User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 11/29/2011 10:29:46 AM EDT
[#1]
Quoted:
loved it. could not put it down. wish i could not see it happening all around me I really liked the message. Rand needed a better editor. That book is one third too long, at least. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2011 10:30:08 AM EDT
[#2]
<––––––––––I know what you mean
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2011 10:32:25 AM EDT
[#3]
It's sitting next to me at the moment. I figured that in the event of one of those "Look to your left, that is now your weapon in the zombie apocalypse" threads, I'd be in decent enough hands.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2011 10:33:50 AM EDT
[#4]
Quoted: It's sitting next to me at the moment. I figured that in the event of one of those "Look to your left, that is now your weapon in the zombie apocalypse" threads, I'd be in decent enough hands. Ayn Rand hated that expression  |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2011 10:35:42 AM EDT
[#5]
If you don't want to take the time to read it you can always listen to it on 'tube while you surf
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjOkw8tSij0 |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2011 10:38:45 AM EDT
[#6]
I read it and enjoyed it. I personally think that we are not where they were in the book. When we bailed out GM etc, there was a lot of talk about the similarities between us and the book.
To me the book was describing sucessful businesses being taken over. We continue to save failing businesses. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2011 10:40:40 AM EDT
[#7]
Decent enough book, though she could have chopped the 40+ page speech at the end,
and not lost anything in the overall message. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2011 10:40:53 AM EDT
[#8]
She could have cut 1/4 to 1/3 out and still gotten her point across.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2011 10:45:28 AM EDT
[#9]
Painful book to read.
Read Anthem instead. Same message and takes an afternoon to read completely through. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2011 10:55:56 AM EDT
[#10]
Quoted:
Quoted:
loved it. could not put it down. wish i could not see it happening all around me I really liked the message. Rand needed a better editor. That book is one third too long, at least. This |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2011 10:58:23 AM EDT
[#11]
Good message, shitty editor.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2011 11:03:20 AM EDT
[#12]
Im a little over halfway done. Just got past where Dangy came back after the disaster. This shit is coming in real life.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2011 11:04:14 AM EDT
[#13]
Quoted:
I read it and enjoyed it. I personally think that we are not where they were in the book. When we bailed out GM etc, there was a lot of talk about the similarities between us and the book. To me the book was describing sucessful businesses being taken over. We continue to save failing businesses. Rand was pointing out the destructive evils of crony-ism and political pull peddling. The saving of failing businesses by government fiat (the "Anti-Dog Eat Dog" bill) was shown quite clearly early in the book. Successful businesses were at the mercy of failing businesses because the owners of those failing businesses had lobbyists i.e. "pull peddlers" getting Washington to enact legislation that made the successful businesses prop up and bleed out to the failing businesses. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2011 11:04:37 AM EDT
[#14]
The book was never fiction. It was always prophecy, and we will see its fruition in our lifetimes.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2011 11:06:02 AM EDT
[#15]
Don't forget, part 1 of the movie is out now too.
It does a good job of getting the story through TXL |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2011 11:07:41 AM EDT
[#16]
Quoted:
Decent enough book, though she could have chopped the 40+ page speech at the end, and not lost anything in the overall message. Um, the 40+ page speech at the end was the whole purpose of the book. It was the embodiment of her philosophy "Objectivism" in toto. It was the reason she wrote the book to begin with. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2011 11:08:50 AM EDT
[#17]
Quoted:
Good message, shitty editor. Rand had total editorial control. She refused to let one single word be cut. You can do that when you're king. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2011 11:10:25 AM EDT
[#18]
Sucks. That is all.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2011 11:11:21 AM EDT
[#19]
Quoted:
Sucks. That is all. Don't you have something to "occupy"? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2011 11:11:57 AM EDT
[#20]
Quoted:
Sucks. That is all. You prefer Das Kapital, comrade? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2011 11:15:19 AM EDT
[#21]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Sucks. That is all. Don't you have something to "occupy"? No. I have a job, a very good one in fact. I simply don't believe in idiotic and simplistic political theories masquerading as poorly written novels. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2011 11:15:54 AM EDT
[#22]
I loved it. It's not perfect, but it is a damn good book.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2011 11:16:24 AM EDT
[#23]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Good message, shitty editor. Rand had total editorial control. She refused to let one single word be cut. You can do that when you're king Queen Qunt. FIFY |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2011 11:25:26 AM EDT
[#24]
Quoted: The book was never fiction. It was always prophecy, and we will see its fruition in our lifetimes. Yeah, I don't think that most people understand this point. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2011 11:27:25 AM EDT
[#25]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Sucks. That is all. Don't you have something to "occupy"? No. I have a job, a very good one in fact. I simply don't believe in idiotic and simplistic political theories masquerading as poorly written novels. Philosophy sweetheart, philosophy.
