Ayn Rand was a sociopathic hypocritical c*nt and all her followers can go f**k themselves!
Vložit
- čas přidán 15. 03. 2012
- (Vogter616) (MIRROR)
Originally Uploaded by Vogter616 on Mar 16, 2012 through his channel found here: / vogter616
(Original Texts):
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
www.information.dk/296176
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please visit and subscribe to Vogter616!!
Thank You Very Much!!
;)
Thumbs up! I like how your bird agrees, too!
Irony, her "Institute" taking government handouts during Covid.
I like you!
The Ayn Rand Institute pays taxes. They view the money they get back from the government as restitution for theft. Ayn Rand herself explained this principle.
aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/government_grants_and_scholarships.html
"You're worshipping somebody who is holding your mouth open while she's shitting in it." LOL. Love this.
Thank you...100 truth
dude went in!
I miss Vogter
If she didn't give a shit about the poor, why was she so often making the point that the poor suffered because of collectivism? She NEVER said that she didn't care about the poor or that you shouldn't. She said that you didn't have an obligation to care, or to work for people who gave you nothing. Strawmanning people with ignorant shit is all Vogter could ever do.
The original source for the Socail Security slander (there's no evidence she took a dime) claimed she claimed under an assumed name. But the assumed name was her real name. So the fact that idiots like know so little about her that they don't even know she used a non de plume, yet judge her? That shows all you need to know.
So she made a point, that isn't necessarily true. That doesn't mean she actually did anything for the poor.
@@SiriusMined Battling against collectivism is doing something for the poor.
@@newperve cooperation doesn't hurt the poor
@@SiriusMined When was Ayn Rand against cooperating?
@sixcats100 I meant, Vogter616's bird.
👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍
John Galt didn't cause anyone to starve. He simply let the socialists take over, gave up trying to convince them they were wrong. It was socialism that caused the economy to collapse, just like it did in Mao's China, the USSR, North Korea, and dozens more altruist/collectivist states.
The attempt to prevent this had become hopeless.
Other than Greece, which CAN'T borrow anymore, which countries in Europe have tried austerity? All of them have larger budgets every year than the year before. Austerity means a lower budget and no deficits.
Oh wait, the Baltic states have, and they are doing well.
You know you are winning the argument when you present evidence and arguments, but your opponents start throwing out insults, profanity, smears, and lies.
Look up, on Classically Liberal, "Lying about Ayn Rand and Social Security" and "Smearing Ayn: Rand, Nietzsche and the Purposeless Monster".
He's not making an argument. He's sharing an opinion. If you don't like the opinion, that's fine. Arguments involve propositions with truth values. Conclusions that logically follow from their results. Opinions and explanations do not.
@@BenGrem917 He is stating fact to back up his opinion, and those facts ARE NOT TRUE! They are lies.
Intentional, malevolent lies, told to turn you off from learning the actual ideas of his philosophical opponent.
Please read:
freestudents.blogspot.com/2010/03/smearing-ayn-rand-nietzsche-and.html
Why would anyone mirror Vogter? He's the stupidest non-creationist on youtube. He once claimed that money was paper and didn't matter and that therefore libertarians were bad because they thought it did. The problem is that Vogter was extremely upset that libertarians won't allow other people to take that money. So if it's not important, why did he care about that?
Michael Price I have to correct this, he's the stupidest person to post videos on youtube. I have found a commentator that was stupider than anyone I've ever heard of, even creationists.
And the evidence that Ayn Rand did NOT idolize Hickman is abundant and irrefutable. The accusation comes from her journals, where she is taking notes for a story she is writing. Here are some excerpts:
"He is a monster in his cruelty and disrespect of all things."
"Yes, he is a monster-now. But the worse he is, the worst must be the cause that drove him to this."
She calls him a monster three times.
Go read the actual source material, instead of repeating lies.
you seem very emotionally invested in this, how can one make a reasonable assumption with such ad hominem attacks?
That's a fallacy fallacy. He's not even making an argument. He's sharing his opinion. His opinion is people who worship Ayn Rand are abysmal human beings. I agree.
Your quotes do not disprove what mine do. She considered Hickman a monster, which utterly refutes the claim that she "worshipped" him.
Your quote simply illustrates the fact that the philosophy she believed when she was in her early 20's is not the mature Objectivism of Atlas Shrugged. She was still strongly influenced by Nietzsche, whom she almost completely repudiated in her later years.
And we don't move to those countries because we like freedom and prosperity.
How does her acknowledgement of Hickman's sociopathy negate her own? Or yours for that matter?
@@geralddecaire3759 It can't negate what doesn't exist.
In 100 Voices, they quote Ayn Rand's editor, who was actually a Trotskyite communist, telling about how emotionally affected she was seeing a traffic accident, hoping nobody was too badly hurt.
"Once we were riding uptown in a cab and we saw an accident and she was totally upset by the sight of this accident and concerned about the person who was hit by a car. I remember very vividly how it affected her-that she reacted very strongly to somebody’s injury."
McConnell, Scott. 100 Voices: An Oral History of Ayn Rand (p. 455). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
A sociopath, by definition, is unable to feel this way about another person.
You ASSUME she and I are sociopaths because of your own biases, which I invite you to reconsider.
@@SaulOhio An anecdotal claim that she was emotionally affected by a car wreck is not sufficient evidence to argue she definitely was not a sociopath.
Sociopaths are not wholly incapable of feeling empathy. No psychologist or scholar makes this claim. For all we know Rand observed the car was expensive and assumed the people inside might be her vaunted prime movers.
Ergo, your argument is both weakly presented and does not follow. Anecdotes may be untrue, and even accepting your anecdote, it does not prove your claim.
@@BenGrem917 It certainly outweighs any evidence that she was a sociopath. In fact, the "evidence" presented that she WAS a sociopath has been proven to be lies. If you read the journal entries that the Hickman story is based on, you will see she thought he was "degenerate", and a "purposeless monster". Anyone who is familiar with her works will know that she thought that the most degenerate kind of man is one without purpose.
Her reaction was to the mob at the Hickman hearing, who hated him, not because he murdered a girl, but because he dared to defy "society". She thought it was the murder that made him a monster, not his defiance of society. She was writing a story in which such defiance could be heroic, and that is what she was abstracting from the case.
In fact, she pointed out the hypocrisy of some of the prominent people who denounced Hickman, ones that supported communism, like Charlie Chaplin. Where was their sympathy for all the victims of communism? Millions murdered, and people think that they were building some sort of paradise. Those who knew and were willing to admit it believed that the ends justified the means, that it was worth it to spill any amount of blood to achieve a utopian society.
Where was THEIR empathy???????
Ayn Rand rejected that kind of thinking. I would prefer to deal with a sociopath, even if that's what she was, which she wasn't, than someone with empathy who thought that murdering countless innocents was worth it to reshape society to their liking.
And she WAS concerned about the people, not about their car or the economic status of the passengers. She was in the car with her publisher, and he was a Trotskyite communist. It is well documented, he is quoted, and the quote published with his permission. He has no motive to lie.