Ayn Rand Christmas Cards

[christiefan915]

I'm not stalling for anything. I'm just not putting my foot in your obviously lame trap which is rampant with your own hypocrisy. And you still don't grasp what Ayn Rand said. You can't separate your hatred of the woman from her ideology, and you can't separate her ideology from what she personally wants.

She is saying what she values. But she is not saying that what she values is what others should value. If you mean what you are doing, it makes you happy to do it. If you don't mean it, then the Church doesn't accept it as sincere. You still don't get that. If you are truly Catholic, being Catholic is selfish, it makes you happy. Or maybe content is a better word. If you're just afraid of going to hell and don't mean it, you aren't really Catholic just because you are going through the motions.

how is this so difficult for you to grasp?

You do not understand Catholic dogma and you prove it in every post. Just accept that the teachings are incompatible with objectivism and deep-six your sense of grievance. The Church isn't asking you to give up your beliefs because they're pitching their message to Catholics, and I don't give a shit whether people are objectivists or not.

You're looking for an argument for no reason.

 

[Phantasmal]

Going to the gym to make yourself better when you could be feeding people at a homeless shelter is definitely a selfish act. Again, there is more than one definition of selfish.

I guess I do not agree with your definition of selfish. It would be selfless of you to constantly take care of the needs of others without doing for yourself, but I think there has to be a balance in all things, exercising instead of feeding the homeless is not being selfish, but playing golf instead of feeding the poor might be

 

[Phantasmal]

NONE.

He doesn't care enough to actually INVOLVE himself.

I don't agree in 3D's place, I think he is sweet and sincere and is the type of person that might entertain the idea of adopting a child in need. I wish that when we were willing to do it that it had been cheaper. Cost is a big inhibitor.

 

[cawacko]

I guess I do not agree with your definition of selfish. It would be selfless of you to constantly take care of the needs of others without doing for yourself, but I think there has to be a balance in all things, exercising instead of feeding the homeless is not being selfish, but playing golf instead of feeding the poor might be

Now you're just hating!

 

[cawacko]

I don't agree in 3D's place, I think he is sweet and sincere and is the type of person that might entertain the idea of adopting a child in need. I wish that when we were willing to do it that it had been cheaper. Cost is a big inhibitor.

Yeah, y'all are like 'adopt four or six kids'. I'm thinking 'damn, you have to have some serious money to do that!'

 

[cawacko]

I don't agree in 3D's place, I think he is sweet and sincere and is the type of person that might entertain the idea of adopting a child in need. I wish that when we were willing to do it that it had been cheaper. Cost is a big inhibitor.

Do you agree with Zappa's argument that there would be no more abortions if every child could be adopted? I don't think that would be the case at all.

 

[christiefan915]

Question for you Christi:

My father-in-law is a big Catholic. He goes to mass every week. He's very involved with his church group. He sits outside stores ringing the Salvation Army bell. He feeds people at the homeless shelter.

He and my mother-in-law were married for 25 years or so before she filed for divorce. I think the gist was she felt he would rather spend more time with his church activities than with her. (fwiw, she is a Christian but not Catholic)

He has since remarried and I think his current wife has similar complaints. Now by definition if he spent more time working on his relationship and less time helping with the church that would be selfish of him. How do you think the church would view that?

This doesn't sound like a church problem to me. If two wives have the same complaint about him it sounds like relationship issues, specifically that he puts a higher premium on his personal activities than his marriage. I bet if the wife got him to cut back in the church area he'd find something to substitute for it.

 

[Phantasmal]

Question for you Christi:

My father-in-law is a big Catholic. He goes to mass every week. He's very involved with his church group. He sits outside stores ringing the Salvation Army bell. He feeds people at the homeless shelter.

He and my mother-in-law were married for 25 years or so before she filed for divorce. I think the gist was she felt he would rather spend more time with his church activities than with her. (fwiw, she is a Christian but not Catholic)

He has since remarried and I think his current wife has similar complaints. Now by definition if he spent more time working on his relationship and less time helping with the church that would be selfish of him. How do you think the church would view that?

He remarried! Then tell him he isn't really a Catholic. Sorry, I am giddy, I was given a very delicious gingerbread stout to enjoy while watching football tonight and it has made me smartasser.

 

[cawacko]

This doesn't sound like a church problem to me. If two wives have the same complaint about him it sounds like relationship issues, specifically that he puts a higher premium on his personal activities than his marriage. I bet if the wife got him to cut back in the church area he'd find something to substitute for it.

He's the nicest sweetest man (and kind of nerdy) but he is very much into church and church activities. I'm not actually sure what he's into outside of church actually. (He lives in Texas so I don't get to spend that much time with him)

 

[Phantasmal]

Yeah, y'all are like 'adopt four or six kids'. I'm thinking 'damn, you have to have some serious money to do that!'

