Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Nyronus

  1. I wish I still had the Journal articles on hand. If you can access EbscoHost, search under the "Banality of Evil" in psychology journals, you should find an article dealing with holes in Milgram and Zambardi's methodology. There is also another one dealing with ethics but specifically on Milgram, essentially arguing that the implied threat of the experiment's design muddled the results. Search for "Milgram Better Ethics"for that one.
  2. Actually, I've done some research into the Standford expiriments. There's more than a few papers out there discussing the wild flaws in Zimbardo's methodology which undermines his conclsuions about human nature. For one, he deliberately cultivated an culture of fear and aggression, personally riling up the guards and driving them to great and greater depravity. Also, its been shown that even the way he looked for volunteers attracted people who were already of an aggressive and domineering bent. When you stick a bunch of borderline sociopaths in a room, wind them up, and tell them to go hog-wild, it shouldn't surprise anyone that this happened.
  3. I've seen dishonesty. I've seen hatchet jobs. This is none of the above. It's a bloody drive-by shooting. Seriously, they quoted him out of context, edited his answers, and made him look like some sort of idiot. Well, now I know I don't have to bother with John Stewart ever again.
  4. I agree, Lillian did do a good job. I wasn't overly fond of Rearden though. Its been a few years since I read AS, granted, but I remember him being a lot more earnest about wanting to try and make his family happy, and his family being a lot more condescending, particularly his brother. In this he just seems mildly annoyed with them and they largely apathetic.
  5. ...So, a regurgitation of every single ass-hatted smear ignorant twats try to use to discredit Rand? In bleating gibbering droves? In reply to something in praise of her? And on YouTube no less? Seems fairly par for the course. I honestly find that the acting and direction is all over the place. Rearden and Eddie look decent, but Dagny is wooden, and a lot of the lines are delivered in very... odd fashions. The cinematography looks sharp though. I would comment here that sharp colors and nice camera work stapled to poor performances and a shoddy script can't win you an Oscar, but, well, Avatar. Looks like a C job, overall.
  6. Well, this lowered my estimation of her. Eichmann in Jerusalem is still a scathing exposure of the petty self-delusion and pathetic nature of the rank and file Nazis, and I am told the Origins of Totalitarianism is very good as well, but the above is... well, just plain stupid. I'm not sure much more needs to be said.
  7. I've read Eichmann in Jerusalem and I found it to be a very good read. She not only dissects the dishonest nature of not only Eichmann's and several other Ex-Nazi defenses but also of the Isreali prosecution. I'm also told that the Origins of Totalitarianism was a great read. Having read Eichmann, I honestly feel her concept of the Banality of Evil gets a lot of bad press because people don't understand it. They think it means that evil people are normal. If you read the book, what she points out is that evil people like the rank and file Nazis have a great capacity of rationalization so that they can fool even themselves into thinking what they are doing is normal. It doesn't change the fact that they're being fundamentally dishonest and capable of great monstrosity, they still view themselves as normal folk doing what they should have, and some like Eichmann can just as easily twist themselves they other way. To look at it another way, it can be seen as a case study in the need for focus and self-responsibility.
  8. Ask them then how exactly a bunch of workers without (a) creative leader(s) can learn to assemble a car. Or a phone. Or a particle acclerator. This is the classic fallacy of the Labor Theory of Value. Yes, labor is need to make products. Congratulations. You now understand one of the most fundamental facts of human existence. Now, ask how the ideas for these products came to be. Blankout. A human must first conceive of a tool before he can nicely ask people to help him make it. It is not a relationship of a slave to a cabal, or of an army of slaves to a Neitzchean superman, but of people, some with ideas, some with skills, and some with both, working together to make something.
  9. I do love the new review. I am greatly amused at the lengths he went to switch Ayn Rand's definitions of ego around. It was almost like he wanted the cake (i.e., a socially acceptable set of heroes), and yet felt a strong desire of eating it at the same time (i.e., getting the same message which, as can be seen, most of society has trouble swallowing). Lovely! Also, for extra laughs, I noticed there is a big advertisement for a specially made commerative John Galt/Atlas coin on the side of the article. Looks like the NR has deversified the ways it makes money off of Ayn Rand's corpse. Coins for the fans, hatchet jobs for the enemies. Truly we are dealing with a principled and respectable institution here.
  10. The scary thing is that those comments are hardly unique. Nor are they considered demeaning, offensive, or viciously stupid. I love how people will grow upset when Islam is criticized, or will grow angry with the wrong use of the term "retard," but when all Objectivists are declared to brain damaged children by virtue of their beliefs, no one will step in. Isn't hypocrisy a wonderful thing? Also, bonus points to the wonderful rhetorical master who wished to masterbate onto a piece of toast and send it to Leonard Peikoff. Truly a master-stroke of argumentation. As for our GPS man... Well, uh, good for him. I hope he had fun.
  11. This isn't limited to Libertarians. Its considered faux pas to agree with anything in our post modern culture. Almost anyone who isn't a self identified Objectivist will preface their commentary with some sort of dig at Rand or some vague proclaiment that no, of course they don't take all of it seriously. After all, the only reason anyone would ever agree in any signifigant manner with a person is by slavish cultist irrational worship, and anyone who agrees with Ayn Rand is obviously suffering from this.
