Why was she wrong again? Present it to me without ad-hominem etcetera, you faggots

Why was she wrong again? Present it to me without ad-hominem etcetera, you faggots.

>women
>ever right about anything

also
>not a white nationalist
>rights

Kill yourself and go back to /r/eddit, you brainwashed libcuck

How many times do people like you have to be told?
She was part of a rich jewish family in Russia. When the bolshevicks took over the government came and took all their stuff away. She got pissed about and went and wrote Atlas Shrugged.
It's that simple. Nothing more nothing less.

why can't we just kill the poor?

Because there are conflicts of interest among rational men.

(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
"an ad hominem response"
this is kinda funny, at least use a fallacy i dont directly refer to in the OP

Interest refers to values - rational values (which I'm sure these rational men you mention possess) are absolute and real. Conflict refers to contradiction - that two men have different views of what is right and what ought to be - however, contraction is possible only when one's premises are wrong, which means the fundamental premises driving these men's interests are different, which means one (or both) of these premises are wrong, which means they are not rational premises pertaining to an absolute reality, but, e.g., whims or emotions, or irrationality. Hope that covers that? You know it would be easier if you actually proved ur point, instead of me using all this effort to show that it cannot be proven.

The rich that are justifiably rich are so because they've given something to society, i.e. because they are useful, i.e. because they have brought up the general standard of living - which is what affects the poor, also. What's better - to directly hand out gas to fuel the car's of the poor - or to come up with better ways to produce gas and thus lower its price for everyone?
I mean why am I even answering; there was no argument here.

>blank slate

She wasn't wrong at all, she just doesn't look far enough.

And your alternative? Do you suppose a man is forced to act a certain way during his life by way of...what? Mystical forces guiding the workings of his mind? A destiny? What? You can't disprove a point by merely stating it...

Finding verification of Holden's existence has been a hobby for some Cormac McCarthy scholars.

And it shall stay as such: a hobby.

You first have to argue why you think she's right. If you can't even do that I have nothing to say to you.

I'm not the guy you answered, but

this guys point was actually not fully addressed by you. I'm going to take up his banner.

>The rich that are justifiably rich are so because they've given something to society, i.e. because they are useful, i.e. because they have brought up the general standard of living

This is a half-truth. You cannot apply this to all "rich" persons.

> What's better - to directly hand out gas to fuel the car's of the poor - or to come up with better ways to produce gas and thus lower its price for everyone?

obviously the latter, but you're not taking into account several key factors. the point being made here is that it is not justifiable to kill the poor; if one is rich, they must be held liable for the greater influence they have if they choose to use it to affect the world at large.
this brings to light the next point, the ways that the industries and "rich" generally go about "lowering prices" has direct ramifications that you don't address, such as workforce surplus.

If we're talking about a philosopher, the only discussion or arguments about them can be initiated by counter arguments, that is, the act of questioning their philosophy, for otherwise what is it but the parroting of their conclusions? Do you want me to summarize her entire philosophy here? I think she's right because its contradictory to argue otherwise. Does that suffice for you? What do you want?

>Interest refers to values - rational values (which I'm sure these rational men you mention possess) are absolute and real. Conflict refers to contradiction - that two men have different views of what is right and what ought to be - however, contraction is possible only when one's premises are wrong
But Rand doesn't want us to have exactly the same values, she wants us to have selfish values. If I value my life more than yours and you value your life more than mine, there can potentially be situations where those values are going to conflict with each other.

enjoy your black and white perspective m80.

Not that user but you cant be this ignorant of basic critical reasoning.

>the only discussion or arguments about them can be initiated by counter arguments

Right, AFTER you explain something about them that can be countered.

Choose one of her arguments, her positions. Present it as if its your own. Then the other user can criticize it.

What you're doing is walking around saying "Go ahead, criticize bugaddoosomalana. What, you want me to explain all of it? I think its right because its contradictory to argue otherwise. Does that suffice for you? What do you want?"

>if one is rich, they have responsibility to take care of those who just don't happen to be rich for whatever reason
You're talking of wealth as if it is something that one just happens to have, as a matter of destiny. That wealth is what identifies a person and his place in a society - and you skip, completely, the part where this wealth is acquired, and the underlying factors that are required for this (such as men's values, philosophy). As far as 'killing the poor' goes, no-one kills a man if he doesn't actually kill a man. If a poor man is incompetent to survive, that is on him. You can't help a drowning man who's reluctant to swim, and you can't be held accountable if you save your own life rather than drown with him.

>"lowering prices" "rich"
I fail to see your point here. If one finds better ways to produce gas, that is good, absolutely good, no matter what damage it might bring to the workers that are now out of a job because if they kept working at their job they would slow down production, or be completely useless, and in any case feeding off others whilst not contributing at all. Please clarify how, e.g., discovering a more efficient way to produce gas, could by these vague 'ramifications' be a bad thing?

