So if people who hold a similar, basic political philosophy as me and turn out to be sorta-hypocrites, does that mean I should suddenly give up on my beliefs?
Yeah, I'm convinced. Michael Moore owns stock, so I'm going conservative. And someone grab my cross and Bible - Chomsky's got a trust!
So if people who hold a similar, basic political philosophy as me and turn out to be sorta-hypocrites, does that mean I should suddenly give up on my beliefs?
Yeah, I'm convinced. Michael Moore owns stock, so I'm going conservative. And someone grab my cross and Bible - Chomsky's got a trust!
no ones asking you to go conservative. more like find some new liberals to blow.
That is his idea. That is his message. "Be free, but only in the way I want you to." It's a contradiction, even before you start looking for any hypocrisy by the man himself.
Well, exactly!
Even before you start looking for any hypocrisy by the man himself, you look at the message. I think you should discuss and question his ideas before you question or discuss him, thus, imo, the message is more important than the messenger.
I'm not saying I agree with it and I'm sorry if I was a bit ambiguous or not very eloquent. English is not my native language and it's hard sometimes to form an opinion in an other language.
no ones asking you to go conservative. more like find some new liberals to blow.
Never read Chomsky. I did see a Michael Moore movie, though.
Articles like this are intended to make people go conservative - just as articles pointing out the hypocracy of conservatives are written in the hopes that people will go liberal. If they didn't work, then elections could conceivably be decided by totalling up birth rates, assuming a belief system based on what the parents likely taught their kids, and assigning members of Congress accordingly. Now, I know a number of articles were going around earlier in the year essentially saying this exact same thing - that conservatives were headed for a permanent majority by simply outbreading liberals. But that didn't happen.
And that tells me that articles like this one do have an effect. People do change their minds. So, the author isn't asking me to simply stop blowing certain liberals. He's also offering his own spunk as an alternative.
I think we could do a pretty similar gathering of quotes from Rush and Micheal (Wiener) Savage (like him saying the tsunami wasn't a tragedy). I don't think many people are liberal or conservative because they like some of these talking heads, people just like talking heads because they confirm certain beliefs that they hold. That being said, I think some of you should use some more respectful language "find some new liberals to blow" is kind of uncalled for.
Never read Chomsky. I did see a Michael Moore movie, though.
Articles like this are intended to make people go conservative - just as articles pointing out the hypocracy of conservatives are written in the hopes that people will go liberal. If they didn't work, then elections could conceivably be decided by totalling up birth rates, assuming a belief system based on what the parents likely taught their kids, and assigning members of Congress accordingly. Now, I know a number of articles were going around earlier in the year essentially saying this exact same thing - that conservatives were headed for a permanent majority by simply outbreading liberals. But that didn't happen.
And that tells me that articles like this one do have an effect. People do change their minds. So, the author isn't asking me to simply stop blowing certain liberals. He's also offering his own spunk as an alternative.
No doubt that the purpose is to change liberals into cons.
I think we could do a pretty similar gathering of quotes from Rush and Micheal (Wiener) Savage (like him saying the tsunami wasn't a tragedy). I don't think many people are liberal or conservative because they like some of these talking heads, people just like talking heads because they confirm certain beliefs that they hold. That being said, I think some of you should use some more respectful language "find some new liberals to blow" is kind of uncalled for.
hahaha too funny. have you seen some of the things said about Bush around here? like pissing on his grave, or wanting he raped and murdered? you probably just cracked a smile didnt you.
No doubt that the purpose is to change liberals into cons.
I dont see it that way. any liberal with a brain can make the same thing for conservatives. hipocracy is on both sides. but I dont need to tell you that.
hahaha too funny. have you seen some of the things said about Bush around here? like pissing on his grave, or wanting he raped and murdered? you probably just cracked a smile didnt you.
No, actually I didn't. In the past I've been guilty of saying crap like that, but in the past couple of years I've realized that I would like to see an American political discourse thats respectful. Where we can see what we can learn from each other. And if it bothers you that people would say that about Bush (which it should) you shouldn't say it either. I know its really fun to be indignant about things, and get all pissed off and say hateful things but A. It accomplishes nothing and B. If you are a Christian, its not exactly biblical.
