- This topic has 605 replies, 30 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 7 months ago by
Anonymous.
-
AuthorPosts
-
April 12, 2011 at 9:24 PM #687113April 12, 2011 at 11:02 PM #685975
gandalf
Participant[quote=jstoesz]To throw my two cents into the ring…
I think Atlas Shrugged should be required reading[/quote]
Same creepy line with creationism. If you teach evolution, you have to teach intelligent design. If you teach the Plato or Aquinas, you have to teach Rand. Required reading.
Right-wing zombies insist you subscribe to their moralizing bullshit, and are worse than Marxists. They aren’t conservative in any sense. Conservatives don’t do ‘required reading’.
As for Atlas Shrugged, it was interesting but not Great Books material. I don’t think anybody should be compelled to read it. The irony is laughable.
April 12, 2011 at 11:02 PM #686029Participant[quote=jstoesz]To throw my two cents into the ring…
I think Atlas Shrugged should be required reading[/quote]
Same creepy line with creationism. If you teach evolution, you have to teach intelligent design. If you teach the Plato or Aquinas, you have to teach Rand. Required reading.
Right-wing zombies insist you subscribe to their moralizing bullshit, and are worse than Marxists. They aren’t conservative in any sense. Conservatives don’t do ‘required reading’.
As for Atlas Shrugged, it was interesting but not Great Books material. I don’t think anybody should be compelled to read it. The irony is laughable.
April 12, 2011 at 11:02 PM #686652Participant[quote=jstoesz]To throw my two cents into the ring…
I think Atlas Shrugged should be required reading[/quote]
Same creepy line with creationism. If you teach evolution, you have to teach intelligent design. If you teach the Plato or Aquinas, you have to teach Rand. Required reading.
Right-wing zombies insist you subscribe to their moralizing bullshit, and are worse than Marxists. They aren’t conservative in any sense. Conservatives don’t do ‘required reading’.
As for Atlas Shrugged, it was interesting but not Great Books material. I don’t think anybody should be compelled to read it. The irony is laughable.
April 12, 2011 at 11:02 PM #686794Participant[quote=jstoesz]To throw my two cents into the ring…
I think Atlas Shrugged should be required reading[/quote]
Same creepy line with creationism. If you teach evolution, you have to teach intelligent design. If you teach the Plato or Aquinas, you have to teach Rand. Required reading.
Right-wing zombies insist you subscribe to their moralizing bullshit, and are worse than Marxists. They aren’t conservative in any sense. Conservatives don’t do ‘required reading’.
As for Atlas Shrugged, it was interesting but not Great Books material. I don’t think anybody should be compelled to read it. The irony is laughable.
April 12, 2011 at 11:02 PM #687143Participant[quote=jstoesz]To throw my two cents into the ring…
I think Atlas Shrugged should be required reading[/quote]
Same creepy line with creationism. If you teach evolution, you have to teach intelligent design. If you teach the Plato or Aquinas, you have to teach Rand. Required reading.
Right-wing zombies insist you subscribe to their moralizing bullshit, and are worse than Marxists. They aren’t conservative in any sense. Conservatives don’t do ‘required reading’.
As for Atlas Shrugged, it was interesting but not Great Books material. I don’t think anybody should be compelled to read it. The irony is laughable.
April 13, 2011 at 12:45 AM #686040CA renter
Participant[quote=davelj][quote=UCGal]Brian – I think you’re missing Arraya’s point. Arraya is saying there WILL be a collapse… Just when and the depth are in question.
[/quote]Sure, but… the “when” and the “depth” are the only important considerations.
For example, I know I’m going to die. But the “when” and the “how” are the important issues. Simply noting that I’m going to die doesn’t convey any useful information.
Sure, there will be a collapse… but without any idea of timing (which could be many decades in the future – or longer)… I fall back on Keynes’ quip that, “In the long run we’re all dead.”
[Sorry for butting in.][/quote]
FWIW, I think “when” is sooner, rather than later. The depth will be deeper than if we had let things fall in 2008. Not only that, but the damage will now be more widespread, and those who caused the disaster will be as far from the center of the storm as their yachts can take them. Just my 2 cents.
April 13, 2011 at 12:45 AM #686094Participant[quote=davelj][quote=UCGal]Brian – I think you’re missing Arraya’s point. Arraya is saying there WILL be a collapse… Just when and the depth are in question.
[/quote]Sure, but… the “when” and the “depth” are the only important considerations.
For example, I know I’m going to die. But the “when” and the “how” are the important issues. Simply noting that I’m going to die doesn’t convey any useful information.
Sure, there will be a collapse… but without any idea of timing (which could be many decades in the future – or longer)… I fall back on Keynes’ quip that, “In the long run we’re all dead.”