And you may have "a job, a very good one" but it's probably in the public sector. It's rare to find someone who has "a job, a very good one" in the private sector who has read Rand and still disagrees with her. Most people with "very good jobs" in the private sector tend to see the truth of her philosophy, economically at least. But hey, I'm sure you'll disabuse me of my assessment of you the same way you disabused us all of the flaws in Atlas Shrugged with your vague insults that touched on not one single philosophical point the book made.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2011 11:28:38 AM EDT
[#26]
I'm 200 pages in and keep putting it down.
I like it but its very hard to read, and yes, it needs an editor. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2011 11:30:47 AM EDT
[#27]
Has it's flaws but it's trying to be a how to book for a new philosophy. (And no, the philospohy is not libertarianism.) I'll give the book a pass on it's flaws.
I've got it on mp3 and listen to it while I work out. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2011 11:31:16 AM EDT
[#28]
Quoted: Quoted: loved it. could not put it down. wish i could not see it happening all around me I really liked the message. Rand needed a better editor. That book is one third too long, at least. I skipped many pages of filler and it seemed like I missed nothing at all. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2011 11:33:29 AM EDT
[#29]
For all you grown adults who have a hard time reading Atlas Shrugged might I suggest something more to your liking and abilities?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2011 11:36:38 AM EDT
[#30]
Quoted:
For all you grown adults who have a hard time reading Atlas Shrugged might I suggest something more to your liking and abilities? http://img.geocaching.com/cache/27916785-e406-4828-b664-7517cfffc9a8.jpg That book might be a little deep... |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2011 11:36:53 AM EDT
[#31]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Sucks. That is all. Don't you have something to "occupy"? No. I have a job, a very good one in fact. I simply don't believe in idiotic and simplistic political theories masquerading as poorly written novels. Philosophy sweetheart, philosophy.
And you may have "a job, a very good one" but it's probably in the public sector. It's rare to find someone who has "a job, a very good one" in the private sector who has read Rand and still disagrees with her. Most people with "very good jobs" in the private sector tend to see the truth of her philosophy, economically at least. But hey, I'm sure you'll disabuse me of my assessment of you the same way you disabused us all of the flaws in Atlas Shrugged with your vague insults that touched on not one single philosophical point the book made. I am self employed and meet a monthly payroll of slightly more than $30k. I never even tried to "disabuse anyone of the books/philosophies flaws", it's simply my opinion that it sucks as a novel and that the Political philosophy it espouses is horseshit- Not a fan of Libertarianism/objectivism. If you want to insinuate that people are part of the "occupy movement" or "government leaches" you should be here more than two months-and maybe read something first...... I've been here well over ten years with 8k posts and "liberal" I'm not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2011 11:44:25 AM EDT
[#32]
I liked the 1st quarter of the book. The rest seemed to be her repeatedly hammering in her theme.
My brother who was a Rus linguist laughed and said that the book was very much written in a Russian oral tradition. They tell you what they are going to tell you, you get told, then they tell you a few more times what you were just told to make sure it sticks............. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2011 11:46:49 AM EDT
[#33]
Some folks know they can prosper without "Big Daddy .gov's" hands on their shoulders, pushing the tip in a little more.
...and some folks just like the way it feels. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2011 11:49:11 AM EDT
[#34]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Sucks. That is all. Don't you have something to "occupy"? No. I have a job, a very good one in fact. I simply don't believe in idiotic and simplistic political theories masquerading as poorly written novels. Philosophy sweetheart, philosophy.