I wanted to mention this a while ago, but the questions about racism are stupid.
I mean, they hired 1 black guy, maybe he hired 17 Indian guys, 20 Mexicans, 100 Chinese dudes...
how about Micael Moore saying anyone who lives in a white neighborhood is racist. how many african americans live in his town? thats right none.
Central Lake, MI....
97.58% White, 1.62% Native American, and 0.81% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 0.51% of the population. African American 0%.
I dont see it that way. any liberal with a brain can make the same thing for conservatives. hipocracy is on both sides. but I dont need to tell you that.
who said Libs dont do the same thing. its all a game to see who can get more people on their side. One cannot get cought up in it or esle youl end up looking as stupid as the talking heads on tv.
how about Micael Moore saying anyone who lives in a white neighborhood is racist. how many african americans live in his town? thats right none.
Central Lake, MI....
97.58% White, 1.62% Native American, and 0.81% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 0.51% of the population. African American 0%.
If he said "anyone who lives in a white neighbourhood is a racist" well than he's a moron, but the quiz doesn't exactly give sources now does it.
But I'm not saying he's not a hypocrit, though. And I probably should have said "that question" instead of "question" you're right.
So Ayn Rand is a bunch of fluff then? Or are women "psychologically inferior" thereby letting her off the hook for her racism, sexism, and homophobia.
Ayn Rand did not believe that women were "psychologically inferior". Being a very arrogant woman herself, the fact that people try to attribute such a statement to her is utterly ridiculous.
The statement to which you're probably referring is Rand's statements regarding social workers (who, at the time, were predominantly female) being "psychologically inferior" based on what she saw as the epitomy of "zero-worship".
"An ideal woman is a man-worshiper, and an ideal man is the highest symbol of mankind." - Ayn Rand.
Rand certianly believed that men are culturally and biologically the dominant sex. Now, the validity of that view (and Rand's general theories on sexuality) may certainly be called into question. However, to twist this statement to say that Rand saw women as "psychologically inferior" or "incapable" is ridiculous.
The main character of Rand's greatest work, Atlas Shrugged, is arguably the strongest and most capable female character in modern literature. Moreover, that book was written during a time when society largely viewed women in the manner you're trying to attribute to Rand.
She also believed that a woman is by her very nature incapable of holding the office of President.
Can you at least research this before passing it on?? Here's Rand's quote:
"For a woman qua woman, the essence of femininity is
hero-worship - the desire to look up to man. "To look up"
does not mean dependence, obedience, or anything implying
inferiority. It means an intense kind of admiration; and
admiration is an emotion that can be experienced only by a
person of strong character and independent value
judgments. ... Hero worship is a demanding virtue: a woman
has to be worthy of it and of the hero she worships.
Intellectually and morally, i.e., as a human being, she has to
be his equal; then the object of her worship is specifically
his masculinity, not any human virtue she might lack. ...
Her worship is an abstract emotion for the metaphysical
concept of masculinity as such ... It means that a properly
feminine woman does not treat men as if she were their pal,
sister, mother - or leader. ... To act as the superior, the
leader, virtually the ruler of all the man she deals with,
would be an excruciating psychological torture. It would
require a total depersonalization, an utter selflessness, and
an incommunicable loneliness; she would have to suppress (or
repress) every personal aspect of her own character and
attitude; she could not be herself, i.e., a woman; ... she
would become the most unfeminine, sexless, metaphysically
inappropriate, and rationally revolting figure of all: a
matriarch. This would apply to the reigning queen of an
absolute monarchy, but it would not apply to a woman in any
field of endeavor other than politics."
-Rand "About a Woman President", 1968
Rand is saying that the office of president is beneath a woman, not the other way around.
"[T]o proclaim spiritual sisterhood with lesbians... is so repulsive a set of premises from so loathsome a sense of life that an accurate commentary would require the kind of language I do not like to see in print." - Ayn Rand.
they let you back? you still havent learned your lesson it appears. enjoy your short stay again.
