Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI
SpaceKB.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

Space Forum / Astronomy / December 2008



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

The chief defect of Ayn Rand

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Andrew Usher - 29 Nov 2008 02:37 GMT
... was her sex, of course. I am not being facetious - I mean that it
is an easily seen fact that no woman has ever written anything of
interest philosophically, and that includes her. The hypocrisy of her
movement is well known; that it did not tolerate any dissent despite
being ostensibly devoted to reason, which, all should agree, requires
open debate.

Her megalomania convinced her that what she came up with was The Truth
and that all disagreement with it was somehow evil. Yes, that
describes all manner of cult leaders (though I believe that many are
just faking it - certainly not in her case), but not many have
explicitly invoked reason as their one and only support. Of course,
this effectively holds reason as a form of revelation, which is
basically a contradiction in terms and so silly that only a woman was
likely to come up with it.

Objectivism, and libertarianism in general, are ideologies for losers
in the money/power/status game that wish to fantasise about being
winners; and the easiest way to sucker them is to convince them that
they'd be winners if not for the damned government! This appeals to
the vanity in all of us that tells us that 'Though not all people can
be winners, _I_ am a 'natural winner' that ought to end up
successful'. If there is any such thing as 'natural winners',
independently of any particular social arrangement, it would be those
of highest intelligence. While social success is always correlated
with intelligence, for several different reasons, it is never as much
as they would have one believe. This is because general intelligence
is not the trait most highly valued by those that control the power.

Government is not the problem in this respect, but I do not hold
government to be good in itself. It has the capacity for evil as much
as for good, and in reality it can only be a function of who
effectively controls it. This is why I am a socialist, albeit an anti-
authoritarian one - and yes, for the first time I am not afraid to use
the word 'socialist', it is exactly the word that describes it - and I
would like to communicate to ordinary men that the only way that
outcomes can be improved for people like them is by controlling the
ruling classes' co-option of our society.

Andrew Usher
Bill Taylor - 29 Nov 2008 04:53 GMT
SUrely not!

The chief defect of Ayn Rand was that she had both
a very silly surname and a very silly given name.

-- w.f. Chatterton Taylor
Anastasia Beaverhausen - 29 Nov 2008 07:31 GMT
>SUrely not!
>
>The chief defect of Ayn Rand was that she had both
>a very silly surname and a very silly given name.
>
>-- w.f. Chatterton Taylor

While I enjoy a good off-topic ramble as much as the next idiot,
I fail to see what any of this has to do with sci.math.

(No doubt galathaea will soon be along to explain ...)

Signature

Angus Rodgers

jmfbahciv - 29 Nov 2008 11:58 GMT
>> SUrely not!
>>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> While I enjoy a good off-topic ramble as much as the next idiot,
> I fail to see what any of this has to do with sci.math.

No math nor science knowledge was one of her defects.  She also
had limited knowledge in how real work got done; IMO this was
the major flaw in her philosophy.  The OP
should really read her biography before spouting about something
he doesn't know about and then track the lifetimes of her
students.

<snip>

/BAH
Phil Carmody - 29 Nov 2008 11:52 GMT
> ... was her sex, of course.

She was a pretty feisty writer, I'm sure her sex was
quite vigorous and exciting.

Do you instead have a problem with her gender?

Phil
Signature

I tried the Vista speech recognition by running the tutorial. I was
amazed, it was awesome, recognised every word I said. Then I said the
wrong word ... and it typed the right one. It was actually just
detecting a sound and printing the expected word! -- pbhj on /.

Andrew Usher - 29 Nov 2008 20:36 GMT
On Nov 29, 5:52 am, Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demun...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
> > ... was her sex, of course.
>
> She was a pretty feisty writer, I'm sure her sex was
> quite vigorous and exciting.

Probably not so much as that in her books ...

> Do you instead have a problem with her gender?

I think that was the obvious meaning.