And you may have "a job, a very good one" but it's probably in the public sector. It's rare to find someone who has "a job, a very good one" in the private sector who has read Rand and still disagrees with her. Most people with "very good jobs" in the private sector tend to see the truth of her philosophy, economically at least. But hey, I'm sure you'll disabuse me of my assessment of you the same way you disabused us all of the flaws in Atlas Shrugged with your vague insults that touched on not one single philosophical point the book made. I am self employed and meet a monthly payroll of slightly more than $30k. I never even tried to "disabuse anyone of the books/philosophies flaws", it's simply my opinion that it sucks as a novel and that the Political philosophy it espouses is horseshit- Not a fan of Libertarianism/objectivism. If you want to insinuate that people are part of the "occupy movement" or "government leaches" you should be here more than two months-and maybe read something first...... I've been here well over ten years with 8k posts and "liberal" I'm not. Your tenure here is irrelevant to the verity of your statements. Length of time that one has an account has no bearing on the validity of their stated positions. Opinions are either valid and true or they are not regardless of tenure. One would assume that having been here for a decade you would have known that by now.
And you're a troll, a troll with a 10yo account, but a troll nonetheless, here's why: You post a provocative statement ("It sucks") with the intent of being, well, provocative. But the moment someone calls you out on it and asks you to explain exactly what "sucks" about the book in question you whip out this cowardly excuse that you never tried to explain your position. M'kay... You then reiterate that the novel "sucks" and that the political philosophy it espouses is "horseshit" but, again, cowardly fail to provide one single example of why it's horseshit. Trollish behavior is trollish.
I should thank you for exposing yourself to be a trollish waste of time. Buh bye troll. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2011 11:56:11 AM EDT
[#35]
Quoted:
I liked the 1st quarter of the book. The rest seemed to be her repeatedly hammering in her theme. My brother who was a Rus linguist laughed and said that the book was very much written in a Russian oral tradition. They tell you what they are going to tell you, you get told, then they tell you a few more times what you were just told to make sure it sticks............. Well, Rand was Russian so there ya go. Stylistically she was heavily influenced by French author Victor Hugo though. It's obvious in many of her works. If you've ever read the unabridged version of Les Miserables you'll see that Hugo also did some lengthy storytelling. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2011 11:57:02 AM EDT
[#36]
Objectivism is a good philosophy to run a government/business on, but it's a horrible personal philosophy. It turns every personal relationship into a business transaction, including family (husband/wife/brother/sister/parent).
There is zero room for love and charity in objectivism. Forced charity (i.e., the welfare state) is nothing more than sanctioned mugging, but I should be free to do what I want with my accumulated wealth, even if that means giving it all to beggars. And Rand's view of the interpersonal relationship between men and women is otherwise known as "rape." |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2011 11:57:12 AM EDT
[#37]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Sucks. That is all. Don't you have something to "occupy"? No. I have a job, a very good one in fact. I simply don't believe in idiotic and simplistic political theories masquerading as poorly written novels. Philosophy sweetheart, philosophy.
And you may have "a job, a very good one" but it's probably in the public sector. It's rare to find someone who has "a job, a very good one" in the private sector who has read Rand and still disagrees with her. Most people with "very good jobs" in the private sector tend to see the truth of her philosophy, economically at least. But hey, I'm sure you'll disabuse me of my assessment of you the same way you disabused us all of the flaws in Atlas Shrugged with your vague insults that touched on not one single philosophical point the book made. I am self employed and meet a monthly payroll of slightly more than $30k. I never even tried to "disabuse anyone of the books/philosophies flaws", it's simply my opinion that it sucks as a novel and that the Political philosophy it espouses is horseshit- Not a fan of Libertarianism/objectivism. If you want to insinuate that people are part of the "occupy movement" or "government leaches" you should be here more than two months-and maybe read something first...... I've been here well over ten years with 8k posts and "liberal" I'm not. Your tenure here is irrelevant to the verity of your statements. Length of time that one has an account has no bearing on the validity of their stated positions. Opinions are either valid and true or they are not regardless of tenure. One would assume that having been here for a decade you would have known that by now.
And you're a troll, a troll with a 10yo account, but a troll nonetheless, here's why: You post a provocative statement ("It sucks") with the intent of being, well, provocative. But the moment someone calls you out on it and asks you to explain exactly what "sucks" about the book in question you whip out this cowardly excuse that you never tried to explain your position. M'kay... You then reiterate that the novel "sucks" and that the political philosophy it espouses is "horseshit" but, again, cowardly fail to provide one single example of why it's horseshit. Trollish behavior is trollish.