[Sorry for butting in.][/quote]
FWIW, I think “when” is sooner, rather than later. The depth will be deeper than if we had let things fall in 2008. Not only that, but the damage will now be more widespread, and those who caused the disaster will be as far from the center of the storm as their yachts can take them. Just my 2 cents.
April 13, 2011 at 12:45 AM #686718Participant[quote=davelj][quote=UCGal]Brian – I think you’re missing Arraya’s point. Arraya is saying there WILL be a collapse… Just when and the depth are in question.
[/quote]Sure, but… the “when” and the “depth” are the only important considerations.
For example, I know I’m going to die. But the “when” and the “how” are the important issues. Simply noting that I’m going to die doesn’t convey any useful information.
Sure, there will be a collapse… but without any idea of timing (which could be many decades in the future – or longer)… I fall back on Keynes’ quip that, “In the long run we’re all dead.”
[Sorry for butting in.][/quote]
FWIW, I think “when” is sooner, rather than later. The depth will be deeper than if we had let things fall in 2008. Not only that, but the damage will now be more widespread, and those who caused the disaster will be as far from the center of the storm as their yachts can take them. Just my 2 cents.
April 13, 2011 at 12:45 AM #686859Participant[quote=davelj][quote=UCGal]Brian – I think you’re missing Arraya’s point. Arraya is saying there WILL be a collapse… Just when and the depth are in question.
[/quote]Sure, but… the “when” and the “depth” are the only important considerations.
For example, I know I’m going to die. But the “when” and the “how” are the important issues. Simply noting that I’m going to die doesn’t convey any useful information.
Sure, there will be a collapse… but without any idea of timing (which could be many decades in the future – or longer)… I fall back on Keynes’ quip that, “In the long run we’re all dead.”
[Sorry for butting in.][/quote]
FWIW, I think “when” is sooner, rather than later. The depth will be deeper than if we had let things fall in 2008. Not only that, but the damage will now be more widespread, and those who caused the disaster will be as far from the center of the storm as their yachts can take them. Just my 2 cents.
April 13, 2011 at 12:45 AM #687208Participant[quote=davelj][quote=UCGal]Brian – I think you’re missing Arraya’s point. Arraya is saying there WILL be a collapse… Just when and the depth are in question.
[/quote]Sure, but… the “when” and the “depth” are the only important considerations.
For example, I know I’m going to die. But the “when” and the “how” are the important issues. Simply noting that I’m going to die doesn’t convey any useful information.
Sure, there will be a collapse… but without any idea of timing (which could be many decades in the future – or longer)… I fall back on Keynes’ quip that, “In the long run we’re all dead.”
[Sorry for butting in.][/quote]
FWIW, I think “when” is sooner, rather than later. The depth will be deeper than if we had let things fall in 2008. Not only that, but the damage will now be more widespread, and those who caused the disaster will be as far from the center of the storm as their yachts can take them. Just my 2 cents.
April 13, 2011 at 6:02 AM #686060jstoesz
Participant[quote=gandalf][quote=jstoesz]To throw my two cents into the ring…
I think Atlas Shrugged should be required reading[/quote]
Same creepy line with creationism. If you teach evolution, you have to teach intelligent design. If you teach the Plato or Aquinas, you have to teach Rand. Required reading.
Right-wing zombies insist you subscribe to their moralizing bullshit, and are worse than Marxists. They aren’t conservative in any sense. Conservatives don’t do ‘required reading’.
As for Atlas Shrugged, it was interesting but not Great Books material. I don’t think anybody should be compelled to read it. The irony is laughable.[/quote]
Gandalf, your capacity for the cliche is so vast it subverts your sincerity.
Yes, by required reading, I meant we should go “clock work orange” on all the 14 year olds in america.
I love your use of the word “creepy.” It boiler plates you from any real intelligent criticism. And “moralizing” to you must be synonymous with expressing ones opinion on a matter, since I am darn near sure you can not debate this topic on facts. Not to mention you slipped in “right wing zombies,” Is that like a liberal rallying cry…or dog whistle or something? And your rounded out your critisism with comparing me to a Marxist…Nice choice on avoiding the knee jerk to Nazism…well played.
So all your response does is attempt to shame someone into shutting up.
I would love to have a debate about why Rand is not valid for people to read or think about, in whole or in part. My main point was that Rand provides a unique world view, as useful and flawed as many other great philosophical thinkers, and on such grounds, she is worth reading.
Here is how you can respond Gandalf…
I, Gandalf, do not think Rand is valid…I, Gandalf, do not think she is valid, (and here is the important part, the more detail the better!) because of X,Y, and Z.
April 13, 2011 at 6:02 AM #686114Participant[quote=gandalf][quote=jstoesz]To throw my two cents into the ring…
I think Atlas Shrugged should be required reading[/quote]
Same creepy line with creationism. If you teach evolution, you have to teach intelligent design. If you teach the Plato or Aquinas, you have to teach Rand. Required reading.
