you’re funny. i’m looking forward to talking with you more. a lot more. to equate the complexity of quantum mechanics to the writings of Ayn Rand takes a certain sort of creativity that you don’t often see.
I not only cannot refute your point, I don’t even understand your point. Too many for me, I fold.
I didn’t equate their complexity, but I don’t think that an entire philosophical system is necessarily less complex than QM. As I said, I operated within the parameters that were specified. But I didn’t specify those parameters.
well, of course you didn’t
[QUOTE=elucidator]
What’s all this about “reading the book” in order to understand?
[/QUOTE]
Interesting. So, it’s your contention that you don’t need to read a book in order to discuss plot points about the book? That a (theoretically :p) general knowledge of the subject is all one really needs to spout off in a thread on the subject and be given the same weight as those who, you know, actually bothered to read it? Oh, but wait…you do (claim) to have read it…so, maybe I’m missing your disgruntlement here. But waving that aside…I agree with you. It’s painfully clear that, in fact, you don’t have to read a book in order to give your two cents on plot points regarding said book or plot points about it! Hell, Cafe Society is chalked full of thread concerning Star Wars (to name but one) where folks preface their first out of the ass comments in the thread with ‘well, I haven’t seen any of the movies, but…’.
It’s amusing that people seem to get all bent out of shape when the fact that they haven’t read the book/seen the movie/watched the TV show/read the article under discussion, but the amusement quotient is quite high when YOU bring this up in this thread, after claiming to have read the book (though, honestly, I’m not seeing it based on your own comments in this or other threads on the subject…but then, maybe you read it in the Swahili translated version).
Star Wars isn’t all that complex either, but it’s fairly annoying to have to explain all the plot points to someone who hasn’t even bothered watching the thing, especially when they are expounding on supposed holes in the plot that it’s clear if they HAD bothered watching they would see how fucking stupid they were to bring them up. Being ‘really smart’ doesn’t give one an innate understanding of something they have never seen nor read, nor does it make them any less fucking annoying when they stick their oar into a discussion to interject things that aren’t relevant and are just their 2nd or 3rd hand observations, muddled by their own interpretation of what someone else thought of it…twice removed.
If you are going to talk about a plot point of a book, no matter how ‘turgid and relentlessly pretentious prose’, it helps to read the fucking thing. How hard is that to understand? Why is it so hard for you to understand?
(Not that I believe for one moment that you don’t get it, mind, but it will be interesting to see the folksy, avuncular reply)
Um…because we weren’t having a general discussion on objectivism? No doubt you think it would be cool to interject your obvious innate expertise into a Star Trek discussion on plot points because, even though you haven’t seen it (or, you did in the same way you obviously know all about Atlas Shrugged, as noted by your obvious deep understanding in this thread) you don’t need to watch the show to be able to discuss the finer points.
yes, but can you admit that at least some of the claims about Rand and poor writing skills are correct? that it is an incredibly polemic book, writing style not withstanding? that the books are very very long for people who aren’t that interested?
i’ll give credit to your points. it is one thing to read a synopsis of Kant or Hegel and another to actually read the works themself.
And yet her books continue to sell quite well. Some people like them, obviously. Quite a few.
If you’re not interested in the subject, fine. But why enter a discussion about which you have neither knowledge nor interest?
[QUOTE=Robert163]
yes, but can you admit that at least some of the claims about Rand and poor writing skills are correct?
[/QUOTE]
sigh In a thread that is about Rand and her writing style it would be an appropriate comment. THIS THREAD ISN’T ABOUT THAT HOWEVER. This thread is about a plot point in one of her books.
Well, at least she knows how to use proper sentence structure and capitalization. 
Look, whatever floats thy boat. I get that you and just about everyone in this thread dislikes Rand (to put it mildly) and can’t stand her books (massive understatement). That’s fine…to each their own. And if you guys want to do another dis thread on Rand, well, nothing is stopping you. Knock yourselves out. Do a circle jerk Pit thread, or trash her or her books in Cafe Society…whatever. Why threadshit in THIS thread about irrelevant whinage concerning what you think of her or her books though?