I should thank you for exposing yourself to be a trollish waste of time. Buh bye troll.
Opinions need not be only "valid" or "invalid". I don't like carrots. My opinion of them is that they don't taste very good. Is that a "valid" or "invalid" opinion and please PROVE it empirically either way? This is the problem with most Objectivists and their "philosophy". Everything is black or white and reality-more often gray, has no grip on them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2011 11:58:13 AM EDT
[#38]
Quoted:
Painful book to read. Read Anthem instead. Same message and takes an afternoon to read completely through. Anthem is likely my favorite novella of all time. I wouldn't go far enough to say that Atlas Shrugged is painful to read, though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2011 11:59:43 AM EDT
[#39]
Quoted:
Don't forget, part 1 of the movie is out now too. It does a good job of getting the story through TXL They skip a bunch of stuff from the book (how could they not), but I enjoyed the book and the movie was excellent IMO. For those that don't know, just skim over the speeches. You won't miss anything. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2011 12:00:51 PM EDT
[#40]
Quoted:
Objectivism is a good philosophy to run a government/business on, but it's a horrible personal philosophy. It turns every personal relationship into a business transaction, including family (husband/wife/brother/sister/parent). There is zero room for love and charity in objectivism. Forced charity (i.e., the welfare state) is nothing more than sanctioned mugging, but I should be free to do what I want with my accumulated wealth, even if that means giving it all to beggars. And Rand's view of the interpersonal relationship between men and women is otherwise known as "rape." Heresy! Everyone knows that objectivism is a Religion, it's a political theory, it's an economic theory, it cures fucking hemmorhoids for God's Sake! Just ask any one of it's devotees. It's simply the answer for EVERYTHING. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2011 12:01:54 PM EDT
[#41]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Painful book to read. Read Anthem instead. Same message and takes an afternoon to read completely through. Anthem is likely my favorite novella of all time. I wouldn't go far enough to say that Atlas Shrugged is painful to read, though. Obviously you are just stupid. I believe Dick and Jane was suggested reading for you....because anyone that can't read Rand and rejoice at it's clarity and brevity is an idiot.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2011 12:02:06 PM EDT
[#42]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Sucks. That is all. Don't you have something to "occupy"? No. I have a job, a very good one in fact. I simply don't believe in idiotic and simplistic political theories masquerading as poorly written novels. Philosophy sweetheart, philosophy.
And you may have "a job, a very good one" but it's probably in the public sector. It's rare to find someone who has "a job, a very good one" in the private sector who has read Rand and still disagrees with her. Most people with "very good jobs" in the private sector tend to see the truth of her philosophy, economically at least. But hey, I'm sure you'll disabuse me of my assessment of you the same way you disabused us all of the flaws in Atlas Shrugged with your vague insults that touched on not one single philosophical point the book made. I am self employed and meet a monthly payroll of slightly more than $30k. I never even tried to "disabuse anyone of the books/philosophies flaws", it's simply my opinion that it sucks as a novel and that the Political philosophy it espouses is horseshit- Not a fan of Libertarianism/objectivism. If you want to insinuate that people are part of the "occupy movement" or "government leaches" you should be here more than two months-and maybe read something first...... I've been here well over ten years with 8k posts and "liberal" I'm not. Your tenure here is irrelevant to the verity of your statements. Length of time that one has an account has no bearing on the validity of their stated positions. Opinions are either valid and true or they are not regardless of tenure. One would assume that having been here for a decade you would have known that by now.
And you're a troll, a troll with a 10yo account, but a troll nonetheless, here's why: You post a provocative statement ("It sucks") with the intent of being, well, provocative. But the moment someone calls you out on it and asks you to explain exactly what "sucks" about the book in question you whip out this cowardly excuse that you never tried to explain your position. M'kay... You then reiterate that the novel "sucks" and that the political philosophy it espouses is "horseshit" but, again, cowardly fail to provide one single example of why it's horseshit. Trollish behavior is trollish.
I should thank you for exposing yourself to be a trollish waste of time. Buh bye troll.