Right-wing zombies insist you subscribe to their moralizing bullshit, and are worse than Marxists. They aren’t conservative in any sense. Conservatives don’t do ‘required reading’.
As for Atlas Shrugged, it was interesting but not Great Books material. I don’t think anybody should be compelled to read it. The irony is laughable.[/quote]
Gandalf, your capacity for the cliche is so vast it subverts your sincerity.
Yes, by required reading, I meant we should go “clock work orange” on all the 14 year olds in america.
I love your use of the word “creepy.” It boiler plates you from any real intelligent criticism. And “moralizing” to you must be synonymous with expressing ones opinion on a matter, since I am darn near sure you can not debate this topic on facts. Not to mention you slipped in “right wing zombies,” Is that like a liberal rallying cry…or dog whistle or something? And your rounded out your critisism with comparing me to a Marxist…Nice choice on avoiding the knee jerk to Nazism…well played.
So all your response does is attempt to shame someone into shutting up.
I would love to have a debate about why Rand is not valid for people to read or think about, in whole or in part. My main point was that Rand provides a unique world view, as useful and flawed as many other great philosophical thinkers, and on such grounds, she is worth reading.
Here is how you can respond Gandalf…
I, Gandalf, do not think Rand is valid…I, Gandalf, do not think she is valid, (and here is the important part, the more detail the better!) because of X,Y, and Z.
April 13, 2011 at 6:02 AM #686738Participant[quote=gandalf][quote=jstoesz]To throw my two cents into the ring…
I think Atlas Shrugged should be required reading[/quote]
Same creepy line with creationism. If you teach evolution, you have to teach intelligent design. If you teach the Plato or Aquinas, you have to teach Rand. Required reading.
Right-wing zombies insist you subscribe to their moralizing bullshit, and are worse than Marxists. They aren’t conservative in any sense. Conservatives don’t do ‘required reading’.
As for Atlas Shrugged, it was interesting but not Great Books material. I don’t think anybody should be compelled to read it. The irony is laughable.[/quote]
Gandalf, your capacity for the cliche is so vast it subverts your sincerity.
Yes, by required reading, I meant we should go “clock work orange” on all the 14 year olds in america.
I love your use of the word “creepy.” It boiler plates you from any real intelligent criticism. And “moralizing” to you must be synonymous with expressing ones opinion on a matter, since I am darn near sure you can not debate this topic on facts. Not to mention you slipped in “right wing zombies,” Is that like a liberal rallying cry…or dog whistle or something? And your rounded out your critisism with comparing me to a Marxist…Nice choice on avoiding the knee jerk to Nazism…well played.
So all your response does is attempt to shame someone into shutting up.
I would love to have a debate about why Rand is not valid for people to read or think about, in whole or in part. My main point was that Rand provides a unique world view, as useful and flawed as many other great philosophical thinkers, and on such grounds, she is worth reading.
Here is how you can respond Gandalf…
I, Gandalf, do not think Rand is valid…I, Gandalf, do not think she is valid, (and here is the important part, the more detail the better!) because of X,Y, and Z.
April 13, 2011 at 6:02 AM #686879Participant[quote=gandalf][quote=jstoesz]To throw my two cents into the ring…
I think Atlas Shrugged should be required reading[/quote]
Same creepy line with creationism. If you teach evolution, you have to teach intelligent design. If you teach the Plato or Aquinas, you have to teach Rand. Required reading.
Right-wing zombies insist you subscribe to their moralizing bullshit, and are worse than Marxists. They aren’t conservative in any sense. Conservatives don’t do ‘required reading’.
As for Atlas Shrugged, it was interesting but not Great Books material. I don’t think anybody should be compelled to read it. The irony is laughable.[/quote]
Gandalf, your capacity for the cliche is so vast it subverts your sincerity.
Yes, by required reading, I meant we should go “clock work orange” on all the 14 year olds in america.
I love your use of the word “creepy.” It boiler plates you from any real intelligent criticism. And “moralizing” to you must be synonymous with expressing ones opinion on a matter, since I am darn near sure you can not debate this topic on facts. Not to mention you slipped in “right wing zombies,” Is that like a liberal rallying cry…or dog whistle or something? And your rounded out your critisism with comparing me to a Marxist…Nice choice on avoiding the knee jerk to Nazism…well played.
So all your response does is attempt to shame someone into shutting up.
I would love to have a debate about why Rand is not valid for people to read or think about, in whole or in part. My main point was that Rand provides a unique world view, as useful and flawed as many other great philosophical thinkers, and on such grounds, she is worth reading.
Here is how you can respond Gandalf…
I, Gandalf, do not think Rand is valid…I, Gandalf, do not think she is valid, (and here is the important part, the more detail the better!) because of X,Y, and Z.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.