if you have already corrected your thinking. first of all, ornamentation IS an objective value. all cultures that have ever existed ornamented things. gold specifically has a certain shine, color, and texture to it that people find pleasing. those ARE objective values. aesthetic pleasure is an objective value to humans. secondly, ALL metals are objectively valuable in general. that should be obvious. they can be formed, are stronger than rock ect. lastly, gold is resistant to oxidative corrosion. thats why its used on electronic connections like instrument cables, headphone plugs, some wires, and other stuff like that.now, gold would work well (and has) as a standard of value because it is limited and labor-intensive to create more of (by mining). as opposed to our current standard of value which is paper money who's supply can be arbitrarily changed by the government on whim. as you can see, our current system holds something much less objectively valuable and physical as the basis for economics. if your thinking is so far off on this matter i can see why you would dismiss rand. her "cute" ideas seem to be out of your league. Link to post Share on other sites
Spademan 94 Posted February 11, 2010 Share Posted February 11, 2010 just reading through this thread and thought i should pwn this undue criticism here. apologies if you have already corrected your thinking. first of all, ornamentation IS an objective value. all cultures that have ever existed ornamented things. gold specifically has a certain shine, color, and texture to it that people find pleasing. those ARE objective values. aesthetic pleasure is an objective value to humans. secondly, ALL metals are objectively valuable in general. that should be obvious. they can be formed, are stronger than rock ect. lastly, gold is resistant to oxidative corrosion. thats why its used on electronic connections like instrument cables, headphone plugs, some wires, and other stuff like that.now, gold would work well (and has) as a standard of value because it is limited and labor-intensive to create more of (by mining). as opposed to our current standard of value which is paper money who's supply can be arbitrarily changed by the government on whim. as you can see, our current system holds something much less objectively valuable and physical as the basis for economics. if your thinking is so far off on this matter i can see why you would dismiss rand. her "cute" ideas seem to be out of your league.OH SNAP.Another RAND vs ~RAND. These are always fun. Link to post Share on other sites
BigDMcGee 3,352 Posted February 11, 2010 Share Posted February 11, 2010 OH SNAP.Another RAND vs ~RAND. These are always fun.There's going to be no Rand vs ~Rand, on my part at least, i've had enough of those to last me a life time.. and Don's post is so full of face palms, that it makes my skin crawl even considering jumping in. I will say, if you want to start an objectivist debate, start your own god damn thread, don't clutter up DFW's thread with your propaganda. Link to post Share on other sites
BigDMcGee 3,352 Posted February 11, 2010 Share Posted February 11, 2010 This is apparently going on right now...http://flavorpill.com/newyork/events/2010/...es-o-incandenza Fucking objectivist drivel made me almost skip right over that. Holy cow, that's amazing, I hope this gets put into wider release. I really thought " blood sister, one tough nun" was something that screamed adaptation. Link to post Share on other sites
SAM_Hard8 50 Posted February 11, 2010 Share Posted February 11, 2010 My favorite is now 75. Link to post Share on other sites
LongLiveYorke 38 Posted February 11, 2010 Share Posted February 11, 2010 Updates? Is he still dead? Link to post Share on other sites
Don Giovanni 0 Posted February 11, 2010 Share Posted February 11, 2010 There's going to be no Rand vs ~Rand, on my part at least, i've had enough of those to last me a life time.. and Don's post is so full of face palms, that it makes my skin crawl even considering jumping in. I will say, if you want to start an objectivist debate, start your own god damn thread, don't clutter up DFW's thread with your propaganda.typical. the reason you hate debating might be because it forces you to actually back up assertions. we weren't even debating objectivism, just your misunderstanding of gold and economics. i just think its funny that one of your biggest problems with rand is based on something you have completely wrong. its laughable really, all this verbiage about how dumb she is and it turns out you're clueless.i wouldnt even consider myself an objectivist and am not interested in debating the philosophy, but dont think that your bullshit will work on me where you just claim things and then try to insult anyone who embarrasses you like i just did.please, recontinue this thread however you want. ive only come here to deride you a little bit and with that... im off. Link to post Share on other sites
BigDMcGee 3,352 Posted February 11, 2010 Share Posted February 11, 2010 typical. the reason you hate debating might be because it forces you to actually back up assertions. we weren't even debating objectivism, just your misunderstanding of gold and economics. i just think its funny that one of your biggest problems with rand is based on something you have completely wrong. its laughable really, all this verbiage about how dumb she is and it turns out you're clueless.i wouldnt even consider myself an objectivist and am not interested in debating the philosophy, but dont think that your bullshit will work on me where you just claim things and then try to insult anyone who embarrasses you like i just did.please, recontinue this thread however you want. ive only come here to deride you a little bit and with that... im off. Link to post Share on other sites
JoeyJoJo 18 Posted February 11, 2010 Share Posted February 11, 2010 I laugh out loud at that picture every goddamn time. Link to post Share on other sites
BigDMcGee 3,352 Posted February 11, 2010 Share Posted February 11, 2010 I laugh out loud at that picture every goddamn time.That picture is worth more like 10,000 words Link to post Share on other sites
brvheart 1,752 Posted February 11, 2010 Share Posted February 11, 2010 Who are those people? If I had to take a wild guess, it would be Alicia Keys and [insert famous rapper] Let's go with 50cent. Link to post Share on other sites
JoeyJoJo 18 Posted February 11, 2010 Share Posted February 11, 2010 ... Link to post Share on other sites
brvheart 1,752 Posted February 11, 2010 Share Posted February 11, 2010 ...Inserting the picture again might have worked better. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now