Andrew Usher
Society - 30 Nov 2008 07:26 GMT
> [The chief defect of Ayn Rand] ... was her sex,
> of course.  I am not being facetious - I mean that
> it is an easily seen fact that no woman has ever
> written anything of interest philosophically,
> and that includes her.

This claim you call a "fact" is not so easy for me to see.

Also, you're implying that if "no woman has ever
written anything of interest philosophically"
then no woman can ever write anything of interest
philosophically.

Worse still, by tacking on the conjunction "and that
includes her" at the end of your remarks there, you're
assuming what you're trying to prove -- a move that
marks you as not "of interest philosophically."

> The hypocrisy of her movement is well known;
> that it did not tolerate any dissent despite
> being ostensibly devoted to reason, which,
> all should agree, requires open debate.

Hmm.  You say "all should agree," implying that
you will "not tolerate any dissent" to your remarks.

Signature

  Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down
  to their level then beat you with experience.

  from "Even More Rules"

  *

** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

Sean_MacCloud@yahoo.com - 01 Dec 2008 14:02 GMT
> ... was her sex, of course. I am not being facetious - I mean that it
> is an easily seen fact that no woman has ever written anything of
[quoted text clipped - 36 lines]
>
> Andrew Usher

============
"ayn rand" is one modern manifestation of "capitalism's" bullshit and
it is why high IQ men (the non- milquetoast ones) are in the mess
they're in.

Capitalism is accurate economic analysis --"[modern society is the
comfortable, ultimately liberal, machine it is because of
entrepenurial focus replacing --for lack of term-- barbarian war as
the method of status aquiring]" -- but it is horrible
political party platform (especially in a 'two party' system).

-----
"No government" schpiel is fundamentally impossible. And --
importantly-- it
scares the masses into the hands of demagogue bait-and-switch liars.
...Big tent, strange bedfellows masses-- all being duped under a
protectionism which has done nothing but give females, fools and
ethnics ever more hypocritically applied "rights".
-----

Liberals say capitalism is the reason people live in refrigerator
boxes. Being idiots and children genetically, they are half right:
Capitalism is the reason the nut living in the refrigerator box is
still alive at all --in a nice cushy refrigerator box; this is
otherwise called 'trickle down'. In pre barbarian-war, pre
'comfortable sociecties' the crazy failures would be long dead.

Well fed creatures seem to change their levels of aggression and
selfishness, deterministically/systemically. Eg the end of slavery in
the west coincided exactly with the success of the host culture that
outlawed [acute] slavery.

Post barbarian-war (comfortable) society's 'capitalism theory/
analysis' (free market-ism, adam smith-ism, or whatever one calls this
thing from the last few centuries) is side effect of Exploration Age's
winfall.

For the already wealthy, this economic philosophy/analysis is simply
an embraced excuse to legitimize their advantages (often dynastically
inherited); ie they don't care 'bout no 'invisible hand (ending
barbarian-war), trickle down' philosophy --they simply nod in
agreement with economist professors ("greed is good" for it leads to
more 'refrigerator boxes').

Libertarianism is simply hip youthful GOP failed silliness. The fact
it failed to stop "government's" "liberal" snowball (of hypocrisy and
anti high IQ [white] male bigotry) is conveniently not seen by its
advocates and this says something important
about this philosophy and it's devotees.

------------
Mussolini and his jewish girlfriend were communists as hip youngins.
Mussolini being biodeterministically a certain type simply put teeth
into this 'communism' as an ineviable side effect of the way he was
laying dego dick into his artsy girlfriend. Together their innate
sexual expression built fascism.

This thing --fascism-- was deemed capable of stopping democracy/
communism (democracy/communism = idiot-opia / milqetoast-opia, filled
with dangerous to high IQ _men_ sanctimonious _hypocrits_ in EVERY
CATAGORY). Seeing this threat, the ayn rand wing of the 'diaspora'
simply hyped up "individualism" (another side effect of Exploration
Age --  colonial outback) as a way of keeping the "don't trust
communism" goy from forming coalition with fascism. ...No general in
history who
actually wanted to stop a charging force (like say
"communism" /"liberalism") would advocate his side breaking up into
individuals as the tactic unless he wanted to lose (or the battle was
already lost).

