0096 2251 2110 8105

Well, I think that's a non sequitur, and the sandwich sold pretty well actually (this was almost a year ago). The target audience was young males, and it did work. I really don't think that the morality or immorality of the ad simply lies on popularity and sales, that is just a by-product.

What do you have to say about this piece? (morally wise)

Would a moderator change the name of the thread to its actual topic please?

Even Leonard Peikoff has said that. And even if that someone were wrong, why are you calling him stupid? He actually got some points right in that video. BTW, why is this topic in the Metaphysics and Epistemology section anyway?

I am having a debate with a solipsist, and I would appreciate if you could give me a hand with his arguments. I can post more of them, but this is basically his standpoint: And just to clarify one point: Thanks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism

Well, I'm finding FAQ counter-arguments #6 (7,8,9), #15 and #29 a little tricky to answer, and Bastiat's quote refutal from the next section as well.

2014, I’m done with this. Seriously, it’s not hard to understand. OK, let’s just ignore (I’ll just quote from myself) that: You know, just the core basic requirements of any communist society were absolutely perverted and violated, but who cares? OH, not you! Because, whatever, let’s just have A and non-A. Let’s just go around screaming: “It’s communism! It’s communism!” until someone actually believes us. Let’s just have capitalism with coercive tax-funding Government services and violation of property rights and call it “capitalism.” Let’s just call feudalism “communism”, and autocracies “communism”, and participatory democracy “communism.” You know, it's all cool to call the United States a "mixed economy", but China? OH, let's just call it "communism." How about applying to yourself the standards you apply to others? Who cares if Venezuela, Vietnam, Cuba, China, etc are diametrically opposed to Karl Marx's writings?? I mean, they had the intention, RIGHT? Who cares if almost the entire marxist tradition, and most of its derivative marxist branches are in absolute conflict with them?? OH no, NOT YOU. Boy, IS THAT RATIONAL OR WHAT? Nice talking to you, "comrade." I'm wasting my time here.

Well, see, you just wasted your time here. I don’t care if communism is irrational, anti-man, or whatever. No one is even trying to defend communism here, so I don’t know what is the point of this useless rambling you just did here. But OK, true communism is not practicable in reality, so yeah, let’s call false communism that was practiced in reality “communism.” Well, that’s very intellectual. OK, so, I get it. Correcting someone who refers to the "capitalist Soviet Russians as communist" must be so wrong, I mean, you put it in quotes with exclamation marks and everything. If they're not communist and betrayed communism, it doesn’t matter how ridicule you try to make it look in these little quotes of yours, it’s still true. And, I’m sorry, but this is just dumb, totalitarian dictatorships are by definition an enormous contradiction to the highly democratic systems you mention, so that's just plain silly. If they work or not, I don't care, that's not my business, and it's certainly not the point of any discussion here, so let's get on topic, alright?

Oops! OK, I got your question wrong. No, I meant no. Sorry. Now my answer makes sense.

How about if you stop being so rhetorically dramatic and answer my actual arguments? You know, not just the least relevant parts you find suitable for your "clever" punch lines, "comrade." Yes, of course. What makes you think that I don't? If it's actually necessary to say it, then OK, I don't support communism. I am just questioning the doctrine dogma that "socialism" or "communism" is wathever autocrathic, totalitarian, welfare state, etc. even if it violates its own basic requirements, but you know, some people here love to preach that, cause that's how you "prove" how failed they are in practice and everything.

Sorry, but this is when I know I have to stop. The communist literature is vast, and I’m not anyone’s personal teacher. If you think that these are “dispensable” or “marginal” requirements of communism, then I will have to assume that you don’t know anything about it. These are core requirements of communism, just as rights to capitalism. You merely answered to my post by asserting that the Soviet Union was a real-world manifestation of communism. That's not a very effective argument, you know? Personally, I honestly can’t understand how anyone can actually read the communist literature and still believe that the Soviet Union was a “communist” country, at least without being intellectually dishonest, evasive, or just plain ignorant. BTW, 2046 mentioned Noam Chomsky here, which reminded me of video and this essay, which may help you to understand why the Soviet Union was not a communist country. These links will clarify the issue for you, at least to some extent. You know, I assume you are truly interest in learning and won't simply reject this on a gut reaction. It's called "sarcasm." I'm sorry you didn't get it. Uh... What? Excuse me, Karl Marx would've been the first to denounce the countries you name as a grotesque distorsion of his theory, as most marxists did since stalinism, and even most of the marxists branches, left libertariam, luxembourgian, trotskyan tradition, etc. strongly criticize these models today. I mean, what are you talking about?? You just evaded every basic violation of communism I pointed out to you, which BTW, they all come from the marxist tradition. That's very convenient. But hey, whatever, let's just call Nathaniel Branden's philosophy "Objectivism", and the United States "laissez faire". How about jerking off to a remedial history/economics course so we can be on the same page? Seriously, I'm done with this. You're right, intention is all that matters. I'm convinced now.

Yes. "AND??" Just as any serious communist theorist would. But, OK, I get it. You must be talking of “communism” in some mythical world, where centralized coordination of production, wage labor, non-existing common ownership of the means of production, market-based reforms, totalitarian pro-bourgeoisie bureaucratic states, social class divisions, diverse forms of private property, no democratic control of workers over production, institutions, communities, etc. etc. or, in fact, even better, no democratic control of the working people over anything, they're virtual slaves - "somehow" coexist with this vague and elastic conception of what the system actually is...OH, but hey, let's just use your definition and call it "communism", you know, where this deviation, distortion, departure of communism IS communism. So OK, who cares, we should stop using words now. You know, I’ve explained here before why I think Venezuela is far from being a communist or even socialist country, just as the Soviet Union, Cuba, etc. never were, as any educated actual marxist would realize and tell you, most did. I’m not planning to do this with every one of the countries you mention. That’s your job, not mine. BTW, I find your term “anarcholibertarian” a little silly and redundant.