  12. *sigh* I'm not sure what is worse. The Director missing half the point of... everything, or the the way they abused poor Nietzsche. Seriously? I'm fairly certain that is not what the phrase "beyond good and evil" meant. I do appreciate the passion this guy has, and his drive to make a meaningful piece and stylized piece. I do like the idea that he wants the movie to force people to question their lives, to ask them if they can stand up to the heroes. What I don't like is the idiot way he treats the material. I'm kind of afraid that his insistence that this is some sort of not real place or event may really just turn these characters into the cardboard cutouts that everyone accuses them of being. He also seems to have missed about half of Rand's arguments for bloody everything. Oi, just... oi.
  13. Eh, he didn't seem that bad. At least not compared to the interviewer. "Ayn Rand liked Rape. Do you?" Of all of the off kilter stupid fuck insipid sacks of...
  14. Yes. Perhaps even moreso. The most fundamental right from which all others, and, in fact, all government, is derived, is the right to decide the course of ones own life. Now, a man may choose, for his own good, to offer time and resources to a coalition of people who will use these resources to protect his rights. Part of the contract between this man and this group may be that the man has a say in who runs this coalition. Someone needs to make decisions and the man wants to be sure a competent leader which shares his interest is in command. Now, if you were to take the right to choose away from this man, through fraud, you are very much violating this man's right to life. He does not have the canidate he wants, but puts up with it because he feels he can use his voting right later to change course, but now that you have introduced fraud into the equation, this is a false belief. He is now spending money on a deal he never wanted and has to help a group whom he no longer believes in, and he still thinks he's getting the full bargain. It gets worse in a system like ours where people can't stop their cooperation without harsh repercussions. You've essentially suggesting making a oligarcy out of a democracy, where these people work with your puppet leaders while you control the shape of things from the shadows. Eventually, as others have mentioned, someone will find out, and then it all comes crashing down around you and whatever lofty goals you have will be tainted by association with your crime. I hope by now you can see why such a thing is not compatible with Objectivist ethics.
  15. Theres actually a website out there (I believe its a wiki style site) that has an explanation for why they couldn't mine the mountains. I believe it was too dangerous or something (take away the unobtanium and they fall). This site, from what I remember, has a convoluted reason for every seeming plot hole to exist. In other words, it wasn't that Cameron ignored logical solutions, its that he made the universe bend over backward to force the plot to happen. Even then, it still fails due his absolutely poor writing.
  16. I've read this letter before. As I recall, Rand ignored it, and I honestly felt it was silly myself. The author was beating a straw-man. I also know the author of the letter renounced Anarcho-Capitalism later in life, feeling it was a failure.
  17. I'm not worried so much about diddling with the Public Domain like the author of the article was. That's small beans. What I'm really worried about was the explanation that basically stated Congress can run rough-shod over IP law if they feel like it. The implication is that congress can violate any law if it feels like if it is in the "interest of the government." The author is more than valid to cry out in terror at this, what with pundits crying for unlimited majority rule and for the crushing of the necks of industry and censorship. "Government Interest" is probably the single most un-objective and horrible basis for any law ever. If trust-busting leads to censorship, I hate to see where this absolute travesty goes.
  18. Hahahahahahahahaha. Ah, that's priceless. Painfully and utterly priceless. Not only did the man declare that Obama should act like a dictator, and not only did he do so in explicitly Orwellian terms ("Boot on the Neck"), but he flat out decalred that the Liberals should use their majority like a club. "No more olive branches," "No more bipartisanship," in other words "We now have a narrow majority and we should use it to do as we please to others regardless of the wishes of others." The man evokes tyranny of the few and the many in the face of the public! This has to be a hoax, right? No one would be that soul crushingly stupid? Right? ...Right?
  19. I agree with this sentiment of this post and with the poster of the video. The best part comes from the fact that the two most highly rated comments critiquing the video come from a Birther and Racist. With friends like these, who needs enemies?
  20. Like if the movie turns out to be the next Starship Troopers and comes off more as parody of AS than an adaptation? At which point the critics will -love- it because it "lambasts" and "skewers" Rand's "philosophy?" I was willing to hold back and wait it out, even when I saw the cast. I wasn't familliar with any of them, so I'd wait. And I still am. Maybe. Just the knowledge that the screenwriter is going to draw from the inspiration of a drug addled depressive, a nihilistic racist ass, God, and a socialist to write this movie makes me want to rip my hair out! But, we'll see. I'm still going to wait, although my expectations did drop a few (hundred) notches at this news. Edit: Also, someone earlier mentioned the Muppets Doing Atlas Shrugged. I would totally watch that.
  21. When your closest allies insult you and demean you for building homes and then call you a fascist for trying to defend yourself, would you be in a talkative mood?
  22. This thread has obtained my stamp of approval. I love it.
  23. Looking over that paper, I cannot comment on the author's interpretation of the Astronaut parable, but it seems to me he misunderstands Rand's comments. When she states things like "because you have eyes, you are blind" she is making a very concise arguement ad absurdem. He summary at the end seems to do the conflict justice, but I feel his characterizing and over emphasizing of the "collective dellusion" comment show a misunderstanding of what Ayn Rand meant with that statement. He does identify the essence of it later though:
  • Create New...