As far as rand's works, I wouldn't waste my energy dissecting most
humans' gribbit noises; I have long since shrugged.

The only important lesson in the whole situation is as stated:

" "No government" schpiel is fundamentally impossible. And --
importantly-- it
scares the masses into the hands of demagogue bait-and-switch liars.
...Big tent, strange bedfellows masses-- all being duped under a
protectionism which has done nothing but give females, fools and
ethnics ever more hypocritically applied "rights".

Proof is in the puddin, for over a century now at least."
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax - 01 Dec 2008 16:12 GMT
>> ... was her sex, of course. I am not being facetious - I mean that it
>> is an easily seen fact that no woman has ever written anything of
[quoted text clipped - 120 lines]
>
> Proof is in the puddin, for over a century now at least."

http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm

Signature

Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress/?cat=5 - Our podcasts on weird stuff

Sean_MacCloud@yahoo.com - 01 Dec 2008 16:54 GMT
On Dec 1, 11:12 am, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bru...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Sean_MacCl...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> ... was her sex, of course. I am not being facetious - I mean that it
[quoted text clipped - 126 lines]
> --
> Dirk

Charts and graphs (bout pres`o dents) --groovy. How is it germane to
what I said?
Angus Rodgers - 01 Dec 2008 19:49 GMT
Dear Sean_MacCloud,

Could you dumb it down a notch or three, for the sake of all us
females, ethnics, liberals, capitalists, conservatives, wackos,
defectives, evildoers, savages, conformists, simpletons, cowards,
profiteers, milquetoasts [sorry, I've already had my /mot du jour/,
I'll have to look it up tomorrow], liars, fools, idiots, children,
failures, Jews, Communists, Fascists, degos [?], individualists,
and libertarians?  Perhaps you could try giving the much shorter
list of all the kinds of human being (or perhaps aliens) that you
/don't/ hate, despise and resent?  Would that perhaps be "high IQ
white males"?  But you can't like all of /them/, either, because
so many of them fall into one or other of the categories already
listed.  Is there, in fact, anyone on the lists besides yourself?
Or don't you even like yourself very much?  I can understand that.

Signature

Angus Rodgers

Sean_MacCloud@yahoo.com - 01 Dec 2008 22:41 GMT
> Dear Sean_MacCloud,
>
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> --
> Angus Rodgers

I guess you're right: I do bascially hate everyone... but honest
chiefs of yor. And 1) they're probably a romantic myth; and 2) if one
of them bested me(hardly) and stole my dames I wouldn't like them too
(thus contributing to the snowball of dispicable civilization myself).
What I said is not inaccurate though.

As far as dumbing it down...

My grammar is usually correct (barring accidents), though often
unwieldy, so as to save me time and carples (+*). But in the post
you're responding too (and in the last years) my grammar isn't even
that unwieldy.

What's happened is most are all so far away from accurate that simply
organizing info properly is like a major paradigm shift for most.

Humans have snowballed into big sh.t[tm] here and it takes big minds
to untangle it all.

-----
(+*) Interesting to note that I have the same large clause and phrase
'style' as Machiavelli and Nietze (without trying to). It saves us
having to open every necessary digression and idea with a prep; and we
have the intellect to handle the heavy grammar (verb 'tense'/
possess,plurals/affixes etc) of large sentence mechanics. It's
economical though tougher on the reader. (You have to breath with me.)
The interesting part is they too are known for observing reality for
what it is(stating it using the epistemology /science lexicon of their
times) and are then denounced as misanthropes who are causing it to be
that way. But both Nietze and Machivelli were actually saps: animal
fags etc the whole nine -- like me. It's a gene [combo thereof
actually] floating around the Euro-sphere (since shaman days in the
caves, I'd wager). I wonder if they had childhood portrait art skills?
Seriously.

