ANTI-RAND WEBSITE IN THE WORKS!
tak
I am currently in the process of composing an anti-Ayn Rand website and would
greatly appreciate input from any sympaticos.
Currently, the site (which is just about ready to go live, as they say)
mostly focuses on how the Randroid spamdroids hi-jacked the Modern Library
100 Greatest Books, Reader's Choice list, with pages featuring some of the
more entertaining Forum comments, both anti- and pro- Rand, and my own
commentary. I also have a short Rand parody (Atlas Swallowed) and a links
page.
The links page is where I could use some help. I'm having trouble finding
good anti-Rand or anti-Objectivism pages on the web (although I suppose some
of the more sycophantic, zero-worshipping pro-Rand sites function quite well
in warning off potential devotees, and as such, I link to quite a few of
them). Any help in this regard would be much appreciated.
Also, if any of you have anything you'd like to see published on my site,
feel free to drop me a line and let me know. Just remember that the site is
more about humour than the debunking of Objectivism. That's already been
done to death, anyway, and I feel that the only hope of snapping the
Randroids out of their cult-like mindset is to get them to see the
ridiculousness of their positions (and their hero).
Thus, my website.
Direct all your mail to t...@passport.ca
Thanks in advance!
Mt
Flashman
Website?
Since it is so easy to show that Objectivism is false, why
not provide
the arguments against it. Specifically, I'd like to see the
following:
Proof for the existence of a God, or at least a proof that
you should believe in it. This would undermine Objectivism
at the root.
Proof that you should use emotion and faith as your means of
knowledge,
and that reason is an unreliable means of knowledge. This
would undermine the Objectivist epistemology.
Validate that individuals should be altruists. Tell
everyone visiting the site that in your view, people should
not live for their own benefit, but that they should
sacrifice themselves for the good of others.
Since Ayn Rand advocated laissez-faire capitalism, provide a
defense
of socialism. Explain how socialism is moral since it
forcibly subjugates the individual to the collective, and
why it will lead to economic prosperity.
If you could accomplish those 4 things, that would be much
more powerful than smear attacks and dishonest parodies.
Also, it would be interesting to see what philosophy you
advocate so that others can poke holes in it. After all, if
you are going to tear down one philosophy, you should
suggest the proper alternative.
Jeffrey Haber
http://www.sb.fsu.edu/~haber
tak
>Why not call it "The Smear Attacks Against Objectivism"
>Website?
Because that's not as funny as the title I've already come up with: "Attack
of the Randroids!" I already have a graphic for it and everything. Thanks
for the suggestion, though. Please don't hesitate to send more ideas my way!
>Since it is so easy to show that Objectivism is false, why
>not provide the arguments against it. Specifically, I'd like to see the
>following:
>
>Proof for the existence of a God, or at least a proof that
>you should believe in it. This would undermine Objectivism
>at the root.
A few comments... I am an atheist, and I am not a Randroid. Therefore, not
all atheists are Randroids. Simple enough for you? Ayn Rand was not the
world's first atheist. Nor was she the first widely-read atheist. In fact,
of the millions upon millions of atheists in the world today, I would wager
less than one-tenth of them are even marginally aware of Ayn Rand (as either
a writer or "philosopher"). If you want to know about the REAL trail-blazers
of modern western atheism, look no further than to Voltaire, Schopenhaur,
Nietzsche and (more recently) Bertrand Russell. Your hero sure knew about
them, and stole from them, liberally.
>Proof that you should use emotion and faith as your means of
>knowledge, and that reason is an unreliable means of knowledge. This
>would undermine the Objectivist epistemology.
Nobody ever said anything about emotion or faith. They have nothing to do
with the question at hand. Descartes tried the pure-reason-route. His way
of thinking was called the Rationalist school, and it didn't work. Reason is
NOT a reliable means of "knowledge". Repeated empirical observation is a
reliable means of knowledge. And, by the way, Objectivist epistemology
exists in name only (and comes dangerously close to being an oxymoron). With
her idiotic aphorism: "A is A", Rand deftly proves that she arguably knows
what A is, but not what epistemology is (ie: even if you accept the
assumption that A is A, that doesn't even begin to answer the question that
is at the heart of any true epistemology: what is "is"?).
>Validate that individuals should be altruists. Tell
>everyone visiting the site that in your view, people should
>not live for their own benefit, but that they should
>sacrifice themselves for the good of others.