Like I care if they ban me. That kid is an idiot. I mean come on dude global warming not being real. I know that at least you don't believe global warming isn't real. The science behind is pretty solid. Hey dude at least you know the bears rule.
Rand is saying that the office of president is beneath a woman, not the other way around.
No. It sounds like to me she's saying a woman - in her natural state - is incapable of being president. She would have to reorient her biological desire to worship men and therefore become a hopless, and sexless, being.
She believed that while men and women can be morally and intellectually equal, a woman's place is beneath a man's - she can be "strong," but she at heart wants only to worship a man - albeit a perfect one.
"[T]o proclaim spiritual sisterhood with lesbians... is so repulsive a set of premises from so loathsome a sense of life that an accurate commentary would require the kind of language I do not like to see in print." - Ayn Rand.
Are you suggesting that Rand should "proclaim spiritual sisterhood" with lesbians, being not a lesbian herself???
Look, Rand's views on homosexuality were fluid throughout her life. She did not identify with them and often times said or at least implied that homosexuality was immoral. However, she also said that we did not know enough about the psychological factors of homosexuality to make an accurate morality judgment on it, and said that at a time when the vast majority of society labelled homosexuals as people who had chosen an immoral lifestyle, rather than being born into a different lifestyle.
The context of the her "racist, sexist, and homophobic" quotes (the above included) stem from her protesting both the feminist, homosexual and civil rights movements for demanding special privileges from the government, something Rand saw as inherently evil. She made similar statements about corporate tax breaks going to wealthy white heterosexual businessmen and politicians.
Rand's critics on these grounds simply ignore the vast majority of her writings that explicity denounce racism, sexism, and any sort of reductionism that labels an individual as something less than his or her own individual qualities.
No. It sounds like to me she's saying a woman - in her natural state - is incapable of being president. She would have to reorient her biological desire to worship men and therefore become a hopless, and sexless, being.
That's odd since "incapable" doesn't appear in the statement, nor is there any allusion to it.
Perhaps you didn't read it:
"To look up" does not mean dependence, obedience, or anything implying
inferiority....To act as the superior, the leader, virtually the ruler of all the man she deals with, would be an excruciating psychological torture. It would require a total depersonalization, an utter selflessness, and an incommunicable loneliness; she would have to suppress (or repress) every personal aspect of her own character and attitude; she could not be herself, i.e., a woman"
She believed that while men and women can be morally and intellectually equal, a woman's place is beneath a man's - she can be "strong," but she at heart wants only to worship a man - albeit a perfect one.
Try again:
does not mean dependence, obedience, or anything implying inferiority
Rand's critics on these grounds simply ignore the vast majority of her writings that explicity denounce racism, sexism, and any sort of reductionism that labels an individual as something less than his or her own individual qualities.
So, you're saying they were taken out of context. Huh. Funny that.
I would just like to hear her use those words she doesn't like to see in print.
I'm quite sure that Rand would call any lesbian, black person, white person, man, woman or gay man who attempted to use the force of government to extract special privileges from others some very ugly names.
So, you're saying they were taken out of context. Huh. Funny that.
Look, Rand is anti-collectivist. Collectivism is at the heart of the feminist and racial rights movements. The statements you're highlighting are taken from her critiques of such movements.
Ayn Rand's definition of inferiority, that is. Objectivism aside - the objective definition of inferiority is at play in Rand's quote.
I mean, they're not inferior. They just need to know their place.
Where, in anything she's ever said, do you see "women just need to know their place"??? Seems kind of strange since Dagny Taggart, Rand's archetype for the highest form of femininity, described in 1957, sleeps around, is a business executive, has an utter disdain for household chores, has and desires no children, has no interest in marriage, and lives only for her self and no others......
so how do all the chomesky ass fisters feel about him getting MILLIONS in military contracts?
Is this really even true or are you basing it upon this quiz that anyone could have thrown together to achieve their neocon agenda? Anyone have a credible outside source backing up this claim?
