Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

I normally don't post very often, but this issue was brought to my attention a week ago or so while I was watching on the John Stossel program hosted by the Fox business channel, and it simply amazes me how wildly ignorant both the media and the politicians can be. I myself am a mere child, and it's truly astonishing for me to see that these adult leftists are unwilling, not unable, to understand what I have understood at 13. There's no excuse for the state of mental degradation that they're in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9uqNztiLhbE

A trailer for MSNBC's new documentary "The Rise of the New Right" featuring Rand Paul, the Tea Party, and Alex Jones. I wonder if Ayn Rand is going to be amalgamated into this package deal of "right wing extremists"? Undoubtedly, since the left-fascists' new genius pet name for Paul is "Ayn Rand Paul." If only.

Edited by 2046

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*** Mod's note: Merged thopic. - sN ***

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cB00uJMGIDk

I know Rand Paul isn't necessarily considered a hero to many Objectivists, but this video certainly betrays the real character of David Letterman. He brought Rand out just to ridicule him and discredit his ideas. Throughout the segment he brags about his personal wealth while at the same time pretending to care about poor people, education and government workers. Unfortunately, Rand allowed himself to be put on the defensive, creating the appearance that he was losing he argument, rather than coming back aggressively with a strong moral stance. So Letterman ends up riding away from the battlefield on his moral high horse as the victor, having successfully pulled America ever further down into the shitter intellectually.

Edited by softwareNerd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He had an interview the other day on The Daily Show. While I don't like Rand Paul in the slightest, at least in this interview he is given some basic respect even though his ideas are different than the hosts. Letterman is a clown that doesn't even have half-way decent arguments for his own views so I usually consider him not worth my time:

Its an extended 3 part interview:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-march-7-2011/rand-paul-pt--1

He also recently gave a floor speech on social security in Congress:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Letterman ends up riding away from the battlefield on his moral high horse as the victor

I saw that interview, and I disagree that Letterman won that argument. He actually conceded to not having any arguments. I can't imagine why anyone would consider him the victor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw that interview, and I disagree that Letterman won that argument. He actually conceded to not having any arguments. I can't imagine why anyone would consider him the victor.

I don't consider him the victor in the sense of having proved his point with facts and logic. Instead he created the appearance of winning the argument (in the minds of impressionable, philosophically uninformed viewers) by constantly interrupting his opponent and garnering applause from the audience. It was a very public browbeating of individual rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw that interview, and I disagree that Letterman won that argument. He actually conceded to not having any arguments. I can't imagine why anyone would consider him the victor.

I have to agree on this point. I don't agree with the OP's assessment of him stealing the win in such grandiose fashion. The vast majority of people (like 90%) I have spoken to about that interview, regardless of political affiliation, have said that Letterman shot himself in the foot and embarrassed himself. The most negative comments I received on Rand Paul was his choice to wear blue jeans, which I have to agree made him look like an absolute clown and I don't know what he was thinking doing that. If you are going to wear blue jeans at least make it match well with the rest of what you are wearing, he looked awful.

Edited by CapitalistSwine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess Letterman "won" because he has the power to have the last word, but scanning the youtube comments, it appeared to me that most people noticed Letterman's idiocy, so he hasn't fooled anyone.

That was so classic when he said he thought Paul was wrong, he just didn't know why! :D

LOL

Isn't that directly out of Atlas Shrugged?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's Rand Paul versus an irrelevant bureaucrat re: the new light bulb restrictions. He points out the blatant hypocrisy of being "pro-choice" with regard to abortion, but for restricted choice with regard to what I can buy. Then he just blows off some steam and gives her a verbal beating. Hey my toilets don't work thanks to you, bitch! F U.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rand Paul is pro-choice with respect to abortion?

If yes then okay, but if not, what leg is he standing on?

Edit to add:

From Rand Paul's website:

I am 100% pro life. I believe abortion is taking the life of an innocent human being.

I believe life begins at conception and it is the duty of our government to protect this life.

I will always vote for any and all legislation that would end abortion or lead us in the direction of ending abortion.

I believe in a Human Life Amendment and a Life at Conception Act as federal solutions to the abortion issue. I also believe that while we are working toward this goal, there are many other things we can accomplish in the near term.

It is unconscionable that government would facilitate the taking of innocent life. I strongly oppose any federal funding for abortion and will stop the flow of tax dollars to groups like Planned Parenthood, who perform or advocate abortions.

In addition, I believe we may be able to save millions of lives in the near future by allowing states to pass their own anti-abortion laws. If states were able to do so, I sincerely believe many -- including Kentucky -- would do so tomorrow, saving hundreds of thousands of lives.

Before 1973, abortion was illegal in most states. Since Roe v. Wade, over 50 million children have died in abortion procedures.

I would strongly support legislation restricting federal courts from hearing cases like Roe v. Wade. Such legislation would only require a majority vote, making it more likely to pass than a pro-life constitutional amendment.

I would support legislation, a Sanctity of Life Amendment, establishing the principle that life begins at conception. This legislation would define life at conception in law, as a scientific statement.

As your Senator, there are many ways I can help end abortion. I will fight for each and every one of them.

Dr. Paul has been endorsed by the Northern KY Right To Life.

So, we have someone (Paul) who does not recognize the right to choose (abortion - it's murder), yet he is using Ms. Hogan's advocacy of the right to choose (abortion) in order to complain and chastise her as a hypocrite for wanting to restrict (for not recognizing) his right to choose (what lightbulb or toilet, etc., to use).