Did you go to an evil, altruist, collectivist school, Flashman, or are you
self-educated (which wouldn't surprise me, actually)? Did you ever borrow an
Ayn Rand book from an evil, altruist, collectivist library, Flashman, or do
you only read books you've personally purchased? Do you drive on evil,
altruist, collectivist roads, Flashman, or do you hover about from
destination to destination in a beatified state of Objectivist grace? Are
you mad at our evil, altruist, collectivist armies for defeating Hitler in
WWII, Flashman? Do you ever use evil, altruist, collectivist water,
Flashman, or do you bathe in a tub full of Evian? Do you ever flush the
stinky contents of your toilet into the evil, altruist, collectivist sewer
system, Flashman, or do you store your feces in mason jars for future
disposal at some unspecified later date? Do you wish there were no
air-traffic controllers, Flashman? Do you wish there were no health
inspectors, Flashman? Do you wish there were no limits on the amount of rat
droppings allowed in hot-dogs, Flashman? Does it irk you that pharmaceutical
companies can't rush products to merchants' shelves before extensive testing,
Flashman? Do you think state-operated policing and prison systems should be
done away with in favour of private ones, and if so, who would lend
assistance to those unable to afford such a luxury? I could go on for
another page or so, Flashman, but I have a feeling it probably wouldn't help
you to come to grips with the ridiculousness of Rand's ideas. Only time will
heal that wound.
>Since Ayn Rand advocated laissez-faire capitalism, provide a
>defense of socialism. Explain how socialism is moral since it
>forcibly subjugates the individual to the collective, and
>why it will lead to economic prosperity.
You are commiting a logical fallacy when you claim that I need to defend one
ideology in order to critique another. So-called laissez-faire capitalism
can be critiqued from a wide variety of positions... from the Green position
to the Marxist position to the Keynsean position and even the anarchistic
position. I, myself, am a fan of constitutional democracy... a civil
libertarian who believes that the state is necessary to provide a modicum of
protection to the citizenry in the face of aggressive, violent or predatory
elements (such as invading armies, widespread fraud and medical quackery,
rampant environmental destruction wrought by corporations blinded by the
bottom line, and the infiltration of the media by bought-and-paid-for
mouthpieces for the corporate-industrialist elite special interests). I am
for near-total freedom for the individual and vigorously enforced controls
over monolithic industry, because I, my friend, live in a real world, where
actions have consequences. That means big actions have BIG consequences.
And if Exxon decides to put another drunk at the wheel of a tanker carrying a
million gallons of raw crude, I sure as hell want them to be held accountable
for their negligence. If Union Carbide allows another leak of methyl
isocyanate (cyanide gas), killing another 10,000 human beings with a poison
cloud or ultraconcentrated pesticide, I want to see the responsible parties
whither away in jail for the rest of their natural lives (see attached
photograph for a cold hard look at a miniscule portion of what your
magnificent, heroic John Galts did to that particular corner of the world).
>If you could accomplish those 4 things, that would be much
>more powerful than smear attacks and dishonest parodies.
You assume my parody is dishonest, which it isn't. But you will soon be able
to judge for yourself, as my site should be up and running any day now. And
be sure to check for your letter (and my response) in the new section I've
decided to call: "The Randroids Strike Back!" I've got a kind of a
Lucas/B-movie motif going here, if you can dig that scene...
>Also, it would be interesting to see what philosophy you
>advocate so that others can poke holes in it. After all, if
>you are going to tear down one philosophy, you should
>suggest the proper alternative.
That would be better left to another website, wouldn't it? I don't want
anything distracting from the main point of the page: satire, criticism and
the outright mockery of that amateur "philosopher" and cult-founding advocate
of violent rape: Ayn Rand!
Cheers,
Mark T.
(P.S. - I just visited your home-page. You go to a STATE university???
tsk-tsk, you inconsistant little Hemorandrhoid you!)
LQuest
gotten my week off to a hilarious start. I haven't had this good a
laugh in weeks. BTW, congratulations on your benefit from Ayn Rand.
Without her, you might have no compelling purpose in life. Everyone
needs a hobby.
I look forward to your site with great glee.
--Mike
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mark
On Mon, 12 Oct 1998 14:57:27 GMT, lib...@DELTHIS.airmail.net (LQuest) wrote:
>Tak, I simply must thank you.
>It's Monday morning and already I've
>gotten my week off to a hilarious start.
the blood'n'guts because your sides are just gonna SPLIT!
>I haven't had this good a
>laugh in weeks.
poo-poo: The Fountainhead? I hear the people at Mystery Science Theatre
3000 have been trying to get the rights to this cult classic for years,
to no avail. No matter, the film does a great job of utterly humiliating
itself, anyway.
>BTW, congratulations on your benefit from Ayn Rand.