Descriptive egoism does not necessarily lead to prescriptive egoism. Her philosophy completely deflates when this obvious distinction is made.

>that is good, absolutely good

No, it's good relative to the value gasoline has to the people that use. Also relative to the impact the production and use of gasoline has on everybody.

Why do she trigger liberals so?

because she understands economics.

lol

If we were to, e.g., say that there would arise a situation where out of two men only one can survive, or else they both perish, what would be the determining factors on their survival? Would it not be the competence for survival? There is only one alternative to this: where one of these men sacrifice himself to the other, proclaiming that the other's life is more valuable than his own, for whatever reason, in which circumstance the other would necessarily have to believe this - to believe that he is more deserving of life than the other man, and that it is morally right for him to continue existing as the offering of this other man - for if he were not to accept this, the situation would arrive at a halt, where both men are now arguing on who is better to sacrifice themself, and it would be determined by their capacity to argue, which would be no different from arguing on who is more competent to live, only that he who has better reasoning is the one who dies (and is this not unjust to you?). Among rational men, if the better man wins, the better man deserves to win, and no alternative is more just.

To present only one of a philosophers positions is to leave out the context - this is especially true in Ayn Rand's case. I should have to ground this position in her entire philosophy, which would be no different from summarizing it all here. I'm not asking people who have no idea on who she is to come and criticize her, but those who do.

Now, tell me, can you make black or white out of grey? What about the other way around? What comes first, black and white, or grey?

>If we were to, e.g., say that there would arise a situation where out of two men only one can survive, or else they both perish, what would be the determining factors on their survival?

Propensity to murder in dire circumstances.

>There is only one alternative to this: where one of these men sacrifice himself to the other, proclaiming that the other's life is more valuable than his own

Or they could both voluntarily choose to die rather than be the immediate cause of the other's death. Which happens, in real life. Most notably in societies that live on the margin of survival. Not in all of them, of course. But many.

Elaborate on how this does not require competence for survival please???

What I understand this to mean is that merely observing what is, one cannot form rules on what should be - which is true if one is anything but man. Your argument rests on the foundation that there is no such thing as human nature - or that this human nature is not metaphysically given. And from here we can get no further. One cannot prove human nature, not to a relativist, not to anyone, it has to be seen as a metaphysically given fact, or not at all.

You consider it a moral choice to voluntarily die? What you're advocating here is two bodies instead of one - death, you're advocating death, my friend.

Am I bothered, though?

You cannot be anything if you voluntarily die, so no, you're not bothered. But you're also not alive, and this morality you've fought for is of no relevance anymore.

>Elaborate on how this does not require competence for survival please???

Referring to it as 'competence' implies an imputed value external to the circumstance. Do did does calling it 'murder'. So here, already, we've found a irreconcilable lacuna in moral outlooks. Why should yours trump mine? I find murder repugnant. I established that value for myself. I own it.

And?

>>if one is rich, they have responsibility to take care of those who just don't happen to be rich for whatever reason
You're talking of wealth as if it is something that one just happens to have, as a matter of destiny. That wealth is what identifies a person and his place in a society - and you skip, completely, the part where this wealth is acquired, and the underlying factors that are required for this (such as men's values, philosophy). As far as 'killing the poor' goes, no-one kills a man if he doesn't actually kill a man. If a poor man is incompetent to survive, that is on him. You can't help a drowning man who's reluctant to swim, and you can't be held accountable if you save your own life rather than drown with him.

You can't just change my fucking words. I said this:

>if one is rich, they must be held liable for the greater influence they have if they choose to use it to affect the world at large.

which doesn't indicate that they have any obligation to "care for" the poor, it means that they have to take responsibility when they use their vast wealth to alter worldly events that affect everyone, poor, middle class, and upper class, not only the rich. If you want an example, think of all the catastrophes, the irradiation of the pacific and the various oil spills around the global waters by big oil. Continuing this example, big oil is not some scary entity of its own, its a conglomerate of people. Actual people, who DO bear a responsibility to be accountable for the actions they take that affect EVERYONE.

>>I fail to see your point here. If one finds better ways to produce gas, that is good, absolutely good, no matter what damage it might bring to the workers that are now out of a job because if they kept working at their job they would slow down production, or be completely useless, and in any case feeding off others whilst not contributing at all. Please clarify how, e.g., discovering a more efficient way to produce gas, could by these vague 'ramifications' be a bad thing?

automation is causing workforce surplus, pioneered by people seeking to line their own pockets, as if that was vague. Funding international wars fuels the military-industrial complex, which in turn causes massive suffering for many at the benefit of select few. Those are just two examples off the top of my head.