It is why Bud and I never did, when we were young, we were poor and now I'm too old, it would not be fair to a baby, maybe an older child, I have talked to Bud about that, but he isn't ready to raise teenagers at 68! Instead we donate to Heritage House in Colorado, run by my childhood friend, they foster pregnant mothers and help them give their babies up for adoption, they do any at risk teenage girls 12-18. They are amazing people. My second daughter is named after her!

 

[Mott the Hoople]

I'm too lazy to copy and paste but here's the link describing what Rand meant by the Virtue of Selfishness for those interested in the actual meaning.


http://atlassociety.org/commentary/commentary-blog/4141-virtue-of-selfishness

im sorry Wacko but Rand is the most overrated philosopher of the 20th Century. At least in the U.S.

To be fair Rand does make some valid points. Her explanation of why market economies are superior to command economies is spot on. However, as a man of science, listening to a Philosopher prattle on about objectivity is like listening to an electrician lecturing a plumber on how to install a toilet. That shit don't flush.

Some examples come to mind. Rand was a militant opponent to communism and she eloquently explained why it was a failed socio-economic system. Hypocritically Rand was also a millitant lazzie-faire capitalist. A socio-economic system with its boom and bust cycles, it's bubbles, it's tendency to outstrip resources and demand, it's exaggerated inequalities that favors investors over producers and the economic and social/political instability it creates is every bit as failed an economic system as communism. Yet Rand was a militant lazzies-faire capitalist. What exactly is objective about that?

Then let's point out that she was the Queen of false dichotomies. Gross selfishness is self preservation but collaboration for mutual shared interests is cannabalistic ultruism? That's complete nonsense. Collaboration and self interest are not mutually exclusive.

Then there's her irrational views about property. That the foundation for a successful market economy is the respect for Private property goes without saying but according to Rand all property is created equal but some property is more equal than others as Rand liked to pick winners and losers. Again, what's objective about that? She also had complete contempt for public property. Yea...like she ever built a road or a sewer system. Rand had no problem with an industrialist polluting my air, land and water but considered it a crime against private property to regulate such activities. This is objective?

Then on governing she was opposed to utilitarianism despite the fact that no government in human history that wasn't utilitarian has ever succeeded. So it would seem to Rand only her subjective beliefs can be considered objective.

So yea, Rand got a few things right but spare me the Rand worship as there was a lot she was wrong about too.

 

[cawacko]

im sorry Wacko but Rand is the most overrated philosopher of the 20th Century. At least in the U.S.

To be fair Rand does make some valid points. Her explanation of why market economies are superior to command economies is spot on. However, as a man of science, listening to a Philosopher prattle on about objectivity is like listening to an electrician lecturing a plumber on how to install a toilet. That shit don't flush.

Some examples come to mind. Rand was a militant opponent to communism and she eloquently explained why it was a failed socio-economic system. Hypocritically Rand was also a millitant lazzie-faire capitalist. A socio-economic system with its boom and bust cycles, it's bubbles, it's tendency to outstrip resources and demand, it's exaggerated inequalities that favors investors over producers and economic and the social and political instability it creates is every bit as failed an economic system as communism. Yet Rand was a militant lazzies-faire capitalist. What exactly is objective about that?

Then let's point out that she was the Queen of false dichotomies. Gross selfishness is self preservation but collaboration for mutual shared interests is cannabalistic ultruism? That's complete nonsense. Collaboration and self interest are not mutually exclusive.

Then there's her irrational views about property. That the foundation for a successful market economy is the respect for Private property goes without saying but according to Rand all property is created equal but some property is more equal than others as Rand liked to pick winners and losers. Again, what's objective about that? She also had complete contempt for public property. Yea...like she ever built a road or a sewer system. Rand had no problem with an industrialist polluting my air, land and water but considered it a crime against private property to regulate such activities. This is objective?

Then on governing she was opposed to utilitarianism despite the fact that no government in human history that wasn't utilitarian has ever succeeded. So it would seem to Rand only her subjective beliefs can be considered objective.

So yea, Rand got a few things right but spare me the Rand worship as there was a lot she was wrong about too.

You don't have to like her. Doesn't offend me if you don't. We were talking about her definition of selfishness here in relation to the Catholic Church's teachings.

 

[Damocles]

She had the tsarist mindset of selfishness.

She did not. The Tsarist would believe that they owned Serfs and that they held a responsibility towards them as well (well the good ones would). The libertarian mindset is far different. The idea that "selfishness" (as defined by others) is not a negative personality trait was based on the benefit to others your "selfishness" ultimately creates.

Libertarian mindset takes the long view. If you own a company and do what is actually best for the company so it makes the most money you will treat customers right so that they will return and spend money. A leftist would believe that your "selfishness" would mean you would put out a crappy product to make money "now" without regard to what is best for the company's future. The true libertarian's "selfishness" would not let him put out a crappy product, there is no long term good for his "selfishness" created from such a product.

