Ayn Rand - Atlas Shrugged (Movie)

christiefan915 said:
LOL! 3D I know we disagree on politics but I love when you go off on these tangents about the founders, as if you were personally acquainted with them!
Click to expand...

They were human beings who interacted with others and wrote extensively. Washington is virtually impossible to relate to, as he kept up the mask so well. Adams and Franklin are super easy to relate to, for fairly obvious reasons. Hamilton is easy to understand, because he was basically the American/human embodiment of a Greek tragedy, and his life story is one of the most amazing profiles in modern history to read (truth is stranger than fiction, etc.). I am more familiar with this generation of Americans than most others, and part of it is because I sometimes feel like I can understand them a bit. :cof1:
 
King of Guns said:
I disagree. Emotion in ruling makes you more likely to oppress people. It is only through the lens of apathy that true impartiality and liberty is possible.
Click to expand...

I am sorry, but it is impossible for people to react without emotion, if you think they can, you are only fooling yourselves. They may not show emotions, but emotions rule our species.
 
King of Guns said:
Maybe. Hitler also wanted to capture all that industrial might, since Germany wasn't anywhere NEAR as industrially capable as people often like to believe.
Click to expand...

The numbers were really hugely stacked against the Axis from 1942 onwards. I can accept that Germany can beat Britain, if they spent a decade or so building up their navy. But bringing Russia into things? Even if Americas entrance into the war was as inevitable as the Japanese seemed to believe, bringing the Russians in as well was just unnecessary. In one fell swoop they decided to go from owning most of europe to bringing in two of the world's biggest industrial powers. Even in 1945, a lot of the Japanese military command seemed to believe that they could win a war of attrition against the entire goddamn world.
 
Last edited:
Hitler's plan after capturing the Soviet Union was literally just to starve everyone in the urban centers to death, because Germany mainly wanted the agricultural land anyway. Christ. It's difficult to make Stalin look humane.
 
Damocles said:
We simply disagree on what the common good is. I do not believe that the "common good" is measured by how much money we have to give to people in "need".
Click to expand...

We don't spend a lot of money giving out stuff to the needy (besides medical care). We spend a lot of money on the elderly and the military.
 
King of Nothing said:
Yep, Stalin and Hitler were real compassionate guys, that's why they committed their atrocities.
Click to expand...
Emotion does not always equal compassion. Hatred and anger are both very powerful emotions, and both highly prevalent in Stalin and Hitler. Also in American leaders like Nixon, Buchanan, and Jackson.
 
Rana said:
I am sorry, but it is impossible for people to react without emotion, if you think they can, you are only fooling yourselves. They may not show emotions, but emotions rule our species.
Click to expand...
At the personal level absolutely. If I were to be struck by a person, I would act with well deserved anger. But that does not translate well when one must rule for others. To become personally invested and allow ones emotions to take over is the height of futility. No good can come from it.
 
King of Nothing said:
We don't spend a lot of money giving out stuff to the needy (besides medical care). We spend a lot of money on the elderly and the military.
Click to expand...

Which again, is not the measure of "good". We should not measure "good" by the amount of money we have to give away.
 
King of Guns said:
At the personal level absolutely. If I were to be struck by a person, I would act with well deserved anger. But that does not translate well when one must rule for others. To become personally invested and allow ones emotions to take over is the height of futility. No good can come from it.
Click to expand...

There was a study done on people whose brains were damaged in the area of the brain that controlled their emotions, they could not make decisions. Emotions subconsciously control our activities, decisions are made with emotions, even when we think we are acting logically.
 
King of Reason said:
They were human beings who interacted with others and wrote extensively. Washington is virtually impossible to relate to, as he kept up the mask so well. Adams and Franklin are super easy to relate to, for fairly obvious reasons. Hamilton is easy to understand, because he was basically the American/human embodiment of a Greek tragedy, and his life story is one of the most amazing profiles in modern history to read (truth is stranger than fiction, etc.). I am more familiar with this generation of Americans than most others, and part of it is because I sometimes feel like I can understand them a bit. :cof1:
Click to expand...

Any truth to the rumor that Ben Franklin was a randy old goat who pursued half the women in Paris? :D
 
Damocles said:
Which again, is not the measure of "good". We should not measure "good" by the amount of money we have to give away.
Click to expand...

strawman.jpg


We should measure the social good by the amount of good something does to society.
 
Rana said:
There was a study done on people whose brains were damaged in the area of the brain that controlled their emotions, they could not make decisions. Emotions subconsciously control our activities, decisions are made with emotions, even when we think we are acting logically.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. The amygdala is the seat of emotions and injuries or deficiencies can cause very serious problems. Criminals, psychopaths, to name a few.

"When the amygdala is damaged in humans, they lose their sensitivity to stimuli associated with strong emotions. For example, Adolphs, Russell, and Tranel (1999) found that a patient with "complete, bilateral damage restricted to the amygdala" was able to tell when a face was sad or happy, but he had lost his ability to discriminate between different levels of emotional arousal. He could not tell a slightly sad face from a very angry face: they all just looked "unhappy" to him. He had the same problem with happy expressions: he could not tell the difference between a face that showed very mild happiness and one that expressed great joy."
 
christiefan915 said:
Any truth to the rumor that Ben Franklin was a randy old goat who pursued half the women in Paris? :D
Click to expand...

As far as I know its true. Some sources say he specifically took on a mistress so that he could fit into the French society and score more political points. You could say he was the first American to screw for his flag. Of course, he might have just been BSing other Americans to appear less slutty, and its the sort of rumour he might spread because he was clever.
 
John Adams couldn't figure out why the French loved him so. Especially since after a while, as Adams' developed his French language a bit, he realized that Ben really didn't speak it all that well, which astonished him. Ben was so good at feigning understanding that no one else caught on. :cof1:
 
Ben Franklin was fucking awesome. He fucked everything that moved and probably a few things that didn't.
 
King of Nothing said:
strawman.jpg


We should measure the social good by the amount of good something does to society.
Click to expand...

Yet we do not. Instead the left seems to measure it by how much we must give, they tell another group that they are "evil" for wanting to do it differently and rather than give fish, to teach to fish...

Basically we are at an impasse because of our separate measures of "good" and a disconnect in what we believe the government should do.

I have a problem with both parties in this, both of the major parties want the government to do too much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top