Opinions need not be only "valid" or "invalid". I don't like carrots. My opinion of them is that they don't taste very good. Is that a "valid" or "invalid" opinion and please PROVE it empirically either way? This is the problem with most Objectivists and their "philosophy". Everything is black or white and reality-more often gray, has no grip on them. Carrots aren't philosophical treatises. How pathetic that you are so intellectually challenged that you think they are. 
You made a provocative statement with the intent to provoke and copped an attitude when asked to elucidate. This = Troll. Please go back to your "very good job" and make that 30K monthly payroll and leave the heavy thinking to the big boys.
We're done. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2011 12:03:18 PM EDT
[#43]
Quoted:
Objectivism is a good philosophy to run a government/business on, but it's a horrible personal philosophy. It turns every personal relationship into a business transaction, including family (husband/wife/brother/sister/parent). There is zero room for love and charity in objectivism. Forced charity (i.e., the welfare state) is nothing more than sanctioned mugging, but I should be free to do what I want with my accumulated wealth, even if that means giving it all to beggars. And Rand's view of the interpersonal relationship between men and women is otherwise known as "rape." Hmmmm..... Wrong mis-interpreted Wrong Wrong Wrong Other than that, you're spot-on. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2011 12:03:50 PM EDT
[#44]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Sucks. That is all. Don't you have something to "occupy"? No. I have a job, a very good one in fact. I simply don't believe in idiotic and simplistic political theories masquerading as poorly written novels. Philosophy sweetheart, philosophy.
And you may have "a job, a very good one" but it's probably in the public sector. It's rare to find someone who has "a job, a very good one" in the private sector who has read Rand and still disagrees with her. Most people with "very good jobs" in the private sector tend to see the truth of her philosophy, economically at least. But hey, I'm sure you'll disabuse me of my assessment of you the same way you disabused us all of the flaws in Atlas Shrugged with your vague insults that touched on not one single philosophical point the book made. I am self employed and meet a monthly payroll of slightly more than $30k. I never even tried to "disabuse anyone of the books/philosophies flaws", it's simply my opinion that it sucks as a novel and that the Political philosophy it espouses is horseshit- Not a fan of Libertarianism/objectivism. If you want to insinuate that people are part of the "occupy movement" or "government leaches" you should be here more than two months-and maybe read something first...... I've been here well over ten years with 8k posts and "liberal" I'm not. Your tenure here is irrelevant to the verity of your statements. Length of time that one has an account has no bearing on the validity of their stated positions. Opinions are either valid and true or they are not regardless of tenure. One would assume that having been here for a decade you would have known that by now.
And you're a troll, a troll with a 10yo account, but a troll nonetheless, here's why: You post a provocative statement ("It sucks") with the intent of being, well, provocative. But the moment someone calls you out on it and asks you to explain exactly what "sucks" about the book in question you whip out this cowardly excuse that you never tried to explain your position. M'kay... You then reiterate that the novel "sucks" and that the political philosophy it espouses is "horseshit" but, again, cowardly fail to provide one single example of why it's horseshit. Trollish behavior is trollish.
I should thank you for exposing yourself to be a trollish waste of time. Buh bye troll.
Opinions need not be only "valid" or "invalid". I don't like carrots. My opinion of them is that they don't taste very good. Is that a "valid" or "invalid" opinion and please PROVE it empirically either way? This is the problem with most Objectivists and their "philosophy". Everything is black or white and reality-more often gray, has no grip on them. Carrots aren't philosophical treatises. How pathetic that you are so intellectually challenged that you think they are.
You made a provocative statement with the intent to provoke and copped an attitude when asked to elucidate. This = Troll. Please go back to your "very good job" and make that 30K monthly payroll and leave the heavy thinking to the big boys.
