Ayn Rand ?

[dudalb]

Someone believing they are capable of cold rational, logical thought is just as religious as someone who believes Jesus is going to heal their illnesses.

If she was so darn rational then why wasn't her personal life more orderly?

What makes it so ironic is that Ayn Rand claimed time and time again that EVERY decision she made was dictated by cold logic............

 

[kestertaylor]

Kind of annoying when people join an argument mid-stream and have no idea what in hell they're talking about.

Or maybe you could explain, clearly, how I "straw-manned" Skeptic Ginger. What was her original argument and what exactly was the straw man I addressed instead? Please be very specific, with quotes and whatnot, or kindly shut your yap.

Since you're disingenuously trying to dismiss me with an unsupported accusation that I haven't been following this thread, I'll be glad to point out exactly where you did this.

The following is the segment of Ginger's post you straw-manned, in better context than you chose to present it.

I don't see her view as narrower than anyone elses. In fact she knows about Russia, Hollywood and writing. She has seen a lot. You're wrong that she has a narrow view.

In the 1900s, there was not information available about modern neurobiology. Rand lived through the Russian revolution. Sure, that's a lot, but it also slants ones view, just as my Dad's view was slanted by the "Red Menace" and mine was slanted by the Vietnam War. We have the advantage today of incredible access to massive amounts of information in addition to our experiences. Some people recognize how their experiences shape their world view and can consider broader experiences when assessing the world they live in. Others believe their personal experiences are sufficient to draw broader conclusions than the experiences actually warrant.

I understand my Dad's view of Russian and Chinese communism and his belief we needed to stop the "domino effect". But he was wrong. It was and is the corruption in Russia and China that prevent their populations from emerging as free societies. While I think capitalism is a preferable model, and there are many reasons for that, I also think corrupt capitalism can be just as bad as corrupt communism. We need a mix of economies, not the pure laissez faire in Rand's imaginary world.

The following is your post where you straw-manned her position based on taking a tiny portion of it out of context, not addressing the greater point, and then declaring her wrong.

Total non-sequitur. We shouldn't have done all we could to contain the spread of communism because the corruption of communist states was what prevented free societies from emerging? Makes not a lick of sense.

This in itself is a straw man, because you intentionally worded her statement in such a way as to make it look weaker. What she said, pretty clearly, was that the dogmatic, freedom-restricting governments that imposed it, and not communism itself, were the primary factors in limiting the freedoms of people in those countries. Given the sample size of communist states we've had, and the fact that none of them were put into power democratically, her assertion is no less valid than your apparent implication that corruption is endemic to communism. But it doesn't matter who's right; you still twisted her words to claim that you were.

What I think you were trying to say is that active opposition to communism was unnecessary (counterproductive?) since the corruptness of the foremost communist states, Russia and China, guaranteed that their particular brand of communism would go the way of the dodo. That about right?

If by chance that's your thesis, all I can say is that it demonstrates an appalling indifference to 20th century history. Since its first application as a governing philosophy in the early 1900's, communist rule has been defined by its brutality and oppression, the scale of which the civilized world has never seen. It has (had) metastasized via brute force and violence - always.

The need to actively, aggressively confront those who seek to spread non-freedom under the threat of a gun should be self-evident. The notion that we should have stayed passive, sat tight and waited for communism to burn itself out is absurd. Very frightening to think about, actually. Imagine the world today if your mindset had prevailed at certain critical junctures in history. Makes me shudder.

And here's the secondary straw man. After doing the set 'em up, knock 'em down approach on the tiny sliver of her post, you go on to build a case against her whole argument around it, when all it was meant to do was serve as an example of how people can sometimes draw conclusions without enough information, and hence, get it wrong. You deliberately chose to attack her example rather than her overall argument, pretending it was her "thesis." Even if her example had been 100% wrong and completely off-base, she was illustrating that people occasionally draw inaccurate conclusions from insufficient data, something I cannot imagine you would disagree with.

In this context, perhaps Ginger's accusation of reading comprehension issues--though crude--was kinder than the alternative: accusing you of intentionally derailing the thread rather than addressing the topic at hand, Ginger's claim that modern neurobiology (with findings to which Rand would not have been privy) disproves claims made by Rand about reason.

 

[kestertaylor]

In this context, perhaps Ginger's accusation of reading comprehension issues--though crude--was kinder than the alternative: accusing you of intentionally derailing the thread rather than addressing the topic at hand, Ginger's claim that modern neurobiology (with findings to which Rand would not have been privy) disproves claims made by Rand about reason.

CORRECTION: This accusation was leveled at Yimmy, not BillyRay.

 

[BillyRayValentine]

Since you're disingenuously trying to dismiss me with an unsupported accusation that I haven't been following this thread, I'll be glad to point out exactly where you did this.

As you trumpet how well you've been following the thread, maybe you should take note of the fact that Ginger's straw man accusation was directed at UncaYimmy, not me. She never once directed that accusation at me, especially for he incredibly, vapidly, repulsively stupid reasons you present. Good grief man, your comprehension skills, your ability to grasp the substance of what you read, is seriously lacking. Embarrassingly so, really. And so here we go...

The following is the segment of Ginger's post you straw-manned, in better context than you chose to present it.


