Socialism and Me!

[Spartacus FPV]

There's not much point in arguing with an Objectivist. If you don't follow the Gospel of Rand, they're mainly just a cute novelty species; pretty to look at like the Lemures at the zoo. Not much for conversation, though.

Tis' a pity. Then again, their creed does make sense if you accept the 2-D morality of Objectivism.

*shrugg*

How about you debate me instead of insult me. Im not some cookie cutter libertarian who regurgitates Rand.

 

[The-Technocrat]

How about you debate me instead of insult me. Im not some cookie cutter libertarian who regurgitates Rand.

I know you're not a libertarian. Objectivism is just a more extreme species. Debate with objectivists is like debating Scientologists. It's common not just to Objectivism, but all other popular cults. It propagates itself due to memetic fitness, not really due to academic rigor. Try debating a Scientologist sometime about Psychiatry and you will find out what Objectivism is like to people who are not a member of the same cult. The only real difference in mentality is that Objectivists don't go "YOU DON'T KNOW THE HISTORY OF PSYCHIATRY!!!!" like Scientologists do. Same dogmatic, pseudo-intellectual mentality though.

It's an intellectually closed-system that's not taken seriously in academic ethics. It just sounds good to teenagers because it appeals to their "rage against the machine " and rights-based emotions. It's a lucid-sounding rationalization for their behavior. Rather juvenile.

 

[Kelzie]

I know you're not a libertarian. Objectivism is just a more extreme species. Debate with objectivists is like debating Scientologists. It's common not just to Objectivism, but all other popular cults. It propagates itself due to memetic fitness, not really due to academic rigor. Try debating a Scientologist sometime about Psychiatry and you will find out what Objectivism is like to people who are not a member of the same cult. The only real difference in mentality is that Objectivists don't go "YOU DON'T KNOW THE HISTORY OF PSYCHIATRY!!!!" like Scientologists do. Same dogmatic, pseudo-intellectual mentality though.

It's an intellectually closed-system that's not taken seriously in academic ethics. It just sounds good to teenagers because it appeals to their "rage against the machine " and rights-based emotions. It's a lucid-sounding rationalization for their behavior. Rather juvenile.

You know, I'm quite sure Lachean is able to defend his belief himself. But just to drop my two cents in, emotional and juvenile are the opposite of what I would use to describe Lachean's debates. I'm not sure how old he is and quite frankly it doesn't matter. He conducts himself with more intelligence and lucidity than most people on this forum and that's enough for me. If you're going to rip what he believes, you should provide some evidence, cause we have no reason to believe you so far.

 

[The-Technocrat]

You know, I'm quite sure Lachean is able to defend his belief himself. But just to drop my two cents in, emotional and juvenile are the opposite of what I would use to describe Lachean's debates. I'm not sure how old he is and quite frankly it doesn't matter. He conducts himself with more intelligence and lucidity than most people on this forum and that's enough for me. If you're going to rip what he believes, you should provide some evidence, cause we have no reason to believe you so far.

Objectivism isn't a "rational" or "objective" philosophy. It's subjectivism gussied up in philosophical jargon. Ayn Rand is not a philosopher, and he work isn't taken seriously in any academic circles, and don't believe the propaganda the Ayn Rand Institute puts out--it's not because she's "too intellectual" for everyone. It's because her ideas are crap.

It's proponents are advocates of a personality cult and nothing more. Like I said: imagine Scientology and Tom Cruise's beliefs in Psychiatry, and they are nearly identical mentalities. a Her work is not presented in any academic journals I can find--aside from Objectivist ones, and her arguments are riddled with pretensious babble mimicing analytic philsosophy. Her "proofs" she tauts don't actually prove anything, her axioms are arbitrary and subjective, her terminology is equivocal, and she has made no major contributions to philosophy--she claims to have solved the is/ought problem, but hasn't. She actually violates it repeatedly.

Although the philosophy espouses reason as a virtue, it doesn't stand up to its own test. It's just appealing to teens who are rebellions against authority. It's not a coincidence that they are labled "Randroids." They cannot think outside Objectivist's "selfishness is teh greAt!" boundaries.

When I get back from camping, I'll post more in detail from actual philosopher-critics who point out her glaring faults that Objectivists routinely look over.

It's all rather pointless, I already know, because Objecitivism is a mind-alterning cult, like Scientology. They can only save themselves. Reason and evidence won't do it.

 

[Kelzie]

Objectivism isn't a "rational" or "objective" philosophy. It's subjectivism gussied up in philosophical jargon. Ayn Rand is not a philosopher, and he work isn't taken seriously in any academic circles, and don't believe the propaganda the Ayn Rand Institute puts out--it's not because she's "too intellectual" for everyone. It's because her ideas are crap.