Or anything else. Tastes in things ranging from TV shows to books to movies to food vary wildly. One has but to look in Cafe Society to see that, and perspectives vary just as wildly. But how can you have a rational discussion concerning a book, TV show, movie, stag film, etc with someone who hasn’t even bothered to read, watch or beat off to the same thing??
Whoever Comrade Napoleon decides.
Of course threats of violence remain possible. And who’s going to stop them?
Sorry, John, XT, I neglected to consult with you in order to be advised what the thread was really about. Perhaps if you had advised me sooner as to your official position as the what-the-thread-is-really-about determining guys, I might not have made that mistake.
I can only hope that you guys don’t disagree with each other on the whole what the thread is really about thingy, 'cause that would get awkward.
By the way, if I am ever given such power and authority, will I be advised that it is now up to me to determine what a thread is really about? Not that its likely such dignity and responsibility will be conferred upon me, but then I don’t exactly know how it came to be conferred upon you guys, so I could easily be wrong.
I’m not saying that the characters in the book that are portrayed as heroes were actually villians. Rand did not create morally ambiguous characters that displayed the flaws of her philosophy, she created idealized avatars of her philosophy and now every idiots that thinks taxation is theft think’s he is Francisco d’Anconia trying to convince others “producers” like Reardon of their folly in going along with the abusive system they were born into.
Reardon hold out for a long time before finally at long long last realizing “the truth”
I’m not a philosopher so I am not intimately aware of everything that objectivism stands for but I have a pretty good idea of how it is being interpreted by right wingers to justify some pretty self serving positions as honorable. I suspect that it is being used in ways that Ayn rand did not intend just as the right wing uses the bible ways that Jesus probably* did not intend.
*There is always the chance that Jesus/God really is a dick that thinks that low taxes are more important that feeding the poor.
did Rand come up with the term taxation is theft?
Wait, what? You actually flogged your Romney over an Ayn Rand book? No fucking way! Pics, or it didn’t happen.
Not positive, but I’m pretty sure it was Murray Rothbard, von Mises’ lunatic protege.
[QUOTE=elucidator]
Sorry, John, XT, I neglected to consult with you in order to be advised what the thread was really about. Perhaps if you had advised me sooner as to your official position as the what-the-thread-is-really-about determining guys, I might not have made that mistake.
[/QUOTE]
My advise in the future would be to read the OP to determine what the thread is about. Not sure why that isn’t obvious, but as a public service I hope that helps, 'luci.
Well, since Preparations A-G were total failures, but since Preparation H was a success I think that it definitely feels good, on the whole. But thanks for your concern, and since I guess the thread is done a bit of extraneous repartee and digression is acceptable.
Ah, I can see your confusion. You didn’t realize that the threads in any forum are about the question or assertion posted in the OP, and also don’t seem to realize that even you, 'luci, could start YOUR OWN THREAD and make it about whatever you like, and thus gain the power and responsibility of determining such things. I’m only telling you between us, as this is not common knowledge, but must be kept close to the vest, so please don’t tell anyone else about it, or about the hidden tricks in determining what threads are about. Such knowledge in the hands of the general public is definitely contraindicated, ifyouknowwhatimeandontchaknow.
thanks for the info!
Oh, I see now, its because you started the thread! Well, that certainly settles that!
If you think Rand is extreme, Rothbard will blow your mind.
Why no, 'luci…as with the book under discussion, I READ the threads OP to determine what it was the OP of the thread was looking to discuss. Of course, most of the OP is in the title, which comes up in your email every time someone posts to the thread, but I don’t want to overly complicate the difficulty in determining what the subject under discussion is.
Where there is a will, there is a way, 'luci. Was there anything else you wanted to digress about in this thread or was that about it?