Comments
Yeah, I'm convinced. Michael Moore owns stock, so I'm going conservative. And someone grab my cross and Bible - Chomsky's got a trust!
no ones asking you to go conservative. more like find some new liberals to blow.
Well, exactly!
Even before you start looking for any hypocrisy by the man himself, you look at the message. I think you should discuss and question his ideas before you question or discuss him, thus, imo, the message is more important than the messenger.
I'm not saying I agree with it and I'm sorry if I was a bit ambiguous or not very eloquent. English is not my native language and it's hard sometimes to form an opinion in an other language.
Most definitely.
naděje umírá poslední
I think very few liberals have Michael Moore as an ideal role model. I also think almost very one is a bit of a hypocrit.
naděje umírá poslední
Articles like this are intended to make people go conservative - just as articles pointing out the hypocracy of conservatives are written in the hopes that people will go liberal. If they didn't work, then elections could conceivably be decided by totalling up birth rates, assuming a belief system based on what the parents likely taught their kids, and assigning members of Congress accordingly. Now, I know a number of articles were going around earlier in the year essentially saying this exact same thing - that conservatives were headed for a permanent majority by simply outbreading liberals. But that didn't happen.
And that tells me that articles like this one do have an effect. People do change their minds. So, the author isn't asking me to simply stop blowing certain liberals. He's also offering his own spunk as an alternative.
No doubt that the purpose is to change liberals into cons.
hahaha too funny. have you seen some of the things said about Bush around here? like pissing on his grave, or wanting he raped and murdered? you probably just cracked a smile didnt you.
I dont see it that way. any liberal with a brain can make the same thing for conservatives. hipocracy is on both sides. but I dont need to tell you that.
No, actually I didn't. In the past I've been guilty of saying crap like that, but in the past couple of years I've realized that I would like to see an American political discourse thats respectful. Where we can see what we can learn from each other. And if it bothers you that people would say that about Bush (which it should) you shouldn't say it either. I know its really fun to be indignant about things, and get all pissed off and say hateful things but A. It accomplishes nothing and B. If you are a Christian, its not exactly biblical.
I mean, they hired 1 black guy, maybe he hired 17 Indian guys, 20 Mexicans, 100 Chinese dudes...
naděje umírá poslední
how about Micael Moore saying anyone who lives in a white neighborhood is racist. how many african americans live in his town? thats right none.
Central Lake, MI....
97.58% White, 1.62% Native American, and 0.81% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 0.51% of the population. African American 0%.
who said Libs dont do the same thing. its all a game to see who can get more people on their side. One cannot get cought up in it or esle youl end up looking as stupid as the talking heads on tv.
If he said "anyone who lives in a white neighbourhood is a racist" well than he's a moron, but the quiz doesn't exactly give sources now does it.
But I'm not saying he's not a hypocrit, though. And I probably should have said "that question" instead of "question" you're right.
naděje umírá poslední
Ayn Rand did not believe that women were "psychologically inferior". Being a very arrogant woman herself, the fact that people try to attribute such a statement to her is utterly ridiculous.
The statement to which you're probably referring is Rand's statements regarding social workers (who, at the time, were predominantly female) being "psychologically inferior" based on what she saw as the epitomy of "zero-worship".
She also believed that a woman is by her very nature incapable of holding the office of President.
I'm just sayin'.
Hey redneck go buy yourself a clue.
Rand certianly believed that men are culturally and biologically the dominant sex. Now, the validity of that view (and Rand's general theories on sexuality) may certainly be called into question. However, to twist this statement to say that Rand saw women as "psychologically inferior" or "incapable" is ridiculous.
The main character of Rand's greatest work, Atlas Shrugged, is arguably the strongest and most capable female character in modern literature. Moreover, that book was written during a time when society largely viewed women in the manner you're trying to attribute to Rand.
Can you at least research this before passing it on?? Here's Rand's quote:
"For a woman qua woman, the essence of femininity is
hero-worship - the desire to look up to man. "To look up"
does not mean dependence, obedience, or anything implying
inferiority. It means an intense kind of admiration; and
admiration is an emotion that can be experienced only by a
person of strong character and independent value
judgments. ... Hero worship is a demanding virtue: a woman
has to be worthy of it and of the hero she worships.