It's proponents are advocates of a personality cult and nothing more. Like I said: imagine Scientology and Tom Cruise's beliefs in Psychiatry, and they are nearly identical mentalities. a Her work is not presented in any academic journals I can find--aside from Objectivist ones, and her arguments are riddled with pretensious babble mimicing analytic philsosophy. Her "proofs" she tauts don't actually prove anything, her axioms are arbitrary and subjective, her terminology is equivocal, and she has made no major contributions to philosophy--she claims to have solved the is/ought problem, but hasn't. She actually violates it repeatedly.

Although the philosophy espouses reason as a virtue, it doesn't stand up to its own test. It's just appealing to teens who are rebellions against authority. It's not a coincidence that they are labled "Randroids." They cannot think outside Objectivist's "selfishness is teh greAt!" boundaries.

When I get back from camping, I'll post more in detail from actual philosopher-critics who point out her glaring faults that Objectivists routinely look over.

It's all rather pointless, I already know, because Objecitivism is a mind-alterning cult, like Scientology. They can only save themselves. Reason and evidence won't do it.

But see, why isn't Objectivism rational or objective? You've offered no evidence to the contrary. Five bucks and your opinion will buy you a coffee.

Have fun camping though.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

I know you're not a libertarian.

Who said I wasnt? I said I wasnt a cookie cutter talking point regurgitating one.

Objectivism isn't a "rational" or "objective" philosophy. It's subjectivism gussied up in philosophical jargon.

Objectivity is the bane of subjectivism.

Ayn Rand is not a philosopher, and he work isn't taken seriously in any academic circles

How do you qualify this statement, my experiences have been to the contrary.

Like I said: imagine Scientology...

Sorry, that isnt how this works. Everyone knows scientology is a cult. This is the first time i've heard people who tend to be objective are cultist. I mean wow, to be a cultist... I cant wait to tell mom. I wonder why the ARI cult havent busted down my door demanding cult membership fees.

You're going to have to outline the objectivist philospphy and point out its contradictions in logic.

Although the philosophy espouses reason as a virtue, it doesn't stand up to its own test. It's just appealing to teens who are rebellions against authority. It's not a coincidence that they are labled "Randroids." They cannot think outside Objectivist's "selfishness is teh greAt!" boundaries.

Oh I get it, you dont like it because it justifies selfishness. Well i'm no teenager and how is my selfishness a concern of yours?

When I get back from camping, I'll post more in detail from actual philosopher-critics who point out her glaring faults that Objectivists routinely look over.

Yeah you go do that, i've read her critics and its all tripe. I'll be waiting.

You know, I'm quite sure Lachean is able to defend his belief himself. But just to drop my two cents in, emotional and juvenile are the opposite of what I would use to describe Lachean's debates. I'm not sure how old he is and quite frankly it doesn't matter. He conducts himself with more intelligence and lucidity than most people on this forum and that's enough for me. If you're going to rip what he believes, you should provide some evidence, cause we have no reason to believe you so far.

Thanks Kelzie, I didnt know you cared...

 

[Ethereal]

Pick one. I probably support it. Except affirmative action.

Let's talk welfare then. How do you feel such a program benifits our country?

I'm going to steal from galenrox...he's a better economist than I am. Don't tell him I said that.

Taking the easy way out, eh? Copy and paste monger!

Technically speaking, anything involving the government or coming from the government, including the government, is socialist.

This is only true if and when these government programs are something that can be provided just as easily by the private sector.

The government exists for us as a society, and supposedly acts with all of our best interests in mind. Now how exactly is that different from the states that you called socialist. They're quite possibly MORE socialist (although that would really come down to the reach of the government, the government's ability to affect the citizens lives, which we very well may have some of them beat).

I'm not really sure this applies to our debate since I don't approve of any form of government regulation or interference that inhibits private citizens from owning or operating a buisness, owning land, distributing their wealth as they see fit, ect. All I'm getting at is that a social program isn't necessarily a "control" on the market; at least they aren't enacted for that explicit purpose.

Now you may say that welfare is different, because it has to do with redistributed money, and thus falls under economic socialism, but I have to point out that it's the same with every single other governmental program that involves money. Wealth is redistributed by all of them, the military takes our money as a society and distributes it to soldiers and weapons manufacturers, tax breaks for specific industries takes our tax dollars, and then gives some back to them specifically, thus making them relatively wealthier, and so on and so forth. Since they all use tax dollars, which is nothing more than socialism in practice (taking away something private and making it public), it's all economically speaking socialist.