Title: Donate to promoting Capitalism in Communist Countries, NadaRed Vodka Q: "Communist" countries? What are you talking about? A: http://nadared.com/redcountries.html It's pretty clear that we're talking about "communist countries" here. At least to me.

Oh, no. Well, you see… my map is better than yours, and I found it in a potato chips website, so it’s more accurate: See? The red areas are actually communist countries. You know. Well, it’s not really that accurate, because Germany, Brazil and Colombia are actually laissez faire countries. Seriously, you have lots of work to do. I remember having this discussion here a few weeks ago, and I'm not interested in having it again. You should try to find out what communism actually is, instead of using it as this little scapegoat in which every country with whatever sort of controls is “socialism” or “communism.” I know you'd love to prove to all your friends that "socialism" and "communism" somehow failed in practice, but if you're serious about Objectivism, or if you're serious about anything at all, be honest and call things by what they actually are, not by what you'd like them to be.

"Communist" countries? What are you talking about?

No, I don’t think so. Those manuscripts were hanged there precisely because of what you indicated in the last part of your response. They have a personal meaning to him, and he wanted to keep them as a reminder of whatever he values, in the same way that someone would like to keep and display an autograph or a photograph or whatever of somebody he admires. Now, incidentally, yes, it’s art. Writing is art, and it’s more than an autograph, so what? He could’ve just nailed down a copy of The Fountainhead to the wall. He knows the story quite well, he doesn’t need to read it from his wall every time he wants to admire the rational, heroic values contained within, etc. So, no, I don’t think this has anything to do with what I said.

RIGHT, I know EXACTLY what you mean, like these two insignificant worthless pages from The Fountainhead manuscript that were hanging on Dr. Peikoff’s wall, I mean, WHAT’S THE USE OF THAT?? Dr. Peikoff must be sooo stupid. I mean, keeping and hanging just some ink on some stupid piece of paper like an autograph?? MY GOD. How about value? Contemplation? Personal meaning? Commercialization? Now, you say "generally", so, I would like to hear those exceptions if you don't mind.

Jesus Christ... I'm amazed at the things you can find here sometimes. Do you really think it's irrational to ask for an autograph?? Seriously??

You (or the mods) might also change the name of your threads to the main subject you want to discuss, not just “round 2, 3, 5 ,6… 11, 12...82342”, so that we can actually know what you are talking about before having to read these huge questions of yours and not wasting anyone's time, and also so that any other person interested can find them using the search button with all the other related threads in the future.

Man, this is high-sounding. I thought you two were trying some poetry skills here.

I've been wondering about this lately. How about health or justice? I can't think of examples where these can be bad.

I said “they”, meaning, not just this car, but many other products which are a result of this approach, such as the curly light bulbs JMeganSnow mentioned, which I prefer over the conventional light bulbs. They're cheaper, work just as well, and last way longer. That is improvement.

Uh…no, that’s why I said “Of course, I would not accept this job in particular” immediately after that. However, I do think this is the general position that most graphic designers would assume for any job. As it is being advertised right now, I wouldn’t try to sell this particular product, because of the kind of motivation behind it, which I don’t share, and the particular message that I’d be asked to promote for it. But, as for other products, I don’t see any problem with this. There is an alternative being taught here, it’s called “social responsibility class,” but you wouldn’t like that, and I don’t think it’s necessary at all. Nope, maybe you misinterpreted my position. I asked if any of you would buy this car, and I did so precisely because, as I said before, I don’t know much about cars. I didn’t assume or even assert that every rational person in the world would absolutely love this car and buy it, I asked if any of you would. Now, offhand, I thought this particular car was maybe a good option, with all the “they’ve added horsepower while increasing fuel economy” and the “advanced technology, extra power, space, safety and 50 miles per gallon”, yes, it seemed to me that there may be something rational about buying this car. Yes, well, it depends on what the goods are. There are thousands of absolutely useless products that can only be traded on this particular basis, like most of infomercial type products, for example, which I’d sell, but these are different examples. Would you take a job that promotes churches? I wouldn’t. However, I just didn’t happen to mention the car, I do like the solar power structures and the solar ventilation bus shelters. Peeling away the guilt and irrationality from them, I’d like to sell these and other similar products, and would even consider to buy them. What I was trying to point out, is that they do represent an improvement in creativity and technological innovation, as against returning to nature, living in a cave, reducing living standards, destroying civilization, etc.

Well, I’m not really a salesman, I’m just a graphic design student, and I don’t know that much about cars. So, I guess the best thing I could do is try to make a great advertisement, like the one it has already, which I think is great, but… since that doesn’t seem to work on you… well, I can’t do anything really . However, the point of this ad is to profit from the popular appeal of these ideas. Most of the potential consumers of this car, sustainable products, architecture, design, green products, etc., which are great in number since this is such a trendy concern today, are mainly focused on their good intentions and their so-called contribution to the planet, rather than the product's actual performance and technical features. They just drift with the current, and my job is to make use of this; tell them what they want to hear, give them what they want, exploit the moral appeal and make a profit from it. Of course, I would not accept this job in particular.