Originally Posted by Senex
I don't see her view as narrower than anyone elses. In fact she knows about Russia, Hollywood and writing. She has seen a lot. You're wrong that she has a narrow view.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

In the 1900s, there was not information available about modern neurobiology. Rand lived through the Russian revolution. Sure, that's a lot, but it also slants ones view, just as my Dad's view was slanted by the "Red Menace" and mine was slanted by the Vietnam War. We have the advantage today of incredible access to massive amounts of information in addition to our experiences. Some people recognize how their experiences shape their world view and can consider broader experiences when assessing the world they live in. Others believe their personal experiences are sufficient to draw broader conclusions than the experiences actually warrant.

I understand my Dad's view of Russian and Chinese communism and his belief we needed to stop the "domino effect". But he was wrong. It was and is the corruption in Russia and China that prevent their populations from emerging as free societies. While I think capitalism is a preferable model, and there are many reasons for that, I also think corrupt capitalism can be just as bad as corrupt communism. We need a mix of economies, not the pure laissez faire in Rand's imaginary world.

There's a reason I presented a specific quote and explained why I took issue with it. Why would you pretend I was addressing the point made by Sentex in the above quote, or that entire argument in general, for that matter? I was abundantly clear, and even clarified this in later posts, that what I was taking issue with were her egregiously stupid statements regarding the containment of communism. And yes, it's definitely notable, and more than a little bit ironic, that such statements were made in the context of her presenting herself as an example of someone drawing from their broad (objective) as opposed to personal (biased) experiences.

The following is your post where you straw-manned her position based on taking a tiny portion of it out of context, not addressing the greater point, and then declaring her wrong.

Originally Posted by BillyRayValentine
Total non-sequitur. We shouldn't have done all we could to contain the spread of communism because the corruption of communist states was what prevented free societies from emerging? Makes not a lick of sense.

This in itself is a straw man, because you intentionally worded her statement in such a way as to make it look weaker. What she said, pretty clearly, was that the dogmatic, freedom-restricting governments that imposed it, and not communism itself, were the primary factors in limiting the freedoms of people in those countries. Given the sample size of communist states we've had, and the fact that none of them were put into power democratically, her assertion is no less valid than your apparent implication that corruption is endemic to communism. But it doesn't matter who's right; you still twisted her words to claim that you were.

All I can do is scratch my head at such complete and utter incomprehension. My point, CLEARLY, was that her claim that "I understand my Dad's view of Russian and Chinese communism and his belief we needed to stop the 'domino effect'. But he was wrong" was idiotic and stupid, especially for the reasons that you felt the need to expand upon above.

I'm not questioning the validity of her assertions about the corrupt brand of communism practiced by China and Russia, I'm questioning why in hell that would ever lead to the conclusion that her father was "wrong" about not needing "to stop the domino effect". Prattle on all you like about the better, democratic communism they might have aspired to, but that doesn't change one bit of the history of the evils perpetrated by these countries, the reality of what happened. Which is why, as I pointed out, it makes not a lick of sense to say we shouldn't have actively sought to contain the spread of communism because, in theory, a much kinder, gentler form of communism could have existed.

That was my point, very narrowly, very specifically, very obviously. The imputation that I was addressing anything beyond that is a figment of your imagination. A veritable straw man created to accuse another of the same. Oh the irony.

And here's the secondary straw man. After doing the set 'em up, knock 'em down approach on the tiny sliver of her post, you go on to build a case against her whole argument around it, when all it was meant to do was serve as an example of how people can sometimes draw conclusions without enough information, and hence, get it wrong. You deliberately chose to attack her example rather than her overall argument, pretending it was her "thesis." Even if her example had been 100% wrong and completely off-base, she was illustrating that people occasionally draw inaccurate conclusions from insufficient data, something I cannot imagine you would disagree with.

Yes, my point was that her example was 100% wrong. And I went into the reasons why. Nothing more, nothing less. Once again, your straw man claim is hereby dismissed for its abject stupidity.

Regarding her larger point, yes, if you must know, it was indeed facile and stupid. She basically said that some people are objective and informed, while others are have a subjective bias. Wow, what an incredible insight.

But again, and for the last time, the notable part was that she held herself up as the former and her father as the latter as she made comments that reflected, as I said, an appalling indifference and/or ignorance to 20th century communist history.

In this context, perhaps Ginger's accusation of reading comprehension issues--though crude--was kinder than the alternative: accusing you of intentionally derailing the thread rather than addressing the topic at hand.

What derails threads are people who are incapable of understanding what they read and who see straw men in their dreams, but have no clue what in hell they really are.

 

[BillyRayValentine]

CORRECTION: This accusation was leveled at Yimmy, not BillyRay.

As was the straw man accusation, genius. Keep re-reading, take notes...you'll get there.

 

[Danmotron]

I find Rand's ideas to be boring and trite, "justified" only within the context of contrived works of fiction where characters committing mass murder are celebrated as heroes and the suffering are villainous while those responsible for their suffering are shown as the 'real sufferers.' Porn for the rich who want to believe it was totally justified for them to **** over tons of people in pursuit of wealth - i.e. literally the worst people in the world as far as white-collar crookedness goes.

This Bob The Angry Flower pretty much sums up rather succinctly what's wrong with Rand in general though:

 

[Ethan Thane Athen]

Obviously Ayn Rand's greatest contribution to society was inspiring some Rush songs.....