Atlas Shrugged movie

What if...? said:

Hey now...

Mentioning Frank Lunz, while dismissing his contributions to the science of propaganda, makes me instantly suspiscious.

Would you please elaborate on your apparent position in this regard?

Because I think its far more relevant to our current political situation than you apparently do.

Do you have some evidence that cognitive linquistics is imaginary or otherwise invalid/irrelevant to how we form the beliefs we hold?

I'm genuinely curious about your take on this, because your comment seems to indicate that you are aware of some peoples' concerns about his practices, but consider them invalid.

I would LOVE to discuss this. :2wave:

Click to expand...

Sorry, I have no stomach for hearing the merits for propaganda.

Harry Guerrilla said:

Not straying at all.
It's a valid question, if you sacrificing for another, causes those closest to you, to be in a greater state harm than the person you sacrificed for, then it is not truly a moral or logical position.

You have caused more harm by sacrificing yourself.

Click to expand...

It is straying from the topic. Too far. We're discussing the failures of Randianism not the merits of every other school of thought.

The fact is that Randians are unique in their equation of selfishness to morality, and they accomplish this by intellectual sleight of hand by conflating the terms "self-interest" and "selfishness." There is no coherence to it. You can raise questions about other beliefs systems, but this is a distraction tactic to draw the discussion away from the complete intellectual bankruptcy of the Randian system.

Guy Incognito said:

It is straying from the topic. Too far. We're discussing the failures of Randianism not the merits of every other school of thought.

Click to expand...

A comparison must be made if we are to evaluate if a philosophy is good or not.

I find that the notion of complete altruism or selflessness is stupid and that it's loudest proponents only do so for their benefit.

Guy Incognito said:

The fact is that Randians are unique in their equation of selfishness to morality, and they accomplish this by intellectual sleight of hand by conflating the terms "self-interest" and "selfishness." There is no coherence to it. You can raise questions about other beliefs systems, but this is a distraction tactic to draw the discussion away from the complete intellectual bankruptcy of the Randian system.

Click to expand...

I think it is the mentality of a slave, because all it takes is one cunning individual, not devoted to selflessness, to trick the rest into doing his/her bidding.
Just making a comparison of the 2 and showing that if I had to chose one or the other, I'd still chose mine for obvious reasons.

Guy Incognito said:

It is straying from the topic. Too far. We're discussing the failures of Randianism not the merits of every other school of thought.

The fact is that Randians are unique in their equation of selfishness to morality, and they accomplish this by intellectual sleight of hand by conflating the terms "self-interest" and "selfishness." There is no coherence to it. You can raise questions about other beliefs systems, but this is a distraction tactic to draw the discussion away from the complete intellectual bankruptcy of the Randian system.

Click to expand...

no, the discussion is centered around your failed premises.

ARealConservative said:

no, the discussion is centered around your failed premises.

Click to expand...

I have yet to see it shown that the premise that other people than oneself matter morally is a failure. Moreover, that same premise serves as the basis of every other religion and ethical theory in existence, which places a tremendous burden on the Randian. Extraordinary claims like Rand's require extraordinary proofs, and Rand couldn't deliver those.

Guy Incognito said:

I have yet to see it shown that the premise that other people than oneself matter morally is a failure. Moreover, that same premise serves as the basis of every other religion and ethical theory in existence, which places a tremendous burden on the Randian. Extraordinary claims like Rand's require extraordinary proofs, and Rand couldn't deliver those.

Click to expand...

It is not morally wrong to think others matter more than yourself, it is however morally wrong to force people to pay for others and make the society into takers and make the others slaves to their interest. The entire premise of relgious beliefs is to share what you have out of the goodwill of your own, not to be forced to do it by someone elses will.

Also, you're talking about one aspect of the entire philoshopy and ignoring how it is actually connected to the entire philosphy itself. The entire premise of the entire phiioshopy is freedom, it is control of your own life, it is allowing the people to control business and not government. It is about control of your own life. Being in charge of your own money is just part of it.

Ahem...however selfish behavior is the motive of all great things that happen in the world. It is the supreme motive of the world. The greatest inventors of history didn't create because they were interested in helping others they did so to help themselves to make themselves rich. Just like any great invention didn't come to be because someone came out and said "people need this" no, they came into being because someone said "people will want this and I can profit from it" That is what humans are, self interest. Creating a philosophy that helps this happen is not wrong, it is right. Having a system that controls this however, puts it into its place, is bad of society, and bad for the human condition and the current times only proves this. Business is leaving for a reason, its only takes simple reason to see why.