========
'milquetoast' generally means weak or weak willed.

I did make a confusing grammar error in a post above:

""...(while denouncing anyone who is not inherently a defective
wackjob, evildo-er or historically 'savage').""

I should have splurged the carples there and said "'as' evildo-er or
historically savage" instead of using the debatable comma (which makes
it look as though I'm listing 'evildoer' and 'savage' with 'defective
wackjobs').

se la guerre... ;-) c'est la vie
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax - 03 Dec 2008 19:49 GMT
> On Dec 1, 11:12 am, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bru...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 112 lines]
> Charts and graphs (bout pres`o dents) --groovy. How is it germane to
> what I said?

That Big Government in the US tends to be mainly Republican.

Signature

Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress/?cat=5 - Our podcasts on weird stuff

Richard Herring - 03 Dec 2008 17:43 GMT
In message
<588dda68-73e1-4d34-a186-fba171577de2@v38g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
Andrew Usher <k_over_hbarc@yahoo.com> writes

...was her propensity to provoke off-topic posting. Followups set.

Signature

Richard Herring

OwlHoot - 03 Dec 2008 20:19 GMT
> ... was her sex, of course. I am not being facetious - I mean that it
> is an easily seen fact that no woman has ever written anything of
> interest philosophically, and that includes her.
>
> [..]

I assumed this would be a cautionary tale, adapted from Hillaire
Belloc's poem [ http://sniff.numachi.com/pages/tiHENRYKNG.html ]

The Chief Defect of Henry King
 Was chewing little bits of string.
At last he swallowed some that tied
 Itself in ugly Knots inside.
Physicians of the utmost fame
 Were called at once; but when they came
They answered, as they took their Fees,
 `There is no Cure for this Disease.
Henry will very soon be dead.'
 His Parents stood about his bed
Lamenting his Untimely Death,
 When Henry with his Latest Breath,
Cried - `Oh, my Friends, be warned by me,
 That Breakfast, Dinner, Lunch, and Tea
Are all the Human Frame requires . . .'
 With that, the Wretched Child expires.
Charles - 03 Dec 2008 20:54 GMT
Seems to me being dead would be a significant defect.
Bill Taylor - 04 Dec 2008 06:43 GMT
> Seems to me being dead would be a significant defect.

"Clevinger was dead.
That was the basic flaw in his philosophy."

-- Catch-22
spudnik - 05 Dec 2008 04:53 GMT
Alan Greenspan wasn't dead;
he was just being used as a somewhat deserving scapegoat
on C-SPAN -- makes you almost want to watch TV.

just wait'l the February singularity, kids!

thus:
so, you are nearly ready to give us examples
of arithmetical operations with this, so that
we can see that you're not just pretending
to have a New Math, that is not just a slight
dressing-up of Hensel's lemma -- where, AP, oh,
Where is your lemma?

saying that math is a subest of physics may be just fine, or
it may be a nonsequiter & slightly absurd, but
let's be charitable: ideas are good to have, intentions can
also be good, but invention is 99.3% perspiration, and
typing is just far too easy for you to do --
"no sweat," ten fingers are dancing-up a seeming brainstorm.

I have just found, at UCLA on the sidewalk,
"An Info Booklet for the Universitywide Analytical Writing
Placement Examination;" what I guess is that, when you were
in the system, they did not have these placement exams,
beyond the SAT or ACT or what ever.  I had these exams,
before going to UCLA, but, unfortunately,
that was not enough to prepare me for the load
of courses that I took, "because I could."

but, at least, I *knew* that I was failing, if not really why,
more or less.

> likewise, 0000...0001. has 9999...9998 places, and
> the very 9999...9999th place is reserved for pi or 2pi,
> whence the other digits are ignored, or what?

--Cheeny, 4 mo'years:
the nukey footbol was passed
to Joe The Plumb-bob Biden;
"We must have USA military intervention
into Sudan -- yahoo! (tm)"
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.