I agree with some of this, the American economy is far from truly Capitalist, but its Capitalist elements are what keep our economy strong.

That'll work too. Drop it?

Certainly.

Before success? Or the government? Or capitalism?

All of them. You can't lay the ground work of an economy or a governemt with programs that spend money you haven't acquired yet.

GDP, unemplyment. The usual stuff.

Examples?

Agreed. Drop it?

Agreed.

Take your time. Is steen giving you a run for your money?

Well, now the onus falls upon both of us since you made the claim that the aforementioned region(s) did better in terms of, "GDP, unemplyment. The usual stuff."

I'd like to discuss this but perhaps we could dedicate a seperate thread to it?

 

[The-Technocrat]

Objectivity is the bane of subjectivism.

Of course it is, but claiming objectivity != objectivity. Objective and "objectivism" are not synonomous, regardless of the clever name association tactic she used.

Many of her proofs don't really prove anything, and her claim that she solved the is/ought problem is unadulturated nonsense. She did no such thing.

How do you qualify this statement, my experiences have been to the contrary.

What academic, peer reviewed journals (not controlled by Randians) is her work in? I have yet to see any, and her work is largely tauted by "randian schools" and popular literature of hers. Largely, she's a popular fiction philsoopher, not a scholarly one.

Her heirs have published their own private journals, but then again, there are journals of UFOlogy as well.

She's not taken seriously by any academics outside of Objectivism because her work's not credible. It's rantings of an angry russian who got jammed by ultra-collectivist crazy-commies. Her work has so many glaring flaws, yet it's impossible to get Randians to comprehend. They just don't get it. Cults do that. They mess up your mind.

Sorry, that isnt how this works. Everyone knows scientology is a cult. This is the first time i've heard people who tend to be objective are cultist. I mean wow, to be a cultist... I cant wait to tell mom. I wonder why the ARI cult havent busted down my door demanding cult membership fees.

That's very much how it works, and no, not everyone knows it's a cult. Objectivism is a cult, yet Objectivists don't know it. Cults are alluring and seductive. So is Objectivism. I am sorry you feel it's not a cult, but it really is. It exhibits all the signs of cults. I am sorry it's the first you have heard Objectivism called a cult, but that's probably because Objectivism has a strong emotional allure and brainwashing element to it.

Oh I get it, you dont like it because it justifies selfishness. Well i'm no teenager and how is my selfishness a concern of yours?

It doesn't justify it at all. It purports to, but very inadequately. However, no Randians are capable of comprehending why, just like Scientologists cannot comprehend why Scientology is full of blarny. It's not a matter of being correct, but having endless stamina. I don't have the stamina for endless rounds of nowhere-going with Objectivists who will, at the end, say the same preprogrammed Randian apologetics. Judging from the below quote, I already know what you are going to say before you say it.

Yeah you go do that, i've read her critics and its all tripe. I'll be waiting.

Objectivism is tripe, yes.The critics are right.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

I am sorry it's the first you have heard Objectivism called a cult, but that's probably because Objectivism has a strong emotional allure and brainwashing element to it.

Im sorry but you have still failed to explain how it is a cult. Considering I dont know any other objectivists personally, nor do I follow any organization. How have I been brainwashed?

It's not a matter of being correct, but having endless stamina. I don't have the stamina for endless rounds of nowhere-going with Objectivists who will, at the end, say the same preprogrammed Randian apologetics.

What?!? Not a matter of being correct? Then what is the point of debate? A true skeptic demands to be proven wrong, you really give up before the debate has started because the opponent has read Rand?

Judging from the below quote, I already know what you are going to say before you say it.

You didnt answer my challenge, dont run away, Im here for debate and I swear I wont bore you. I dont see how we could be caught in an endless debate if you have points that I have not considered or couldnt refute. C'mon man, bring it on.

If you cant think of any contradictions or errors in the philosophy, at least give me a compare and contrast with Utilitarianism so that I may understand your perspective.

(By the way, you shouldnt go around calling people cultists because they are against the use or force, and believe in capitalism)

 

[Ivan The Terrible]

Lachean,

While I do not believe you are in the Rand Cult The-Technocrat is right about one existing. I have had the displeasure of seeing one online.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Oh I knew there are some people who take the philosophy to a dark place. In fact there are 2 schools of thought on the matter, Leonard Peikoff's and Ayn Rand's. He took up her foundation after she passed and as some might say, corrupted it.

If there is actually a cult, I would love to hear their justifications and talking points. Should be a riot, and most likely contradictory to her philosophy. The idea of a cult just goes against so many of her core principals, like individualism and the free market of ideas.