So either one man must be altruistic and sacrifice himself for the good of the other or their capacity for survival must be determined by the arbitrary measure of logic and rhetoric. In the latter case both men are debasing their selfish desire to live to rationality, meaning being rational is above the value of life itself, which according to Objectivism is the highest value as all other values flow from it. You must be a shitpostong troll or a complete idiot not to see this.

Your definition of the word murder is questionable. I would call the act of killing in this example of ours self defense, as both of the agents' lives are quite literally compromised. It might not be self defense from the other man, if he chooses to act in no way, but it is at least self defense from the cause of such a situation, e.g. natural forces.

>they have to take responsibility when they use their vast wealth to alter worldly events that affect everyone, poor, middle class, and upper class, not only the rich.

give me an example of where one uses their wealth (the return of their side of the trade, their work) wrongly

>automation is causing workforce surplus

Automation is a more efficient way to produce goods. Goods are necessary to human life. People seeking to line their own pockets must either steal, or trade. If they trade, they are useful, and if this automation gets the job done more efficiently, their work is even more useful. A worker paid to do a job that could be done thrice as fast with a robot is holding back the welfare of the entire world around him, and therefore getting money from such activity, i.e. getting money from nothing, i.e. looting.

>it's moral for an individual to attain monopoly and use resources as to cause harm
>it's immoral for a government to do the same
Her shit is dumb and immoral

You would make yourself a slave to the impositions of nature rather than transcending the given and imposing your own will upon circumstance.

Pussy ass bitch.

In my example, if the men argued on who was more eligible to sacrifice themselves, the men are acting irrationally, and far from being objectivists, which I hoped was apparent.

I'm very confused. How is survival slavery? Is it not the opposite of slavery - to not conform to a threat. Would it not be inaction which would result in death, and is it not the lack of conscious action through which slavery is defined?
And transcending the given?

What?

>give me an example of where one uses their wealth (the return of their side of the trade, their work) wrongly

I gave you two. But I will explain one further if necessary. Big oil chose to engage in aquatic oil mining. They knew the potential ecological risks of this. A catastrophe did take place, the company is responsible, by extension, the wealthy leaders of the company and indeed the shareholders too who support such a company are responsible. This is a mere example continuing off my first.

>Automation is a more efficient way to produce goods. Goods are necessary to human life. People seeking to line their own pockets must either steal, or trade. If they trade, they are useful, and if this automation gets the job done more efficiently, their work is even more useful. A worker paid to do a job that could be done thrice as fast with a robot is holding back the welfare of the entire world around him, and therefore getting money from such activity, i.e. getting money from nothing, i.e. looting.

While I agree that automation is more efficient and the direction that humanity seems to be heading in, I will also state that we haven't found an adequate alternative to the effects it produces. Before, men and women worked in factories, doing jobs that robots now do. There must be some role for these people to fill, as the constituted a major part of the workforce. This is simple.

The 'need to survive' is the imposition of nature. Choosing to live in spite of pressures to do so is different than allowing the pressures of biology to force your hand in violating your own values. You would succumb; I would move through.

So in this instance is murder justified if it is the only way for one man to survive?

>This is simple.
Yes, if you have a bad definition of the word 'work'. Your conception of work is 'whatever to fill the days and roles of men and women'. An accurate conception of work is 'productive work contributing to the overall welfare of human life.' If a worker replaces an automation and consequently works less productively, he is not working productively, for it is defined through what is possible. Trees should not be chopped down with rocks instead of steel hatchets just because this takes more effort, and therefore employs more people.

>Big oil chose to engage in aquatic oil mining.
This affects the welfare of this planet, right. So what you're proposing is that the welfare of this planet is only relevant to the poor, as that was our premise - that the rich must take into direct account the condition of the poor and the middle classes. If they fk up like that, it affects them, too. Its no injustice brought upon the helpless.

Keep in mind that your value, in this concrete example, is still death, and my succumbing would be survival, as for your 'moving through' would be nonexistence, wherein no values exist at all.

Murder as a better alternative with life as the highest determining value, lesser evil. Choosing none of these evils would be impossible, for it would be the choice of inaction, which would result in a higher evil.

My value in this concrete example is the sanctity and autonomy of my values. Keep in mind your value is not a true value because you have not chose it, butt have rather allowed biology to impose an axiom of behavior upon you.

>Yes, if you have a bad definition of the word 'work'. Your conception of work is 'whatever to fill the days and roles of men and women'. An accurate conception of work is 'productive work contributing to the overall welfare of human life.' If a worker replaces an automation and consequently works less productively, he is not working productively, for it is defined through what is possible. Trees should not be chopped down with rocks instead of steel hatchets just because this takes more effort, and therefore employs more people.