We're done. Nice dodge. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2011 12:05:26 PM EDT
[#45]
The Fountainhead is another great book
Quoted:
Painful book to read. Read Anthem instead. Same message and takes an afternoon to read completely through. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2011 12:06:49 PM EDT
[#46]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Don't forget, part 1 of the movie is out now too. It does a good job of getting the story through TXL They skip a bunch of stuff from the book (how could they not), but I enjoyed the book and the movie was excellent IMO. For those that don't know, just skim over the speeches. You won't miss anything. Wrong, you'll miss everything. Let's not even bother talking about Galt's 30 page speech here, rather, I'll just mention Francisco's speech early in the book on the meaning of money. It's not that long and it's oh so important to read. Once you read that speech you'll never tolerate the phrase that "money is the root of all evil" again. Trust me on this. It can't be missed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2011 12:10:04 PM EDT
[#47]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Objectivism is a good philosophy to run a government/business on, but it's a horrible personal philosophy. It turns every personal relationship into a business transaction, including family (husband/wife/brother/sister/parent). There is zero room for love and charity in objectivism. Forced charity (i.e., the welfare state) is nothing more than sanctioned mugging, but I should be free to do what I want with my accumulated wealth, even if that means giving it all to beggars. And Rand's view of the interpersonal relationship between men and women is otherwise known as "rape." Hmmmm..... Wrong mis-interpreted Wrong Wrong Wrong Other than that, you're spot-on. Rand believes that altruism and self-sacrifice are immoral. Stupid, IMO. But her position is essentially meaningless, since so-called objectivists can justify almost any action as being in their rational self-interest. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2011 12:12:16 PM EDT
[#48]
Quoted:
Objectivism is a good philosophy to run a government/business on, but it's a horrible personal philosophy. It turns every personal relationship into a business transaction, including family (husband/wife/brother/sister/parent). There is zero room for love and charity in objectivism. Forced charity (i.e., the welfare state) is nothing more than sanctioned mugging, but I should be free to do what I want with my accumulated wealth, even if that means giving it all to beggars. And Rand's view of the interpersonal relationship between men and women is otherwise known as "rape." Oh Christ, here we go.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2011 12:12:23 PM EDT
[#49]
I thoroughly enjoyed the book. Doesn't mean I agree with it 100% but I did agree with it in many parts. It provoked thought and that's what I like in a book. I'd be disappointed in reading something I already 100% agreed with or completely understood.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2011 12:16:37 PM EDT
[#50]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Sucks. That is all. Don't you have something to "occupy"? No. I have a job, a very good one in fact. I simply don't believe in idiotic and simplistic political theories masquerading as poorly written novels. Philosophy sweetheart, philosophy.
And you may have "a job, a very good one" but it's probably in the public sector. It's rare to find someone who has "a job, a very good one" in the private sector who has read Rand and still disagrees with her. Most people with "very good jobs" in the private sector tend to see the truth of her philosophy, economically at least. But hey, I'm sure you'll disabuse me of my assessment of you the same way you disabused us all of the flaws in Atlas Shrugged with your vague insults that touched on not one single philosophical point the book made. I am self employed and meet a monthly payroll of slightly more than $30k. I never even tried to "disabuse anyone of the books/philosophies flaws", it's simply my opinion that it sucks as a novel and that the Political philosophy it espouses is horseshit- Not a fan of Libertarianism/objectivism. If you want to insinuate that people are part of the "occupy movement" or "government leaches" you should be here more than two months-and maybe read something first...... I've been here well over ten years with 8k posts and "liberal" I'm not. Your tenure here is irrelevant to the verity of your statements. Length of time that one has an account has no bearing on the validity of their stated positions. Opinions are either valid and true or they are not regardless of tenure. One would assume that having been here for a decade you would have known that by now.
And you're a troll, a troll with a 10yo account, but a troll nonetheless, here's why: You post a provocative statement ("It sucks") with the intent of being, well, provocative. But the moment someone calls you out on it and asks you to explain exactly what "sucks" about the book in question you whip out this cowardly excuse that you never tried to explain your position. M'kay... You then reiterate that the novel "sucks" and that the political philosophy it espouses is "horseshit" but, again, cowardly fail to provide one single example of why it's horseshit. Trollish behavior is trollish.
I should thank you for exposing yourself to be a trollish waste of time. Buh bye troll.
Opinions need not be only "valid" or "invalid". I don't like carrots. My opinion of them is that they don't taste very good. Is that a "valid" or "invalid" opinion and please PROVE it empirically either way? This is the problem with most Objectivists and their "philosophy". Everything is black or white and reality-more often gray, has no grip on them. Carrots aren't philosophical treatises. How pathetic that you are so intellectually challenged that you think they are.
You made a provocative statement with the intent to provoke and copped an attitude when asked to elucidate. This = Troll. Please go back to your "very good job" and make that 30K monthly payroll and leave the heavy thinking to the big boys.
We're done. Nice dodge. *cough* |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
