Oh, I do believe that’s the sound of a little bitch desperately trying to dissuade someone from backtracking in the thread to find out that he did, in fact, create that stupid strawman. Fortunately, I don’t listen too well to idiots, so I found this:
Hey, look at that! You *did *create it yourself.
1.) So, first you don’t want to do it because you hate poor people. Then you don’t want to do it because you’re scared for your safety. Now you don’t want to do it because you’re a heroic crusader for the common man who refuses to simply apply a band-aid to a gaping wound.
2.) You’re not claiming that you have no obligation in a general sense. You’re claiming that your oaths don’t oblige you, which is something different entirely.
It’s always easy with Rand Rover–he’s such a tool, the replies pretty much write themselves.
Of course, the question now is what do you think that “B” stands for?
Oops… my bad… Sorry about that.
But if I were gonna make a guess as to what a “B” in your name would be??
I’d figure something like:
Badass
Babe
Bodacious
Brilliant
Buxom
SFG, what are ýou on about re: the speeding example? You seem to be implýing that I first brought it up and then tried to distance myself from it. You aren’t making a lot of sense.
I’ll tone it down a bit.
I tend to have a very strange sense of humor and I sometimes forget that not everyone sees things the way I do.
I’m a very flirty and bouncy sort of person and I laugh a lot.
I see humor in most everything.
Especially in most “debates” or “disagreements”.
I can’t quite get up the steam to get really pissed off about anything.
People seem to take themselves so seriously most of the time and I find THAT in itself highly amusing.
I’m happily married, have 3 great kids, 1 amazing grandson and a job I love.
It was never my intention to “creep out” anyone.
Beg pardon.
Oh, I see now. I said “Look at the speedinbg example. You seem to be using this as a gotcha.” By “this,” I meant “this argument you, Bricker, are making,” not “the speeding example.”
Whew. Glad we could clear that up. Now let’s be friends.
Also, when will you comply with your moral obligation to post nudie pics?
This whole 15-page trainwreck, The Known Universe v. Rand Rover, underscores the central failing of Randian thought, if I may permitted the use of an oxymoron: individual honor and each citizen’s moral sense are upheld by Randians as eliminating any need for coercive governmental intervention, such as taxation, yet here, **RR **has voluntarily agreed to join a profession that defines its moral responsibility to perform Pro Bono duties, without imposing any sort of coercion, merely a sense of honor and social responsibility, and he finds in this moral responsibility, sheer glee in being able to say, “Nah, nah–you forgot to include a specified penalty, so I don’t gotta. I can keep my bar card, and you got no way to coerce me, ya dumb fucks, ha ha ha.” This thread can stand as the ultimate word on “Why Randian thought will fail, every time, all the time, and anyone who subscribes to it is an immature, ill-formed, despicable self-justifying asshole.”
I have, multiple times. That you don’t agree with it is neither here or there. I think if you ask the overwhelming majority of lawyers whether the oath that you swore, in light of the Illinois Rules of Professional Responsibility, imposes a moral obligation to do pro bono work, they will agree with me not you. You’ll still claim to be right, though.
That’s some nice back-peddling villa. You have failed to show tha the rules actuall y impose a requirement to do pro bono, so now you argue that the rules “impose a moral obligation,” whatever the hell that means.
Prr, Randian thought boils down to “it is better for people in a socie to have tyrelationships based on free exchange instead of coercion.” When I signed up to be a lawyer, the deal did not include a commitment by me to do pro bono work, because the rules don’t require me to do it to remain a lawyer. Therefore, there has been a free exchange of value that the participants agreed was fair. Then you come along and decide that I actually did agree to do pro bono and should be coerced into doing it. You are illustrating the failure of your own thought, not mine.
I have to admit… the $250/hr my attorney charged me in this last little fracas with my ex- was a bit over-the-top for the work he actually did.
I think he’s a great guy and he’s fun to hang out with.
He has a great sense of humor and he looks too cute in madras shorts, mis-matched socks and sandals.
His wife is lovely and his daughter is a peach.
But he waaaaaaaaay over-charged me.
And I told him that.
But I still paid him because I AGREED TO PAY HIM WHEN I ENLISTED HIS SERVICES.
I could have gone to some schmo I don’t know, take my chances and maybe paid less… I chose him.
And his ridiculous $250/hr! LOL
I’m not unhappy with the results so maybe he did earn that $$…
If Rand is getting paid… then, technically, HE’S not working pro bono, right?
His FIRM is working pro bono.
Which would mean his firm would get the tax breaks for charity work while Rand would not.
Or have I got this wrong somehow?
(Wouldn’t be the first time.)
But you admit, I think, that if the law in Illinois HAD included some language that absolutely required each and every lawyer in the state to perform a certain number of pro bono hours annually or face debarment and a prison sentence, then you, as a good Randian, could not have joined the Illinois bar, correct? But you certainly have bitterly protested the coercion that the state of Illinois was foisting on its lawyers, because (as a good Randian) you would have preferred it leave charity and other social niceties to the consciences of individuals. So if the the bar colludes with the state to compell pro bono, you have a principled Randian objection, and if it merely tries to compel pro bono by describing it as a responsibility without coercing it by threat of penalty, then you’re free to reject it because there’s no statutory penalty. Either way, you get to play the victim: “Wah, wah, those meanies are passing laws that fore me to give up a lucrative career” or “Wah, wah, those meanies are sending me memoes that remind me that I’ve agreed to abide by the rules of Illinois law, not all of which do I support 100%. Wah, wah.” Any self-respecting Randian would recognize that he’s a member of a group that seeks something from him that grates on his conscience, and so would need to resign from the bar, or from his lucrative job, and blow up a building, or kill himself or something dramatic like that. But you come on the SD and piss and moan and whine. Some Randian you are. The ditzy girls in my sophomore lit class who love Ayn Rand are more principled than you.