Your premise is somewhat acceptable but your example is horrible and again you miss my point.

>Trees should not be chopped down with rocks instead of steel hatchets just because this takes more effort, and therefore employs more people.

Obviously, yes. But does that mean the people who in this hypothetical situation (as you are clearly drawing a hypothetical comparison to automation) are suddenly left with no means of honest labor with the advent of new tools to complete the work. The people also account for a large fraction of the populace, and in a democracy such as America, this matters, as every adult who is not a convicted criminal holds voting rights. Accordingly, there must be some alternative to these people who have had their means of support yanked away from them. Are you familiar with the food chain? A rich man is nothing without the average man to lord over and tempt. Thus, even in their own interest, they must find a way to satisfy their need for gainful employment.

>This affects the welfare of this planet, right. So what you're proposing is that the welfare of this planet is only relevant to the poor, as that was our premise - that the rich must take into direct account the condition of the poor and the middle classes. If they fk up like that, it affects them, too. Its no injustice brought upon the helpless.

That was not our premise, it is merely that the rich must take responsibility. It might be hard to imagine, but we will not live in the early twenty first century forever. Crises like this will have, eventually, massive blowback. The wealthy know this, and they know they will no longer be alive when the consequences come, so they ignore it. They are contributing nothing to the overall good.

>Murder as a better alternative with life as the highest determining value, lesser evil.
But that's not what Rand believed. She thought rights were absolute and therefore murder would never be justifiable. In Atlas Shrugged, it's even said that Rearden risked starving at one point because he would rather die than steal food.

If you don't understand the basic logic of 'one needs life to value anything - even death' there is no use in discussing with you. So I shall simply state: I disagree.

As I've said, my value is not death, but my values. If you cannot understand that values are not values if you cannot determine them autonomously then you deserve your chains.

There's actually a difference in these cases. If, for example, one steals the food another person has acquired in order not to starve, and the other, consequently, starves, there is an inequality as to who is eligible to survive between the thief and the man with the food - the man with the food earned his food, so he deserves to live. But in my example the men were in completely equal positions: the only determining factor as to who earns their life is their competence to survive in that moment. And Rand could not possible have been against self-defense through killing absolutely, as she has many times honored war-veterans for defending the country from Soviet Russia - honoring, what you would call, murderers. If its either them or you, you have the right to choose you. If its either them or you but the reason they keep living if you die is not your death, but their competence, and there is no causal link between you in this situation, then it is immoral to swap places with a better man.

> A rich man is nothing without the average man to lord over and tempt.
This kind of rich man is not an independent man, but a dependent one, and far from an Objectivist.

>That was not our premise, it is merely that the rich must take responsibility.
I am in no way opposed to this. But, this is lacking: EVERY man must take responsibility.

>This kind of rich man is not an independent man, but a dependent one, and far from an Objectivist.

Can you deny that, in the nature of self interest, the rich do not seek to find others who will directly serve them and, while benefiting themselves, also doing a service to another individual? Can you deny that this would be a privileged position among others? Can you deny that this would not be competed for? Can you deny that this does not occur already? This is what I'm talking about. There are rich recluses who do nothing to the world at large, yes, but there are far more of the greedy wealthy.

>I am in no way opposed to this. But, this is lacking: EVERY man must take responsibility.

And in a roundabout way you've brought me back to my original point: the ultra-wealthy must be held directly responsible for the actions they take: they are men, are they not? EVERY man must take responsibility, and THEY must take responsibility for their disproportionate influence, especially if it negatively affects others.

When you can't continue to discourse, just go back to monkey-insults. You all never fail to impress me, brainlets. Maybe if you weren't so fucking stupid you could comprehend a little bit of what is talked about and actually try and make a point instead of being a brainlet and trying to farm (You)s. I've never read Nietzsche either, its pretty funny how you keep harping on about his ideas. Is it because they resonate with what I already believe and do? But that's natural, that's all me. I've never read Nietzsche, lol.

I find this to be all to often the case with this board. Its flooded with people who probably want to try and discourse like this thread, but are too stupid too. Maybe they're good at something else, like sports or shooting a gun. Who knows? I still think they're bitter about being too dumb to even keep up in a thread like this.

They're definitely bitter about not being able to keep up an intelligent discourse. So they just shitpost and try and get reactions. Doesn't work so well here and they mostly only bait themselves. When someone actually does come out to play, it generally results in an interesting conversation.

I guess this thread can just be a reminder to pseuds that if they can't keep up in discourse without devolving to shitposting they are brainlets and eternally btfo.

...

not and agrument

(((Ayn "psychopathic individualism for the goyim, collectivistic ethnostate for the chosen people" Rand)))