Intellectually and morally, i.e., as a human being, she has to
be his equal; then the object of her worship is specifically
his masculinity, not any human virtue she might lack. ...
Her worship is an abstract emotion for the metaphysical
concept of masculinity as such ... It means that a properly
feminine woman does not treat men as if she were their pal,
sister, mother - or leader. ... To act as the superior, the
leader, virtually the ruler of all the man she deals with,
would be an excruciating psychological torture. It would
require a total depersonalization, an utter selflessness, and
an incommunicable loneliness; she would have to suppress (or
repress) every personal aspect of her own character and
attitude; she could not be herself, i.e., a woman; ... she
would become the most unfeminine, sexless, metaphysically
inappropriate, and rationally revolting figure of all: a
matriarch. This would apply to the reigning queen of an
absolute monarchy, but it would not apply to a woman in any
field of endeavor other than politics."
-Rand "About a Woman President", 1968
Rand is saying that the office of president is beneath a woman, not the other way around.
they let you back? you still havent learned your lesson it appears. enjoy your short stay again.
"[T]o proclaim spiritual sisterhood with lesbians... is so repulsive a set of premises from so loathsome a sense of life that an accurate commentary would require the kind of language I do not like to see in print." - Ayn Rand.
Like I care if they ban me. That kid is an idiot. I mean come on dude global warming not being real. I know that at least you don't believe global warming isn't real. The science behind is pretty solid. Hey dude at least you know the bears rule.
She believed that while men and women can be morally and intellectually equal, a woman's place is beneath a man's - she can be "strong," but she at heart wants only to worship a man - albeit a perfect one.
Are you suggesting that Rand should "proclaim spiritual sisterhood" with lesbians, being not a lesbian herself???
Look, Rand's views on homosexuality were fluid throughout her life. She did not identify with them and often times said or at least implied that homosexuality was immoral. However, she also said that we did not know enough about the psychological factors of homosexuality to make an accurate morality judgment on it, and said that at a time when the vast majority of society labelled homosexuals as people who had chosen an immoral lifestyle, rather than being born into a different lifestyle.
The context of the her "racist, sexist, and homophobic" quotes (the above included) stem from her protesting both the feminist, homosexual and civil rights movements for demanding special privileges from the government, something Rand saw as inherently evil. She made similar statements about corporate tax breaks going to wealthy white heterosexual businessmen and politicians.
Rand's critics on these grounds simply ignore the vast majority of her writings that explicity denounce racism, sexism, and any sort of reductionism that labels an individual as something less than his or her own individual qualities.
That's odd since "incapable" doesn't appear in the statement, nor is there any allusion to it.
Perhaps you didn't read it:
"To look up" does not mean dependence, obedience, or anything implying
inferiority....To act as the superior, the leader, virtually the ruler of all the man she deals with, would be an excruciating psychological torture. It would require a total depersonalization, an utter selflessness, and an incommunicable loneliness; she would have to suppress (or repress) every personal aspect of her own character and attitude; she could not be herself, i.e., a woman"
Try again:
does not mean dependence, obedience, or anything implying inferiority
So, you're saying they were taken out of context. Huh. Funny that.
I mean, they're not inferior. They just need to know their place.
I'm quite sure that Rand would call any lesbian, black person, white person, man, woman or gay man who attempted to use the force of government to extract special privileges from others some very ugly names.
You tell me:
http://www.freedomkeys.com/ar-racism.htm
Do you still think Rand is a racist?
Look, Rand is anti-collectivist. Collectivism is at the heart of the feminist and racial rights movements. The statements you're highlighting are taken from her critiques of such movements.
Where, in anything she's ever said, do you see "women just need to know their place"??? Seems kind of strange since Dagny Taggart, Rand's archetype for the highest form of femininity, described in 1957, sleeps around, is a business executive, has an utter disdain for household chores, has and desires no children, has no interest in marriage, and lives only for her self and no others......