>Without her, you might have no compelling purpose in life.
And I wouldn't be so intrigued by Rand's fiction and "philosophy" if
it weren't for the fact that so many of you hero-worshiping toadies have
completely flooded the net with pro-Rand propaganda. There is a great
lack of anti-Rand material on the net, and nature abhors a vacuum, so
I feel I'm just doing my part by providing some alternatives. After all,
when potential Randroids go on a search engine and type in "Ayn Rand",
they shouldn't only be able to find urls for "The Institute for the
Advancement of Ayn Rand's Really Bad Ideas" now, should they? Variety is
the spice of life, baby! Viva la difference!
>Everyone needs a hobby.
This is true. And I recieve a great deal of joy from my collection of Ayn
Rand's used sanitary napkins.
>I look forward to your site with great glee.
Cheers,
Mt
-**** Posted from Supernews, Discussions Start Here(tm) ****-
http://www.supernews.com/ - Host to the World's Discussions & Usenet
-**** Posted from Supernews, Discussions Start Here(tm) ****-
http://www.supernews.com/ - Host to the World's Discussions & Usenet
p@u.c
Flashman <noe...@address.sorry.org> wrote:
>Why not call it "The Smear Attacks Against Objectivism"
>Website?
>
>not provide
>the arguments against it.
Because no matter what one says, the Objectivists will continue
to spew prodigious quantities of mindless sophistry in the hopes
of defeating attacks on the obvious flaws in their "philosophy"
through sheer volume. They remind me, in fact, of nothing so
much as the sheep in Orwell's _Animal Farm_ who, whenever one of
the animals started questioning the rule of the pigs, drowned
him or her out with shouts of "Two legs bad! Four legs good!"
BTW, "Randroid" is great!
--
Patrick Crotty
e-mail: prcrotty at midway.uchicago.edu
home page: http://student-www.uchicago.edu/users/prcrotty
LQuest
>In article <36214C50...@address.sorry.org>,
>Flashman <noe...@address.sorry.org> wrote:
>>Why not call it "The Smear Attacks Against Objectivism"
>>Website?
>>
>>Since it is so easy to show that Objectivism is false, why
>>not provide
>>the arguments against it.
>
>Because no matter what one says, the Objectivists will continue
>to spew prodigious quantities of mindless sophistry in the hopes
>of defeating attacks on the obvious flaws in their "philosophy"
Only one problem schoolboy -- you have failed to reveal any sophistry
in Objectivism. In fact the only thing I've seen from you and other
proponents of gun backed collectivism is gratuitous assertions without
even an ATTEMPT at logical analysis or proof. So now what?
>through sheer volume. They remind me, in fact, of nothing so
>much as the sheep in Orwell's _Animal Farm_ who, whenever one of
>the animals started questioning the rule of the pigs, drowned
>him or her out with shouts of "Two legs bad! Four legs good!"
>
>BTW, "Randroid" is great!
So is Socialist Borg Drone.
--Mike
LQuest
As do I. I've searched for twenty five years for credible, logically
bulletproof refutation of Objectivism -- to no avail. Perhaps you
will be the one to break the spell. Please let us all know when you
believe you have such material on your site. Until then I have wealth
to create and protect from the thieves and free-loaders of the world.
--Mike
mark
>>>I look forward to your site with great glee.
>>
>>I only hope my site will be able to live up to your titanic expectations!
>
>As do I. I've searched for twenty five years for credible, logically
>bulletproof refutation of Objectivism -- to no avail.
common with O.J.'s "search" for the real killers.
>Perhaps you
>will be the one to break the spell. Please let us all know when you
>believe you have such material on your site.
at Rand, her philosophy and the type of person who typically chooses to
follow it (and her). There may or may not be specific refutations of
Rand's ideas, but I'm sure you'll find something therein to amuse and
entertain you.
>Until then I have wealth
>to create and protect from the thieves and free-loaders of the world.
hugs and kisses,
tak
<E245357F12AB795D.DD9058BB...@library-proxy.airnews.net
>, lib...@DELTHIS.airmail.net says...
>
>On Tue, 13 Oct 1998 16:29:12 GMT, p@u.c wrote:
>>Because no matter what one says, the Objectivists will continue
>>to spew prodigious quantities of mindless sophistry in the hopes
>>of defeating attacks on the obvious flaws in their "philosophy"
>
>Only one problem schoolboy -- you have failed to reveal any sophistry
>in Objectivism. In fact the only thing I've seen from you and other
>proponents of gun backed collectivism is gratuitous assertions without
>even an ATTEMPT at logical analysis or proof. So now what?