Edited by Trebor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh I'm pretty sure we've well established that he's anti-abortion by now, but nonetheless it doesn't invalidate his argument.

Edit to your edit:

Yeah, he thinks life begins at conception, and that therefore abortion qualifies as murder. Yeah, he's wrong about that. So, he doesn't believe abortion is okay. Yet he is pointing out this person, who does think it is okay, that such a position is nothing less than a glaring contradiction with regard to her and the rest of her administration's policy. The fact that he doesn't himself recognize abortion is in no way incompatible with such an argument.

I can think that theft is wrong, and yet I can point out to a person who does think theft is right and yet still complains when they have someone of theirs taken from them, that this is a contradiction on their behalf.

Edited by 2046

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rand comes off as being a lot more aggressive than his father, who is polite to a fault.

I don't see either of the Pauls as being substantially theocratic. I'm pretty sure I will be supporting Ron in 2012.

Edited by iflyboats

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both Ron Paul and his son Rand are anti-abortion. They still have that crazy sliver of religiousness lurking in them. They think that life begins at conception making abortion murder. This mars both of them heavily.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh I'm pretty sure we've well established that he's anti-abortion by now, but nonetheless it doesn't invalidate his argument.

His argument is completely invalidated. His argument, not the argument that, were he himself not a hypocrite, he would have to make, the argument against a particular violation of individual rights on the basis of the principle of individual rights.

Neither he nor she is a proponent of individual rights. The two just vary on what they think is important and therefore what they want to control, and they will each have their loyal supporters until a dictator stands up and says, yes, let's have total control.

See “Conservatives” vs. “Liberals” in the Lexicon

Edited by Trebor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

His argument is completely invalidated. His argument, not the argument that, were he himself not a hypocrite, he would have to make, the argument against a particular violation of individual rights on the basis of the principle of individual rights.

Neither he nor she is a proponent of individual rights. The two just vary on what they think is important and therefore what they want to control, and they will each have their loyal supporters until a dictator stands up and says, yes, let's have total control.

See “Conservatives” vs. “Liberals” in the Lexicon

No, sorry. Logically his argument is not invalidated because of the fact he himself isn't a consistent proponent of individual rights. Now you are going into tu quoque territory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You tell me. Might be pertinent to figure that out before declaring it invalid. I mean, I agree with what you are saying about how terrible he is and so forth. Yes, we know this already. But I think it's a bit over-zealous to take that and declare everything he says to be wrong here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both Ron Paul and his son Rand are anti-abortion. They still have that crazy sliver of religiousness lurking in them. They think that life begins at conception making abortion murder. This mars both of them heavily.

Yeah it does. But right now, I believe we are in grave danger of suffering a violent reduction of our standard of living unless we get spending under control and stand up to the grotesquely irresponsible and destructive actions of the Federal Reserve. The Pauls are serious about doing that. Given the gravity of the situation as I percieve it, I am willing to support men who oppose abortion if they offer us a chance to avoid the hyperinflationary economic armageddon that I believe we are currently heading toward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You tell me. Might be pertinent to figure that out before declaring it invalid. I mean, I agree with what you are saying about how terrible he is and so forth. Yes, we know this already. But I think it's a bit over-zealous to take that and declare everything he says to be wrong here.

I have already indicated why his (if-then) argument is invalid.

You claim that he presents a valid argument, regardless of his anti-abortion position.

Perhaps before you take an over-zealous position defending him as having presented a valid argument, you should take the time to listen again and more carefully to everything he says to Hogan in that clip which you provided, and then present that so-called valid argument which you claim he has made.

It might help to imagine the roles reversed, with Hogan sitting where he is and asking him, "You say that you are anti-choice with respect to abortion, but you are in favor of choice here and here, etc. I find that hypocritical...."

Whatever Paul is for, it's not individual rights. Neither of them is. But then who is these days?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although Letterman is a comic and his show is hardly an ideal forum for intellectual ideas, I thought Rand Paul handled himself well and was fortunate to have had Letterman's show as a platform to present his ideas.

John Link

Edited by John Link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have already indicated why his (if-then) argument is invalid.

And the laws of logic indicate why your argument is invalid, that is, because you are making the informal logical fallacy of tu quoque. You are basically committing ad hominem because you are asserting that he doesn't defend individual rights consistently, therefore the contradiction he points out in the witness is invalid.

Tu quoque (pronounced /tuːˈkwoʊkwiː/ [1]), or the appeal to hypocrisy, is a kind of logical fallacy. It is a Latin term for "you, too" or "you, also". A tu quoque argument attempts to discredit the opponent's position by asserting his failure to act consistently in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. This dismisses someone's viewpoint on an issue on the argument that the person is inconsistent in that very thing.[2] It is considered an ad hominem argument, since it focuses on the party itself, rather than its positions.[3]

Example: He can't accuse her of contradicting herself because he contradicted himself too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, sorry. Logically his argument is not invalidated because of the fact he himself isn't a consistent proponent of individual rights. Now you are going into tu quoque territory.

And the laws of logic indicate why your argument is invalid...[because it's "Tu quoque"]

I ask again, what is his argument? You say that his argument is not invalidated. What is his valid argument?

Edit to add: By the way, here's a transcript of the exchange between Rand Paul and Kathleen Hogan: "Paul Nails the Left: Pro-Choice on Abortion, Anti-Choice on Everything Else" By Bob Ellis on March 11th, 2011

Edited by Trebor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×