 

[Phantasmal]

im sorry Wacko but Rand is the most overrated philosopher of the 20th Century. At least in the U.S.

To be fair Rand does make some valid points. Her explanation of why market economies are superior to command economies is spot on. However, as a man of science, listening to a Philosopher prattle on about objectivity is like listening to an electrician lecturing a plumber on how to install a toilet. That shit don't flush.

Some examples come to mind. Rand was a militant opponent to communism and she eloquently explained why it was a failed socio-economic system. Hypocritically Rand was also a millitant lazzie-faire capitalist. A socio-economic system with its boom and bust cycles, it's bubbles, it's tendency to outstrip resources and demand, it's exaggerated inequalities that favors investors over producers and the economic and social/political instability it creates is every bit as failed an economic system as communism. Yet Rand was a militant lazzies-faire capitalist. What exactly is objective about that?

Then let's point out that she was the Queen of false dichotomies. Gross selfishness is self preservation but collaboration for mutual shared interests is cannabalistic ultruism? That's complete nonsense. Collaboration and self interest are not mutually exclusive.

Then there's her irrational views about property. That the foundation for a successful market economy is the respect for Private property goes without saying but according to Rand all property is created equal but some property is more equal than others as Rand liked to pick winners and losers. Again, what's objective about that? She also had complete contempt for public property. Yea...like she ever built a road or a sewer system. Rand had no problem with an industrialist polluting my air, land and water but considered it a crime against private property to regulate such activities. This is objective?

Then on governing she was opposed to utilitarianism despite the fact that no government in human history that wasn't utilitarian has ever succeeded. So it would seem to Rand only her subjective beliefs can be considered objective.

So yea, Rand got a few things right but spare me the Rand worship as there was a lot she was wrong about too.

Oh, man, I love when you do this. Okay, she may have been right about some things, but she still was a really boring author.

 

[Damocles]

Oh, man, I love when you do this. Okay, she may have been right about some things, but she still was a really boring author.

Yeah, when I read her books I skip the lecture portions after reading them the first time.

 

[Phantasmal]

She did not. The Tsarist would believe that they owned Serfs and that they held a responsibility towards them as well (well the good ones would). The libertarian mindset is far different. The idea that "selfishness" (as defined by others) is not a negative personality trait was based on the benefit to others your "selfishness" ultimately creates.

Libertarian mindset takes the long view. If you own a company and do what is actually best for the company so it makes the most money you will treat customers right so that they will return and spend money. A leftist would believe that your "selfishness" would mean you would put out a crappy product to make money "now" without regard to what is best for the company's future.

Damo, your view of liberals is total bullshit, liberal that I am, I would put out the best product for my customers and take a loss for myself.

I am constantly perplexed by your loving Rand and trying to be a Buddhist and a Mason.

 

[Damocles]

Damo, your view of liberals is total bullshit, liberal that I am, I would put out the best product for my customers and take a loss for myself.

I am constantly perplexed by your loving Rand and trying to be a Buddhist and a Mason.

No, you read it wrong (probably wasn't perfectly clear but I'm selfish so I'm blaming it on you) I am talking about libertarians and the misuse of the word "selfish" not that liberals would put out a crappy product. The liberal assumes the libertarian would put out the crappy product, because he is "selfish". I am pointing out that libertarian philosophy takes the longer view, their product would be the best they can provide because their selfishness would demand it for the long term health and earnings of the company.

As for Buddhist and Mason. Many Buddhists are libertarian, and being a Mason would have no impact on my personal philosophy.

 

[Phantasmal]

No, you read it wrong (probably wasn't perfectly clear but I'm selfish so I'm blaming it on you) I am talking about libertarians and the misuse of the word "selfish" not that liberals would put out a crappy product. The liberal assumes the libertarian would put out the crappy product, because he is "selfish". I am pointing out that libertarian philosophy takes the longer view, their product would be the best they can provide because their selfishness would demand it for the long term health and earnings of the company.

As for Buddhist and Mason. Many Buddhists are libertarian, and being a Mason would have no impact on my personal philosophy.

No, I was wasn't clear, I meant Rand, she is seems so not Buddhist or Mason, they are both striving for selflessness, unless I have misread their philosophies.

 

[I'm Watermark]

Is there a coherent point in there somewhere?

No

 

[USFREEDOM911]

I guess I do not agree with your definition of selfish. It would be selfless of you to constantly take care of the needs of others without doing for yourself, but I think there has to be a balance in all things, exercising instead of feeding the homeless is not being selfish, but playing golf instead of feeding the poor might be

How about buying shoes that you don't need or going on vacations or any of the other things that you've talked about doing?