The same could be said of Rand's philosophy. The only thing I've seen from
her and the proponents of her so-called philosophy is gratuitous assertions
without even an ATTEMPT at logical analysis or proof (as those terms are
commonly understood). So now what?
>>through sheer volume. They remind me, in fact, of nothing so
>>much as the sheep in Orwell's _Animal Farm_ who, whenever one of
>>the animals started questioning the rule of the pigs, drowned
>>him or her out with shouts of "Two legs bad! Four legs good!"
>>
>>BTW, "Randroid" is great!
>
>So is Socialist Borg Drone.
Actually, if we are to take "great" in this context as meaning "funny" or
"amusing" or "clever", then "Socialist Borg Drone" is none of these things.
It falls clumsily off the tongue, and smacks of stuttering, on-the-spot
desperation. It's too lengthy to be part of a snappy retort. Also,
it harkens to a pop culture phenomenon of which being a fan has been almost
unanimously declared to be a genuine, bona-fide sign of GEEKHOOD, not
unlike collecting comic books into your thirties, or being a fan of
Ayn Rand's novels!
Besides, the classic epithets "Commie" and "Pinko" are much more
aesthetically pleasing.
"Socialist Borg Drone"? Not even CLOSE.
Mt
p@u.c
>>Flashman <noe...@address.sorry.org> wrote:
>>>Why not call it "The Smear Attacks Against Objectivism"
>>>Website?
>>>
>>>Since it is so easy to show that Objectivism is false, why
>>>not provide
>>>the arguments against it.
>>
>>to spew prodigious quantities of mindless sophistry in the hopes
>>of defeating attacks on the obvious flaws in their "philosophy"
>
>Only one problem schoolboy -- you have failed to reveal any sophistry
>in Objectivism. In fact the only thing I've seen from you and other
>proponents of gun backed collectivism
'Nuff said.
LQuest
>In article
><E245357F12AB795D.DD9058BB...@library-proxy.airnews.net
>>, lib...@DELTHIS.airmail.net says...
>>
>>On Tue, 13 Oct 1998 16:29:12 GMT, p@u.c wrote:
>snip<<<
>>>Because no matter what one says, the Objectivists will continue
>>>to spew prodigious quantities of mindless sophistry in the hopes
>>>of defeating attacks on the obvious flaws in their "philosophy"
>>
>>Only one problem schoolboy -- you have failed to reveal any sophistry
>>in Objectivism. In fact the only thing I've seen from you and other
>>proponents of gun backed collectivism is gratuitous assertions without
>>even an ATTEMPT at logical analysis or proof. So now what?
>
>The same could be said of Rand's philosophy. The only thing I've seen from
>her and the proponents of her so-called philosophy is gratuitous assertions
>without even an ATTEMPT at logical analysis or proof (as those terms are
>commonly understood). So now what?
>
>>>through sheer volume. They remind me, in fact, of nothing so
>>>much as the sheep in Orwell's _Animal Farm_ who, whenever one of
>>>the animals started questioning the rule of the pigs, drowned
>>>him or her out with shouts of "Two legs bad! Four legs good!"
>>>
>>>BTW, "Randroid" is great!
>>
>>So is Socialist Borg Drone.
>
>Actually, if we are to take "great" in this context as meaning "funny" or
>"amusing" or "clever", then "Socialist Borg Drone" is none of these things.
>It falls clumsily off the tongue, and smacks of stuttering, on-the-spot
>desperation. It's too lengthy to be part of a snappy retort. Also,
>it harkens to a pop culture phenomenon of which being a fan has been almost
>unanimously declared to be a genuine, bona-fide sign of GEEKHOOD, not
>unlike collecting comic books into your thirties, or being a fan of
>Ayn Rand's novels!
>
>Besides, the classic epithets "Commie" and "Pinko" are much more
>aesthetically pleasing.
>
>"Socialist Borg Drone"? Not even CLOSE.
>
>Mt
Well, I'm glad you found a hobby - pop culture etymology :-)
--Mike
Ernest Brown
I thought Rand viewed atheism as a side issue. In any case, the vast
majority of -good- philosophical ideas that Rand espoused were first
expounded and defended by -Christians.- All that one has to do to refute
Rand (assuming your argument) is to show that atheism has a negative
impact on Objectivism's positive premises/ideals, which I am quite ready
to do.
Ernie
Wisdom's Children: A Virtual Journal of Philosophy & Literature
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/billramey/wisdom.htm
Submissions welcomed.
On Sun, 11 Oct 1998, Flashman wrote:
(snip)